HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-1
1.0 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHE RING FAIR
HOUSING (AFFH) ASSESSMENT
A. Introduction and Overview of AB 686
In 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discriminatio n, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components:
• A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity;
• An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, • An assessment of contributing factors; and
• An identification of fair housing goals and actions.
B. Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
Chula Vista was originally an agricultural community whose economic focus shifted away from agriculture when the presence of numerous military installations in the country contributed to a population growth following World War II. Chula Vista’s orchards and farms were gradually displaced by housing, businesses, and schools to meet the needs of its growing population. Alth ough much of Chula Vista is comprised of established stable neighborhoods of mostly single -family residences, the General Plan, Land Use Plan targets accommodating future growth through infill development and development in master planned communities to pr ovide a greater variety of housing options. Infill development is directed to the Northwest, Bayfront, and Southwest Planning Areas, west of Interstate 805 and utilizes existing infrastructure to increase residential densities, taking advantage of existing and future transit and revitalizing existing commercial areas. Master planned communities are planned for in the East Planning Area, east of Interstate 805. Additionally, Chula Vista has identified areas for increased development at various densities to allow various degrees of growth. These include Focused Areas of Change, Transitional Areas, and Stable Residential Neighborhoods.
Focused Area of Change are areas targeted for more intensive development, revitalization and/or redevelopment and are in portions of the Northwest, Bayfront, Southwest and East Planning Areas. These areas within Chula Vista can best accommodate growth and redevelopment through opportunities for mixed use development and higher housing densities. Transitional areas are where sign ificant General HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-2
Plan changes are not proposed, but where infill redevelopment, and/or revitalization activities may still occur. Stable Residential Neighborhoods are designated, zoned, and completely developed with single - family dwellings, with some multi -family neighborhoods mixed in. The use and intensity within Stable Residential Neighborhoods will not change much, however, revitalization and growth are still expected through the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units, home additions, reconstruction, and r ehabilitation activities, further opening opportunities for a variety of housing options at a diversity of income points throughout the City. For additional information, please see the Chula Vista General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element (Chapter 5).
1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
San Diego County jurisdictions are served by two fair housing service providers, CSA San Diego (CSA) and Legal Aid Society of San Diego (LASSD), that investigate and resolve discrimination complaints, conduct discrimination auditing and testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information such as written material, workshops, and seminars.
These service providers also provide landlord/tenant counseling, which is another fair h ousing service that involves informing landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities under fair housing law and other consumer protection regulations, as well as mediating disputes between tenants and landlords. As shown on the City’s website and the 2020 AI, the City of Chula Vista has committed to enforcing federal and State fair housing laws including the federal Fair Housing Act and California Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1959 which protects individuals from discrimination on the basi s of ancestry, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, familial status, and source of income.
Chula Vista is served by CSA for fair housing services, including outreach and education.
Between 2014 and 2019, CSA served 6,279 San Diego County residents, including 1,329 Chula Vista residents. Of the clients CSA served in San Diego County, 83% were extremely low income (earning less than 30% of the area median income), and 12% were low income (earning between 30% and 50% of the area median income).
In 2018, CSA received a $300,000 Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grant from HUD to carry out investigations and other enforcement activities to prevent or eliminate discriminatory housing practices. CSA’s efforts during the last year included the following cases that were specific to the City of Chula Vista:
Assisted a disabled female who was denied rental of a unit on the grounds of her disability and having an emotional support animal. CSA advocated her Fair Housing rights through Reasonable Accommodation. In addition, CSA reported the violation to DFEH.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-3
Assisted a single mother with a disabled daughter who was refused rental at a mobile home park due to 55+ age occupancy rules. CSA started advocating for this case. Assisted an elderly Asian-American male discriminated against on religion and national origin. CSA referred this violation of Fair Housing Rights violations to HUD. Assisted a male head of household refused tenancy in a low-income housing development based on familial Status. CSA advocated mediation and a resolution with management.
The City of Chula Vist a’s Housing Division continues to support CSA by allocating $60,000 in annual CDBG funding. This is an increase over previous allocations. The City will continue to fund CSA efforts with CDBG funding on an annual basis through the eight years of this hou sing element. This additional funding source will support the activities and efforts identified in the City’s 2021-2019 Housing Element.
HUD maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status and retaliation. From October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2019, 414 fair housing complaints in San Diego County were filed with HUD. Only 7% (29 cases) were filed by Chula Vista residents.
In the County and City of Chula Vista, disability-related discrimination was the most commonly reported—comprising 53% of all cases in the County and 51.4% of Chula Vista cases. In Chula Vista, five discrimination cases were filed on the basis of familial status (14.3%), four on the basis of retaliation (11.4%), three on the basis of national origin (8.6%), and two on the basis of race (5.7%).
The 2020 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Regional AI) cited that between FY 2015 and FY 2020, eight sites in Chula Vista tested for discrimination based on race, familial status, disability, and gender. Of the eight sites tested, one showed differential treatment based on race, four were inconclusive, and three showed no differential treatment.
The 2020 Regional AI found that outreach services were also inadequate in the region as residents may find it hard to navigate the service system and identify the appropriate agency to contact. The City of Chula Vista advertises fair housing services through placement of a fair housing services brochure at public counters and includes a link to CSA on its website. The Chula Vista City website also includes a description on how to file a discrimination complaint.
2. Integration and Segregation
Race and Ethnicity
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-4
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, loc ational preferences, and mobility. According to the 201 5-2019 American Community Survey (ACS), approximately 83.2% of the Chula Vista population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group , an increase from 77.8% during the 2006 -2010 ACS. Chula Vista has a much larger racial/ethnic minority population compared to the County, where only 54.4% of residents belong to a racial/ethnic minority group.
HUD tracks racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends for Chula Vista and the San Diego County region.
Dissimilarity indices show the extent of distribution between two groups, in this case racial/ethnic groups, across census tracts. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
The indices for Chula Vista and San Diego County from 1990 to 2020 are shown in Table 1-1Table Dissimilarity between non-White and White communities in Chula Vista and throughout the San Diego County region has worsened since 1990. However, segregation is significantly lower for all racial/ethnic groups in Chula Vista compared to the County. Based on HUD’s definition of the various levels of the index, segregation between all racial/ethnic groups is low. Countywide, segregation is considered moderate for all racial/ethnic groups.
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. Figure 1-1Figure 1-1Figure 1-1 compares minority concentrations in Chula Vista in 2010 and 2018. Chula Vista has seen an increase in racial/ethnic minority populations Citywide. Currently, nearly all block groups in the City have minority populations over 81%. In 2010, racial/ethnic minority concentrations ranged from 21 to 60% in most block groups. There is currently only one block group in the City with a minority concentration below 61%, located in the northwestern section of the City.
Table 1-1: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index
1990 2000 2010 2020
Chula Vista
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-5
Non-White/White 17.81 20.12 20.26 21.39
Black/White 27.83 24.60 23.36 26.86
Hispanic/White 20.08 25.05 22.97 23.91
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 23.26 29.21 31.03 34.79 San Diego County
Non-White/White 43.40 45.18 42.85 46.42
Black/White 58.00 53.80 48.37 54.08
Hispanic/White 45.22 50.59 49.61 51.74
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 48.06 46.83 44.38 49.75 Source: HUD AFFH Database, 2020.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-6
Figure 1-1: (A) Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations (2010)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-7
(B) Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations (2018)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-8
Disability
According to the 201 5-2019 ACS, approximately 9.7% of Chula Vista residents experience a disability, compared to 9.9% Countywide. Since the 2008 -2012 ACS, the disabled population in Chula Vista and the County has increased slightly from 8.9% and 9.3%, respectively. As shown in Figure 1-2Figure 1-2Figure 1-2 Census tracts with a higher percentage of persons with disabilities concentrated in the northern and western sections of the City. Since the 2010 -2014 ACS, concentrations of persons with disabilities have decreased in the northwestern section of the City, but increased tracts along the northern City boundary and in some tracts in the central western areas of the City.
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the martial status of the head of households.
Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Approximately
40.1% of Chula Vista households have one or more children under the age of 18. The City’s share of households with children is higher than the County ( 29.7%), and the neighboring cities of El Cajon (35.7%), Imperial Beach (29.7%), La Mesa (26%), National City (30.7%), and the City of San Diego (26.5%).
Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Approximately 11% of households in the City are single-parent households compared to only 8% Countywide. Female- headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportiv e services. Over 8% of households in Chula Vista are single female -headed households with children, more than the 5.7% throughout the County. As shown in Figure 1-3Figure 1-3Figure 1-3 side of the City has higher concentrations of Children in married -couple households. Figure shows the percentage of Children in female-headed households. Four tracts in the northwestern section of the City and one tract in the southwestern section of the City have higher populations of Children in female-headed households compared to the rest of the City. Between 40 and 60% of children in these tracts live in female-headed households.
