Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/05/04 Item 7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~\'f::.. CITY OF ~ CHULA VISTA May 4, 2010, Item 7 SUBMITTED BY: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE 2010-2015 REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) I~/~ DEPUTY CITY MANAGEt}~DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR Jt! CITY MANAGER! r ITEM TITLE: REVIEWED BY: 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ SUMMARY The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that all state, county, and local governments receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds prepare an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) every five years. The AI identifies fair housing impediments that affect both the region and the City and provides recommendations to remedy the impediments and further fair housing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Preparation of the Analysis of Impediments IS deemed exempt per the National Environmental Protection Act regulations. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION None. DISCUSSION 7-1 MAY 4, 2010, ITEM~ PAGE 2 OF 3 DISCUSSION The Analysis of Impediments ("AI") to Fair Housing Choice analyzes policies and procedures that may limit residents' ability to choose housing in an environment free from discrimination. Impediments are defined as public or private impacts that restrict housing choice or the availability of housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex disability, family status, or national origin. The AI is prepared and submitted to HUD as a condition of receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds and is required to be updated in conjunction with the adoption of a new five year Consolidated Plan. The 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan was presented to Council on March 23, 2010 and was therafter released for a 30-day review period for public comment. The final Consolidated Plan is on tonight's City Council agenda for final approval and submittal to HUD. The County of San Diego and the entitlement communities, which includes the City of Chula Vista, contracted with Veronica Tam and Associates (VTA) to prepare the attached AI that includes a County-wide analysis of impediments to fair housing. In preparing the report, VTA reviewed previous Fair Housing Reports, Housing Elements, regional planning documents, and housing industry research for the contracting cities. VT A also held interviews with jurisdictional staff, housing providers, members of private housing industry, fair housing service providers, and oversight agencies. The complete AI is on file with the City Clerk due to the size of the document. Chapter 8 of the AI "Impediments and Recommendations" (Attachment No.1) identified regional and jurisdiction-specific impediments which were carried over from the previous AI. It also identified new Regional or Jurisdiction-Specific Impediments. For Chula Vista, the previous AI (2005-2010) identified five impediments. Since 2005, the City has addressed those impediments and has eliminated one from the list. No new impediments were identified. The remaining four were carried over to the current AI (2010-2015) and will be addressed over the next five years. These impediments are as follows: 1. The Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance does not include a density bonus ordinance consistent with State law; however, in the 2005 Housing Element the City committed to utilizing density bonus and/or other incentives for new housing developments and condominium conversions to provide the required affordable housing as specified in the Government Code. 2. The Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance does not expressly address and permit licensed residential care facilities consistent with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. Despite this, the City of Chula Vista contains one of the largest concentrations of residential care facilities in the County. 3. The Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance does not expressly address and permit by right or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) licensed residential care facilities serving seven or more persons in any residential zoning district within Chula Vista. 7-2 MAY 4, 2010, ITEMl PAGE 3 OF 3 4. Chula Vista has not established a fonnal reasonable accommodation procedure pursuant to the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) to grant exceptions in zoning and land use regulations for persons with disabilities. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. CURRENT FISCAL IMP ACT The City's share of costs to prepare the AI was $7,520. There was no cost to the General Fund. Funding for the report was allocated out of the administrative budget for the CDBG Program. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT No additional costs will be incurred in the submittal of the report to HUD. A TT ACHMENT(S) 1. 2010-2015 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Chapter 8 "Impediments and Recommendations" Prepared by: Angelica Davis, Project Coordinator /I, Development Services Department 7-3 Attachment 1 IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AN ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAJR HOUSING CHOICE TThe previous chapters evaluate the conditions in the public sector and private market that may impede fair housing choice. This chapter builds upon the previous analyses, summarizes conclusions and presents a list of recommendations to help address the impediments. %en identifying recommendations, this AI focuses on actions that are directly related to fair housing issues and can be implemented within the resources and authority of the participating jurisdictions. Existing State, local, and federal requirements, such as Affirmative Marketing Plans, and Relocation Plans are not re-stated in this AI. General recommendations, such as supporting the efforts of other agencies or enhancing affordability, are also not included. 8.1 How to Use this Chapter Impediments identified in this Chapter are divided into the following five categories: . Fully Addressed Impediments from Previous AIs: Impediments from the previous AI documents that have been fully addressed. No further actions are required. The previous AI documents include: a 1985 Fair Housing Assessment for the City of San Diego a 1988 Fair Housing Assessment for the City of San Diego a 1992-2000 Fair Housing Assessment for the Urban County and City of San Marcos a 1996 San Diego Regional AI a 1996 City of Vista AI a 2000 Urban County AI a 2000 San Diego Regional Area AI a 2005 San Diego Regional AI . Regional Impediments Carried Over from Previous AIs: These are impediments identified in the previous AIs but are persisting, and therefore require further efforts to mitigate the impacts. These impediments are considered "regional" because they impact or are present in ALL participating jurisdictions within the County and require the collaboration of ALL jurisdictions and fair housing service providers, among other agencies, to address the impediments. Carried over impediments were also examined in the 2010 AI in the previous chapters. . Jurisdiction-Specific Impediments Carried Over from Previous AIs: These are impediments identified in the previous AIs but are persisting, and therefore require further efforts to mitigate the impacts. These impediments are "jurisdiction-specific" CHAPTER 8: L'vIPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-1 7-4 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDL\1Er-iTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE and therefore specific recommendations are identified for each participating jurisdiction. Carried over impediments were also examined in the 2010 AI in the previous chapters. . New Regional Impediments: These are new impediments identified during the development of this 2010 AI. These impediments are considered "regional" because they impact or are present in ALL participating jurisdictions within the County and require the collaboration of ALL jurisdictions and fair housing service providers, among other agencies, to address the impediments. . New Jurisdiction-Specific Impediments: These are new impediments identified during the development of this 2010 AI. These impediments are "jurisdiction-specific" and therefore specific recommendations are identified for each participating jurisdiction. Each participating jurisdiction should review the persisting and new regional and jurisdiction- specific impediments (Sections 8.3 through 8.6) identified in this Chapter and work to remove or mitigate the impacts of these impediments to fair housing choice. Specific lending patterns, fair housing practices and issues, and public policy discussions, among other topics by jurisdiction are provided in the previous chapters and are not reiterated in this chapter. The reader is advised to refer to the previous chapters for specific information about individual jurisdictions. 8.2 Fully Addressed Impediments from Previous AIs The following is a list of specific impediments from the previous Als that have been fully addressed based on the specific recommendations identified in the previous Als. Additional impediments on related topics may be identified in this 2010 Al due to changes in law and market conditions. For example, the 2005 AI recommended that local jurisdictions expressly address the provision for emergency shelters and transitional housing. Many jurisdictions have since taken actions to address those recommendations by amending their zoning ordinances to administratively or conditiona1ly permit such housing facilities. However, new State law enacted in 2008 (SB 2) outlines specific manners in which jurisdictions must address the provision of such housing facilities. Therefore, new impediments are identified in this AI under Section 8.3 (New Regional Impediments) and Section 8.4 (New Local Impediments). Regional Issues Impediment Identified in 1996 and 2000: Preferences for senior housing instead of housing for families with children. Resolution: Most communities assist in the development of affordable housing using a multi- layer financing approach, using HOME, CDBG, redevelopment housing set-aside, State multi- family housing bonds, and Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Specifically, set-aside and LIHTC are two major sources of affordable housing financing today. These two funding sources do not favor senior housing. In 2002, the California Redevelopment Law was amended CHAPTER 8: IMPEDI~IENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-2 7-5 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE to include proportionality thresholds for thresholds for the expenditure of redevelopment funds. A jurisdiction may not expend the set-aside funds on senior housing in a proportion that is larger than the proportion of senior population in the community. The housing market boom in between 2000 and 2006 has resulted in market conditions that limited housing options for seniors. During that time, most housing units constructed in the private market were single-family homes (usually large homes with two stories), townhomes, and condominiums - housing options preferred by families. In comparison, relatively few apartment units were constructed. ~1any communities experienced a shortage in senior housing. Carls bad Impediments Identified in 2005: 1. The Carls bad Land Use Element states that if the City Council approves a development project at a density lower than the established minimum for a given land use designation, the project is to be considered consistent with the City's General Plan. This could conflict with SB 2292 that prohibits "downzoning" without making specific findings. 