⬚ figure

Fresno Council of Governments

Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional 2023-2031 Housing Element

Adopted December 12, 2024

⬚ figure

A Regional Plan for Addressing Housing Needs

Fresno County • Coalinga • Firebaugh • Fowler • Fresno City • Huron • Kerman Kingsburg • Mendota • Orange Cove • Parlier • Reedley • San Joaquin • Sanger • Selma

Fresno Council of Governments

Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional 2023-2031 Housing Element

Adopted December 12, 2024

A Regional Plan for Addressing Housing Needs Fresno County • Coalinga • Firebaugh • Fowler • Fresno City • Huron • Kerman Kingsburg • Mendota • Orange Cove • Parlier • Reedley • San Joaquin • Sanger • Selma

⬚ figure

(blank page)

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

Housing Element Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 1 General Plan Consistency ........................................................................................................................... 2 Housing Element Organization.................................................................................................................... 2

Public Outreach and Engagement.................................................................................... 1-1

Project Website.......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Stakeholder Consultations.......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Study Sessions .......................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Community Workshops .............................................................................................................................. 1-4 Stakeholder Focus Groups ........................................................................................................................ 1-5 Farmworker and Farm Employer Surveys................................................................................................ 1-8 Travel Survey............................................................................................................................................. 1-9 Translation ............................................................................................................................................... 1-10 Outreach Noticing .................................................................................................................................... 1-10

Regional Housing Needs Assessment............................................................................. 2-1

Population Trends and Characteristics...................................................................................................... 2-2 Population Change ............................................................................................................................. 2-2 Household and Group Quarters Population ...................................................................................... 2-3 Age Characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 2-4 Population by Race/Ethnicity............................................................................................................. 2-7 Household Trends and Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 2-9 Historical Growth ............................................................................................................................... 2-9 Household Formation and Composition ........................................................................................... 2-10 Household Income............................................................................................................................. 2-10 Employment Trends and Characteristics ................................................................................................. 2-13 Employment and Wage Scale by Industry ....................................................................................... 2-13 Unemployment.................................................................................................................................. 2-19 Labor Force Trends .......................................................................................................................... 2-19 Population and Employment Projections................................................................................................. 2-21 Population Forecast........................................................................................................................... 2-21 Employment Forecast........................................................................................................................ 2-22 Housing Inventory and Market Conditions .............................................................................................. 2-22 Housing Stock Profile ....................................................................................................................... 2-23 Housing Tenure ................................................................................................................................ 2-25 Vacancy Rate ................................................................................................................................... 2-26 Housing Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 2-27 Overpayment (Cost Burden).............................................................................................................. 2-29 Overcrowding.................................................................................................................................... 2-33 Housing Cost and Affordability ................................................................................................................ 2-35 Home Price Trends ........................................................................................................................... 2-35 Rental Trends ................................................................................................................................... 2-37 Ability to Pay..................................................................................................................................... 2-37 Special Needs........................................................................................................................................... 2-39 Senior Population ............................................................................................................................. 2-39 Large Households.............................................................................................................................. 2-44 Single Female-Headed Households................................................................................................. 2-45 Persons with Disabilities................................................................................................................... 2-47 Developmental Disabilities ................................................................................................................ 2-50 Homeless.......................................................................................................................................... 2-51

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Farmworkers................................................................................................................................... 2-60 Extremely Low-Income Households................................................................................................ 2-69 Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing and At-Risk Status........................................................... 2-74 Preservation Options for At-Risk Properties.................................................................................. 2-74 Qualified Entities............................................................................................................................. 2-75

Regional Assessment of Fair Housing .............................................................. 3-1

Outreach.......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Consultations.............................................................................................................................. 3-2 Stakeholder Focus Group Workshops....................................................................................... 3-5 FCOG Transportation Needs Survey......................................................................................... 3-6 Public Comments........................................................................................................................ 3-12 Fair Housing Issues........................................................................................................................ 3-12 Patterns of Integration and Segregation................................................................................... 3-15 Access to Opportunity................................................................................................................ 3-42 Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk........................................................... 3-65

Opportunities for Residential Development .................................................... 4-1

Regional Housing Needs Allocation................................................................................................ 4-1 Assembly Bill 1233 RHNA “Carry-Over” Analysis......................................................................... 4-3 Availability of Land and Services.................................................................................................... 4-3 Units Built or Under Construction and Planned or Approved Projects....................................... 4-4 Accessory Dwelling Unit Potential............................................................................................. 4-4 Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory................................................................................. 4-4 Adequacy of Public Facilities..................................................................................................... 4-5 Financial and Administrative Resources.................................................................................... 4-6 Opportunities for Energy Conservation.......................................................................................... 4-13 California Building Code, Title 24.............................................................................................. 4-14 Utility Programs.......................................................................................................................... 4-14

Housing Constraints ............................................................................................ 5-1

Governmental Constraints............................................................................................................... 5-1 Land Use Controls..................................................................................................................... 5-1 Residential Development Standards......................................................................................... 5-2 Density Bonus............................................................................................................................ 5-3 Growth Control........................................................................................................................... 5-3 Airport Land Use Compatibility.................................................................................................. 5-4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types...................................................................................... 5-4 On-/Off-Site Improvement Standards......................................................................................... 5-9 Fees and Exactions................................................................................................................... 5-9 Processing and Permit Procedures............................................................................................ 5-10 Senate Bill 35............................................................................................................................. 5-11 Senate Bill 330........................................................................................................................... 5-11 Building Codes and Enforcement.............................................................................................. 5-11 Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities................................................................ 5-11 Nongovernmental Constraints......................................................................................................... 5-13 Land Costs................................................................................................................................. 5-13 Construction Costs.................................................................................................................... 5-15 Dry Utilities................................................................................................................................. 5-15 Availability of Financing............................................................................................................. 5-16 Environmental Constraints......................................................................................................... 5-17

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Housing Plan .......................................................................................... 6-1

Goals and Policies ..................................................................................................................................... 6-1

1. New Housing Development ............................................................................................................. 6-1
2. Affordable Housing .......................................................................................................................... 6-2
3. Housing and Neighborhood Conservation ....................................................................................... 6-3
4. Special Needs Housing ................................................................................................................... 6-3
5. Fair and Equal Housing Opportunities ............................................................................................ 6-4
6. Energy Conservation and Sustainable Development........................................................................ 6-5

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................ 1A-1

Summary of Needs and Conditions Action Plan Sites Inventory Fair Housing Analysis Housing Constraints Review of Previous Housing Element Public Outreach and Engagement

APPENDICES 1A: Fresno County 1B: Coalinga 1C: Firebaugh 1D: Fowler 1E: Fresno City 1F: Huron 1G: Kerman 1H: Kingsburg 1I: Mendota 1J: Orange Cove 1K: Parlier 1L: Reedley 1M: San Joaquin 1N: Sanger 1O: Selma

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figures

Figure 2-1. Race and Ethnicity (2020) .............................................................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-2. Median Household Income (2020)................................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-3. Employment by Industry (2020)....................................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2-3. Employment by Industry (2020) (cont) ............................................................................................. 2-16 Figure 2-4. Unemployment Rate (2022)............................................................................................................. 2-19 Figure 2-5. Fresno County Average Annual Job Openings by Entry-Level Education (2010-2020) .................... 2-21 Figure 2-6. Median Sales Price for Fresno County.............................................................................................. 2-35 Figure 2-7. Farm Employment, Fresno County................................................................................................... 2-62 Figure 2-8. Farm Labor in Fresno County........................................................................................................... 2-63 Figure 3-1 Discrimination Experienced in Housing ............................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-2 Discrimination Basis .......................................................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-3 Most-Liked Feature of current Neighborhood................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-4 Least-Liked Feature of current Neighborhood.................................................................................. 3-10 Figure 3-5 Barriers Preventing Homeownership ................................................................................................ 3-11 Figure 3-6 Regional TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas ............................................................................................ 3-14 Figure 3-7 Income Patterns in the Region .......................................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-8 Regional Median Incomes ................................................................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3-9 Income Groups Within Fresno County Jurisdictions.......................................................................... 3-19 Figure 3-10 Regional Poverty Rates .................................................................................................................... 3-20 Figure 3-11 Segregation and Integration, Regional Divergence, 2020................................................................ 3-23 Figure 3-12 Racial and Ethnic Divergence, Fresno County Region ..................................................................... 3-25 Figure 3-13 Regional Demographic Composition, 2020 ...................................................................................... 3-26 Figure 3-14 Regional Racial Demographics ......................................................................................................... 3-27 Figure 3-15 Regional Areas of High Segregation and Poverty, 2023 ................................................................... 3-30 Figure 3-16 Regional RCAAS ............................................................................................................................... 3-31 Figure 3-17 Diversity Index Within Fresno County.............................................................................................. 3-32 Figure 3-18 Fresno County Jurisdiction Racial Demographics............................................................................. 3-33 Figure 3-19 Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households in the Region............................................... 3-36 Figure 3-20 Percentage of Children in Female-Headed Households in the Region.............................................. 3-37 Figure 3-21 Population with a disability in the Region ........................................................................................ 3-39 Figure 3-22 Regional Disability by Type ............................................................................................................. 3-40 Figure 3-23 AllTransit Transit Access in the Region............................................................................................. 3-43 Figure 3-24 Fresno County Rural Transit Agency Intercounty Routes ................................................................ 3-46 Figure 3-25 Percentage of Renters using Housing Choice Vouchers ................................................................... 3-51 Figure 3-26 Regional Jobs Proximity ................................................................................................................... 3-53 Figure 3-27 Regional Labor Market Engagement................................................................................................. 3-54 Figure 3-28 Regional Unemployment Rates, 2010-2022...................................................................................... 3-55 Figure 3-29 Regional TCAC/HCD Educational Domain Scores ............................................................................ 3-58 Figure 3-30 HUD School Proficiency Index.......................................................................................................... 3-60 Figure 3-31 Regional CalEnviroScreen Percentiles............................................................................................... 3-63 Figure 3-32 Healthy Places Index Percentile ....................................................................................................... 3-64 Figure 3-33 Overcrowded Households in the Region ........................................................................................... 3-67 Figure 3-34 Regional Overcrowded Households by Tenure ................................................................................. 3-68 Figure 3-35 Overpayment Rates in the Region.................................................................................................... 3-69 Figure 3-36 Age of Housing Stock in the Region................................................................................................. 3-70 Figure 3-37 Regional Farm Operations and Agricultural Employees.................................................................... 3-73 Figure 3-38 Sensitive Communities, 2020 ........................................................................................................... 3-76 Figure 5-1. Historical Mortgage Interest Rates, United States 2015-2022 ........................................................... 5-16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tables

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table 2-51 | Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure and Overpayment - Reedley, Sanger, and San Joaquin (2018)............................................................................ 2-73 Table 2-52 | Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure and Overpayment – Selma and Unincorporated Fresno County (2018) .................................................................... 2-73 Table 2-53 | Qualified Entities (2022) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-75 Table 3-1 | Regional Familial Status Discrimination, 2013-2021 ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-34 Table 3-2 | Regional Demographic Characteristics of the Population with a Disability .............................................................................................................................. 3-41 Table 3-3 | Regional Alltransit Performance Scores ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-44 Table 3-4 | Fresno County Rural Transit Agency Intercounty Connections ................................................................................................................................................. 3-44 Table 3-5 | Fresno MSA Fair-Market Rents, 2022 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-50 Table 3-6 | Regional Vacancy Rates .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-50 Table 4-1 | 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation by Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................................................ 4-2 Table 4-2 | Financial Resources ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-3 | Fresno Housing Authority Properties.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-10 Table 5-1 | Statewide Density Bonus Parking Standards .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5-3 Table 5-2 | Fresno COG Transportation Impact Fee .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-10 Table 5-3 | Listed Land Prices, Incorporated Cities (2022) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5-13 Table 5-4 | Listed Land Prices, Unincorporated Areas (2022)...................................................................................................................................................................... 5-14 Table 5-5 | Land Sale Prices, Incorporated Cities (August 2022)................................................................................................................................................................. 5-14 Table 5-6 | Land Sale Prices, Unincorporated Areas (August 2022)............................................................................................................................................................. 5-14

INTRODUCTION 0

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 Housing Element Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 1 General Plan Consistency ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Housing Element Organization ............................................................................................................................. 2

INTRODUCTION

This page intentionally left blank.

INTRODUCTION

⬚ figure

California Housing Element law requires every jurisdiction to prepare and adopt a housing element as part of its general plan. In California, it is typical for each city or county to prepare and maintain its own separate general plan and housing element. However, Fresno County and 14 of the 15 cities in Fresno County, with the help of the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG), are preparing a Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element for the fifth round of housing element updates. The Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element provides an opportunity for countywide housing issues and needs to be more effectively addressed at the regional level rather than just at the local level. Regional efforts also provide the opportunity for the local governments in the county to work together to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) assigned to the Fresno County region. In addition, economies of scale can result in significant cost savings to jurisdictions preparing a joint housing element.

The primary objective of the project is to prepare a regional plan addressing housing needs through a single certified housing element for all 15 participating jurisdictions. The Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element represents an innovative approach to meeting State Housing Element law and coordinating resources to address the region’s housing needs. The following jurisdictions are participating in the effort: Fresno County and the cities of Coalinga, Firebaugh, Fowler, Fresno, Huron, Kerman, Kingsburg, Mendota, Orange Cove, Parlier, Reedley, San Joaquin, Sanger, and Selma.