Formatted: Font: Bold
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-9
Figure 1-2: (A) Concentration of Persons with Disabilities (2010-2014)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-10
(B) Concentration of Persons with Disabilities (2015-2019)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2010-2014 & 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-11
Figure 1-3: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-12
Figure 1-4: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-13
Income
Identifying low- or moderate-income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD’s 2013 -2017 CHAS data ( Table 1-2Table 1-2Table 1-2) shows that households earn 80 percent or less than the area median family income and are considered lower income, slightly higher than 43% of households Countywide . According to the 201 5-2019 ACS, the median household income in Chula Vista is $81,272, higher than $78,980 for the County.
Table 1-2: Income Level Distribution
Income Category
Chula Vista San Diego County
Households Percent Households Percent
<30% HAMFI 11,735 15.0% 155,060 13.9%
31-50% HAMFI 10,220 13.0% 136,890 12.3%
51-80% HAMFI 13,820 17.6% 186,170 16.7%
81-100% HAMFI 8,130 10.4% 112,015 10.1%
>100% HAMFI 34,560 44.0% 521,600 46.9%
Total 78,475 100.0% 1,111,740 100.0%
Source: HUD CHAS data (2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Figure 1-5Figure 1-5Figure 1-5 shows the Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) areas in the City by census tract. HUD defines a LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI. Tracts with higher LMI populations are most concentrated on the western side of the City, where LMI households account for 50 to 100% of the tract population. Tracts in the central and eastern areas have significantly lower concentrations of LMI households.
As shown in Figure 1-6Figure 1-6, the concentration of LMI households on the western side of the City correlates with the location of public housing buildings and subsidized housing units. The Town Center Manor public housing buildings are all located on this side of the City, including the Towncentre project (59 units), L Street project s (16 units), Doro thy projects (22 units), and Melrose projects (24 units). Subsidized housing units are also more prevalent in this section of the City. Mobile home parks, which typically serve lower income populations, are also more concentrated in this area of the City (Figure 1-7Figure 1-7).
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-14
Figure 1-5: Concentration of LMI Households
Source: HCD Data Viewer, HUD LMI Database, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-15
Figure 1-665: Concentration of LMI HouseholdsPublic Housing Buildings and Subsidized
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021 CHPC, 2022.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-16
Figure 1-7: Mobile Home Parks
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2018 HIFLD, 2022.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-17
3. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) In an effort to identify racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non -White population (greater than 50 percent) with a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. According to HUD’s 2020 R/ECAP mapping tool based on the 2009-2013 ACS, there is currently one R/ECAPs in Chula Vista located within Census Tract (CT) 125.01. This R/ECAPs is shown in Figure 1-8Figure 1-8Figure 1-6 (A) below. There are units within the R/ECAP consisting of single -family homes (11%), multi -family units (50%) and mobile home spaces (39%), as itemized in Figure 1-6 (B).
There are a pproximately 1, 200 households within th is CT. The median household income is $31,554. This is approximately two-fifths of the average household income in the City of Chula Vista, which is $81,272. Approximately 32.5% of these households are below the poverty line .
This is more than triple the citywide poverty rate of 9.6%. In addition to the high rate of poverty, this CT also has a disabled population between 10 and 20% and a concentration of children in female-headed households between 40 and 60% (see Figure 1-2Figure 1-2Figure 1-2 and Figure While the land uses within the census tract are privately held, the City is investing in the area surrounding the census tract through various infrastructure projects, including but not limited to:
F Street Promenade (over $6 million) will implement a streetscape master plan for a 1.25 - mile-long segment of F Stre et from Third Avenue to Bay Boulevard. Designed using the principles of "complete streets,” a balanced, connected, safe, and convenient transportation network designed to serve all users via walking, biking, public transit, and driving will link downtown’s Village District and Civic Center with the City's up and coming Bayfront. Work includes removal of abandoned railroad tracks and undergrounding of utilities. Located along northern border of CT.
Bike Lanes of Broadway (approximately $300,000) install ed traffic calming measures to provide bike lanes and improved pedestrian experiences along the Broadway corridor.
Located along eastern border of CT.
Broadway/F Street & Broadway/G Street Intersection Traffic Signal upgrades ($847,000).
Located along eastern border of CT.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-18
CV Senior Connect will launch in early 2022 as a new electric mobility option to provide door to door on demand weekday service for free to seniors in Northwest Chula Vista. The project is made possible through the Clean Mobility O ptions voucher program and local foundation funding (nearly $2 million).
Chula Vista Bayfront project will advance construction of a world-class hotel and convention center on the 535-acre bayfront development site. Approximately 230 acres (more than 40%) of the project’s total acreage is dedicated to parks, open space and habitat restoration/preservation; with 130 acres identified for new parks and open space. These areas will include promenades, bike trails and other public access areas linking the ent ire bayfront. In the project’s first 20 years, it will generate approximately $1.3 billion for the regional economy, including more than $11.5 million in annual tax revenues. It also will create more than 2,200 permanent jobs, nearly 7,000 construction jobs and numerous indirect jobs.
Located to the west of the CT and connected by both F and H Streets.
In addition, various controls and programs are in place to assist residents in this area, including:
Chula Vista Municipal Code 9.50 “Mobilehome Park Space Rent Review” provides rent control for existing residents through a formula based permissive rent increase annually. Chula Vista Municipal Code 9.40 “Mobilehome Housing Assistance” identifies protections for residents in the case of a park closure, including reasonable relocation assistance. Community Housing Improvement Program (“CHIP”) provides grants or loans to eligible residents for single-family and mobilehome repairs.
As identified in Table 1-18, specific outreach will be targeted to the CT, including but not limited to:
Fair Housing Education – The Fair Housing provider contract will be expanded to include direct mailers to all residents in the CT during 2022 and at least three educational events shall be held within the CT during the planning period. Housing Choice Vouchers – The City will request from the County on an annual basis utilization within the CT and analyze any trends. Additional marketing material for small area Fair Market Rents or mobility options shall be provided, including but not limited to the County security deposit assistance program.
Anti-Displacement – In early 2022 City Council will consider adoption of an ordinance to provide greater protections to Chula Vista tenants related to evictions and anti-harassment.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-19
Figure 1-886 (A): Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Source: HCD Data Viewer, HUD R/ECAP Database, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-20
(B) Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
180 Single-Family Homes 797 Multi-Family Units 619 Mobile home Spaces 168 Holiday Garden Condos
8 Duplexes
4 Single-Family + 1 ADU
41 Cambridge Apartments
125 Park Regency Apartments
33 Pine Tree Plaza Apartments
77 St. Thomas Apartments
76 Broadway Trailer Park
126 Cabrillo Mobile Lodge
61 Flamingo Trailer Park
30 Mohawk Trailer Park
Formatted: Font: (Default) Clearly Gothic Light, 12 pt
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-21
132 S. Bay Towers Apartments
33 Sunnyside Manor Apartments
352 Vistan Apartments
4 Unnamed
134 Rose Arbor Trailer Park
192 Terry’s Mobilehome Park
Source: CVMapper, City of Chula Vista, 2022.
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RCAAs) While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. A HUD Policy Paper defines racially concentrated areas of affluence as affluent, White communities. 1 According to this report, Whites are the most racially segregated group i n the United States and “in the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities.” Based on their research, HCD defines RCAAs as census tracts where 1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
Figure 1-9Figure 1-9Figure 1-7 shows predominantly White populations by census tract and median income by block group. There are only three White majority tracts in Chula Vista located along the northern City boundary. The White predominant tract in the northeastern corner of the City also has a median income exceeding $125,000 and is t herefore considered a RCAA. The median income on the eastern side of the City is generally higher than the western side, where most block groups have a median income below the 2020 State average of $84,100.
1 Goetz, Edward G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.’ Published by the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research (21,1, 99-124).
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-22
Figure 1-997: White Predominant Areas
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-23
Figure 1-10108: Median Income
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-24
4. Access to Opportunities
HUD developed an index for assessing fair housing by informing communities about disparities in access to opportunity based on race/ethnicity and poverty status. Table 1-3Table 1-3Table 1-3 for the following opportunity indicator indices (values range from 0 to 100):
• Low Poverty Index: The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: The higher the trips transit index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The higher the ind ex value, the better access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The higher the value, the better environmental quality of a neighborhood.
