Multiple block groups in Culver City have racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 60%, including the two historically redlined neighborhoods along the central northern boundary and northeastern corner of the city.
These redlined neighborhoods also currently have median incomes below the Statewide average (Figure E- 20).
The redlined neighborhood along the central northern city boundary is also considered an LMI area where more than 50% of households are low or moderate income (Figure E- 14). Overall, Culver City was generally categorized as a middle class neighborhood by redlining maps, reflecting the composition of racial/ethnic minority populations and household income in modern day Culver City Segregation achieved through redlining was further exacerbated when the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was established in 1934. The FHA insured bank mortgages that covered 80% of purchase prices and had terms of 20 years and were fully amortized. However, the FHA also conducted its own appraisals; mortgages were
6 Rothstein, Richard. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Liveright Publishing Corporation.
7 Redford, Laura. (2014). The Promise and Principles of Real Estate Development in an American Metropolis: Los Angeles 1903 -1923.
University of California, Los Angeles.
8 KCET. (2017). Segregation in the City of Angels: A 1939 Map of Housing Inequality in L.A. https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost- la/segregation-in-the-city-of-angels-a-1939-map-of-housing-inequality-in-l-a; Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL). (2020). Los Angeles Land Covenants, Redlining; Creation and Effects. https://lapl.org/collections-resources/blogs/lapl/los-angeles-land-covenants-redlining-creation- and-effects
E-91
granted only to Whites and mixed-race neighborhoods or White neighborhoods in the vicinity of Black neighborhoods were deemed “too risky.”6
Following World War II, the FHA funded subdivisions exclusive to White residents, specifically withdrawing funding and approval for neighborhoods located adjacent to African American neighborhoods. About 6 million housing units were constructed in California between 1945 and 1973, 3.5 million of which were single-family homes.9
Federal rulings, including Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) and Barrows v. Jackson (1953) aimed to prohibit restrictive covenants and restrict lawsuits against property owners who sold to minorities. However, this did not prevent property owners from practicing housing discrimination throughout the 1960s. By the time the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1968, suburbs of nearly all American cities, including Los Angeles, were predominantly White due to the post-World War II housing boom.9
9 Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973. (2011). Caltrans.
E-92
Figure E- 48: Regional Redlining Map – Los Angeles County and Vicinity (1939)
Source: Robert K. Nelson, LaDale Winling, Richard Marciano, Nathan Connolly, et al., “Mapping Inequality,” American Panorama, ed. Robert K. Nelson and Edward L. Ayers, accessed November 15, 2021, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/.
E-93
Figure E- 49: Redlining Map – Culver City and Vicinity (1939)
Source: Robert K. Nelson, LaDale Winling, Richard Marciano, Nathan Connolly, et al., “Mapping Inequality,” American Panorama, ed. Robert K. Nelson and Edward L. Ayers, accessed November 15, 2021, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/.
E-94
Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Table E- 31, below, shows a summary of the issues identified in this Assessment of Fair Housing. Fair housing issues are most concentrated in tracts on the western side of the City along the northwestern border, where there are higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities, LMI households, and cost burdened renters. These areas are also considered vulnerable communities at risk of displacement, and one of these tracts is categorized as a moderate resource area.
Table E- 31: Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Fair Housing Issue Summary
Enforcement and Outreach
Fair Housing Records
• HRC provides fair housing services, including outreach and education, to the Los Angeles Urban County including Culver City; however, no specific service records on Culver City are available.
• During the 2019-2020 FY, HRC received 356 fair housing inquiries opened 83 housing discrimination cases; most of the discrimination cases were related to physical and mental disabilities.
• Between January 2013 and March 2021, HUD received 26
FHEO inquiries from Culver City residents.
• Less than 5% of renters in three Culver City tracts receive HCVs.
Integration and Segregation
Race/Ethnicity
• Based on HUD’s dissimilarity index, non-White and White communities in the Urban County are highly segregated.
• 54% of Culver City residents belong to a racial/ethnic minority group, compared to 74% in the County.
• The racial/ethnic minority population has grown since 2010 in most Culver City block groups.
• A larger proportion of lower income RHNA units are in block groups with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities compared to moderate and above moderate income units.
Disability
• 9.3% of Culver City residents experience a disability compared to 9.9% in the County.
• A slightly larger share of lower income RHNA units are in tracts with larger populations of disabled persons compared to moderate and above moderate income units.
Familial Status
• 26.6% of Culver City households have one or more child; 4.9% are single-parent households and 3.4% are single-parent female-headed households.
• More than 20% of children live in female-headed households in only two tracts in the City.
• A larger proportion of lower income units are in tracts where over 80% of children are in married couple households and E-95
Fair Housing Issue Summary
fewer than 20% of children are in female-headed households, compared to moderate and above moderate income units.
Income
• 32.4% of Culver City households earn less than 80% of the County AMI, compared to 51.6% countywide.
• The western side of the City has higher concentrations of LMI households making up 50-75% of the population.
• More lower income RHNA units are located in block groups where 50-75% of the population is LMI compared to moderate and above moderate income units.
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially/Ethnically
Concentrated Areas of
Poverty (R/ECAPs)
• There are no R/ECAPs in Culver City; there are also no tracts categorized as areas of high segregation and poverty by the Fair Housing Task Force.
Racially/Ethnically
Concentrated Areas of
Affluence (RCAAs)
• Most Culver City tracts are predominantly White, but none have racial/ethnic minority populations below 20%.
• Several block groups in the central and eastern sections of the City have median incomes exceeding $125,000.
• Two RCAAs have been identified in the City; a majority of households in these tracts are owner-occupied and most units are single-family homes.