State Housing Element requirements are framed in the California Government Code, Sections 65580 through 65589, Chapter 1143, Article 10.6. The law requires the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to administer the law by reviewing housing elements for compliance with State law and by reporting its written findings to the local jurisdiction. Although State law allows local governments to decide when to update their general plans, State Housing Element law mandates that housing elements be updated every eight years. The Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element will cover the planning period of December 31, 2023, through December 31, 2031, and must be adopted and submitted to HCD for certification by December 31, 2023. The Housing Element must include: 1) an identification and analysis of existing and projected local housing needs; 2) an identification of resources and constraints; and 3) goals, policies, and implementation programs for the rehabilitation, maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all economic segments of the population.

HOUSING ELEMENT PURPOSE

This document is the 2023-2031 Housing Element for 15 jurisdictions in Fresno County, including unincorporated Fresno County. The purpose of the housing element is to identify a community’s current housing needs; state the region’s goals and objectives regarding housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs; and define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives.

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

The Housing Element is a required element of the General Plan. State law requires that the Housing Element be consistent with the other elements of the jurisdictions’ general plan. The policies and implementation programs in this Housing Element are consistent with the policies and implementation programs in the other elements of each jurisdiction’s general plan. However, if during the implementation of this Housing Element, any inconsistencies are identified, a local government would need to amend its general plan to maintain consistency with other elements of the general plan. As other elements of the general plan are amended in the future, the local governments will review and revise as necessary to ensure internal consistency is maintained. The newest required General Plan element addresses the topic of Environmental Justice. As each jurisdiction makes the next updates to their General Plan, Environmental Justice will be addressed.

HOUSING ELEMENT ORGANIZATION

The Housing Element is organized into the following major sections:

• Section 0. Introduction: An introduction, reviewing the purpose, process, and scope of the Housing Element.
• Section 1. Public Outreach and Engagement: A summary of the public outreach processes performed during the development of the Housing Element as well as the feedback received from outreach participants.
• Section 2. Housing Needs Assessment: An analysis of the demographic profile, housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs.
• Section 3. Regional Fair Housing Assessment: An analysis of available federal, state, and local data to assess fair housing needs in the region.
• Section 4. Opportunities for Residential Development: A summary of the land, financial, and organizational resources available to address the identified housing needs and goals. This section also includes an analysis of opportunities for energy conservation in residential development.
• Section 5. Housing Constraints: An analysis of the potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints in the region.
• Section 6. Housing Goals and Policies: The regional goals and policies that will help meet diverse housing needs.

The Housing Element also includes one appendix.

Appendix 1 has a separate, lettered section for each jurisdiction. Each section is structured into the following subsections.

0. Summary of Needs and Conditions: Provides a summary of the jurisdiction’s specific findings from the Housing Needs Assessment, Housing Constraints, and Sites Analysis.

INTRODUCTION

1. Action Plan: Details jurisdiction-specific implementation programs to be carried out over the planning period to address the regional housing goals, including quantified objectives.
2. Sites Inventory: Describes the jurisdiction-specific sites available to meet the RHNA.
3. Fair Housing Analysis: An analysis of available federal, state, and local data to assess fair housing needs in the jurisdiction.
4. Housing Constraints: Identifies potential jurisdiction-specific governmental constraints to the maintenance, preservation, conservation, and development of housing along with an analysis of the at-risk units by jurisdiction and their preservation options.
5. Evaluation of Previous Housing Element: When applicable, describes the progress with implementing the previous housing element’s policies and actions.
6. Public Outreach and Engagement: A summary of the public outreach processes performed during the development of the Housing Element as well as the feedback received from outreach participants.

INTRODUCTION

This page intentionally left blank.

⬚ figure

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Public Outreach and Engagement............................................................ 1-1

Project Website........................................................................................................................... 1-1 Stakeholder Consultations.......................................................................................................... 1-1 Study Sessions .......................................................................................................................... 1-3 Community Workshops ............................................................................................................... 1-4 Stakeholder Focus Groups.......................................................................................................... 1-5 Farmworker and Farm Employer Surveys.................................................................................. 1-8 Travel Survey.............................................................................................................................. 1-9 Translation ............................................................................................................................... 1-10 Outreach Noticing..................................................................................................................... 1-10

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

This page intentionally left blank.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

State law requires local governments to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all socioeconomic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. The comments received at the workshops and through the online survey were considered in the preparation of this Housing Element, specifically in the goals, policies, and implementation programs.

The Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element update effort completed public outreach at the local and regional levels to encourage community involvement and comply with the requirements of State law. These efforts included:

• Project Website
• Stakeholder Consultations and Focus Groups
• Study Sessions with Planning Commissions, City Councils, and the County Board of Supervisors
• Community Workshops
• Community Survey

PROJECT WEBSITE

The Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element project website is a clearinghouse for all information related to the project, with information in English and Spanish. For meetings in the City of Fresno, event fliers were also made available in Hmong and Punjabi. Community members can visit the site to access all public materials, learn about the Housing Element and upcoming opportunities to get involved, sign up for email updates, and submit comments directly.

The project website also includes direct links to each of the participating Fresno County jurisdictions’ websites to promote specific outreach from each city and the county, share updates, and highlight upcoming opportunities for involvement, including individual Housing Element meetings.

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

To ensure that each jurisdiction solicits feedback from all segments of the community, consultations were conducted with service providers and other stakeholders who represent different socioeconomic groups.

Throughout the fall of 2022, staff consulted with stakeholders from 11 individual organizations and a multiorganization initiative that provides services in the Fresno County region to obtain input on housing needs and programs. The following stakeholders were contacted for an interview and either completed an interview or provided written responses to questions by email.

• Travis Alexander, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

• Harvey McKeon, Field Representative, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
• Laura Moreno, Fresno Madera Continuum of Care/County of Fresno Social Services
• Mariah Thompson, California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA)
• Karla Martinez, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability (LCJA)
• Patience Milrod, Law Office of Patience Milrod
• Sarah Harris, Resources for Independence Central Valley
• Eric Payne, The Central Valley Urban Institute
• Doreen Eley and Michael Duarte, Fresno Housing Authority
• Mike Prandini, BIA
• Greg Terzakis, California Apartment Association
• Mirna Garcia, Envision Fresno and Llaves De Tu Casa
• Reyes Ruiz, Union Bank
• Sabrina Brown, California Association of Realtors (C.A.R) and National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB)
• Rick Gonzales and Alicia Bohigian, Self Help Enterprises
• Pablo Estrada, CORE Home Loans
• Lucy Sandoval, Realtor; Vice President of National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals (NAHREP), Fresno
• Aldiva Rubalcava, NAHREP Fresno
• Rosie Lopez, Self Help Credit Union
• Charles Ratanavanh, Asian Real Estate Association of America (AREA)
• Martin Macias, GPUSD Superintendent, Golden Plains Unified School District
• Lori Villanueva, CHUSD Superintendent, Huron/Coalinga School District

Requests for consultation were extended to the following stakeholders but either no response was received or no one-on-one interview was completed. Some of these stakeholders participated in other community input processes, such as focus groups or stakeholder meetings:

• Janine Nkosi, Faith in the Valley
• Christine Barker and Jack Chang, Director of Special Projects, FIRM
• Adriana Cave, Assemi Group
• Sharrah Thompson, Tenants Together
• Nick Jones, SERVE Reedley
• Candie Caro, Proteus, Inc
• Priscilla Meza, Rape Counseling Services of Fresno (RCS)
• Jenny, Marjaree Mason Center
• Maria Pacheco, Kerman Care Center
• Edgar Olivera, Centro La Familia Advocacy Services
• Steve Hair, Mendota-area developer
• Roberto Castillo, Westside Family Preservation

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

In each consultation, the stakeholders were asked all or some of the following questions, depending on the type of organization interviewed:

• Opportunities and Concerns: What 3 top opportunities do you see for the future of housing in this jurisdiction? What are your 3 top concerns for the future of housing in this jurisdiction?
• Housing Preferences: What types of housing do your clients prefer? Is there adequate rental housing in this community? Are there opportunities for home ownership? Are there accessible rental units for seniors and persons with disabilities? Do your employees live in this jurisdiction? If not, why? Are there accessible rental units for seniors and persons with disabilities?
• Housing Barriers/Needs: What are the biggest barriers to finding affordable, decent housing? What are the unmet housing needs in this jurisdiction?
• Housing Constraints: Are there any city/county processes that you find difficult to navigate, increase costs, increase time, and/or increase uncertainty?
• Housing Conditions: How would you characterize the physical condition of housing in this jurisdiction? What opportunities do you see to improve housing in the future?
• Equity and Fair Housing: What factors limit or deny civil rights, fair housing choice, or equitable access to opportunity? What actions can be taken to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity (without displacement)? What actions can be taken to make living patterns more integrated and balanced?
• How has COVID affected the housing situation?

Common themes in stakeholder responses across service areas included concerns about lack of reliable access to water and other infrastructure such as internet access and cell phone reception. Several stakeholders mentioned overcrowding in many units and a strong need for maintenance in affordable rentals and in mobile homes throughout the region.

Stakeholders highlighted the unique needs of farmworker communities and the challenges they face in finding necessary information about affordable housing opportunities and applying for deed-restricted rental housing. For community members who are undocumented, it can be impossible to achieve homeownership and challenging to have the required proof of income for rental housing. Several stakeholders also identified lack of credit and low incomes as a barrier to many residents in accessing stable housing.

STUDY SESSIONS

The participating jurisdictions held study sessions with their respective planning commission and/or city council to review the Public Review Draft Housing Element. At each of the study sessions, staff and the consultants presented an overview of the draft Housing Element, facilitated a discussion with the planning commission and/or city council, and requested input before submitting the document to HCD for review.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

The participating jurisdictions provided public notice about these study sessions using their standard meeting notice procedures. Additionally, staff directly contacted local housing advocates, developers, social service providers, and key stakeholders to notify them of the study sessions.

The following study sessions were held in the county:

• Fresno County: September 15 and 20, 2022 (Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, respectively)
• City of Fresno: September 29, 2022 (City Council Study Session)
• City of Kerman: August 24, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of Firebaugh: September 12, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of Kingsburg: August 11, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of Coalinga: September 15, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of Mendota: October 25, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of San Joaquin: October 4, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of Reedley: October 11, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of Orange Cove: September 28, 2022 at (City Council Study Session)
• City of Selma: September 19, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of Fowler: August 2, 2022, (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of Huron: September 7, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of Parlier: October 20, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)
• City of Sanger: October 6, 2022 (Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session)

Council, commission, and board members had the opportunity to ask questions and give feedback about the project. Common themes included concerns about lack of water access and the tension between limits to water use and the ability of each jurisdiction to meet its RHNA requirements. Others highlighted the tension between State and local land use controls and expressed a desire for more local control.

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS

Throughout the summer and fall of 2022, the participating jurisdictions held workshops for key stakeholders and community members interested in housing issues in the county. Participants listened to a short introductory presentation about the Housing Element Update and were asked to provide input on key issues, barriers, and opportunities for creating affordable housing in the county. In total, 122 community members attended the workshops.

Individual jurisdictions made efforts to encourage participation, including handing out flyers at community events, advertising the meetings on the City’s website and in the City’s email newsletter, sending press releases to local newspapers, posting flyers at key locations, and contacting residents of affordable housing developments. Further efforts included posting the workshop information on an electronic reader board for

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

visibility as people enter the city, and making the event a push item on the City’s app. See Appendix 1 for a sample of the publicity materials.

The following community workshops were held in the county:

• Fresno County: September 19, 2022, from 2 to 3:30 pm and October 3, 2022, from 2 to 3:30 pm
• City of Firebaugh: August 18, 2022, from 1 to 2:30 pm
• City of Fresno: August 31, 2022, from 6 to 7:30 pm
• City of Huron: September 1, 2022, from 6 to 7:30 pm
• City of Kerman: October 5, 2022, from 6 to 7:30 pm
• City of Kingsburg: August 16, 2022, at 6:00 pm
• City of Coalinga: October 5, 2022, from 6 to 7:30 pm
• City of Mendota: October 6, 2022, from 6 - 7:00 pm
• City of Reedley: September 20, 2022, from 6 to 7:30 pm
• City of Selma: September 2, 2022, from 2 to 3:30 pm
• City of Parlier: September 21, 2022, from 6 to 7:30 pm
• City of Sanger: August 30, 2022, from 6 to 7:30 pm
• City of Orange Cove: September 22, 2022, from 6 to 7:30 pm

Across the 15 meetings, 101 community members registered and 122 attended. Depending on community need, language interpretation services were made available in English, Spanish, Hmong, and Punjabi. Interpretation in Spanish was provided at events in the City of Fresno and the Fresno County unincorporated areas and for the web live stream in Huron.

Additionally, in the following cities outreach took place at existing local events:

• City of San Joaquin: On August 10, 2022, from 5:00 to 6:30 pm, outreach consultants attended a community event hosted by the City of San Joaquin and the Golden Plains Unified School District.
• City of Fowler: On August 24, 2022, from 5:30 to 8:00 pm, outreach consultants attended a Wednesday Nights at the Park event.
• City of Orange Cove: Outreach consultants attended a Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission Food Distribution event to distribute fliers and collect community feedback.

Common themes in the feedback provided by attendees included concerns about the limitations caused by a lack of water access, a desire for more opportunities for home ownership and a more diverse mix of unit types, and concerns about increased housing costs and associated overcrowding.

STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUPS

Two stakeholder focus groups were held as part of the Housing Element development process. Stakeholders were presented with information about the Housing Element process, particularly sections regarding community needs and fair housing, and were given the opportunity to weigh in on community needs.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

The first focus group was held on October 25, 2022, from 9:30 to 11:30 am. The following stakeholders registered for the event, though not all were able to attend:

• Gregory Terzakis, CAA
• Mirna Garcia, Envision Realty Inc./NAHREP Fresno
• Kayla Camargo, Lance-Kashian
• Bernard Jimenez, County of Fresno
• Sharrah Thompson, Tenants Together
• Karl Schoettler, City of Firebaugh
• Michelle Zumwalt, City of Fresno
• Lily Cha, City of Clovis
• Thomas Gaffery, City of Fowler
• Kristine Cai, Fresno Council of Governments
• Tyrone Williams, Fresno Housing
• Jeff O'Neal, City of Parlier
• Sophia Pagoulatos, City of Fresno Planning & Development Dept
• Rodney Horton, City of Reedley
• Rob Terry, City of Selma
• Casey Lauderdale, City of Fresno
• Yvette Quiroga, Fresno County
• Clancy Taylor, CCRH
• Dr. K Jones, Jr., Handle It Helping Hands, Inc.
• Gregory Terzakis, CAA
• John Holt, City of Clovis
• Mariah Thompson, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
• Andy Hausler, City of Clovis

Participants expressed concerns about corporate investment groups purchasing large amounts of local housing. Housing quality was identified as an opportunity for local investment, particularly in unincorporated areas, and participants cited mobile home repair funding as a current gap in available programming, along with mobile home financing. One participant suggested that a program to help mobile homeowners pay for back taxes is necessary, as a statewide amnesty program ended, and that a program to help mobile home renters purchase their units from corporate acquisition companies would help them to stay in their homes. Lack of internet access among residents of mobile home parks has made it difficult for those residents to apply for necessary building permits in order to comply with eviction notices.

According to participants, undocumented community members don’t seem to be served by current housing stock or programming. One participant expressed a concern that monolingual speakers of languages other than English may be taken advantage of by the current housing environment.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Credit and income levels were two major barriers to decent housing in local communities that participants identified. Attendees noted that programs with a “sweat equity” component, such as those offered by Self Help Enterprises, might serve the community well. Additionally, housing types that promote intergenerational housing without forcing overcrowding situations would allow families to share costs.

One participant identified small lot sizes and overreliance on commercial zoning in the past Housing Element cycle as an issue to avoid while developing this cycle’s sites inventories. Another expressed an interest in seeing large lots in the unincorporated county area subdivided into smaller lots. Local residents fear displacement and so have concerns about the development of new housing.

Increased construction costs were a concern raised by several attendees. One participant noted that there is an active market for the development of ADUs within the region, but that there are few housing developers in some cities. Material costs are also unsustainable in the area.

The second focus group was held on November 15th from 9:30 to 11:30 am and was attended by the following stakeholders:

• David Rivas, NCCRC
• Mike Prandini, BIA
• Doa Lur, The Fresno Center
• Mirna Garcia, Envision Fresno
• Phil Skei, City of Fresno
• Rob Terry, City of Selma
• Karl Schoettler, City of Firebaugh
• David Brletic, City of Sanger
• Sophia Pagoulatos, City of Fresno

Some participants expressed concern that some of the data in the Housing Element might be outdated, particularly in light of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, though others felt it was accurate.

Attendees highlighted the gap between program eligibility and the ability to afford available housing, as some applicants for affordable housing programs make too much money to qualify but still can’t afford housing without the program’s assistance. At a recent workshop for community members interested in participating in a down payment assistance program, none of the attendees qualified because their incomes were higher than 80 percent of the area median income. For other community members, being able to show an income level of at least twice the rent of an apartment in the area is impossible.

Lack of cultural competency of homeless services has caused issues for some local members of the Asian/Pacific Islander community. One attendee mentioned that members of this community who are experiencing homelessness prefer to couch surf within the community rather than use formal homeless services, which leads to an undercounting of community members experiencing homelessness.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Several participants expressed concern about the siting of recent affordable housing projects. In the city of Fresno, a recent project was sited near a rendering plant and far from amenities. Many families in the area require a car to access work and school as well as other amenities, and in many cases families only have one car, which limits their access to these resources if they are far away.

Increases in housing construction and development costs were highlighted as a barrier to meeting community housing needs. Infrastructure costs and district fees, along with increased labor and materials costs, have added to construction costs by a significant amount. This is compounded by competing interests among State agencies, such as limiting water supply while also increasing the amount of housing available. One participant expressed a concern that inclusionary zoning and rent control might provide further cost pressure.

Note: One additional focus group meeting will occur in April 2023. Feedback will be summarized and included.

FARMWORKER AND FARM EMPLOYER SURVEYS

Fresno County completed a survey of farm employers and farmworkers about local housing needs. From September 2021 to January 2022, 170 farm employers were surveyed, and from February to July 2022, 240 farmworkers were surveyed.

Farm worker survey questions included the status of participants’ current housing situation and their preferred housing. Surveys were conducted verbally by County Public Works and Planning staff, and the answers were recorded on paper by the surveyors.

Outreach efforts were scheduled in advance, primarily in April and May 2022. Staff contacted multiple food processing plants, farmers, and labor contractors in Fresno County regarding the on-site surveys or permission to collect an interest list of agriculture workers willing to participate in the survey. All employers were initially contacted by phone. Many of the agencies contacted refused to participate during the initial call. Some employers provided an email contact and attempted to set up dates to conduct the surveys with their employees, but the staff did not receive any responses to email requests. Most of the employers were unwilling to work with the “County” or a government agency.

Additional methods of outreach had to be utilized to reach the farmworkers. These methods included outreach to churches in unincorporated areas of Fresno County, attending community meetings hosted by the County and other agencies such as Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, door-to-door outreach, and outreach to food distribution sites throughout Fresno County.

One of the most successful methods was the outreach to various food distribution sites throughout the county. Outreach efforts focused on sites with a dense farmworker population, unincorporated areas of Fresno County (Biola, Caruthers, Del Rey, Easton, Huron, Lanare, Laton, Raisin City, Riverdale, Cantua Creek, and Tranquility), and the participating city of Mendota. Survey participants completed surveys while they waited in line at food distribution sites. County staff also completed surveys at two apartment buildings in the communities of Biola and Del Rey that had been specifically funded to house farmworkers. Staff conducted

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

surveys on two separate occasions by going door to door in unincorporated communities and asking occupants if they would like to participate in the survey.

Farm Employer Survey Results for Desired Farm Labor/Worker Housing County staff surveyed a total of 170 farm employers, 25 of whom currently have some type of farm labor housing on site, though not all of this housing is necessarily currently in use. Five of those employers would consider retaining the existing farm labor housing. Of the 145 farm employers who do not have any farm labor housing on-site, 28 would consider adding labor housing as single houses or cottages. One farm employer specified labor housing as apartments. The type of farm operation was not explicitly captured through the survey, but staff was able to determine through the phone conversations that dairy farmers were the most interested in providing on-site housing because their industry requires 24-hour staffing. All respondents said that they would consider providing on-site housing if financing was provided by the government or through grants.

Farmworkers Survey Results for Desired Farm Labor/Worker Housing County staff surveyed 240 farmworkers, including 100 homeowners. Of the nonhomeowners surveyed, five specified a desire to live in owned farm labor housing; four of those specified housing as single-family residences. Only five farmworkers surveyed desired to live in some type of farm labor housing. Further analysis revealed that 47 percent of nonhomeowner households desired homeownership, with single-family residence as the majority choice.

In summary, the surveys indicate that traditional farm labor or worker camp housing is not desired by the Fresno County farmworkers or laborers. Even though a small number of Fresno County farm employers expressed that they might be interested, it would only be if the housing was subsidized. Survey results indicate that employers might have difficulties finding farmworkers to live at those housing units if they were constructed.

TRAVEL SURVEY

The Fresno Council of Governments completed a survey of travel patterns and needs in collaboration with seven other MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley. Results from this survey are primarily used in the calibration and validation of travel demand models. Results from the first round of outreach were available at the time of the publication of the draft Housing Element. This outreach was completed in the spring of 2022 and received 3,753 responses.

Several survey questions allowed respondents to provide information about their current housing situation, current barriers to housing access, and desires for new housing options. Among those who responded to a question regarding barriers to homeownership, the largest group that selected a response (17.1 percent of all survey respondents) stated that they don’t wish to own a home in the community. A slightly smaller group (16.1 percent) answered that they do not currently have the financial resources for mortgage payments. Over one-third of respondents (41.8 percent) identified their neighborhood’s proximity to school, work, or shopping as the best thing about the neighborhood. More than half of respondents (56.9 percent) selected that they wanted to see more single-family homes in their community. The two housing categories that received the next-largest

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

rate of responses were permanent supportive housing (7.0 percent) and apartments (6.3 percent). Most respondents to the survey had not experienced discrimination in housing. The majority of respondents had either one or two cars in their household and were nearly evenly distributed between renters and homeowners. Most respondents lived in a detached single-family house.

TRANSLATION

Flyers, PowerPoints, and language interpretation services were made available in English and Spanish and, depending on community need, Hmong and Punjabi. Interpretation in Spanish was requested and provided at community workshops in the City of Fresno and the unincorporated county areas and for the web live stream of the community workshop in Huron.

OUTREACH NOTICING

Community workshops were advertised through a variety of methods, including physical flyers posted and distributed at central community locations and affordable housing projects. Digital fliers were also distributed to local stakeholders and through the Fresno COG email list and were posted to the Housing Element project website as well as to City websites and Facebook pages. Materials were made available in both English and Spanish in all jurisdictions, and in Hmong and Punjabi for workshops in the City of Fresno.

Council, commission, and board of supervisor's study sessions were noticed by individual jurisdictions in accordance with the jurisdiction's standard public meeting noticing procedures.

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Regional Housing Needs Assessment ............................................................................................ 2-1 Population Trends and Characteristics ............................................................................................. 2-2 Household Trends and Characteristics ............................................................................................. 2-9 Employment Trends and Characteristics ....................................................................................... 2-13 Population and Employment Projections....................................................................................... 2-21 Housing Inventory and Market Conditions .................................................................................... 2-22 Housing Cost and Affordability ....................................................................................................... 2-35 Special Needs ................................................................................................................................. 2-39 Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing and At-Risk Status ........................................................... 2-70

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

TABLES

Table 2-1 Change in Total Population (2000-2022)............................................................................ 2-2 Table 2-2 Change in Household Population (2010-2020) ................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-3 Population by Age Group (2020) ....................................................................................... 2-5 Table 2-4 Change in Households (2010-2020)................................................................................... 2-9 Table 2-5 Persons per Household (2020)........................................................................................... 2-10 Table 2-6 HUD Income Limits by Persons per Household (2022)..................................................... 2-11 Table 2-7 State of California Income Categories ................................................................................ 2-11 Table 2-8 HCD Income Limits by Person per Household (2022)...................................................... 2-12 Table 2-9 Jurisdictions with Over-Representation of Very Low-Income (VLI) Families (2018) ........... 2-13 Table 2-10 Employment by Industry (2020)....................................................................................... 2-17 Table 2-11 Fresno County Job Growth by Industry Sector (2018-2028)............................................ 2-20 Table 2-12 Fresno County Population Forecast (2025-2050) ............................................................. 2-21 Table 2-13 Population of Fresno County and California (1980-2040) ............................................... 2-22 Table 2-14 Fresno County Employment Forecast (2025-2040) .......................................................... 2-22 Table 2-15 Housing Stock (2010-2022) ............................................................................................. 2-23 Table 2-16 Affordable vs. Market-Rate Multifamily Housing (1980-2013)......................................... 2-25 Table 2-17 Housing Tenure (2020).................................................................................................... 2-26 Table 2-18 Housing Stock and Vacancy Rate (2010-2022) ................................................................ 2-27 Table 2-19 Age of Housing Stock (2020)........................................................................................... 2-28 Table 2-20, Overpayment by Tenure (2018)....................................................................................... 2-31 Table 2-21 Overcrowding by Tenure (2020) ...................................................................................... 2-34 Table 2-22 Home Sales Recorded in 2017, 2021, and 2022............................................................... 2-36 Table 2-23 Residential Rental Rate Comparison (2014-2021)............................................................. 2-37 Table 2-24 Fresno County Ability to Pay (2022)................................................................................ 2-38 Table 2-25 HUD Fair-Market Rent by Bedroom (2022) ..................................................................... 2-39 Table 2-26 Percentage of the Senior Population (65 and Over) (2020) ............................................... 2-40 Table 2-27 Senior Households by Tenure (2020)................................................................................ 2-41 Table 2-28 Seniors with Disabilities (2020)........................................................................................ 2-43 Table 2-29 Large Households by Tenure (2020) ................................................................................. 2-45 Table 2-30 Single Female-Headed Households (2020) ....................................................................... 2-46 Table 2-31 Female-Headed Households in Poverty (2020) ................................................................. 2-47 Table 2-32 Persons with a Disability (2020) ....................................................................................... 2-49 Table 2-33 Disability by Type (2020) ................................................................................................. 2-49 Table 2-34 Clients in Fresno County with Developmental Disabilities by Age (2022)........................ 2-50 Table 2-35 Total Unsheltered and Sheltered Homeless Count: Fresno County (2022)........................ 2-52 Table 2-36 Estimated Number of Homeless Persons by Jurisdiction................................................... 2-53 Table 2-37 Comparison of 2022 and 2023 Point In Time Homeless Count ........................................ 2-54 Table 2-38 Bed Inventory by Program Type, Fresno County and Madera County (2022).................. 2-54 Table 2-39 Emergency Shelters in Fresno County (2023) ................................................................... 2-56 Table 2-40 Residential Care Facilities (2023)..................................................................................... 2-58 Table 2-41 Farmworkers in Fresno County by Days Worked (2017) .................................................. 2-61 Table 2-42 Estimated Farmworkers (2020) ........................................................................................ 2-62