In Chula Vista, Hispanic residents are most likely to be impacted by poverty, low labor market participation, and poor environmental quality. Native American residents experience the lowest school proficiency and Asian residents have the least access to employment opportunities. Asian or Pacific Islander communities sco red the highest in low poverty, school proficiency, labor market, and environmental health. Black residents are most likely to use public transit and have low transportation costs.
Unlike Chula Vista, White San Diego County residents are least likely to be exposed to poverty, most likely to live near high quality school systems, have the highest labor market participation rate, have the greatest access to employment opportunities, and live in areas with the best environmental quality. In general, racial/eth nic minorities in Chula Vista are exposed to less poverty, better education systems and higher labor market participation rates than the County as a whole.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-25
Table 1-3: HUD Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity Low
Poverty
School
Proficiency
Labor
Market Transit
Low
Transportation
Cost
Jobs
Proximity
Environmental
Health
Chula Vista
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 61.91 62.74 49.09 74.77 70.25 21.24 32.43 Black, Non-Hispanic 56.81 66.26 48.39 75.71 72.34 22.03 31.32 Hispanic 51.71 60.52 39.70 78.55 74.67 22.43 28.97
Asian or Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic 65.41 72.80 59.44 72.88 68.42 18.17 32.99
Native American, Non-
Hispanic 53.58 59.33 39.86 77.55 74.21 24.15 30.76
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 52.71 61.66 43.12 78.27 74.67 25.13 31.41 Black, Non-Hispanic 41.35 53.73 33.10 81.63 80.24 30.30 25.58 Hispanic 38.87 56.68 29.25 82.26 79.43 27.74 26.99
Asian or Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic 48.83 57.50 35.47 83.01 77.54 19.62 24.94
Native American, Non-
Hispanic 53.15 65.06 48.23 77.45 73.97 25.63 31.29
San Diego County
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 62.30 66.77 61.57 77.90 71.47 54.48 38.38 Black, Non-Hispanic 46.12 48.00 40.77 82.15 75.96 37.78 28.99 Hispanic 42.53 46.46 38.42 79.79 75.05 36.29 30.95
Asian or Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic 61.36 64.95 60.15 81.51 72.76 48.82 35.24
Native American, Non-
Hispanic 50.17 51.21 42.64 72.00 67.42 45.84 43.36
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.18 60.79 56.51 81.27 76.56 54.09 36.15 Black, Non-Hispanic 32.32 40.63 32.33 87.37 81.22 37.19 25.75 Hispanic 32.09 39.80 31.36 82.71 78.61 36.32 28.83
Asian or Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic 53.63 62.27 57.50 86.93 80.17 56.79 34.55
Native American, Non-
Hispanic 38.86 44.40 42.37 78.76 75.30 41.11 36.24
Source: HUD AFFH Database, 2020.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-26
To assist in this analysis, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened in the California Fair Housing Task Force (Task Force) to “provide research, evidence -based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resource levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Based on these domain scores, tracts are categorized as Highest Resource, High Resource, Moderate Resou rce, Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing), Low Resource, or areas of High Segregation and Poverty. Table 1-4Table 1-4Table 1-4 shows the
Table 1-4: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic
Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education
Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Poverty and Racial
Segregation
Poverty: tracts with at least 30% of population under federal poverty line
Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than
1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County
Source: CA Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020.
Opportunity map scores for Chula Vista census tracts are presented in Figure 1-11Figure 1-11Figure 1-9. A majority of the eastern side of the City is categorized as High Resource, the central section of the City is generally categorized as Moderate Resource, and much of the western side is Low Resource. There are three tracts that are categorized as areas of High Segregation and Poverty, all located on the western side of Chula Vista. As described previously, the western side of the City also has areas with higher concentrations of children in f emale- headed households, LMI households, and median incomes below the 2020 State median (see HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-27
Figure 1-4Figure 1-4Figure 1-4, Figure 1-5Figure 1-5Figure 1-5, and Figure 1-10Figure 1-10Figure The individual scores for the domains described above (economic, environment, and education) are further detailed in the following sections.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-28
Figure 1-11119: TCAC Opportunity Areas - Composite Score
Source: HCD Data Viewer, TCAC Opportunity Maps, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-29
Economic
As described previously, the Fair Housing Task Force calculates economic scores based on poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. According to the 2021 Task Force maps presented in Figure 1-12Figure 1-12Figure 1-10, tracts with the lowest concentrated on the western side of the City. The tracts with the highest economic scores are located in the northeastern section of the City. As discussed above, many of the tracts on the western side are Low Resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty.
Education
As described above, the Fair Housing Task Force determines education scores based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. Areas with lower education scores, shown in Figure 1-13Figure 1-13Figure 1-11, are generally concentrated in the of the City . The eastern side of the City generally received higher education scores exceeding
0.50. The tracts with lower education sco res on the western end of the City also received lower economic scores and are categorized as Low Resource.
Environmental
Environmental health scores are determined by the Fair Housing Task Force based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values. Figure 1-14Figure 1-14Figure 1-12 shows western, eastern, and southern City boundaries have the lowest environmental scores. Tracts in the central and northern parts of Chula Vista have slightly better environmental quality than the rest of the City. The tracts with low environmental scores along the western border also received low economic and education scores and are considered Low Resource areas. The areas along the southern and eastern borders, howe ver, have higher economic and education scores and are mostly categorized as Moderate or High Resource areas.
Transportation
All Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. 2 Chula Vista ’s All Transit Performance score of 5.7 is lower than the surrounding jurisdictions of Imperial Beach (6.7), El Cajon (6.9), La Mesa (7.9), National City (7.9), and the City of San Diego (6.0), but higher than the Countywide score of 5.3. The City’s score of 5.7 illustrates a moderate combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible that enable a moderate number of people to take transit to
2 AllTransit Metrics. https://alltransit.cnt.org/metrics/. Accessed June 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-30
work. Chula Vista has a slightly higher proportion of commuters that use transit (3.54%) than the County (3.28%).
HUD’s Job Proximity Index, described previously, can be used to show transportation need geographically. Block groups with lower jobs proximity indices are located further from employment opportunities an d have a higher need for transportation. As described in Table Chula Vista residents, regardless of race or ethnicity, have less access to employment opportunities compared to residents Countywide. As shown in Figure 1-15Figure 1-15Figure block groups in the City are the furthest from employment opportunities. Block groups in the northwestern section of the City are located closest to emplo yment opportunities. Despite the increased access to jobs, the areas in the northwest part of the City are considered Low Resource.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-31
Figure 1-121210: TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic Score
Source: HCD Data Viewer, TCAC Opportunity Maps, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-32
Figure 1-131311: TCAC Opportunity Areas - Education Score
Source: HCD Data Viewer, TCAC Opportunity Maps, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-33
Figure 1-141412: TCAC Opportunity Areas - Environmental Score
Source: HCD Data Viewer, TCAC Opportunity Maps, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-34
Figure 1-151513: Jobs Proximity Index
Source: HCD Data Viewer, HUD Opportunity Indicators, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-35
5. Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing problems for Chula Vista were calculated using HUD’s 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the 2013 -2017 ACS. Table 1-5Table 1-5Table 1-5 households by race and ethnicity and presence of housing problems for Chula Vista and San Diego County households. The following conditions are considered housing problems:
• Substandard Housing (incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities) • Overcrowding (more than 1 person per room)
• Cost burden (housing costs greater than 30%)
In Chula Vista, 37% of owner-occupied households and 64.1% of renter -occupied households have one or mor e housing problem. The City has a higher proportion of households with a housing problem compared to the County, where 33.9% of owner-occupied households and
57.1% of renter -occupied households experience a housing problem. In Chula Vista , Pacific Islander renters experience housing problems at the highest rate ( 71%), however none of the 150 owner -occupied Pacific Islander households experience a housing problem. Black owner households, Pacific Islander renter households, and Hispanic owner and renter house holds all have housing problems exceeding the City average.
Table 1-5: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity
With Housing Problem White Black Asian Am. Ind Pac.
Isldr. Hispanic Other All
Chula Vista
Owner-Occupied 28.6% 55.2% 36.5% 10.0% 0.0% 41.5% 44.0% 37.0% Renter-Occupied 54.5% 56.2% 60.1% 27.3% 71.0% 68.6% 49.0% 64.1% San Diego County
Owner-Occupied 31.2% 39.7% 33.6% 25.2% 31.5% 43.0% 35.6% 33.9% Renter-Occupied 50.9% 62.3% 51.1% 52.0% 60.9% 67.1% 55.2% 57.1% Source: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Cost Burden
Cost burden by tenure based on HUD CHAS data is shown in Table 1-6Table 1-6Table 1-6. Pacific Islander and Hispanic renter households have the highest rate of cost burden in the City (71% and 59.9%, respectively). Cost burden amongst owner -households, regardless of race or Formatted: Font: Bold
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-36
ethnicity, is lower than renter-households. Pacific Islander and American Indian owner-occupied households have the lowest instance of cost burden Citywide.
