CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
February 10, 2026
Marquette Hawkins
MAYOR
Jim Creighton
MAYOR PRO TEM
Della Clark
Ronald Smith
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Sean Grayson
INTERIM CITY
MANAGER
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/ HOUSING AUTHORITY/ SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY FEBRUARY 10, 2026 @ 5:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 21000 HACIENDA BLVD., CALIFORNIA
CITY, CA 93505 & VIA ZOOM
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, contact the City Clerk at (760) 373-7140 or via email at [email protected]. We request a 24-hour notification prior to the meeting in order for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 American Disabilities Act Title II) Zoom instructions and notes:
Web Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/823115330429
Meeting ID: 8231 1533 0429
1. Public can dial into the Zoom line:
a. One tap mobile: +16694449171,87254527178# US
b. Dial the following number: +1 564 217 2000 US
2. Comments
a. Public must join Zoom meeting to comment
b. Keep your mic on Mute until you are requested to speak c. Use the “Raise your Hand” button to request to speak or, d. Send a chat request to City Clerk for request to speak e. When requested to speak state your name for the record f. Re-mute when your time to speak has ended
CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
February 10, 2026
Public is urged to listen to the meeting in a quiet place, to avoid background noise. We also request public to MUTE your audio device when not commenting to avoid disruption during meeting.
**Please take this time to turn off your cell phones ** CLOSED SESSION 3:30PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Clark, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Creighton, Mayor Hawkins
ADOPT THE AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public are welcome to address the City Council ONLY on those items listed on the Closed Session agenda. Each member of the public will be given (3) three minutes to speak
CLOSED SESSION
CS 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Eleven cases:
Lamberth v. City of California City (Case No. 25CUB00029) Vincent v. City of California City (Case No. BCV-25-102867) Hightower v. City of California City (Case No. BCV-24-103947) LaSharon Campbel Riley v. City of California City, et al., (Case No. BCV-25-102770) Gutierrez v. City of California City, (Case No. 25CUB00088) Serina Rodarte v. City of California City, et al. (Case No.: BCV-25-101491) Jeff Song, et al. v. City of California City (Case number BCV-22-103394) Dignity Not Detention Coalition, et al. v. City of California City, et al. (Case No 1:25-cv-01292-KES-CDB) Linda Davis v. City of California City et al, (Case No BCV-25-100895) Michael J. Ellison v. City of California City, (Case No. BCV-24-104203) Trevor Thompson v. City of California City (Case No. 25UB01018) CS 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2):
Two cases.
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
CITY COUNCIL CONVENES TO REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
February 10, 2026
REGULAR MEETING 5:00PM
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / INVOCATION
ROLL CALL –
Councilmembers: Clark, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Creighton, Mayor Hawkins
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Park OHV
Housing Building
CITY CLERK REPORTS/RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS
JM POWERS:
February 1, 2026- “What Cal City Residents should grasp from CoreCivic Prison Dissenters’ Claims” February 2, 2026- “Cal City’s American Community Survey (ACS) Results 2020-2024 Reveal Borderline Severely Disadvantaged Community Due to Stagnant Median Household Income (MHI) February 3, 2026- “California City’s Borderline Severely Disadvantaged Community Status verses Federal, State, & County Low Income & Poverty Levels and Labor Force Participation
CIVIC/COMMUNITY/ORGANIZATION ANNOUNCEMENTS
PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR / PUBLIC COMMENT
This portion of the meeting is reserved for the public to address the City Council on any matter NOT on this agenda and over which the City Council has jurisdiction. Please state your name for the record and limit your comments to (3) three minutes. The City Council will receive the comments but cannot engage in back-and- forth discussion with the public or make any decision. The City Council can direct staff to bring the item back to a future agenda for discussion.
PUBLIC HEARING
PH 1. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of California City to Adopt the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031) and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3), the Commonsense Exemption (Adoption)
A. Open Public Hearing
B. Staff Report: Anu Doravari, Planning Director
C. Public Comment
D. Close Public Hearing
E. Discussion
F. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council
1. Conduct Public Hearing for Adoption of Resolution No. 26-3209
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 26-3209 Or;
4. Take other actions as desired
CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
February 10, 2026
CONSENT CALENDAR
WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Consideration to waive full-text reading of all Resolutions and Ordinances by single motion made at the start of each meeting, subject to the ability of the City Council / Agency to read the full text of selected resolutions and ordinances when the item is addressed by subsequent motion. All items on the consent calendar are considered routine, and non-controversial and will be approved by (1) one motion if no member of the council, staff, or public wishes to comment or ask questions. Public comments are to be limited to (3) three minutes. Roll call vote required.
CC 1. Approve Check Register dated 01/23/2026-02/5/2026 CC 2. Approve Minutes for 1/20/2026 Special Meeting
CC 3. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director Subject: Approve a Resolution Awarding a Contract to Blua Consulting to Develop the City’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 26-3211 CC 4. Staff Report: Sean Grayson, Interim City Manager
Subject: Authorization to Release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Professional Auditing Services and Consider Selection of an Ad Hoc Audit Committee for Selection Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council authorize the release of the RFP and appoint two members to an Ad Hoc Audit Selection Committee CC 5. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director Subject Approve Installation of a Donated Kiln at the Strata Center Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council -Have a Discussion- Listen to Public Comments and Provide Direction to Interim City Manager on how to proceed CC 6. Staff Report: Christy Marie Lopez, Assistance City Attorney Subject: Consideration of a Resolution Related to Candidate Statements for the June 2, 2026 Special Election For Filling a Vacancy on the City Council Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 26-3212
CONTINUED BUSINESS
CB 1. Staff Report: Sean Grayson, Interim City Manager
` Subject: Update on Immediate Actions in Response to the City’s Fiscal Distress Resolution Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council provide direction on immediate budget reduction actions and call for a public hearing on March 10, 2026, to consider ratification of a budget amendment and adoption of an interim master fee schedule CB 2. Staff Report: Sean Grayson, Interim City Manager
` Subject: Review of City Council Approved Contracts and Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2025/26
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council provide any needed direction related to the review of the approved contracts and expenditures
CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
February 10, 2026
CB 3. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director Subject: Resolution of the City of California City Council to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Splash Zone Inc. for Equipment and Installation Services for the Commercial Recirculating Splash Pad Project, With A Total Value Of $397,890.50, and to Approve Related Contingency and Construction Management Costs in the total amount of $55,705.00 Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 26-3206 CB 4. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director Subject: Direction on the Use of Allocated EIR Funds to Support the Street Reconstruction and Transformation Initiative (SRTI)
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to the Interim City Manager on the use of ERI funds to support the SRTI.
CB 5. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director Subject: Authorization to Release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Water and Wastewater Rate Study
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council Authorize the release of an RFP for a water and Wastewater rate study.
NEW BUSINESS
NB 1. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director Subject: A Resolution Approving the Remaining Community Benefit Funds to Be Used for the Existing Site Lights at the Major/ Little League Field
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 26-3210 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS, AGENDA REQUESTS, AND AB1234 REPORTS This portion of the meeting is reserved for council members to present information, announcements, and items that have come to their attention. The Brown Act precludes Council, staff, or public discussion. Short staff responses are appropriate. The Council will take no formal action. A Council member may request the City Clerk to calendar an item for consideration at a future meeting or refer an item to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING- February 5, 2026
I, Leanndrea Weible, Acting City Clerk for the City of California City, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing notice was posted on all official City bulletin boards and the City’s website at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in compliance with the provisions of the Brown Act.
DR-PARK
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
February 10, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Leanndrea Weible, Park Coordinator
SUBJECT: Park and Recreation Monthly Department Report
OPERATION:
Strata Center will now be open for use Tuesday – Saturday. Hours of operation are as follows:
Tuesday 9am-12pm
Wednesday 12pm-4pm
Thursday 9am-12pm
Friday 12pm-4pm
Saturday 10:30am-2:30pm
CURRENTLY:
• Wednesdays the Art Center is used for Zumba Classes from 5-6pm. For more information, you are invited to stop in during a session and speak to Cheryl • Monday, Wednesday and Friday 5-7:45pm Strata is used for Basketball Practice by Can’t Stop Wont Stop YNA
UPCOMING:
• In observance of President’s Day, Monday, February 16, 2026, The Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 18, 2026 at 7pm
DR-OHV
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
February 10, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sean Grayson, Interim City Manager
Inge Elmes, OHV Manager
SUBJECT: OHV MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORT
Events
Presidents Holiday Weekend historically is another long weekend that brings out a large influx of OHV enthusiasts, weather permitting. Staff are preparing for a great holiday.
Operations
Ground crew is focused on fulfilling remainder of project deliverables for the grant agreements and for the influx of visitors for the holiday. Special hours for Presidents are as follows for Borax Bill Park Visitor Center:
• Thursday, 2/12 – 7am – 5pm
• Friday, 2/13 – 8am-8pm
• Saturday and Sunday, 2/13 & 2/14 – 7am-8pm
• Monday, 2/16 - 8am-4pm
•
Manager Updates
G26 grant application process begins. A public input meeting has been scheduled for February 28, 2026, between 9am-11am at Borax Bill Park, 16363 Twenty Mule Team Parkway in California City. All are welcome to attend.
Finance Report
For the month of January, OHV sales totaled $10,272.00. These numbers are actuals and reflect only amounts received within each month. Please refer to Monthly Permit Sales report for FY totals.
*OHV sales are deposited to specific OHV Permit Program GL revenue codes #29-3992 through #29-3998. Please refer to the financial statement for details. Not all proceeds are deposited in the same month.
**Some merchandise was purchased by staff at a discounted rate. All sales for merchandise are allocated to GL revenue code 29-3691.
DR-OHV
Attachment
OHV Permit Program Sales Spreadsheet
DR - OHV
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
February 10, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sean Grayson, Interim City Manager
Inge Elmes, OHV Manager
SUBJECT: OHV 2025 ANNUAL REPORT
Background/Discussion
The City of California City’s OHV Department provides an annual report covering the time period between January 1, 2025 – December 31, 2025. This report includes OHV Program Sales for permits and passes. These numbers are derived from the OHV Permit Program Sales Spreadsheet.
List of Items Quantities Sold
Single Riding Permit 2525
Small Family Pack 611
Large Family Pack 94
OHV 4 Permit Pack 385
RV Seasonal Water & Dump Pass 214
One Time - Single Dump Pass 361
One Time - Single Water Pass 278
Additional Riding Permits 146
Visitor Count
A visual count is completed at the peak of each holiday weekend. Each count includes an RV group site of approximately 4-10(four-ten) RV’s/Trailers at each site. Each RV will bring approximately 4-6(four-six) visitors. These figures are a best estimate and not actuals. Please refer to the attached Annual Visitor Count Report for holiday data and year-to-year comparisons.
Date of Count - Group Count - RV/Trailer Estimates - Visitor Estimates - Holiday Weekend 2/15/2025 180 720 – 1800 2880 – 10800 Presidents Day
4/19/2025 29 116 - 2900 464 – 17400 Easter
5/24/2025 38 152 – 3800 608 – 22800 Memorial Day
8/30/2025 28 112 – 2800 448 – 16800 Labor Day
10/11/2025 25 100 – 2500 400 – 15000 Columbus Day
11/27/2025 505 2020 – 5050 8080 – 30300 Thanksgiving
12/31/2025 12 48 – 1200 192 - 7200 New Year
Attachment
• OHV Annual Visitor Counts Report
OHV ANNUAL VISITOR COUNTS
FY - 2020 FY - 2021 FY - 2022 FY - 2023 FY - 2024 FY - 2025 RV Campsite Counts
President's Day Holiday 114 266 243 250 315 180
Easter Holiday Closed due to Covid 62 54 41 22 29
Memorial Day Holiday Closed due to Covid 68 39 42 33 38 Labor Day Holiday 34 28 35 29 22 28
Columbus Day Holiday 28 42 31 43 28 25
Thanksgiving Holiday 498 645 342 410 405 505
New Year's Holiday 382 482 292 315 207 212
Total RV visible campsites 1056 1593 1036 1130 1032 1017 Notes: A visual count is completed at the peak of each holiday weekend. These counts are completed by staff and volunteers from Twenty Mule Team Parkway and campground visits. Each count includes an RV group site of approximately 4 -10 Recreational Vehicles. Each RV will bring approximately 4 - 6 visitors.
These figures are a best estimate and are not actuals.
DR-HOUSING
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
February 10, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nicole Jarmon- Housing Manager
SUBJECT: HOUSING MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORT
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION
Desert Jade
Currently we have 92 apartments that are filled.
The waitlist currently has 72 applicants.
One unit is undergoing rehab.
Two units will become vacant in March and will undergo repairs.
Desert Jade has three units red tag due to the fire; restoration has been completed.
Jan 27th, we had our monthly food giveaway.
Legends
Currently has 6 apartments and 6 houses filled.
Waitlist is combined with Desert Jade
DR-BLDG
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
February 10, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sean Grayson, Interim City Manager
Joe Barragan, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: BLDG MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORT
OCTOBER 2025 – JANUARY 2026
Building November Total FY 25-26 to Date
Inspections 124 790
Projects Finaled 18 97
Commercial Inspections 2 24
Commercial Inspection Finaled 1 12
Permit Applications Received 22 251
Plan Checks Received (Solar, Construction,
BHT)
40 190
Plan Check Completed 40 190
New Residential Home Permits 6 36
New Commercial Building Permits 0 1
New Cannabis Building Permits 0 0
Total Permits Issued 48 277
Building October Total FY 25-26 to Date
Inspections 112 666
Projects Finaled 27 79
Commercial Inspections 4 22
Commercial Inspection Finaled 4 11
Permit Applications Received 37 229
Plan Checks Received (Solar, Construction,
BHT)
48 150
Plan Check Completed 48 150
New Residential Home Permits 16 30
New Commercial Building Permits 0 1
New Cannabis Building Permits 0 0
Total Permits Issued 56 229
Building December Total FY 25-26 to Date
Inspections 178 968
Projects Finaled 24 121
Commercial Inspections 7 31
Commercial Inspection Finaled 5 17
Permit Applications Received 14 265
Plan Checks Received (Solar, Construction,
BHT)
63 253
Plan Check Completed 63 253
New Residential Home Permits 18 54
New Commercial Building Permits 0 1
New Cannabis Building Permits 0 0
Total Permits Issued 67 344
Building January Total FY 25-26 to Date
Inspections 171 1139
Projects Finaled 31 152
Commercial Inspections 10 41
Commercial Inspection Finaled 5 22
Permit Applications Received 41 306
Plan Checks Received (Solar, Construction,
BHT)
50 303
Plan Check Completed 50 303
New Residential Home Permits 11 65
New Commercial Building Permits 0 1
New Cannabis Building Permits 0 0
Total Permits Issued 72 416
BLOCK WALL
CANNABIS APPROACH
CANNABIS FINAL
CARPORT
CODE ENFORCEMENT (RED TAG)
DRAINAGE
DRIVEWAY APPROACH
DRYWALL NAILING
ELECTRICAL PANEL
ELECTRICAL RELEASE 8
ELECTRICAL ROUGH 10 1-ASPHALT PATCH
FIRE SEPERATION WALL
FOOTING AND SLAB ELEVATION 13
FOUNDATION
FRAMING FLOOR
FRAMING ROOF SHEATHING 3
FRAMING ROUGH (Walls/Shear Panels) 6
GARAGE/SHED
GAS PRESSURE TEST
HVAC 3
HOT MOP/SHOWER PAN
INSULATION 3
LATHING 4
LEACH FIELD
MECHANICAL ROUGH 6
N-SFD FINAL 7
PANEL UPGRADE
PATIO FINAL
PATIO COVER
POOL
PLUMBING ROUGH 6
RE-ROOF 6
SEEPAGE PIT 3
SEPTIC TANK 2
SET BACKS 4
SEWERLINE
SIDING
SOLAR 16
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SPECIAL TRENCH
TEMP ELECTRICAL
UFER FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE
UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL
UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 7
WATER HEATER 1
WINDOWS 4
MISCELLANEOUS 5
117
4 COMM CORRECTIONS OCT 2025
0 4
1-DRIVEWAY APPROACH CANNABIS
1-COMMERCIAL ADA COMPLIANCE
1-COMMERCIAL SIGN
RESIDENTIAL INSPECTION DETAILS OCT 2025 RES TOTAL INSPECTIONS OCT 2025 RES COMPLETE/FINAL INSPECTIONS 27 COMM INSPECTIONS OCT 2025 COMM FINAL INSPECTIONS
112
RESEDENTIAL CORRECTIONS OCT 25
18
BLOCK WALL 1
CANNABIS APPROACH
CANNABIS FINAL
CARPORT
CODE ENFORCEMENT (RED TAG)
DRAINAGE
DRIVEWAY APPROACH
DRYWALL NAILING 7
ELECTRICAL PANEL
ELECTRICAL RELEASE 12
ELECTRICAL ROUGH 9
FIRE SEPERATION WALL
FOOTING AND SLAB ELEVATION 2
FOUNDATION
FRAMING FLOOR
FRAMING ROOF SHEATHING 10
FRAMING ROUGH (Walls/Shear Panels) 13
GARAGE/SHED
GAS PRESSURE TEST
HVAC 2
HOT MOP/SHOWER PAN 1
INSULATION 3
LATHING 6
LEACH FIELD
MECHANICAL ROUGH 4
N-SFD FINAL 8
PANEL UPGRADE
PATIO FINAL
PATIO COVER
POOL 1
PLUMBING ROUGH 5
RE-ROOF
SEEPAGE PIT
SEPTIC TANK 1
SET BACKS 8
SEWERLINE
SIDING
SOLAR 20
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SPECIAL TRENCH
TEMP ELECTRICAL
UFER FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE
UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL
UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 9
WATER HEATER 3
WINDOWS
MISCELLANEOUS 1
125
1 COMM CORRECTIONS NOV 2025
0 2
RESIDENTIAL INSPECTION DETAILS NOV 2025 RES TOTAL INSPECTIONS NOV 2025 RES COMPLETE/FINAL INSPECTIONS COMM INSPECTIONS NOV 2025
18 COMM FINAL INSPECTIONS
124
RESEDENTIAL CORRECTIONS NOV 25
27 1-ADA COMPLIANCE
1-ROUGH ELECTRICAL CANNABIS
BLOCK WALL
CANNABIS APPROACH
CANNABIS FINAL
CARPORT
CODE ENFORCEMENT (RED TAG)
DRAINAGE
DRIVEWAY APPROACH 2
DRYWALL NAILING 5
ELECTRICAL PANEL
ELECTRICAL RELEASE 18
ELECTRICAL ROUGH 18
FIRE SEPERATION WALL
FOOTING AND SLAB ELEVATION 12
FOUNDATION 1
FRAMING FLOOR
FRAMING ROOF SHEATHING 11
FRAMING ROUGH (Walls/Shear Panels) 22
GARAGE/SHED
GAS PRESSURE TEST 1
HVAC 1
HOT MOP/SHOWER PAN
INSULATION 8
LATHING 4
LEACH FIELD 1
MECHANICAL ROUGH 11
N-SFD FINAL 4
PANEL UPGRADE
PATIO FINAL
PATIO COVER
POOL 2
PLUMBING ROUGH 11
RE-ROOF 2
SEEPAGE PIT 1
SEPTIC TANK 2
SET BACKS 6
SEWERLINE
SIDING
SOLAR 25
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SPECIAL TRENCH
TEMP ELECTRICAL
UFER FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE
UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL
UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 6
WATER HEATER 1
WINDOWS 1
MISCELLANEOUS 2
178
5 COMM CORRECTIONS DEC 2025
I
7 1- ADA COMPLIANCE
1-COMMERCIAL SIGN
2-ADA COMPLIANCE
1-ADA COMPLIANCE
1-COMMERCIAL SAFETY INSPECTION
1-COMMERCIAL FINAL
RESIDENTIAL INSPECTION DETAILS DEC 2025 RES TOTAL INSPECTIONS DEC 2025 RES COMPLETE/FINAL INSPECTIONS COMM INSPECTIONS DEC 2025
24 COMM FINAL INSPECTIONS
178
RESEDENTIAL CORRECTIONS DEC 25
31
BLOCK WALL 1
CANNABIS APPROACH
CANNABIS FINAL
CARPORT
CODE ENFORCEMENT (RED TAG)
DRAINAGE
DRIVEWAY APPROACH 2
DRYWALL NAILING 12
ELECTRICAL PANEL
ELECTRICAL RELEASE 16
ELECTRICAL ROUGH 16
FIRE SEPERATION WALL
FOOTING AND SLAB ELEVATION 16
FOUNDATION
FRAMING FLOOR
FRAMING ROOF SHEATHING 7
FRAMING ROUGH (Walls/Shear Panels) 13 1-PHASE 2 WELL ROOF SHEATHING
GARAGE/SHED
GAS PRESSURE TEST
HVAC 1
HOT MOP/SHOWER PAN
INSULATION 14
LATHING 5
LEACH FIELD 1
MECHANICAL ROUGH 10
N-SFD FINAL 7
PANEL UPGRADE
PATIO FINAL
PATIO COVER
POOL
PLUMBING ROUGH 10
RE-ROOF 3
SEEPAGE PIT 1
SEPTIC TANK 1
SET BACKS 3
SEWERLINE
SIDING
SOLAR 22
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SPECIAL TRENCH
TEMP ELECTRICAL
UFER FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE
UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL
UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 7
WATER HEATER 1
WINDOWS 2
MISCELLANEOUS 3
171
RESIDENTIAL INSPECTION DETAILS JAN 2026 RES TOTAL INSPECTIONS JAN 2026 RES COMPLETE/FINAL INSPECTIONS 31 171
RESEDENTIAL CORRECTIONS JAN 26
25 1-PHASE 2 WELL FINAL ROOF
10 COMM INSPECTIONS JAN 2026 COMM FINAL INSPECTIONS
1- POLICE DEPT WATER HEATER
1-PARKING LOT ADA COMPLIANCE
1-SENIOR CENTER WATER HEATER
5 COMM CORRECTIONS JAN 2026
3 1-FIRE DEPT WATER HEATER
1-POOL HOUSE WATER HEATER
1-PANEL UPGRADE CANNABIS
1-ADA COMPLIANCE CHURCH
1-CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
C
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
February 10, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Anu Doravari, City Planner
TITLE: Housing Element 2023–2031 (Sixth Cycle) Adoption HOUSING ELEMENT ADOPTION (2023–2031)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A. Adopt Resolution No. 26-3209 adopting the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023–2031) and finding the action exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
B. Take other action as the Council deems appropriate.
BACKGROUND
California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 10.6 [65580 – 65589.11] regulates the use and requirements of the housing element. State law requires that the city update its General Plan Housing Element every eight years.