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-43 Migrant Worker Student Population................................................................................... 2-65 Table 2-44 Limited English-Speaking Households .............................................................................. 2-67 Table 2-45 Resources for Farmworkers ............................................................................................. 2-68 Table 2-46 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure (2018) ...................................................... 2-70 Table 2-47 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure and Overpayment - Fresno County, Clovis, and Coalinga (2018)............................................................................................................... 2-71 Table 2-48 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure and Overpayment – Firebaugh, Fowler, and Fresno (2018).................................................................................................................. 2-71 Table 2-49 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure and Overpayment – Firebaugh, Fowler, and Fresno (2018).................................................................................................................. 2-72 Table 2-50 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure and Overpayment – Mendota, Orange Cove, and Parlier (2018)........................................................................................................ 2-72 Table 2-51 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure and Overpayment - Reedley, Sanger, and San Joaquin (2018) ......................................................................................................... 2-73 Table 2-52 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure and Overpayment – Selma and Unincorporated Fresno County (2018) ......................................................................................................................... 2-73 Table 2-53 Qualified Entities (2022) .................................................................................................. 2-75

FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Race and Ethnicity (2020) ................................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 2-2. Median Household Income (2020) .................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-3. Employment by Industry (2020)......................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2-3. Employment by Industry (2020) (cont) .............................................................................. 2-16 Figure2-4. Unemployment Rate (2022) ............................................................................................... 2-19 Figure 2-5. Fresno County Average Annual Job Openings by Entry-Level Education (2010-2020) ...... 2-21 Figure 2-6. Median Sales Price for Fresno County............................................................................... 2-35 Figure 2-7. Farm Employment, Fresno County..................................................................................... 2-62 Figure 2-8. Farm Labor in Fresno County............................................................................................ 2-63

(blank page)

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

⬚ figure

This section provides a comprehensive assessment of housing needs as the basis for developing responsive policies and implementation programs. This section summarizes demographic, employment, and housing characteristics for the jurisdictions in Fresno County. The main source of the information is the pre-approved data package for Fresno County provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which is noted in the sources for the data tables in this section. The pre-approved data package uses several data sources, including the 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) and the California Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates. Other sources of information in this section include the Fresno County Council of Governments (FCOG), the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and local economic data (e.g., home sales prices, rents, wages). It is important to note that the ACS data is a multi-year estimate based on sample data and has a large margin of error, especially for smaller cities. One jurisdiction (Clovis) did not participate in the multi-jurisdictional housing element and is not represented in the tables or analysis.

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

POPULATION TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS

Population Change

The DOF provides population estimates for each jurisdiction, shown in Table 2-1, Change in Total Population (2000-2022). Analyzing population change can help assess where there may be a need for new housing and services.

Fresno County had a total population of approximately 1,011,499 in 2022. More than half the countywide population resides in the city of Fresno. The unincorporated area has the next-largest population of 158,846, followed by the city of Clovis with a population of 124,523. The remaining cities have populations of about 26,000 or less.

The countywide average annual growth was 1.2 percent between 2000 and 2022, compared to -0.01 percent statewide. The city with the greatest average annual population change from 2000 to 2022 was Kerman, with a 4.5 percent increase, followed by Fowler and Clovis with 3.6 and 3.7 percent average annual growth, respectively.

Table 2-1 Change in Total Population (2000-2022)

Source: Department of Finance, E5, 2020-2022.

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Household and Group Quarters Population

The total population includes the household population and people living in group quarters. A household includes all persons who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence. This may include a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. Group quarters include such places as college residence halls, residential treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, correctional facilities, and workers’ dormitories.

As shown in Table 2-2, Change in Household Population (2010-2020), the population living in group quarters in most of the jurisdictions was very small. However, the group quarters population in Fresno, Coalinga, and the unincorporated county were much larger. In Coalinga, this group quarters population primarily resides in the Pleasant Valley State Prison and the Coalinga State Hospital. In Fresno, three local detention facilities are located downtown with a fourth located two miles south of downtown.

Although the total population in Coalinga, shown in Table 2-1, increased between 2010 and 2020, there was a reduction in the group quarters population (at Pleasant Valley State Prison) as a result of recent changes to state and federal policies. As shown in Table 2-2, the group quarters population in Coalinga decreased from 6,335 in 2010 to 4,499 in 2020, while the household population slightly increased.

Table 2-2 Change in Household Population (2010-2020)

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Source: Department of Finance, E5, 2021-2022.

Age Characteristics

Although population growth strongly affects total demand for new housing, housing needs are also influenced by age characteristics. Typically, different age groups have distinct lifestyles, family characteristics, and incomes. As people move through each stage of life, their housing needs and preferences also change. Age characteristics are therefore important in planning for the changing housing needs of residents.

Table 2-3, Population by Age Group (2020), shows a breakdown of each jurisdiction’s population by age group and the median age. The age groups include school-age children (ages 5-17), college-age students (ages 18-24), young adults (ages 25-44), middle-aged adults (ages 45-64), and seniors (ages 65+). A population with a large percentage of seniors may require unique housing that accommodates disabilities, located near health care, transit, and other services. College students may need more affordable homes. Young adults and middle-aged adults, which make up the workforce, may need homes near employment or transit centers with adequate size for families. San Joaquin, Orange Cove, and Mendota have a large proportion of school-age students, while Mendota, Orange Cove and Coalinga have a large percentage of college-age populations in association with colleges (Fresno City College, California State University Fresno, Fresno Pacific University, and California Christian College). Fowler and Unincorporated Fresno County had a significantly high percentage of seniors followed by Clovis and Kingsburg. Seniors as a cohort on average comprise 12 percent of the population, in contrast to the young and middle-aged adults. Mendota and Orange Cove have the lowest median age at about 25. Kingsburg has the highest median age at about 34, nine years higher. Median age data for the unincorporated areas was not available.

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-3 Population by Age Group (2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | NOVEMBER 2023 2-5

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This page intentionally left blank.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Population by Race/Ethnicity

Figure 2-1, Race and Ethnicity (2020) shows race and ethnicity of residents in Fresno County jurisdictions. The majority of the population in most jurisdictions – except for the unincorporated county, Fresno, Kingsburg and Clovis – is Hispanic (of any race). Countywide, more than half of the population identified as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. The populations of Huron, Mendota, Parlier, and San Joaquin City are all more than 95.0 percent Hispanic. Clovis has the lowest percentage at 30.5 percent. The second-largest population group is White, Not-Hispanic, with a high of 48.2 percent in Clovis. The populations in the Clovis, Kerman, Fowler, Fresno and unincorporated county have Asian populations above 5.0 percent, with the highest proportions in Fresno and Fowler.

FIGURE 2-1. RACE AND ETHNICITY (2020)

⬚ figure

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

Note: Other race includes Two or More Races, and Some Other Race.

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This page intentionally left blank.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

HOUSEHOLD TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS

A household refers to the people occupying a home, such as a family, a single person, or unrelated persons living together. This estimate does not include people living in group homes. Families often prefer single-family homes to accommodate children, while single persons often occupy smaller apartments or condominiums. Single-person households often include seniors living alone or young adults.

Historical Growth

Table 2-4, Change in Households (2010-2020), shows the change in the number of households by jurisdiction between 2010 and 2020. Orange Cove had the most significant average annual growth in the number of households from 2010 to 2020 (3.0 percent) followed by Huron, Fowler, Parlier, and Coalinga with just under 2.2 percent growth. The unincorporated area and Kingsburg lost population (-0.2 percent). The cities with the slowest amount of growth were San Joaquin followed by Firebaugh and Reedley, at 4.2 percent, 6.3 percent, and 7.0 percent respectively.

Table 2-4 Change in Households (2010-2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Household Formation and Composition

Table 2-5, Persons per Household (2020), shows the average household size for Fresno County in 2020. A higher persons-per-household ratio indicates a larger proportion of families, especially large families, and fewer single-person households. The Fresno region has larger households than the statewide average. Countywide, the average household size was 3.1 persons per household in 2020, compared to 2.9 statewide. The two cities with the largest average household size in 2020 were Mendota (4.3) and Sanger (4.4), followed closely by Parlier (4.0), and Firebaugh, Huron, and Orange Cove (3.8). The cities with the lowest persons per household ratio were Clovis, Coalinga and Fresno (3.0), followed by Fowler (3.1) and Kingsburg (3.2). The larger household size throughout the county indicates a need for housing units with adequate number of rooms to accommodate families without overcrowding.

Table 2-5 Persons per Household (2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

Household Income

Household income is a key factor affecting housing opportunity, determining a household’s ability to balance housing costs with other basic necessities. Income levels can vary considerably among households based on employment, occupation, educational attainment, tenure, household type, location of residence, and race/ethnicity, among other factors.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Income Definitions and Income Limits

The state and federal governments classify household income into several categories based on the relationship to the county area median income (AMI), adjusted for household size. The HUD estimate of AMI is used to set income limits for eligibility in federal housing programs. The income categories include:

• Extremely low-income households, which earn up to 30 percent of the AMI;
• Very low-income households, which earn between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI;
• Low-income households, which earn between 51 and 80 percent of the AMI; and
• Median-income households, which earn 100 percent of the AMI.

For all income categories, income limits are defined for various household sizes based on a four-person household as a reference point. Income limits for larger or smaller households are calculated by HUD (see Table 2-6, HUD Income Limits by Persons per Household). According to HUD, the AMI for a four-person household in Fresno County was $72,900 in 2022.

Table 2-6 HUD Income Limits by Persons per Household (2022)

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2022.

HCD uses the income categories shown in Table 2-7, State of California Income Categories, to determine eligibility for state housing programs. HCD’s methodology for calculating AMI is slightly different from HUD’s methodology; therefore, the AMI and income limits vary.

Table 2-7 State of California Income Categories

Source: Section 50063.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.

The State income limits for Fresno County are shown in Table 2-8, HCD Income Limits by Person per Household (2022). The California 2022 AMI for a four-person household in Fresno County is $80,300 (compared to the federal estimate of $72,900). A four-person household earning $62,300 or less would be considered low-income.

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-8 HCD Income Limits by Person per Household (2022)

*Percentage Estimate of AMI: $80,300 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2022.

Median-Household Income

Figure 2-2, Median Household Income (2020), shows actual median household income for the jurisdictions in Fresno County, as reported by the 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates. This median income is for all households, regardless of household size. The median household income in California was $78,672 in 2020, higher than the Fresno County median of $57,109. The city with the highest median household income in 2020 was Clovis at $84,119, followed by the Kingsburg at $73,281. The city with the lowest median income was Orange Cove at $25,587, with five cities, Firebaugh, Huron, Mendota, Parlier, and San Joaquin with incomes below $40,000.

FIGURE 2-2. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2020)

⬚ figure

Note: Data for unincorporated area is based on compilation of available CDP data. Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

According to the 2014-2018 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, Firebaugh, Huron, Orange Cove, Sanger, and Selma all have a higher representation of very low-income households than the countywide average rate of 12.8 percent, as shown in Table 2-9, Jurisdictions with Over-Representation of Very Low-Income (VLI) Families (2018). This data suggests that these households may experience challenges in finding housing affordable within their incomes.

Table 2-9 Jurisdictions with Over-Representation of Very Low-Income (VLI) Families (2018)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- CHAS (2014-2018)

EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS

Fresno County’s economy has a significant impact on housing needs. Employment growth typically results in increased housing demand in areas that serve as regional employment centers. Moreover, the type of occupation and associated income levels for new employment also affect housing demand. This section describes the economic and employment patterns in Fresno County and how these patterns influence housing needs.

Employment and Wage Scale by Industry

Occupations held by residents determine the income earned by a household and their corresponding ability to afford housing. Higher-paying jobs provide broader housing opportunities for residents, while lower-paying jobs limit housing options. Understanding employment and occupation patterns can provide insight into present housing needs.

Figure 2-3, Employment by Industry (2020), and Table 2-10, Employment by Industry, show employment by industry for each jurisdiction. In Fresno County, the most common industry, at 24.7 percent, is educational services, health care and social assistance (shown in Figure 2-3 in red). This industry is also the most common in Clovis, Coalinga, Fowler, Fresno City, Kerman, Kingsburg, Sanger, Selma, and the unincorporated area.

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining holds a significant percentage of employment in Firebaugh, Huron, Mendota, Orange Cove, Parlier, Reedley, and San Joaquin. Huron has the highest percentage at 63.6 percent. These areas are more rural and strongly based in agriculture.

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This page intentionally left blank.

FIGURE 2-3. EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (2020)

⬚ figure

■ Fresno County ■ Clovis ■ Coalinga ■ Firebaugh ■ Fowler ■ Fresno ■ Huron ■ Kerman ■ Kingburg

SECTION 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

FIGURE 2-3. EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (2020) (CONT)

⬚ figure

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

2-16 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | NOVEMBER 2023

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-10 Employment by Industry (2020)

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | NOVEMBER 2023 2-17

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Unemployment

According to the California EDD, in 2020, the statewide unemployment rate was 4.0 percent. The unemployment rate in Fresno County was significantly higher than the statewide rate at 5.8 percent. Figure 2-4, Unemployment Rate (2022), shows unemployment in Fresno County by jurisdiction. The city with the highest unemployment rate was Firebaugh at 14.4 percent, followed by Huron at 12.9 percent. Parlier and Clovis had the lowest unemployment rate at about 3 percent, followed by Kingsburg at 3.5 percent, and Fowler at 3.6 percent. The high unemployment rate in many of the jurisdictions suggests that residents may be experiencing barriers to accessing employment opportunities and therefore may be at risk for housing displacement or homelessness.