2. The Carls bad General Plan includes a statement if the City Council approves a project at lower than stated minimum density, the project would be considered consistent with the General Plan. This could lead to development of single-family detached homes on land intended for multi-family residential development and limit housing choice and options within Carls bad. Resolution: In its 2005 Housing Element, the City committed to not, by administrative, quasi- judicial, or legislative action, reduce, require or permit the reduction of residential density on any parcel to a density below that which was utilized by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, unless, the City makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following: a.) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element; b.) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Government Code Section 65584. Chula Vista Impediment Identified in 2005: The Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance does not expressly permit transitional housing or emergency shelters. Resolution: The Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance has been amended to expressly permit transitional housing and emergency shelters in the R-3 - Apartment Residential Zone. Transitional housing and emergency shelters are also conditionally permitted in the C-O - Administrative and Professional Office and the C-B - Central Business zones. Furthermore, the City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance now allows for the development of homeless shelters on church facilities to aid in the provision of homeless facilities. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDlMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-3 7-6 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Coronado Impediment Identified in 2005: The Cotonado Zoning Ordinance does not include a density bonus ordinance consistent with State law. Resolution: The Coronado Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2005 to include a density bonus ordinance consistent with State law. Encinitas Impediment Identified in 2005: The Encinitas General Plan includes land use designations with either very low, or no minimum density requirements. This could lead to development of single-family detached homes on land intended for multi-family residential development. Resolution: The Encinitas General Plan was amended to establish reasonable minimum density requirements for its residential districts. Escondido Impediments Identified in 2005: 1. The Escondido Zoning Ordinance does not expressly address licensed residential care facilities consistent with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. In practice, Escondido has been permitting, by right, licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons as a normal residential use. However, clarifications in the Zoning Ordinance may be needed. 2. The Escondido Zoning Ordinance conditionally permits licensed residential care facility serving seven or more persons under "sanitarium" uses. Clarifications between licensed care facilities and sanitariums may be needed. Resolution: 1. The Escondida Zoning Ordinance was amended to expressly address and permit licensed residential care facilities, consistent with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. 2. The Escondida Zoning Ordinance was amended to clarify between large licensed care facilities (serving seven or more persons) and sanitariums. CHAPTER 8: b1PEDIl\JENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-4 7-7 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ^"'iALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FlJR HOUSING CHOICE Lemon Grove Impediments Identified in 2005: 1. The City requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for all multi-family residential uses. 2. Lemon Grove requires a conditional use permit for second units; this requirement is not compliant with State law. 3. The Lemon Grove Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly permit mobile homes or manufactured housing in accordance with State law. Resolution: 1. The City removed its conditional use permit (CUP) requirement for all multi-family residential uses. 2. Lemon Grove has since amended its second unit policy to be ministerial. 3. The Lemon Grove Zoning Ordinance includes manufacrured housing in its definition of single-family dwelling. Manufacrured housing is therefore permitted in all zones where single-family dwellings are permitted. National City Impediment Identified in 2005: The National City Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly permit mobile homes or manufacrured housing in accordance with State law. Resolution: National City now explicitly permits manufacrured housing, installed on a permanent foundation in compliance with all applicable building regulations and Title 25 of the California Health and Safety Code, in all residential districts in the City (consistent with California law). Poway Impediment Identified in 2005: Poway's Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance is not compliant with State law. The City requires a conditional use permit for Second Dwelling Units (SDU) contrary to State requirements that SDU permits receive administrative approval. Resolution: Second dwelling units are now permitted on the same lot as an existing single- family dwelling, except in those areas of the City determined to be inappropriate for second units. Inappropriate areas of the City include those without adequate water, sewer, or other municipal services in which second units would have a significant adverse impact upon traffic flow. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDL\lEl';"TS A..~D RECOMMENDATIONS 8-5 7-8 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Solana Beach Impediment Identified in 2005: The Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance includes "pyramid zoning," which describes zoning schemes whereby higher density residential designations permit the range of uses permitted in the preceding, lower density designation. Resolution: The Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance no longer includes any form of "pyramid zoning," whereby higher density residential designations permit the range of uses permitted in the preceding, lower density designation. Vista Impediments Identified in 2005: 1. The Vista Zoning Ordinance includes a defmition of "family" that may impede fair housing choice. 2. The Vista Zoning Ordinance does not expressly permit emergency shelters, convalescent centers or hospitals, or non-educational group or boarding homes in any of its zoning districts. 3. The Vista Zoning Ordinance does not include a density bonus ordinance consistent with State law. 4. Vista has not established procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation pursuant to ADA. Resolution: 1. The Zoning Ordinance's definition of family was amended to ensure that it would not impede fair housing choice. 2. While the City's Zoning Ordinance does not define or specifically allow for emergency shelters, "rescue missions" are permitted by special use permit in the City's commercial and manufacturing zone districts. Emergency shelters are permitted by the City under this use classification. 3. On August 11,2009, the City held a public hearing to receive and consider all evidence and reports concerning the PC20-093 Residential Density Bonus Ordinance, an amendment that would add Chapter 18.88, regarding a residential density bonus program, to the Vista Municipal Code. 4. The City established a formal procedure for obtaining reasonable accommodations in 2007. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECO:MMENDATIONS 8-6 7-9 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ^""iALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 8.3 Regional Impediments Previous AIs Carried Over from The following is a list of regional impediments carried over from the previous AIs, indicating the impediments have not been fully addressed and are persisting in the region. Therefore additional efforts are required. Revisions have been made to these impediments and recommendations to reflect current conditions. Education and Outreach Impediment Identified in 1996. 2000. and 2005: Educational and outreach literature regarding fair housing issues, rights, and services on websites or at public counters is limited. In 2005, approximately 38 percent of Fair Housing Survey respondents who indicated that they had been discriminated against did not know where to report their complaints. A majority of the 19 jurisdictions now provide some form of fair housing information on their website. The cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, San Diego, and Solano Beach do not provide fair housing infortnation on their websites. National City, La Mesa and Escondida do not provide extensive details about fair housing; however, they provide links to the Center for Social Advocacy, with which they coordinate for fair housing services. According to the 2009 Fair Housing Survey conducted in conjunction with the drafting of this report, 28 percent of Survey respondents who had been discriminated against did not know where to report their complaints. Revised Recommendations: 1. Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, San Diego, and Solano Beach should provide links to fair housing and other housing resources with current information on their websites. 2. National City, La Mesa and Escondida should consider including detailed infortnation about fair housing on their websites, in addition to the links they currently have to the Center for Social Advocacy. 3. All jurisdictions should consider prominently displaying fair housing infortnation on their public counters. Impediment Identified in 1996. 2000. and 2005: As many individual homeowners enter the business of being a landlord by renting out their homes, many may not be aware of current laws. There have not been efforts to identify and target small property owners specifically with education and outreach materials. Many service providers hold workshops and trainings geared toward small property owners; however, all property owners in the vicinity are invited. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDI:MENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-7 7-10 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL fu'lALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Revised Recommendation: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions should include in the scopes of work for fair housing services to expand outreach to small property owners. Fair housing service providers should coordinate with all entitlement and participating jurisdictions to identify small property owners within their client jurisdictions to specifically target education and outreach materials to this segment of the market population. All entitlement and participating jurisdictions should collaborate with service providers in outreach activities. Impediment Identified in 2005: Many fair housing violations are comntitted by small "mom and pop" rental operations. These property owners/managers are often not members of the San Diego County Apartments Association and outreaching to this group is difficult. Jurisdictions and fair housing service providers have worked with the San Diego County Apartments Association (SDCAA) to establish a lower-tier membership for two- to six-unit owners to encourage access to SDCAA education programs. The SDCAA membership is based on a standard fee of $209 per owner, a $25 processing fee and an additional $3.73 per unit. Owners of fewer rental properties or "mom and pop owners" will have a smaller membership fee than large property owners. Revised Recommendation: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions should include in the scopes of work for fair housing services to expand outreach to small property owners. Fair housing service providers should coordinate with all entitlement and participating jurisdictions to identify small property owners within their client jurisdictions to specifically target education and outreach materials to this segment of the market population. All entitlement and participating jurisdictions should collaborate with service providers in outreach activities. Lending and Credit Counseling Impediment Identified in 2000 and 2005: Hispanics and Blacks continue to be under- represented in the homebuyer market and experienced large disparities in loan approval rates among the 19 jurisdictions. Specifically, low and moderate income Black loan applicants achieved significantly lower approval rates than White applicants at the same income level. Also, several lenders had high rates of loan applications withdrawn or closed due to incomplete information, suggesting inadequate follow-up with potential homebuyers. The San Diego Reinvestment Task Force has proposed a Three Year Plan that demonstrates a regional discussion as well as actions to address the impediments related to lending and credit counseling. The Three Year Plan includes research, goals and strategies directed at improving and increasing financial education, affordable housing and consumer lending. Revised Recommendations: 1. All jurisdictions should collaborate with the San Diego Reinvestment Task Force to implement the recommendations contained in the Three Year Plan. 2. All jurisdictions that offer home buyers programs also consider stepping up outreach efforts in minority communities in order to improve loan origination/approval rates and increase awareness of and education about homeownership opportun.ities. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIivIENTS AND RECO:M:MENDATIONS 8-8 7-11 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Impediment Identified in 2005: Many of the reasons for application denial, whether in the rental market or in the home purchase market, relate to credit history and financial management factors. The Community Reinvestment Initiative (CRI) Task Force was provided with a copy of the 2005 Analysis of Impediments to Housing Choice in order to engage in discussions and actions with the region's various lenders. The San Diego City-County Reinvestment Task Force also recently hosted the catalytic Smart Money Summit involving over 500 people in workshops and education activities. Revised Recommendations: 1. Provide findings of this AI and other related studies to the CRI Task Force. 2. All jurisdictions that offer homebuyer programs should continue providing education and outreach on Credit History and Financial Management. 3. Jurisdictions should collaborate with the CRI in the implementation of the Three-Year Plan prepared by the CRI. Housing Discrimination Impediments Identified in 1985. 2000. and 2005: Housing discrimination persists throughout the County, which is supported by general literature, statistical data, cases filed with DFEH, and recent testings (2004 and 2009) conducted in the region. Specifically, discriminatory practices based on race, disability, national origin, and familial status were among the top categories. These trends have persisted, and fair housing service providers have commented that discrimination based on disabiliry has increased in recent years. Based on the testings conducted in 2009, there are some incidences where the minority home seekers are preferred over the White home seekers. However, only 41 pairs of testing were conducted in 2009. Given the large and diverse population of the County, tlais level of testing is not adequate to conclude the extent of housing discrimination in the County. More comprehensive and countywide testings should be conducted in the future. Revised Recommendations: 1. Conduct comprehensive and countywide random testing on a regular basis to identify issues, trends, and problem properties. Expand testing to cover other protected classes, especially those with emerging trends of suspected discriminatory practices. 2. Support stronger and more persistent enforcement activity by fair housing set'V1ce providers. 3. Expand education and outreach efforts, with specific efforts outreaching to small rental properties where the owners/managers may not be members of the Apartments Association. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDL\lENTS AND RECOMMENDA nONS 8-9 7-12 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Racial Segregation Impediment Identified in 1988 and 2005: Both the 1988 and 2005 AIs identified patterns of racial and ethnic concentration are present within particular areas of San Diego County. The 2010 AI analyzed segregation and minority concentrations on a regional basis, rather than looking at individual jurisdictions as factors influencing Ioeational choices are not confined by political boundaries. As summarized in Table 3-5, racial and ethnic composition varies considerably across jurisdictions. The South Suburban and Central Sub-Regions had the highest concentrations of minority populations (72 percent and 64 percent) while the East County and East Suburban sub-regions had the lowest minority concentrations of 28 percent and 30 percent. The North County East sub-region had the closest minority population to the region as a whole. The minority population in the North County East sub-region was 44 percent to the regional total of 45 percent. A comparison of the degrees of racial segregation among different ethnic groups from year 2000 to year 2020 in San Diego County is presented in Table 3-4. Evidently, the level of segregation between minority and Whites is expected to increase from 44.7 percent to 46.9 percent. The highest level of segregation seems to exist between Whites and Blacks (56.3 percent in 2000 and 53.5 percent in 2020). The lowest level of racial segregation exists between Blacks and Hispanics (41.7 percent) in year 2000 and maintains the same trend through 2020 (40.1 percent). When compared to Hispanic populations, Black and Asian populations were similarly segregated. Asians and Pacific Islanders showed a lower level of segregation with Hispanics than with Whites. More than one fourth (28 percent) of the County households earned less than $30,000 in 2008. In contrast, the top 30 percent of the households earned more than $75,000 in 2008. Figure 3-9 shows how this gap has increased from 2000 to 2010. According to CHAS data, 39 percent of households in San Diego County are considered lower and moderate income, earning less than 80 percent of the County Area Median Income (&\1:1). Among racial and ethnic groups, Hispanic households had the highest proportions of extremely low, low and moderate income households. Hispanic (60 percent) and Black (52 percent) households had a considerably higher percentage of lower income households than the rest of the County (Table 3-17). Therefore, there are strong correlations between income and racel ethnicity, and subsequently strong correlations between as the concentration of low and moderate income populations and areas of minority concentration. Residential segregation refers to the degree to which groups live separately from one another. The term segregation historically has been linked to the forceful separation of racial groups. However, as more minorities move into suburban areas and outside of traditional urban enclaves, some minority groups may prefer to live close to areas where there are social networks and support systems. Revised Recommendations: All jurisdictions should pursue the following: 1. Work to diversify and expand the housing stock to accommodate the varied housing needs of different groups. 2. Ptomote equal access to information for all residents on the availability of decent and affordable housing by providing information in multiple languages (to the extent CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIlVlENTS AND RECOM."\1ENDATIONS 8-10 7-13 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE feasible) and through venues and media that have proven success in outreaching to community, particularly those hard-to-reach groups. 3. Work coUaboratively with local housing authorities and affordable housing providers to ensure affirmative fair marketing plans and deconcentration policies are implemented. Overconcentration of Housing Choice Vouchers and Public Housing Impediments Identified in 1988 and 2005: Due to the geographic disparity in terms of rents, concentrations of Section 8 voucher use has occurred. For example, the City of EI Cajon represents about three percent of the County population but almost nine percent of the Section 8 voucher use. National City also has a relatively high concentration of Section 8 voucher use. The City represents about two percent of the total population but almost four percent of the vouchers issued in San Diego County. Within the City of San Diego, there are also specific neighborhoods (by ZIP Codes) with high concentrations of voucher usage. As of 2009, eight ZIP Codes had more than five percent of the voucher uses in the City. These are shown in Table 3-31. Some ZIP Codes with large numbers of voucher users exhibit diversity in the racial composition of the users. However, a couple of ZIP Codes do show significantly higher proportions of one race. The County of San Diego Housing Authority owns and administers public housing rental complexes (121 units), aU of which are located in the City of Chula Vista. The San Diego Housing Commission opted out of the Conventional Public Housing Program in 2007 (which provided for the upkeep of 1,366 units). The Commission retained only a very smaU portion of the units under the Public Housing program (36 units). Regarding rent-restricted affordable housing, the cities of San Marcos (39 affordable units per 500 total units) and National City (96 affordable units per 500 total units) had the highest concentration of affordable units. Countywide the average is 14 affordable units per 500 total units. Revised Recommendations: AU jurisdictions should pursue the foUowing: 1. Work to expand the affordable housing inventory and implement pOUcies that would discourage concentration of affordable housing units within individual jurisdictions. 