CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
2025-2030
March 2025
Para servicios de traducción, comuníquese con (661) 326-3765
0 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of Analysis of Impediments ............................................................................... 3 Organization of Report .................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 Fair Housing Framework ................................................................................................. 5 Federal Law ..................................................................................................................... 5 State Law ......................................................................................................................... 7 Fair Housing Planning and Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ................................... 7 Reporting Staff and Data Sources ................................................................................... 8 Community Outreach ......................................................................................................... 9 Community Meetings ...................................................................................................... 9 Community Needs Survey ............................................................................................. 10 Focus Groups ................................................................................................................. 10 Consultations ................................................................................................................. 10 Public review ................................................................................................................. 11 Public Hearing ............................................................................................................... 11 Key Issues Identified ...................................................................................................... 11 Community Profile ........................................................................................................... 13 Population Characteristics ............................................................................................ 13 Household Characteristics............................................................................................. 15 Housing Characteristics ................................................................................................. 19 Special Needs ................................................................................................................ 21 Publicly Assisted Housing .............................................................................................. 25 Public Transit ................................................................................................................. 25 Lending Practices ............................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Conventional and Government-Backed Financing.......................................................... 1 Lending Patterns ............................................................................................................. 2 Public Policies .................................................................................................................. 17 Policies and Programs Affecting Housing Development ............................................... 17 Zoning Ordinance .......................................................................................................... 18 Variety of Housing Opportunity’ ................................................................................... 19 Affordable Housing Development................................................................................. 20 Other Land Use Policies, Programs, and Controls ......................................................... 23 Policies Causing Displacement or Affect Housing Choice of Minorities and Persons with Disabilities ..................................................................................................................... 24 Public Housing Authority ............................................................................................... 25 Fair Housing Profile .......................................................................................................... 26 Fair Housing Services ..................................................................................................... 26 Fair Housing Statistics ................................................................................................... 27 Fair Housing Testing ...................................................................................................... 28 1 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) ................................. 28 NIMBYism ...................................................................................................................... 29 Impediments ................................................................................................................... 30
1. 49
2. 49
3. 50
4. 50
5. 50
6. 50
7. 51
Conclusion- Fair Housing Action Plan ................................................................................ 33 Assessment of Past Goals and Actions .......................................................................... 33 2020-2025 Goals and Actions ....................................................................................... 38
Appendix A: Community Survey
2 Executive Summary
The City of Bakersfield, situated in southern San Joaquin Valley, boasts a population of over 400,000 people, making it the ninth largest city in California. The county seat of Kern County, Bakersfield, has experienced substantial growth in recent years, spurred on by its diverse economy and relatively affordable housing market.
To further nurture economic growth and increased access to opportunity, the City presents this Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).
Purpose of Analysis of Impediments
Fair housing is the right to choose housing free from unlawful discrimination. This right has been codified in federal law since 1968 through the Fair Housing Act and has been incrementally strengthened and expanded since then. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 further cemented the right to fair housing for all Americans.
Central to providing and protecting fair housing choice is the concept of affirmatively furthering fair housing.
This means undertaking a three-pronged Fair Housing Planning (FHP) process. The AI is one component of the FHP required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of a jurisdiction’s five- year Consolidated Plan. The other components are taking actions to eliminate identified impediments to fair housing choice and the maintenance of fair housing records.
This AI presents a demographic profile of Bakersfield, assesses the extent of housing needs among specific income groups, and evaluates the range of available housing choices for residents. The AI also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing. More importantly, this AI identifies impediments that may prevent equal housing access and offers actions to mitigate or remove such impediments.
Organization of Report
This report is divided into seven sections:
● Introduction – defines fair housing and explains the purpose of this report. ● Community Participation – summarizes the community engagement process the City undertook to solicit feedback on fair housing issues in Bakersfield.
● Community Profile - presents the demographic, housing and income characteristics in Bakersfield. Major employers and transportation access to job centers are identified. The relationships among these variables are discussed.
● Mortgage Lending Practices – analyzes private lending activities that could impede fair housing choices in Bakersfield.
● Public Policies – evaluates various public policies and actions that could impede fair housing choice in Bakersfield. ● Fair Housing Profile – evaluates the fair housing services available to residents and identifies fair housing complaints and violations in Bakersfield.
● Impediments and Recommendations – summarizes the findings regarding fair housing issues in Bakersfield and provides recommendations for furthering fair housing practices.
A page is attached at the end of this report that includes the endorsement of the City Manager and a statement certifying that the AI represents Bakersfield’s official conclusions regarding impediments to fair housing choice and the actions necessary to address these impediments. 3 Introduction
As one of the largest cities in California, Bakersfield (the City) has experienced strong population and economic growth in recent years. The population of Bakersfield, as of the 2020 Census, is 403,455. The city added 156,398 residents in the last 20 years, a growth rate of 63%. Comparatively, Kern County grew by 37% during this time, the Kern County/Kings County/Tulare County tri-county area grew by an average of 28%, and the State of California grew by less than 17%. While this growth has brought increased prosperity to the region, social and economic challenges persist. Relevant to this report, barriers to fair housing choice continue to frustrate residents’ ability to secure accessible and affordable housing.
Equal access to housing is fundamental to meeting essential needs and pursuing personal, educational, and employment goals. In recognizing equal housing access as a fundamental right, the federal government and the State of California have both established fair housing choice, defined as the right to choose housing free from unlawful discrimination, as a right protected by law.1 Through many of its policies, programs, and services, the City of Bakersfield works diligently to ensure fair housing choice for its residents.
Conducting an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) became a requirement for entitlement jurisdictions in 1995. Entitlement jurisdictions are those that directly receive U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding under the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs. Bakersfield receives funding under each program and as such is required to conduct an AI.
Included in the report is a demographic profile of the City, an assessment of the extent of housing needs among specific income groups, and an evaluation of the availability of a range of housing choices for residents. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and the public sector that could limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing.
Fair Housing Framework
Federal Law
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 is the foundation of the United States’ commitment to fair housing. Along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is one of the landmark federal laws that protects all Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 expanded the scope of civil rights by banning discrimination based on familial or disability status.
The statuses that fall within the scope of fair housing – race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial composition, and disability status – are referred to as “protected classes.” Not all seemingly unfair treatment, whether in housing or in other areas, is prohibited. For example, young families can be lawfully rejected for tenancy if a rental property qualifies as senior housing. 2 But protected classes receive special consideration
under the law and with few exceptions, such as the example of families disqualified from senior housing, discriminating against someone based on any of the protected classes is prohibited.
The areas to which the Fair Housing Acts of 1968 and 1988 are applicable are as follows:
3 1 http://www.fhcwm.org/whatisfairhousing
2 Ron Leshnower, “The Fair Housing Act’s Protected Classes: What Landlords Need to Know,” Nolo.com. 3 https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_overview 4 ● Selling or renting housing. Refusing to rent or sell a home based on a protected class is perhaps the clearest example of housing discrimination, but there are many other actions that are expressly prohibited. These include offering different rental terms as compared to other tenants, falsely claiming there are no housing units available, or providing a person with different housing services or facilities. ● Mortgage lending. Refusing to make a mortgage loan, imposing different loan terms, and unfairly appraising a home, among other actions related to mortgage lending, are all illegal under federal fair housing law. ● Forms of harassment. Many laws and policies make different forms of harassment illegal across sectors, but the Fair Housing Acts expressly prohibit harassment, especially sexual harassment, as it relates to housing. ● Advertising. Advertisements for and marketing of housing must be compliant with the Fair Housing Acts’ prohibition on discrimination. For example, phrases such as “no children” or “no wheelchairs” may be in violation of the federal Fair Housing Acts.
● Interference of rights and protections under fair housing legislation. According to HUD, it is illegal to “threaten, coerce, intimidate or interfere with anyone exercising a fair housing right or assisting others who exercise the right.” It is also illegal to retaliate against a person who has filed a fair housing complaint or assisted in a fair housing investigation.
What is not included in fair housing protections at the federal level is a prohibition of discrimination based on source of income. This usually refers to the treatment of those who are recipients of Housing Choice Vouchers (commonly referred to as Section 8). For example, it is not uncommon for landlords to advertise a rental unit as “no Section 8.” To address this, California passed a law that amends the State Fair Employment and Housing Act and makes discriminating against source of income unlawful. Landlords are now barred from marketing their properties as “no Section 8” and cannot reject prospective tenants based on their source of income alone.
The major step toward remedying past injustices is ending various discriminatory lending practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (discussed in greater detail in Lending Practices section). The amendments to the Fair Housing Act enacted in 1988 added familial status and disabilities as protected classes and the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 further improved access to credit for all members of the community. The CRA is intended to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of Low- and Moderate-Income (LMI) communities. The CRA also authorizes federal regulators to assess depository institution’s record institutions’ records in helping meet the credit needs of LMI communities.
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which was initially enacted in 1975 and substantially expanded in 1989, requires lending institutions to make annual public disclosures of their home mortgage lending activity.
The law aims to curb discrimination by compelling banks, savings and loan associations, and other lending institutions to report annually the amounts and geographical distribution of their mortgage applications, origination, and denials. Lending institutions must also report the race, gender, and annual income of its applicants.
Such data is collected and disclosed by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). It also makes HMDA data available to the public and financial regulators to determine if lending practices are lawful and are serving the lending needs of all communities. It should be noted that HMDA data can indicate potential problems, but such data alone cannot definitively conclude that discriminatory lending practices occurred.
5 State Law
Federal fair housing law applies to all states, but California has further codified fair housing protections. The State’s Fair Employment and Housing Act is California’s foundation for fair housing. It prohibits discrimination and harassment as it relates to housing and enforcing this law is the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). The largest civil rights agency in the country, the DFEH educates the public on fair housing, provides protection from discrimination, and facilitates mediation of civil rights disputes.
Other laws affirm California’s commitment to fair housing. The Unruh Act protects Californians from discrimination by all business establishments, including housing and equal access to the accommodations. The Ralph Civil Rights Act prohibits violence based on someone’s actual or perceived identities, including race and gender. And the Bane Civil Rights Act prohibits interference by force or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing. The list below outlines the laws and regulations concerning fair housing and employment in California:
● Fair Employment and Housing Act
● Department of Fair Employment and Housing regulations ● California Family Rights Act (CFRA)
● New Parent Leave Act (NPLA)
● Unruh Civil Rights Act – requires business establishments to provide equal accommodations ● Ralph Civil Rights Act – prohibits hate violence or the threat of hate violence ● Civil Code Section 51.9 – prohibits sexual harassment in business, service, or professional contexts outside of traditional employment relationships
● Disabled Persons Act
● California Trafficking Victims Act
● Government Code Section 11135 Et Seq. – prohibits discrimination in state-funded programs)
Fair Housing Planning and Impediments to Fair Housing Choice The federal government defines impediments to fair housing choice as:
● Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin that restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choice . ● Any actions, omissions, or decisions that have this effect.
The AI identifies these impediments and serves as one of the three principles of Fair Housing Planning (FHP) that the federal government requires. Another principle includes actions to overcome the effects of identified impediments.
Reporting Staff and Data Sources
This report was prepared by Diana R. Elrod Consulting, with support from Erica Snyder Consulting, LLC on behalf of the City of Bakersfield. The City’s Economic and Community Development Division of the Development Services Department is responsible for Fair Housing Planning.
The following data sources were used to complete this AI:
● City of Bakersfield 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan
● City of Bakersfield draft 2025-2031 Consolidated Plan ● City of Bakersfield General Plan (2002, as amended)
6 ● City of Bakersfield Housing Element (2023-2031, especially the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing report) ● Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance, Inc.
● Making Downtown Bakersfield
● Economic Opportunity Areas (EOA) Plan
● California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
● U.S. Census Bureau
● U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ● Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data on lending activities
7 Community Outreach
This AI was developed to provide an overview of laws, regulations, conditions or other possible obstacles that could affect access to housing. As part of this effort, the report incorporates the issues and concerns of residents, housing professionals and service providers. To assure that the report responds to community needs, the development of the AI included:
● Community Partner Focus Groups and Interviews
● Community Meetings
● Online survey in English and Spanish
● 30-day public comment period
● Public hearings to review and adopt the Plan
According to HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide, citizen participation relating to Fair Housing Planning (FHP) is a component of the Consolidated Plan governed by 24 CFR § 91. Accordingly, the City’s FHP outreach occurred in conjunction with its Consolidated Planning process.
Community Meetings
Three community workshops were conducted to introduce residents to the City’s Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) and FHP process, familiarize them with federal funding, and to solicit input. The workshops sought to obtain broad input from the City’s diverse communities. A total of 37 community members participated in the workshops and provided feedback on their housing and economic and community development priorities. The workshops were held at the following locations:
Community Meeting #1 Community Meeting #2 Community Meeting #3 Online (Zoom)
https://bit.ly/47xnQKU
October 22, 2024, 10:00am-
12:00pm
Baker Street Community Room
1015 Baker Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
October 22, 2024, 5:30pm-
7:30pm
Bakersfield Senior Center
530 4th Street
Bakersfield, CA 93304
October 23, 2024, 3:00pm-
5:00pm
Information about the ConPlan and FHP processes were presented at each meeting. The presentation included the purpose of the ConPlan and AI, the funding programs with which they are associated, and an economic and demographic profile of Bakersfield to frame the next ConPlan and AI cycle.
The presentation was followed by an open forum in which attendees discussed how the City can make a positive impact in supporting its residents and communities. They were also asked to rank their top seven priorities in their communities using paper ballots provided at the meeting. Priorities included infrastructure, jobs, affordable housing (including fair housing), addressing homelessness, public service, workforce and economic development.