FIGURE 2-4. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (2022)

⬚ figure

Source: California Employment Development Department, June 2022.

Labor Force Trends

Table 2-11, Fresno County Job Growth by Industry Sector (2018-2028), shows employment projections by industry sector in Fresno County from 2018 to 2028. According to EDD data, industry employment in Fresno County is expected to grow by 30,800 jobs between 2018 and 2028, to an estimated 452,000 by 2022. Total nonfarm employment is projected to gain approximately 28,300 jobs by 2022. The health care and social assistance, educational services (private), leisure and hospitality sectors are expected to account for approximately 50 percent of all nonfarm job growth. The number of jobs in the educational services (private) industry is expected to increase by 17.8 percent. Health care and social assistance is projected to grow by 18.2 percent.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-11 Fresno County Job Growth by Industry Sector (2018-2028)

Source: California Employment Development Department, 2018-2028 Fresno Industry Employment Projections, published April 2021.

Figure 2-5, Fresno County Average Annual Job Openings by Entry-Level Education (2010-2020) shows the average annual job openings by entry-level education. According to California EDD, most expected job openings between 2010 and 2020 will require a high school diploma or less. Registered nurses are the only occupation among the top 10 occupations with the largest number of job openings that has an entry education level requirement higher than a high school diploma. Of the top 20 occupations on the list of fastest-growing jobs, 13 are in a construction-related field due to the expected recovery in the construction industry over the projection period. Occupations requiring less education generally correspond to lower earnings potential, suggesting that housing affordable to lower-income households will continue to be needed throughout Fresno County.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

FIGURE 2-5. FRESNO COUNTY AVERAGE ANNUAL JOB OPENINGS BY ENTRY-LEVEL EDUCATION (2010-2020)

⬚ figure

Source: California Employment Development Department, 2018-2028 Fresno County Projection Highlights. April 2021.

POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

Table 2-12, Fresno County Population Forecast (2025-2050), and Table 2-14, Fresno County Employment Forecast (2025-2050), show population and employment forecasts, which are from the Fresno County 2019-2050 growth projections prepared for the Fresno County Council of Governments.

Population Forecast

Based on the forecast shown in Table 2-12, countywide population will grow to an estimated 1,240,090 persons by the year 2050. This assumes an average annual growth rate of 0.6 percent between 2025 and 2050. In the past, the county population has increased at rates of 2.0 percent a year from 1970 to 1990, and 1.8 percent a year from 2010 to 2014. During the next two and a half decades (2025-2050), 170,290, or 15.9 percent more people are expected to reside in Fresno County.

Table 2-12 Fresno County Population Forecast (2025-2050)

Source: Fresno County 2019-2050 Growth Projections.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Fresno County’s share of California’s population is expected to steadily increase, as shown in Table 2-13, Population of Fresno County and California (1980-2040). From 1980 to 2010, the County share of the State’s population grew from 2.2 to 2.5 percent. By 2040, that share is expected to increase to 2.7 percent, indicating that housing at adequate price points and sizes to accommodate the increased population will be needed.

Table 2-13 Population of Fresno County and California (1980-2040)

Source: Fresno County 2019-2050 Growth Projections, 1980, 1990, 2010 and 2020 American Community Census and DOF projections (2010-2016).

Employment Forecast

Table 2-14 shows the employment forecast for Fresno County by 2050. The Fresno County employment level will increase during the 2025-2040 forecast period. However, the unemployment rate will continue to be higher than the California average.

Table 2-14 Fresno County Employment Forecast (2025-2040)

Source: Fresno County 2019-2050 Growth Projections.

HOUSING INVENTORY AND MARKET CONDITIONS

This section describes the housing characteristics and conditions that affect housing needs in Fresno County. Important housing stock characteristics include housing type, tenure, vacancy rates, age, condition, cost, and affordability.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Housing Stock Profile

Table 2-15, Housing Stock (2010-2022) shows estimates from the DOF of the number of housing units by type for each jurisdiction based on reported building and demolition permits. DOF reported that Fresno County had 343,513 housing units in January 2022. Of the total units, 70.3 percent were single family, 25.4 percent were multifamily, and 4.3 percent were mobile homes. The unincorporated area had the highest percentage of single-family homes in 2022 (82.7 percent) and mobile homes (11.7), with Huron having the lowest at 38.3 percent. Conversely, Huron had the highest percentage of multifamily units (55.6 percent), followed by Fresno at 32.9 percent, and Orange Cove at 32.8 percent. While mobile homes comprise 4.3 percent of housing stock countywide, 11.7 percent of housing stock in the unincorporated county are mobile homes, followed by mobile homes representing 10.9 percent of housing stock in Coalinga.

Countywide, the proportion of multifamily units slightly decreased by 1.4 percent between 2010 and 2022 in Fresno County, although in several smaller cities, including San Joaquin and Parlier, the proportion of multifamily units slightly increased. These two jurisdictions also have the lowest median household incomes in the county, suggesting these additional units may have been affordable housing complexes.

Clovis, in particular, had the most multifamily units constructed during the period for any of the larger cities (1,376), and also the second highest percentage of multifamily construction at nearly 15.7 percent of all new construction followed by the City of Reedley 23.9 percent increase. The larger city of Kerman and two smaller cities of Fowler and Kingsburg, which together total about 13,367 residents, had a combined total of 2,398 multifamily units constructed during the period.

Table 2-15 Housing Stock (2010-2022)

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | NOVEMBER 2023 2-23

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Source: Department of Finance, E5, 2021-2022.

A large proportion of the multifamily development that has occurred after the boom of the 1980s was subsidized through a variety of public housing and tax credit programs targeted to low-income residents (i.e., non-market rate affordable housing). As summarized in Table 2-16, Affordable vs. Market-Rate Multifamily Housing (1980-2013), about 87 percent of the units developed during the 1980s were strictly market rate, compared to an estimated 69.0 percent in the 1990s and 65 percent between 2000 and 2013. When subsidized affordable units are excluded, the production of multifamily units after the mid-1980s has been even more limited.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-16 Affordable vs. Market-Rate Multifamily Housing (1980-2013)

Source: CoStar Group and Economic and Planning Systems, http://www.valleyblueprint.org/files/SJV%20Infill%20Development%20Analysis_Final%20Report_9-11-14.pdf, 2014.

Housing Tenure

Housing tenure (owner vs. renter) influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential mobility is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing turning over at a much lower rate than rental housing. For example, in Fresno County, the median year that owners moved into their current unit was 2001, whereas the median year that renters moved into their current unit was after 2010 (2011-2013 ACS). Table 2-17, Housing Tenure (2020), shows tenure by jurisdiction in 2020. Most jurisdictions have more owner-occupied units than renter-occupied units. The unincorporated county has the highest percentage of owner units at 68.9 percent, followed by Kingsburg at 68.9 percent. Huron has the lowest percentage of owner units at 20.9 percent. When compared to proportion of housing unit by type, this data indicates that single-family detached units comprise a portion of the rental stock in the majority of jurisdictions.

According to the Fresno County Affordable Housing Needs Report published by the California Housing Partnership Corporation in May 2022, asking rents in Fresno County increased by 10.7 percent between 2020 and 2021. According to the same report, although rents in Fresno County are typically lower than in other counties in the state, renters need to earn 1.6 times minimum wage to afford the average asking rent in Fresno County. Based on previous analysis of employment forecasts and income levels, increasing rental costs in Fresno County may pose a barrier to finding adequate housing opportunities for lower-income households.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-17 Housing Tenure (2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

Vacancy Rate

Table 2-18, Housing Stock and Vacancy Rate (2010-2022), shows housing units and vacancies in unincorporated Fresno County and the cities according to the 2010 and 2020 U.S. Census. The vacancy rate indicates the match between the demand and supply of housing. Vacancy rates of 5.0 percent to 6.0 percent for rental housing and 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent for ownership housing are generally considered optimum. A higher vacancy rate may indicate an excess supply of units, a softer market, and result in lower housing prices. A lower vacancy rate may indicate a shortage of housing and high competition for available housing, which generally leads to higher housing prices and diminished affordability.

As Table 2-18 shows, the vacancy rate decreased in all communities between 2010 and 2022, except in Clovis, Huron, and Reedley. In 2022, the unincorporated area and the city of Firebaugh had the highest vacancy rate at 12.2 and 8.1 percent, respectively. The vacancy rate in the unincorporated area was still the highest in 2022, even though it decreased to 12.2 percent. However, much of the eastern unincorporated county is adjacent to the Kings Canyon and Sierra National Forests and many of the vacant units may be vacation rentals. Therefore, the vacancy rates in Firebaugh and Reedley, at 8.1 and 6.8 percent respectively, may be more indicative of a housing stock issue.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-18 Housing Stock and Vacancy Rate (2010-2022)

Source: Department of Finance, E5, 2021-2022.

Housing Conditions

Housing conditions are an important indicator of quality of life in Fresno County communities. If not regularly maintained, structures can deteriorate as they age over time and discourage reinvestment, depress neighborhood property values, and even become health hazards. Maintaining and improving housing quality is an important goal for communities.

Housing age can be an indicator of the need for housing rehabilitation. Generally, housing older than 30 years (i.e., built before 1990), may require repair and improvement of such features as siding; fencing; roofs; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, while housing units older than 50 years (pre-1970) are more likely to require complete rehabilitation of systems such as roofing, plumbing, structural, and electrical.

Table 2-19, Age of Housing Stock (2020), shows the age of the housing stock in Fresno County. In almost all jurisdictions, more than half of the housing stock is over 30 years old. In Fresno County overall, 64.5 percent of the housing stock is over 30 years old, with 78.8 percent of the housing stock in the unincorporated county over 30 years, followed by Fresno City at 66.7 percent. These units may require repairs or improvements. The city with the highest percentage of new housing is Kerman, followed by Huron, Firebaugh, and Clovis. Less than 35.0 percent of the housing stock in all jurisdictions, except in unincorporated county and Parlier, is over 50 years old, with seven of the remaining 13 jurisdictions having between 30.0 and 35.0 percent of their housing stock over 50 years of age. Overall, almost one-third of Fresno County’s housing stock is over 50 years of age and may require significant repairs in the near future to maintain inhabitability. The cost of repairs is often out of the capability of lower-income households.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-19 Age of Housing Stock (2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Most jurisdictions have not completed housing conditions surveys in recent years due to limited financial resources for conducting the survey or for providing rehabilitation assistance. However, staff from the local jurisdictions provided rough estimates of the number of housing units needing rehabilitation or replacement based on code enforcement cases and local knowledge of the communities.

According to a code enforcement officer in Selma, 55 homes (0.8 percent of the housing stock) are in need of rehabilitation, and none are in need of replacement. The majority of the homes are in the neighborhood south of Rose Avenue and west of McCall Avenue.

According to a contract staff planner in Huron, 197 homes (12 percent of the housing stock) are in need of rehabilitation, and 49 (3 percent of the housing stock) are in need of replacement.

According to a staff planner in Sanger, 43 homes (0.5 percent of the housing stock) are in of rehabilitation, and 7 (less than 0.1 percent of the housing stock) are in need of replacement. The neighborhoods with the greatest need for rehabilitation are in the southeast and central core.

According to code enforcement in Reedley, there has been an average of 2 cases of substandard conditions per year during the 5th cycle planning period. Based on this, and local experience, the City estimates that less than 1 percent of the housing stock is in need of repair or replacement.

See appendices for each jurisdiction for the identification of the neighborhoods that most need rehabilitation and where programs will be targeted.

Overpayment (Cost Burden)

State and federal housing law defines overpayment (also known as cost burden) as a household paying more than 30 percent of gross income for housing expenses. As shown in Table 2-20, Overpayment by Tenure (2018), the overall rate of overpayment in Fresno County is 37.8 percent. With the exception of Kingsburg, Coalinga, the unincorporated county, and Clovis, most jurisdictions have overpayment rates above 35.0 percent. Orange Cove has the highest percentage of total households overpaying for housing (53.9 percent), followed by Huron (47.4 percent), Mendota (46.7 percent), and Parlier (45.1 percent).

Housing overpayment is especially problematic for lower-income households that have limited resources for other living expenses. In all jurisdictions, a higher percentage of lower-income households are overpaying for housing, with 70.6 percent of lower-income households countywide experiencing overpayment. The jurisdictions of Clovis, Reedley, Fresno, Selma, Sanger, and unincorporated county have the highest percentage of cost-burdened lower-income households at 74.2 percent, 75.1 percent, 74.8 percent, 72.3 percent, and 70.6 percent respectively. In Kingsburg, where the overpayment rate is the lowest in the county at 16.2 percent, 63.5 percent of lower-income households are cost burdened, which aligns with the rate of overpayment among lower-income households in the majority of jurisdictions in Fresno County. However, in the unincorporated county, the overall rate of overpayment and rate of lower-income, cost-burdened households in almost equivalent, suggesting that moderate- and above moderate-income households are generally able to afford the units they occupy.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Generally, renters tend to be more affected by overpayment than owners, and this trend occurs in all jurisdictions in the county. Although the proportion of owners and renters countywide is fairly comparable, (52.8 percent homeowners and 47.2 percent renters), 52.2 percent of renters are cost burdened compared to 25.0 percent of homeowners. Jurisdictions with proportions of cost-burdened homeowners below the countywide rate included Clovis, Kingsburg, Firebaugh, Fowler, Coalinga, and unincorporated county. Jurisdictions with cost-burdened renters below the countywide rate include Clovis, Coalinga, Huron, Kerman, Kingsburg, Mendota, San Joaquin, and unincorporated county. Reedley has the highest percentage of overpaying renters (82.1 percent), followed by Fowler (79.8 percent), Fresno (79.4 percent), and Clovis (78.7 percent). In Fresno County, while 62.2 percent of renters are lower-income households, lower-income households comprise approximately 90.0 percent of cost-burdened renters. Data indicates that in almost every jurisdiction, with the exception of unincorporated county, the total number of cost-burdened renters follows a similar trend, where the number of total cost-burdened renters is almost equivalent to the number of cost-burdened, lower-income renters. This trend suggests that the majority of moderate and above moderate-income renters are able to find rental housing at costs below 30 percent of their income. In unincorporated county, while 60.2 percent of renters are lower-income, only 19.3 percent of cost-burdened households are lower-income.