2. Promote the Housing Choice Voucher program to rental property owners. With guaranteed income from H1JD, the Housing Choice Vouchers should be an attractive option given the current depressed market conditions. 3. Work coUaboratively with local housing authorities and affordable housing providers to ensure affirmative fair marketing plans and deconcentration policies are implemented. 4. Continue to implement the Choice Communities Initiative and Moving Forward Plan by the San Diego Housing Commission to expand Ioeational choices for voucher users. The Housing Commission should also explore other mechanisms to deconcentrate the use of vouchers. CHAPTER 8; IMPEDIMENTS A.1\.iD RECOMMENDATIONS 8-11 7-14 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ~"ALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Housing Options Impediments Identified in 1996. 2000 and 2005: Housing choices for persons with disabilities are limited. Most jurisclictions have addressed constraints on housing for persons with clisabilities through a program to adopt a reasonable accommodations procedure or adclitional accessibility programs. Revised Recommendations: 1. All jurisclictions should continue their efforts to expand the variety of available housing types and sizes. In adclition to persons with clisabilities, senior households, families with children, farmworkers, and the homeless, among others, can also benefit from a wider range of housing options. Impediments Identified in 1996. 2000. and 2005: At the writing of the 2005 AI, none of the jurisdictions have adopted a universal design ordinance. Some jurisclictions, Carls bad in particular, have considered a universal design orclinance but deemed it not cost effective for new developments. The County of San Diego has proposed to promote Universal Design in new developments. It is often encouraged but not required. In the City of San Diego, Universal Design Guideline compliance is a requirement of all Opportunity Fund applications, DDAs and OP As and the San Diego Housing Commission meets with all developers to review universal design standards on all proposed projects. While most jurisclictions incorpotate residential rehabilitation programs into their Consolidated Plan process, many do not specify ADA compliant upgrades in the program. Vista, Santee, Oceanside and Carls bad do specify rehabilitation programs that enhance accessibility. The San Diego Housing Commission maintains an Affordable Housing Resource Guide. The guide includes regional resources as well as San Diego citywide affordable rental housing list specifying housing for clisabled people. The County of San Diego also provides a database of affordable rental housing and services throughout the County that is accessible to persons with clisabilities. Revised Recommendations: 1. If formal Universal Design orclinances are cost prohibitive, jurisclictions could consider encouraging, but not requiring, universal design principles in new housing developments (i.e. San Diego County's current practice). 2. All jurisclictions with a residential rehabilitation program (regardless of funcling sources) should specifically include ADA-compliant upgrades in their programs. Jurisclictions could also consider moclifying their housing rehabilitation programs to make financial assistance for accessibility improvements available for renters, as well as homeowners. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDfME:NTS AND RECOM:MENDATIONS 8-12 7-15 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL A.1\iALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAlR HOUSING CHOICE Lead-Based Paint Hazards Impediments Identified in 2005: Lead-based paint hazards often disproportionately affect minorities and families with children. While lead-based paint issues pose a potential impediment to housing choice, testing of lead hazards is rarely performed when purchasing or renting a unit. According to national statistics, lead poisoning disproportionately impacts Black households and households with young children. The previous AI recommended that all jurisdictions consider requiring lead-based paint testing as part of their home buyer programs. Furthermore, lead-based paint testing should not be limited to housing programs funded by federal funds. However, the cities of Coronado, Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove and Solana Beach do not currently have home buyer programs and the City of La Mesa offers only closing cost assistance. National City is in the process of adopting a first time homebuyer program that will include lead-based paint testing. Carls bad, Chula Vista, El Cajon, Oceanside, Poway, the City of San Diego, San Marcos and Vista all include lead-based paint testing in their homebuyer programs. The San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) offers Lead Paint Reduction zero percent deferred loans as well as HUD Lead Hazard Control Grants. San Diego County provides for testing and abatement of lead based paint in irs Home Repair Program. The City of Santee does not provide for lead-based paint testing in their homebuyer programs. Revised Recommendations: I. All jurisdictions that offer homebuyer and rehabilitation programs should include lead- based paint testing as part of their homebuyer and residential rehabilitation programs (regardless of funding sources). Regional Collaboration Impediments Identified in 2000 and 2005: At the time the 2005 AI was completed, only minimal successes in regional collaboration had been documented. Currently, the Fair Housing Resources Board (FHRB) encourages coordination among service providers through its membership. All providers are invited and encouraged to become members and all providers are currently members. Collaboration between the jurisdictions and service providers is also encouraged. The cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Marcos, Vista and both the City and County of San Diego all report identifying service gaps with their service providers and are currently working to revise their scopes. Revised Recommendations: I. The fair housing service providers should continue to collaborate and work to affirmatively further fair housing in the region. 2. A single reporting system should be used by the fair housing service providers to compile consistent fair housing data that facilitates analysis of trends and patterns. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-13 7-16 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL &"iALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 3. The Fair Housing Resources Board (FHRB) should also continue to function as a collaborative to coordinate fair housing services for the region. 4. Entitlement jurisdictions should annually review its scope of work to address service gaps. Reporting Impediments Identified in 2005: At the wntmg of the 2010 AI, fair housing service providers are supposed to be using HUD's standard reporting categories in reporting fair housing statistics. However, based on the statistics collected for this 2010 AI, inconsistencies and discrepancies in data are still present. Inconsistent reporting makes tracking trends difficult. Revised Recommendation: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions contracting for fair housing services should work with the fair housing service providers to develop one uniform reporting method and consistent reporting categories to report fair housing data. Impediments Identified in 2005: While education and outreach efforts are a clear priority of all agencies involved, a previous review of sub-recipient contracts, Action Plans, CAPER reports, and annual accomplishment reports indicated a lack of quantifiable goals, objectives, and accomplishments to gauge success or progress. Most jurisdictions now report that they have developed outcome-based performance measures in addition to statistics on clients served. The City of Oceanside, however, has indicated that it has not established outcome-based performance measures. Revised Recommendation: 1. Fair housing service providers should publicize the outcomes of fair housing complaints to encourage reporting. 2. The City of Oceanside should establish outcome-based performance measures. Remaining jurisdictions should continue to identify specific quantifiable objectives and measurable goals related to furthering fair housing. Fair Housing Services Impediments Identified in 2005: Fair housing services vary across the region based on the agency providing the services and the work scopes of each sub-recipient contract. Differing levels of funding may also be an explanation accounting for variances in services. Most service providers confirm that they meet with the jurisdictions they work with regularly to review service gaps and work to update budgets and scopes. Residents commented on the confusion regarding fair housing services - which agency is responsible for what types of services and the geographic coverage of the agency. The service providers do not provide service area maps but the Fair Housing Resources Board makes one available to the public as well as to the participating jurisdictions. CHAPTER 8: L\lPEDI.:'vIENTS AND RECo.MMENDATIONS 8-14 7-17 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ^""ALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2-1-1 San Diego is a free service to all San Diego County residents that provides them with access and referrals to a variety of local service providers. Operators at 2-1-1 can direct callers to service providers in all areas including substance abuse treatment, child care, senior services, financial assistance and many more. Currently, fair housing is not a service that is covered by 2- 1-1 and operators are unaware of how to identify and direct fair housing issues. Revised Recommendations: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions should continue collaborating with fair housing servICes providers to ensure an adequate level of service is available to all residents. 2. Entitlement jurisdictions should also evaluate service gaps and establish appropriate levels of funding for the provision of these services. 3. The Fair Housing Resources Board should regularly update its service area map to provide the public with clear information on se"'~ce providers and types of services available. 4. Entitlement jurisdictions and the Fair Housing Resources Board should establish a collaborative relationship with the 2-1-1 San Diego Hotline. 