8 Community Needs Survey
To supplement the community workshops and to further understand the needs of the City’s residents, a Community Needs and Fair Housing Survey was offered in both English and Spanish. In order to give as many people as possible the chance to voice their opinion, emphasis was placed on making the survey widely available and gathering as many responses as possible. The survey was available online on the City’s website and hardcopies were made available at the City Development Services Department. It was also publicized in the following ways:
Provided an overview of the survey, and left copies for residents to take:
● MLK Community Initiative Meeting Date: Same as ConPlan (about 40 participants) - October 22 ● Bakersfield High School Latino Parents Group (Spanish) (about 10 participants) – October 23 ● Cal State Bakersfield Master of Public Administration Class: (about 30 participants) – October 21
Sent to Their Listserv or Contacts:
● Bakersfield Kern Regional Homeless Collaborative
● Kern County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services
● Greenfield Walking Group (Spanish)
● Leadership Counsel (English and Spanish)
Posted on Social Media for City:
● Kern Family Health Care
Tabled at a large Community Fair and passed out surveys:
● Downtown Bakersfield Association - Party in the Park @ Mill Creek Park – October 17th
City of Bakersfield Media:
● Press Release
● Interview for Radio: KUZZ – October 21
● Interviews for TV News: Channel 58, Channel 23
● Interview for TV News: Channel 58, Channel 23
● Social Media Push on Facebook, Twitter, Linked in (All Spanish and English) o Additional push October 21st on Facebook, Twitter, Linked in (All Spanish and English)
Focused email and paper survey drop off:
● Kern Alliance for Non-Profits and Children First email and paper survey drop off ● Williams Elementary – email only
● AppleCore Project - email only
● Stay Focused Ministries - email and paper survey drop off ● Housing Authority - email and paper survey drop off
● Jakara Movement - email and paper survey drop off
● Family Resource Center - email only
● Children First - email only
● Community Interventions - email and paper survey drop off ● Boys and Girls Club - email and paper survey drop off 9 ● CAPK (1300 18th Street) - email and paper survey drop off ● Network for Children - email and paper survey drop off ● GBLA - email and paper survey drop off
● Kern Art Council - email and paper survey drop off
● Open Door Network - email and paper survey drop off
● Mission at Kern - email and paper survey drop off
● Brundage Lane Navigation Center - email and paper survey drop off ● CAPK (1631 30th Street) - email and paper survey drop off ● Greenfield Walking Group- email and paper survey drop off ● Shepower Leadership Academy- email and paper survey drop off ● CAL State Bakersfield - email and paper survey drop off ● Dolores Huerta Foundation – email only
The City of Bakersfield’s community engagement process for the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan generated consistent themes across community partner focus groups, community meetings, and survey. Participation in these events are as follows:
● Community Partner Focus Groups: 39 community partners ● Community Meetings: 37 residents
● Survey: 496 responses (471 in English, 25 in Spanish) ● Total community participants: 572 individuals (not de-duplicated) Overall, residents in the City have concerns pertaining to affordable housing (e.g., rental housing affordability, first-time homebuyers’ assistance, increased housing costs), addressing homelessness (e.g., homelessness prevention, behavioral health services, and access to housing), as well as economic development (e.g., job training, living wage, and finding/maintain jobs). While other needs were identified, these three areas were heard at all levels of engagement.
Focus Groups
The City hosted four focus groups, one each for the following sectors:
● Affordable housing
● Homelessness
● Economic development
● Community development and services
These focus groups were conducted to familiarize representatives of key organizations and stakeholders with the ConPlan and AI, as well as to understand their perspectives on emerging trends and community needs. In total, 39 community partners participated.
Consultations
The City conducted comprehensive outreach to key organizations to enhance coordination, solicit feedback, and discuss new approaches and efficiencies with public and assisted housing providers, private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies, and stakeholders that use funding for eligible activities under HUD’s entitlement programs, including fair housing services. These organizations included:
10 ● Housing Authority of the County of Kern (HACK)
● The Mission, representing the region’s Continuum of Care (CoC) ● Kern Council of Governments
● Kern County Public Health
● Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance (GBLA)
Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance (GBLA) is a fair housing service provider that provides critical legal services as they relate to housing discrimination. Specifically, GBLA maintains its Fair Housing Law Project that “provides fair housing education, investigation, and enforcement services for Kern County residents, regardless of income, who believe they have been victims of illegal housing discrimination.” GBLA’s fair housing services are funded in part by CDBG grants from the City.
Public review
XXXXX – to be completed by April
Public Hearing
A public hearing at the Bakersfield City Council was held on April 23, 2025 to consider adopting the City’s proposed 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, 2025-2026 Action Plan, 2025-2030 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, and amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan.
11 Community Profile
Strategically located within four hours of 90% of California’s population, Bakersfield has seen strong population and economic growth in recent years. As noted in the introduction, the population of Bakersfield, as of the 2020 Census, is 403,455. The city added 156,398 residents in the last 20 years, a growth rate of 63%. Comparatively, Kern County grew by 37% during this time, the Kern County/Kings County/Tulare County tri-county area grew by an average of 28%, while the State of California grew by less than 17%.
Overall, the number of lower income households represent 50% of all households, whereas in the previous AI these households represented 45% of households. Extremely Low-Income (ELI) and Very Low-Income (VLI) households representing a greater share of the low- to moderate-income (LMI) households in Bakersfield comes at a time when local economic indicators have been negatively impacted by the COVID pandemic. While unemployment in Bakersfield is 7.2% in 2024 - which is greatly improved since 2020, when it reached 17.2% at the height of the pandemic –it is still higher than both the State of California and the country as a whole. 4 In addition, while the number of households identified as LMI has increased, the number of households earning above the median has decreased since the previous AI by about 4%. Anecdotal information suggests that remote work that came as the result of the pandemic allowed those who could afford it to move to other locations in the country, such as Tennessee and Texas. In addition, there continues to be opportunities for people in the agricultural and petrochemical economic sectors, bringing in less affluent people looking for jobs. There are many more plausible reasons for the decrease in households earning above the median, but the outcome is clear: there are more Bakersfield residents in need than they were during the previous AI cycle.
Bakersfield anticipates continued economic expansion and population growth, but many social and economic conditions exist that impede fair housing choice for many residents. For example, the median income in Bakersfield is lower than California’s as a whole, and the unemployment rate is higher than the State’s. Each of these affect residents’ ability to find affordable and safe housing. This section discusses the many factors -- such as population growth, age characteristics, and race/ethnicity -- that help determine the community’s housing needs and play a role in exploring potential impediments to fair housing choice.
Population Characteristics
Population Growth
Although the population has increased over time, the rate of population growth has declined since 1980. As shown in the table below, the rate of population growth was 65.5% between 1980 and 1990; however, the rate declined to 16.1% between 2010 and 2020. The average annual growth rate in Bakersfield from 1980 to 2020 has been 3.2%, higher than Kern County’s rate of 2.0% and significantly higher than the Kern County/Kings County/Tulare County tri-county area’s rate of 0.7%.
Table 1 Population Growth
4See https://datacommons.org/explore#q=california+unemployment+rate&dc=&client=ui_query
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Total Population 105,611 174,820 247,057 347,483 403,455 12 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010; Social Explorer tables for Census 2020.
The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) latest forecast conducted in 2020 predicts Bakersfield’s population to increase to 507,400 by 2035, an increase of 26% over 2020 conditions.
Age Composition
The city’s current and future housing needs are determined in part by the age of its residents. Each age group has distinct housing needs and preferences based on lifestyle, family types and sizes, and income levels.
Traditionally, the young adult population (20-34 years of age) and the senior population (65 years and over) tend to favor apartments, low to moderately priced condominiums, and smaller single-family units. Adults between 35-64 years old and households with school-age children tend to seek out moderate to high-cost apartments, condominiums, and larger single-family units, as they tend to have higher and/or dual incomes and larger household sizes.
Population estimates by age group for Bakersfield are presented in Table 2 below. Approximately 10% of the population in Bakersfield is 65 years of age or older, which is similar to the share of that age group in Kern County (11%) and the tri-county area (11%) but half of the share of that age group in California (19%).
Bakersfield also has a similar share of youth compared to Kern County and the tri-county area but a higher share of youth than California – approximately 30% of city residents are under 18, while approximately 29% of residents are under 18 in the county, 29% of residents are under 18 in the tri-county area, and 12% of residents are under 18 in California.
Bakersfield’s population is younger on average than California’s, but like the state and the nation, is growing older. Over the past two decades, the percentage of the population younger than 40 years has decreased, while the population over 60 has increased. The largest increase in residents was those age 20-39, followed by those age 60 and older.
Table 2 Age Characteristics
Source: U.S.
Census
Bureau,
ACS16-20 (5-
year
Estimates),
Table
B01001.
Age and
fair
housing
intersect when managers or property owners make housing decisions based on the age of residents. For example, property owners or managers may prefer to limit the number of children in their complex or discourage older residents due to their disabilities. Although a housing provider may establish reasonable Percent Change 65.5% 41.3% 40.7% 16.1%
Age Range 2020 Number of Residents 2020-% of Population Total: 379,879
Youth Under 18 113,630 29.9%
Youth: Under 5 Years 31,098 8.2%
Youth: 5 to 17 Years 82,532 21.7%
Adults 18-64 228,253 60.1%
Young Adults: 18 to 24 Years 38,390 10.1%
Adults: 25 to 64 Years 189,863 50.0%
Seniors 65+ 37,996 10.0%
Seniors: 65 to 84 Years 33,490 8.8%
Older Seniors: 85 Years and Over 4,506 1.2%
13 occupancy limits and set reasonable rules about the behavior of tenants, those rules cannot single out the presences of children in a family or refuse to make reasonable accommodations.
Race/Ethnicity
A community’s racial and ethnic composition has implications for housing needs based on household characteristics and cultural norms that may affect housing needs and preferences – for instance, some racial and ethnic groups may have multiple family generations residing together in one household more commonly than other groups.
The Kern region has a Hispanic/Latino ethnic majority of 55% of the total population in 2020; however, the term “Hispanic” can also be of any race according to the Census. Non- Hispanic Whites account for 31% of the population, reduced from 50% in 2000.
Table 3 provides a comparison of race and ethnicity in Bakersfield, Kern County, the tri- county area, and State of California in 2020. According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, Hispanic/Latino is the largest racial/ethnic group, followed by non-Hispanic White. Bakersfield and Kern County have a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents compared to California, but a slightly lower percentage compared to the tri-county area. The next largest racial/ethnic groups in Bakersfield are Asian Americans and Black/African Americans, which constitutes a proportionally larger share of the city population than in Kern County or the tri-county area.
Between 2000 and 2020, the racial and ethnic demographic has shifted. Since 2000, the city’s proportion of non-Hispanic white population declined, while the percentage of the city’s population that identifies as Hispanic/Latino increased from 32.5% to 51.1%. The proportion of the population that identifies as Asian American increased from 4.1% to 7.1%, while the proportion of the Black/African American population declined slightly, from 8.9% to 7.0%.
Between 2000 and 2020, the number of non-Hispanic White residents and American Indian and Alaska Native residents declined, while the number of residents in all other racial/ethnic groups increased.
Table 3 Race and Ethnicity
14 Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and related fair housing concerns. The Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance organization notes that race-based discrimination ranks second behind only disability in the number of fair housing complaints in recent years.
Household Characteristics
Housing Tenure
Housing tenure refers to the ownership status of a household that resides in a housing unit. The table below shows the owner occupancy and tenancy of occupied housing units in Bakersfield. Neither tenure status is immune from fair housing concerns. Discriminatory lending practices, for example, can affect prospective and current homeowners, and prospective and current tenants in rental units can face a host of discriminatory practices.
Table 4: Housing Tenure
Tenure
2010 2020
Occupied units % of total Occupied units % of total
Owner 63,815 60.4 75,653 59.2
Renter 41,833 39.6 52,211 40.8
Total 105,648 100 127,864 100
Source: 2020 Decennial Census, U.S. Census Bureau
Household Composition and Size
The average size and composition of households are highly sensitive to the age structure of the population, but they also reflect social and economic changes. For example, economic downturns may prolong the time adult children live at home or result in multiple families and non-family members living together to lower housing
15 costs. Table 5 depicts the average household size by housing tenure, and Table 6 reports the number of households by composition. As shown in Table 5, the average household size in Bakersfield is 3.17, with a slightly higher average among owner-occupied households than renters. Bakersfield has a larger average household size than Kern County and California but a smaller household size than the tri-county area.
Bakersfield’s average household size has increased by 2.3% from 3.1% since 2010.
Table 5: Household Size by Tenure
Table 6: Composition of Households by Income
0-30%
HAMFI
>30-50%
HAMFI
>50-80%
HAMFI
>80-100%
HAMFI
>100%
HAMFI
Total Households 15,165 13,250 19,440 11,345 59,370
Small Family Households 5,790 5,665 8,530 5,975 31,580
Large Family Households 1,950 2,305 3,295 1,955 8,635
Household contains at least one person
62-74 years of age 3,165 2,535 3,845 1,850 12,210
Household contains at least one person
age 75 or older 1,800 1,600 1,975 940 3,705
Households with one or more children 6
years old or younger 3,659 4,440 5,164 2,804 10,839
Source: 2016-2020 CHAS.
The average household size has increased since 2010, possibly due to increasing housing costs and a younger population. While household size or composition alone cannot determine current or future housing needs, it is an important piece to understanding the local housing market. For example, LMI households are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions, which can be an indication of a constrained housing supply, insufficient incomes, high housing costs, or social and cultural norms.
Household Income
Next to housing costs, household income is the most important factor determining a household’s ability to afford housing. Although economic and financial factors that affect a household’s housing choice are not a fair housing issue per se, the relationships among household income, household type, race/ethnicity and other factors often create misconceptions and biases that raise fair housing issues.
The City’s income distribution is indexed to area median income (AMI), calculated by HUD. Based on the AMI, it establishes four income categories that dictate eligibility for most publicly assisted housing programs:
● Extremely Low Income – At or below 30% of AMI
● Very Low Income – 30-50% of AMI
● Low Income – 50–80% of AMI
16 ● Moderate Income – 80–120% of AMI
Table 7: 2024 Kern County Income Limits
Number of Persons
in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Acutely Low Income $9,250 $10,550 $11,900 $13,200 $14,250 $15,300 $16,350 $17,400 Extremely Low $18,450 $21,100 $25,820 $31,200 $36,580 $41,960 $47,340 $52,720 Very Low Income $30,800 $35,200 $39,600 $43,950 $47,500 $51,000 $54,500 $58,050 Low Income $49,250 $56,250 $63,300 $70,300 $75,950 $81,550 $87,200 $92,800 Median Income $61,550 $70,300 $79,100 $87,900 $94,950 $101,950 $109,000 $116,050 Moderate Income $73,850 $84,400 $94,950 $105,500 $113,950 $122,400 $130,800 $139,250 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024
The following table shows what the affordable monthly housing cost is for each of the income categories in the table above.