A similar trend in which the majority of cost-burdened homeowners are also lower income. However, in several jurisdictions, including Fresno County, Fresno City, Fowler, Kingsburg, and unincorporated county, the correlation between proportion of cost-burdened homeowners and lower-income, cost-burdened homeowners make up less than 65.0 percent compared to an average of 90.0 percent among renters. However, these rates of overpayment indicate that these households are generally not able to find adequate housing opportunities within their income range.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-20, Overpayment by Tenure (2018)

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | NOVEMBER 2023 | 2-31

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- CHAS (2014-2018)

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Overcrowding

HCD defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. A typical home might have a total of five rooms (three bedrooms, living room, and dining room). If more than five people were living in the home, it would be considered overcrowded. Overcrowding is strongly related to household size, particularly for large households, and the availability of suitably-sized housing. Overcrowding is typically results from either a lack of affordable housing (which may force more than one household to live together) and/or a lack of available housing units of adequate size. Overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of the housing stock and infrastructure. Overcrowding impacts both owners and renters; however, renters are generally more significantly impacted.

While family size and tenure are critical determinants in overcrowding, household income also plays a strong role in the incidence of overcrowding. Generally, overcrowding levels tend to decrease as income rises, especially for renters (particularly for small and large families).

Table 2-21, Overcrowding by Tenure (2020) shows overcrowding by tenure for each jurisdiction in Fresno County. The Fresno County overcrowding rate at 6.2 percent is slightly higher than the statewide overcrowding rate at 5.2 percent, while the severe overcrowding rate is 3.6 percent compared to 3.0 percent at the state level. The cities of Mendota, San Joaquin, Huron, and Orange Cove have the highest rate of overcrowding and severe overcrowding combined; at 27.3 percent, 24.1 percent, 17.0 percent, and 15.2 percent, respectively. The highest rates of severely overcrowded households are found in Mendota, Parlier, and San Joaquin. In contrast, the city of Kingsburg has low rates of overcrowding and no severely overcrowded households.

In Fresno County and statewide, overcrowding is typically more of a problem for renter households at 14.8 percent and 4.2 percent respectively, compared to overcrowding among owner households at 4.1 percent in Fresno County and 13.2 percent statewide. In the cities of Coalinga and Huron, the incidence of overcrowding is higher for owners than it is for renters, although in Huron renters represent more than double the proportion of homeowners. In Mendota and San Joaquin, the combined incidence of overcrowded and severely overcrowded households is comparable between both renters and owners.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-21 Overcrowding by Tenure (2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

HOUSING COST AND AFFORDABILITY

Home Price Trends

In Fresno County, as shown in Figure 2-6, Median Sales Price for Fresno County, the average single-family home value peaked in July 2022 at about $375,000 and was at its lowest in 2013 at less than $170,000.

FIGURE 2-6. MEDIAN SALES PRICE FOR FRESNO COUNTY

⬚ figure

Source: Zillow Data accessed at https://www.zillow.com/research/data/ and Redfin (July, 2022)

Table 2-22, Home Sales Recorded in 2017, 2021, and 2022, shows the number of home sales and median price for each jurisdiction in Fresno County for May 2017 and May 2022. According to CoreLogic, in 2022, 1,135 homes were sold countywide with a median price of $400,000. This was a 56.6 percent increase from the 2017 countywide median price and 15.4 percent increase from the 2021 countywide median price. The majority of homes were sold in 2017 and 2022 in the City of Fresno, followed by Clovis. Of all the cities, Clovis had the highest median sale price in 2022 of $475,000, followed closely by Fowler at $455,000, and Huron had the lowest at $155,000; however, the median in Huron is based on a very small number of home sales (three homes). The highest home sales prices in 2022 were recorded in the unincorporated community of Shaver Lake at $700,00, which also had the highest home sales price in 2017 and 2021.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-22 Home Sales Recorded in 2017, 2021, and 2022

Source: CoreLogic, California Home Sale Activity by City (May 2017, May 2021, and June 2022)

Note: Sales counts for 2021 were not available.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Rental Trends

Close to half of Fresno County households are renters. Although renters in general tend to live in multifamily units, about 43 percent of renter households in Fresno County live in single-family homes, compared to 36 percent statewide and about 34 percent nationwide. Given that very few developers build market-rate, single-family units for rent, data suggests that many single-family units originally built as for-sale products have been converted to rental property over time. This trend is particularly relevant to Fresno County as data indicates that family size tends to be larger in the county compared to other regions in the state, and as single-family homes generally have more bedrooms than the majority of multifamily units, would accommodate a portion of the need for larger units.

The median rent in Fresno County is well below the state average, especially when compared to urban areas where new rental products (e.g., multifamily apartments) are being developed. For example, based on data from Zillow.com, which has collected data on asking rents ranging from studios to single-family homes for most counties in the state for over four years, rents in Fresno County are about 61.7 percent of the state average in 2021, decreasing from 72.7 percent of the state average in 2014. Fresno County rents in 2021 were about $300 less than those in the Stockton area, and approximately $156 more than Bakersfield.

Table 2-23 Residential Rental Rate Comparison (2014-2021)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) and Zillow Data (September 2021)

Ability to Pay

Table 2-24, Fresno County Ability to Pay (2022), summarizes HCD-defined household income limits for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in Fresno County by the number of persons in the household. The table also includes the maximum affordable monthly rents and maximum affordable purchase prices for homes. Households earning the 2022 area median income for a family of four in Fresno County ($80,300), could afford to spend up to $2,008 per month on rent without overpaying. A three-person household would be classified as low-income if its annual income was less than $72,250. This household could afford a $1,806 maximum monthly rent.

For renters, this is a straightforward calculation, but home ownership costs are less transparent. An affordable price depends on several factors, including the down payment, the level of other long-term obligations (such as a car loan), and interest rates. In practice, the interaction of these factors, as well as insurance and taxes allows some households to qualify for homes priced at more than three times their annual income, while other households may be limited to purchasing homes no more than two times their annual incomes. Interest rates, insurance, and taxes are held constant in Table 2-24 to determine maximum affordable rent and purchase price for households in each income category. It is important to note that this table is used for illustrative purposes only.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Housing is generally affordable in Fresno County in comparison to more urbanized regions and coastal communities. The median home sale price countywide would be affordable to a four-person household earning the median income of $80,300, as shown in Table 2-24. Even low- and very low-income households can afford the median priced home in many jurisdictions and unincorporated communities in the county. For example, a low-income four-person household making $62,300 per year could afford an estimated maximum purchase price of $290,133. Based on the median home sale prices previously reported in Table 2-22, a household earning this income could afford the median home sale price in Coalinga, Mendota, Parlier, and the unincorporated county. It should be noted however, that the home price survey reported in Table 2-22 does not distinguish between number of bedrooms and single-family, condominium units, or mobile homes. Therefore, the lower purchase prices may include mobile home stock, which is generally priced lower than traditional single-family units, and may not be appropriate for families of four without overcrowding.

Table 2-24 Fresno County Ability to Pay (2022)

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2022 and Wells Fargo.

¹Assumes that 30 percent (35 percent for moderate) of income is available for either: monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’ insurance.

²Assumes 96.5 percent loan at 5.0 percent annual interest rate and 30-year term; assumes taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’ insurance account for 21 percent of total monthly payments.

³2022 State Area Median Income for Fresno County is $80,300.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-25, HUD Fair-Market Rent by Bedroom (2022), shows HUD-defined fair-market rent levels (FMR) for Fresno County for 2022. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. The rents are drawn from the distribution of rents of all units that are occupied by recent movers. Adjustments are made to exclude public housing units, newly built units, and substandard units.

As shown in Table 2-24, a three-person household classified as low-income with an annual income of $56,100 could afford to pay $1,403 monthly gross rent (including utilities). As shown in Table 2-25, the 2022 FMR for a two-bedroom unit in Fresno County is $1,137. Therefore, a low-income, three-person household at the middle of the income range can afford to rent a two-bedroom unit at the FMR level. A moderate-income, three-person household with an income of $86,700 could afford to pay $2,168 in rent without overpaying. This is enough to pay the FMR for a four-bedroom apartment ($1,847). This data indicates that although rents in Fresno County are generally lower than in other regions, lower-income households may experience barriers to finding affordable housing unless the units are subsidized, or housing choice vouchers are available and accepted.

Table 2-25 HUD Fair-Market Rent by Bedroom (2022)

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2022. Note: 50th percentile of market rents for Fiscal Year 2022 for Fresno MSA (Fresno County).

SPECIAL NEEDS

Within the general population, there are several groups of people who have special housing needs. These needs can make it difficult for members of these groups to find suitable housing. The following subsections discuss these special-housing needs of six groups identified in State Housing Element Law (Government Code, Section 65583(a)(7): elderly, persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), large households, farmworkers, families with single-headed households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. This section also describes the needs of extremely low-income households. Where possible, estimates of the population or number of households in Fresno County belonging to each group are shown.

Senior Population

Seniors are defined as persons 65 years and older, and senior households are those households headed by a person 65 years and older. Seniors have special housing needs based on factors such as age, health, self-care capacity, economic status, family arrangement, and homeownership. Particular needs for the elderly include smaller and more efficient housing, barrier-free and accessible housing, and a wide variety of housing with health care and/or personal services. Various programs can help meet the needs of seniors including, but not limited to, congregate care,

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

supportive services, rental subsidies, shared housing, and housing rehabilitation assistance. For the elderly with disabilities, housing with features that accommodate disabilities can help ensure continued independent living. Elderly with mobility/self-care limitations also benefit from transportation alternatives. Senior housing with these accommodations can allow more independent living.

As shown in Table 2-26, in 2020, 19.4 percent of the population statewide was over the age of 65 and Fresno County had a comparable representation of seniors at 12.0 percent. In general, the population in Fresno County is fairly young, partially attributed to the prevalence of larger families with children, with San Joaquin and Mendota having the lowest senior population, with less than 7.0 percent of the population over 65.

Table 2-26 Percentage of the Senior Population (65 and Over) (2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

Table 2-27, Senior Households by Tenure (2020), shows senior householders by tenure. In Fresno County, the majority of seniors (71.4 percent), were living in owner-occupied units in 2020, compared to 53.7 percent of all households, suggesting that many senior households may have aged in place in homes they purchased during the building boom of the 1980s and 1990s. Unincorporated county has the highest proportion of senior households, at 30.7 percent of total households, as well as the highest proportion of senior homeowners at 85.2 percent of senior households. Corresponding to the lower incidence of seniors in the communities of Huron and San Joaquin, the distribution of homeowners is also well below the county average, at 9.7 percent and 32.3 percent respectively.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-27 Senior Households by Tenure (2020)

| Jurisdiction | | All Households | | | Senior Households | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | Total Households | Owner-Occupied | Renter-Occupied | Total Households | Owner-Occupied | Renter-Occupied | Percentage of Senior Households of Total Households | | Fresno County | Number | 310,097 | 166,420 | 143,677 | 71,240 | 50,837 | 20,403 | 23.0% | | | Percentage | 100% | 53.7% | 46.3% | 100% | 71.4% | 28.6% | | | Clovis | Number | 37,726 | 24,548 | 13,178 | 8,782 | 6,538 | 2,244 | 23.3% | | | Percent | 100% | 65.1% | 34.9% | 100% | 74.4% | 25.6% | | | Coalinga | Number | 4,552 | 2,639 | 1,913 | 908 | 689 | 219 | 19.9% | | | Percentage | 100.0% | 58.0% | 42.0% | 100.0% | 75.9% | 24.1% | | | Firebaugh | Number | 2,041 | 953 | 1088 | 456 | 240 | 216 | 22.3% | | | Percentage | 100% | 46.69% | 53.3% | 100% | 52.6% | 47.4% | | | Fowler | Number | 2,035 | 1087 | 948 | 545 | 312 | 233 | 26.8% | | | Percentage | 100.0% | 53.4% | 46.6% | 100.0% | 57.2% | 42.8% | | | Fresno | Number | 170,137 | 79,697 | 90,440 | 36,176 | 23,909 | 12,267 | 21.3% | | | Percentage | 100% | 46.8% | 53.2% | 100.0% | 66.1% | 33.9% | | | Huron | Number | 1,874 | 392 | 1,482 | 217 | 21 | 196 | 11.6% | | | Percentage | 100% | 20.9% | 79.1% | 100.0% | 9.7% | 90.3% | | | Kerman | Number | 4,113 | 2,146 | 1,967 | 807 | 552 | 255 | 19.6% | | | Percentage | 100% | 52.2% | 47.8% | 100.0% | 68.4% | 31.6% | | | Kingsburg | Number | 3,754 | 2,431 | 1,323 | 794 | 589 | 205 | 21.2% | | | Percentage | 100% | 64.8% | 35.2% | 100.0% | 74.2% | 25.8% | | | Mendota | Number | 2,838 | 1,347 | 1,491 | 419 | 233 | 186 | 14.8% | | | Percentage | 100% | 47.5% | 52.5% | 100.0% | 55.6% | 44.4% | | | Orange Cove | Number | 2,682 | 1031 | 1,651 | 510 | 260 | 250 | 19.0% | | | Percentage | 100% | 38.4% | 61.6% | 100.0% | 51.0% | 49.0% | | | Parlier | Number | 3,875 | 1,638 | 2,237 | 712 | 353 | 359 | 18.4% | | | Percentage | 100% | 42.3% | 57.7% | 100.0% | 49.6% | 50.4% | | | Reedley | Number | 7,030 | 4,084 | 2,946 | 1,450 | 1056 | 394 | 20.6% | | | Percentage | 100% | 58.1% | 41.9% | 100.0% | 72.8% | 27.2% | | | Sanger | Number | 7,419 | 4,353 | 3,066 | 1,745 | 1303 | 442 | 23.5% | | | Percentage | 100% | 58.7% | 41.3% | 100.0% | 74.7% | 25.3% | |

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

As shown in Table 2-28, Seniors with Disabilities (2020), the population 65 years and over has the highest rate of disabilities, typically those associated with aging. Countywide, an estimated 41.6 percent of seniors have a disability. The cities of Coalinga and Fowler have the highest rates of seniors with disabilities, at over one-half of the senior population, whereas San Joaquin and Mendota, more actively agricultural production communities, have the lowest rates of seniors with disabilities.