Figure 1-16Figure 1-16Figure 1-14 compares overpayment by tenure over time using the 2010 - 2014 and 2015 -2019 ACS. Overpayment for homeowners has decreased in most tracts in the central and eastern sections of the City. The pro portion of overpaying homeowners on the western side of the City has increased in some tracts but decreased in others. The tracts along the northwestern City boundary specifically have seen an increase in overpaying owners since the 2010-2014 ACS. Overpayment by renters has also increased in some tracts on the eastern side of the City. On the western side of the City, the percentage of overpaying renters has decreased in many tracts. Tracts in the central northern section of the City have the lowest proportion of overpaying renters.
Table 1-6: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity
Cost Burden
(>30%)
Severe Cost
Burden
(>50%)
Total HHs
Owner-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 28.0% 12.4% 14,160
Black, non-Hispanic 51.5% 22.7% 1,630
Asian, non-Hispanic 34.2% 10.7% 8,050
Amer. Ind, non-Hispanic 10.0% 0.0% 40
Pacific Isldr., non-Hispanic 0.0% 0.0% 150
Hispanic 36.4% 16.4% 20,300
Other 41.2% 13.2% 1,215
Renter-Occupied
White, non-Hispanic 49.6% 29.8% 5,855
Black, non-Hispanic 54.7% 32.8% 2,375
Asian, non-Hispanic 52.0% 23.1% 2,810
Amer. Ind, non-Hispanic 27.3% 27.3% 55
Formatted: Font: Bold
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-37
Pacific Isldr., non-Hispanic 71.0% 38.7% 155
Hispanic 59.9% 33.2% 21,180
Other 35.0% 21.0% 500
Source: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-38
Figure 1-161614: (A) Overpayment by Owners (2010-2014)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-39
(B) Overpayment by Owners (2015-2019)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-40
(C) Overpayment by Renters (2010-2014)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-41
(D) Overpayment by Renters (2015-2019)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2010-2014 & 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-42
Overcrowding
Table 1-7Table 1-7Table 1-7, below, shows that approximately 4.4% of owner -occupied renter-occupied households in Chula Vista are overcrowded. Overcrowding is more common in Chula Vista than the County, where 2.8% of owner -occupied households and 10.8% of renter - occupied households are overcrowded.
Figure 1-17Figure 1-17Figure 1-15 shows the concentration of overcrowded households in Chula Most tracts on the eastern side of the City do not have overcrowded households exceeding the Statewide average of 8.2%. Overcrowded households are most concentrated in tracts located on the western side of the City. Three tracts in Chula Vista have concentrations of overcrowded households between 15 and 20% and one tract, located in the northwest corner of the Cit y, has a concentration of overcrowded households exceeding 20%.
Table 1-7: Overcrowding by Tenure
Overcrowded
(>1 person per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(<1.5 persons per room) Total HHs
Households % Households %
Chula Vista
Owner-Occupied 2,020 4.4% 430 0.9% 45,550
Renter-Occupied 5,635 17.1% 1,825 5.5% 32,930
San Diego County
Owner-Occupied 16,335 2.8% 4,245 0.7% 589,145
Renter-Occupied 56,345 10.8% 19,455 3.7% 522,595
Source: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-43
Figure 1-171715: Concentration of Overcrowded Households
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2020 HUD CHAS Data, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-44
Substandard Housing
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. In Chula Vista , 0. 1% of owner-occupied households and 0.4% percent of renter - occupied households lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, fewer compared to the County (Table 1-8Table 1-8Table 1-8).
Table 1-8: Substandard Housing Conditions
Lacking Complete Plumbing
or Kitchen Facilities Total HHs
Households %
Chula Vista
Owner-Occupied 30 0.1% 45,550
Renter-Occupied 137 0.4% 32,930
San Diego County
Owner-Occupied 2,115 0.4% 589,145
Renter-Occupied 8,320 1.6% 522,595
Source: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs.
Homes may begin to require major repairs or rehabilitation at 30 to 40 years of age. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 45.3 percent of the housing stock in Chula Vista was built prior to 1980 and may be susceptible to deterioration, compared to 53.3 percent Countywide. As shown in Figure 1-18Figure 1-18Figure 1-16, housing units on the western side of the City tend to be older than units in tracts on the eastern side. The median year built for tracts on the western side range from 1955 to 1982, compared to 1971 to 2008 on the eastern side.
The City is committed to continuing our Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) in these areas identified within Western Chula Vista. Additionally, we will be continuing to implement Rental Housing Rehabilitation in the Northwestern portion of the City. The City will continue Multifamily Housing Inspections and Mobilehome Inspection Programs to assist in identifying those homes in the Western portion of the City. The City will continue to implement Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiencies within these identified areas.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-45
Figure 1-181816: Median Year Built - Housing Units
Source: ACS 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimate).
Displacement Risk
HCD defines sensitive communities as “communities [that] currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased development or drastic shifts in housing cost.” The following characteristics define a vulnerable community:
• The share of very low income residents is above 20%; and • The tract meets two of the following criteria:
Share of renters is above 40%,
Share of people of color is above 50%,
Share of very low -income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median,
They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures (percent change in rent above County median for rent increases), or Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap).
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-46
HCD has identified vulnerable communities in the western and central sections of the City (Figure 1-19Figure 1-19Figure 1-17). These areas also have higher concentrations of children in female- households, and overcrowded households (see Figure 1-4Figure 1-4Figure 1-4, Figure 1-5Figure vulnerable communities on the western side of the City are also considered Low Resource areas (see Figure 1-11Figure 1-11Figure 1-9).
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-47
Figure 1-191917: Sensitive Communities At-Risk of Displacement
Source: HCD Data Viewer, Urban Displacement Project, 2021.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-48
6. Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Table 1-9Table 1-9Table 1-9 below, summarizes the fair housing issues identified in this Fair housing issues were most prevalent in the western side of the City, specifically west of the Inland Freeway (Interstate 805).
Table 1-9: Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Fair Housing Issue Summary
Enforcement and Outreach
Between 2014 and 2019, 29 fair housing cases were
filed by Chula Vista residents; 51% related to disability, 14% related to familial status, and 11% related to
retaliation.
Between FY 2015 and 2020, eight Chula Vista sites
were tested for discrimination; one site showed
differential treatment on the basis of race.
CSA conducts outreach and education in Chula Vista
and throughout San Diego County.
Chula Vista has committed to complying with the Fair
Housing Act and related regulations.
Integration and Segregation
Race/Ethnicity
83.2% of Chula Vista residents belong to a racial/ethnic minority group.
Based on dissimilarity indices for Chula Vista,
segregation between all non-White and White
communities is low.
All but one block groups in the City have racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 61%.
Disability
9.7% of Chula Vista residents have a disability.
Tracts with higher concentrations of persons with
disabilities (between 10% and 20%) are located on the
western side of the City and along the northern City
boundary.
Familial Status
40% of Chula Vista households have one or more
children under 18; 11% of households are single-parent
households; 8% of households are single-parent
female-headed households.
Tracts with a high percentage of children in married- couple households are most concentrated in the
northeast and central sections of the City.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-49
Tracts with a high percentage of children in female-
headed households are most concentrated in the
northwest section of the City.
Income
45.6% of Chula Vista households earn 80% or less than the area median family income.
Tracts with larger LMI populations (>50%) are
concentrated on the western side of the City
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)
There is one R/ECAP in Chula Vista located in the
northwestern part of the City.
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty (RCAAs)
There is one tract in Chula Vista with a predominantly White population and median income exceeding
$125,000 located in the northeastern corner of the
City.
Access to Opportunities
According to HUD Opportunity Indicators, Hispanic
residents are most impacted by poverty, low labor
market participation, and poor environmental quality;
Native American residents are most impacted by low
school proficiency; Asian residents have the least
access to employment opportunities.
The western side of the City is categorized as Low
Resource; there are three tracts categorized as areas of High Segregation and Poverty, all located on the
western side of the City.
Economic
Tracts on the western side of the City have the lowest economic score; tracts along the northeastern border
have the highest economic score.
Education
Tracts with the lowest education score are most
concentrated in the southwestern section of the City;
tracts in the central eastern section of the City received the highest education scores.
Environmental Tracts along the western, eastern, and southern City boundaries all received low environmental scores.