Table 8: 2024 Kern County Affordable Monthly Housing Cost Number of Persons
in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Acutely Low $231 $264 $298 $330 $356 $383 $409 $435
Extremely Low $461 $528 $646 $780 $915 $1,049 $1,184 $1,318 Very Low Income $770 $880 $990 $1,099 $1,188 $1,275 $1,363 $1,451 Low Income $1,231 $1,406 $1,583 $1,758 $1,899 $2,039 $2,180 $2,320 Median Income $1,539 $1,758 $1,978 $2,198 $2,374 $2,549 $2,725 $2,901 Moderate Income $1,846 $2,110 $2,374 $2,638 $2,849 $3,060 $3,270 $3,481 Source: City of Bakersfield, 2024
Over half of all households are considered LMI, but these households are not evenly distributed throughout the city. Like in most major cities, LMI households in Bakersfield are concentrated in certain areas in the city. Figure 1 shows the LMI residents are generally located in central and southeast Bakersfield.
17 Figure 1: Median Household Income by Tract
Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2024
Housing Characteristics
Housing Stock
Bakersfield’s housing stock consists of a variety of housing types, but Table 9 shows nearly three-fourths of the housing stock is detached single-family homes, much greater than the State’s percentage (57.5%) of such homes. This can complicate fair housing choice, as single-family homes are often more expensive than other housing types, thus limiting a household’s ability to seek greater opportunity. Additionally, the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation has found that maintaining anti-density zoning, such as land use being dominated by single-family detached housing, results in more racially segregated cities and tend to exclude blue collar workers.5
Table 9: Housing Stock Composition
Housing Type
Bakersfield California
Number of Units % of Total Number of Units % of Total
Single Family, detached 100,436 73% 8,471,490 57%
Single Family, attached 3,623 3% 1,069,749 7%
Two to Four Units 14,716 11% 1,149,409 8%
More than Five Units 17,016 12% 3,594,764 24%
Mobile Homes 2,738 2% 539,415 4%
Total 138,529 100% 14,824,827 100%
5 Jonathan Rothwell, “Land Use Politics, Housing Costs, and Segregation in California Cities,” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, September 2019.
18 Vacancy Rate 3.6% 6.4%
Source: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024, California Department of Finance
Housing Conditions
Assessing housing conditions can provide the basis for developing policies and programs to maintain and preserve the quality of the housing stock. Housing age can indicate general housing conditions within a community, particularly when it comes to lead-based paint (LBP). LBP has been banned in household paint since 1978, but housing units constructed prior to that year are more likely to contain lead-based paint. The following figure represents the age of the housing stock in Bakersfield.
Figure 2: Age of Housing Stock
Most of the current housing stock in Bakersfield is evenly distributed across the 1970’s through the 1990’s. A spike in homebuilding in the 2000s provided 28,381 homes, greater than any other decade. The spike drastically plummeted in the 2010s, where only 3,724 homes were built. However, housing construction has since increased in the last decade to rates more typical of construction during 1970 to 2000, with 16,561 housing units added Nearly 61% of the City’s housing stock was built after 1980, reflecting the growth Bakersfield has experienced as its economy and population have expanded in recent decades. Still, homes constructed prior to 1980 are more likely to contain LBP and may have significant rehabilitation needs.
HUD also analyzes four housing conditions as part of its Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) derived from American Community Survey data. These four conditions are units that lack complete kitchen facilities, units that lack complete plumbing facilities, housing that is overcrowded, and housing cost burden. The first two problems can serve as proxies for housing conditions in the City. Fortunately, less than one percent of all households live with substandard kitchen or plumbing facilities.
19 Housing Needs
California law requires localities to adopt a Housing Element as part of their General Plan. State Housing Element law requires that cities and counties address housing needs for all income levels of the population. The Kern Council of Governments (COG) allocated the regional fair share of housing needs to Bakersfield for the 2015- 2023 period through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
According to the City’s RHNA allocation, Bakersfield must accommodate the potential for 36,290 housing units during the eight-year period (years 2015-2023). This allocation is based on population forecasts, economic trends, and other socioeconomic data. Table 10 presents the distribution of the future needs by four household income categories.
Table 10: Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation, 2023-2031 Allocation % of Allocation
Very Low Income (0-50%AMI) 11,129 30%
Low Income (50-80%AMI) 7,082 19%
Moderate Income (80-120%AMI) 5,317 14%
Above Moderate Income (Greater than 120% AMI) 13,933 37% TOTAL 37,461 100%
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2023
The substantial need in the lower-income categories reflects the broader home production trends in California.
High land, construction, and labor costs, coupled with limited public funding, often renders affordable housing infeasible. What affordable housing is produced is impactful and important to the households that attain it, but the overall demand is much higher than the supply, possibly affecting fair housing choice.
Special Needs
Certain households, because of their special characteristics and needs, have more difficulty finding decent and affordable housing. The following discussion highlights characteristics that could affect an individual household’s access to housing in the community.
Large Households
Large households are defined as having five or more members. These households are usually families with two or more children or families with extended family members such as in-laws or grandparents. These can also include multiple families living in one housing unit in order to save on housing costs.
Large households are a special needs group because the availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units is often limited. To save for necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, LMI large households may reside in smaller units, resulting in overcrowding. Furthermore, families with children, especially those who are renters, may face discrimination in the housing market. For example, some landlords may charge large households a higher rent or security deposit, limit the number of children in a complex, confine them to a 20 specific location, limit the time children can play outdoors or choose not to rent to families with children altogether, which would violate fair housing laws.
In Bakersfield, most residents living together are in family households as opposed to non-family households.
As shown in Table 11, 21,065 households, or 17.8% of total households, are considered large households.
Almost all large households are family households. Comparatively, 18.2% of households in Kern County are considered large households, 20.5% in the tri-county area, and 14.5% in California.
Table 11: Household size
Single-Parent Households
Single-parent families, particularly female-headed, single-parent families with children, often require special consideration and assistance because they have a higher housing cost burden relative to the general population and may require accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. Female-headed families with children are a particularly vulnerable group. Studies have shown that female-headed households are more likely to be affected by poverty and housing discrimination than male-headed households. According to 2016-2020 ACS data, there are 20,414 female-headed households (no spouse present) with children in Bakersfield, with 6,627 (32.5%) earning an income below the poverty line. This rate is higher than the rate of
21.5% in California for the same group.
Table 12 shows female-headed households in Bakersfield, Kern County, tri-county area, and California. Female- headed households with children under 18 years old comprised 29% of all female -headed households in Bakersfield, higher than in Kern County, the tri-county area, and California.
Female-headed families may also be discriminated against in the rental housing market because some landlords are concerned regarding the ability of these households to make regular rent payments. Consequently, landlords may require more stringent credit checks or higher security deposits for women, which would be a violation of fair housing laws.
21 Table 12: Female-Headed Households
Persons with Disabilities
Persons with physical disabilities may face discrimination in the housing market because of the need for wheelchair access, home modifications to improve accessibility or other forms of assistance. Landlords/owners sometimes fear that a unit might sustain wheelchair damage or might refuse to exempt disabled tenants with service/guide animals from a no-pet policy. A major barrier to housing for people with mental disabilities is opposition based on the stigma of mental disability. Landlords often refuse to rent to tenants with a history of mental illness. Indeed, discrimination based on disability status is the most common source of fair housing complaints.
The definition of disability changes based on its context. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) considers disability as a legal term. Other laws and government programs view disability through a medical lens. For the purposes of this report, the U.S. Census Bureau classifies disabilities into the following categories:
● Hearing difficulty: Deaf or having serious difficulty hearing ● Vision difficulty: Blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses ● Cognitive difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions
● Ambulatory difficulty: Having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs ● Self-care difficulty: Having difficulty bathing or dressing ● Independent living difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping
According to the 2016-2020 ACS, a total of 40,024 residents in Bakersfield have at least one disability, approximately 10.6% of the total population. Adults 65 years and older have the highest rates of disabilities, with 16.6% of the population having one disability and an additional 21.9% with two disabilities. These rates are similar to the tri-county area and slightly higher than the California average. Figure 3 displays distribution of disabilities by type of disability.
22 Figure 3: Disabilities by Type
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Persons with HIV/AIDS face an array of barriers to obtaining and maintaining affordable, stable housing, which is important to their general health and wellbeing. According to the National AIDS Housing Coalition, people with HIV/AIDS who are homeless or unstably housed are:
● More likely to enter HIV care late
● Less likely to receive and adhere to antiretroviral therapy ● More likely to be hospitalized and use emergency rooms ● More likely to experience a premature death
Despite federal and state anti-discrimination laws, many people face illegal eviction from their homes when their illness is exposed. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, which is primarily enforced by HUD, prohibits housing discrimination against persons with disabilities, including persons with HIV/AIDS.
According to the 2021 California HIV Surveillance Report, there are 2,178 cases of persons living with a diagnosed HIV infection in Kern County. Of these cases, less than 1% are ages 13 or below, 4% are ages 13-19, 32% are ages 20-29, 34% are ages 30-39, 19% are 40-49, 8% are ages 50-59, and 3% are 60 years or more according to the data presented at the Kern County Provider HIV Symposium in 2024. Additionally, 87% of HIV/AIDS cases are male, 11% are female, and 1% identify as transgender. Persons with HIV/AIDS face an array of barriers to obtaining and maintaining affordable and decent housing, which is as essential to their general health and wellbeing as access to quality and affordable healthcare.
The Kern County Department of Public Health (KCDPH) administers a range of HIV/AIDS services including:
● AIDS Drug Assistance Program
● Case Management Services
● Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Assistance Program
● Housing Opportunities for People Living with AIDS (HOPWA)
23 The HOPWA program was established by HUD to address the specific needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. In the Bakersfield area, the HOPWA program works collaboratively with HACK and the Kern County Department of Public Health to provide housing assistance and supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families that meet the eligibility criteria.
As an entitlement community, the City of Bakersfield receives HOPWA funds directly from HUD. Currently, the City administers the program itself but will soon use provisions within the HOPWA regulations that allow a grantee to decline its grantee status and to enter into an agreement with the State to administer the HOPWA program on behalf of the City.
Persons Experiencing Homelessness
People experiencing homelessness often have a difficult time finding permanent housing. With little to no income and high housing costs, people experiencing homelessness often find it challenging to afford a home.
The constrained supply of affordable housing also limits the homeless population’s entry into permanent housing. This group may also encounter fair housing issues when landlords refuse to rent to them for a variety of reasons including: a lack of steady income, lack of previous addresses, requiring a third-party payer, or limitations pertaining to supplying identification. The perception may be that homeless persons are financially or behaviorally unstable. These difficulties are more severe for homeless families that need larger affordable units to accommodate children.
In January 2024, the Bakersfield/Kern County Continuum of Care (CoC) conducted a Point-in-Time (PIT) count of homeless persons in Bakersfield, living sheltered or unsheltered. The Bakersfield-Kern regional Homeless Collaborative, the local CoC, takes measures to ensure that the survey provides a statistically reliable, unduplicated count. Table 13 represents the 2024 PIT count.
Table 13: 2024 Point-in-Time Count
Adults
Adults w/
Children Children Total
Change since
2018
Sheltered 805 68 133 1,006 8%
Unsheltered 1,645 17 1 1,663 64%
Total 2,450 85 134 2,669 37%
Source: Bakersfield-Kern Regional Homeless Collaborative Point in Time Count 2024
According to the 2024 PIT count, there are 85 households with children that are homeless, of that number 80% are sheltered in the City, while 20% are homeless but without shelter. Overall, families with children accounted for just over 8% of the total homeless population in Bakersfield. A total of 134 unaccompanied children were homeless, of that number 99% are sheltered and 1% are unsheltered. Many of these families utilized the County’s emergency shelters, transitional housing shelters, and bridge housing, but by the number of unsheltered families it is clear more assistance is needed. In comparison, only 38% of the overall homeless population are sheltered.
As shown in Table 14 below, 55% of the sheltered homeless individuals in the area were white. Black/African American was the next largest racial group, comprising 44% of individuals. Both races do not track proportionally as compared to their representation in the Bakersfield population overall. Whites comprise 69% of the City’s 24 population and Black/African American make up 8%. Less than one percent of individuals identified as American Indian/Alaska Native and both Asian and Pacific Islander population comprised one percent of the homeless population.
The Census Bureau considers Hispanic as an ethnicity with which people of any race can identify. As such, the distribution of Hispanics and non-Hispanics within the homeless population does not correlate with the racial distribution. Seventy-seven percent are non-Hispanic and 23% are Hispanic.
Table 14: Nature and Extent of Homelessness
Race: Sheltered:
White 4,964
Black/African American 3,908
Asian 91
American Indian or Alaska
Native 3
Pacific Islander 2
Ethnicity: Sheltered:
Hispanic 2,951
Not Hispanic 9,684
Data Source: Continuum of Care Racial Equity Tool
The majority of the CoC’s sheltered individuals reside within the Metro Bakersfield according to the 2024 PIT (969 individuals vs. 37 individuals). This can be attributed in part to Bakersfield having most of the County’s temporary housing facilities, which include emergency shelters, transitional and bridge housing. Overall, sheltered homeless comprised 38% of the County’s total homeless population and 42% of Metro Bakersfield’s homeless population. Due to the increase in persons experiencing homelessness, these numbers increased by 7% since 2023.
Out of the 2,293 homeless individuals in Metro Bakersfield, 1,324 were unsheltered or 58%. As compared to the Countywide PIT, the City of Bakersfield is experiencing a lower number of unsheltered persons, the Countywide total was 1,663 individuals or 62% of the homeless population. The Metro Bakersfield area saw a 55% increase in unsheltered homelessness as compared to the 2023 PIT (853 individual to 1,324). Most unsheltered homeless households were individual adults; only 59 were adults with children and 116 children based on 2024 PIT. Many factors contribute to the large proportion of unsheltered individual adults, such as limited shelter space and a lack of social supports to which families often have access, as well the reduction funds available to the community when the COVID-19 one-time funding ended.
Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm laborers work in the fields, processing plants, or related activities on a generally year-round basis. When workload increases during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal and migrant labor, often supplied by a labor contractor. For some crops, farms may employ migrant workers, defined as those whose travel distance to work prevents them from returning to their primary 25 residence after their work ends for the day. Migrant workers might also face language barriers or be unfamiliar with government agencies like the Census Bureau, leading to further underrepresentation.
Determining the true size of the agricultural labor force is difficult. For instance, the government agencies that track farm labor do not consistently define farmworkers (e.g., field laborers versus workers in processing plants), length of employment (e.g., permanent or seasonal), or place of work (e.g., the location of the business or field).
The University of California Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources identified 150,300 laborers with at least one farm job in Kern County in 2016, the highest number of any county in the state. The most common farm employment, according to the 2016 survey, was farm labor contractors and crew leaders, followed by tree nut farming and grape vineyards.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2017 Agricultural Census (latest available data) identified 20,469 farmworkers on 845 farms within Kern County and 50,700 farmworkers on 2,160 farms in the tri-county area.
According to the report, 8,397 farmworkers in Kern County reported to be employed for fewer than 150 days of the year, and 6.062 farmworkers identified as migrant workers.
The 2020 ACS identified 14,175 residents in Bakersfield with occupations in farming, fishing, and forestry. The University of California Merced conducted a Farmworker Health Study and determined that within the San Joaquin Valley, the average farmworker household size is 4.0 persons. The majority of farmworkers live in single- family homes, while 4% live in a labor camp, boarding house, or motel, and 8% live in a recreational vehicle or car. The median salary of a farmworker in the San Joaquin Valley is $15,000 per year, considered extremely low- income.
Their low incomes and the often-seasonal nature of employment can lead farmworkers to reside in severely overcrowded conditions. Immigration status can also discourage farmworkers from demanding higher wages and better living conditions.
6 In one survey, the California Agricultural Workers Health Survey found 40% of farmworker dwellings had two or more unrelated families sharing a single- home or apartment. In general, sharing of dwellings among strangers is an accepted farmworker practice.
Fortunately, there are some farmworker housing opportunities in the region. HACK maintains 10 housing developments with over 700 housing units dedicated to farmworkers and two Migrant Farm Labor Centers with 172 units under contract with the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Still, much is to be done to secure fair housing choice for the City’s farmworker population.
Publicly Assisted Housing
The availability and location of publicly assisted housing may be a fair housing concern. Concentrating such housing in limited areas can perpetuate cycles of poverty and limit economic opportunity. Further, publicly assisted housing and housing assistance must be accessible to qualified households regardless of race/ethnicity, disability or other special characteristics.
Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8)
6 “Farmworkers and Immigration: Priorities for Reform,” Farmworker Justice. 26 HACK administers 4,717 rental assistance vouchers, a substantial number that demonstrably improves the lives of recipients. Unfortunately, the need for vouchers far outstrips the supply. As of late 2024, the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list had more than 11,000 applicants. The waiting list was last opened in January 2022, and it will not be open for several more years. This limits lower income households’ options for safe and affordable housing.
Affordable Housing
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) within the State Treasurer’s office provides information for all multifamily housing using Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs), the federal government’s primary mechanism for funding affordable housing construction. TCAC reports there are 5,198 housing units in Bakersfield that used LIHTCs. Approximately 99% of these units are reserved for households earning less than 80% AMI. While these units are impactful, there is certainly a need for more affordable units, considering the number of cost burdened households in the City.
Public Transit
This section addresses access to public transit and employment as well as disparities in exposure to adverse community factors. Ideally, public transit should connect those dependent on transit to major employers and other important services like grocery stores and childcare. Limited public transit can affect access to employment opportunities and affordable housing, which in turn can impair fair housing choice. In addition, seniors and persons with a disability often rely on public transit to visit doctors, go shopping or attend activities at community facilities. Public transit that provides a link between job opportunities, public services and affordable housing helps to ensure that transit-dependent residents have adequate opportunity to access housing, services and jobs.
Bakersfield offers a traditional fixed-route bus service, as well as a paratransit service for local area residents.
Both are provided by the Golden Empire Transit District (GET), which operates Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10:45 p.m. and on Saturday and Sunday from 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The GET system is designed to accommodate several types of riders. As a reflection of this, the fare structure has special rates for senior citizens, persons with disabilities and children. The paratransit service, known as GET-A-Lift, operates seven days a week and is eligible to riders who have a disability that prevents them from making some or all their trips on fixed route buses. Each service connects residential neighborhoods to many of Bakersfield’s essential services and key locations, including all area hospitals and higher education institutions. The image below depicts the transit service in Bakersfield.
27 Figure 4: Golden Empire Transit Service Area
28 Lending Practices
A key aspect of fair housing choice is equitable access to credit for the purchase, improvement, or refinancing of a home. This section reviews the lending practices of mortgage lenders and the access to financing for all households, particularly LMI populations and people of color.
Publicly available data on lending does not contain the detailed information necessary to make conclusive statements on fair or discriminatory lending, but it can point to potential areas of concern. Furthermore, local jurisdictions’ ability to influence lending practices is limited (except for outreach and education efforts). Such practices are largely governed by national policies and regulations.
Background
Discriminatory practices in home mortgage lending have a long history in the United States. In the 1930s, the federal government founded the modern mortgage loan market through a suite of bills that established the Federal Housing Administration and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). Together, these entities insured and purchased mortgages to allow more Americans to access credit and receive favorable and affordable home loan terms.
An unfortunate part of this history is the method by which the government assessed borrower risk. Through the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), the federal government created maps indicating where lending federally insured mortgages would be too risky. These areas, colored in red, marked predominately minority neighborhoods, especially areas with a large African American population. The effects of government- sanctioned redlining are still being felt. Many of the areas that were deemed “hazardous” in the 1930’s are still impoverished today, more than eight decades later. A recent study found 74% of the neighborhoods redlined by HOLC are considered LMI and 64% are majority-minority areas.
The federal government did stop its redlining practices and eventually outlawed such actions through landmark legislation like the Civil Rights and Fair Housing Acts, but discriminatory lending practices continue to affect LMI communities. For example, the subprime mortgages that contributed to the 2007-08 financial crisis disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minorities and LMI homeowners.
LMI and minority communities continue to have less-than-equal access to the best loan prices and terms than their credit history, income, and other individual financial considerations may merit. It is with this backdrop that the City’s AI seeks to analyze local lending practices.
Conventional and Government-Backed Financing
Conventional financing typically involves market-rate loans provided by private lending institutions such as banks, mortgage companies, and savings and loans associations. Government-backed financing includes loan products that are insured (“backed”) by a given government agency. These loans typically require lower credit scores and down payments than conventional loans. Sources of government-backed financing include the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Government-backed loans are often offered to consumers through private lending institutions because the government is not the lender itself.
29 Typically, LMI households have a much better chance of getting a government-backed loan than a conventional loan, but many factors play into borrowers’ decisions. For example, subprime loans with terms such as zero percent down or interest-only payments proliferated leading up to the 2007-8 financial crisis. Some lenders did not even require verification of a borrower’s income or assets. These subprime loans were risky to both the borrower and the lender but were competitive with government-backed loans because of accessibility.
Access to Homeownership
A key aspect of fair housing choice is equitable access to credit for the purchase, improvement, or refinancing of a home. This section reviews the lending practices of mortgage lenders and the access to financing for all households, particularly LMI populations and people of color. Publicly available data on lending does not contain the detailed information necessary to make conclusive statements on fair or discriminatory lending, but it can point to potential areas of concern. Furthermore, local jurisdictions’ ability to influence lending practices is limited (except for outreach and education efforts). Such practices are largely governed by national policies and regulations.
In 2020, there were 53,421 total home loan applications in the city, which includes first mortgages, home improvement, and refinancing loans. This number is more than double the statistics presented in the 2016 AI. Of all home loans, 62.2%, or 33,207, were originated in 2020. Mortgage origination is the process by which a lender works with a borrower to complete a mortgage transaction. More than 33,000 households in Bakersfield were ultimately approved for a loan in 2020. The tables below represent an overview of all of Bakersfield’s home loan applications, which includes purchase, home improvement, and refinancing loans by race/ethnicity and income.
Table 14: All Loan Applications by Race and Ethnicity
Race/ Ethnicity
Applications
Received (% of all
applications)
Loans
Originated
Loans
Rejected
Applications
Denied
(% denied)
Applications
Withdrawn
Files Closed for
Completeness
White 34,460
(64.5%)
22,453 1,089 3,533
(10.3%)
5,452 1,933
Hispanic/ Latino 16,806
(31.5%)
10,131 561 2,140
(12.7%)
2,838 1,136
Unknown 12,452
(23.3%)
6,977 402 1,761
(14.1%)
2,170 1,142
Asian American 3,010
(5.6%)
1,777 77 420
(14.0%)
512 224
Black or African
American
1,624
(3.0%)
919 54 258
(15.9%)
291 102
Not applicable 1,073
(2%)
688 30 107
(10.0%)
186 62
Native American 570
(1.1%)
278 18 108
(18.9%)
95 71
Hawaiian 137
(0.3%)
59 9 25
(18.2%)
27 17
Multi-race 95
(0.2%)
56 2 20
(21.1%)
13 4
Total 53,421 33,207 1,681 6,232 8,746 3,555
▪ Denied – loan applicants did not qualify for a loan • 30 ▪ Withdrawn – applicant withdrew their loan application from further processing ▪ Incomplete – loan applications were not completed and were not processed Source: HMDA Database, 2020
In an ideal scenario, the applicant pool for home loan lending would be reflective of the demographics of a community. For example, if 50% of a population is White, then one would expect that 50% of home loan applicants would be White. When one racial/ethnic group is overrepresented or underrepresented in the total applicant pool, it could be an indicator of unequal access to housing opportunities. Table 15 below compares the demographics of Bakersfield against overall home loan statistics.
The greatest disparity between demographics and loan applications is for the Hispanic/Latino population.
There is a 21.2% difference between the share of the population that is Hispanic/Latino population and the Hispanic/Latino share of total home loan applications. Conversely, the white population has the greatest positive difference—its application share is 36.4% greater than its population share. For comparison, the United States is 57.8% white and represented 59.5% of all home loan applications throughout the nation.
The country’s Hispanic/Latino communities represent 18.7% of the population but only 7.8% of all home loan applicants. Lending patterns in Bakersfield suggest unequal access to home loans.
Table 15: Home Purchase Loans Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Population Share Application Share Applications Denied Hispanic/Latino 52.7% 31.5% 12.7%
White 28.8% 64.5% 10.3%
Asian American 7.5% 5.6% 14.0%
Black or African American 6.5% 3.0% 15.9%
Multi-race 3.7% 0.2% 21.1%
Native American 0.5% 1.1% 18.9%
Hawaiian 0.1% 0.3% 18.2%
Source: HMDA Database, 2020
Only the White, Native American, and Hawaiian populations apply for mortgages at greater rates relative to their population shares, and only the white populations have mortgage denial rates lower than the overall rate of denial of 10.9%. This indicates racial and ethnic minorities apply for mortgages at lower rates and, when they do, are denied at higher rates.
Table 16: All Loan Applications by Income Level, Bakersfield Race/
Ethnicity
Applications
Received
Loans
Originated
Loans
Rejected
Applications
Denied
Applications
Withdrawn
Files
Closed for
Completeness
Very Low
(<50% AMI)
2,305
(5.2%)
956 66 579
(25.1%)
441 263
Low
(50% to 79%
AMI)
2,382
(5.4%)
1,322 74 415
(17.4%)
412 159
31 Moderate
(80% to 99%
AMI)
2,086
(4.7%)
1,255 69 269
12.9%)
359 134
Moderate
(100% to 119%
AMI)
7,680
(17.5%)
4,920 239 839
(10.9%)
1,255 427
Above
Moderate
(<120% AMI)
29,473
(67.1%)
19,350 778 2,984
(10.1%)
4,797 1,564
Total 43,926 27,803 1,226 5,086
(11.6%)
7,264 2,547
Definitions
▪ Applications received – the number of applications submitted for a home loan ▪ Originated – a completed loan application that results in a loan ▪ Rejected – loan applications approved, but the loans were not accepted by the applicant ▪ Denied – loan applicants did not qualify for a loan
▪ Withdrawn – applicant withdrew their loan application from further processing ▪ Incomplete – loan applications were not completed and were not processed Source: HMDA Database, 2020
Very low-, low-, and moderate-income households are underrepresented in home loan applications while above moderate-income households are overrepresented. Very low-, low-, and moderate-income people have lower incomes and are likely to have fewer assets than moderate- and upper-income households, which makes it more challenging to meet down payment requirements. This all leads to lower rates of home loan applications.
Very low- and low-income mortgage applicants are denied at far higher rates than moderate- and above moderate-income applicants. Conversely, above moderate-income households represent most mortgage applicants and are denied home loans far less often. Approximately 10.1% of above moderate-income applications were denied, compared to 17.4% of low-income applications and 25.1% of very low-income applications. Very low-income mortgage applicants are denied loans at a rate of two and a half times higher than above moderate-income households. Consequently, above moderate-income homeowners can access additional financial benefits once they are homeowners. For example, they can build wealth through increasing property values and claim the mortgage interest deduction on their tax returns, thus lowering their taxable income.
Nonwhite populations apply for government backed loans at much higher rates than White populations (see table below). Nearly half of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino applicants applied for government- backed loans, compared to only 6.5% of white applicants.