State law further requires the current update for jurisdictions in the Kern Council of Governments (KCOG) region to comply by December 31, 2021.
California City’s previous Housing Element covered the 2013–2021 (fifth cycle) planning period. The proposed update covers the 2023–2031 (sixth cycle) planning period and ensures compliance with current State housing law.
The draft Housing Element was prepared with input from the community, Planning Commission, and City Council. The document was initially submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for a 90-day review period on December 17, 2024. A detailed timeline documenting HCD Reviews is attached as Table 1 below.
Date Action
December 17, 2024 Draft 2023–2031 Housing Element submitted to HCD for initial 90-day review
March 17, 2025 HCD issued written comments on the draft Housing Element May 16, 2025 Revised draft Housing Element resubmitted to HCD for 60-day review
PH 1
Date Action
July 9, 2025 HCD issued comments on the revised draft
October 2, 2025 Housing Element resubmitted to HCD for an additional 60-day review
October 17, 2025 HCD issued a letter finding the Housing Element substantially compliant upon adoption
TABLE 1 – Timeline of HCD Review
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 6, 2026, to consider adoption of the City’s 2023–2031 Housing Element Update (Sixth Cycle).
Notice was provided in local newspaper on 17th December 2025. The Planning Commission found the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). Following public testimony and deliberation, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 2026-HE-01, recommending that the City Council adopt the 2023–2031 Housing Element Update.
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
The 2023–2031 Housing Element identifies a series of zoning text amendments necessary to implement certain Housing Element programs and maintain consistency between the Housing Element and the City’s Zoning Code. Based on direction from the City Attorney’s Office, staff is recommending adoption of the Housing Element at this time to meet State housing law requirements.
The identified zoning text amendments constitute separate legislative actions and require additional analysis, public notice, and hearings. Staff anticipates initiating and processing these amendments following adoption of the Housing Element.
The zoning text amendments are expected to be brought forward for Planning Commission and City Council consideration in 2026. Adoption of the Housing Element at this time ensures the City’s continued compliance with State housing law, while allowing the City to implement the required zoning text amendments through a structured and legally appropriate process.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA)
Adoption of the 2023–2031 Housing Element Update is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the Common Sense Exemption.
CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The Housing Element is a policy-level planning document and does not authorize, approve, or permit any specific development, rezoning, or physical
change to the environment. Adoption of the Housing Element does not result in construction, infrastructure improvements, or increased development intensity.
Any future zoning amendments, housing projects, or implementation actions identified in the Housing Element will be subject to separate discretionary review and project-specific environmental analysis, as required by CEQA.
Accordingly, it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the Housing Element Update will not have a significant effect on the environment, and the project is therefore exempt from CEQA.
DISCUSSION
The Housing Element is one of the eight required elements of the City’s General Plan and provides a framework to guide the development, improvement, and preservation of housing to meet existing and projected needs of all income levels in the community.
Key components of the 2023–2031 Housing Element include:
1. A review of the previous element’s goals, policies, programs, and objectives to ascertain the effectiveness of each of these components as well as the overall effectiveness of the Housing Element.
2. An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints related to meeting these needs.
3. An analysis and program for preserving assisted housing developments.
4. An assessment of fair housing.
5. A statement of community goals, quantified objectives, and policies related to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
6. A program with an eight-year schedule of actions that the City is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies in the Housing Element.
The Housing Element is a policy document and does not, by itself, approve any physical development. Any future housing projects identified for program implementation will undergo separate review and environmental analysis.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND OUTREACH
Notice of this public hearing was provided in accordance with Government Code §§ 65090 and 65352. Public review drafts of the Housing Element were made available on the City’s website and at City Hall.
The City conducted outreach through public workshops, Planning Commission meetings, and consultation with housing stakeholders. Public comments received during these processes were reviewed and incorporated where appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adoption of the Housing Element.
Implementation of programs identified in the document may require future budget appropriations or grant funding.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Adopt Resolution No. 26-3209 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY TO ADOPT THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(b)(3),
THE COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution No. 26-3209 (City Council Adopting the 2023–2031 Housing Element)
2. Final 2023–2031 Housing Element
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2026-HE-01
4. Notice Of Exemption
5. CEQA Exemption Memo
6. HCD Compliance letter, Oct 17, 2025
RESOLUTION CC NO. 26-3209
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CALIFORNIA CITY TO ADOPT THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING
ELEMENT (2023-2031) AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(b)(3), THE COMMON SENSE
EXEMPTION
WHEREAS, the State of California requires that each city and county prepare and adopt a Housing Element as one of the eight State-mandated elements of the General Plan, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.11; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element identifies existing and projected housing needs and establishes goals, policies, and programs to meet those needs across all income levels; and
WHEREAS, the City of California City has prepared its 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period to comply with the State’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as determined by the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Housing Element provides sufficient capacity through its site inventory to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2023-2031 planning period; and WHEREAS, the City of California City submitted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on December 17, 2024; and
WHEREAS, HCD provided comments on March 17, 2025 to the City of California City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element for the City to address by updating the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the City of California City submitted the revised 6th Cycle Housing Element for review by HCD on May 16, 2025; and
WHEREAS, HCD provided comments on July 9, 2025 to the City of California City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element for the City to address by updating the revised Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the City of California City resubmitted the revised 6th Cycle Housing Element for review by HCD on October 2, 2025; and WHEREAS, HCD reviewed the revised Housing Element and issued findings on October 17, 2025 determining that the City of California City’s 6th Cycle Housing
Element, as revised, meets the statutory requirements and will substantially comply with State Housing Element Law when adopted, submitted, and approved by HCD; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on January 6, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element, considered public testimony, found the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to the common sense exemption (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)), and recommended adoption to the City Council pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2026-HE-01;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.
SECTION 2. After full consideration of the entire public record, the City Council finds that the Housing Element substantially complies with Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code 65580 et seq., and contains all provisions required by State Housing Element Law and the comments provided by HCD.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element is consistent with the City of California City General Plan and supports the City’s efforts to provide a variety of housing types to support the economic, employment, and commercial opportunities of the community.
SECTION 4. The 2023-2031 Housing Element is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), pursuant to the "common sense exemption" (14 Cal.
Code Regs. Section 15061 (b)(3)), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the 2023-2031 Housing Element may have a significant effect on the environment because it does not approve any development project or other physical change to the environment, nor does it adopt any zoning or land use changes. Rather, the 2023-2031 Housing Element is a document that sets forth the City's policies to plan for the City's regional housing needs allocation. Approval of any subsequent zoning amendments or housing development projects in accordance with the policies set forth in the 2023-2031 Housing Element will comply with CEQA.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby adopts the 2023-2031 Housing Element as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of California City, this 10th day of February 2026.
Marquette Hawkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leanndrea Weible Victor M. Ponto,
Acting City Clerk City Attorney
CERTIFICATION
I, Leanndrea Weible, Acting City Clerk of the City of California City, California, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council of said City at its meeting held on the10th day of February 2026, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of California City, California, this 10th day of February 2026.
Leanndrea Weible
Acting City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
2023-2031 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT
2023 – 2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
City of California City
December ͚͚͘͝ ȁ Adoption Drt
EXHIBIT A
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO Prepared By: PlaceWorks
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 200
Folsom, California 95630
t 916.245.7500
www.placeworks.com
2023 – 2031
HOUSING ELEMENT
City of California City
December ͚͚͘͝ | Adoption 'UDIt
i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Content and Organization ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Regional Housing Need ........................................................................................................................................... 2 General Plan Consistency ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Public Participation ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Stakeholder Consultations ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting.................................................................................................. 8 Public Comments .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Noticing of the Draft Housing Element ................................................................................................................... 8
3. Housing Needs Assessment.......................................................................................................................... 9 Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Community Context................................................................................................................................................ 9 Population Characteristics .................................................................................................................................... 10 Household Characteristics .................................................................................................................................... 12 Income Characteristics ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Employment Trends.............................................................................................................................................. 16 Housing Stock Characteristics ............................................................................................................................... 19 Housing Cost and Affordability............................................................................................................................. 22 At-Risk Housing ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Financial Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 27 Special-Needs Groups ........................................................................................................................................... 30
4. Assessment of Fair Housing.........................................................................................................................45 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 45 Current Context .................................................................................................................................................... 45 Opportunity, Segregation, and Displacement ...................................................................................................... 49 Environment, Jobs, Education, and Transportation .............................................................................................64 Special Housing Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 77 Housing Mobility, Overcrowding, and Overpayment ...........................................................................................82 Homelessness....................................................................................................................................................... 90 Disaster-Driven Displacement .............................................................................................................................. 90 Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement ............................................................................................................. 92 Local Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors ......................................................................................92 Compliance with Fair Housing Laws ..................................................................................................................... 93
5. Housing Sites Inventory...............................................................................................................................97 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ...................................................................................................................... 97 Units Constructed or Approved ............................................................................................................................ 98 Availability of Land................................................................................................................................................ 98 Meeting the RHNA .............................................................................................................................................. 104
ii
6. Housing Constraints ..................................................................................................................................107 Governmental Constraints .................................................................................................................................. 107 Nongovernmental Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 123 Energy Conservation........................................................................................................................................... 127
7. Review of Previous 2015-2023 Housing Element........................................................................................129 Efforts to Address Special Housing Needs ..........................................................................................................129 Progress Toward Meeting Housing Element Programs......................................................................................130
8. Goals, Policies, and Programs....................................................................................................................143 Appendix A – Sites Inventory................................................................................................................................154 TABLES
Table 1-1. California City Regional Housing Need, 2023–2031 .......................................................................................... 3 Table 3-1. Population Growth Trends, 2010–2023...............................................................................................................10 Table 3-2. Population in Group Quarters, California City .....................................................................................................10 Table 3-3. Population Projections, 2030–2060, Kern County ...............................................................................................11 Table 3-4. Population by Age ................................................................................................................................................11 Table 3-5. Population by Race/Ethnicity ...............................................................................................................................12 Table 3-6. Household Types ..................................................................................................................................................13 Table 3-7. Overcrowding.......................................................................................................................................................13 Table 3-8. HCD 2023 Income Limits by Household Size, Kern County ..................................................................................14 Table 3-9. Households Overpaying, California City ...............................................................................................................15 Table 3-10. Lower-Income Households Overpaying for Housing ...........................................................................................16 Table 3-11. Employment by Industry, California City and Kern County ..................................................................................17 Table 3-12. Largest Employers in Kern County (2023) ............................................................................................................18 Table 3-13. Labor Force Trends, California City ......................................................................................................................19 Table 3-14. Vacant Units by Type ...........................................................................................................................................20 Table 3-15. Age of Housing Stock, California City and Kern County .......................................................................................21 Table 3-16. Number of Potential Housing Problems..............................................................................................................21 Table 3-17. Housing Sale Price Survey, April 2024 ..................................................................................................................22 Table 3-18. Rental Price Survey, April 2024 ............................................................................................................................23 Table 3-19. Maximum Affordable Housing Costs by Income Category, 2023 ........................................................................24 Table 3-20. Assisted Multifamily Units, California City ...........................................................................................................24 Table 3-21. Housing Organizations and Agencies ...................................................................................................................25 Table 3-22. Voucher Payment Standards ...............................................................................................................................26 Table 3-23. Financial Resources ..............................................................................................................................................27 Table 3-24. Residents with a Developmental Disability, California City .................................................................................32 Table 3-25. Residents with Developmental Disability, California City ....................................................................................32 Table 3-26. Available Services for Persons with Disabilities ...................................................................................................33 Table 3-27. Tenure by Household Size, California City ...........................................................................................................34 Table 3-28. Number of Bedrooms Per Unit, California City ....................................................................................................34 Table 3-29. Senior Households by Tenure, California City and Kern County ..........................................................................35
iii
Table 3-30. Licensed Senior Care Facilities, Kern County .......................................................................................................35 Table 3-31. Farm Operations in Kern County, 2022................................................................................................................39 Table 3-32. Extremely Low-Income Households, California City ............................................................................................40 Table 3-33. Homeless Point-in-Time Count, Kern County, 2019–2023 ..................................................................................41 Table 3-34. Student Homelessness, Kern County, 2019–2023 ...............................................................................................42 Table 3-35. Homeless Services, Kern County..........................................................................................................................43 Table 3-36 Female Head of Households, California City. .......................................................................................................44 Table 4-1. RHNA Capacity by Census Tract Compared to Opportunity, Segregation, and Displacement Factors ...............62 Table 4-2. School Performance .............................................................................................................................................65 Table 4-3. RHNA Capacity by Census Tract Compared to Environment, Jobs, Education, and Transportation Factors ......76 Table 4-4. RHNA Capacity by Census Tract Compared to Special Housing Needs Factors ..................................................82 Table 4-5. RHNA Capacity by Census Tract Compared to Overcrowding and Overpayment Factors ..................................89 Table 4-6. Compliance with Fair Housing Laws .....................................................................................................................93 Table 4-7. Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues.........................................................................................................96 Table 5-1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2023–2031 ................................................................................................. 97 Table 5-2. Sample Development Densities .........................................................................................................................101 Table 5-3. Summary of Vacant Residential Land ................................................................................................................103 Table 5-4. Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to the 6th Cycle RHNA ...............................................................104 Table 6-1. General Plan Land Use Designations Allowing Residential ................................................................................107 Table 6-2. Residential Zone Districts and Development Standards ....................................................................................108 Table 6-3. Residential Parking Standards............................................................................................................................109 Table 6-4. Alignment of Streets ..........................................................................................................................................111 Table 6-5. Residential Uses Permitted by Zone ..................................................................................................................112 Table 6-6. Development Fees..............................................................................................................................................117 Table 6-7. Planning Permit Fees..........................................................................................................................................117 Table 6-8. Fee Summary for Development by fee Type .....................................................................................................118 Table 6-9. Proportion of Fee in Overall Development Cost for a Typical Unit ....................................................................118 Table 6-10. Planning Processing Times ................................................................................................................................. 119 Table 6-11. Permit Processing Time......................................................................................................................................120 Table 6-12. Loan Interest Rates.............................................................................................................................................125 Table 7-1 Review of Previous 2015-2023 Housing Element Programs ..............................................................................131 Table 8-1. Summary of Quantified Objectives ....................................................................................................................153 Table A-1. Vacant Sites Inventory ........................................................................................................................................154
iv
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Household Income Distribution, California City and Kern County .......................................................................15 Figure 3-2. Housing Units by Type, California City .................................................................................................................19 Figure 3-3. Household Tenure, California City and Kern County ...........................................................................................20 Figure 3-4. Disabilities Type Among Residents, California City ..............................................................................................31 Figure 4-1. Current Zoning .....................................................................................................................................................48 Figure 4-2. TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2023 ....................................................................................................................51 Figure 4-3. Predominant Population ......................................................................................................................................54 Figure 4-4. Median Household Income ..................................................................................................................................56 Figure 4-5. Population with Incomes Below Poverty .............................................................................................................57 Figure 4-6. Displacement Risk................................................................................................................................................59 Figure 4-7. Map of the Census Tracts and Sites .....................................................................................................................63 Figure 4-8. TCAC/HCD Economic Domain Score ....................................................................................................................67 Figure 4-9. Map of transit stops and routes...........................................................................................................................70 Figure 4-10. Housing and Transportation as a Percentage of Income .....................................................................................71 Figure 4-11. CalEnviroScreen Percentile ..................................................................................................................................74 Figure 4-12. Percentage of Households with a Disability .........................................................................................................78 Figure 4-13. Percentage of Children in Female-Headed Households ......................................................................................80 Figure 4-14. Rate of Overcrowding ..........................................................................................................................................83 Figure 4-15. Renter Overpayment ...........................................................................................................................................85 Figure 4-16. Homeowner Overpayment ..................................................................................................................................87 Figure 4-17. FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas........................................................................................................................91 Figure A-1. Sites Inventory, All Sites.....................................................................................................................................182 Figure A-2. Sites Inventory, Detail 1 .....................................................................................................................................183 Figure A-3. Sites Inventory, Detail 2 .....................................................................................................................................184 Figure A-4. Sites Inventory, Detail 3 .....................................................................................................................................185 Figure A-5. Sites Inventory, Detail 4 .....................................................................................................................................186 Figure A-6. Sites Inventory, Detail 5 .....................................................................................................................................187 Figure A-7. Sites Inventory, Detail 6 .....................................................................................................................................188
1 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify housing solutions that solve our local housing problems and to meet or exceed the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The City recognizes that housing need is met through many resources and interest groups. To respond to the increasing housing pressures facing California City, the Housing Element Update presents goals, policies, and programs centered in racial equity, environmental justice, and resilience pertaining to housing access, preservation, stability, and production. Together, these goals, policies, and programs comprise the City’s housing action plan for the 2023-2031 planning period. The content of this chapter will guide daily decision making by City officials and staff and will provide benchmarks on the housing programs that the City initiated to meet its overall housing goals.
California Government Code Section 65583 requires the Housing Element to include the following components:
» A review of the previous element’s goals, policies, programs, and objectives to ascertain the effectiveness of each of these components as well as the overall effectiveness of the Housing Element. » An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints related to meeting these needs. » An analysis and program for preserving assisted housing developments. » A statement of community goals, quantified objectives, and policies related to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
» A program with an eight-year schedule of actions that the City is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies in the Housing Element.
The Housing Element is intended to be a dynamic, action-oriented planning tool. Unlike the other elements of the General Plan, which typically have a 10- to 20-year time frame, State law sets an eight-year time frame. This sixth cycle extends from 2023 to 2031, and this update will replace the Housing Element that was in effect from 2015 to 2023.
The Housing Element identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs; evaluates the City’s ability to meet its RHNA; establishes the goals, policies, and programs that are the foundation of the City’s housing strategy; and provides an array of programs to create sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods across the city.
Content and Organization
The Housing Element is organized into the following sections and has been structured to comply with state Housing Element guidelines.
Section 1, Introduction: Provides information on the State of California’s requirements, the purpose of the Housing Element, the organization of the document, and General Plan consistency.
Section 2, Public Participation: Describes the community engagement and opportunities the City provided for public participation during the preparation of the updated Housing Element.
2 Section 3, Housing Needs Assessment: Focuses on demographic information, including population trends, ethnicity, age, household composition, income, employment, housing characteristics, housing needs by income, and housing needs for special segments of the population.
Section 4, Assessment of Fair Housing. Includes an Assessment of Fair Housing that aims to combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
Section 5, Housing Sites Inventory: Lists most of the available vacant land in the city that is appropriate to meet the City’s share of the regional housing needs.
Section 6, Housing Constraints: Analyzes potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints to housing development in California City. This includes the City’s planning, zoning, and building standards that directly affect residential development patterns and influence housing availability and affordability. Potential nongovernmental constraints include the availability and cost of financing, the price of land and materials for building homes, natural conditions that affect the cost of preparing and developing land for housing, and the business decisions of individuals and organizations (e.g., home building, finance, real estate, and rental housing) that impact housing cost and availability.
Section 7, Review of Previous 2015-2023 Housing Element: Contains an evaluation of the last Housing Element and its accomplishments and analyzes differences between what was projected and what was achieved.
Section 8, Goals, Policies, and Programs: Documents the City’s goals, policies, and programs to address the housing needs in California City. Based on the findings of the previous sections, the Goals, Policies, and Programs section identifies actions the City will take to meet local housing goals and quantified objectives to address the housing needs in California City.
Regional Housing Need
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) developed the RHNA Plan for Kern County. The RHNA Plan identifies a need for 24,365 new residential units in all of Kern County (including incorporated cities) over an eight-year period (2023 to 2031). The need for 24,365 units is shared and distributed amongst each of the communities in the county, with each community’s share determined by its proportion of the county’s overall household population. Thus, California City’s share of regional housing needs is 427 units, or roughly 53 units per year, over an eight-year planning period (June 30, 2023, to December 31, 2031).
The RHNA is a minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the Housing Element’s statutory planning period. As shown in Table 1-1, California City is required to plan for 427 units during the 2023-2031 planning period. Of those, 64 units must be affordable to lower-income (extremely low-, very low-, and low-income) households, 100 units affordable to moderate-income households, and 263 units for above moderate-income households.
3 Table 1-1. California City Regional Housing Need, 2023–2031 Income Category 2023 – 2031 RHNA Percentage of RHNA
Very Low 39 9%
Low 25 6%
Moderate 100 23%
Above Moderate 263 62%
Total 427 100%
Source: 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan adopted on July 21, 2022.
Note: It is assumed that 50 percent of the very low-income units (19 units) are allocated to the extremely low-income category.
General Plan Consistency
State law requires that “the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies.” The purpose of requiring internal consistency is to avoid policy conflict and provide a clear policy guide for the future maintenance, improvement, and development of housing in the city.
The Housing Element was last updated in 2015 and has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s other General Plan elements. The policies and actions in this Housing Element are consistent with the policy direction in other parts of the General Plan. The City will continue to review and revise the Housing Element, as necessary for consistency, when amendments are made to the General Plan.
Per Assembly Bill (AB) 162 (Government Code Section 65302.g.3), at the next revision of the Housing Element after January 1, 2014, the Safety Element must be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified in state responsibility areas, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code, and land classified in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as defined in Section 51177. Senate Bill (SB) 379 (Government Code Section 65302.g.4) requires that the Safety Element be reviewed and updated as necessary to address climate change adaptation and applicable resiliency strategies. SB 1035 (Government Code Section 65302.g.6) requires that the Safety Element be reviewed and updated as needed upon each revision of the Housing Element or local hazard mitigation plan, but not less than once every eight years. SB 99 (Government Code Section 65302.g.5) requires that on or after January 1, 2020, the Safety Element include information to identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two evacuation routes. As of 2024, the City is in the process of reviewing and updating the current Safety Element incorporating all State law changes, including applicable laws and any additional requirements and General Plan guidelines from the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
4 This page intentionally left blank.
5 2. Public Participation
State law requires cities and counties to make a diligent effort to achieve participation from all segments of the community in preparing a Housing Element. Section 65583[c][6] of the California Government Code specifically requires that “The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community, specifically lower income households and special needs groups, in the development of the Housing Element, and the action shall describe this effort.”
The diligent effort required by State law means that local jurisdictions must do more than issue the customary public notices and conduct standard public hearings prior to adopting a Housing Element. State law requires cities and counties to take active steps to inform, involve, and solicit input from the public, particularly low-income and minority households that might otherwise not participate in the process.
To meet the requirements of State law, California City completed the public outreach and encouraged community involvement, summarized and described below. The City did not receive any requests for translation services, but does provide translation services if requested.