Transportation
Chula Vista’s Transit Performance Score is lower than surrounding cities but higher than San Diego County;
3.5% of residents are commuters that use public
transit.
Most of the City is located furthest from employment
opportunities; the northwestern corner of the City has
the highest job proximity indices.
Disproportionate Housing Needs 37% of owner-occupied households and 64.1% of renter-occupied households have a housing problem.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-50
Pacific Islander renter-households have the highest
rate of housing problems in the City (71%).
Cost Burden
Pacific Islander and Hispanic renter-households have
the highest rate of cost burden (71% and 60%).
Overpaying owner-households are most concentrated
in tracts along the western border.
Overpaying renter-households are generally not
concentrated in one area; tracts in the central northern section of the City have the least overpaying renters.
Overcrowding
4.4% of owner-occupied households and 17.1% of
renter-occupied households are overcrowded.
Overcrowding is most common in tracts on the
western side of the City.
Substandard Housing
0.1% of owner-occupied households and 0.4% of
renter-occupied households lack complete plumbing or
kitchen facilities.
45.3% of the housing stock was built prior to 1980 and may be susceptible to deterioration.
Displacement Risk
Most of the western side of the City is considered
vulnerable to displacement; some tracts in the central
areas of the City are also considered vulnerable.
The City of Chula Vista participated in the 2020 San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (2020 Regional AI). The 2020 Regional AI concluded that the following were impediments to Fair Housing Choice in the San Diego Area ( regional impediments shown in bold). The relevance to Chula Vista is included below:
Hispanics and Blacks continue to be under -represented in the homebuyer market and experienced large disparities in loan approval rates. Hispanics were most underrepresented in Imperial Beach, Vista, and Escondido and the lowest approval rates for Blacks and Hispanics compared to Whites and Asians occurred in El Cajon, Encinitas, and San Marcos.
Due to the geograph ic disparity in terms of rents, concentrations of Housing Choice Voucher use have occurred. There is no high concentration of HCV in Chula Vista. The City received 7.7% of Housing Choice Vouchers administered by the County but makes up
8.1% of the County population.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-51
Housing choices for special needs groups, especially persons with disabilities, are limited. Special needs residents, especially those that rely on SII could incur cost burdens due to a lack of affordable housing options.
Enforcement activities are limited. Fair housing services focus primarily on outreach and education; less emphasis is placed on enforcement. CSA provides fair housing services to the City of Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista advertises Fair Housing Services through placement of a fair housing services brochure at public counters and includes fair housing information on their website . The City will continue to refer fair housing complaints to appropriate agencies. Between 2014 and 2019, CSA served 1,329 Chula Vista residents.
Records for eight sites tested were provided in the 2020 Regional AI. Like the County, the City needs to place more emphasis on enforcement activities. People obtain information through many media forms, not limited to traditional newspaper noticing or other print forms. A balance of new and old media needs to be created to expand access to fair housing resources and information with an increasing young adult and senior population in Chula Vista.
Patterns of racial and ethnic concentration are present within particular areas. The 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity maps identified three areas of high poverty and segregation in Chula Vista. Nearly all block groups in the City have minority populations over 61%.
C. Climate Equity
As Chula Vista and other cities developed, not all residents were treated fairly by institutions, such as governments and banks, or by fellow residents and businesses. Over decades, this inequality has had significant impacts to many communities, such as inequal economic participation, land-use and planning that can have negative health impacts or cause disparate educational achievement. These impacts have negatively affected Chula Vista residents and climate change will exacerbate those negative impacts. For example, if heat waves increase as expected under climate change predictions, it will be those residents who live in older buildings that typically are not well insulated or not air-conditioned, or residents who cannot afford to run older and less efficient air conditioners that will be impacted the most. To better understand and describe these types of impacts, the City initiated the Climate Equity Index.
The City has already taken some steps to address the inequity, such as establishing the need to prioritize and allocate citywide resources which provide public facilities and services to communities in need, as well as to improve transportation options and accessibility for HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-52
impacted community members in the most recent General Plan Update. Measures designed to increase equity were also included in the 2017 Climate Action Plan, but these efforts have been hindered by a lack of local analysis. For example, because of the statewide scale of the state’s CalEnviroscreen tool, only a few census blocks are designated as disadvantaged communities and using that tool for local program needs would have excluded large portions of the City that our community members feel need more assistance.
Building off a similar effort completed by the City of San Diego, City staff worked with community stakeholders (listed below) to identify climate equity indicators that were the most informational and represented the concerns of residents in the impacted communities. Each of the city’s 49 census tracts were evaluated based on the selected indicators and given a CEI score between 0- 100. The census tracts were broken down into 4 quartile categories based on their relationship to other CEI scores in the community (Figure 1) and the average CEI score was 37.
Figure A-202018: Climate Equity Index Scores
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-53
D. Sites Inventory
AB 686 requires the sites identified to meet the RHNA to be consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing and the findings in this fair housing assessment. Figure shows the City’s Sites Inventory and R/ECAPs located within the City boundaries and Table shows the distribution of sites used to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The sites identified to meet the RHNA concentrated in the northwestern corner and southeastern areas of the City. Approximately 5.93.5% of the potential units identified are located in a R/ECAP. Only 3.61.8% of above moderate income units are in a R/ECAP, while
5.64.1% of moderate income units and 8.25.1% of lower income units are located in a R/ECAP.
Table 1-10: R/ECAP - Sites Inventory Distribution
R/ECAP
Lower
IncomeLower
Income Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income
UnitsModerate
Income
Total Units
Above Moderate
Income Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Not in a R/ECAP 4,54994.
9%
91.8%95
.9%
3,04298.
2%
94.4%96
.5% 4,902 96.4% 12,375 94.1%
In a R/ECAP 4065.1% 8.2%4.1
% 1821.8% 5.6%3.5
% 182 3.6% 769 5.9%
Grand Total 4,9554,5
19 100.0%2
,373
3,2234,8
89 100.0%1
1,781 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0%
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted: English (United States)
Formatted
Formatted: English (United States)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-54
Figure 1-212119: R/ECAPs and Sites Inventory
Figure 1-22Figure 1-22 Figure 1-20 shows the Sites Inventory by TCAC Opportunity Areas. As of the eastern side of the City is high or moderate resource, while the western section of the City is a mix of low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty. Most of the sites identified are located in the northwestern and southwestern sections of the City.
Table 1-11Table 1-11Table 1-11 shows the breakdown of sites by TCAC Opportunity Area. Most resource tracts (60.46.1%). Approximately 24.917.2% of the total RHNA units are located in low resource tracts, 9.411.5% in high resource tracts, and 5.3% in tracts with high segregation and poverty. A larger proportion of lower income RHNA unit s are in low resource tracts (30.824.8%) compared to moderate income units (27.210.8%) and above moderate income units (17.313.2%).
However, a larger proportion of lower income units are also located in high resource areas (15.517%) compared to moderate income units ( 810.8%) and above moderate income units
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-55
(6.47%). About 4.46.5% of lower income units are in areas of high segregation and poverty , a smaller proportion than moderate and above moderate income units.
Table 1-11: TCAC Opportunity Area Score - Sites Inventory Distribution TCAC Opportunity
Score (Census Tract)
Lower Income
UnitsLower Income
Moderate Income
Units
Moderate
IncomeAbove
Moderate Income
Units
Total Units
Above Moderate
Income Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Low Resource 1,52524.
8%
30.8%10.
8%
87713.2
%
27.2%17.
2% 877 17.3% 3,278 24.9%
Moderate Resource
(Rapidly Changing) 00.0% 0.0%0.0
% 00.0% 0.0%0.0
% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Moderate Resource 2,44551.
7%
49.3%77.
3%
1,85073.
9%
57.4%66.
1% 3,640 71.6% 7,935 60.4%
Highest Segregation
& Poverty 2186.5% 4.4%1.0
% 2396.1% 7.4%5.3
% 239 4.7% 696 5.3%
High Resource 76817.0
%
15.5%10.
8% 2576.7% 8.0%11.5
% 327 6.4% 1,235 9.4%
Highest Resource 00.0% 0.0%0.0
% 00.0% 0.0%0.0
% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Grand Total 4,9554,5
19 100.0%2,
373
3,2234,8
89 100.0%1
1,781 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0% Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-56
Figure 1-222220: TCAC Opportunity Areas and Sites Inventory
Table 1-12Table 1-12Table 1-12 shows that nearly all sites used to meet the RHNA are in areas with racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 80%. As shown in Figure 1-23Figure 1-23 Figure 1-21, most of the City is made up of block groups with racial/ethnic minority populations between 61% and 100%. Almost all lower income RHNA units are located in block groups where the racial/ethnic minority population exceeds 80% (99.9% of units), compared to 9 3.62.9% of moderate income units and 9 9.27.9% of above moderate income units. However, the City’s Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-57
RHNA sites distribution is fairly consistent with the City’s overall demographic profile. The RHNA sites are not disproportionately concentrated in areas of minority concentration.