32 Table 17: Home Purchase Loans by Loan Type
Race/Ethnicity
Conventional Loans
(Number of Applications)
FHA, VA, and FSA/RHS Loans
(Number of Applications)
White 24,925 (93.5%) 1,747 (6.5%)
Hispanic/Latino 11,568 (95.9%) 497 (4.1%)
Asian American 2,686 (87.0%) 403 (13.0%)
Unknown 1,078 (36.6%) 1,869 (63.4%)
Black or African American 889 (51.6%) 835 (48.4%)
Native American 384 (64.5%) 211 (35.5%)
Hawaiian 87 (63.0%) 51 (37.0%)
Multi-race 64 (63.4%) 37 (36.6%)
Total 30,113 5,153
Source: HMDA Database, 2020
Foreclosures
According to statistics provided by RealtyTrac.com, an online data aggregator, foreclosure homes currently account for 4% of properties in the City, with 49 foreclosures within Zip Code 93306, the highest number in any Zip Code. According to a 2023 report from ATTOM, the Bakersfield metro area in California has one of the highest foreclosure rates of any city in the country.7 In the first half of 2023, there was about one foreclosure for every 473 homes, the 23rd highest foreclosure rate of the 223 metropolitan statistical areas with populations of at least 200,000 considered in the report. In 2024, ATTOM reports there are 599 year-to-date foreclosure filings.8
Predatory Lending
Predatory lending involves abusive loan practices usually targeting minority applicants or those with less-than- perfect credit histories. Typical predatory lending practices include:
● Inadequate or False Disclosure: The lender hides or misrepresents the true costs, risks and/or appropriateness of a loan’s terms, or the lender changes the loan terms after the initial offer. ● Risk-Based Pricing: While all lenders depend on some form of risk-based pricing — tying interest rates to credit history — predatory lenders abuse the practice by charging very high interest rates to high- risk borrowers who are most likely to default.
● Inflated Fees and Charges: Fees and costs (e.g., appraisals, closing costs, document preparation fees) are much higher than those charged by reputable lenders, and are often hidden in fine print. ● Loan Packing: Unnecessary products like credit insurance — which pays off the loan if a homebuyer dies — are added into the cost of a loan.
● Loan Flipping: The lender encourages a borrower to refinance an existing loan into a larger one with a higher interest rate and additional fees.
● Asset-Based Lending: Borrowers are encouraged to borrow more than they should when a lender offers a refinance loan based on their amount of home equity, rather than on their income or ability to repay.
7 https://247wallst.com/city/bakersfield-ca-has-one-of-the-highest-foreclosure-rates-in-the-country/ 8 https://www.attomdata.com/data/us-real-estate/ca/kern-county/bakersfield/
33 ● Reverse Redlining: The lender targets limited-resource neighborhoods that conventional banks may shy away from. Everyone in the neighborhood is charged higher rates to borrow money, regardless of credit history, income or ability to repay.
● Balloon Mortgages: A borrower is convinced to refinance a mortgage with one that has lower payments upfront but excessive (balloon) payments later in the loan term. When the balloon payments cannot be met, the lender helps to refinance again with another high-interest, high-fee loan. ● Negative Amortization: This occurs when a monthly loan payment is too small to cover even the interest, which gets added to the unpaid balance. It can result in a borrower owing substantially more than the original amount borrowed.
● Abnormal Prepayment Penalties: A borrower who tries to refinance a home loan with one that offers better terms can be assessed an abusive prepayment penalty for paying off the original loan early. Up to 80% of subprime mortgages have abnormally high prepayment penalties.
● Mandatory Arbitration: The lender adds language to a loan contract making it illegal for a borrower to take future legal action for fraud or misrepresentation. The only option for an abused borrower is arbitration, which generally puts the borrower at a disadvantage.
Even with recent safeguards enacted to curb the spread of this practice, predatory lending continues to be a fair housing issue. Predatory as well as discriminatory lending is addressed under the Fair Housing Acts and applies to loan originators as well as the secondary mortgage market. Additionally, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1972 requires equal treatment in loan terms and availability of credit for people of all protected classes.
Predatory lending and unsound investment practices were central to the 2007-8 financial crisis.
It resulted in a series of reforms, including California enacting Assembly Bill 260, which reformed mortgage lending and specifically banned predatory lending practices, and the federal government establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. AB 260 created a fiduciary duty standard for mortgage brokers, eliminated compensation incentives that encourage the steering of borrowers into risky loans, and established regulations on prepayment penalties. Lenders that engage in predatory lending would violate these acts if they were to target ethnic minority or elderly households to buy higher-priced and unequal loan products, treat loans for protected classes differently than those of comparably creditworthy White applicants, or have policies or practices that have a disproportionate effect on the protected classes. Data available to investigate the presence of predatory lending are extremely limited.
34 Public Policies
Public policies established at the regional and local levels can affect housing development and may impact the range and location of housing choices available to residents. The Fair Housing Planning process is designed to encourage an inclusive living environment, active community participation, and an assessment of public policies and practices that can help identify impediments to fair housing choice. This section discusses the various public policies that could influence fair housing choice in the City of Bakersfield.
Policies and Programs Affecting Housing Development
General Plan and Housing Element
The General Plan of a jurisdiction establishes a vision for the community and provides long-range goals and policies to guide the development in achieving that vision. The General Plan also acts to clarify and articulate the relationship and intentions of the local government to the rights and expectations of the general public, property owners, and prospective investors. Two of the seven State-mandated General Plan elements – Housing and Land Use Elements – have direct impact on the local housing market in terms of the amount and range of housing choice.
Of these, only the Housing Element has specific statutory requirements and is subject to certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for compliance with State law. Enacted in 1969, Housing Element law requires that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community. The law acknowledges for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for and do not unduly constrain housing development.
The Land Use Element is also a part of the General Plan affecting development, as it designates the general distribution, location, and extent of all land uses, including residential. The Land Use Element establishes a range of residential land use categories, specifies densities (typically expressed as dwelling units per acre, and sometimes as Floor Area Ratio (FAR)), and suggests the types of housing appropriate in a community.
Zoning Ordinance
The zoning ordinance implements the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. By establishing zones that correspond with General Plan land use designations, the City ensures public health and safety, while also providing for its current and future housing needs. The Fair Housing Act does not preempt local zoning laws, but it does apply to local government entities by prohibiting land use policies and zoning ordinances that exclude or otherwise discriminate against persons of protected classes.
Discrimination in zoning and land use may occur unintentionally – land use policies such as density or design requirements that make residential development prohibitively expensive, prohibitions on multi-family housing, or a household occupancy standard may be considered discriminatory if it can be proven these policies have a disproportionate impact on minorities, families with children, or people with disabilities. A study in the UC Berkeley's Terner Center’s ongoing California Residential Land Use Survey, funded by the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development, confirms this phenomenon: cities that limit density and have greater opposition to housing tend to have higher housing prices. This study has the potential to impact and shape future state housing policies, including local zoning policies.
35 In addition, anti-density zoning, such as land use being dominated by single-family detached housing, results in more racially segregated cities and tends to exclude blue collar workers.9 The study studied over- and under- representation of blue-collar workers and correlated data with average minimum lot sizes, finding that both the share of land set aside for single-family housing and the stringency of minimum lot size requirements predict that a jurisdiction will be home to a significantly smaller share of workers in blue-collar occupations relative to the surrounding jurisdictions in their metropolitan area.10 The study also found:
● high housing costs near job centers creates problems for workers in lower-paid occupations who want to be close to their job, forcing them to live further away in jurisdictions with more relaxed zoning laws ● jurisdictions that allocate large percentages of land to single-family detached housing in effect prohibits most blue- collar workers from participating in the housing market ● minimum lot size requirements are also strongly correlated with lower shares of workers in service occupations (a subset of blue-collar) and higher share of professional workers and computer workers (a subset of professional workers)
Table 18 below shows that Bakersfield’s housing stock is 73% detached single-family homes, a far higher percentage than the State as a whole. While housing stock is not a perfect reflection of the zoning ordinance – developers can seek deviations from the allowable land use and density – it does suggest that much of the City’s land zoned for residential use is designated for low-density housing types. This can increase housing costs and restrict availability of relatively affordable housing units.
Variety of Housing Opportunity
To ensure fair housing choice in a community, a zoning ordinance should provide for a range of housing types, including single-family, multifamily, second dwelling units, mobile homes, licensed community care facilities, employee housing for seasonal or migrant workers as necessary, assisted living facilities, emergency shelters, supportive housing, transitional housing, and single room occupancy (SRO) units. This section discusses these housing opportunities.
Table 18: Housing Stock Composition (duplicates Table 9) Housing Type
Bakersfield California
Number of Units % of Total Number of Units % of Total
Single Family, detached 100,436 73% 8,471,490 57%
Single Family, attached 3,623 3% 1,069,749 7%
Two to Four Units 14,716 11% 1,149,409 8%
More than Five Units 17,016 12% 3,594,764 24%
Mobile Homes 2,738 2% 539,415 4%
Total 138,529 100% 14,824,827 100%
Vacancy Rate 3.6% 6.4%
Source: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024, California Department of Finance
9 Jonathan Rothwell, “Land Use Politics, Housing Costs, and Segregation in California Cities,” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, September 2019.
10 Ibid., p. 15.
36 I. Single- and Multifamily Uses
Single- and multifamily housing types include detached and attached single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes, condominiums, and rental apartments. These are the most common housing types and Bakersfield’s zoning ordinance accommodates each of these. Table 18 shows that 98% of the housing stock is comprised of these common housing types.
II. Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs, sometimes referred to as granny units or in-law units), have been the focus of many legislative efforts in recent years. State laws now require all local jurisdictions to allow for ADUs and has prohibited local jurisdictions from imposing onerous building or site requirements, levying high fees, or requiring certain lease agreements (such as the primary dwelling must be owner-occupied). Bakersfield complies with all State requirements pertaining to ADUs.
HCD identified ADUs as an alternative housing model that can increase the housing supply and provide better affordability.
11 Many properties are now eligible for ADU construction, including multifamily properties, and ADUs are often “naturally” affordable, a result of lower construction costs and smaller footprints than typical single-family or multifamily homes. In one study, 58% of ADU owners rented their unit at below-market rates.12
III. Mobile Homes
The City defines a mobile home in its municipal code as “a structure transportable in one or more sections, designed and equipped to contain no more than two dwelling units, to be used with or without a foundation system.” Mobile homes and mobile home parks are permitted in the City in the MH zone. The City permits manufactured dwellings to be used as single-family residences outside of designated mobile home parks if the home is certified under the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Act of 1974. Currently, 2% of the local housing stock is mobile homes, lower than the State’s rate as a whole.
IV. Transitional and Supportive Housing
“Transitional housing” is defined as buildings configured as rental housing operating under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance. Per SB 745, transitional housing units are residential uses that must be subject only to those requirements and restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. The City’s Zoning Code does not list transitional housing as a permitted use in any zone by right or by CUP. The City is updating its zoning code to identify transitional housing in the allowed uses in residential zones, as specified in Program 5. Transitional housing is permitted by-right in all residential zones and the MX-1 and MX-2 zones.
“Supportive housing” is defined as housing with no limit on length of stay that is occupied by the target population and that is linked to on-site or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining permanent housing, health services, and employment, as needed. Per SB 745, supportive housing units are residential uses subject only to those requirements and restrictions that apply to other residential
11 “California’s Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities,” California Department of Housing and Community Development. 12 David Garcia, “ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California’s State and Local Policy Changes,” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, December 2017, pg. 1-2.
37 uses of the same type in the same zone. Supportive housing is permitted by-right in all residential zones and the MX-1 and MX-2 zones. Supportive housing is permitted in the C-1, C-2, and C-C zones with a CUP. Since single-family and multi-family residential development is permitted in the CC zone without a CUP, this is a constraint to the development of supportive housing.
V. Emergency Shelters and Low-Barrier Navigation Centers An emergency shelter or “homeless shelter” is defined by State law (Health and Safety Code Section 50801) as housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less. AB 139, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, mandates that emergency shelters may only be subject to those standards which apply to residential and commercial development within the same zone, except that a city can apply standards regulating the number of beds, parking for staff provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, length of stay, and other minor standards. Emergency shelters are permitted by right in the MX-1 and MX-2 zones and are permitted through a CUP in the R-4, R-5, R-6, C-1, C-2, C-B, and C-C, zones.
In 2019, AB 101 was passed requiring that a Low Barrier Navigation Center development be a use by-right in mixed-use zones and all nonresidential zones permitting multi-family housing. A Low Barrier Navigation Center is a low barrier, temporary, service-enriched shelter that helps individuals and families experiencing homelessness obtain permanent housing. The City’s Housing Element contains programs to ensure the zoning code is consistent with State law.
Table 19: Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional
Housing Beds
Permanent Supportive
Housing Beds
Year Round
Beds (Current
& New)
Voucher /
Seasonal /
Overflow
Beds
Current &
New
Current &
New
Under
Development
Households with Adult(s)
and Child(ren)
974 0 65 332 N/A
Households with Only
Adults
3731
0 140 1173 40
Chronically Homeless
Households
374 0 0 374 46
Veterans 148 0 58 217 N/A
Unaccompanied Youth 96 0 0 0 N/A
Date Source: 2024 HIC and PIH HCV Dashboard
Affordable Housing Development
Affordable housing is defined as that which costs no more than 30% of a household’s gross income and in general, minority and LMI households are disproportionately affected by a lack of adequate and affordable housing in a region. For example, there is a strong correlation between high housing costs and an increase in homelessness. In addition, according to the 2024 Point in Time count, African Americans comprised 15.8% of the homeless population but represent just 6% of Kern County’s total population.
38 While housing affordability is not directly a fair housing issue, expanding access to housing choices for these groups would result in a more equitable housing market. Unfortunately, access to affordable housing by lower- income and minority groups in certain areas is limited and can therefore be an indirect impediment to fair housing choice. Furthermore, there are numerous barriers to developing affordable housing that may result in increasing the cost of development or burdensome processes, which include, but are not limited to:
● Various permit processing costs
● Development impact fees
● Rising cost of land
● Rising cost of labor
● Rising cost of construction materials
● Infrastructure challenges
● Growing climate change hazards such as wildfire and sea level rise ● Community concerns/resistance (Not In My Backyard)
● Limited funding for affordable housing
● Complex subsidy structuring requirements for affordable housing
Siting of Affordable Housing
HACK administers 545 public housing units throughout the Bakersfield metro area, and overall, there are 4,717 units in Bakersfield that are subsidized by federal or State programs. While this is a sizeable amount of affordable housing, the supply is far lower than the need.
Further, most of the City’s subsidized affordable housing sits east of State Route 99 in Bakersfield’s traditionally lower-income areas. Concentrating affordable housing in historically disadvantaged or lower-income areas can lead to a concentration of poverty, which HUD recognizes has five wide-ranging impacts:
● Limits educational opportunity for children
● Leads to poor health outcomes
● Hinders wealth building
● Reduces private-sector investment and increases prices for goods and services ● Raises costs for local governments13
Taken together, these impacts can impede fair housing choice; however, concentrating poverty is not usually a purposeful policy goal. Instead, concentration of poverty is often an unintended consequence of seemingly benign policies. The City’s zoning codes, for example, allows most of its multifamily residential uses in and around Downtown Bakersfield. Consequently, that is where much of the City’s affordable housing is located (map below). The Downtown area has also been the focus of many recent economic development efforts, such as the Economic Opportunity Area Plan and Making Downtown Bakersfield, to improve economic opportunity and life outcomes.