Table 2-28 Seniors with Disabilities (2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

Currently, the Fresno Housing Authority owns and manages three senior housing complexes with 124 senior housing units. While nearly all of the 4,000 housing units managed by the Housing Authority are available to seniors, these three residential communities are designated specifically for those over the age of 62. The communities are in the cities of Firebaugh (Rio Villas, 30 units) and Sanger (Wedgewood Villas, 64 units). A new affordable housing complex for seniors will be built in southeast Fresno. Brand Haven will feature 180 units, 144 of them one-bedroom units. It will also include an arts and crafts center and a lap pool.

The Fresno County Senior Resource Center operates a program, Adult Protective Services, which assists both disabled adults and seniors with all requests for assistance. The Fresno County Human Services System, Department of Adult Services, also provides housing and basic needs assistance to elderly persons. Low-income elderly persons also are eligible to apply to the Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher Program. The Fresno/Madera Area

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | NOVEMBER 2023 2-43

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Agency on Aging (FMAAA) provides connections to programs, services, and resources elderly residents can use to maintain and improve their quality of life as they age. During the COVID-19 State of Emergency, senior and community centers in Fresno and Madera Counties have closed, and Congregate Nutrition meals are no longer being served.

For seniors and other persons requiring a supportive housing setting, there are 210 licensed care facilities in Fresno County with 4,953 beds. The majority of these facilities are in the city of Fresno. However, there are also 67 facilities in Clovis, 1 in Fowler and Kerman, 3 in Reedley, 3 in Sanger, and 1 in Selma. These facilities are listed in Appendix 1B.

Large Households

HUD defines a large household as one with five or more members. Large families may have specific needs that differ from other households because of income and housing stock constraints. The most critical housing need of large households is access to larger housing units with more bedrooms than a standard three-bedroom dwelling. As a result, large households may be overcrowded in smaller units, although in some circumstances families may choose to have two children share a room. In general, housing for large households should provide safe outdoor play areas for children and should be located to provide convenient access to schools and child care facilities.

Table 2-29, Large Households by Tenure (2020), shows large households by tenure. In Fresno County, 18.1 percent of households are considered large. The jurisdictions with the highest percentage of large households are San Joaquin (48.1 percent), Mendota (38.2 percent), Firebaugh (30.8 percent), and Parlier (31.2 percent); communities with active agricultural economic bases. The city of Fowler has the lowest rate with 13.7 percent, which is the same as the statewide rate of 13.7 percent.

In Fresno County, although a higher percentage of large households are homeowners, in San Joaquin, Huron, and Orange Cove, the majority of large households are renters, comprising 27.1 percent, 20.4 percent, and 19.3 percent respectively of total households. The distribution of large households by tenure throughout the county may be partially attributed to the types, cost, and sizes of rental and ownership housing available in each community, among other factors. However, overcrowding is an issue throughout the county, and in particular within several jurisdictions, in comparison with other regions in the state.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-29 Large Households by Tenure (2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

Single Female-Headed Households

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a single-headed household contains a household head and at least one dependent, which could include a related or unrelated child, or an elderly parent. Female-headed households have special housing needs because they are often either single parents or single elderly adults living on low- or poverty-level incomes. Single-parent households with children often require special consideration and assistance due to a greater need for affordable housing, accessible day care, health care, and a variety of other supportive services.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Moreover, because of relatively lower household incomes, single-parent households are more likely to experience difficulties in finding affordable, decent, and safe housing.

Table 2-30, Single Female-Headed Households (2020), shows the number of female-headed households in Fresno County with children. As shown in the table, 7.3 percent of households countywide were single, female-headed households with children, higher than the statewide rate of 4.7 percent. In Orange Cove, more than 17.1 percent of householders were single female-headed households, followed by Huron at 15.1 percent and San Joaquin at 14.0 percent. The unincorporated area, which would have the least number of services and amenities associated with childcare needs, had the lowest percentage of single female-headed households at 3.3 percent of total households.

Table 2-30 Single Female-Headed Households (2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

Female-headed, single-parent households often experience a high rate of poverty. Countywide, 34.0 percent of the female, single-parent households were living under the poverty level, compared to 14.5 percent of all households (see Table 2-31, Female-Headed Households in Poverty [2020]). In San Joaquin, 68.4 percent of female-headed households were living in poverty, followed by Mendota (65.6 percent), Orange Cove (62.4 percent), and Huron (61.2 percent). The poverty rate for all households is also high in these areas. Kingsburg had the lowest percentage of female-headed households in poverty (16.8 percent), but it is still higher than the rate for all families. For comparison, statewide, 9.0 percent of families and 21.5 percent of female-headed households were in poverty, below the Fresno County level.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-31 Female-Headed Households in Poverty (2020)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

Single-parent households can benefit from most affordable housing programs, including Housing Choice Vouchers, Homebuyer Assistance Program (HAP), and Housing Rehabilitation Program (HARP) in the county. The County offers the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Program to help eligible needy families who have children under the age of 19 with cash assistance, Medi-Cal, and employment services. Assistance programs offered by organizations like First Five Fresno County and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) can also assist these households with securing affordable childcare and housing.

Persons with Disabilities

Persons with disabilities typically have special housing needs because of their physical and/or developmental capabilities, fixed or limited incomes, and higher health costs associated with their disabilities. A disability is defined broadly by the Census Bureau as a physical, mental, or emotional condition that lasts over a long period of time and makes it difficult to live independently. The Census Bureau defines six disabilities: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, or independent living disabilities.

Persons with disabilities have different housing needs depending on the nature and severity of the disability. Physically disabled persons generally require modifications to their housing units, such as wheelchair ramps, elevators or lifts, wide doorways, accessible cabinetry, and modified fixtures and appliances. Special design and other considerations for persons with disabilities include single-level units, availability of services, group living

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

opportunities, and proximity to transit. While regulations adopted by the State require all groundfloor units of new apartment complexes with five or more units to be accessible to persons with disabilities, single-family units have no accessibility requirements. If a disability prevents a person from operating a vehicle, then proximity to services and access to public transportation are particularly important. If a disability prevents an individual from working or limits income, then the cost of housing and the costs of modifications are likely to be even more challenging. Those with severe physical or mental disabilities may also require supportive housing, nursing facilities, or care facilities. In addition, many disabled people rely solely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is insufficient for market-rate housing.

Severely mentally disabled persons are especially in need of assistance. Mentally disabled individuals are those with psychiatric disabilities that impair their ability to function in the community to varying degrees. In Fresno County, an estimated 189,579 residents have some form of mental disability that requires special housing accommodations, medical treatment, and/or supportive services such as In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) provided by Fresno County.

According to the 2016-2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 12.9 percent of the population countywide aged five and over is living with one or more disabilities. (See Table 2-32, Persons with a Disability [2020]). This is higher than the statewide rate of 10.7 percent. The population 65 years and over has the highest rate of disabilities, as previously discussed. Table 2-33, Disability by Type (2020), provides information on the nature of these disabilities. The total disabilities number shown for all age groups exceeds the number of persons with disabilities because a person can have more than one disability. The percentage of persons with each type of disability is based on total number of persons with disabilities and is not cumulative. The city of Fresno had the highest number of persons with a disability among the total population, at 74,571. However, Fresno also has the greatest representation of services and amenities for persons with disabilities, and a more comprehensive system of bus and transit services, which can partially contribute to the higher concentration of persons with disabilities in the city. In contrast, San Joaquin had the lowest rate of persons with a disability at 3.6 percent, correlating with the lowest representations of seniors and the lowest proportion of seniors with disabilities. Among hearing difficulty, Kingsburg had the highest percentage, while vision difficulty and independent living difficulty had the highest rate at 28.3 percent and 49.5 percent in Mendota. Kerman had the highest rate for cognitive difficulty at 51.5 percent, while Firebaugh had the highest rate for ambulatory and self-care difficulty (69.7 and 28.8 percent).

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-32 Persons with a Disability (2020)

Table 2-33 Disability by Type (2020)

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Developmental Disabilities

Senate Bill (SB) 812, which took effect January 2011, amended State housing element law to require an evaluation of the special housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. A “developmental disability” is defined as a disability that originates before an individual becomes 18 years old, continues or can be expected to continue indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. This includes intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. Many developmentally disabled persons are able to live and work normally. However, more severely disabled individuals require a group living environment with supervision, or an institutional environment with medical attention and physical therapy. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first housing issue for the developmentally disabled is the transition from living with a parent/guardian as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

Table 2-34, Clients in Fresno County with Developmental Disabilities by Age (2022), shows the number of people in Fresno County jurisdictions receiving assistance as of April 2022. This is only a count of those developmentally disabled people receiving services from the Department of Developmental Services as of April 2022. It is likely that the actual count is higher.

The majority of these individuals (more than 7,000) lived in their own home and the rest lived in independent living or supportive living (about 900 persons), community care facilities (about 666 persons), foster or family homes (less than 369 persons), or an intermediate care facility (about 230 persons).

Table 2-34 Clients in Fresno County with Developmental Disabilities by Age (2022)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- Department of Developmental Services, April 2022

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Licensed Care Facilities

For persons requiring a supportive housing setting, Fresno County has 210 licensed care facilities with 4,953 beds. The majority of these facilities are in the city of Fresno. However, there are also 67 facilities in Clovis, one in Fowler and Kerman, three in Reedley, three in Sanger, , and one in Selma.

Homeless

Most families become homeless because they are unable to afford housing in a particular community. Nationwide, about half of those experiencing homelessness over the course of a year are single adults. Most enter and exit the system fairly quickly. The remainder live in the homeless assistance system, or in a combination of shelters, hospitals, the streets, jails, and prisons. There are also single homeless people who are not adults, including runaway and “throwaway” youth (children whose parents will not allow them to live at home).

There are various reasons that contribute to homelessness. These may be any combination of factors such as loss of employment, inability to find a job, lack of marketable work skills, or high housing costs. For some, the loss of housing due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities, or drug and alcohol addictions, and an inability to access support services and long-term care may result in homelessness. Although each category has different needs, the most urgent need is for emergency shelter and case management (i.e., help with accessing needed services). Emergency shelters have minimal supportive services for homeless persons and are limited to occupancy of six months or less. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

For many, supportive housing, transitional housing, long-term rental assistance, and/or greater availability of low-income rental units are also needed. Supportive housing has no limit on length of stay and is linked to on-site or off-site services that assist residents in retaining housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.

Transitional housing is usually in buildings configured as rental housing developments but operated with State programs that require the unit to be cycled to other eligible program recipients after some pre-determined amount of time. Transitional housing programs provide extended shelter and supportive services for homeless individuals and/or families with the goal of helping them live independently and transition into permanent housing. Some programs require that the individual/family be transitioning from a short-term emergency shelter. Transitional housing may be configured for specialized groups within the homeless population, such as people with substance abuse problems, the mentally ill, domestic violence victims, veterans, or people with HIV/AIDS. In many cases, transitional housing programs will provide services for two years or more. The supportive services may be provided directly by the organization managing the housing or by other public or private agencies in a coordinated effort with the housing provider.

In 2001, Fresno County and Madera County formed the Fresno-Madera Continuum of Care (FMCoC). This community-based collaborative is the best available source for homelessness information and services for homeless individuals and families. The Continuum of Care services and resources include:

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

• Homeless Prevention
• Outreach, Intake, and Assessment
• Emergency Shelter
• Transitional Housing
• Supportive Services
• Permanent Housing
• Permanent Supportive Housing

The best estimate is the Homeless Census and Survey collected by FMCoC. In January 2022, the FMCoC published its Homeless Census and Survey Report (Point-in-Time [PIT]) count, which estimated 3,938 persons experiencing homelessness in Fresno County. Of that number, 1,728 persons were sheltered homeless and 2,210 were unsheltered homeless (Table 2-35, Total Unsheltered and Sheltered Homeless Count: Fresno County (2022).