Table 1-12: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population - Sites Inventory Distribution Racial/Ethnic
Minority
Population Pop.
Lower Income
UnitsLower Income
Moderate Income
Units
Moderate
IncomeAbove
Moderate Income
Units
Total Units
Above Moderate
Income Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 41% - 60% 00.0% 0.0%0.0
% 120.6% 0.4%0.2
% 12 0.2% 23 0.2%
61% - 80% 50.1% 0.1%7.1
% 1941.6% 6.0%2.1
% 29 0.6% 228 1.7%
>80% 4,95099.
9%
99.9%92
.9%
3,01797.
9%
93.6%97
.7% 5,042 99.2% 12,892 98.1%
Grand Total 4,9554,5
19 100.0%2
,373
3,2234,8
89 100.0%1
1,781 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0% Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-58
Figure 1-232321: Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration and Sites Inventory
Table 1-13Table 1-13Table 1-13 and Figure 1-24Figure 1-24 Figure 1-22 show the distribution of no tracts in the City where the population of persons with disabilities exceeds 20%.
Approximately 7481% of all RHNA units are in tracts where the disabled population is below 10%, the remaining 2619% of RHNA units are located in tracts where the disabled population is between 10% and 20%. Fewer More lower income RHNA units are located in tracts with a disabled population between 10% and 20% ( 30.875.2% of lower income units), compared to
30.188.3% of moderate income units, and 19.182.6% of above moderate income units.
Table 1-13: Disabled Population - Sites Inventory Distribution Disabled
Population
Lower Income
UnitsLower Income
Above Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income Total Units
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-59
Moderate Income
Units
UnitsModerate
Income
Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent < 10% 3,42775.
2%
69.2%88.
3%
2,25482.
6%
69.9%80.
9% 4,114 80.9% 9,678 73.6%
10% - 20% 1,52824.
8%
30.8%11.
7%
96917.4
%
30.1%19.
1% 969 19.1% 3,466 26.4%
Grand Total 4,9554,5
19 100.0%2
,373
3,2234,8
89 100.0%1
1,781 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0%
Figure 1-242422: Disabled Population and Sites Inventory
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-60
Table 1-14Table 1-14Table 1-14 and Figure 1-25Figure 1-25Figure 1-23 show the distribution of couple households. Tracts on the western side of the City tend to have fewer children in married couple households compared to the rest of Chula Vista. Approximately 7686% of all RHNA units are in tracts where the percent of children in married cou ple households is between 60% and 80%. More lower income RHNA units are located in tracts where fewer than 60% of children are in married couple households ( 28.718.8% of lower income units), compared to 25.55.8% of moderate income units and 16.211.7% of above moderate income units.
Table 1-14: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households - Sites Inventory Distribution Children in Married
Couple Households
Lower Income
UnitsLower Income
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units
Total
UnitsModerate
Income
Above Moderate
Income Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 20% - 40% 4065.1% 8.2%4.1
% 1821.8% 5.6%3.5
% 182 3.6% 769 5.9%
40% - 60% 1,01613.
7%
20.5%1.
7% 6399.9% 19.8%9.
7% 639 12.6% 2,294 17.5%
60% - 80% 3,47579.
6%
70.1%93
.2%
2,36388.
2%
73.3%85
.9% 4,223 83.1% 9,944 75.7%
>80% 581.7% 1.2%1.0
% 390.1% 1.2%0.9
% 39 0.8% 136 1.0%
Grand Total 4,9554,5
19 100.0%2
,373
3,2234,8
89 100.0%1
1,781 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0% Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-61
Figure 1-252523: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households and Sites Inventory
Table 1-15Table 1-15Table 1-15 and Figure 1-26Figure 1-26 Figure 1-24 show the distribution of headed households. Tracts in the northwestern corner of the City have higher concentrations of children in female-headed households compared to the rest of the City. Approximately 6268.8% of all RHNA units are in tracts where the percent of children in female -headed households is between 20% and 40%, while 15.318.8% are in tracts where less than 20% of children are in female-headed households, and 22.712.4% are in tracts where 40% to 60% of children are in female-headed households. More A larger proportion of lower income RHNA units are located in tracts where fewer than 20% of children are in female -headed households (19.324.7% of lower income units), compared to 1717.9% of moderate income units and 12.213.9% of above moderate income units.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-62
Table 1-15: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households - Sites Inventory Distribution Children in Female-
Headed Households
Lower Income
UnitsLower
Income
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income
UnitsModerate
Income
Total Units
Above Moderate
Income Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent < 20% 95824.7
%
19.3%1
7.9%
54913.9
%
17.0%1
8.8% 619 12.2% 2,010 15.3%
20% - 40% 2,57456
.5%
52.0%7
6.4%
1,89376
.4%
58.7%6
8.8% 3,683 72.5% 8,150 62.0%
40% - 60% 1,42218
.8%
28.7%5.
7%
7819.7
%
24.2%1
2.4% 781 15.4% 2,984 22.7%
Grand Total 4,9554,
519
100.0%
2,373
3,2234,
889
100.0%
11,781 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0% Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-63
Figure 1-262624: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households and Sites Inventory
Table 1-16Table 1-16Table 1-16 shows the distribution of RHNA units by the LMI population. As shown in Figure 1-27Figure 1-27Figure 1-25, tracts with larger LMI population are more concentrated on the western side of the City. RHNA sites are most concentrated in the northwestern and southeastern sections of the City. Over 6775% of RHNA units are located in tracts with a LMI population lower than 25%. Compared moderate and above moderate income RHNA units, a greater proportion of lower income units are located in tracts where LMI households make up 75% to 100% of the population. Of lower income RHNA units, 35.2% are in LMI areas where more than 50% of households are low or moderate income compared to 33% of moderate income units and 20.9% of above moderate income units. Approximately 6466.9% Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-64
of lower income units, 5980.2% of moderate income units, and 7780.5% of above moderate income units are in tracts where the LMI population is below 25%.
Table 1-16: LMI Population - Sites Inventory Distribution LMI
Population
Lower Income
UnitsLower Income
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units
Total
UnitsModerate
Income
Above Moderate
Income Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent < 25% 3,14966.
9%
63.6%80.
2%
1,90380.
5%
59.0%75.
2% 3,928 77.3% 8,863 67.4%
25% - 50% 631.8% 1.3%8.1
% 2552.7% 7.9%3.4
% 90 1.8% 409 3.1%
50% - 75% 670.4% 1.3%4.6
%
38311.1
%
11.9%5.7
% 383 7.5% 833 6.3%
75% - 100% 1,67630.
9%
33.8%7.1
% 6825.7% 21.1%15.
7% 682 13.4% 3,039 23.1%
Grand Total 4,9554,5
19 100.0%2,
373
3,2234,8
89 100.0%1
1,781 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0% Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
Formatted: (none)
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-65
Figure 1-272725: LMI Population and Sites Inventory
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment released updated environmental scores in February 2020 ( CalEnviroscreen 4.0). CalEnviroscreen 4. 0 scores based on percentiles ; the lower the percentile score, the better the environmental conditions in a given tract. The western side of the City tends to have worse environmental conditions compared to the eastern side. The largest proportion of RHNA units (58%) are in tracts scoring in the 31 st to 40th percentile range.