Figure 5: Location of Subsidized Housing
13 “Confronting Concentrated Poverty With a Mixed-Income Strategy,” Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Spring 2013.
39 Source: State of California AFFH Data Viewer, 2024
Development and Impact Fees
Development and impact fees are levied by most, if not all local governments. In general, they help fund the expansion of infrastructure, like roads and parks, needed to support new housing and are accepted practice in the construction industry across the country. However, such fees can “limit growth by impeding or disincentivizing new residential development, facilitate exclusion, and increase housing costs.”14 This is especially true in California, where State tax policies, such as Proposition 13, limit the amount of tax revenue that can be collected by local jurisdictions.
State law requires that locally imposed fees not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the service.
State law also requires that impact fees must have a substantial nexus to the development and that the dedication of land or fees be proportional to the impact of the development. Still, the fees and exactions required of a development to pay for the public facilities associated with the residential development pose a potential constraint to housing production.
In 2019, the Terner Center for Housing Innovation conducted a study of the amount and effects of development and impact fees in six California cities – Los Angeles, Sacramento, Roseville, Oakland, Irvine, and Fremont. In its study it used a hypothetical multifamily infill development with 100 apartments to determine fee costs in each of the six cities. At $11,746, Los Angeles levies the lowest fee cost per multifamily unit. Bakersfield is competitive with that number.
15 Using the hypothetical apartment building used in the Terner Center’s study, Bakersfield’s current fee schedule would result in impact fees of approximately $11,400 per unit. While impact fees add to the cost of housing, the City’s fees are much less onerous than in other California cities. Moreover, they are necessary to maintain the quality of life for current and future community members.
14 Hayley Raetz, David Garcia, and Nathaniel Decker, “Residential Impact Fees in California: Current Practices and Policy Considerations to Improve Implementation of Fees Governed by the Mitigation Fee Act,” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, August 5, 2019.
15 Sarah Mawhorter, David Garcia and Hayley Raetz, “It All Adds Up: The Cost of Housing Development Fees in Seven California Cities,” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, March 2018.
40 Funding
The demand for affordable housing far outstrips the existing supply. Therefore, funding for affordable housing is a constant need. There are a variety of funding sources for affordable housing, preservation, and rehabilitation from federal, State, and local sources. The California HCD and HUD administers grants which can assist developers, local governments, and non-profits in constructing housing units. As a large city, Bakersfield is eligible for a broad array of funding sources to support revitalization of neighborhoods and development of affordable housing. The City will leverage finance resources for affordable housing development, as described in the Housing Element’s Program 4.
Article 34
Voted into the State Constitution in 1950, Article 34 requires a majority vote of the electorate to approve the development, construction, or acquisition by a public body of any low-income affordable housing project within that jurisdiction. In other words, for any projects to be financed by a public agency where at least 50% of the occupants are low-income and rents are restricted to affordable levels, the jurisdiction must seek voter approval known as “Article 34 authority” to authorize that number of units.
While public agencies have learned how to structure projects to avoid triggering a vote or have won voter approval for publicly financed housing projects, Article 34 is widely considered a regressive measure that was rooted in racial and class discrimination. It also imposed a major barrier to affordable housing development, as winning voter approval is often costly and difficult. As such, there is currently a bill in the State legislature that, if approved by the legislature, will place on the 2020 ballot a measure asking voters to repeal Article 34. Its repeal would provide public agencies greater flexibility and predictably in planning for and developing affordable housing.
Other Land Use Policies, Programs, and Controls
Making Downtown Bakersfield
The State intends to build a station for its High-Speed Rail (HSR) system in Downtown Bakersfield. In response, the City conducted a multiyear planning effort to best leverage the State’s major investment in Bakersfield. That plan, Making Downtown Bakersfield, includes 11 implementation strategies that focus on many different aspects of land use policy, including housing. By leveraging federal and State funds, the City wants to increase the Downtown population to 25,000 by 2035 and increase and diversify transit-oriented housing opportunities in the neighborhood. The City has grown more than 50% since 2000, but much of that growth has been concentrated in suburban locations without the requisite density and diverse housing supply needed for greater affordability.
Growth Management
Bakersfield does not have any building moratoriums or growth management plans that limit housing construction. Moreover, the State legislature has moved to restrict the scope of growth management programs throughout the State by passing Senate Bill 330 in 2019, along with subsequent amendments. The bill outlaws building moratoriums and streamlines lengthy residential development review processes.
Policies Causing Displacement or Affect Housing Choice of Minorities and Persons with Disabilities
I. Redevelopment Activities
41 Through tax increment financing (TIF), redevelopment agencies (RDAs) were often the primary local mechanism for constructing and preserving affordable housing. While RDAs could displace vulnerable populations due to construction activities, redevelopment was an effective tool in creating housing for lower and moderate-income residents. However, the State dissolved redevelopment agencies in 2012 and since then most jurisdictions, including Bakersfield, have been unable to replace the lost revenue for affordable housing programs.
Despite the loss of RDAs, the City has developed an innovative program, called the Economic Opportunity Areas (EOA) Program, that leverages TIF to encourage economic development in disinvested areas of the City. The goals of the program include increasing employment opportunities and incentivizing residential and commercial development.
City residents also approved a sales tax increase which created more local funding for redevelopment and affordable housing projects. The Public Safety and Vital Services measure include community spending priorities that included:
● Reducing homelessness through partnerships with service providers to increase outreach, sheltering and construction of affordable housing.
● Creating job through economic development, business retention/attraction and workforce development. ● Enhancing amenities throughout the community to improve the quality of life and attract visitors.
II. Reasonable Accommodation
Under the federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), jurisdictions are required to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The local government must allow for such accommodations, such as the relaxation of parking standards or structural modifications such as wheelchair ramps for housing units. Additionally, all public facilities must take in account reasonable accommodation requests. On February 3, 2021, the City of Bakersfield added Zoning Code section
17.73 which outlines Reasonable Accommodations Procedures in compliance with State law. A request for reasonable accommodation is reviewed by the development services director. When a request for reasonable accommodation is submitted for concurrent review with another discretionary land use application, the application is reviewed by the decision-making body. Review and approval of the reasonable accommodation request is not contingent upon the findings of other discretionary decisions (for example, review of a CUP, etc.,).
Public Housing Authority
In Bakersfield, HACK administers federal public housing programs, which must adhere to fair housing law. Key to HACK’s operations is the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program. HUD establishes income limits for vouchers annually, based on family size for the area. Currently, 75% of eligible applicants must have income that does not exceed 30% of the median area income. The remaining 25% may have income limit up to 80% of the area median. Agency staff processes applications, determines eligibility, completes criminal background checks, and works with tenants and landlords. HACK also administers 545 public housing units.
Fair Housing Profile
This section provides an overview of the institutional structure of the local housing market regarding fair housing practices. This section also discusses the fair housing services available to residents, as well as the nature and extent of fair housing complaints received by the City. Typically, fair housing services encompass the investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints, discrimination auditing/testing, and 42 education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information. Tenant/landlord counseling services are usually offered by fair housing service providers but are not considered fair housing.
Fair Housing Services
In general, fair housing services include receiving, investigating, and resolving housing discrimination complaints; discrimination auditing and testing; and education and outreach, such as disseminating fair housing information through written material, workshops and seminars. Landlord/tenant counseling services involve informing landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities under fair housing law and other consumer protection legislation and mediating disputes between landlords and tenants. Below are descriptions of fair housing services available to all Bakersfield residents.
The City’s Economic and Community Development Department administers HUD’s entitlement programs locally and as a result is responsible for fair housing planning in Bakersfield. The City contracts with GBLA to provide fair housing services. This arrangement ensures better compliance with federal and state fair housing standards and provides better continuity of service for residents and clients.
GBLA offers a Fair Housing Hotline, through which it provides consultations, makes referrals regarding tenant landlord disputes, and assists with filing fair housing complaints. GBLA also conducts fair housing training to local landlords and other interested parties and participates in Fair Housing Week through community activities.
Core to GBLA’s mission is its Fair Housing Law Project (FHLP), which incorporates three core pillars: education, investigation, and enforcement. It fulfills its educational mission by offering no-cost presentations in both English and Spanish to housing providers, community service organizations, and residents. In addition, GBLA conducts investigations after receiving and assessing fair housing complaints. It reviews documents, interviews witnesses, surveys residents, and conducts fair housing tests. If the evidence suggests illegal discrimination occurred, GBLA will advise on next steps, provide information on legal rights, and in some cases represent the complainant in a lawsuit.
GBLA enforces fair housing law through both informal means such as mediating negotiations with housing providers, and formal means such as filing complaints to HUD, the U.S. Department of Justice, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), or other relevant government agencies. Regardless of the type of enforcement activity, legal remedies available to a victim of housing discrimination include:
▪ Declaratory relief, or a decision that the housing provider violated fair housing laws ▪ Affirmative relief, or an order to “undo” the effects of discrimination on the victim or to make a change in policies or practices to prevent future discrimination
▪ Financial compensation including emotional distress damages ▪ Attorney’s fees and costs
▪ Punitive damages (when the housing provider’s actions were malicious)
GBLA maintains a Testing Coordinator on staff who receives training and technical assistance from the HUD- sponsored Investigative Support for Testing and Enforcement Programs (ISTEP). GBLA’s Testing Coordinator conducts quarterly audits of home sales to ensure fair housing practices in the housing market. 43 Fair Housing Statistics
To understand fair housing concerns, outreach was conducted with city residents and fair housing services provider Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance (GBLA). Residents were provided an opportunity to take a survey on fair housing issues. The survey was available from May 2019 to July 2019 and 403 individuals submitted a response. Public outreach efforts identified the following issues related to fair housing in Bakersfield:
▪ One-third of respondents believe they or someone they know has experienced housing discrimination. ▪ Under half of respondents (39 percent) believe that they are well-informed on housing discrimination. ▪ Funding for fair housing services such as legal services defending against eviction is a perpetual concern. ▪ A lack of affordable housing and increases in homelessness put pressure on fair housing in Bakersfield. ▪ According to GBLA, most fair housing cases in the region involve discrimination against people with disabilities, typically regarding reasonable accommodations. Other common cases involve race, domestic violence/sexual assault, and habitability of the housing unit.
Fair Housing Complaints
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity is the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing agencies to provide fair housing and tenants’ rights information to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, resolving issues, and conducting fair housing testing.
The mission of HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is to eliminate housing discrimination, promote economic opportunity, and achieve diverse, inclusive communities by leading the nation in the enforcement, administration, development, and public understanding of federal fair housing policies and laws. 16 Table 19 below contains the total number of housing complaints filed in Kern County between 2006 and 2020.
The most common basis for fair housing complaints in the county was disability.
Table 19: Kern County Title VIII Fair Housing Complaints Title, 2006-2020 Year Number
Disability 100
Race/Color 66
Familial Status 35
National Origin 35
Sex 31
Religion 9
Total 232
Source: Data.gov, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Filed Cases, 2020
The table below reports the cumulative fair housing complaints recorded by GBLA between 2016-2020.
16 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2022. About FHEO. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/aboutfheo#:~:text=The%20mission%20of%20the%20Office,federal%20f air%20housing%20policies%20and
44 Table 20: Fair Housing Complaints to GBLA, 2016-2020 Basis 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 Total
Disability 16 22 24 13 62
Race/Color 11 17 14 5 42
Familial Status 6 4 8 3 18
Sex 3 4 4 4 11
National Origin 0 3 2 1 5
Religion 0 4 1 0 5
Sexual Orientation 0 2 2 0 4
Source of Income 0 1 1 4 2
Age 1 0 0 0 1
Total 37 57 56 30 150
Source: Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance, 2019
More recently, GBLA reports that the most common types of housing discrimination that it saw were disability, race, and sex (including sexual harassment). The following outlines the distribution of these cases by type between 2020 and 2024.
2024:
• 52%= Disability
• 16% = Race
• 13.3% = Sex
• 9.33% = Source of Income (SOI)
2023:
• 70.8% = Disability
• 10.4% = Race
• 10.4% = Sex
• 2.1% = SOI
2022:
• 58.3%: Disability
• 21.7%: Race
• 11.7%: Sex
• 3.33%: SOI
2021:
• 60.7% = Disability
• 12.5% = Race
• 8.9% = Sex
• 5.4% = SOI
2020:
• 47.7% = Disability
• 11.4% = Race
• 9.1% = Sex
Fair Housing Testing
GBLA maintains a Testing Coordinator on staff who receives training and technical assistance from the HUD- sponsored Investigative Support for Testing and Enforcement Programs (ISTEP). GBLA’s Testing Coordinator conducts quarterly audits of home sales to ensure fair housing practices in the housing market.
Fair Housing Survey
As part of outreach conducted for the Consolidated Planning and Fair Housing Planning processes under the 2025 Consolidated Plan and AI. The survey asked residents to provide opinions on the top five housing needs in Bakersfield by selecting from 11 options. Out of 488 respondents, fair housing services was identified as a top housing-related need by nearly 58% of respondents.
47 The survey also asked four fair housing-related questions:
▪ Have you ever encountered any form of housing discrimination or know someone who has? ▪ If yes, in what way did you or someone you know face discrimination? ▪ If yes, what do you believe was the basis for the discrimination faced by you or someone you know? ▪ What is your housing status currently?
▪ Which of the following do you consider to be the biggest challenge to achieving equitable housing? ▪ Have you personally experienced/seen any of the below housing trends in your community? ▪ Has an individual/entity/organization denied you housing or treated you differently related to housing? The survey resulted in the following key takeaways:
▪ Forty percent of respondents (196 people) said they or someone they know has experienced housing discrimination. ▪ 112 people chose race as the basis of the discrimination. ▪ 114, 23%, of people were renters and 129 (26%) were either unhoused or currently living in a congregate setting. See Figure 6 below.