5. Fair housing service providers should work with 2-1-1 San Diego to educate and train their phone operators in identifying and directing fair housing issues to the appropriate service providers. Fair housing service providers should be listed among the community service organizations that 2-1-1 can refer people to. Impediments Identified in 2000 and 2005: Fair housing service provider contracts with the jurisdictions do not currently allow for random testing or testing audits. Currently, testing is performed on a complaint-driven basis. A testing audit is a systematic investigation of discrimination in the housing market for the purpose of gauging the prevalence and types of discrimination at play in the market at a given point in time. Relying on complaint driven testing is not an accurate way of ensuring fair housing in a community because many residents are unaware of where or how ro report fair housing complaints. Revised Recommendations: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions should consider setting aside funding for fair housing audits in 2011 and evety two years thereafter. Specifically, entitlement jurisdictions should consider pooling funds to conduct regional audits, rather than acting individually, and work collaboratively with fair housing service providers ro pursue FHIP funds for audits and testing as HUD funding is available. Impediments Identified in 2005: While tenant/landlord disputes are not fair housing issues in general, providing dispute resolution services may prevent certain situations from escalating to discrimination issues. All fair housing senrice providers encourage tenant/landlord mediation among their clients. Some cities include the services of housing counselors to provide mediation and other provides referrals for mediation. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-15 7-18 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL A.NALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Revised Recommendation: 1. Entitlement jurisdictions should ensure tenant/landlord dispute resolution services are provided to complement the fair housing services. The region's other fair housing service providers should consider adding the tenant/landlord mediation services currently offered by NCL to the array of housing services they already provide. 8.4 Jurisdiction-Specific Impediments Carried Over from Previous AIs The following is a list of local impediments carried over from the previous Als, indicating the impediments have not been fully addressed and therefore additional efforts are required. Revisions have been made to these impediments and recommendations to reflect current conditions. Carls bad Impedimentss Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning proVIsIOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The Carls bad Zoning Ordinance was not amended to include a definition of "family" that will not impede fair housing choice. 2. The Car/sbad Zoning Ordinance was not amended to expressly permit transitional housing or emergency shelters. 3. Car/sbad has not yet established procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation pursuant to ADA. Revised Recommendations: The City of Car/sbad should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: I. Remove the definition of family from its Zoning Ordinance. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. Car/sbad should also clearly define the transitional housing and supportive housing. Wilen such housing is developed as group quarters, they should be permitted as residential care facilities. When operated as regular multi~family rental housing, transitional and supportive housing should be permitted by right as a multi~family residential use in multi-family zones. 3. Adopt an ordinance to establish a formal policy on reasonable accommodation. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECO~tM:ENDATIONS 8-16 7-19 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAlR HOUSING CHOICE Chula Vista Impediments Identified in 2005: Vanous land use policies, zoning provtSlOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: I. The Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance was not amended to include a density bonus ordinance consistent with State law. 2. The Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance was not amended to expressly address and permit licensed residential care facilities consistent with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. 3. The Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance was not amended to explicitly address and permit by right or with a Conditional Use Permit licensed residential care facilities serving seven or more persons in any residential zoning district. 4. Chula Vista has not yet established procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation pursuant to ADA. Revised Recommendations: The City of Chula Vista should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: I. Amend its density bonus ordinance to comply \\~th State law. 2. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to expressly address and permit licensed residential care facilities consistent with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. 3. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to explicitly address and permit by right or with a Conditional Use Pennit licensed residential care facilities serving seven or more persons in any residential zoning district. 4. Establish a formal reasonable accommodation procedure to grant exceptions in zoning and land use for persons with disabilities. Coronado Impediments Identified in 2005: Vanous land use policies, zoning provtslOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: I. The Coronado Zoning Ordinance was not amended to permit manufactured housing in the single-family zones. 2. The Coronado Zoning Ordinance was not amended to expressly address and permit licensed residential care facilities consistent with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. 3. The Coronado Zoning Ordinance was not amended to expressly permit transitional housing or emergency shelters. CHAPTER 8: bIPEDI11ENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-17 7-20 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 4. Coronado has not yet established procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation pursuant to ADA. Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: I. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to comply with the legislative mandate of State Government Code Section 65852.3 by allowing the development of manufactured housing in the R-1A Zone. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to expressly address and permit licensed residential care facilities consistent with State law. 3. Designate its R-3 and R-4 Zones as Zones where transitional housing will be permitted by right under standardized and objective procedures that are no more restrictive than those for similar residential uses. The City should also designate the Commercial and Civic Use zones as zones where homeless or emergency shelters will be permitted \Vith a Major Special Use Permit and a City Coastal Permit. 4. Adopt a formal reasonable accommodation procedure to provide exceptions in zoning and land use for the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. Del Mar Impediments Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning provisions, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The Del Mar Zoning Ordinance continues to require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for multi-family residential uses proposed at a density greater than 8.8 dwelling units per acre. 2. The Del Mar General Plan was not amended to establish minimum density requirements for all of its residential districts. The Del Mar Zoning Ordinance also contains "pyramid zoning," whereby higher density residential designations permit the range of uses permitted in the preceding, lower density designation. 3. The Del Mar Zoning Ordinance was not amended to include a definition of "family" that will not impede fair housing choice. 4. The Del Mar Zoning Ordinance was not amended to explicidy permit mobile homes or manufactured housing in accordance with State law. 5. The Del Mar Zoning Ordinance was not amended to expressly permit transitional housing and emergency shelters. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDL\tENTS A...1\.iD RECOMMENDATIONS 8-18 7-21 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL &"iALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 6. Del Mar has not yet established procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the foUowing actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Eliminate the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement for multi-family residential uses proposed at a density greater than 8.8 dwelling units per acre. 2. Amend the General Plan to establish minimum density requirements for aU of its residential districts. The Del Mar Zoning Ordinance should also be amended to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 3. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to include a definition of "family" that will not impede fair housing choice. 4. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to explicitly permit mobile homes or manufactured housing in accordance with State law. 5. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to expressly permit transitional housing. The City should also amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. 6. Establish procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. El Cajon Impediment Identified in 2005: The City has not yet established a formal procedure for approving requests for reasonable accommodation. Revised Recommendation: 1. The City should establish procedures for reasonable accommodation. Encinitas Impediments Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning proVIsIOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. As of August 11, 2009, Encinitas' Housing Element is out of compliance with State law. 2. The Encinitas Zoning Ordinance was not amended and continues to aUow for the development of single-family homes in its multi-family residential zones, which IS considered a form of "pyramid zoning," since lower density uses are allowed in districts/ designations intended for higher density uses. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-19 7-22 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ^""ALYSIS OF IMPEDI~IENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 3. The City has not yet fonnalized procedures standards which may be necessary to accommodation pursuant to ADA. for obtaining a waiver of development make improvements for reasonable Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Make an effort to ensure that its current Housing Element is in compliance with State law. 2. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 3. Develop a formal reasonable accommodation procedure for persons with disabilities. Escondido Impediments Identified in 2005: The Escondido Zoning Ordinance was not amended and continues to allow for the development of single-family homes in its multi-family residential zones, which is considered a fonn of "pyramid zoning," since lower density uses are allowed in districts/ designations intended for higher density uses. Revised Recommendation: The City should amend its Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. Imperial Beach Impediments Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning provisions, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The Impetial Beach Zoning Ordinance was not amended and continues to allow for the development of detached residential units in the highest density residential zones, which is considered a form of "pyramid zoning," since lower density uses are allowed in distticts/ designations intended for higher density uses. 2. The Impetial Beach Zoning Ordinance was not amended to explicitly identify residential care facilities among permitted uses in residential districts. 3. With the adoption of Ordinance No. 2002-986, the City of Imperial Beach began classifying emergency shelters as group homes, which are permitted in the C-l General Commercial Zone, with a conditional use pennit. Transitional housing is considered multifamily in nature and is permitted in the high-density multifamily residential district. 4. Imperial Beach has not yet established procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. CHA.PTER 8: IMPEDIME~TS Ai"iD RECOMMENDATIONS 8-20 7-23 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF I:\IPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow State licensed group homes, foster homes, residential care facilities, and similar state-licensed facilities with six or fewer occupants by right in a residential zoning district, pursuant to state and federal law. 3. In order to comply with the provisions of SB2, amend the Zoning Code to permit emergency shelters by right via a ministerial approval process. 4. Develop and formalize a general process that a person with disabilities will need to go through in order to make a reasonable accommodation request in order to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities and streamline the permit review process. La Mesa Impediments Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning proVlslOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The La Mesa General Plan was not amended to establish reasonable minimum density requirements for its residential districts. The La Mesa Zoning Ordinance continues to allow for the development of single-family homes in multi-family districts, which is considered a form of "pyramid zoning," since lower density uses are allowed in districts/ designations intended for higher density uses. 2. Transitional housing and emergency shelters for the homeless have both historically been considered "residential care facilities" and "community care facilities" in the La Mesa Municipal Code and are permitted or conditionally permitted in several zones. The La Mesa Municipal Code has also established a procedure for obtaining emergency temporary shelter permits. 3. La Mesa has not yet established procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the following acrions to temove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to specifically identify transitional housing and emergency shelters in the definition of "community care facilities." 3. Establish a formal policy or procedure for ptocessing requests for reasonable accommodation. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-21 7-24 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL fu,ALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Lemon Grove Impediments Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning proVIsIOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. Lemon Grove's density bonus ordinance was not amended to comply with State law. 2. The Lemon Grove Zoning Ordinance was not amended to expressly permit transitional housing or emergency shelters. 3. The City has not yet formalized procedures standards, which may be necessary to accommodations pursuant to ADA. for obtaining a waiver make improvements of development for reasonable Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Update its density bonus ordinance to comply with recent changes to state law (SB 1818). 2. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to expressly permit transitional housing. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. 4. Establish a formal policy or procedure for processing requests for reasonable accommodation. National City Impediments Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning proVIsIOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The National City General Plan was not amended to establish minimum densities for each residential land use designation. The Zoning Ordinance also includes "pyramid zoning," which describes zoning schemes whereby higher density residential designations permit the range of uses permitted in the preceding, lower density designation. 2. The National City Zoning Ordinance includes a definition of "family" that may impede fair housing choice. 3. The City has not yet amended its Second Unit Ordinance to comply with State law. 4. National City's Land Use Code was amended in 2002 to allow emergency shelters and transitional housing with a Conditional Use Permit in the Civic Institutional (IC) and Private Institutional (IP) zones. In 2002, the City also processed a Land Use Code amendment to allow transitional housing in the institutional, commercial, and industrial zones. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECO!\1M:ENDATIONS 8-22 7-25 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL &'\iALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 5. National City has not yet established procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to establish minimum densities for each residential land use designation and to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Remove its definition of family from the Zoning Ordinance, as it applies to residential uses. 3. Adopt second unit provisions that achieve consistency with state law. 4. In order to comply with the provisions of SB2, amend the Zoning Code to permit emergency shelters by right via a ministerial approval process. 5. Adopt a formal procedure for processing requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Oceanside Impediments Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning proVlslOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The City amended its definition of family as part of an update to its City Code. Oceanside no longer regulates residential land use by differentiating between biologically related and unrelated persons. However, the City's definition of a family excludes individuals. Such a definition may still be considered an impediment because it may give landlords the opportunity to deny renting single-family or multi-family dwelling units ro single persons. 2. Oceanside has not yet amended its density bonus ordinance to be consistent with State law. 3. The City of Oceanside has not yet esrablished formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation pursuant to ADA. However, individuals with disabilities can telephone the City, send an email, write a letter, srop by City offices, or appear at a City meeting to request special accommodation under the building code or variance from the requirements of City zoning code due to a disability. Applications involving these exceptions are handled administratively by the Planning Department. Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to include a definition of "family" that does not impede fair housing choice. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-23 7-26 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDI.'.IENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 2. Update its density bonus ordinance in order to comply with the new SB 1818. 3. Adopt a written reasonable accommodation ordinance to provide exception in zoning and land-use for housing for persons with disabilities. This procedure should be a ministerial process, with minimal or no processing fee. Poway Impediments Identified in 2005: Vanous land use policies, zoning proVlslOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The City of Poway did not amend its General Plan to modify land use designations with either very low, or no minimum density requirements, which could lead to development of single-family detached homes on land intended for multi-family residential development. The Poway Zoning Ordinance also continues to allow for the development of single-family homes in multi-family disrticts, which is considered a form of "pyramid zoning," since lower density uses are allowed in districts/ designations intended for higher density uses. 2. The Poway Zoning Ordinance was not amended to explicidy identify and permit residential care facilities in all residential districts. 3. The Poway Zoning Ordinance was not amended to explicidy permit transitional housing or emergency shelters. 4. The City has not yet established formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to establish minimum densities for each residential land use designation and to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow State licensed group homes, foster homes, residential cafe facilities, and similar state-licensed facilities with six or fewer occupants by right in a residential zoning district, pursuant to state and federal law. 3. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to expressly permit transitional housing. The City should also amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. 4. Establish a formal reasonable accommodation procedure. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIJ\fENTS AND RECOMM:ENDATIONS 8-24 7-27 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE City of San Diego Impediments Identified in 1996 and 2005: Various land use policies, zoning provisions, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The City of San Diego Zoning Ordinance includes a definition of "family" that could impede fair housing choice. 2. The Zoning Ordinance was not amended to eliminate instances of "pyramid zoning," wherehy higher density residential designations permit the range of uses permitted in the preceding, lower density designation. The City's 2008 General Plan Land Use Element, however, includes a policy that ensures efficient use of remaining land availahle for residential development and redevelopment by requiring that new development meet the density minimums of applicable plan designations. 3. The City has not yet established formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the foUowing actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to include a definition of "family" that does not impede fair housing choice. 2. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 3. Establish a formal reasonable accommodation procedure. County of San Diego Impediments Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning proVisIOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The County of San Diego did not amend its General Plan to modify land use designations with either very low, or no minimum density requirements, which could lead to development of single-family detached homes on land intended for multi-family residential development. The Zoning Ordinance was also not amended to eliminate instances of "pyramid zoning," whereby higher density residential designations permit the range of uses permitted in the preceding, lower density designation. 2. The County of San Diego Zoning Ordinance was not amended to expressly permit transitional housing or emergency shelters. 3. The County has not yet established formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS .-'\..'iD RECOMMENDATIONS 8-25 7-28 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAiR HOUSING CHOICE Revised Recommendations: The County should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to establish minimum densities for each residential land use designation and to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to expressly permit transitional housing. The County should also amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. 3. Establish formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. San Marcos Impediments Identified in 2005: Vanous land use policies, zoning proVlslOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: I. The San Marcos Zoning Ordinance includes a definition of "family" that may impede fair housing choice. 2. The San Marcos Zoning Ordinance includes "pyramid zoning," which describes zoning schemes whereby higher density residential designations permit the range of uses permitted in the preceding, lower density designation. 3. The City of San Marcos now permits residential care/licensed community care facilities, transitional housing and emergency shelters through the Minor CUP process (an administrative procedure). 4. The City has not yet established formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to include a definition of "family" that does not impede fair housing choice. 2. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in a specified zone. 4. Establish a formal reasonable accommodation procedure. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-26 7-29 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ^"'iALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Solana Beach Impediments Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning proVIsIOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance includes a definition of "family" that may impede fair housing choice. 2. The City has not yet established formal procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodation, pursuant to ADA. Revised Recommendation: The City should take the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. The City should evaluate its definition of family and revise the definition to ensure that it does not constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities or residential care facilities. 2. The City should establish a formal reasonable accommodation procedure. Vista Impediments Identified in 2005: Various land use policies, zoning proVIsIOns, and development regulations may affect the range of housing choice available. These include: 1. The Vista Zoning Ordinance continues to allow for the development of single-family homes in multi-family districts, which is considered a form of "pyramid zoning," since lower density uses are allowed in districts/designations intended for higher density uses. 2. Although one section of the Vista Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.31) permits second dwelling units pursuant State law, another section (18.06.160) prohibits second dwelling units. The City has not amended the conflicting Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.31 and 18.06.160) sections concerning the provision of second dwelling units. Revised Recommendations: The City should pursue the following actions to remove the fair housing impediments identified above: 1. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to address "pyramid zoning" issues. 2. Amend the conflicting Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.31 and 18.06.160) sections concerning the provision of second dwelling units. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-27 7-30 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL Ac"JAL vSIS OF IMPEDI~IENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 8.5 New Regional Impediments The following is a list of new regional impediments that may exist in the County. Housing Market Conditions Impediments Identified in 2010: Substandard housing conditions tend to impact minority households disproportionately. Housing is subject to gradual deterioration over time. Substandard housing conditions were among the top tenant/landlord complaints in the region. Lead-based paint hazards are present in older housing units. Also, older housing units are usually not ADA compliant, limiting the housing options for persons with disabilities. As shown in Table 3-19, 38 percent of San Diego County housing stock was over 30 years of age in 2000. The cities of National City (63 percent), Lemon Grove (61 percent) and La Mesa (60 percent) have tbe largest proportions of housing units potentially in need of rehabilitation. Home rehabilitation can be an obstacle for senior homeowners with fixed incomes and mobility 1ssues. Given the disproportionate housing needs of seniors, large families, and minority households, providing decent and adequate housing will improve the quality of life for these households. Recommendations: All jurisdictions that offer rehabilitation programs should pursue the following: 1. Offer housing rehabilitation programs, either directly or through the County, and make lead-based paint testing as part of their housing rehabilitation programs. 2. Consider modifying the housing rehabilitation programs to make financial assistance for accessibility improvements available for renters as well as homeowners. Fair Housing Impediments Identified in 2010: Fair housing service providers should actively pursue Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) funds. HUD regulations define two kinds of fair housing organizations: Qualified Fair Housing Enforcement Organization (QFHO) and Fair Housing Enforcement Organization (FHO). To ensure the quality of fair housing activities and services provided to the jurisdictions and to support their certifications to affirmatively further fair housing choice, HUD encourages CDBG recipients to consider QFHOs and FHOs when awarding funds. Furthermore, only QFHO and FHO are eligible to receive FHIP funds. Among the various service providers in the County, only the FHCSD has pursued and received FHIP funds. Recommendations: 1. All entitlement jurisdictions are encouraged to select organizations that meet QFHO and FHO criteria for fair housing services. 2. All service providers for fair housing are encouraged to seek FHIP funds to provide fair housing testing services. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS A..1\JD RECOMMENDATIONS 8-28 7-31 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF I"'PEDI~IENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 8.6 New Jurisdiction-Specific Impediments Carlsbad Impediment Identified in 2010: 1. Carlsbad's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing as required by State law (SB 2). Recommendation: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing pursuant to State law. Coronado Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. Coronado's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single- Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendation: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Del Mar Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The City of Del Mar does not currenrly have a Housing Element in compliance ,,~th HCD. 2. The Del Mar Zoning Ordinance's density bonus provisions have not been amended to reflect State law (SB 1818). 2. Del Mar's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: 1. Work with HCD to achieve a Housing Element that complies with State law. 2. Amend the density bonus provisions to comply ~th State law. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. El Cajon Impediments Identified in 2010: CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-29 7-32 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE I. Based on fair housing statistics, the City of El Cajon had among the highest numbers of calls for fair housing complaints and tenant/landlord issues. 2. El Cajon's Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly accommodate manufactured or mobile homes in single~family residential zoning distticts as required by State law. 3. El Cajon's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for transitional housing, supportive housing, and Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: I. Work with its fair housing service provider to expand outreach and education activities. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make explicit provisions for manufactured housing units in single-family residential zoning districts. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for transitional housing, supportive housing, and SRO pursuant to State law. Encinitas Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The Encinitas Zoning Ordinance does not specify density bonus provisions that are in compliance with State law (SB 1818). 2. The Encinitas Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly accommodate manufactured or mobile homes in single-family residential zoning districts as required by State law. 3. The City of Encinitas conditionally permits emergency shelters but recent changes to State law requires that local jurisdictions permit emergency shelters by right in at least one year-round shelter. 4. Encinitas's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single~ Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: I. Amend the Zoning Ordinance density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make explicit provisions for manufactured housing units in single-family residential zoning districts. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one Zone to comply with State law. 4. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDINlliNTS A...~D RECOhfMENDATIONS 8-30 7-33 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ~"ALYSIS OF IMPEDI~IENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE Escondido Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The Escondido Zoning Ordinance does not specify density bonus provisions that comply with State law (SB 1818). 2. The Escondido Zoning Ordinance does not provide for emergency shelters and does not meet the legal requirement to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year- round shelter. 3. The Escondido Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single- Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Imperial Beach Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The Imperial Beach Zoning Ordinance does not specify density bonus provisions that are in compliance with State law. 2. The Imperial Beach Zoning Otdinance does not provide for latge residential care facilities. 