Stakeholder Consultations
To ensure that the City solicits feedback from all segments of the community, including lower income and special needs individuals and households, consultations were conducted with service providers and other stakeholders who represent different socioeconomic groups.
From November 2023 through December 2023, staff reached out to 13 stakeholder organizations to offer each the opportunity to provide one-on-one input on housing needs and programs. Of these 13 organizations, 4 provided feedback via one-on-one interviews or email responses, and 9 did not respond.
Representatives from the following stakeholders were interviewed:
» Kern County Commission on Aging, December 2023
» Housing Authority of the County of Kern, December 2023 » Kern County Aging and Adult Services, November 2023
» The Mission at Kern County, December 2023
Requests for consultation were extended but no responses were received from the following stakeholder groups:
» Kern County Mental Health Services Department
» Kern Regional Center
» Kern County Human Service Department
» Mable Davis Senior Center
» Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board
» Bakersfield Kern Regional Homeless Collaborative
» Desert Area Resources and Training
6 » Alliance Against Family Violence
» Women’s Center High Desert
The stakeholders were asked the following questions:
1. Opportunities and concerns: What top three opportunities do you see for the future of housing in this jurisdiction? What are your three top concerns for the future of housing in California City?
2. Housing preferences: What types of housing do your clients prefer? Is there adequate rental housing in the city? Are there opportunities for homeownership? Are there accessible rental units for seniors and persons with disabilities?
3. Housing barriers/needs: What are the biggest barriers to finding affordable, decent housing? Are there specific unmet housing needs in the community?
4. Housing conditions: How would you characterize the physical condition of housing in California City? What opportunities do you see to improve housing in the future?
5. Equity and Fair Housing: What factors limit or deny civil rights, fair housing choice, or equitable access to opportunity? What actions can be taken to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity (without displacement)? What actions can be taken to make living patterns more integrated and balanced?
6. How has COVID-19 affected the housing situation?
The one-on-one interviews with stakeholders revealed several key observations and conditions related to housing issues facing the residents of California City, revealing common themes.
First, there was a significant concern about the unaffordability of available housing, particularly for low-income residents who have been priced out of the market. The Kern County Commission on Aging highlighted that long waiting lists for affordable housing and a lack of reliable public transportation compound this issue. Additionally, a lack of utility infrastructure, such as gas lines, discourages developers from building in certain areas. Issues like inadequate lighting in certain areas also affect safety. Stakeholders also discussed opportunities for future housing development, such as increased construction due to relatively easy permit acquisition, the presence of an underground aquifer capable of supporting a large population, and advantageous location near major employment hubs like Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
The Housing Authority of the County of Kern (KCHA) identified affordable rental housing as a primary opportunity.
However, they expressed concerns about the availability of appropriately zoned vacant land near essential amenities.
There was a noted need for quality, well-maintained, affordable housing, especially for larger families preferring singlefamily rental homes, and smaller families content with apartments. KCHA highlighted significant barriers such as the lack of housing supply, inadequate available rental housing, increasing homeownership costs, and limited data on accessible rental units. KCHA also pointed out limitations in zoning diversity as factors restricting housing choices and concentrating poverty.
The Mission at Kern County emphasized the importance of increased involvement from private developers and the implementation of new strategic action plans promoting innovative housing solutions. They noted barriers to finding affordable and decent housing, including high competition for units, insufficient affordable housing, and limited mental
7 health and substance abuse support. The Mission also stressed the need for more education and training for landlords on fair housing policies and suggested landlord summits and increased training opportunities to improve understanding and compliance with fair housing guidelines.
Regarding housing preferences, there was a desire for one- or two-bedroom units, with the predominant housing available falling within the 1500- to 1700-square-foot range. There were limited options for seniors and persons with disabilities, emphasizing the need for more senior and affordable housing options, like the Desert Jade housing development. However, attracting developer interest remains a hurdle.
Equity and fair housing concerns were also raised, with KCHA identifying zoning diversity limitations as restricting housing choices and concentrating poverty. However, the Kern County Commission on Aging reported no complaints about civil rights violations or racial segregation in housing options, describing the area’s population as well-blended with no apparent racial concentration in specific neighborhoods.
COVID-19's impact was significant across all consultations. The Kern County Commission on Aging noted a surge in property selling during the pandemic’s initial phase, but current hesitancy among homeowners to sell due to inflation and interest rate uncertainties. The Housing Authority of the County of Kern reported that eviction moratoriums during the pandemic led to a surge in evictions as tenants withheld payments. Material and labor shortages from COVID also adversely affected housing production, escalating costs and impacting overall housing availability and affordability. The Mission at Kern County emphasized that COVID-19 slowed down housing processes and contributed to increased homelessness, creating additional challenges for the homeless population.
To incorporate stakeholder feedback, the City included Goal 1 and associated policies (Policy 1.1 through Policy 1.6) to promote the development of affordable housing in a safe and livable environment for current and prospective residents of California City. This goal prioritizes housing opportunities for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, with a particular focus on seniors, large families, farmworkers, female-headed households with children, persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), and homeless individuals and families. Specifically, in response to concerns about housing affordability and accessibility, the City has expanded Program 1.1 to support affordable housing development by seeking partnerships with agencies, housing developers, community stakeholders, and employers to identify development opportunities and pursue funding for lower-income and special-needs populations, including seniors and larger families. Given the high demand for rental housing, Program 1.2 strengthens coordination with the Housing Authority of the County of Kern to promote Housing Choice Vouchers and encourage landlord participation. Additionally, Program 1.3 expands housing resources for extremely low-income residents, particularly seniors and individuals with physical or developmental disabilities, by providing support to organizations offering counseling, education, housing services, and referrals to mitigate displacement risks and enhance housing stability. The City will continue to collaborate with stakeholders to ensure housing programs remain responsive to community challenges and priorities. As part of Program 4.1 the City will review and apply for available funding opportunities to improve active transportation, transit, safe routes to school, parks, street lighting, road paving, and other infrastructure and community revitalization strategies. Through Program 4.1, the City will coordinate with organizations such as Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance, Inc. (GBLA) Fair Housing Law Project to develop informational materials and/or conduct trainings for landlords on fair housing policies.
8 Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting
On April 16, 2024, a Joint Planning Commission and City Council Study Session was held to present the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element and to review new State laws. This session was publicly noticed in accordance with standard municipal meeting procedures through the City’s website. The public was also invited to attend and participate in this event. Staff presented an overview of the Housing Element update process, the required contents of the elements, and the RHNA.
During this Study Session, strategies to meet the City’s RHNA by income category were discussed and the City Council, Planning Commission, and community members provided input on the draft Housing Element.
The members of the Council and Planning Commission expressed concerns over insufficient infrastructure, particularly in the areas of electrical, water, and public transit systems, despite the available land to meet the RHNA requirements.
In addition to the lack of infrastructure, there is a need for job opportunities and new businesses in both California City and Mojave. Public members asked questions about factors that determine eligibility for housing choice vouchers (HCVs)/Section 8 housing and the rates of renter/owner-occupied housing at the county level.
Public Comments
The City received two written public comments during the initial 30-day public comment period. The draft was revised to address errors indicated by one commenter. Both commenters also made recommendations related to additional or updated data that could be incorporated. Much of the draft was written using the data set provided by the Department of Housing and Community Development. These sources were not updated to later data years, though data errors were corrected. The City will continue to consider and incorporate comments through adoption. During the second review period the City received feedback from several community members regarding the proposed sites to be rezoned, and regarding the data used in the draft Housing Element. The City reviewed the comments as well as all available sites in the city limits to determine an alternate approach to meeting the RHNA. The reevaluation of sites focused on available sites near amenities (grocery stores, schools, parks, etc.) site locations, and available infrastructure. The Housing Element no longer proposes an action to rezone parcels.
Noticing of the Draft Housing Element
During the preparation of this Housing Element update, public input was actively encouraged in a variety of ways. The element was posted to the City’s website, and a hard copy was available for review at the Planning Department counter.
The City emailed a link to all interested individuals and organizations, representing low- and moderate-income households and special-needs groups, as well as local developers that had expressed interest in or previously requested notices relating to the Housing Element. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65585, the draft Housing Element was made available for public comment for 30 days, from October 30 to November 29, 2024. The draft was made available on the City’s website and was noticed to residents through the same methods as Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The City followed the requirements of Government Code Section 65585 throughout the Housing Element update process.
9 3. Housing Needs Assessment
This chapter describes the characteristics of California City population and housing that are essential to understanding the City’s housing needs. This section is organized as follows:
» Data Sources
» Community Context
» Population Characteristics
» Household Characteristics
» Income Characteristics
» Employment Trends
» Housing Stock Characteristics
» Housing Cost and Affordability
» At-Risk Housing
» Financial Resources
» Special-Needs Groups
Data Sources
The analysis in this section primarily uses data compiled by HCD in the Data Profiles for Housing Elements workbook, released in December 2022. The HCD data is largely from the 5-Year Estimates 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS), 2016-2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), Department of Finance (DOF), and the Employment Development Department (EDD).
The ACS is conducted by the US Census Bureau and provides estimates of numerous housing-related indicators based on samples averaged over a five-year period. Although the ACS typically has a higher margin of error, it also provides more detailed data that is not available with the US Decennial Census.
The DOF is another source of valuable data and is more current than the US Census. However, the DOF does not provide the depth of information that can be found in the US Census Bureau reports. The EDD provides employee and industry data and projections that are more specific than what is often available through the US Census. Whenever possible, DOF or EDD data and other local sources were used in the Housing Needs Assessment to provide the most current profile of the community.
Because of the differences in data sources, some figures (e.g., population or the number of households) may vary in different sections. Additionally, the sum of data in tables may not total precisely due to rounding.
Community Context
California City has a small population base and is in the southeastern portion of Kern County, California. Located north of State Route 58 and east of State Route 14, the nearest towns are Mojave to the west, Rosamond to the south, Boron to the east, and Ridgecrest to the north. Mojave, Rosamond, and Boron are unincorporated communities and are governed by Kern County. Like California City, Ridgecrest is an incorporated city. Edwards Air Force Base is approximately 23 minutes southeast of California City, off of State Route 58 in the unincorporated area of Kern County.
10 Population Characteristics
Population Growth
The City of California City experienced a population growth from 2010 through 2023. As shown in Table 3-1, the City’s population increased from 14,120 in 2010 to 14,827 in 2023, marking a 5 percent increase. Similarly, Kern County’s overall population also experienced growth, increasing by 8.1 percent. The county’s population increased from 839,631 in 2010 to 907,476 in 2023. Table 3-1 shows population growth rates for communities in Kern County from 2010 to 2023.
Table 3-1. Population Growth Trends, 2010–2023
Jurisdiction 2010 2020 2023 % Change
(2010-2023)
% Change
(2020-2023)
Arvin 19,304 19,495 19,505 1.0% 0.1%
Bakersfield 347,483 403,455 408,373 17.5% 1.2%
California City 14,120 14,973 14,827 5.0% -1.0%
Delano 53,041 51,428 51,727 -2.5% 0.6%
Maricopa 1,154 1,026 1,011 -12.4% -1.5%
McFarland 12,707 14,161 13,748 8.2% -2.9%
Ridgecrest 27,616 27,959 27,885 1.0% -0.3%
Shafter 16,988 19,953 21,318 25.5% 6.8%
Taft 9,327 8,546 6,975 -25.2% -18.4%
Tehachapi 14,414 12,939 11,960 -17.0% -7.6%
Wasco 25,545 27,047 26,622 4.2% -1.6%
Unincorporated Kern County 297,932 308,253 303,525 1.9% -1.5% Kern County 839,631 909,235 907,476 8.1% -0.2%
Arvin 19,304 19,495 19,505 1.0% 0.1%
Source: 2010, 2020, 2023 California Department of Finance, E-5 series.
Population in Group Quarters
As shown in Table 3.2, the group quarter population in California City has been decreasing from 2,614 in 2010 to 1,865 in 2023, a 28.7 percent decrease. In particular, the California City Correctional Facility, located within the city, has a designed capacity to house 2,381 offenders. In 2019, the correctional facility’s inmate population was 2,343, and it was staffed by over 500 State employees. However, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation closed the facility in April 2025.
Table 3-2. Population in Group Quarters, California City 2010 2015 2020 2023 Change from 2010 to 2023
Total Population 14,120 14,072 14,233 14,822 5.0%
Group Quarters 2,614 2,193 2,179 1,865 -28.7%
Percentage 18.5% 15.6% 15.3% 12.6% -
Source: California Department of Finance, P2-A Report and D-5 2023
11 Population Projections
The DOF provides projections for all counties through the year 2060. Table 3-3 shows the expected population growth for Kern County as a whole between 2030 and 2060. Based on DOF projections, the County is expected to experience an increase in overall annual growth of approximately 0.5 percent between 2030 and 2060. Although there are no current population projections for California City, it is reasonable to expect a slight increase in population for both the city and the county, considering the recent growth experienced by the city.
Table 3-3. Population Projections, 2030–2060, Kern County 2030 2040 2050 2060
Kern County 940,257 966,310 969,968 954,655
Source: 2023 California Department of Finance, E-1.
Age Characteristics
The distribution of California City’s population by age group in 2020 is shown in Table 3-4. As individuals age, their lifestyles, household composition, living preferences, and income levels tend to change as well. For example, young adults (18 to 34), including college-age students, typically move more frequently and earn less than older adults. As a result, younger adults generally are not ready or cannot afford to purchase homes but look for rental units to meet their housing needs. In contrast, middle-aged residents (35 to 54) typically have higher earning potential and higher homeownership rates. Residents approaching retirement age or recently retired (early 60s to mid-70s) tend to have the highest rates of homeownership. After retirement, many persons look for smaller homes on properties that are easier to maintain or for communities that cater to their lifestyles, needs, and preferences.
The updated data in Table 3-4 is presented in an alternate grouping of age categories. Over one-fourth of the population is in the age group 5 to 24, with 26.2 percent. Following closely behind is the 25 to 34-year-old age group, and the next largest age group is persons 35 to 44, with 14.6 percent.
Table 3-4. Population by Age
Age Group Persons Percentage
Under 5 years 882 6.3%
5 to 24 years 3,670 26.2%
25 to 34 years 2,808 20.1%
35 to 44 years 2,043 14.6%
45 to 54 years 1,532 10.9%
55 to 64 years 1,544 11.0%
65+years 1,522 10.9%
Total 14,001 100.0%
Source: HCD Data Packet, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
Note: ACS data includes incarcerated populations.
12 Race/Ethnicity Characteristics
Race and ethnicity may affect housing needs due to differing housing preferences and requirements associated with the household characteristics of each group. In Table 3-5, 34.2 percent of California City's population identifies as Hispanic or Latino, followed by 31.9 percent identifying as White, and 23.6 percent as Black or African American. Similar to the City, the Hispanic or Latino population comprises 53.9 percent of residents, followed by White population at 33.2 percent, and Asian population making up 4.7 percent in Kern County.
Table 3-5. Population by Race/Ethnicity
Race
California City Kern County
Persons Percentage Persons Percentage
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 4,784 34.2% 480,700 53.9% Not Hispanic or Latino 9,217 65.8% 411,758 46.1%
White 4,467 31.9% 296,505 33.2%
Black or African American 3,304 23.6% 45,312 5.1%
American Indian and Alaska Native 188 1.3% 4,149 0.5%
Asian 360 2.6% 41,599 4.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 48 0.3% 1,011 0.1% Some other race 49 0.3% 2,024 0.2%
Two or more races 801 5.7% 21,158 2.4%
Total 14,001 100.0% 892,458 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
Household Characteristics
A household is any group of people living together in a residence, whether related or unrelated. A survey of household characteristics is useful to determine household size trends, income, overcrowding or under-utilization of housing, and the number of special-needs households, such as large families and female-headed households.
Household Type and Size
According to the 2016-2020 ACS, there were 2.8 persons per household in the city, compared to the county with 3.15 persons per household. Table 3-6 illustrates that the most significant percentage of households in the city were family households at 63.9 percent. Of those family households, married-couple family households made up nearly half at 45.8 percent, followed by female-headed households at 13.1 percent. Nonfamily households constituted the third-highest percentage of the households, with a representation of 36.1 percent.
13 Table 3-6. Household Types
Households Percentage
Family Households 2,666 63.9%
Married-Couple Family 1,909 45.8%
Male-Headed Households 210 5.0%
Female-Headed Households 547 13.1%
Nonfamily Households 1,503 36.1%
Householder Living Alone 1,141 27.4%
Householder Not Living Alone 362 8.7%
Total Households 4,169 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data (2016-2020).
Note: Data may exhibit slight variations depending on the source utilized.
Overcrowding
Overcrowding reflects the inability of families to afford homes that are large enough to accommodate the size of their household. Overcrowding is defined as more than one person per room, while severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 persons per room. According to the 2016–2020 ACS, approximately 2.7 percent of housing units in California City were overcrowded, and 0.4 percent of housing units were severely overcrowded, as seen in Table 3-7.
Overcrowding is more common among renter households, with 5.2 percent of renter households classified as overcrowded or severely overcrowded. On the other hand, only 1.6 percent of owner households are considered overcrowded with none of them reported as severely overcrowded.
Table 3-7. Overcrowding
Household Type
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Occupied
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Not Overcrowded
(<1.00 occupants per room) 2,355 98.4% 1,684 94.9% 4,039 96.9% Overcrowded
(1.01 to 1.50 occupants per
room)
39 1.6% 74 4.2% 113 2.7%
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.50 occupants per room) 0 0.0% 17 1.0% 17 0.4%
Total Units 2,394 100.0% 1,775 100.0% 4,169 100.0%
Source: HCD Data Packet, City of California City, 2022; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
Note: Data may exhibit slight variations depending on the source utilized.
14 Income Characteristics
Income Limits
Housing choices such as tenure (owning versus renting), housing type, and location are dependent on household income. However, household size and type often affect the proportion of income that can be spent on housing. HCD publishes annual tables of official federal and state income limits for determining these maximums for a variety of programs.
State statutory limits are based on federal limits set and periodically revised by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 HCV program. HUD’s limits are based on surveys of local area median income (AMI).
Table 3-8 shows the 2023 HCD income limits for Kern County. The AMI for a four-person household in the county was $83,800 in 2023. Income limits for larger or smaller households were higher or lower, respectively, and are calculated using a formula developed by HUD. The commonly used income categories for a household of four are:
» Acutely Low Income: 0 to 15 percent of AMI ($0 to $12,050) » Extremely Low Income: 15 to 30 percent of AMI ($12,051 to $30,000) » Very Low Income: 30 to 50 percent of AMI ($30,001 to $41,250) » Low Income: 50 to 80 percent of AMI ($41,251 to $65,950) » Moderate Income: 80 to 120 percent of AMI ($65,951 to $100,550) » Above Moderate Income: Above 120 percent of AMI ($100,551 or more) Table 3-8. HCD 2023 Income Limits by Household Size, Kern County Income Category 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person 7-Person 8-Person Acutely Low $8,800 $10,050 $11,300 $12,550 $13,550 $14,550 $15,550 $16,550 Extremely Low $17,350 $19,800 $24,860 $30,000 $35,140 $40,280 $45,420 $50,560 Very Low $28,900 $33,000 $37,150 $41,250 $44,550 $47,850 $51,150 $54,450 Low $46,200 $52,800 $59,400 $65,950 $71,250 $76,550 $81,800 $87,100 Median $58,650 $67,050 $75,400 $83,800 $90,500 $97,200 $103,900 $110,600 Moderate $70,400 $80,450 $90,500 $100,550 $108,600 $116,650 $124,700 $132,750 Source: HCD 2023 Income Limits, Kern County.
Income Distribution
According to the 2016-2020 ACS, the city’s median household income in 2020 was $47,575. This was significantly lower than the county as a whole where the median household income was $54,851. As shown in Figure 3-1, 28.4 percent of households in California City made less than $24,999 annually, followed by an annual income between $25,000 and $49,999 (25.1 percent). Only 17.9 percent fell within an annual income range of $50,000 to $74,999, only slightly more than the county (17.3 percent). In the $75,000 to $99,000 category, only 7.2 percent of the California City population fell within this range, while 12.6 percent of the county fell within this range. There were 21.3 percent of households in the city that earned $100,000 or more annually, while the corresponding percentage for the county was 24.1 percent.
15 Figure 3-1. Household Income Distribution, California City and Kern County Source: HCD Data Packet, City of California City, 2022; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
Overpayment
Overpayment is defined as paying more than 30 percent of monthly household income for housing costs. Severely overpaying is defined as paying more than 50 percent of monthly household income for housing costs. The 2016-2020 CHAS data estimated that 1,474 households, or 35.3 percent of all households, overpaid for housing in 2020. Of those households, 41.4 percent were owner occupied and 58.6 percent were renter occupied.
Table 3-9 illustrates households paying 30 to 50 percent and more than 50 percent of monthly household income for housing. In general, renter households pay a greater percentage of monthly income for housing, and owner-occupied households are less cost burdened than renter households.
Table 3-9. Households Overpaying, California City
Income Spent on Housing
Owner Renter Total
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Not Overpaying
(Less than 30 percent) 1,780 74.0% 865 48.9% 2,645 63.4% Overpaying
(30 to 50 percent) 440 18.3% 290 16.4% 730 17.5%
Severely Overpaying
(50 percent or more) 170 7.1% 574 32.4% 744 17.8%
Cost Burden not available 15 0.6% 40 2.3% 55 1.3%
Total 2,405 100.0% 1,769 100.0% 4,174 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2016-2020.
Note: Data may exhibit slight variations depending on the source utilized and sampling variability
28.4%
25.1%
17.9%
7.2%
21.3% 22.4% 23.5%
17.3%
12.6%
24.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Less than $24,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more California City city, California Kern County, California
16 Lower-Income Households Overpaying
Table 3-10 shows that 53.4 percent (2,225 households) of lower-income households spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Looking at lower-income households overpaying by tenure, 37.8 percent were owner occupied (840), and 62.2 percent were renter occupied (1,385). Of those, only 9.2 percent were owners belonging to extremely low-income households, whereas renters accounted for 33.3 percent.
Table 3-10. Lower-Income Households Overpaying for Housing Income Category Owners Overpaying Renters Overpaying Total Overpaying Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Extremely LowIncome households 205 9.2% 740 33.3% 945 42.5% Very Low-Income
households 330 14.8% 295 13.3% 625 28.1%
Low-Income
households 305 13.7% 350 15.7% 655 29.4%
Total Lower-Income
Households
Overpaying
840 37.8% 1,385 62.2% 2,225 53.4%
Total Households 2,395 100.0% 1,775 100.0% 4,170 100.0% Source: HCD Data Packet, City of California City, 2022; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2016-2020.