There are more lower income units in tracts with worse CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in the 91 st percentile or above (20%)) compared to moderate in come units ( 11.7%) and above moderate income units (7.4%). However, a larger proportion of lower income units (15.5%) are also in tracts scoring between the 11 -20th percentiles, indicating good environmental quality, compared to moderate income units (8%) and above moderate income units (6.4%). The City’s RHNA strategy does not concentrate RHNA units of a single income category in tracts with better or worse environmental scores.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-66
Table 1-171716: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Score - Sites Inventory Distribution CalEnviro
Screen 4.0
Score
Lower Income Moderate Income Above Moderate
Income Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 11-20% 768 15.5% 257 8.0% 327 6.4% 1,235 9.4%
21-30% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
31-40% 2,382 48.1% 1,646 51.1% 3,601 70.8% 7,629 58.0%
41-50% 30 0.6% 248 7.7% 248 4.9% 527 4.0%
51-60% 63 1.3% 216 6.7% 51 1.0% 330 2.5%
61-70% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
71-80% 133 2.7% 267 8.3% 267 5.2% 666 5.1%
81-90% 594 12.0% 212 6.6% 212 4.2% 1,018 7.7%
91-100% 989 20.0% 377 11.7% 377 7.4% 1,740 13.2%
Grand Total 4,955 100.0% 3,223 100.0% 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0% HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-67
Figure 1-282827: LMI PopulationCalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Score and Sites Inventory
Chula Vista is comprised of mostly tracts where 40 to 60% of renters are cost burdened. There are also several tracts where 60 to 80% of renters are cost burdened and three tracts where 20 to 40% of renters are cost burdened. Consistent with the Citywide trend, 90.6% of RHNA units are in tracts where 40 to 60% of renters overpay for housing including 91.2% of lower income units, 8 7.5% of moderate income units , and 92.1% of above moderate income units. The remaining units are in tracts where 60 to 80% of renters overpay for housing. It is relevant to note that the tract containing RHNA units with the largest proportion of cost burdened renters has an overpaying renter population of only 69.4%. The ranges presented below may exaggerate the actual percentages of cost burdened renters in certain tracts. The distribution of RHNA units by population of cost burdened renters is consistent with the overall trend in Chula Vista.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-68
Table 1-181817: Cost Burdened Renters - Sites Inventory Distribution Cost
Burdened
Renter Pop.
Lower Income Moderate Income Above Moderate
Income Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 40-60% 4,519 91.2% 2,821 87.5% 4,681 92.1% 11,904 90.6% 60-80% 436 8.8% 402 12.5% 402 7.9% 1,240 9.4%
Grand Total 4,955 100.0% 3,223 100.0% 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0% Figure 1-292928: Cost Burdened Renter Population and Sites Inventory
In most tracts in the City, between 20 and 60% of owners are cost burdened. There are three tracts along the western City boundary where more than 60% of owners overpay for housing.
Most RHNA units (66.8%) are in tracts where 40 to 60% of owners are cost burdened. The remaining RHNA units are evenly distributed between tracts where 20 to 40% of owners are cost
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-69
burdened (16.7% of units) and 60 to 80% of owners are cost burdened (16.5% of units). A larger proportion of lower income units (23.9%) are in tracts where more than 60% of owners overpay for housing compared to moderate income units (15.2%) and above moderate income units (9.7%). Despite this, RHNA units are generally distributed throughout tracts with various levels of overpayment. The City’s RHNA strategy does not concentrate lower or moderate income units in areas where overpayment is more prevalent.
Table 1-191918: Cost Burdened Owners - Sites Inventory Distribution Cost
Burdened
Owner Pop.
Lower Income Moderate Income Above Moderate
Income Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 20-40% 887 17.9% 760 23.6% 665 13.1% 2,196 16.7%
40-60% 2,884 58.2% 1,971 61.2% 3,926 77.2% 8,781 66.8%
60-80% 1,183 23.9% 491 15.2% 491 9.7% 2,166 16.5%
Grand Total 4,955 100.0% 3,223 100.0% 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0% HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-70
Figure 1-303029: Cost Burdened Renter Population and Sites Inventory
Overcrowding is a prevalent issue, specifically on the western side of the City. There are multiple tracts where the population of overcrowded households exceeds the Statewide average of 8.2%, including one tract where mor e than 20% of households are overcrowded. Most RHNA units (77.8%) are in tracts where fewer than 8.2% of households are overcrowded, including 73.6% of lower income units, 75% of moderate income units, and 841% of above moderate income units.
A larger proportion of lower income units are in tracts where more than 15.1% of households are overcrowded (25.7%), compared to moderate income units (15.5%) and above moderate income units (9.8%).
Table 1-202019: Overcrowded Households - Sites Inventory Distribution Lower Income Moderate Income Above Moderate
Income Total Units
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-71
Over-
crowded
Households
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <=8.2% 3,645 73.6% 2,417 75.0% 4,277 84.1% 10,221 77.8%
8.3-12% 40 0.8% 306 9.5% 306 6.0% 653 5.0%
12.1-15% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
15.1-20% 284 5.7% 123 3.8% 123 2.4% 530 4.0%
>20% 989 20.0% 377 11.7% 377 7.4% 1,740 13.2%
Grand Total 4,955 100.0% 3,223 100.0% 5,083 100.0% 13,144 100.0% Figure 1-313130: Cost Burdened Renter Population and Sites Inventory
A summary of the distribution of RHNA units by tract and AFFH variable is shown in Table 1-21Table 1-21. The largest proportion of RHNA units are allocated in tracts 125.02 (1,740 units) in the northwestern corner of the City and tracts 133.13 (7,629 units) and 133.14 (1,235 units) in Formatted: Font: Bold
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-72
the southeast area of the City. As shown in Figure 1-32Figure 1-32, RHNA sites are located in the northwestern and southeastern areas of the City. In the northwestern area (tracts 1 23.02 through 132.05), fair housing issues are more prevalent. All the tracts containing RHNA units in this area are considered sensitive communities at risk of displacement. There are also two TCAC- designated areas of high segregation and poverty and one R/ECAP containing RHNA units in this area. Housing problems are more prevalen t on the western side of the City compared to the eastern side, including overcrowding and cost burden. Western tracts also have larger non-White populations and LMI household populations.
The tracts on the eastern side of the City (tracts 1 33.13 and 133.14) are classified as moderate and high resource areas, respectively, and are not characterized as sensitive communities at risk of displacement. LMI populations are significantly smaller in these tracts compared to the tracts containing RHNA units on the western side of the City.
While there are clear overlapping fair housing issues present on the western side of the City, Chula Vista’s RHNA strategy promotes a variety of housing types in areas with variable levels of fair housing issues. Given the character of Chula Vista overall, allocating RHNA units in areas where fair housing issues are prevalent is unavoidable. Lower and moderate income units located in both the western and eastern sides of the City ensure existing populations are se rved while encouraging mixed used communities and mobility within Chula Vista. The City’s RHNA strategy, along with actions aimed to affirmatively further fair housing outlined in this Housing Element, does not exacerbate existing fair housing conditions.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-73
Table 1-21 21 20: Sites Inventory Summary by Tract
Tract
# of
HHs in
Tract
Total
Capacity
(Units
Income Distribution % Non-
White
Pop.
% LMI
HHs
TCAC
Opp. Cat.
%
Overpay
Rent
%
Overpay
Own
% Over-
crowded
HHs
R/ECAP Sens.
Comm. Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
123.02 746 448 30 209 209 80.3% 51.5% High Seg.
& Pov. 68.8% 38.7% 9.9% No Yes
123.03 1,250 23 0 12 12 48.0% 34.3% Low 67.7% 51.1% 3.6% No Yes 123.04 1,289 170 5 165 0 66.4% 40.3% Moderate 57.5% 39.2% 7.6% No Yes 124.01 1,345 28 0 14 14 88.4% 65.1% Low 41.8% 39.8% 9.3% No Yes 124.02 1,932 180 27 77 77 80.5-
87.5% 65.6% Low 54.0% 25.9% 7.7% No Yes
125.01 1,255 769 406 182 182 80.8-
93.6% 75.6% Low 69.4% 47.0% 6.8% Yes Yes
125.02 1,501 1,740 986 377 377 91.7-
92.4% 78.8% Low 49.3% 61.6% 20.9% No Yes
126 1,493 177 10 84 84 81.6-
91.5% 68.1% Low 57.0% 63.7% 11.2% No Yes
127 1,792 281 96 92 92 86.1-
86.2% 82.8% Low 54.1% 56.9% 15.9% No Yes
128 1,421 136 58 39 39 83.3% 45.9% Moderate 55.4% 33.1% 5.1% No Yes 130 1,758 79 0 40 40 79.5-
85.9% 45.7% Low 51.8% 55.3% 7.3% No Yes
132.05 653 249 188 31 31 93.3% 77.6% High Seg.
& Pov. 51.7% 60.2% 15.8% No Yes
133.13 5,360 7,629 2,382 1,646 3,601 86.4% 21.4% Moderate 46.5% 40.1% 2.6% No No 133.14 5,708 1,235 768 257 327 82.9% 17.3% High 56.2% 35.2% 1.4% No No Total 13,144 4,955 3,223 5,083
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-74
Figure 1-323231: Sites Inventory
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-75
E. Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors The following are contributing factors that affect fair hous ing choice in Chula Vis ta .
1. Insufficient and inaccessible outreach and enforcement The 2020 Regional AI and the Fair Housing assessment found that outreach and enforcement were inadequate. While the City has fair housing information on its website, it lacks up -to-date information on current fair housing law. The reliance on old print med ia to advertise meetings also hinders outreach efforts. The analysis also found that as of 2020, only eight sites were tested for potential discrimination in Chula Vista; fewer than smaller San Diego County jurisdictions such as Carlsbad (47 s ites), Encinitas (13 s ites), Escondido (53 s ites), Oceanside (47 s ites), and Vista (45 s ites ).