Access to Opportunities
• Urban County residents are less likely to be exposed to poverty and have better access to higher quality schools than residents countywide; environmental health is better in the Urban County for White, Black, and Native American
residents, but worse for Hispanic and Asian residents.
• Most tracts in Culver City are considered high and highest resource areas; the tract on the western end of the City is categorized as moderate resource.
• A majority of lower income RHNA units are in high resource areas, while a majority of moderate and above moderate
income units are in highest resource areas.
Economic • All of the tracts in the City scored in the highest quartile of economic scores.
Education
• Tracts on the eastern side of the City received higher education scores than the tract on the western side.
• The tract with the lowest education score is considered a moderate resource area.
Environmental
• Tracts along the western, southern, and eastern City
boundaries received environmental scores in the lowest
quartile.
• Tracts in the northern/central areas of the City received environmental scores between 0.25 and 0.50; all tracts in Culver City received lower environmental scores below 0.50.
Transportation
• Culver City received an All Transit Performance score of 8.8, higher than most surrounding jurisdictions and the County. • The eastern, southern, and central sections of the City have the highest jobs proximity indices between 80 and 100; the E-96
Fair Housing Issue Summary
block groups on the western side of the City received slightly lower jobs proximity indices between 60 and 80.
• Nearly all of Culver City is considered an HQTA.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
• 35.6% of owner households and 49.1% of renter households in Culver City have one or more housing problem
• Hispanic renter-occupied households and Black owner-
occupied households have the most housing problems in the City.
Cost Burden
• Black owner households and Hispanic renter households have the highest rate of cost burden in the City.
• The proportion of cost burdened owners has decreased in most tracts since the 2010-2014 ACS.
• The proportion of cost burdened renters has fluctuated throughout the City since the 2010-2014 ACS; two tracts on the western side of the City saw an increase in cost burdened renters from 40-60% to 60-80%.
Overcrowding
• 2.7% of owner households and 8.7% of renter households are overcrowded in Culver City.
• The concentration of overcrowded households exceeds the Statewide average in two tracts on the western side of the City.
Substandard Housing
Conditions
• Less than 1% of owner households and 4.4% of renter
households lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities in the City.
• Culver City has an aging housing stock, where 92.4% of housing was built prior to 1990 compared to only 85.9%
countywide.
• Tracts along the western City boundary have the largest proportion of housing units built in 1969 or earlier.
Displacement • Two tracts on the western side of the City are considered vulnerable communities at risk of displacement.
Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors The following are contributing factors that affect fair housing choice in Culver City, listed in order of priority.
Lack of Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas and Housing Mobility
Overpaying renters are most concentrated in two tracts in the western areas of Culver City.
Fewer than 5% of renters in these all Culver City tracts receive HCVs despite the concentration of overpaying renters. The City lacks outreach and education methods to disseminate information about HCVs, including encouraging property owners to accept HCVs throughout the City, specifically in higher resource areas. RCAA tracts identified in E-97
the City also contain high concentrations of owner-occupied households and single-family homes that may not be affordable to lower or moderate income households.
Contributing Factors – High Priority
• Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement • Lack of local public fair housing enforcement
o Insufficient outreach and education efforts related to fair housing, being only a participant to the County’s program
• Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations • Concentration of overpaying renters
• Limited housing choices for lower and moderate income households • Limited affordable housing opportunities in Higher Resource areas Displacement Risk of Low Income Residents Due to Economic Pressures
Tracts on the western side of the City are considered vulnerable communities at risk of displacement. This area also has higher concentrations of LMI households and cost burdened renters and is a lower opportunity area. Between 60% and 80% of renter households in this section of the City overpay for housing.
Contributing Factors – High Priority
• Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
• Land use and zoning laws
• Location and type of affordable housing
• Unaffordable rents
• Concentration of poverty in some tracts
• Availability of affordable housing
Substandard housing Conditions
Approximately 0.7% of owner households and 4.4% of renter households in Culver City lack complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. Approximately 62.6% of the City’s housing stock was built prior to 1970 (50+ years old), and over 90% was built prior to 1990 (30+ years old).
Tracts along the western City boundary have the highest concentration of housing units aged 50 or older. This area of the City also serves larger populations of cost burdened households and LMI households.
Contributing Factors – Medium Priority
• Age of housing stock
E-98
• Cost of repairs or rehabilitation
• Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities
Appendix F - Acronyms
F-1
Appendix F: Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
AC Acre
ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit
AMI Area Median Income
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHS Culver City Comprehensive Housing Strategy
CPD HUD Community Planning and Development
CPI Consumer Price Index
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DFEH State Department of Fair Employment and Housing
DOBI Density or Other Bonus Incentive DOBI
DOF California Department of Finance
DU Dwelling unit
DU/AC Dwelling Unit Per Acre
ELI Extremely low income
ERAF Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
FAR Floor area ratio
FHEO U. S. Department of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity FMR Fair market rent
FY Fiscal Year
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HCV Housing Choice Voucher
HH Households
HMDA Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
HOA Homeowners Association
HOME HOME Investment Partnership Act
HQS Housing Quality Standards
Appendix F - Acronyms
F-2
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ILR Improvement-to-Land Ratio
JADU Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
LACDA Los Angeles County Development Authority
LAHSA Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
LBNC Low Barrier Navigation Center
LMIHAF Low/Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund
LTMB Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board
MAP Mortgage Assistance Program
MF Multi-family
MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority
NPP Neighborhood Preservation Program
PLHA Permanent Local Housing Allocation
PMI Private Mortgage Insurance
PSH Permanent Supportive Housing
RAP Rental Assistance Program
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SF Single-family
TOD Transit Oriented Development
UBH Upward Bound House
VL Very low income
VASH Veterans Affairs Supporting Housing
WLAC West Los Angeles Community College