Note: Data may exhibit slight variations depending on the source utilized.
Employment Trends
According to the 2016–2020 ACS, there were 4,041 individuals aged 16 and above who were a part of the labor force in California City. This accounts for approximately 27 percent of the city's total population. Table 3-11 shows that "educational services, health care, and social assistance" (22.1 percent) are the largest industries in California City, followed by "public administration" (13.1 percent), "retail trade" (12.3 percent), and "construction" (10.0 percent). In contrast, "educational services, and health care and social assistance" (21.3 percent) was also the leading industry, but the second-largest industry was "agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining" (14.7 percent) in Kern County.
The fastest-growing employment industries between 2010 and 2020 were finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing, while the most significant decrease was in wholesale trade in the city.
17 Table 3-11. Employment by Industry, California City and Kern County Industry
California City Kern County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Civilian employed population 16 years and over 4,041 100.0% 346,787 100.0% Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 196 4.9% 50,819 14.7% Construction 403 10.0% 24,779 7.1%
Manufacturing 262 6.5% 18,663 5.4%
Wholesale trade 28 0.7% 9,194 2.7%
Retail trade 496 12.3% 36,250 10.5%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 171 4.2% 21,163 6.1% Information 36 0.9% 3,351 1.0%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and
leasing 181 4.5% 12,571 3.6%
Professional, scientific, and management, and
administrative and waste management services 325 8.0% 27,651 8.0% Educational services, and health care and social
assistance 895 22.1% 73,883 21.3%
Arts, entertainment and recreation, and
accommodation and food services 368 9.1% 29,302 8.4%
Other services, except public administration 149 3.7% 15,744 4.5% Public administration 531 13.1% 23,417 6.8%
Source: HCD Data Packet, City of California City, 2022; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
Based on the data from the Census On the Map tool, California City had a total of 1,087 jobs in 2020. The majority of individuals employed in the city lived outside of it, accounting for 53.2 percent. On the other hand, 46.8 percent of employees both lived and worked within the city limit.
California City is located more than an hour and half from Metropolitan Bakersfield and over mountainous terrain that is sometimes impassable during the winter months. To the south, the city is less than 52 minutes from the Los Angeles County line and the terrain is passable nearly year-round. Many California City residents find work in the Lancaster/Palmdale area. Lancaster/Palmdale, as of 2020, had a combined population of over 344,000 residents according to Department of Finance estimates. Over the years, the geographic location and isolation of California City have helped Lancaster/Palmdale grow with major amenities. California City residents commute not only for employment opportunities, but also travel the distance for major medical facilities, including hospital care, college, wholesalers, large retailers, and entertainment.
Table 3-12 shows the leading companies in Kern County as of 2023, categorized by their workforce size. Three of the top employers have a workforce ranging from 5,000 to 9,999 or exceeding 10,000 individuals. These particular employers are associated with military bases and the production of alternative fuels: Edwards Air Force Base, NASA/Armstrong Flight Research, and Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division.
18 Table 3-12. Largest Employers in Kern County (2023)
Employer Name Location Industry
10,000+ Employees
Edwards Air Force Base Edwards Military Bases
5,000-9,999 Employees
NASA/Armstrong Flight Research Edwards Alternative Fuels Naval Air Warfare Ctr Ridgecrest Military Bases
1,000-4,999 Employees
Adventist Health Bakersfield Bakersfield Hospitals
Bolthouse Farms Bakersfield Agricultural Consultants
California Correctional institution Tehachapi State Govt-Correctional Institutions California Department of Corrections Delano City Govt-Correctional Institutions Chevron Corp Bakersfield Management Services
Dignity Health Mercy Downtown Bakersfield Hospitals
Dignity Health Memorial Hospital Bakersfield Hospitals
Foster Care Human Svc Bakersfield Foster Care
Grimmway Farms Arvin Fruits & Vegetables-Growers & Shippers Kern County Human Svc Dept Bakersfield Government Offices-County Kern High School District Bakersfield School Districts
Marko Zaninovich Inc McFarland Fruits & Vegetables-Growers & Shippers Memorial Hospital Bakersfield Bakersfield Hospitals
Nabors Completion-Production Bakersfield Oil Field Service NASA/Armstrong Flight Research Edwards Federal Government-Space Research & Technology
Robertson’s Ready Mix California City Concrete-Ready Mixed Wasco State Prison Fire Dept Wasco State Govt-Correctional Institutions 500-999 Employees
Community Action Partnership Bakersfield Community Centers Ensign United States Drilling Bakersfield Energy Management Systems & Products Frito-Lay Inc Bakersfield Potato Chip Factories
Paramount Farms Huller 4 Lost Hills Farms
Ridgecrest Regional Hospital Ridgecrest Hospitals
Sun Pacific Bakersfield Fruits & Vegetables-Growers & Shippers Vasinda Investments Inc Bakersfield Home Health Service Source: EDD, Major Employers in Kern County, accessed December 2024
19 According to the EDD, there were approximately 5,500 persons in the California City labor force in 2023, while 4,600 were in employment (see Table 3-13). Generally, the City's annual unemployment rate has decreased by roughly 3 percent since 2016, from 20.8 percent to 17.0 percent. However, in 2020, the unemployment rate increased to 25.0 percent due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 3-13. Labor Force Trends, California City
Year Labor Force Employment Unemployed Unemployment Rate 2016 5,500 4,400 1,200 20.8%
2017 5,400 4,400 1,000 18.8%
2018 5,400 4,500 900 16.6%
2019 5,400 4,500 900 16.1%
2020 5,700 4,300 1,400 25.0%
2021 5,500 4,400 1,100 19.9%
2022 5,300 4,600 800 14.6%
2023 5,500 4,600 900 17.0%
Source: Employment Development Department (EDD) Local Area Unemployment Statistics, 2016 – 2023.
Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Type
HCD defines a housing unit as a house; an apartment; a mobile home or trailer; a group of rooms; or a single room occupied as separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other individuals in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall.
Figure 3-2 shows the distribution of housing units by type of structure in California City as of 2023. The majority, 78.1 percent, were single-family detached housing units, followed by 8.7 percent two to four multifamily units, and 7.8 percent mobile homes.
Figure 3-2. Housing Units by Type, California City
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2023.
78.1%
2.4%
8.7%
3.0% 7.8%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Single Detached Single Attached Two to Four Five Plus Mobile Homes
20 Household Tenure
Figure 3-3 shows the rate of homeownership and percentage of rental households in California City in 2020. According to the 2016-2020 ACS, approximately 57.4 percent of households were homeowners, and 42.6 percent rented their homes. Kern County as a whole had a slightly higher owner-occupied rate at 58.9 percent of all households while 41.1 percent were renter occupied.
Figure 3-3. Household Tenure, California City and Kern County Source: HCD Data Packet, City of California City, 2022; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
Vacancy Rates
Residential vacancy rate is a good indicator of the balance between housing supply and demand in a community. When the demand for housing exceeds the available supply, the vacancy rate will be low. When there is an excess supply, the rate will be high. A vacancy rate of 3 to 5 percent is generally indicative of a healthy market. When vacancy rates fall below 3 percent, there is upward pressure on home prices and rents.
The 2016–2020 ACS estimated that approximately 13.6 percent of housing units in California City were vacant in 2020 (see Table 3-14), which was higher than the range for a healthy housing market. Of these vacant units, 4.0 percent were for sale only; 3.6 percent were for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use; and 3.1 percent were for rent. The remaining vacant units consisted of sold and not occupied at 1.5 percent, while there are zero vacant units for rent/not occupied and migrant workers.
Table 3-14. Vacant Units by Type
Number Percentage
Total Units 4,825 100.0%
Occupied housing units 4,169 86.4%
Vacant housing units 656 13.6%
For rent 151 3.1%
Rented, not occupied 0 0.0%
For sale only 194 4.0%
Sold, not occupied 72 1.5%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 174 3.6%
For migrant workers 0 0.0%
Source: HCD Data Packet, City of California City, 2022; American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
57.4% 58.9%
42.6% 41.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
California City city, California Kern County, California Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
21 Housing Age and Condition
Age is one measure of housing stock conditions and a factor for determining the need for rehabilitation. Without proper maintenance, housing units deteriorate over time. Thus, units that are older are more likely to need major repairs (e.g., a new roof or plumbing). Generally, houses 30 years and older are considered aged and are more likely to require major or minor repairs. In addition, older houses may not be built to current standards for fire and earthquake safety.
Almost 71.9 percent (3,468 units) of California City’s housing stock was built more than 30 years ago, and out of these,
28.1 percent (1,357 units) were built over 50 years ago (see Table 3-15). According to the ACS 2020 five-year estimates, there has been no housing built in the city since 2014, while 3.2 percent (9,537 units) were built countywide. However, ACS sampling methodology, which relies on resident survey responses, may undercount housing built during the survey period.
Table 3-15. Age of Housing Stock, California City and Kern County Year Built
California City Kern County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Built 2014 or later 0 0.0% 9,537 3.2%
Built 2010 to 2013 155 3.2% 6,557 2.2%
Built 2000 to 2009 1,202 24.9% 53,054 17.7%
Built 1990 to 1999 1,241 25.7% 43,072 14.4%
Built 1980 to 1989 1,101 22.8% 49,996 16.7%
Built 1970 to 1979 499 10.3% 48,329 16.2%
Built 1960 to 1969 438 9.1% 30,328 10.1%
Built 1950 to 1959 113 2.3% 31,277 10.5%
Built 1940 to 1949 76 1.6% 13,814 4.6%
Built 1939 or earlier 0 0.0% 13,215 4.4%
Total Units 4,825 100.0% 299,179 100.0%
Source: HCD Data Packet, City of California City, 2022; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
The 2017-2021 ACS reports other housing problems, including a lack of plumbing and kitchen facilities. Homes in California City have a small number of additional housing problems. Approximately 0.3 percent of owner units lack complete plumbing facilities, while 0.9 percent of renters reported the same housing issue. Furthermore, 0.3 percent of owners lack complete kitchen facilities, whereas none of the renter-occupied units suffered from the same housing problem (see Table 3-16).
Table 3-16. Number of Potential Housing Problems
Occupied Housing Units Owner Renter
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 0.3% 0.9%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0.3% 0.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021).
22 California City’s Community Development Department reports that a small number of houses or apartment buildings need major maintenance or repair. The City estimates that approximately 10 percent of the housing stock is in need of rehabilitation and 2-3 homes are in need of replacement.
Rehabilitation Opportunity
In reference to rental properties, the 2016-2020 ACS states there are about 1,775 (42.6 percent) renter-occupied and 2,394 (57.4 percent) owner-occupied units in the city. Although the majority of the city’s housing units are considered single-family detached, renter-occupied homes could benefit from the rehabilitation assistance offered by the City. The rehabilitation of units is also an important consideration for renters as they consider the purchase of existing units.
Rebuilding Together Kern County is a local nonprofit organization providing free home rehabilitation services for veterans and low-income homeowners, particularly the elderly and disabled, throughout Kern County. The City has included Program 3.1 to promote the County program to California City residents.
Housing Cost and Affordability
One of the major barriers to housing availability is the cost of housing. To provide housing to all economic levels in the community, a wide variety of housing opportunities at various prices should be made available. Housing affordability is dependent on income and housing costs.
Housing affordability is based on the relationship between household income and housing expenses. According to HUD and HCD, housing is considered “affordable” if the monthly housing cost does not exceed 30 percent of a household’s gross income.
Home Sales Prices
The median sales price fluctuates based on the number of bedrooms. According to a Rocket Homes report, as of April 2024, the median sale price for homes with two bedrooms was $165,000, representing a decrease of 17.5 percent compared to 2023. Similarly, homes with three bedrooms had a median sale price of approximately $272,000 in 2024, reflecting a 2.5 percent decrease from the previous year’s median price of $279,000. However, the median sales price for four-bedroom homes saw a slight increase of 1.5 percent, reaching about $340,000 (see Table 3-17).
Table 3-17. Housing Sale Price Survey, April 2024
Number of Bedrooms 2023 Median Sales Price 2024 Median Sales Price Change 2 $200,000 $165,000 -17.5%
3 $279,000 $272,000 -2.5%
4 $335,000 $340,000 1.5%
5+ $319,000 $319,000 0.0%
Source: Rocket Homes, California City Housing Market Report - Kern County, California, April 2024.
23 Rental Costs
As of April 2024, Zillow reported that the median monthly rental price for a single studio unit was $790, with a range of $595 to $985. For one-bedroom units, the median rental price was $950, ranging from $700 to $1,200. Two-bedroom units had a median rental price of $1,350, with a range of $900 to $1,800. Three-bedroom units varied from $1,400 to $2,100, while four-bedroom units varied between $1,200 and $2,700 (see Table 3-18).
Table 3-18. Rental Price Survey, April 2024
Number of Bedrooms Lowest Advertised Rent Highest Advertised Rent Median Rent Studio $595 $985 $790
1 $700 $1,200 $950
2 $900 $1,800 $1,350
3 $1,400 $2,100 $1,750
4+ $1,200 $2,700 $1,950
Source: Zillow California City, CA Rental Market, April 2024.
According to HUD, the 2024 fair-market rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom unit in Kern County would be $1,258 and a three-bedroom unit would be $1,773. The median rent in California City for a two-bedroom and three-bedroom unit is
6.8 percent higher but 1.3 percent lower than HUD’s 2024 FMR for the same units.
Housing Affordability
This section describes the ability of households at different income levels to pay for housing based on HCD 2023 income limits. HCD classifies housing as “affordable” if households pay no more than 30 percent of gross income for rent (including utilities) or monthly homeownership costs (including mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance).
Ability to Pay
The maximum affordable sales price for a four-person household was $118,664 for an extremely low-income household, $163,163 for a very low-income household, $260,863 for a low-income household, and $397,722 for a moderate-income household of four. This indicates that there is no stock of affordable housing options for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households; while moderate and above-moderate income households could afford existing and newly constructed two-, three-, and four-bedroom homes in California City. A median three-bedroom home in the city was $272,000 (as shown in Table 3-17), which illustrates that only a household with a moderate or above moderate income consisting of four members could afford a median price of a three-bedroom house. On the other hand, all lower income groups could not afford it.
Table 3-19 provides the affordable rents and maximum purchase price based on the HCD income limits for Kern County.
As shown in Table 3-19, a low-income household of four could afford a maximum monthly rent of $1,649, which indicates that they would be able to rent one- or two-bedroom apartments with a median monthly rent ranging from $900 to $1,800. However, those with extremely low-income households of four would not be able to afford even the median rent for a studio unit of $790.
24 Table 3-19. Maximum Affordable Housing Costs by Income Category, 2023 Income Category Percentage
of Median
Maximum
Income
Maximum
Rent
Maximum
Sales Price
Extremely Low <30% $30,000 $750 $118,664
Very Low 30–50% $41,250 $1,031 $163,163
Low 51–80% $65,950 $1,649 $260,863
Moderate 81–120% $100,550 $2,514 $397,722
Sources: HCD Income Limits, 2023, Wells Fargo Current Mortgage and Refinance Rates, April 2024 Notes: Based on a Four-Person Household; total affordable mortgage based on a 10 percent down payment, an annual 5 percent interest rate, a 30-year mortgage, and a monthly payment equal to 30 percent of income (after utilities, taxes, and insurance). Monthly affordable rent based on 30 percent of income, with less estimated utility costs.
At-Risk Housing
As required by California Government Code Section 65583, the Housing Element must analyze the extent to which below-market rate units are at risk of converting to market-rate housing. If there are at-risk units, the element should include programs to encourage preservation of these units or to replace any that are converted to market rate. The units to be considered are any units that were constructed using federal assistance programs, state or local mortgage revenue bonds, redevelopment tax increments, in-lieu fees or an inclusionary housing ordinance, or density bonuses.
Housing is considered “at risk” if it is eligible to be converted to market-rate housing due to: (1) the termination of a rental subsidy contract, (2) mortgage prepayment, or (3) the expiration of affordability restrictions. The time period applicable in making this determination is the five-year period following the last mandated update of the Housing Element, which in the case of California City is 2023 to 2031.
Existing Affordable Housing
According to California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), as of December 2022, there were 32 assisted units in California City, which has 31 income-restricted units among a total of 32 units (see Table 3-20). This is subsidized through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). Although it is not a direct federal subsidy, LIHTC provides tax incentives for the use of private equity in the development of affordable housing. Tenants of LIHTC units typically qualify for and receive Section 8 HCVs. As seen in Table 3-20, there are no units at risk of conversion in California City.
Table 3-20. Assisted Multifamily Units, California City Name Total
Units
Income-Restricted
Units
Units By
Type Funding Agency Risk Level
21501 Lakeshore Drive 32 31 Family LIHTC Low / 2066
Total At Risk 0 0 - - -
Source: California Housing Partnership Corporation, 2022.
25 Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units
CHPC identified that there were no single or multifamily housing units located in California City that received Section 8 funding. Therefore, the city does not have any units in need of preservation.
Preservation Resources
Efforts by the City to retain low-income housing in the future must be able to draw upon two basic types of resources:
organizational and financial. Further, qualified nonprofit entities need to be made aware of the future possibilities of units becoming at risk. Demonstrated management and, perhaps, development abilities should be assessed by the City.
Groups with whom the City has an ongoing association are the logical entities for future participation, as are nonprofits who have sought the right-of-first-refusal status with HCD. Nonprofit organizations and government agencies that have been active in the preservation of affordable housing in the north state are shown in Table 3-21.
Table 3-21. Housing Organizations and Agencies
Organizations and Agencies
Christian Church Homes of Northern California
303 Hegenberge Road, Suite 101
Oakland, CA 94621-1419
California Coalition for Rural Housing
717 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento CA, 95814
A.F. Evans Development, Inc.
4305 University Avenue, Suite 550
San Diego, CA 92105
EAH, Inc.
22 Pelican Way
San Rafael, CA 94901
California Housing Finance Agency
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mercy Housing California
1360 Mission Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94103
California Human Development Corporation
3315 Airway Drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
National Affordable Housing Trust
2335 North Bank Drive
Columbus OH, 43220
California Housing Partnership Corporation
369 Pine Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Mutual Housing California
8001 Fruitridge Road, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95820
Local Organizations and Agencies
Golden Empire Affordable Housing
601 24th Street B, Bakersfield, CA 93301
Community Action Partnership
1825 Feliz Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93307
Housing Authority of the County of Kern
601 24th Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301
Housing & Opportunity Foundation of Kern
601 24th Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301
Kern County Homeless Collaborative
5405 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93309
Habitat For Humanity Golden Empire
1500 E 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 93305
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, March 2023.
Programs for Preservation and Construction of Affordable Housing The following is a summary of the current programs that the City is aware of and, if applicable, could be used to help meet the City’s goal of remedying its affordable housing needs. Further, a list of funding sources that could be used by the City to meet its affordable housing goals is provided in Table 3-23.
26 » Project Development: The City’s Planning Department could provide technical assistance and administrative support for housing developments that expand affordable housing optionsfor the city’s residents. » Nonprofit Support: The City should continue its cooperative relationships with qualified nonprofit groups which may play a role in assisting in the preservation and expansion of affordable housing in the community. » Policy and Ordinance Review: Current policies and ordinances should be continually reviewed to ascertain the realistic impact on retaining or expanding affordable housing in the city. When necessary, changes or additions to the City’s guiding policies and ordinances should be adopted. » Housing Referral Service: The City should develop a listing of programs and a methodology for disseminating pertinent information about the types of subsidized housing and the various providers of housing-related services.
» Inclusionary Zoning: The City should consider the adoption of an inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requiring a stated amount of lower- income units in all new single- and multifamily developments. Percentages of setaside units, in-lieu contribution of fees, targeted income groups, and periods for restrictions on rent levels need to be identified.
» Housing Rehabilitation: The City could consider Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for an approved renewed housing rehabilitation program.
Housing Authority
The State of California does not own or operate public housing; public housing is administered directly through local public housing authorities. However, for jurisdictions that do not have a local public housing authority, HCD has a Housing Assistance Program that administers the Section 8 program.
Kern County has a local public housing authority and collaborates with landlords to provide rent subsidies for participants. For the agency to establish a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Contract with the property owner, housing must meet HUD’s Housing Quality Standards. The subsidy amount is calculated as the difference between 30 percent of the tenant’s income and either the Section 8 Payment Standard for Kern County or the gross rent, whichever is lower. Every year, HUD sets income limits based on family size and the location of the Housing Authority. At present, 75 percent of eligible applicants must have an income that does not exceed 30 percent of the median income in the area. The remaining 25 percent can have an income limit of up to 80 percent of the area median. Agency staff handles the processing of applications, determines eligibility, conducts criminal background checks, and works closely with both tenants and landlords.
The housing authority for Kern County currently administers approximately 850 public housing and 4,000 HCV units across the county. Table 3-22 shows voucher payment standards for number of bedrooms in Kern County.
Table 3-22. Voucher Payment Standards
0 Bedroom
(Studio) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom $1,036 $1,043 $1,251 $1,778 $2,131 $2,451
Source: Housing Authority of the County of Kern, Voucher Payment Standards, effective May 1, 2023.
27 Financial Resources
The programs in Table 3-23 are available to assist the City in meeting its affordable housing goals.
Table 3-23. Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Federal Programs
Community
Development Block
Grant Program (CDBG)
Funding for this program has increased over
the last couple of years. HCD administers an
annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
to competitively award these federal funds
across the state in alignment with its HUD
Consolidated Plan.
Single-family housing rehabilitation,
homebuyer assistance, infrastructure
in support of housing, multifamily
housing rehabilitation.
Home Investment
Partnership Program
(HOME)
Funding for this program has increased over
the last couple of years. HCD administers an
annual NOFA to competitively award these
federal funds across the state in alignment
with its HUD Consolidated Plan.
New rental affordable housing;
rehabilitation of existing rental
affordable housing; programs to
promote home ownership; owneroccupied housing rehabilitation; tenant-based rental assistance to
prevent homelessness.
Home Investment
Partnership Program–
American Rescue Plan
(HOME-ARP)
This one-time funding, with HOME-ARP funds,
is available for expenditure until September
2030.
Funds must be used for vulnerable
populations, including homeless, at risk
of homelessness, fleeing or attempting
to flee domestic and related forms of
violence (including human trafficking).
Funds may be used for the production
of affordable housing, tenant-based
rental assistance, homeless prevention
services, and purchase or development
of non-congregate shelter for
individuals and families experiencing
homelessness.
Housing Choice
Voucher (HCV) Program
Local housing authorities receive funding for
HCV (Section 8 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937) from the federal government.