Contributing Factors:
Lack of a variety of media inputs
Lack of marketing community meetings
Ins ufficient fair hous ing law enforcement and tes ting
2. Concentration of minorities, LMI households, and special needs groups The analysis found a concentration of low-moderate income minority households in the western census tracts of the City. Tracts on the western side of the City also had higher concentrations of children in female -headed households and overcrowded households. These tracts are also cons idered vulnerable communities at -risk of dis placement and offer fewer economic and education opportunities compared to the res t of the City. There is a s ignificantly larger concentrat ion of public housing buildings, s ubsidized housing units, and mobile home parks in the western s ide of the City where overlapping populations of interest are pres ent. These households need increased access to affordable housing and improved infrastructure and public facilities .
Contributing Factors:
Lack of private investments
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-76
Locati on and type of affordable housing
Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or oth er infrastructure
3. Substandard Housing Conditions
Cens us tracts in the western part of the City tend to be older than the eastern side. Tracts on the wes tern s ide are also at a higher ris k of displacement. A larger concentration of households in this area are low or moderate income compared to other areas of the City. Public housing buildings, s ubsidized housing units, and mobile home parks, which typically serve lower income households, are most concentrated in this area. The City’s Community Housing Improvement Program is available to households in CDBG eligible census tracts and to mobile home residents Citywide.
Contributing Factors:
Age of housing stock
Cos t of repairs or rehabilitation
4. Displacement risk of low income residents due to economic pressure Cens us tracts in the western area of the City are at ris k of displacement and have high concentrations of LMI households. In this area, there is a higher concentration of overpaying homeowners. Between 60% and 100% of renters in these tracts als o experience cos t burden.
Contributing Factors:
Unaffordable rents
Concentration of poverty in some census tracts
Availability of affordable housing
F. Priorities, Goals, and Actions
As described below in Table 1-222217: Summary Matrix of Fair Housing Issues and Actions for Mitigation, the City of Chula Vista and its Fair Housing Provider will be responsible to ensure that the items des cribed are addressed during the 6 th Housing Element Cycle us ing its available funding sources. Quantifiable objectives and outcomes are further described bel ow under City Actions .
Responsible Agencies:
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-77
City of Chula Vista - Housing Division
CSA of San Diego County (Fair Housing Provider)
Financing:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME)
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
Chula Vista Housing Authority funds including In Lieu Fees Low-and-Moderate Income Housing Asset fund
U.S Treasury and HCD Emergency Rental Assistance funding Cal -Home funding from HCD
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
Bond Financing - Chula Vista Housing Authority (as bond issuer)
Table 1-232318: Summary Matrix of Fair Housing Issues and Actions for Mitigation AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issue Contributing Factors City Actions
Fair Housing
Enforcement and
Outreach
Housing Mobility
Insufficient and inaccessible
outreach and enforcement:
Lack of variety of outreach to
inform residents of their
rights under the Fair Housing
Act and State Fair Housing
Laws.
Participate in the quarterly SDRAFFH
meetings and other events to coordinate
regional responses to housing
discrimination issue.
Increase funding to the City’s Fair Housing
Services Provider to increase outreach
efforts and to have a greater social media
presence, including:
o Developing a pocket guide of fair
housing resources in year one for
distribution and updating as needed;
o Conducting a minimum of four (4)
events per year, including at least
three (3) in the RECAP CT during the
planning period; and
o Holding a minimum of two (2)
property manager trainings per year.
Leverage HUD’s FHIP Grants with the City’s
CDBG funds to conduct random testing.
Require the City’s Fair Housing Provide to
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-78
conduct random testing at three (3)
properties per year.
Work with the City of Chula Vista’s Office
of Communications to ensure that the City
of Chula Vista social media informs
residents and landlords on where to seek
help for Fair Housing related issues,
including tenant/landlord disputes.
Update the City of Chula Vista website to
include additional information on State
source of income protections (SB329 and
SB229).
Promote the County of San Diego’s
Housing Choice Voucher Program to
eligible residents who access the City’s
website, call the Housing Line
at 619-691-5047 or visit the Housing
Division offices in person. In addition, staff
shall monitor usage in the RECAP CT and
provide additional education of the
program as necessary.
Encourage subrecipients who receive
CDBG funding to enroll/sign up their
clients for the Housing Choice Voucher
program and public housing units in Chula
Vista.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-79
New Housing
Choices in Areas of
High Opportunities
Place -Based
Strategies to
Encourage
Community
Revitalization
Concentration of minorities and
LMI households and special needs
groups:
Lack of private investment
Location and type of
affordable housing
Inaccessible sidewalks and
pedestrian crossings, or other
infrastructure
Encourage mixed income strategy in housing
development by:
Promoting development of affordable
housing in areas of high opportunity and
near transit corridors.
Increasing the visibility of the City’s
Density Bonus incentives and concessions.
Invest in aging infrastructure using
Measure P funding and other grant funds
such as Gas Tax funding and CDBG
funding.
Support the Annual Beautify Chula Vista
Event to improve neighborhoods.
Encourage Developers to use LIHTC using a
mixed income approach versus only
providing units at 50% and 60% AMI.
Implement the City’s Climate Action Plan
to promote Climate Equity:
o Update the Climate Equity Index every
five years to identify census tracts for
improvements in the following
categories: environmental,
socioeconomic, health, and mobility.
o Increase outreach and engagement in
high scoring census tracts.
o Seek funding for high scoring census
tracts.
Substandard housing conditions:
Age of housing stock
Cost of repairs or
rehabilitation
Review the Community Housing
Improvement Program (CHIP) for program
effectiveness and modify as appropriate.
Promote the City’s CHIP to displacement
risk areas (CDBG-Eligible Census Tracks)
and to mobile home residents (Citywide),
resulting in assistance to ten (10)
households during the 6th cycle.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-80
Protecting Residents
from Displacement
(AB3)
Displacement risk of low- income
residents due to economic
pressure:
Unaffordable rents
Concentration of poverty in
some census tracts
Availability of affordable
housing
Provide 200 residents annually with
information and referral services to access
City funded programs such as housing
rehabilitation assistance, first time
homebuyer programs, affordable rental
listing, Fair Housing Services. Services
provided in persons or via phone at 619-
691-5047.
Promote the City’s rent review program
for eligibility mobile home rents (Chapter
9.50 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code)
and conduct at least two (2) educational
events at parks annually, including at least
three (3) events at mobilehome parks
within the RECAP CT within the planning
period.
The City’s Fair Housing provider shall
conduct an Annual Fair Housing Event in
coordination with the SDRAFF.
Promote the City of Chula Vista’s First
Time Homebuyer Program through annual
outreach to affordable housing complexes
and holding at least three (3) homebuyer
fairs during the 6th cycle.
Assist five (5) households through the First
Time Homebuyer Program annually.
Promote the City’s Emergency Rental
Assistance, Utility Assistance and Tenant
Based Rental Assistance programs to
special needs populations and the
community at large, assisting up to 20
households annually.
Work with Developers to build affordable
housing in-line with their obligations under
the City’s Balanced Communities Policy
(e.g. Inclusionary Housing).
Invest HOME funds, Low Mod funds, and
Inclusionary Housing funds to support
affordable housing development for
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
APPENDIX E
Page AE-81
extremely low and very low-income
households including but not limited to
special needs and permanent supportive
housing.
Fund three (3) Permanent Supportive
Housing projects and three (3) Low-
Income Housing projects during the 6th
cycle that will create 500 affordable rental
units.
Consider local regulations to increase
tenant protections within the City related
to just cause, Ellis Act and anti-harassment
laws.
Conclusion
The City of Chula Vis ta is committed to fair housing practices that protect against housing discrimination due to race, color, religion, national origin, s ex, disability, familial s tatus, age, marital s tatus, or s exual orientation, and places a high priority on promoting and ensuring open and free choice in housing for all persons. The City recognizes that free and equal access to res idential housing (housing choice) is fundamental to meeting essential needs and pursuing pers onal, educational, employment or other goals. It is the City's intent to maintain and promote a nondiscriminatory environment in all aspects of the private and publicly funded housing markets within Chula Vista, and to fos ter compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair Ho using Act. The City will take the necessary s teps to overcome thes e possible impediments to fair housing choice and continues to s upport its on ongoing fair housing efforts to educate residents as well as support affordable housing programs and policies as outlined.