Table 2-35 Total Unsheltered and Sheltered Homeless Count: Fresno County (2022)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 --Fresno/Madera Continuum of Care, 2022.

The California Department of Education defines homeless children as individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. This definition also includes:

• Children and youth who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason.
• Children who may be living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, shelters, or awaiting foster care placement.
• Children and youth who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
• Children and youth who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings.
• Migratory children who qualify as homeless because they are children who are living in similar circumstances listed above.

In February 2022, the FMCoC completed a PIT count and found that there were an estimated 541 people experiencing homelessness in Fresno County, which included the incorporated rural cities of Selma, Sanger Clovis and/or rural areas of unincorporated Fresno County. The PIT also identified 3,397 people experiencing homelessness in the city of Fresno. In an effort to provide an estimate of the number of homeless persons by jurisdiction, a percentage of the population was calculated as shown in Table 2-36, Estimated Number of Homeless Persons by Jurisdiction. This percentage assumes the countywide population for Fresno County population and subtracts the city of Fresno population since a total homeless count was done for the city. This percentage was then applied to the total homeless count of 541. The city of Fresno had the highest percentage of

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

people experiencing homelessness at 53.8 percent, followed by the unincorporated county (34.2 percent) and the city of Clovis (26.4 percent). Each jurisdiction also supplemented the PIT count assumptions with local knowledge (police department, city/county staff, agency providing services to the homeless population) where available.

The FMCoC released the 2023 PIT count on July 26, 2023. The overall count was only provided for the County of Fresno as a whole and the City of Fresno. Data for individual jurisdictions was not available. As previously mentioned, local estimates are available in Table 2-36, Estimated Number of Homeless Persons by Jurisdiction. According to the 2023 PIT count, the City of Fresno’s percentage of unsheltered population increased by 9.2 percent and the sheltered population decreased by 18.4 percent since 2022. For the overall county, the percentage of unsheltered population increased by 15.6 percent and the sheltered population decreased by 59.3 percent. See Table 2-37, Comparison of 2022 and 2023 Point-In-Time Homeless Count, for a comparison between the 2022 and 2023 PIT count.

Table 2-36 Estimated Number of Homeless Persons by Jurisdiction

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 --Fresno/Madera Continuum of Care, 2022.

• Percentages for all cities and the unincorporated county are calculated with the city of Fresno population removed.
• *Based on actual 2022 PIT counts.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-37 Comparison of 2022 and 2023 Point In Time Homeless Count

Source: Fresno/Madera Continuum of Care, 2023.

According to the FMcOC, there are several emergency shelters for homeless individuals. The majority of those shelters are in the city of Fresno. Table 2-38, Bed Inventory by Program Type, Fresno County and Madera County (2022), shows the number of beds and units available during the last week of February 23, 2022 dedicated to serving homeless persons, per HUD’s definition. There were a total of 5,101 units available to the homeless in Fresno County and Madera County. Typically, the county’s smaller cities and communities form alliances with agencies and organizations in the city of Fresno and encourage homeless persons to seek assistance in the city of Fresno where services are most available.

Table 2-38 Bed Inventory by Program Type, Fresno County and Madera County (2022)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- Fresno/Madera Continuum of Care, PIT Count 2022.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-39 through Table 2-40 lists all emergency shelters, transitional housing, safe havens, permanent supportive housing, and rapid re-housing projects within Fresno County. However, most of these are in the city of Fresno. There is one 18-bed transitional housing project in the city of Clovis and one 17-bed transitional housing project in the unincorporated county. Both are run by the Marjaree Mason Center and are targeted towards single females with children and victims of domestic violence. Additionally, the City of Reedley has an 18-person temporary emergency housing facility within an existing two-story single family residence.

Additional organizations providing assistance, services, and housing in the county include Catholic Social Services, Emergency Housing Center (Plaza Terrace), Evangel Home, Inc., United Way, Fresno Rescue Mission, and Marjaree Mason Center. To assist people with reaching services that can help them in their time of need, United Way of Fresno County offers a free 2-1-1 information and referral line. The database provides persons in need with links to over 500 government, community-based, faith-based, and private and public agencies with over 1,500 programs/services.

As discussed in Section 4, Housing Development Constraints, State law (Senate Bill 2) requires all jurisdictions in California to provide zoning for emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing. The appendices provide information on compliance for jurisdictions in Fresno County.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-39 Emergency Shelters in Fresno County (2023)

2-56 FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | NOVEMBER 2023

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Note: Project types: ES= Emergency Shelter; TH= Transitional Housing; SH= Safe Haven; PSH= Permanent Supportive Housing; RRH= Rapid Re-Housing LB=Low Barrier Navigation Center Source: Fresno Housing Authority, 2023.

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | NOVEMBER 2023 2-57

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-40 Residential Care Facilities (2023)

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Source: California Department of Social Services Care Facility Search, as of May 2023.

Farmworkers

Farmworkers have a difficult time locating affordable housing in Fresno County. Due to a combination of limited English language skills and very low household incomes, the ability to obtain housing loans for home purchase is extremely limited. For the same reasons, rentals are also difficult to obtain. Housing needs include permanent family housing as well as accommodations for migrant single men, such as dormitory-style housing, especially during peak labor activity in May through October.

A growing number of migrant workers do not leave California during the non-farm season, but instead stay in the area and perform non-farm work such as construction and odd jobs. Housing needs of this migrant but non-farmworker population are partially addressed by year-round housing units, but additional migrant units are needed.

Migrant and other seasonal farmworkers usually do not have a fixed physical address and work intermittently in various agricultural and non-agricultural occupations during a single year, with only casual employer-employee links. Many workers and/or their families live in rural, often remote areas and are reluctant to voice their housing needs and concerns to local government or housing authorities.

Farmworkers have the lowest family income and the highest poverty rate of any occupation surveyed by the Census Bureau and, therefore, often face challenges to pay for adequate housing. According to California EDD, the most recent data from 2014 measured median wage for farmworkers, which was $13.44/hour or approximately $25,804 per year for full-time work, which is considered extremely low-income. Many farmworkers are forced to pay market rate for their housing, since farm owners do not provide housing for their workers, and many publicly owned or managed housing complexes are restricted to families. Because market-rate housing may be more than they can afford, many workers are forced to share a housing unit with several other workers, causing a severely overcrowded living situation. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers face a number of housing challenges, but primarily substandard housing conditions.

The nature of agricultural work also affects the specific housing needs of farmworkers. For instance, farmworkers employed on a year-round basis generally live with their families and need permanent affordable housing, much like other lower-income households. Migrant farmworkers who follow seasonal harvests generally need temporary housing only for the workers themselves.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Determining the number of farmworkers in a region is difficult due to the variability of the definitions used by government agencies and other characteristics of the farming industry, such as seasonal workers who migrate from place to place. The estimated number of farmworkers in Fresno County ranges from 37,966¹ (ACS, 2012) to 94,039 (UC Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, 2012).²

The USDA Census of Agriculture reported 2,540 farms with a total of 37,819 workers in Fresno County (see Table 2-41, Farmworkers in Fresno County by Days Worked [2017]). The majority of the farmworkers were seasonal, working fewer than 150 days per year.

Table 2-41 Farmworkers in Fresno County by Days Worked (2017)

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- USDA Agricultural Census, Table 7, 2017.

Another data source to consider is the ACS. The ACS is a national survey that uses a series of monthly samples to produce annual estimates for the same area surveyed. The 2016-2020 5-Year Estimates by ACS (Table 2-42, Estimated Farmworkers) provides information on agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining employment by jurisdiction. Although not all of these workers are farmworkers, it can provide an estimate. This category makes up a significant percentage of employment in Huron, Mendota, Orange Cove, San Joaquin, and Firebaugh. Huron has the highest percentage at 63.6 percent. Given the seasonal and transient nature of the farmworker community, the ACS data is likely an underestimate of the actual farmworker population.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-42 Estimated Farmworkers (2020)

| Jurisdiction | Total Employment | Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Number | Number | Percentage | | Fresno County | 408,625 | 36,163 | 8.8% | | Clovis | 51,408 | 646 | 1.3% | | Coalinga | 5,648 | 817 | 14.5% | | Firebaugh | 2,590 | 1,054 | 40.7% | | Fowler | 2,526 | 190 | 7.5% | | Fresno | 218,708 | 9,414 | 4.3% | | Huron | 2,494 | 1,586 | 63.6% | | Kerman | 6,135 | 1055 | 17.2% | | Kingsburg | 5,103 | 280 | 5.5% | | Mendota | 4,263 | 2,526 | 59.3% | | Orange Cove | 3,567 | 1,519 | 42.6% | | Parlier | 6,579 | 2,254 | 34.3% | | Reedley | 9,686 | 2,632 | 27.2% | | Sanger | 11,372 | 1,204 | 10.6% | | San Joaquin | 1,313 | 594 | 45.2% | | Selma | 9,987 | 1,245 | 12.5% | | Unincorporated County | 67,246 | 9,147 | 13.6% |

Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)

The EDD estimates the total farm labor employment in 2021 was 96,300 (annual average). Figure 2-7, Farm Employment, Fresno County, demonstrates the fluctuation in EDD estimates of hired farmworkers from 1990 to 2021. In 1990, the estimated annual average farm labor was 42,200and peaked at 91,200 in 1996, and decreased to a low of 67,700 in 2004. It peaked again in 2019 at 101,100 and dropped in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. EDD Industry Employment Data is based on the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey. The CES survey is administered to a sample of California employers to gather information including monthly employment, hours, and earnings.

FIGURE 2-7. FARM EMPLOYMENT, FRESNO COUNTY

⬚ figure

Source: CA Employment Development Department (EDD) Labor Market Information, 2022.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Looking at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Fresno County has decreased slightly from 2002 to 2017, decreasing from 18,751 farmworkers to 16,876 farmworkers. However, there was a slight increase from 2007 to 2012, showing an increase from 14,873 farmworkers to 17,751 farmworkers. The seasonal number has also decreased from 51,240 in 2002 to 20,943 in 2017 (Figure 2-8, Farm Labor in Fresno County).

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining holds a significant percentage of employment in Firebaugh, Huron, Mendota, Orange Cove, Parlier, Reedley, and San Joaquin. Huron has the highest percentage at 63.6 percent. These areas are more rural and strongly based in agriculture.

FIGURE 2-8. FARM LABOR IN FRESNO COUNTY

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor Note: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors) are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Seasonal Farmworker Housing

The Fresno Housing Authority manages 194 units of seasonal farmworker housing for migrant farmworkers. This includes 131 housing units in Parlier owned by the State of California, Office of Migrant Services, and 64 units in Firebaugh. These units are open about six months of the year, from April through October, to serve agricultural workers during planting and harvesting seasons when most workers are needed.

The Housing Authority also owns, manages, and maintains three year-round housing complexes, exclusively for farm laborers, including 60 units in Mendota, 30 units in Orange Cove, and 41 units in Parlier. Both the seasonal and year-round units are restricted to legal U.S. residents who earn at least $5,752.50 annually from agriculturally related work. The cost of managing and maintaining the complexes is subsidized by the State of California, Office of Migrant Services, and the USDA Rural Development. In addition, some private farmworker housing units are available, such as Willow Family Apartments in Clovis, which has 30 units set aside for farmworkers.

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Transportation

A four-county pilot program established in 2000 known as Agricultural Industries Transportation Services (AITS) provided safe, reliable transportation to agricultural workers. This program has evolved into CalVans. Sponsored by California Vanpool Authority, CalVans supplies qualified drivers with late-model vans to drive themselves and others to work or school. The California Vanpool Authority pays for the gas, maintenance, repairs, and a $10 million insurance policy. These agriculture vanpool programs serve a wide range of California counties, including Fresno County. It offers a cost-effective commute rate with passengers paying (on average) a little over $2 per ride. Farmworkers travel distances ranging from a few miles to over 70 miles one-way to work. This program provides workers opportunities to live in one residence throughout the season regardless of where they are needed to work in the fields or packing plants. The program allows the county to determine where to best place farmworker housing based on land availability, zoning, services, and other criteria, rather than where farmworkers might be working most often.

Migrant Workers

Farmworkers have a variety of special housing needs in terms of affordability, location, and duration of residence. The increase in farmworkers living in Fresno County on a permanent basis increases the need for local, affordable farmworker housing for household types other than single adult men and women, including family housing and all the services and neighborhood amenities associated with raising families and being permanent members of the community.

Farmworkers may face added affordable housing challenges due to immigration status. Federally funded affordable housing projects require the head of household to have documentation of legal resident status, precluding some farmworkers from subsidized farmworker housing. Even seasonal farmworkers may travel with families, with children who at least temporarily enroll in local schools.

According to the California Department of Education California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), there were about 5,902 migrant students throughout Fresno County. While these estimates are at the school district level (students can live in one City and attend a school located in a different City), the data shows that the vast majority of migrant students for 2020-2021 school year are within the City of Fresno where many services and farmworker housing in the county takes place. Typically, farmworker positions, unless they own the business, do not pay well and thus may have trouble finding adequate housing in the county.

Since 2016, the migrant worker student population in Fresno County has fluctuated. The City’s with the consistent number of enrolled migrant labor students are the City of Fresno, Reedley, Mendota, Selma and the Unincorporated City of Caruthers. Overall, for Fresno County as a whole, the migrant worker student population increased by approximately 1,122 students from the 2016-17 school year to the 2020-21 school year, which identifies a need for farmworker housing and resources. (Table 2-43, Migrant Student Population).

SECTION 2: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 2-43 Migrant Worker Student Population

FRESNO MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | NOVEMBER 2023