Funding for the program has increased over
the last couple of years.
Rental assistance for low-income
households.
Project-Based Section 8
Vouchers
Housing authorities may dedicate a portion of
their HCVs as project-based vouchers. Funding
for the program has increased over the last
couple of years.
Rental assistance for low-income
households tied to units that can be
underwritten by loans that finance
housing projects.
HUD VASH Vouchers This federally funded program is managed through a partnership between housing
authorities and the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). Homeless veterans
receive a rental subsidy from the housing
authority and case management from the VA.
Funding for this program has been increasing
Rental assistance and supportive
services for homeless veterans.
28 Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities in recent years with strong bipartisan support
in Washington D.C.
Continuum of Care
(CoC) Programs
The NorCal CoC is currently accessing State
resources (Emergency Solutions Grant,
Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention,
Homeless Emergency Aid Program, etc.) and
federal CoC funding through HUD. Funds are
passed through to service providers at the
county level.
Rental subsidies, rapid rehousing,
emergency shelter, homeless
prevention.
State Programs
Permanent Local
Housing Allocation
(Formula Funds)
Ongoing funding provided through SB 2
Building Homes and Jobs Act. Funding will
fluctuate based on revenues taken in by the
State.
A wide range, which includes but is not
limited to—affordable rental housing
for households below 80% AMI;
affordable rental and ownership
housing, including accessory dwelling
units (ADUs), for households earning
up to 120% of AMI; or capital costs for
navigation centers and emergency
shelters, as well as permanent and
transitional housing for people
experiencing homelessness.
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable
Communities Program
(AHSC)
State program funded by greenhouse gas capand-trade program. Recent revisions to regulations encourage greater participation
from rural communities.
Grants for infill low-income affordable
housing, and infrastructure that
encourages reductions in vehicle trips
and greenhouse gas emissions.
Infill Infrastructure
Grant Program (IIG)
This is funding from Proposition 1, the
Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act.
Therefore, this funding will sunset when all
bond proceeds are disbursed. The State
generally issues one NOFA each year.
Gap funding for infrastructure
improvements necessary for specific
residential or mixed-use infill projects.
California Housing
Finance Agency (Cal
HFA) Residential
Development Loan
Program
Low-interest, short-term loans to local
governments for affordable infill, owneroccupied housing developments. Links with CalHFA’s Down Payment Assistance Program
to provide subordinate loans to first-time
buyers. Two funding rounds per year.
New construction, rehabilitation,
acquisition.
California Housing
Finance Agency (Cal
HFA) Homebuyer’s
Down Payment
Assistance Program
CalHFA makes below-market loans to firsttime homebuyers of up to 3% of sales price.
Program operates through participating
lenders who originate loans for CalHFA. Funds
available upon request to qualified borrowers.
Homebuyer assistance
California Housing
Finance Agency (Cal
HFA)
The Forgivable Equity Builder Loan gives firsttime homebuyers a head start with immediate equity in their homes via a loan of up to 10%
of the purchase price of the home. The loan is
forgivable if the borrower continuously
Homeowner assistance.
29 Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities occupies the home as their primary residence
for five years.
HOME Investment
Partnership Program
The State provides grants to local
governments and nonprofit agencies for many
homeowner and renter needs.
Homebuyer assistance rehabilitation;
new construction rental assistance.
Building Equity and
Growth in
Neighborhoods (BEGIN)
A State-funded program administered by HCD
that provides low- and moderate-income
households up to $30,000 for a down
payment.
Homebuyer assistance.
CalHome Grants awarded to jurisdictions for owneroccupied housing rehabilitation and first-time homebuyer assistance.
Homebuyer assistance; rehabilitation.
Low-Income Housing
Tax Credits
A 4% annual tax credit that helps owners of
rental units develop affordable housing. New construction.
HUD Emergency
Shelter Grants
(administered through
the State)
Competitive grants to help local governments
and nonprofits finance emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and other supportive
services.
New construction; rehabilitation;
homeless assistance; public services.
Tax-Exempt Housing
Revenue Bond
Supports low-income housing development by
issuing housing tax-exempt bonds requiring
the developer to lease a fixed percentage of
the units to low-income families at specified
rental rates.
New construction; rehabilitation;
acquisition.
Rural Development
Loans and Grants
Capital financing for farmworker housing.
Loans are for 33 years at 1 percent interest.
Housing grants may cover up to 90 percent of
the development costs of housing. Funds are
available under the Section 515 (Rental
Housing), Section 502 (Homeownership Loan
Guarantee), Section 514/516 (Farm Labor
Housing), and Section 523 (Mutual Self-Help
Housing) programs.
Purchase; development/construction;
improvement and rehabilitation.
Private Resources/Financing Programs
California Community
Reinvestment
Corporation (CCRC)
Nonprofit mortgage banking consortium
designed to provide long-term debt financing
for affordable multifamily rental housing.
Nonprofit and for-profit developers contact
member banks.
New construction; rehabilitation;
acquisition.
Federal National
Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae)
Fixed-rate mortgages issued by private
mortgage insurers. Homebuyer assistance.
Mortgages that fund the purchase of
rehabilitation of a home. Homebuyer assistance; rehabilitation.
Low downpayment mortgages for singlefamily homes in underserved low-income and minority cities.
Homebuyer assistance.
30 Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Freddie Mac Home
Works
Provides first and second mortgages that
include rehabilitation loans. Jurisdiction
provides gap financing for rehabilitation
components. Households earning up to 80
percent AMI qualify.
Homebuyer assistance.
Affordable Housing
Program (Federal
Home Loan Bank)
Loans (and some grants) to public agencies
and private entities for a wide variety of
housing projects and programs. Participation is
by Federal Home Loan Bank-participating
lenders.
New construction; homebuyer
assistance; rehabilitation; housing
supportive services.
Northern California
Community Loan Fund
(NCCLF)
Offers low-interest loans for the revitalization
of low-income communities and affordable
housing development.
Acquisition; rehabilitation; new
construction.
Low-Income
Investment Fund (LIHF)
Provides below-market loan financing for all
phases of affordable housing development
and/or rehabilitation.
Acquisition; rehabilitation; new
construction.
Source: Kern County, March 2023.
Special-Needs Groups
Special housing needs relate to age, disability, income, family size, or other circumstances (such as student status) that create additional challenges to obtaining suitable housing that is also affordable. The following section describes these special-needs groups and their associated housing availability issues.
Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of employment and income challenges; the need for accessible, affordable, and appropriate housing; and higher healthcare costs associated with a disability. A disability is defined by the US Census Bureau as a physical, mental, or emotional condition that lasts over a long period of time and makes it difficult to live independently.
Living arrangements of disabled persons depend on severity of disability. Many persons with disabilities live in their own home in an independent situation or with other family members. The US Census collects data for several categories of disability. The ACS defines six aspects of disability: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living.
» Hearing difficulty: Deafness or serious difficulty hearing. » Vision difficulty: Blindness or serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses. » Cognitive difficulty: Serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
» Ambulatory difficulty: Serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. » Self-care difficulty: Difficulty dressing or bathing (Activities of Daily Living [ADL]). » Independent living difficulty: Difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
31 According to the 2016–2020 ACS, 15.4 percent of all populations (2,301 individuals) aged 18 and over in California City had a disability, compared to the county, where 10.8 percent (98,426 individuals) of the population had a disability.
Figure 3-4 shows the disabilities by type for residents in California City. The figure shows that of those who had a disability in California City, the majority of individuals (40.9 percent) had an independent living difficulty, followed by cognitive disability (37.0 percent).In Kern County, just over half of the individuals with disabilities (51.2 percent) had an ambulatory difficulty, followed by those with an independent living difficulty (36.3 percent) countywide.
Figure 3-4. Disabilities Type Among Residents, California City Source: HCD Data Packet, City of California, 2022; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016- 2020).
Persons with disabilities may have unique housing needs, such as affordability issues due to limited incomes or a need for accessibility features. The City complies fully with the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as all building code provisions, to improve access for disabled persons. The City will continue to provide housing and services for persons with special needs, including for individuals with disabilities (See Program 1.1 Support Affordable Housing; Program 2.1 Increasing Access for Persons with Disabilities).
Developmental Disabilities
California Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires the City to include the needs of those with a developmental disability within the community in its analysis of “special-needs groups.” According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age; continues or can be expected to continue indefinitely; and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. It includes intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling conditions closely related to intellectual disability or requiring similar treatment but does not include other conditions that are solely physical in nature.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment.
More severely disabled persons require a group-living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected persons may require an institutional environment where medical aid and physical therapy are provided.
Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally
28.1%
31.9%
37.0% 35.4%
8.1%
40.9%
22.2%
18.8%
31.5%
51.2%
19.8%
36.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Hearing Difficulty Vision Difficulty Cognitive Difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty
Self-Care Difficulty Independent Living
Difficulty
California City Kern County
32 disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.
The California Department of Developmental Services currently provides community-based services to approximately 400,000 people with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, 2 developmental centers, 2 acute crisis homes, and 2 community-based facilities. The Kern Regional Center (KRC), founded in 1971, is 1 of 21 regional centers in California that provides a point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities. KRC is a private, nonprofit community agency that contracts with local county and city businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. This center serves over 10,000 clients in Kern, Inyo, and Mono Counties, which covers approximately 22,000 square miles with a population of over 945,000 people. KRC provides supports and services to individuals with developmental disabilities to help them achieve an independent, productive, and satisfying life as well as prenatal diagnosis and other genetic counseling services across the three counties.
As of January 2022, the Department of Developmental Services reported that the center in the 93505 Zip Code area of California City served 168 residents, which accounted for 1.1 percent of the City’s population. Among these residents, 98 (58.3 percent) were between the ages of 0 and 17, while 70 (41.6 percent) were 18 years and older (see Table 3-24).
While the zip code 93504 is used in California City, it is only used for Post Office boxes and therefore has no residents.
Table 3-24. Residents with a Developmental Disability, California City Zip Code 0–17 years 18+ years Total Residents
93505 98 70 168
Source: Department of Developmental Services, January 2022.
As shown in Table 3-25, 148 individuals resided with a parent, family member, or guardian, while 16 individuals lived independently or in a supported living arrangement. Notably, no individuals were reported to be residing in a Community Care Facility or Intermediate Care Facility,, indicating a potential gap in available housing options for those requiring higher levels of care.
Table 3-25. Residents with Developmental Disability, California City Zip Code Home of Parent
/Family /Guardian
Independent
/Supported Living
Community Care
Facility
Intermediate Care
Facility
93505 148 16 0 0
Source: Department of Developmental Services, January 2022.
There are a number of housing types appropriate for people living with a developmental disability: rent-subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing, HCVs, special programs for home purchase, and HUD housing. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group-living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this needs group. Incorporating “barrier-free” design in all new multifamily housing (as required by California and federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special
33 consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, because people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.
Multifamily housing includes units specifically designed to accommodate individuals with special needs, particularly those with disabilities. The City has one low-income rental housing project at 21501 Lakeshore Drive, consisting of 31 units, with rental rates determined based on tenant income. To expand housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities, the City has incorporated Program 1.1, which encourages housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable housing developments. Furthermore, through Programs 1.3 and 2.1, the City will implement programs to coordinate housing activities and outreach with the following providers, as shown in Table 3-26.
Table 3-26. Available Services for Persons with Disabilities Provider Area Served Services Available
Kern Regional
Center Kern County
Early Intervention Services program provides a wide range of services to children under the age of three with developmental delays and disabilities to ensure that they are given the care and support that they need.
National Alliance
on Mental Illness –
Kern County
Kern County
The NAMI program includes various components such as education, support, advocacy, active listening, and leadership. Its goal is to enhance the well-being of individuals with mental illness and their families.
Adult Protective
Services and
Prevention
Kern County
Adults Services social workers support the disabled and elderly with 24- hour response to emergency situations of abuse and neglect. The serve adults aged 65 and older or dependent adults aged 18 and older.
Kern County InHome Supportive
Services (IHSS)
Kern County
The IHSS program provides services to eligible people over the age of 65, the blind, and/or disabled. The goal of the IHSS program is to allow a person to live safely in their own home and avoid the need for out-ofhome care.
Source: Kern County Disabilities Resources, 2023.
Large Households
Large households are defined as households with five or more members. Large households comprise a special-needs group because of the need for larger dwelling units, with three or more bedrooms, which are often in limited supply and therefore command higher prices. To save for other basic necessities, such as food, clothing, and medical care, it is common for lower-income, large households to reside in smaller dwelling units, frequently resulting in overcrowding.
According to the 2016-2020 ACS, approximately 13.1 percent (546 households) were made up of five or more persons.
Among these large households, 69.2 percent (378) were owner-occupied, while 30.8 percent (168) were rented (see Table 3-27).
34 Table 3-27. Tenure by Household Size, California City Owner Percentage Renter Percentage Total Percentage
1-person household 645 26.9% 496 27.9% 1,141 27.4%
2-person household 781 32.6% 475 26.8% 1,256 30.1%
3-person household 219 9.1% 258 14.5% 477 11.4%
4-person household 371 15.5% 378 21.3% 749 18.0%
5+ person household 378 15.8% 168 9.5% 546 13.1%
Total 2,394 100% 1,775 100% 4,169 100%
Source: HCD Data Packet 2022, City of California City, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
A majority of the City’s rental housing stock consists of individual single-family homes and multifamily homes. The City recognizes that lower-income large families are most likely in need of rentals with a greater number of bedrooms. Of the 4,825 dwelling units available, over half were three-bedroom units, making up 58.3 percent. Following closely behind were four-bedroom units, accounting for 19.2 percent (926 units). See Table 3-28 for a breakdown of the city’s housing inventory by number of bedrooms.
Table 3-28. Number of Bedrooms Per Unit, California City Type of Room Number Percentage
Studio unit 73 1.5%
1-bedroom unit 220 4.6%
2-bedroom unit 779 16.1%
3-bedroom unit 2,811 58.3%
4-bedroom unit 926 19.2%
5- or more bedroom unit 16 0.3%
Total 4,825 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) Senior Population
Seniors have many different housing needs, depending on their age, level of income, current tenure status, cultural background, and health status. Seniors are defined as persons 65 years and older, and senior households are households headed by a person 65 years and older. Senior households may need assistance with personal and financial affairs, networks of care to provide services and daily assistance, and even possible architectural design features that could accommodate disabilities that would help ensure continued independent living.
The population of persons over age 65 in California City was 1,522 persons in 2020 or 10.9 percent of the overall population. Kern County’s percentage of persons age 65 and older was lower than the city’s, at 4.1 percent of the population (97,864 persons). According to the 2016-2020 ACS, senior-headed households made up approximately 25 percent (1,046) of the households in California City. Of these households, 70 percent were owner-occupied, and 30 percent were renter-occupied. Table 3-29 shows senior households by tenure.
35 Table 3-29. Senior Households by Tenure, California City and Kern County Tenure
California City Kern County
Number Percentage of
Total Households
Percentage of
Total Households
Percentage of
Total Households
Owners 730 70% 44,406 76%
Renters 316 30% 13,711 24%
Total Senior Households 1,046 100% 58,117 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020) Senior Housing and Services
Table 3-29 identifies the licensed senior facilities in Kern County and the capacity of each facility. The total facility capacity was 2,343 countywide, while there is no licensed senior facility within California City. As shown in Table 3-30, the majority of licensed senior care facilities are in Bakersfield, which make up 119 out of 129.
Table 3-30. Licensed Senior Care Facilities, Kern County Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility
Capacity
Brookdale Riverwalk 350 Calloway Drive Bakersfield 376
Rosewood Retirement Community 1301 New Stine Road Bakersfield 220 A Comfort Care Home 12409 Andes Avenue Bakersfield 6
A Golden Heart 13209 Induran Drive Bakersfield 6
A Golden Heart Family Care 13402 Giro Drive Bakersfield 6 A Golden Heart Family Care I 13400 Induran Drive Bakersfield 6 A & A Bakersfield Care Home 12203 El Capitan Avenue Bakersfield 6 Aaa Residential Elderly Retreat 4313 Monitor Street Bakersfield 6 Aaa Residential Elderly Retreat #2 1013 White Lane Bakersfield 6 Aaa Residential Elderly Retreat #3 4825 Kenny Street Bakersfield 6 Aaa Residential Elderly Retreat #4 10615 Polo Glen Drive Bakersfield 6 Advent Residence Home 10114 Stoneham Street Bakersfield 6 Aimes Noble II 5729 Noble Street Bakersfield 4
Alondra Home 9817 Alondra Drive Bakersfield 6
Arcadia Family Care 8306 Shiprock Drive Bakersfield 6
Arcadia Family Care III 10615 Trophy Court Bakersfield 6 Arcadia Family Care IV 13511 Hinault Drive Bakersfield 6 Arcadia Gardens Residential Care 1004 Coyote Springs Bakersfield 6 Arcadia Gardens Residential Care II 10813 Delicato Court Bakersfield 6 Arcadia Gardens Residential Care III 10719 Beaver Creek Drive Bakersfield 6 Arcadia Gardens Residential Care IV 12301 Riverfront Park Drive Bakersfield 6 Balance Residential Care Corporation 9802 Vertrice Avenue Bakersfield 6 Because We Care Assisted Living 4401 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield 6 Bella Vita at Stonington 11711 Stonington Street Bakersfield 6
36 Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility Capacity
Bellevue Assisted Living LLC 14738 Citrus Tree Court Bakersfield 6 Bethany Joy Garden 12302 Rambler Avenue Bakersfield 6
Blue Pearl Home Care II 10018 Saint Albans Avenue Bakersfield 6 Boggs Facility 810 Darlingham Court Bakersfield 4
Brighton Manor 305 Alum Bay Court Bakersfield 6
Camila Care Villa II 816 Loch Lloyd Lane Bakersfield 6
Camila Care Villa, LLC 10005 Cobblestone Avenue Bakersfield 6 Central Valley Residential Care, LLC 6727 Shaver Drive Bakersfield 6 Cobble Stone Residential Home Care LLC 9320 Cobble Mountain Road Bakersfield 6 Comfort Care Home II 9613 Ghirardelli Drive Bakersfield 6 Comfort Care Home III 9609 Ghirardelli Drive Bakersfield 6 Comfort Care Home IV 4917 Au Chocolat Drive Bakersfield 6 Dean's Care Villa 110 13110 Hinault Drive Bakersfield 6 Dean's Care Villa 111 13111 Hinault Drive Bakersfield 6 Dean's Care Villa, Inc. 13115 Hinault Drive Bakersfield 6 Delian's Manor Senior Care LLC 10725 Rising Sun Drive Bakersfield 6 Devoted Hearts Senior Care Home LLC 10311 Rio Del Mar Drive Bakersfield 6 Devoted Home Care, LLC 10106 Cobblestone Avenue Bakersfield 6 Divine Mercy Guest Home I 6108 Cochran Drive Bakersfield 6 Divine Mercy Guest Home II 809 Hewlett Street Bakersfield 6 Divine Mercy Guest Home III 2301 Scarborough Lane Bakersfield 6 Divine Mercy Guest Home IV 704 Hewlett Street Bakersfield 6 Divine Mercy Home Care 10239 Lanesborugh Avenue Bakersfield 6 Emmanuels Elderly Care 902 Brentwood Drive Bakersfield 12 Gables, The 903 Spirit Lake Drive Bakersfield 6
Garnsey Garden 364 Garnsey Avenue Bakersfield 6
Golden Villa Home 4420 Foxboro Avenue Bakersfield 4
Hallmark of Bakersfield 2001 Akers Road Bakersfield 99
Harlock Assisted Living, LLC 7214 Boulder Falls Bakersfield 6 Heritage Living 3801 Paseo Airosa Bakersfield 6
Heritage Living I 10411 Blythe Court Bakersfield 6
Heritage Living II 6401 Redinger Street Bakersfield 6
Ivy Park at Seven Oaks 4301 and 4225 Buena Vista Rd. Bakersfield 164 Izene's Haven Assisted Living 10000 Cobblestone Avenue Bakersfield 6 Jasmin Terrace at Bakersfield 5400 Stine Road Bakersfield 99 Jasmine Garden Residential Care 14016 Toluca Drive Bakersfield 6 Jasmine Garden Residential Care II 14012 Toluca Drive Bakersfield 6 Joyful Living Care Home II LLC 10310 Malaguena Court Bakersfield 6 Joyful Living Care Home, LLC 11605 Revolution Road Bakersfield 6 Legends Residential Care 9402 Kingsmill Lane Bakersfield 6
37 Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility Capacity
Lerwick Home Care 10213 Lerwick Avenue Bakersfield 6
Magnolia Place 8100 Westwold Drive Bakersfield 146
Magnolia Springs-Saddleback 7312 Saddleback Drive Bakersfield 4 Meadow Springs 6013 Friant Drive Bakersfield 4
Meadows, The 10702 Four Bears Bakersfield 6
Mercie's Home #3 5808 Carissa Avenue Bakersfield 4
Mercie's Home #5 812 Sesnon Street Bakersfield 6
Nanas Care 10301 Revere Beach Drive Bakersfield 6
Pacifica Senior Living Bakersfield 3209 Bookside Drive Bakersfield 55 Pacifica Senior Living Bakersfield Memory Care 3115 Brookside Drive Bakersfield 40 Palms At San Lauren, The 5300 Hageman Road Bakersfield 68 Paradise Gardens 15318 Lila Rose Ct. Bakersfield 6
Park Rcfe, The 311 Garnsey Avenue Bakersfield 9
Passion Plus Care Haven Res. Care Fac. For
Elderly
3025 Lotus Lane Bakersfield 6
Pathway Assisted Living/Westchester Gardens 2228 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield 36 Pathway Home Care 414 Lansing Drive Bakersfield 4
Pathway Home Care 416 Lansing Drive Bakersfield 4
Pathway Home Care 410 Lansing Drive Bakersfield 6
Pathway Homes 336 Montclair Street Bakersfield 4
Pathway Homes 334 Montclair Street Bakersfield 4
Pathway Homes 2714 Gosford Road #A Bakersfield 6
Pathway Homes 2714 Gosford Road #D Bakersfield 6
Pathway Homes 2714 Gosford Road #C Bakersfield 6
Pathway Homes 2714 Gosford Road #B Bakersfield 6
Pleasant Home Care 10609 Pleasant Valley Drive Bakersfield 6 Pointe At Summit Hills 4501 Upland Point Drive Bakersfield 102 Precious Life Residences, LLC 10414 Bichester Court Bakersfield 6 Quality Care Assisted Living 2607 Mt. Vernon Avenue Bakersfield 54 Raymer Care Residences 1525 Sugarleaf Ridge Drive Bakersfield 6 Redwood Senior Living Bakersfield 810 S Union Avenue Bakersfield 41 Rosebella Place 9319 Manihiki Bakersfield 6
Sage Care 2 13612 Night Star Lane Bakersfield 6
Sage Care Homes 13601 Star Shine Drive Bakersfield 6
Sage Care Homes 13519 Night Star Lane Bakersfield 6
Savanna Assisted Living LLC 9013 Staten Island Drive Bakersfield 6 Seasoned Elite Assisted Living 13403 Dali Avenue Bakersfield 6 Sherwood Elderly Care Facility 2204 Sherwood Avenue Bakersfield 6 Silverlake Home 3303 Silverlake Drive Bakersfield 4
Spring Home 8722 Hoodsport Avenue Bakersfield 5
Spruce Gardens 13303 Nantucket Place Bakersfield 6
38 Facility Name Facility Address Facility City Facility Capacity
St. Anthony Home 11004 Silver Falls Avenue Bakersfield 6 St. Catherine's Home Care, Inc. 10214 Pinnacle Ridge Avenue Bakersfield 6 St. Joseph's Home, LLC 2508 Olmo Court Bakersfield 6
Summer Springs Board & Care 6112 Summer Springs Drive Bakersfield 6 Tar Springs Home Care 2804 Tar Springs Avenue Bakersfield 6 Tedenek Elder Home 13005 Birkenfeld Avenue Bakersfield 6 Tedenek Elder Home 2 13001 Birkenfeld Avenue Bakersfield 6 Tlc Home Care 1 5801 Cochran Drive Bakersfield 6
Tlc Home Care 2 207 Riesling Vines Street Bakersfield 6 Trinity, The 200 Trinity Avenue Bakersfield 10
Village Gardens 11910 Crockett Court Bakersfield 6
Westchester Home On Spruce 2485 Spruce Street Bakersfield 6 Windcreek Senior Care 9300 Windcreek Court Bakersfield 6 Your Loved Ones Matter LLC 4804 Kenny Street Bakersfield 6 Arcadia Family Care II 13208 Induran Drive Bakersfield 6 Positive Directions #9 329 El Camino Drive Delano 4
Heavenly Castle Care Inc 1651 White Rock Road Frazier Park 6 Kern Village Assisted Living 32 Burlando Road Kernville 22 High Desert Haven 1240 College Heights Boulevard Ridgecrest 82 Simply Caring Angels LLC 608 West Wasp Avenue Ridgecrest 6 Carrington of Shafter 250 East Tulare Avenue Shafter 64 Mountain Vista Senior Care 20001 Piedra Drive Tehachapi 6 Tehachapi Manor 20400 Oak Knoll Drive Tehachapi 6
Burlington 13 Sycamore Dr Wofford Heights 21
Total 2,343
Source: California Department of Social Services, March 2023; California Department of Healthcare Access and Information, April 2024.
Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farmworkers typically work in fields, orchards, and processing plants. When workloads increase during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal or migrant labor.
According to a 2022 Census conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there were 20,472 total farmworkers across farm operations in Kern County. Of these, 14,221 were permanent, year-round employees, and 6,251 were seasonal, working fewer than 150 days per year. In total, there are 6,064 individuals working as migrant farmworkers, with the majority (95.3 percent of the total migrant farmworkers) being hired labor and the remaining
4.7 percent solely engaged in contract labor.
39 The agricultural census does not provide estimates of farmworkers living or seeking housing in California City. However, the 2016-2020 ACS reported that 196 or 4.9 percent of the civilian employed population 16 years and over were employed in farming, forestry, and fishing occupations. There shows that there is little demonstrated need for seasonal or transient farmworker housing in California City. Table 3-31 presents this data, separated by farm type.
Table 3-31. Farm Operations in Kern County, 2022
Farm Operations by Type Farmworkers Farms and Agricultural Operations That Hire Employees
Farm operations with fewer than 10 employees
Permanent 1,365 395
Seasonal1 1,117 343
Total 2,482 738
Farm operations with 10 or more employees
Permanent 12,856 321
Seasonal1 5,134 132
Total 17,990 453
Total Permanent 14,221 716
Total Seasonal 6,251 475
Total All (Seasonal and Permanent) 20,472 1,191
Source: USDA Agricultural Census, 2022.
Note: Some operations hire both permanent and seasonal labor. There are 1,191 operations that hire labor. 1 USDA defines seasonal farmworkers as farmworkers hired for 150 days or less.
Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income (ELI) households are those with an income of 30 percent or less of the AMI, adjusted for family size. In 2023, a family of four making $30,000 or less would be classified as ELI. This income equates to a wage of about $15.63 per hour for a single wage earner. As of January 1, 2024, the minimum wage in California is $16 per hour.
Based on their monthly income, an ELI family of four could afford a monthly housing cost of approximately $750 a month (see Table 3-19). This means they would have to spend 56 percent of their monthly income to afford the lowestIn light of monthly income, an ELI family of four could afford a monthly housing cost of approximately $750 a month (see Table 3-19). This means they would have to spend 56 percent of their monthly income to afford the lowestadvertised rent for a three-bedroom apartment ($1,400 per month).
Table 3-31 illustrates extremely low-income households by tenure and overpayment. As shown Table 3-32, of the 4,170 total households, approximately 42.6 percent were renter households and 57.4 percent were owner households. ELI households made up 22.7 percent of all households, including 740 renter households (78.3 percent of ELI households) and 205 owner households (21.7 percent of ELI households). Among ELI renter households, 630 were overpaying for housing (85.1 percent of ELI renters), and 80 were severely overpaying (10.8 percent of ELI households). For ELI owner households, 115 were overpaying (56.1 percent of ELI owners) and 15 were severely overpaying (7.3 percent of ELI owners). These figures indicate that ELI renters are more than 5 times as likely to experience severe overpayment as ELI homeowners.
40 In contrast, 1,280 households (30.7 percent of total households) fell into the lower income category (very low- and lowincome households), including 645 renter households (50.3 percent of lower income households) and 635 owner households (49.6 percent). Among lower income renter households, 214 were overpaying for housing (33.2 percent of lower income renters), and 24 were severely overpaying (3.7 percent). For lower income owner households, 280 were overpaying (44.1 percent of VLI/LI owners), and 70 were severely overpaying (11.0 percent). Compared to lower income households, ELI households were more likely to experience housing overpayment and severe overpayment, particularly among renters.
Table 3-32. Extremely Low-Income Households, California City Total Household Characteristics Number Percentage
Total Households 4,170 100.0%
Renter Households 1,775 42.6%
Owner Households 2,395 57.4%
Total Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households 945 22.7%
Total ELI households – Renters 740 78.3%
ELI renter households overpaying 630 85.1%
ELI renter households severely overpaying 80 10.8%
Total ELI households – Owners 205 21.7%
ELI owner households overpaying 115 56.1%
ELI owner households severely overpaying 15 7.3%
Source: 2016-2020 CHAS Data Sets.
Extremely low income households often experience severe financial constraints that impede their ability to secure stable, safe, and affordable housing, heightening their risk of homelessness, overcrowding, or substandard living conditions. The following are resources available to meet the housing needs of extremely low-income households:
» The Kern County Department of Human Services (KCDHS) administers programs such as CalWORKs Homeless Assistance, which provides temporary and permanent housing support for eligible families facing homelessness, and the General Assistance Program, which offers financial aid to indigent adults and emancipated minors who do not qualify for federal or state benefits. These programs aim to prevent homelessness and provide stability for extremely low-income individuals in Kern County. » The California Alternative Payment Program (CAPP) provides child care payment assistance to eligible lowincome families in Kern County. Funded by the California Department of Education (CDE), this program operates as a parental choice system, allowing parents to select from licensed child care centers, licensed family child care providers, or license-exempt providers, including family, friends, or neighbors. License-exempt providers must meet program requirements before approval. Children 12 years of age and younger are eligible for services, ensuring that families have access to affordable and flexible childcare options. » The Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department offers housing assistance programs, including the Home Improvement Loan Program, which provides financial aid to low-income homeowners for necessary repairs, and the Home Access Grant Program, which supports accessibility modifications for individuals with disabilities.
41 » Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance, a nonprofit legal service provider, offers free civil legal assistance to lowincome individuals and families in Kern County. Their services include legal advocacy for housing rights, public benefits, disability benefits, and consumer protection, ensuring that vulnerable residents have access to legal support.
The City’s Housing Element includes Program 1.1, a specific program to address the needs of ELI households. The program includes expanding regulatory incentives for the development of units affordable to ELI households, providing financial support on an annual basis to organizations that provide services, such as legal aid, and encouraging the provision of housing for young adults (particularly former foster youth and single mothers) through streamlined processing and funding assistance. Other programs in the Housing Element to serve ELI households include supporting overall affordable development (Program 1.1).
People Experiencing Homelessness
The very nature of homelessness makes it difficult to count persons with no permanent shelter. The 2023 point-in-time count (PIT), conducted from January 24 through 27, consisted of a single-night shelter count and a three-day unsheltered count in 2023. According to the PIT, there were a total of 1,948 homeless persons countywide, 52 percent of whom were unsheltered and 48 percent of whom were sheltered.
Table 3-33 shows results for the four most recent counts. The number of persons counted increased from 1,330 in 2019 to 1,948 in 2023, representing a 46 percent increase. Between 2019 and 2023, the number of homeless people in shelters experienced a significant increase of 79.5 percent since 2019, while the population of those without shelter rose by 25.4 percent.
Of the total unsheltered population in Kern Couty in 2023, 9 individuals (0.9 percent) were found in California City, with 2 on the west side of the city and 7 on the east side. Compared to other cities in the county, there are a small number of unsheltered populations, but it is important to note that the east side of the city had more than double the population of the west side.
There was a total of 183 self-reported health conditions for the unsheltered population that ranged from a single disease or morbidity to as high as six co-morbidities. These diseases include asthma, diabetes, heart disease, hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and valley fever. Additionally, there were 530 adults who self-reported a serious mental illness among the total of homeless persons in 2023.
Table 3-33. Homeless Point-in-Time Count, Kern County, 2019–2023 Sheltering Status 2019 2020 2021* 2022 2023 Percentage Change from 2019 to 2023
Sheltered 519 569 569 882 931 79.5%
Unsheltered 811 1,011 1,581 721 1,017 25.4%
Total Experiencing
Homelessness 1,330 1,580 2,150 1,603 1,948 46.5%
Source: Kern County CoC PIT 2023.
*Note: The 2021 PIT Count did not include an in-person count due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, it utilized Homeless Management Information System data and extrapolation methods that HUD approved.
42 Table 3-34 shows homeless student enrollments reported by the California Department of Education between 2019 and 2023. Statewide, there was a decrease of 15,863 students experienced homelessness, which represents a 6.5 percent reduction from 2019 to 2023. However, in Kern County, there was a significant increase of 1,319 students experienced homelessness during the same period, equating to a 26.7 percent rise.
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento Act) is federal legislation that ensures the educational rights and protections of children and youth experiencing homelessness (42 U.S. Code Sections 11431 to 11435). It requires all local educational agencies (LEA) to ensure that homeless students have access to the same free, appropriate public education, including public preschools, as other children and youth. The McKinney-Vento Act defines LEAs as public-school districts, direct-funded and locally funded charter schools, and county offices of education. The McKinney-Vento Act also authorizes the funding for the federal Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program.
The McKinney-Vento Act defines homeless children and youth as individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. This definition also includes:
» Children and youth who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason.
» Children and youth who may be living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or shelters. » Children and youth who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings. » Children and youth who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings.
» Migratory children who qualify as homeless because they are children who are living in similar circumstances listed above.
Table 3-34. Student Homelessness, Kern County, 2019–2023 School Year California Kern County
2019-2020 244,626 4,946
2020-2021 211,015 4,518
2021-2022 208,537 5,386
2022-2023 228,763 6,265
2019 to 2023 Percentage Change -6.5% 26.7%
Sources: As cited on kidsdata.org, California Dept. of Education, Coordinated School Health and Safety Office custom tabulation & California Basic Educational Data System.
California City does not have a homeless shelter and the closest homeless shelter is in Rosamond, approximately 28 miles to the south. The majority of homeless shelters are in Bakersfield, about 68 miles to the north. At present, these facilities appear to provide adequate housing for the region’s homeless population. Given the lack of a permanent homeless population, no emergency shelter has been developed in California City. However, to comply with State law and facilitate the development of shelters should one be proposed, the City will amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow them by right.
Table 3-35 illustrates the programs in the county and general vicinity that offer assistance to the homeless.
43 Table 3-35. Homeless Services, Kern County
Agency Address City Services
CalWORKs Homeless
Assistance 100 E. California
Avenue
Bakersfield
The CalWORKs Homeless Assistance (HA) Program was
established to help families in the CalWORKs program meet the costs of securing or maintaining permanent housing or to provide emergency shelter when a family is experiencing homelessness.
CalWORKs Housing
Support Program
The Open Door
Network
1921 19th
Street
Bakersfield
The Open Door Network operates the only emergency
homeless shelter in Kern County for families with children, as well as two domestic violence, sexual assault, and
human trafficking supportive shelters.
Flood ministries 3509 Union
Avenue Bakersfield
Flood provides street outreach and housing placement
services for those experiencing homelessness who meet
eligibility criteria for housing vouchers provided by the Housing Authority of the County of Kern.
Greater Bakersfield
Legal Assistance
615 California
Avenue Bakersfield
GBLA provides counsel and advice, brief services, and/or representation in an array of core areas of practice to low income and seniors residing in Kern County.
Bakersfield Kern
Regional Homeless
Collaborative
(BKRHC)
5005 Business
Park North Bakersfield
Works to reduce the impacts of homelessness in Kern
County through collaborative planning and action that
expands access to permanent affordable housing and
supportive services.
Housing Authority of
the County of Kern 601 24th Street Bakersfield
The Authority is an active developer of affordable housing, acquiring and building housing to help meet the affordable housing needs in Kern County.
Community Action
Partnership of Kern
2739 Diamond
Street
Rosamond
CAPK helps economically disadvantaged residents pursue
educational goals, secure and retain employment, maintain adequate housing, access medical services, obtain utility bill payment subsidies and residential weatherization
assistance, counteract hunger and food insecurity, obtain childcare and preschool education, and engage in personal and family development opportunities.
the Dream Center 1300 17th
Street
Bakersfield
Services utilize a formal case management system, with colocated staff from Kern County Superintendent of Schools Foster Youth Services, Kern County Departments of Human Services, Probation and Behavioral and Recovery Services.
Bakersfield Homeless
Center
1600 E Truxtun
Avenue Bakersfield
Provides support and resources to families and individuals in crisis while helping them to achieve their highest level of self-sufficiency.
Casa Esperanza
Transitional Home
for Women
5501 Stockdale
Highway 13104 Bakersfield
Provides homeless women and children in the Bakersfield area with an innovative and holistic program in a
sustainable model that supports their transition to
permanent housing and stable employment.
44 Agency Address City Services
Catholic Charities 825 Chester
Avenue Bakersfield
Catholic Charities is a social service agency providing aid to families in crisis. Our agency provides food services,
CalFresh and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
application assistance, DMV vouchers along with rental and utility assistance, when available.
CVAF N/A N/A
CVAF provides transitional and permanent housing for
homeless and at-risk veterans in Kern County, in addition to low-barrier supporting housing for homeless youth.
Mercy House N/A N/A Provides dignified housing and comprehensive supportive services to a wide variety of homeless subpopulations.
Source: Kern County Resources and Services, 2022.
Female Head of Households
Single-parent households, and those headed by single females in particular, experience the full range of housing problems. These problems include affordability, since the individuals are often on public assistance; overcrowding, because the individuals often cannot afford units large enough to accommodate their families; insufficient housing choices; and, sometimes, discrimination.
As shown in Table 3-36, the City of California City had a total of 2,666 householders in 2020. Of those, 547 (20.5 percent) were female-headed households, including 350 with children (13.1 percent) and 197 without children (7.4 percent). A subset of these households, 349, were living below the poverty line, accounting for 13.1 percent of all households in the city. This means that nearly half of all female-headed households in the city were living in poverty, highlighting significant economic challenges for these households.
Table 3-36. Female Head of Households, California City
Householder Type Number Percent of Total
Householders
Total Householders 2,666 100.0%
Total Female Headed Householders 547 20.5%
Female Heads with Own Children 350 13.1%
Female Heads without Children 197 7.4%
Female-Headed Householders Under the Poverty Level 349 13.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020)
45 4. Assessment of Fair Housing
Introduction
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that(or restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires local jurisdictions to analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.
This section is organized by fair housing topics. For each topic, the regional and local assessments are addressed. Through discussions with housing service providers, fair housing advocates, and this assessment of fair housing issues, California City identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues. These contributing factors are in Table 4-7 with associated actions to meaningfully affirmatively further fair housing related to these factors. Additional programs to affirmatively further fair housing are in Section 8.
This section also includes an analysis of the Housing Element’s sites inventory as compared with fair housing factors. The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower-income households. AB 686 added a new requirement for Housing Elements to analyze the distribution of projected units by income category and access to high resource areas and other fair housing indicators compared to townwide patterns to understand how the projected locations of units will affirmatively further fair housing.
Current Context
Local History
California City is in a part of the Mojave Desert that was once inhabited by the Paiute Tribe. In 1776, Spanish Conquistadores arrived in the area led by Father Francisco Garces, and it is believed that the Conquistadores conducted mining activities in the region with the assistance of Paiute labor. From that point on, the City was developed by settlers searching for gold while the Kern region became known as the Golden Empire. 1 In the early 1800s, the Kern region was a part of Mexico’s Alta California. This region was renowned for its agricultural possibilities and was initially inhabited by European settlers in the mid-1800s. The area quickly experienced growth, attracting adventurous individuals who were eager to seek their fortunes in the fertile land and nearby goldfields.2 In the early 1900s, the Conklin Ranch, situated in the central part of the city as it 1 City of California City, 2009, September, General Plan 2009-2028. 2 Medium, 2023, November 24, Exploring the Rich Local History.
46 exists today, embarked on sheep farming. Subsequently, they also attempted various agricultural endeavors such as growing alfalfa and cotton, but those were not successful agricultural operations.3 In 1958, a group of developers began purchasing land in what is now the eastern part of the city and two farms in the western part. Throughout the 1960s these developers successfully sold home sites to people all over the United States through promotional efforts. At that time, the Community Planning Commission envisioned a revolutionary city concept and design that aimed to discourage the development of single-family tracts, regulate architectural standards, and integrate vast areas of natural desert and farmland as open spaces within a new kind of living environment. The city’s economic foundation relied heavily on continuous land sales and development activities, resulting in a significant portion of the population being employed by the land developer. On December 8, 1965, the City officially incorporated with a population of 617 inhabitants and adopted a City Council-Manager form of government.4
The majority of Kern County is now Hispanic according to the 2020 Census. Over half of the county’s population (54.9 percent) identified as Hispanic or Latino. This is roughly a 5 percentage point increase from the 2010 Census.5 Kern County has a rich history as a diverse community, including its Hispanic heritage. In a recent example, the Farm Workers Credit Union, which was founded in 1963 by civil rights activists Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta,6 helped the lives of agricultural laborers by providing them with innovative savings options and opportunities to obtain loans. Alongside Chavez and Huerta were immigrants and activists like Filipino American Larry Itliong. The extensive historical background resulted in the Kern region that is rich in diversity.7 Kern County has a significant presence in the fields of aviation, space, and military. Edwards Air Force Base, which is home to the Air Force Flight Test Center, is approximately 18 miles southeast of California City. This military facility initially started as a desolate and isolated area for conducting bombing exercises in 1933. Over time, it evolved into a significant training base for bomber aircraft during World War II. Ther Mojave Air and Space Port are also in the area, located southwest of Kern County, and Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake is in the northern area of the county.8
The California City Correctional Facility (CCCF), owned and operated by CoreCivic), is within the city, but the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has decided to deactivated CCCF by March 2024.
Although CCA is currently staffed by over 500 State employees, it is anticipated that only 36 individuals will remain to work for its closure. 9 Including CCCF, Kern County has four public and private high-security 3 City of California City, 2009, September, General Plan 2009-2028. 4 City of California City, 2009, September, General Plan 2009-2028. 5 Kern Council of Governments, 2022, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, https://www.kerncog.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022_RTP.pdf. 6 ABC23, 2021, October 15, The Farmworkers Movement: A legacy that lives on. 7 Self-Help Federal Credit Union, Kern Central Credit Union: A Legacy of Serving Workers in the Fields. 8 Kern Council of Governments, 2022, July 21, 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, https://www.kerncog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FINAL-Kern-COG-RHNA-Plan_07-22-22.pdf. 9 ABC23 Bakersfield, 2023, November 27, With-prison-closing-cal-city-set-to-lose-significant-source-of-revenue.
47 institutions that house over 20,000 federal, state, and local inmates. These facilities are run and managed by approximately 5,000 correctional employees.
The City is in the high desert region, with an elevation ranging from 2,300 to 4,000 feet above sea level. Its climate is classified as semi-arid, leading to warm and dry summers as well as mild and cooler winters. The annual rainfall in the area is less than 6 inches, with approximately 75 percent occurring between December and March. During the months of May through September, the temperatures can often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Due to its location in the high desert, the humidity levels are very low and the area is frequently windy. As a result, California City experiences one of the highest rates of pan evaporation and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) in the state. These high rates of evaporation and ETo contribute to significantly higher water usage for landscape irrigation compared to other regions in California.10 According to Risk Factor, a “hot day” in California City is considered to be any day above a “feels like” temperature of 101 degrees Fahrenheit.
The city is projected to experience seven such days in 2024 and will experience 20 days above 101 degrees Fahrenheit in 30 years due to a changing climate. 11 These extreme weather occurrences and the city’s topographic features inevitably have led to potential shortages in water supply significantly impacting the daily lives of residents.
Zoning
Development conditions are shaped by the city’s zoning and land use designations (see Figure 4-1 for the city’s current zoning). Conservation and Open Space Resource Areas, which account for a significant percentage of the City’s land area, are located primarily in the edge and boundary areas. Only central parts of the east and west sides are designated for residential, commercial, and industrial use.
Current land use designations are clustered around two nodes of the city: the central city area, and a secondary area on the east side. The central city area has land designated for commercial, community medical, governmental, and residential uses of varying densities. On the east side of the downtown area, 24.0 percent of structures contain two or more units, while on the west side of downtown only 15.0 percent of structures contain two or more units. In addition, the area indicates a high percentage of the population whose income in the past 12 months is below the poverty level (32.9 percent), which is significantly higher than the rest of the areas in the city. According to the ACS 2017-2021, the predominant population in these census tracts is White alone. While this area includes the city’s least diverse, consistently affluent areas, it also consists of the main commercial area of the city.