▪ The majority of respondents (245 individuals) believe lack of affordable housing stock will be the biggest challenge to achieving equitable housing.
▪ The top housing trends experienced or seen in the community were: increased monthly rent (361 respondents or 77% ), increasing housing prices (314 respondents or 67%).
▪ Of the 288 respondents who had been denied housing or treated differently related to housing, 33% identified it was by a landlord and 30% by a property manager.
Figure 6: Housing Status of Survey Respondents
Source: 2024 Community Needs Survey
NIMBYism
Proposed housing projects, whether affordable or otherwise, often face intense opposition from nearby residents. This “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) sentiment can be rooted in concerns about property values, infrastructure capacity, aesthetic taste, the environment, or public health and safety. Either explicitly or implicitly, NIMBY comments can also convey racial or ethnic animus. Some housing developers react to NIMBYism by redesigning proposed projects, offering community amenities, paying for infrastructure 179, 37%
114, 23%
66, 14%
75, 15%
54, 11%
What is your housing status currently?
Own Home
Rental Units
With family and/or friends
Unhoused
Congregate Housing Setting (College Dorm,
Nursing Home, Shelter or Group Home)
48 improvements, and decreasing residential density. Some projects are blocked altogether, limiting the number of housing opportunities overall and possibly affecting fair housing choice.
As homelessness has increased in the City in recent years, opposition to proposed homeless shelters and resource centers is becoming more common, but Bakersfield is not alone in experiencing NIMBY opposition.
Local jurisdictions throughout the State contend with strong and organized opposition to proposed housing and shelter projects. In response, the State legislature has passed and strengthened several laws that attempt to mitigate the effects of community opposition.
California Senate Bill 330 (Skinner) provides that if a proposed housing project meets General Plan and zoning requirements, then no more than five public hearings can be conducted as part of the development application, review, and approval process. Further, the Housing Accountability Act, which applies to all residential development in the State, including emergency shelters, establishes that jurisdictions cannot subjectively reduce density in a proposed project or deny a project that conforms with General Plan, zoning, and subdivision standards.
These “objective” standards “involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official prior to submittal.” 17 For example, it is not legitimate to deny a
project for not complying with “community character” or reduce the height of a proposed building in response to complaints about possible obstructed views.
SB 330 also allows for streamlined, ministerial approval for certain projects, as does SB 35 (discussed in the Public Policies section), and exceptions to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were made for homeless shelters and permanent supportive housing projects in Los Angeles, perhaps serving as a model for future legislation. Of course, laws and policies do little to discourage NIMBY residents from voicing their opposition to projects. It is therefore important for local jurisdictions and developers to listen to community members, address legitimate concerns, and educate the public on the benefits of housing opportunities and the constraints of State law.
Impediments
This AI identifies impediments to fair housing choice and presents recommendations that the City can adopt to overcome those barriers. The AI should then be used to monitor the City’s progress toward achieving the adopted recommendations. Identifying and analyzing barriers to fair housing choice is integral to ensuring that the City has at its disposal the information needed to develop a comprehensive strategy to meet its commitment to “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH).
The previous sections of this report have identified the demographic, housing, socioeconomic, quality of life, and financial lending characteristics of the City as well as a brief profile of the City’s current policies and procedures as they relate to furthering fair housing. While there is much that Bakersfield can do to combat discrimination in housing, some external factors beyond the City’s control also affect housing choice. These forces include poverty and income levels, the cost of housing, linguistic isolation, transportation, employment opportunities, educational achievement, and regional planning agencies. In conjunction with the Housing
17 Senate Bill 35, California State Legislature.
49 Element’s AFFH findings, the following is a list of key conclusions and potential impediments that may exist in the City of Bakersfield.
1. Lack of Affordable Housing Supply
While housing affordability is not directly a fair housing issue, expanding access to housing choices for impacted groups would result in a more equitable housing market. There is an ongoing, severe shortage of suitable housing available and affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-, income households in Bakersfield. As housing prices continue to rise, low- and moderate-income households, especially renters, will be priced out of traditionally affordable neighborhoods in the City.
As documented in this report and the City’s Consolidated Plan, protected classes such as minorities, seniors, persons with disabilities, and female head of household are disproportionately low- and moderate-income households and are more adversely impacted by the lack of housing than the population as a whole. Lower- income households are more likely to have severe cost burdens and live in overcrowded conditions.
Section 8 voucher holders are also disproportionately impacted by the lack of landlords willing to rent to Bakersfield residents who hold this type of housing subsidy. As reported by stakeholders, even with “source of income” protections in State law, many landlords are unwilling to rent to voucher holders. Consequently, more voucher holders need to look for rental housing outside of Bakersfield.
The City has taken great efforts in promoting affordable housing in the past five years, but with the loss of Redevelopment tax-increment funds dedicated to affordable housing, the reduction in Federal resources, skyrocketing development costs, and the increase in market demand, this issue remains a significant impediment to fair housing choice in Bakersfield and California as a whole. It remains to be seen whether potential new legislation, such as a revamp of SB 50, will assist cities in providing greater opportunity for affordable housing to be built.
2. Planning, Land Use and Zoning Practices
The City has made gains in improving planning and land use practices to eliminate constraints to developing affordable housing in the City. Its most recent Housing Element provides a detailed analysis of land use and zoning practices to ensure that any impediments to development are mitigated.
However, there are some unintended barriers to the development of housing that should be reviewed. For example, the City has a disproportionate number of single-family dwellings compared to other jurisdictions and the State as a whole, limiting housing options for households of lower income who increasingly cannot afford such housing. The State estimates approximately 76% of all units are single-family (attached and detached), which means only 24% are multifamily units.
In addition, while there are nearly 5,000 units that are subsidized to provide affordable housing to lower- income households, most of that housing sits east of State Route 99 in Bakersfield’s traditionally lower- income areas. As noted earlier, concentrating poverty has certain disadvantages, including concentrating affordable housing in historically disadvantaged or lower-income areas can lead to a concentration of poverty, which HUD recognizes has five wide-ranging impacts:
50 ● Limits educational opportunity for children
● Leads to poor health outcomes
● Hinders wealth building
● Reduces private-sector investment and increases prices for goods and services ● Raises costs for local governments18
The City’s zoning codes allow most of its multifamily residential uses in and around Downtown Bakersfield.
Consequently, that is where much of the City’s affordable housing is located. The Downtown area has also been the focus of many recent economic development efforts, such as the Economic Opportunity Area Plan and Making Downtown Bakersfield, to improve economic opportunity and life outcomes.
3. NIMBYism - Opposition to Siting of Affordable Housing
Despite efforts made by the City, developers, and other stakeholders to demonstrate the need for and value of new affordable housing, there is still opposition to affordable housing in neighborhoods throughout the City. Community opposition limits the ability for the City to develop additional affordable housing to address the severe affordable housing shortage.
4. Need for Ongoing Landlord Education
Interviews with fair housing and service providers in Bakersfield identified that some landlords, primarily smaller landlords, lack knowledge of fair housing rules and requirements. Consequently, these landlords may discriminate (potentially inadvertently or without full understanding of the law) against protected classes. Although the State Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) established a broad range of requirements to help prevent unwarranted evictions, these protections do not extend to all types of housing, and many landlords are unaware of its provisions. Anecdotally, service providers indicated that discrimination seemed to be especially prevalent for persons with disabilities making reasonable accommodation requests to the landlord.
5. Lack of Access to Community Assets
As indicated in the Consolidated Plan, areas of high minority concentration, and low-income areas have limited access to community assets, banks, transit and employment centers when compared with the City as a whole. The limited access to these assets has an adverse impact on the residents (disproportionately protected classes) to have access to jobs, quality schools, fresh food and financial institutions. Focus group participants raised the concern over food insecurity as a significant problem for lower-income households throughout Bakersfield.
6. Foreclosure and Eviction Recovery
Foreclosures lower property values in the surrounding neighborhood and cause blight. Neighborhood absentee homeowners (e.g., banks) also do not adequately manage the vacant properties resulting in blight
18 “Confronting Concentrated Poverty with a Mixed-Income Strategy,” Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Spring 2013.
51 and locations for criminal activities, further lowering property values. This, in turn, threatens the remaining homeowners’ ability to refinance homes and limits incentives for potential homebuyers to move into the neighborhood. Foreclosed homeowners are also left with little to no savings and reduced credit scores resulting in difficulty obtaining funding for future homes.
Renters in properties that were foreclosed on also are adversely affected including unlawful eviction attempts, health problems due to unresponsive landlords in pre-foreclosure situations, lack of stability especially for persons with disabilities, seniors, and families with children, in addition to other issues associated with the change of building ownership such as evictions due to non-payment, payment for moving, and rent increases. The repercussions of foreclosures on homeowners, renters, and the community at large are an impediment to fair housing.
7. Lending/Sales Discrimination
As noted previously, there are significant disparities between how certain racial or ethnic groups are treated in the lending arena. According to HMDA data, the greatest disparity between demographics and loan applications is for the Hispanic/Latino population. There is a 21.2% difference between the share of the population that is Hispanic/Latino population and the Hispanic/Latino share of total home loan applications.
Conversely, the white population has the greatest positive difference—its application share is 36.4% greater than its population share. For comparison, the United States is 57.8% white and represented 59.5% of all home loan applications throughout the nation. The country’s Hispanic/Latino communities represent 18.7% of the population but only 7.8% of all home loan applicants
In addition, very low- and low-income mortgage applicants are denied at far higher rates than moderate- and above moderate-income applicants. Conversely, above moderate-income households represent most mortgage applicants and are denied home loans far less often. Approximately 10.1% of above moderate- income applications were denied, compared to 17.4% of low-income applications and 25.1% of very low- income applications. Very low-income mortgage applicants are denied loans at a rate of two and a half times higher than above moderate-income households. Consequently, above moderate-income homeowners can access additional financial benefits once they are homeowners. For example, they can build wealth through increasing property values and claim the mortgage interest deduction on their tax returns, thus lowering their taxable income.
52 Conclusion- Fair Housing Action Plan
The preceding sections of the AI have reviewed background information, analyzed lending data, assessed fair housing services, and provided findings of potential impediments in the City. This section reviews the progress in implementing action programs identified in the previous 2020-2025 Bakersfield AI. This section also sets forth the City’s actions to provide access to fair housing choice in 2025-2030.
Assessment of Past Goals and Actions
The following tables review the City’s progress in implementing actions identified in the 2020-2025 AI. The progress toward these goals informed the proposed actions for the 2025-2030 AI cycle.
Affordable Housing Development and Preservation
Impediment Proposed Actions Timeframe Status
Insufficient funding for affordable
housing
Continue to seek funding for affordable housing
development and preservation. Support Statewide
efforts to create permanent sources of housing funding, including through “redevelopment 2.0.”
2020-2025;
ongoing
We created an affordable housing trust fund
allowing us to receive over $5,000,000 in match
funds from the state. We created a 5-year plan
and received funds from state PLHA. We have
allocated over $17,000,000 in local funds to the
development and preservation of affordable
housing.
Lack of affordable housing supply Use anticipated federal dollars (primarily HOME) to fund 200 new units.
2020-2025 We have used HOME funds to assist in over 460 affordable housing units both constructed and
under construction.
Planning, Land Use and Zoning Practices
Impediment Proposed Actions Timeframe Status
Potential concentration of poverty
in certain neighborhoods through
zoning
The City will continue to seek out partners for affordable housing projects in all areas of the City. When considering sites, the City will evaluate racial and income
concentrations as well as proximity to services and public transportation.
2020-2025;
ongoing
The City constructed 5 affordable housing
projects during this time period in various parts
of the City. The City also began large scale vision
planning that included extensive community
engagement around project design, proximity to
services/amenities and proximity to
transportation. This formed the basis for many
affordable housing and community development
53 neighborhood plans including Transforming
Climate Communities, Prosperity
Neighborhoods, and the Old Town Kern Vison
Plan work.
Single-family zones reduce
opportunities for more affordable
housing to be built
The City will review its zoning code to ascertain potential opportunities to increase the amount of land available for multifamily dwellings.
2020-2023 The City of Bakersfield is in the final stages of updating the new Housing Element. The City will
continue to ascertain potential opportunities to
increase the amount of land available for
multifamily dwellings.
Single-family zones reduce
opportunities for more affordable
housing to be built
Consider supporting new legislation that would increase the number of units that can be built in single-family
dwelling zones (SB 50, for example). Continue to refine ADU requirements to ensure streamlined opportunities
for more development.
2020-2023 The City of Bakersfield is currently working on an ADU program that would allow for an increased
amount of unit that can be built on a single-
family dwelling zone.
NIMBYism – Opposition to Siting of Affordable Housing
Impediment Proposed Actions Timeframe Status
Some opposition to affordable
housing continues in certain
neighborhoods.
Consider developing a Citywide educational seminar to
educate homeowners, seniors, faith, and other
communities about the need for affordable housing.
Involve local recipients of Section 8 vouchers or other subsidized housing to share their stories.
2021-2023 The City constructed 5 affordable housing
projects during this time period in various parts
of the City. The City has began large scale vision
planning that included extensive community
engagement around project design, proximity to
services/amenities and proximity to
transportation. This formed the basis for many
affordable housing and community development
neighborhood plans including Transforming
Climate Communities, Prosperity
Neighborhoods, and the Old Town Kern Vison
Plan work.
Landlord Education
Impediment Proposed Actions Timeframe Status
54 Landlords lack knowledge of fair
housing rules and requirements.
In concert with HACK and local apartment association
groups, develop a training program for landlords to hear about the new fair housing laws, including ones that
prohibit applications on the basis of tenants holding a Section 8 voucher. Offer programs to help educate on
“reasonable accommodations” and how receive City
assistance.
2022-2024 The City holds an annual contract with Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance for Fair Housing
Services. A part of this contract is to hold regular
presentations on Fair Housing for Landlords. An
Annual summit on Fair Housing is also held
through GBLA to assist landlords and service
providers with Fair Housing Training.
Lack of Access to Community Assets
Impediment Proposed Actions Timeframe Status
Areas of high minority
concentration, and low-income
areas have limited access to
community assets, banks, transit
and employment centers when
compared with the City as a whole
When considering sites, the City will evaluate racial and income concentrations as well as proximity to services
and public transportation.