3. Imperial Beach's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single- Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: I. Amend the Zoning Ordinance density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for large residential cate facilities. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. CHAPTER 8: bIPEDIJ\.1EXTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-31 7-34 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE La Mesa Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The La Mesa Zoning Ordinance does not specify density bonus provisions that ate in compliance with State law. 2. La Mesa's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendation: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include density bonus pro"slOns that comply with State law. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Lemon Grove Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. Lemon Grove's Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly provide for mobile home parks. 2. Lemon Grove's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single- Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendation: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make explicit provisions for mobile home parks. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. N adonal City Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The National City Zoning Ordinance does not specify density bonus provisions that are in compliance with State law. 2. The National City Zoning Ordinance does not provide for large residential care facilities. 3. National City's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single- Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for large residential care facilities. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIJ\lliNTS At'JD RECOrvL\.1ENDATIONS 8-32 7-35 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO E'JR HOUSING CHOICE 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Oceanside Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. Oceanside conditionally permits emergency shelters but does not meet the legal requirement to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. 2. The City of Oceanside conditionally permits transitional housing, which can limit the housing choices of special needs groups such as homeless individuals and families. 3. Oceanside's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single- Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit transitional housing, supportive housing, and SRO in compliance with State law. Poway Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The Poway Zoning Ordinance does not specify density bonus provisions that are in compliance with State law. 2. The City of Po way limits large residential care homes to 15 clients. 3. Poway's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: 1. Amend Zoning Ordinance density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove the limit on the number of clients a large residential care facility may serve. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. City of San Diego Impediments Identified in 2010: CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIl\1ENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-33 7-36 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 1. The City of San Diego conditionally permits emergency shelters but does not meet the State law requirement to permit emergency shelters by right in ar least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. 2. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). 3. Eighr ZIP Codes in the City have high concentrations of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. 4. Reflecting the high correlations between minority concentrations and low/moderate income areas, several ZIP codes have high proportions of minority households receiving Housing Choice Vouchers. Recommendations: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. 3. Continue ro implement the Choice Communities Initiative, Moving Forward plan, and Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Program, among other programs and activities to deconcentrate voucher use. County of San Diego Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The County of San Diego currently has a Housing Element that is out of compliance with HCD. 2. The County's Zoning Ordinance does not specify density bonus provisions that are in compliance with State law. 3. The County's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single- Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: 1. Work with HCD to achieve a Housing Element that complies with State law. 2. Adopting density bonus provisions that are current with State law. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. CH..'\.PTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-34 7-37 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE San Marcos Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The City of San Marcos does not specify density bonus provisions that are in compliance. with State law. 2. The San Marcos Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly accommodate manufactured or mobile homes in single-family residential zoning districts as required by State law. 3. San Marcos has no provisions in its Zoning Ordinance for residential care facilities serving six or fewer clients but is home to a number of residential care facilities. The Zoning Ordinance also does not provide for large residential care facilities serving seven or more residents. 4. The City of San Marcos does not provide for transitional housing, supportive housing, and SRO, which can limit the housing choices of special needs groups such as homeless individuals and families. Recommendations: 1. Amend its density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 2. Make explicit provisions for manufactured housing units in single-family residential zoning districts. 3. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to comply with the Lanterman Act by providing for residential care facilicies serving six or fewer clients as well as define and provide for large residential care facilities. 4. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for transitional housing, supportive housing and SRO. Santee Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The City of Santee does not currently have a Housing Element in compliance with HCD. 2. The Santee Zoning Ordinance prohibits or requires discretionaty reviews for second dwelling units. 3. The Santee Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly accommodate manufactured or mobile homes in single-family residential zoning districts as required by State law. 4. The City of Santee conditionally permits transitional housing, which can limit the housing choices of special needs groups such as homeless individuals and families. CHAPTER 8: IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-35 7-38 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE 5. Santee's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: 1. Work with HCD to achieve a Housing Element tbat complies with State law. 2. Amend tbe Zoning Ordinance to permit second units by right in single-family residential zones. 3. Amend tbe Zoning Ordinance to make explicit provisions for manufactured housing units in single-family residential zoning districts. 4. Amend tbe Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for transitional housing, supportive housing, and SRO pursuant to State law. Solana Beach Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. Solana Beach does not permit for emergency shelters but does not meet tbe legal requirement to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. 2. The Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance does not provide for transitional housing, supportive housing, and Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: 1. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least ODe zone to comply with State law 2. Amend its Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for transitional housing, transitional housing, and SRO pursuant to State law. Vista Impediments Identified in 2010: 1. The City of Vista does not specify density bonus provisions that are in compliance witb State law. 2. The Vista Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly accommodate manufactured or mobile homes in single-family residential zoning districts as required by State law. 3. Vista does not permit for emergency shelters but does not meet the legal requirement to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. CHAPTER 8: h1PEDIME:-';TS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-36 7-39 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAlR HOUSING CHOICE 4. Vista's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for supportive housing and Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) as required by State law (SB 2 and AB 2634). Recommendations: 1. Amending its density bonus provisions to be in compliance with State law. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make explicit provisions for manufactured housing units in single-family residential zoning districts. 3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit emetgency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law. 4. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for supportive housing and SRO pursuant to State law. Cl-L\PTER 8: IMPEDI.\1ENTS A.."'\JD RECOMMENDATIONS 8-37 7-40 RESOLUTION NO. 2010- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE 2010-2015 REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) WHEREAS, the City Of Chula Vista receives federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) dollars from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and WHEREAS, HUD requires that all state, county, and local governments receIVIng Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds prepare an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ("AI") every five years; and WHEREAS, the AI identifies fair housing impediments that affect both the region and the City and provides recommendations to remedy the impediments and further fair housing; and WHEREAS, the City Of Chula Vista collaborated with the other entitlement jurisdictions in the County of San Diego and has contracted with Veronica Tam and Associates to complete an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice on behalf of the jurisdictions, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public review period was held from March 12, 2010 through April 12, 2010 to consider public input on the Analysis. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Chula Vista as follows: 1. The 20 I 0-20 15 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ("AI") is approved; and 2. The City Manager is authorized to submit the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ("AI") to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). James D. Sandoval City Manager Approved as to form by: / ~-I Ih / '/ .. _.,~,.. iJ/u. .~. // Presented by: 7-41