In the eastern part of the city, medium- and high-density residential areas are mixed and are distributed throughout the central city, surrounded by lower-density residential uses, such as the “estate residential” zone.
Only a few areas in this node are designated for industrial development. There are no designated areas for community medical and government uses, and only a few areas are designated as neighborhood commercial areas surrounding medium- and high-density residential zones. However, this area is not yet developed with residences or other uses.
10 City of California City, 2023, June 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, https://www.californiacity-ca.gov/CC/images/8-28-2023-2023_June_Cal_City_2020_UWMP.pdf. 11 Risk Factor, 2024, March 27 (accessed), https://riskfactor.com/city/california-city-ca/609780_fsid/heat.
48 FIGURE 4-1. CURRENT ZONING
49 Opportunity, Segregation, and Displacement
TCAC Opportunity Area Designation
Since 2017, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) have developed annual maps of access to resources such as high-paying job opportunities; proficient schools; safe and clean neighborhoods; and other healthy economic, social, and environmental indicators to provide evidence-based research for policy recommendations. This effort has been dubbed “opportunity mapping” and is available to all jurisdictions to assess access to opportunities in their community.
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps can help to identify areas in the community that provide strong access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for Housing Element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low-resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for lower-income households and communities of color to housing in high-resource areas.
TCAC/HCD categorized census tracts into high-, moderate-, or low-resource areas based on a composite score of economic, educational, and environmental factors that can perpetuate poverty and segregation, such as school proficiency, median income, and median housing prices. The 2023 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps compares each tract to those within the council of governments (COG) region.
Areas designated as “highest resource” are the top 20.0 percent highest-scoring census tracts in the region. It is expected that residents in these census tracts have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic opportunities, and educational attainment. Census tracts designated “high resource” score in the 21st to 40th percentile compared to the region. Residents of these census tracts have access to highly positive outcomes for health, economic, and education attainment.
“Moderate resource” areas are in the top 30.0 percent of the remaining census tracts in the region, and those designated as “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” have experienced rapid increases in key indicators of opportunity, such as increasing median income, home values, and an increase in job opportunities. Residents in these census tracts have access to either somewhat positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and education, or positive outcomes in a certain area (e.g., score high for health, education) but not all areas (e.g., may score poorly for economic attainment). “Low-resource” areas score in the bottom 30.0 percent of census tracts and indicate a lack of access to positive outcomes and opportunities. The final designation are those areas identified as having “high segregation and poverty;” these are census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the region as a whole, and at least 30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($19,720 for a two-person household and $30,000 annually for a family of four in 2023).
As seen in Figure 4-2, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2023, the majority of California City, particularly the central city and the city’s northeast, was identified as a low resource area. The central area of the city identified as low resource is surrounded by an area of High Segregation and Poverty, which extends to the western edge of the city.
50 Regionally, the central areas of the county encompassing western Bakersfield and northeastern Bakersfield were assigned designations between Moderate to Highest Resource. Similarly, the cities of Tehachapi and Ridgecrest as well as unincorporated areas adjacent to the two cities were also identified as Moderate to High Resource areas, but apart from these areas, most of Kern County was designated a Low Resource area. The majority of the adjacent counties, such as Tulare and Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo, had resources ranging from Moderate to Highest. However, nearby areas of San Bernardino County were comparatively lower resource areas, falling within the low to moderate range.
51 FIGURE 4-2. TCAC/HCD OPPORTUNITY AREAS, 2023
Source: TCAC/HCD, 2023
52 Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Affluence
Areas of High Segregation and Poverty
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) or areas of High Segregation and Poverty (HS&P) are areas that exhibit both high racial/ethnic concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD defines R/ECAPs as census tracts with a majority non-White population (50 percent or more) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower. HCD defines areas of High Segregation and Poverty as census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole, and at least 30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($30,000 annually for a family of four in 2023). R/ECAPs or HS&P areas may indicate the presence of disadvantaged households facing housing insecurity and need. They identify areas whose residents may have faced historical discrimination and who continue to experience economic hardship, furthering entrenched inequities in these communities.
As shown in Figure 4-2, 2023 data shows there is a designated HS&P area that surrounds the central area of the city and extends to the city’s west side. This area includes a controlled development zoning district and light industrial uses in addition to residential uses, so it may be a less desirable area that is more affordable to lower-income households. However, in the updated 2025 HCD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data Viewer 3.0, the area of High Segregation and Poverty no longer exists within the City and instead has become an area of “Low Resource”. Since there has not been a change in the criteria for what defines an area of High Segregation and Poverty, the citywide upgrade to an area of “Low Resource” demonstrates that conditions are improving, albeit slightly and gradually. Nevertheless, this is an improvement for conditions within California City and the areas immediately surrounding the City.
Previously at the regional level, several areas were designated as HS&P, particularly surrounding downtown and southeastern Bakersfield. Closer to California City, the unincorporated community of Mojave, west of the city, was also designated as an HS&P area. The area is approximately two miles away from the western edge of California City. Additionally, there were HS&P areas along the northwestern border with Kings and Tulare Counties, but there were no HS&P areas on the other sides of the county. With the updated Data Viewer 3.0 information, the unincorporated community of Mojave is no longer designated as HS&P, now designated as “Low Resource”. However, the HS&P areas in downtown and southeastern Bakersfield remain.
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households and high household income rates. Based on research from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs, RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 80 percent or more of the population is White, and the median household income is $125,000 or greater (which is slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016). HCD further adjusted the RCAA methodology to track more closely with California’s higher levels of diversity by setting the White population threshold to 50 percent.
53 There are no RCAAs in California City or in surrounding areas. Regionally, the nearest RCAAs are in the Golden Hills area of unincorporated Kern County, just over 30 miles to the west, and in the Rosamond unincorporated community of Kern County, 28 miles south. Additionally, the northwestern edge of Kern County, which includes Blackwells Corner and Lost Hills, was also identified as RCAAs. This segregation was observed not only in unincorporated areas but also in incorporated areas like Arvin and Tehachapi. In contrast, the cities of Maricopa, Taft, and the eastern Tehachapi, as well as unincorporated areas surrounding the cities, are considered Racially Integrated or High White Segregation.
Race
As shown in Figure 4-3, which shows the predominant population by race in each census tract, the two census tracts in the central city area are predominantly White, while the remaining tracts that surround the central areas of the city are predominantly Hispanic or Latino. Regionally, many areas around California City are predominantly Hispanic or Latino, including the unincorporated community of Mojave. However, many unincorporated areas of Kern County are predominantly White.
According to Analyses of Racial Segregation and Integration in 2020 and 2010 conducted by the Othering and Belonging Institute at the University of California, Berkeley (OBI), a census tract on the west side of California City that surrounds the central city was designated as a High People of Color Segregation area in 2010. This classification has remained unchanged, as it continues to be a High People of Color Segregation area in 2020.
The areas on the east side of the city were identified as Racially Integrated in 2010, but these formerly integrated areas are now classified as having Low-Medium Segregation in 2020. The two census tracts in the central city were not assigned a rating in either analysis.
At the regional level, there were several areas designated from Low-Medium Segregation to High People of Color (POC) segregation within Kern County, both in incorporated and unincorporated areas. Large unincorporated areas such as Fuller Acres, Lamont, and Lamont Edmundson Acres, which are situated between the cities of Bakersfield and Arvin, were categorized as high POC segregation in 2010. This classification remained the same in 2020. The majority of counties that surround Kern County consist of areas classified as racially integrated or highly segregated with a predominantly White population. However, more than half of the areas were identified as having high levels of POC segregation in nearby King County.
54 FIGURE 4-3. PREDOMINANT POPULATION
Source: ACS, 2017-2021
55 Income and Poverty
According to the 2017-2021 ACS, all census tracts in California City are within the lowest-income category, with median household incomes below $55,000. As shown in Figure 4-4, the lowest-income tract, on the east side of the central city area, has a median household income of $36,774. The median income on the east side of the central city is only slightly higher, at $38,750. Many tracts surrounding the city had median household incomes between $41,806 and $51,778.
Notably, 23 percent of residents living on the city’s east side were under the poverty level in the past 12 months as of the 2017-2021 ACS (Figure 4-5). This was a lower rate of poverty compared to the 2010-2014 ACS, in which 32.3 percent of residents on the east side had incomes below the poverty line. In contrast, 32.9 percent of residents in the eastern half of the city’s central area had incomes below the poverty line, whereas in 2014, only 25 percent of the whole central city area did. On the far west side, poverty levels have slightly increased from 22.1 to 23.9 percent over the same period.
56 FIGURE 4-4. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Source: ACS, 2017-2021
57 FIGURE 4-5. POPULATION WITH INCOMES BELOW POVERTY
Source: ACS, 2017-2021
58 Risk of Displacement
A combination of factors can result in increased displacement risk, particularly for lower-income households, including some factors previously discussed. These factors include environmental hazards, overcrowding, housing cost burden, low vacancy rates, availability of a variety of housing options, and increasing housing prices compared to wage increases.
The Urban Displacement Project, a joint research and action initiative of the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the gentrification displacement risk at the census-tract level. The UCB analysis identifies the following categories of displacement risk:
» Lower Displacement Risk: The model estimates that the loss of low-income households is less than the gain in low-income households. However, some of these areas may have small pockets of displacement within their boundaries.
» At Risk of Displacement: The model estimates there is potential displacement or risk of displacement of the given population in these tracts.
» Elevated Displacement: The model estimates there is a small amount of displacement (e.g., 10 percent) of the given population.
» High Displacement: The model estimates there is a relatively high amount of displacement (e.g., 20 percent) of the given population.
» Extreme Displacement: The model estimates there is an extreme level of displacement (e.g., greater than 20 percent) of the given population.
» Low Data Quality: The tract has less than 500 total households and/or the census margins of error were greater than 15 percent of the estimate.
In the Urban Displacement Project’s analysis of estimated displacement risk, California City was evaluated as being an area of low displacement risk for low-income households (see Figure 4-6). This is true for the majority of areas in Kern County. At the regional level, areas identified with risk levels between “At-Risk of Displacement” to “Extreme Displacement” for lower-income households were concentrated in the City of Bakersfield. In contrast, the majority of areas in Kern County were labeled as being low displacement risk for lower-income households.
59 FIGURE 4-6. DISPLACEMENT RISK
Source: Urban Displacement Project, 2022
60 Sites Analysis: Opportunity, Segregation, and Displacement As shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-7, the majority of the unit capacity identified to meet the RHNA was identified in Census Tract 55.08, which surrounds the two tracts in the central city area. This includes 46.8 percent of the total RHNA, including 53.5 percent of the capacity to meet the lower-income RHNA, 50.9 percent of the capacity to meet the moderate-income RHNA, and 2.0percent of the capacity to meet the above moderate-income RHNA. As with much of the central city area, this tract is characterized by single-family homes and many vacant tracts, with some clusters of commercial uses along California City Boulevard.
Hacienda Elementary School and California City Middle School are both in this census tract. According to the 2023 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area analysis, the tract was identified as an area of high segregation and poverty.
This is possibly due to the higher concentration of residents in this census tract that have a racial or ethnic identify other than “White, Non-Hispanic” (67.4 percent, compared to 55.8 percent in Tract 55.11 or 59.3 percent in Tract 55.12). However, the tract also has a higher median household income than the other two tracts. The Urban Displacement Project designated the area as having a low displacement risk, similar to Tracts
55.11 and 55.12. Additionally, the percentage of residents with incomes below the poverty level is higher than that of Tract 55.11, but lower than Tract 55.12. Therefore, the difference in TCAC Opportunity Area Designation that was assigned to this tract may not be an accurate representation of conditions in the tract compared to other tracts in the city. According to the 2024 TCAC/HCD analysis, this tract’s designation was changed to “low resource,” which is the same designation assigned to Tracts 55.11 and 55.12 during this period. As such, the identification of the majority of the lower-income RHNA unit capacity in this area is not expected to exacerbate a concentration of poverty in this area. Additionally, the identification of a majority of both the moderate- and above moderate-income site capacity in this area is anticipated to help mitigate any concentrating effect of the development of housing to accommodate lower-income households in this tract.
An additional 13.9 percent of the RHNA capacity was identified in Tract 55.11, including 6.0 percent of the unit capacity identified to accommodate lower-income households. Tract 55.11 is the highest-density area of the city, located on the west side of downtown, with 1,705 households living in this tract. As with Tract 55.08, the area is characterized by single-family homes and limited commercial uses, primarily concentrated along California City Boulevard. Robert P. Ullrich Elementary School and California City High School are also in this tract. The tract was designated a “low-resource” area by TCAC/HCD and has a lower median household income than Tract 55.08 ($38,750, compared to $51,778), but a lower percentage of households with incomes below the poverty level (21.1 percent, compared to 23.9 percent). The Urban Displacement Project designated the area as having a low displacement risk. The development of a small amount of housing across all three income categories is therefore not expected to create or exacerbate a concentration of poverty.
An additional 33.4 percent of the RHNA capacity was identified in Tract 55.12. Only 40.5 percent of unit capacity to accommodate lower-income households was identified in this tract, along with 32.6 percent of the unit capacity to accommodate moderate-income households and 30.5 percent of the unit capacity to accommodate the above moderate-income households was identified in this area. The northern half of this tract has an area developed with single-family homes, childcare, the city’s public library, and Central Park. The southern half of the tract is primarily vacant land with scattered areas of single-family homes. The tract was designated a “low resource” area by TCAC/HCD. Of the three tracts where RHNA capacity was identified, this tract has the lowest median household income ($36,774) and the highest rate of residents with incomes below poverty (32.9 percent). The Urban Displacement Project designated the area as having a low displacement risk. The
61 development of housing to accommodate moderate- and above moderate-income households in this area is therefore expected to facilitate the development of a more income-integrated neighborhood, and the development of a small amount of housing affordable to low-income households is not expected to create a high concentration of poverty or segregation.
A small amount of unit capacity to meet the above moderate RHNA (5.9 percent of all unit capacity) was identified in Census Tract 65, which includes the eastern half of California City and large surrounding unincorporated areas. This represents 64.9 percent of the unit capacity to meet the above moderate income RHNA. This tract is very sparsely populated, with only 934 households in the tract distributed across a large area. A high share of the population in this tract lives in the California Correctional Facility. The tract is primarily vacant land along with campgrounds, recreational facilities such as dirt bike tracks, and the California Correctional Facility. The area was determined to be inappropriate for prioritizing future lower-income development during the planning period due to its lack of nearby resources such as schools, employment opportunities, medical services, and shopping areas.
62 TABLE 4-1. RHNA CAPACITY BY CENSUS TRACT COMPARED TO OPPORTUNITY,
SEGREGATION, AND DISPLACEMENT FACTORS
Tract
RHNA Unit Capacity
Total
Households
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Designation
2023
Percentage of
Residents
with
Racial/Ethnic
Identity
Other than
White, NonHispanic
Median
Household
Income
Percentage
of Residents
with
Incomes
Below
Poverty
Level
Risk of
Displacement
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate Total Percentageof Total
55.08 115 664 3 782 46.8% 1,618 High
Segregation
& Poverty
67.4 $51,778 23.9 Lower
Displacement
Risk
55.11 13 215 4 232 13.9% 1,705 Low
Resource
55.8 $38,750 21.1 Lower
Displacement
Risk
55.12 87 425 46 558 33.4% 1,186 Low
Resource
59.3 $36,774 32.9 Lower
Displacement
Risk
65 0 0 98 98 5.9% 934 Low
Resource
81.3 $41,806 23.0 Lower
Displacement
Risk
Source: California City, 2024; TCAC/HCD Opportunity Analysis, 2023; ACS 2021 5-Year Estimates; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project, 2022
63 FIGURE 4-7. MAP OF THE CENSUS TRACTS AND SITES
64 Environment, Jobs, Education, and Transportation
Education
California City is served by the Mojave Unified School District, which encompasses several schools, including Hacienda Elementary (grades 3-5), California City Middle/High School, and Robert P. Ulrich Elementary (grades TK-2). The District also includes Mojave Junior/Senior High School in Mojave. The city's educational facilities are primarily located in the western part of the city, highlighting a disparity in education access between the eastern and western parts. According to California School Dashboard 2023, each of the four schools had an enrollment of approximately 600 students. As shown in Table 4-2, the four schools in the city had student performance scores on standardized tests significantly below English Language Arts and Mathematics standards. In particular, Robert P. Ulrich Elementary and California City Middle each score more than 100 points below the English Language Arts (ELA) and Math standards. Hacienda Elementary and California City High score
80.9 points and 20.3 points below standards in ELA , but in math, they are also more than 100 points below standards.
Many socioeconomic factors contribute to school performance, including, but not limited to, student poverty, the percentage of English language learners in a given school, parents’ educational attainment and ability to provide extra resources to support student learning, and the resources available in the school district to manage the needs of special populations. All four schools in California City have high percentages of students who are considered socioeconomically disadvantaged, falling between 86.4 and 92.2 percent of students. The schools also have a significant proportion of students who are English Language Learners, ranging from 12.1 to
16.5 percent, which can influence student performance on standardized tests.
Robert P. Ulrich Elementary, Hacienda Elementary, and California City Middle also have high rates of chronic absenteeism, ranging from 55.1 to 64.2 percent. Chronic absenteeism measures the rate of students between kindergarten and eighth grade who were absent for 10 percent or more of the instructional days they were enrolled to attend.
Robert P. Ulrich Elementary has the lowest percentage of students suspended at least one day, at 2.8 percent, while California City Middle has the highest percentage at 30.2 percent. Hacienda Elementary and California High have suspension rates ranging from 10.5 to 21.8 percent. In 2023, 79 percent of students graduated from California City High School.
There are no colleges in California City, however Cerro Coso Community College’s East Kern campus, located at Edwards Air Force Base, serves the California City community. A Farmworkers Institute of Education & Leadership Development (FIELD) charter school has a location in California City on the west side of the first community. The FIELD program provides free English as a Second Language classes, career and technical education programs, a charter high school designed for working adults, and an environmental workforce development program run through the California Conservation Corps.
65 TABLE 4-2. SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
School ELA Score
(Points
Above or
Below
Standard)
Math
Score
(Points
Above or
Below
Standard)
Chronic
Absence
(Percentage
of Students
Chronically
Absent)
Suspension
Rate
(Percentage
Suspended
at Least
One Day)
Socioeconomic
Disadvantage
(Percentage of
Students)
English
Learners
(Percentage
of
Students)
Foster
Youth
(Percentage
of
Students)
Hacienda
Elementary
80.9 points
below
113.6
points
below
55.1% 10.5% 92.2% 16.5% 4.7%
Robert P.
Ulrich
Elementary
114.8
points
below
107.5
points
below
62.1% 2.8% 88.9% 13.8% 2.3%
California
City Middle
113.2
points
below
187
points
below
64.2% 30.2% 87.6% 14.4% 3.0%
California
City High
20.3 points
below
147.5
points
- 21.8% 86.4% 12.1% 2.9%
Source: California School Dashboard, School Performance Overview 2023, accessed June 14, 2024.
Note: Chronic Absence is only reported by schools serving students in kindergarten through 8th grade.
Economic Opportunity
According to the Census on the Map 2021, California City has 1,156 jobs, and most of the employment opportunities are concentrated in Census Tract 55.08 on the west side of the city, while the east side does not have as many job opportunities. Of those 1,156 jobs, 617, or 53.5 percent of employees, reside outside of California City, while the remaining 538, or 46.5 percent, reside and are employed in the city. Approximately 3,211 California City residents work outside the city limits. Of those, the areas where residents commute to work the most are Ridgecrest (3.8 percent), Lancaster (3.7 percent), Rosamond (3.5 percent), and Palmdale (3.0 percent).
Regionally, Kern County had 282,441 jobs in 2021, and within the county, Bakersfield had the most, at 132,421, or 46.9 percent of the total jobs in Kern County. Following Bakersfield, the Cities of Ridgecrest and Tehachapi accounted for 5.2 percent and 1.9 percent of the total workforce in the county, respectively. A local countyfunded employment agency is located in the Chaffee community just south of California City. The National Test Pilot School is also located in Chaffee.
The 2017 Cannabis Ordinance indirectly contributed to housing development.
As shown in Figure 4-8, according to the economic domain analysis that is part of the 2023 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas analysis, the whole of California City was identified as having less positive economic outcomes. The factors that are incorporated into the economic domain score are median home values, poverty
66 levels, employment levels, and the proximity of residents to job opportunities. The majority of areas in Kern County garnered scores between 0 and 0.6 while several areas in Bakersfield and Tehachapi had scores between 0.6 and 1, demonstrating more positive economic outcomes.
67 FIGURE 4-8. TCAC/HCD ECONOMIC DOMAIN SCORE
Source: TCAC/HCD, 2023
68 Transportation Mobility
Kern Transit (KT) provides fixed-route services and six local demand response (dial-a-ride services) tailored to the needs of several communities in Kern County. The County has agreements with several small cities to share the cost of providing transit service in county areas surrounding incorporated cities of Delano, Ridgecrest, Shafter, Taft, Tehachapi, and Wasco. In addition to intercommunity services, KT provides services to unincorporated communities such as Lamont, Kern River, Frazier Park, Rosamond, and Mojave.
Route 250 serves California City and travels from California City to Lancaster with a stop in Mojave (see Figure 4-9). This route includes stops at Stater Bros Shopping Center/Highway 14, Carl’s Jr/Inyo Street, and DHS/Highway 58, operating at two-hour intervals from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Though this currently serves the areas where the greatest share of the city’s population lives, as development extends into the east side of the city, additional service may be needed. The Dial-A-Ride service operated by the City is distinct from KT, and runs on weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Seniors or children under 4 feet 9 inches are charged a $1.00 fare, and the general public cash fare is $1.70. In the downtown core, 80 percent or households are within half a mile of a bus shelter. In peripheral neighborhoods, there is limited to no service, requiring long walks or transfers.
Transit-reliant households in lower-income neighborhoods face inadequate facilities (lack of benches, shelters, lighting), compounding access issues.
At the regional level, other public transportation services in Kern County are currently rooted in links to Amtrak and Metrolink passenger rail systems with feeder service connections to public transit and other private carriers such as Greyhound. The State-supported Amtrak San Joaquin service presently extends 362 rail miles between Oakland and Bakersfield and 314 miles between Sacramento and Bakersfield. Six round-trip trains operate daily. Bakersfield represents both the end of the line for the current rail service and the stepping-off point for further travel to Southern California and Nevada.