2020-2025;
ongoing
The City has began large scale vision planning
that included extensive community engagement
around project design, proximity to
services/amenities and proximity to
transportation. This formed the basis for many
affordable housing and community development
neighborhood plans including Transforming
Climate Communities, Prosperity
Neighborhoods, and the Old Town Kern Vison
Plan work.
Food insecurity is a significant
problem for lower-income
households throughout Bakersfield
The City will convene stakeholders to brainstorm ways to ensure residents have adequate access to healthy food.
2023-2024 The City helped fund a 40,000 sq.ft expansion of the Community Action Partnership of Kern’s food
bank in order to ensure residents have adequate
access to healthy food.
Foreclosure/Eviction Recovery
Impediment Proposed Actions Timeframe Status
Lower-income neighborhoods with
high rates of foreclosure and the
resulting evictions of tenants lack
access to prevention services
Continue to work with GBLA and other service providers
to assist renters with eviction threats. Consider creating a program to assist homeowners facing foreclosure by
partnering with the
"Making Home Affordable" program
offered by the federal government. Work with local
Ongoing;
developing
new programs,
2024-2025
In 2024, the City of Bakersfield began the
Eviction Protection Program in collaboration
with Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance. The
City also funds Downpayment Assistance
Programs each year that includes homebuyer
counselling. In addition, the City allocated funds
55 lenders, advocates and the business community to
support these efforts.
annually to Homeless Prevention Programs that
help keep people from becoming homeless due
to evictions.
Lending/Sales Discrimination
Impediment Proposed Actions Timeframe Status
There are significant disparities
between how certain racial or
ethnic groups are treated in the
lending arena
The City will consider developing informational material to send to a variety of lending institutions to educate them on the need to eliminate discrimination in financial practices
2023-2025 The City of Bakersfield funds Downpayment
Assistance Programs each year that include
homeowner counselling. These counselling
services help to address discrimination in lending
practices. The City also funds an annual Fair
Housing conference each year through the
Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance to help train
the public on Fair Housing issues and solutions.
2025-2030 Goals and Actions
The City is committed to ensuring fair housing choice for all residents. Based on the analysis contained in in this report and the progress toward the previous AI’s goals, the City proposes the following actions to address the impediments to fair housing choice for 2025-2030. Note: to align the Housing Element’s AFFH efforts and this AI, these actions are included in response to the AFFH-identified community development issues (action numbers are linked to the Housing Element’s action numbers).
AFFH Identified Housing Issue: Outreach Capacity and Enforcement The AI identified Contributing Factors to AFFH-related issues in the city that impact fair housing, including lack of variety of media, lack of resources for fair housing agencies, and the need for additional fair housing outreach and enforcement. Based on input from community engagement efforts and stakeholder meetings, community outreach on fair housing issues should be expanded to better support marginalized populations, including local tribal community groups, seniors, minority populations, and youth.
Actions Objectives and Timeframe
Action 17.1: Provide and if feasible expand information and referral services that direct families and individuals to financial resources for housing rental or purchase, locating suitable housing, and obtaining housing with special needs facilities such as disabled-accessible units.
Hold at least 8 informational events during the planning period to disseminate informational materials or provide trainings to residents, at least once every two years in areas considered sensitive communities (Central and Southeast Bakersfield) prioritizing communities sensitive to displacement.
56 Actions Objectives and Timeframe
Coordinate with GBLA to provide educational workshops/trainings to tenants and landlords on fair housing rights and responsibilities, including information on ADUs.
Expand outreach and public education strategies on available tenant protection and fair housing services to reach vulnerable households by offering information in multiple languages, targeted social media efforts, combining information with other assistance programs, distributing resources through local schools and colleges, and partnering with community-based organizations.
In FY 2023-2024, the City committed funds for a pilot Eviction Prevention Program to include outreach and education on tenant rights and landlord responsibilities.
Partner with at least three new schools or community-based organizations during the planning period to disseminate materials and provide trainings to residents, with targeted outreach in Central and Southeast Bakersfield.
Add more information about fair housing services and a link to GBLA’s website on the City’s webpage with Fair Housing information by January 2025 .
Present results from the data collected from year one of the pilot Eviction Protection Program to City Council by May 2025, and make recommendations to continue and if possible, expand the program. If approved, enact recommendations within six months of approval date.
The program will provide multi-lingual educational public awareness and public education workshops, meetings with residents to discuss tenant rights, legal assistance to act as a liaison between tenants and landlords, negotiate settlement agreements, and attend dispossessory hearings as necessary.
Action 17.2: Implement local housing programs in a manner that responds to the needs of a culturally diverse community that includes multi-generational families, a variety of living arrangements, and Limited English Proficiency households. Plans should ensure collaboration with community groups, including faith-based and nonprofit organizations, to provide outreach on housing resources to all types of households and those households with Limited English Proficiency.
Review affordable housing programs every two years to ensure compliance with current City policy to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and make necessary changes within six months.
Action 17.3: Review the City’s outreach methods annually, using feedback from resident surveys and focused discussions with community organizations to inform online, mail, and in-person outreach methods. Increase participation of historically underrepresented residents in all City housing programs and community planning activities by collaborating with local religious organizations, community-based organizations, and public agencies that serve the underrepresented groups. Collaborate with existing and new community stakeholders from all sectors and geographic areas to engage in the public participation process.
Conduct at least one citywide resident survey every three years to obtain feedback about City outreach methods, prioritizing feedback from underrepresented residents.
Action 17.4: Expand and improve access to public meetings by conducting public meetings at suitable times (using information from public feedback and survey results) and locations, using both in-person and online methods such as Zoom. In- Expand and improve access to public meetings. Conduct a public survey on outreach methods and accessibility at public meetings to inform the outreach guide. Develop the outreach guide by January 2026.
57 Actions Objectives and Timeframe
person meetings must accommodate persons with disabilities, be accessible to nearby transit centers, and provide resources such as childcare, translation, and food services. Develop an outreach guide that will be used for all outreach campaigns.
Action 17.5: Review and update the City’s Language Access Plan based on HUD guidelines and publish it on the City’s website. The goal of the Language Access Plan is to survey, maintain and publish a list of resources that facilitate communication between City staff and those households with Limited English Proficiency so that their housing needs are met. The City seeks to ensure that all residents may participate fully and equally in the housing market by maintain access to written and oral City resources.
Review the City’s Language Access Plan and update by January 2026.
Responsible Agency Bakersfield Economic and Community Development Department; Development Services Department; Office of the City Manager Funding Sources CDBG, TCC, PSVS, HOME, ESG, EPA/CCG, HHAP, General Fund
AFFH Identified Housing Issue: Replacing Segregated Living Patterns with Integrated and Balanced Living Patterns As indicated in the AFFH analysis in the Housing Element, the city has HUD-identified racially and/or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), which are areas where lower household income and racial and ethnic concentration overlap. These areas are concentrated in Central and Southeast Bakersfield and are predominantly Hispanic/Latino and areas that are historically Black/African American. R/ECAPs have higher levels of segregation and poverty, as well as areas with a higher proportion of residents who are renters, higher levels of overcrowding, and higher levels of housing cost burden.
These areas also have a higher share of multifamily housing compared to other areas of the city. There are also Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) that are predominantly majority white and have higher household income levels in Northwest, Northeast, and Southwest Bakersfield.
This program complements other programs and objectives that are designed to increase integration of economic opportunities throughout the city and create equitable investment across communities.
Actions Objectives and Timeframe
Action 17.6: Budget for and implement plans and strategies for communities in Central and Southeast Bakersfield, prioritizing corridors and neighborhoods designated for mixed-income housing opportunities in the Sites Inventory.
For Fiscal Year 2025-26, as part of the annual CIP program update, establish a minimum spending target (15 percent) and report the percent of CIP budget (including Federal, State, and regional grant funds, including CDBG) committed to Central and Southeast Bakersfield.
58 Actions Objectives and Timeframe
Expand the Prosperity Neighborhood community revitalization efforts, as well as apply for Transformative Climate Communities Implementation grants. Implement existing City plans, such as the Downtown Bakersfield Corridor Enhancement Master Plan and the Bakersfield Transformative Climate Communities Plan, and annually monitor implementation strategies to ensure equitable practices that benefit low - and moderate-income residents.
In Southeast Bakersfield, collaborate with local organizations and residents to identify opportunities for placemaking improvements, including:
▪ Public transit and active transportation infrastructure ▪ Public art reflective of cultural identity and diversity ▪ Neighborhood-serving public infrastructure such as wayfinding signs, community gardens, shades, street trees, recreation facilities, and benches
Collaborate with regional partners and seek grant funding for implementation when practicable. Coordinate with the Public Works Department to review the City’s biannual Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) to ensure public facilities and infrastructure are supportive of the needs of underserved communities.
Hold at least three workshops during the planning period in Southeast Bakersfield to develop infrastructure and programming plans that support mixed-income housing development. Hold the first workshop by December 2026.
Prepare a report on the City’s infrastructure investment from 2023 to 2028 from an equity and anti-displacement lens to ensure that improvements benefit lower-income neighborhoods by June 2029. The report shall be made public.
Action 17.7: Annually monitor the development of housing units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households in RCAAs and identify and implement changes in the zoning code and/or incentive programs (financial or streamlining) for high-density or deed-restricted housing in those areas.
Annually monitor housing production in RCAAs. Implement incentive programs or zoning amendments within one year of review.
Action 17.8: Promote the development of ADUs, prioritizing Northwest, Southwest, and Northeast Bakersfield.
Conduct seven educational workshops, campaigns, or outreach events to inform and promote ADU development in the city to residents, with at least five targeted to residents and developers in Northwest, Southwest, and Northeast Bakersfield, by December 2030. Contact at least four community or neighborhood organizations to host workshops and/or disseminate information and hold at least two workshops about ADUs with housing developers and/or real estate professionals, by December 2030.
Achieve 70 percent of new ADUs in targeted neighborhoods.
Action 17.9: Determine and implement strategy to promote ADUs for moderate and lower-income households.
Prepare a report on potential strategies to encourage affordability of ADUs for moderate and lower-income households, including but not limited to, promoting the use of Section 8 vouchers or development of cost incentive 59 Actions Objectives and Timeframe
programs or no-interest loan program for ADU developers in exchange for income restrictions. Prepare report by July 2025 and present to City Council for adoption of a pilot program by October 2025. If adopted, implement pilot program by January 2026.
If program is adopted, create 48 affordable (deed-restricted) ADUs by the end of the planning period (2026 to 2029).
Responsible Agency Economic and Community Development Department; Public Works Department Funding Sources CDBG, TCC, PSVS, HOME, EPA/CCG, General Fund
AFFH Identified Housing Issue: Significant Disparities in Housing Needs and Access to Opportunity As discussed in the AFFH analysis in the Housing Element’s Appendix D, areas with greater proportions of low- and moderate-income households tend to have higher degrees of overcrowding, housing burdens, and exposure to pollutants than other areas of the city. Most of Northwest, Southwest, and Northeast Bakersfield are considered “high resource” or “highest resource” areas as identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) educational, economic, and environmental opportunity indicators. Areas identified as “low resource” for those indicators are concentrated in Central and Southeast Bakersfield.
Additionally, as identified in the AFFH analysis, much of Central and Southeast Bakersfield is considered sensitive to displacement, and low-income residents are most vulnerable. Feedback from community members and representatives of service organizations during the community and stakeholder workshops desired a greater mix of housing opportunities and equitable development.
60 Actions Objectives and Timeframe
Action 17.10: Prioritize public health, education, economic, and safety programs in Central and Southeast Bakersfield in coordination with area public health entities (e.g., Bakersfield Family Medical Center, Kern Medical, Dignity Health Hospitals), Kern Transit, the City’s Economic and Community Development Department, Bakersfield City School District, workforce development groups, and the Bakersfield Police Department.
Identify addresses and compile mailing list and email addresses to focus outreach to neighborhoods in Central and Southeast Bakersfield to prioritize services in these areas.
Involve community organizations and advocates, business councils, and residents to refine program scope. Opportunities could include new or expanded policies and programs, added density bonuses, land banks, housing trust funds, and transit and economic development and prioritization.
Develop a comprehensive, long-term community development strategy and/or program priority strategy for Central and Southeast Bakersfield by January 2026.
Action 17.11: Develop an outreach strategy in multiple languages for long- standing property owners who own fewer than 10 residential units (either in single-family or multifamily rental housing) to assess needs and connect them with resources, such as housing unit rehabilitation and financing programs. The intent of this program is to preserve Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (i.e., not currently regulated with affordability deed restrictions). The program will seek to prioritize communities vulnerable to displacement, generally in Central and Southeast Bakersfield.
Develop an outreach strategy for property owners that own fewer than 10 residential rental units by January 2026.
After the strategy is approved, conduct outreach to at least 15 of the identified property owners that own less than 10 residential units and assist at least 5 property owners with a combined total of 20 units or more by December 2031.
Action 17.12: Work with commercial property owners and developers to identify sites for new grocery stores in Southeast Bakersfield and provide technical assistance and permit streamlining.
Provide technical assistance to support at least one new community-serving grocery store (e.g., supermarket) in Southeast Bakersfield by the end of the planning period.
Action 17.13: Upon expansion and/or intensification of development on the Golden State Mall and City Serve sites, a 7-foot-tall sound wall shall be constructed along the residential alley that abuts the two sites to protect, stabilize, and enhance the Westchester neighborhood immediately beyond.
Construct the sound wall upon development of residential uses on the Golden State Mall and City Serve sites.
Action 17.14: Apply for planning and construction funding from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and other fundings sources to support Apply for funding by January 2026 and every time a notice of funding availability is released. If funded, support the development of at least one water or wastewater 61 Actions Objectives and Timeframe
adequate water and wastewater infrastructure for new and existing low -income housing development.
infrastructure project in Central or Southeast Bakersfield by the end of the planning period.
Responsible Agency Economic and Community Development Department; Development Services Department, City Manager’s Office, Water Public Works
Funding Sources CDBG, TCC, PSVS, HOME, EPA/CCG, General Fund
62 I, _______________, City manager, hereby certify that this Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for the City of Bakersfield represents the City’s conclusions about impediments to fair housing choice, as well as the actions necessary to address any identified impediments.
_________________________________________ Date: _____________________ City Manager
City of Bakersfield