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) surveys show that about 35 to 40 percent of local streets are in fair to poor condition, with cracking and surface distress common on older residential streets. Road quality is lowest in the highest-density, renter-heavy neighborhoods, where reliance on walking and transit is greater. In the downtown core, pavement is aging, with an average PCI of 52 (poor). Some streets in this area are broken and lack sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Sidewalk coverage is incomplete in most residential areas. Gaps in the sidewalk network are particularly prevalent in older neighborhoods and near industrial zones. Residential neighborhoods, particularly in older areas, have inconsistent spacing of light poles, leaving gaps that contribute to pedestrian and cyclist safety concerns at night. Bicycle infrastructure Is limited to painted bike lanes along a few arterials. The bicycle network lacks connectivity to schools, parks, and job centers. High-traffic corridors lack protected lanes, and “door zone” bike lanes are common near downtown. Older, lower-income neighborhoods typically experience:
» Poorer road surfaces
» Less consistent lighting
» Incomplete sidewalk networks
» Limited or unsafe bike routes
69 These disparities create transportation inequities, reducing safe, reliable access for non-driving residents. The city's most significant road infrastructure improvement is the new one-mile paved road on Mendiburu Road which runs from Hacienda Boulevard to Neuralia Road.Capital improvement planning priorities include downtown sidewalk infill and ADA upgrades, downtown road rehabilitation and bike safety improvements, lighting upgrades in older residential neighborhoods, and bus stop improvements in disadvantaged transitreliant areas.
According to the 2022 Housing + Transportation Affordability Index created by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, the west side was identified as an area where households spend 50 to 75 percent of their income on housing and transportation costs, which is higher than the east side (see Figure 4-10). Households living in the census block groups that include the city’s east side spent between 30 and 50 percent of their incomes on the combined costs. In a small portion of the west side with transit stop areas within a half mile from transit stops, Tracts 55.11 and 55.12 also have households spending more than 30 percent but less than 50 percent on housing and transportation.
70 FIGURE 4-9. MAP OF TRANSIT STOPS AND ROUTES
Sources: Caltrans, 2022; Kern Transit, 2024
71 FIGURE 4-10. HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME Sources: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2020
72 Environmental and Health Outcomes
In February 2021, the California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare community environmental scores. Cumulative scores are calculated using the individual scores from two groups of indicators: Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics. Pollution Burden scores exposure to negative environmental hazards, such as ozone and PM2.5 concentrations, drinking water contaminants, lead risk from housing, traffic impacts, and more, which may negatively impact health outcomes among residents.
Population Characteristics scores the rate of negative health conditions and access to opportunities, such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, linguistic isolation, poverty, unemployment, and housing cost burden. For each indicator, as with the cumulative impact, a low score reflects positive conditions.
The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 analysis indicates that the west side of the city has better environmental, health, and socioeconomic conditions than the east side. Specifically, Tracts 55.08 and 55.07 (called Tracts 55.11 and 55.12 in the 2021 ACS) on the west side of the city scored in the 48th and 47th percentile, respectively, while Tract 65 on the east side scored in the 77th percentile (see Figure 4-11). The pollution and health factors that were identified as being the greatest areas of concern in Tracts 55.08 and 55.07 were high rates of asthma and low birth weights, drinking water quality, and solid waste. Tract 65 is the only tract in the city that is considered a disadvantaged community under SB 535. A disadvantaged community is defined as “an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code or an area that is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation,” and includes any tracts that score in the 75th percentile or above in the CalEnviroScreen analysis. The disadvantaged community in California City encompasses the majority of areas on the east side of the city, apart from census tracts in the central areas of the west side (Tracts 55.08 and 55.11), as mentioned previously. The Hispanic or Latino population predominantly resides in those disadvantaged communities. This census tract also includes the California City Correctional Facility. Factors that were identified as being the greatest areas of concern were cleanup sites, hazardous waste, solid waste, and drinking water quality. Local cleanup sites include the Mojave Gunnery Range “B” and an electronic waste collection site. The Lakeview Mobile Home Park community, which includes Camp Fire Drive and Desert Breeze Drive on the east side of the first community, is an area of the community where trash dumping and abandoned vehicles are more prevalent. Illegal trash dumping also occurs near the City’s Yard property on the south side of the first community.
Parks are available in the central areas of the first community, with another smaller park located on the west side of the first community. The second community and Wonder Acres areas of the city do not have park access.
There are two grocery stores in the first community area and no commercial activity in the second community.
In addition to CalEnviroScreen, according to Version 3.0 of the Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California, the census tracts on the city’s west side are in the lowest quartile of its ranking system, indicating conditions associated with less positive health outcomes, while the census tract on the city’s east side was excluded from the analysis. Tracts 55.08 and 55.07 in the western part fall within the 11th and 15th percentile, ranking in the bottom quartile when compared to other census tracts in the state. In particular, high rates of unemployment, low incomes, limited automobile access, limited tree canopy and park access, and low retail density were among the area’s lowest-scoring factors.
73 These results are similar to the overall environment and health condition in Kern County. The majority of areas in Kern County show CalEnviroScreen scores that are related to less positive environmental conditions. This is especially true in the northwest sides of the county close to San Luis Obispo County, which have the highest scores, over the 80th percentiles. Those areas and several areas in Bakersfield are also identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities and have low scores in the HPI 3.0 index analysis.
74 FIGURE 4-11. CALENVIROSCREEN PERCENTILE
Source: OEHHA, 2021
75 Sites Analysis: Environment, Jobs, Education, and Transportation As is shown in Table 4-3, conditions related to environmental conditions, economic opportunity, educational opportunity, and transportation are relatively similar citywide. CalEnviroScreen scores in the three tracts where the majority of RHNA unit capacity was identified are within one percentile of each other. Education domain scores from the TCAC/HCD analysis in these areas were the same, due in part to the fact that students across the city attend the same schools, so math and reading proficiency and graduation rates do not differ by tract.
Economic Domain scores are similar, with scores in Tract 55.08 being slightly lower than the other two tracts.
This is likely due to the tract’s slightly farther distance from the downtown core. Two of the city’s three bus stops are located in or around Tracts 55.08 and 55.11. However, transit access in the city is very limited in general, so it is estimated that any residents would be reliant on the use of a car to access employment opportunities or other resources. Residents in Tract 55.08 spend a slightly higher percentage of their income on housing and transportation than residents in the downtown core area. However, sites identified are relatively close to central areas of the city, which is expected to mitigate transportation costs. Though Tract 65 is considered a Disadvantaged Community and has a TCAC economic development score of 0, this is likely heavily influenced by the small number of households and the presence of the correctional facility. As such, it is not estimated that the development of housing on the sites identified to meet RHNA at the affordability levels identified is likely to disproportionately negatively affect lower-income households.
76 TABLE 4-3. RHNA CAPACITY BY CENSUS TRACT COMPARED TO ENVIRONMENT,
JOBS, EDUCATION, AND TRANSPORTATION FACTORS
Tract
RHNA Unit Capacity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
TCAC
Economic
Domain
Score
TCAC
Education
Domain
Score
Housing and
Transportation
as a
Percentage of
Income (by
Block Group)
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate Total Percentage of Total
55.08 115 664 3 782 46.8% 48 0.12 0.21 51% - 60%
55.11 13 215 4 232 13.9% 47 0.15 0.21 40% - 51%
55.12 87 425 46 558 33.4% 47 0.15 0.21 41% - 56%
65 0 0 98 98 5.9% 77 0 0.33 43%
Source: City of California City, 2024; California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2021; TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Analysis, 2023; ACS 2021 and 2020 5-Year Estimates
77 Special Housing Needs
Populations with a Disability
According to the 2017-2021 ACS, 15 to 30 percent of the population in the western part of California City has at least one disability (see Figure 4-12). The highest concentration on the west side is in the eastern half of the central city area, between Hacienda Boulevard, Redwood Boulevard, Mendiburu Road, and Randsburg-Mojave Road. In this tract, 27.6 percent of residents have at least one disability. The lowest concentration is on the far west side of the city, where 15.6 percent of residents have a disability. On the eastern side, 32 percent of the population has a disability. The percentage of people with disabilities in the central area of the city’s west side has increased since 2014 but has slightly decreased on the city’s far west side. On the eastern side, the rate was 16 percent in 2014, indicating a significant increase over the past five years. There could be several factors contributing to this, one of which may be an older population concentrated in this area, resulting in a relatively higher rate of population with a disability. There may be a concentration of residents with disabilities in the Desert Jade senior apartment community in the central area of the first community, along North Loop Boulevard, and on Poppy Circle. Sidewalk improvements have been made on South Loop Boulevard, and accessibility grants have been made for projects on North Loop Boulevard. The City has one Adult Day Care center, located on California City Boulevard on the west side of the first community. There is also a group home in the city, located on the east side of the first community, and four residential day cares.
78 FIGURE 4-12. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH A DISABILITY Source: ACS, 2017-2021
79 Family Status
The western part of California City has a higher percentage of children living in female-headed households, ranging from 20.0 to 40.0 percent, while in the eastern area of the city, less than 20.0 percent of children live in female-headed households (see Figure 4-13). On the east side of the city’s central area, less than 20.0 percent of children live in female-headed households. However, small sections of the western side also have a high percentage of children in married-couple households, ranging from 76.2 percent to 81.5 percent. Singleparent householders with children may struggle to access affordable housing with only one income and may receive unequal treatment in the rental housing market. On average, women employed full-time earn only
83.7 percent of what men are paid, a gap that is greater among Black and Hispanic women.12 Within the city, there is a part-day preschool called the Child Development Center that is run by Cerro Coso Community College.
The preschool is located next to Central Park , within the central area of the first community. 12 Chun-Hoon, W. 2023, March 14, "5 Fast Facts About the Wage Gap." US Department of Labor. https://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/14/5-fast-facts-the-gender-wagegap#:~:text=Stats.,for%20Black%20and%20Hispanic%20women.
80 FIGURE 4-13. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS Source: ACS, 2017-2021
81 Farmworkers
According to the 2022 USDA Census of Agriculture, approximately 20,472 farmworkers were employed in Kern County. Out of those, 14,221 farmworkers worked for 150 days or more, which accounts for 69.5 percent of the total farmworkers. The remaining 6,251 farmworkers, accounting for 30.5 percent of the total, worked as seasonal hires for 150 days or less.
As of June 2024, there were nine sites in Kern County registered with the State to provide employee housing, with eight of those providing housing for H-2A farmworkers. The largest site on the State’s permit search tool listed 1,232 employees served, though most did not list the number of employees served. Four of these facilities are in Bakersfield, three in Shafter, and two in Lost Hills. The distribution of these sites suggests that farmworker housing is available throughout the most populous areas of the county, but not in close proximity to California City.
The Farmworker Housing Program is subsidized by the USDA and was developed to provide housing for persons who derive a minimum of $5,753 of their annual income from farm labor. The Housing Authority owns and/or manages nine developments of this type, located in Bakersfield, Delano, Shafter, Arvin, Lamont, Lost Hills, and Wasco. In addition, the Housing Authority operates a total of 172 seasonal farm labor units under contract with HCD. These units are situated in two labor centers: one in Arvin and one in Shafter. They are open for around six months annually, from April to October. To reside in these units, individuals must be seasonal farm laborers whose permanent residence is at least 50 miles away from the center. The closest of these farmworker housing sites is in Arvin, which is approximately 55 miles to the west of California City.
Sites Analysis: Special Housing Needs
As is shown in Table 4-4, the majority of the unit capacity to meet the lower-income RHNA is in Tract 55.08, which has the lowest percentage of residents with disabilities (15.6 percent). It is not estimated that the development of housing to accommodate lower-income households in this area will encourage a concentration of residents with disabilities. Additionally, the development of affordable housing in this area of the city may create new affordable housing opportunities for residents with disabilities, who may have lower incomes. Just under half of unit capacity to meet the lower-income RHNA was identified in Tract 55.12, where a higher of residents with a disability are located (27.6 percent of residents). However, the close proximity to local services in this area is anticipated to be a benefit to residents with disabilities. The highest concentration of residents with a disability is located in Tract 65 (32.0 percent). Only units inventoried to meet the above moderateincome RHNA were identified in this tract Therefore, it is not estimated that the distribution of RHNA unit capacity will exacerbate an existing concentration of lower-income residents with disabilities in this area.
Tracts 55.08 and 55.11 have rates of children living in female-headed households over 20 percent (28.5 percent and 21.8 percent, respectively) while Tract 55.12 has a rate of children in female-headed households of 15.6 percent (see Table 4-4). However, Tract 55.12 has a smaller overall number of households than the other two tracts, so the demographic difference may be related to the smaller overall population. Additionally, the city’s schools are in Tracts 55.08 and 55.11, which may influence the housing decisions of female heads of household with children living at home. The location of schools and daycare centers in these tracts is expected to provide positive benefit to this household type, so the identification of RHNA unit capacity in these areas, including lower-income unit capacity, is not expected to cause undue burden to female-headed households living in the
82 area. Only a very small percentage of RHNA unit capacity was identified in Tract 65, which has a small percentage of children living in female-headed households. Therefore the development of housing in this area is not expected to exacerbate any existing concentration of children in female-headed households.
TABLE 4-4. RHNA CAPACITY BY CENSUS TRACT COMPARED
TO SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS FACTORS
Tract
LowerIncome
RHNA
Units
ModerateIncome
RHNA
Units
Above
ModerateIncome
RHNA
Units
Total
RHNA
Unit
Capacity
Percentage of
RHNA Capacity
Percentage
of
Residents
with a
Disability
Percentage
of Children
in FemaleHeaded
Households
55.08 115 664 3 782 46.8% 15.6% 28.5%
55.11 13 215 4 232 13.9% 17.4% 21.8%
55.12 87 425 46 558 33.4% 27.6% 15.6%
65 0 0 98 98 5.9% 32.0% 6.2%
Source: California City, 2024; ACS 2021 5-Year Estimates Housing Mobility, Overcrowding, and Overpayment
A combination of factors can result in increased displacement risk, particularly for lower-income households, including some factors previously discussed. These factors include environmental hazards, overcrowding, housing cost burden, low vacancy rates, availability of a variety of housing options, and increasing housing prices compared to wage increases.
Households Experiencing Overcrowding
Overcrowded units, as defined by the US Census Bureau, have 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room, while units considered to be severely overcrowded have more than 1.5 persons per room. Residents living in overcrowded conditions may experience a reduced quality of life, added difficulties in accessing public services, and structural conditions that contribute to housing deterioration.
In the majority of areas within the city, less than 5 percent of all housing units are overcrowded (1 to 1.5 people per room). However, there is a small portion of the west side around Central Park and the Tierra Del Sol Golf Course along Tierra Del Sol Creek where 5.83 percent of all housing units are overcrowded (see Figure 4-14).
Many retailers, such as grocery stores, restaurants, and hotels, religious facilities, as well as government agencies, are concentrated in this area. Housing units that are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 people per room) have not been reported across the city.
83 FIGURE 4-14. RATE OF OVERCROWDING
Source: ACS, 2017-2021
84 Renters Overpaying for Housing
Housing represents a significant percentage of the total cost of living for many households in California.
Households spending more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs are considered to be overpaying, or “cost burdened.” Overpayment is disproportionately experienced by renters in low-income households and low-resource areas. In general, this issue is more prominent among renting households than owner households.
In California City, there is a significant division between the west and east sides of the city. More renter households in the west are overpaying for rent compared to the east side (see Figure 4-15). Specifically, between 60 and 70 percent of renter households living in the areas along California City Boulevard and Hacienda Boulevard are experiencing overpayment, while 48.1 percent of renter households in the rest of the west part are cost burdened by housing costs. In contrast, only 19.3 percent of renter households in the east side experienced cost burden. Of those renter households, 78.0 percent belong to lower-income renter households are cost burdened, and of those, 41.7 percent belong to extremely low-income households.
Housing Choice Vouchers
According to HCV data from HUD, in 2021, 38 renters in California City used HCVs, all of which are found in the area centering California City Boulevard and Hacienda Boulevard. In this area, 3.45 percent of occupied rental units are inhabited by households that use HCVs. In another census tract on the west side, covering the majority of the area, 25 renters, or 4.8 percent of the total, receive HCVs. While this tract includes the city’s least diverse, consistently affluent areas, it also includes the downtown area, which likely accounts for HCV utilization.
85 FIGURE 4-15. RENTER OVERPAYMENT
Source: ACS, 2017-2021
86 Homeowners Overpaying for Housing
Similar to renters, many low- to moderate-income homeowners across California spend more than 30 percent of their gross household income on housing costs and so are “cost burdened,” putting families at elevated risk of foreclosure, preventing owners from making needed repairs, and impacting local economies by diverting money to housing expenses that might otherwise be spent at local businesses. The percentage of owner households (with mortgages) with monthly housing expenses greater than 30 percent of household income ranges between 20 and 40 percent by census tract across California City. There is no significant difference between the east and west sides of the city with regard to homeowner overpayment (see Figure 4-16). While more renter households struggle with overpayment, there are still a significant number (35.1 percent) of lowerincome owner households that are also burdened by housing costs.
87 FIGURE 4-16. HOMEOWNER OVERPAYMENT
Source: ACS, 2017-2021
88 Sites Analysis: Overcrowding and Overpayment
As shown in Table 4-5, the greatest share of RHNA unit capacity, including the majority of unit capacity to meet the lower-income RHNA, was identified in Census Tract 55.08, which also has the lowest share of renter households (32.0 percent of households). Because it is estimated that housing units developed to be affordable to lower-income households may be predominantly rental housing, it is not expected that an overconcentration of rental housing will be created by the development of lower-income housing in this area.
Additionally, the development of affordable rental housing in this part of the community may create housing mobility opportunities for the 4.8 percent of renters in the tract that use HCVs and for renters across the city who are experiencing cost burden. Just under half of the lower-income RHNA unit capacity was identified in Tract 55.12, which has the city’s highest rate of renters (69.9 percent). However, moderate and above moderate-income unit capacity was also identified in this tract, which is expected to mitigate any concentration of lower-income units. Over half of unit capacity identified to meet the above moderate income RHNA was identified in Tract 65, which has no HCV users and relatively low rates of renter and owner overpayment. It is not expected that the development of these units will increase rates of overpayment in the community.
By identifying the majority of moderate-income unit capacity in Tracts 55.08 and 55.12, where rates of homeowner cost burden are each over 25 percent, moderately priced housing developed in these areas may provide less-expensive housing opportunities for owners that are cost burdened by mortgages in their current homes.
Overcrowding is relatively low citywide, so the development of housing on the sites identified as part of the RHNA inventory is not expected to cause or exacerbate any concentration of households experiencing overcrowding in the city.
89 TABLE 4-5. RHNA CAPACITY BY CENSUS TRACT COMPARED TO
OVERCROWDING AND OVERPAYMENT FACTORS
Tract
LowerIncome
RHNA
Units
Moderate
-Income
RHNA
Units
Above
ModerateIncome
RHNA
Units
Total RHNA
Unit
Capacity
Percentage
of RHNA
Capacity
Percentage of
Households
Experiencing
Overcrowding
Percentage
of Renter
Households
Overpaying
Percentage
of Owner
Households
Overpaying
Percentage
of
Households
Renters
Percentage
of Renters
Using
Housing
Choice
Vouchers
55.08 115 664 3 782 46.8% 3.0 48.1 33.0 32.0 4.8
55.11 13 215 4 232 13.9% 1.6 60.8 21.5 55.2 3.5
55.12 87 425 46 558 33.4% 5.8 69.9 27.6 44.3 3.5
65 0 0 98 98 5.9% 2.9 19.3 8.0 35.3 0
Source: California City, 2024; ACS 2021 5-Year Estimates
90 Homelessness
Homelessness is a fair housing concern, and it is often difficult to collect informative data that accurately reflects the magnitude of the population at risk, resulting in undercounting. According to the 2023 PIT count conducted by the Bakersfield-Kern Regional Homeless Collaborative, there were 1,948 total homeless residents with 931 sheltered individuals (48 percent of homeless residents counted) and 1,017 unsheltered individuals (52 percent of homeless residents counted). The total homeless population was 1,603 in 2022, respectively, which was an increase of 23 percent from 2020.
Of the individuals experiencing homelessness who were included in the PIT count, 41 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 77.2 percent identified as White. Nearly half of the homeless population were adults between the ages of 25 and 44. Children (under 18 years) and youth (aged 18-24) make up 6.42 percent and
6.16 percent of the homeless population, respectively, while 5.24 percent were considered elderly.
Additionally, 17.6 percent of the homeless population had a serious mental illness, and 11.29 percent had a substance use disorder.
The majority of homeless residents across the county were found in Bakersfield, followed by Delano. In California City, two unsheltered individuals were reported, and seven were reported in the area east of the city. All five emergency shelters throughout the county are in Bakersfield, with none in California City according to HUD in 2021. More than 10 emergency shelters are in Lancaster, about 40 miles away from California City.
The 2024 Kern County Point-in-Time (PIT) count did not report any homeless individuals within California City or the immediate surrounding areas, as noted in the 2023 report. The 2024 report states that “there was no change in the methodology” in order to preserve the accuracy of data for comparison across multiple years, therefore, it is presumed that there are no longer homeless individuals residing within the City or in the areas immediately surrounding the City, as noted in the 2023 report. While the 2023 PIT report does not have granular detail on the type of homeless individuals (e.g., living in a car), it is likely that these individuals moved to another area. Nevertheless, an action has been added to Program 4.1 to collaborate in the annual Point-inTime count to assess the number of homeless individuals and any patterns of need or higher concentrations within the City and the areas immediately surrounding the City.
Disaster-Driven Displacement
Some areas of the city are within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) 100-year flood zone, also called the 1 percent annual chance flood hazard zone (see Figure 4-17). Though the largest flood hazard areas are in the unpopulated southwest side of the city, many smaller hazard areas are on the sparsely populated east side. Additionally, there are several areas of the central city area that are within the 100-year flood zone, particularly in the eastern half of the central city area and just north of the central city area. All of the city is outside a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as defined by CalFire, and no areas of the city are within Dam Inundation Areas, as defined by the California Office of Emergency Services. There are no Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones within the city, though there is one nearby just to the northwest of the city boundary.
91 FIGURE 4-17. FEMA SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
Source: FEMA, 2022
92 Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement
The HUD Fair Housing and Employment Office (FHEO) reported that seven inquiries were filed by residents of California City between January 2013 and April 2021. No basis was given for six of these inquiries, and the seventh was on the basis of race. During the same period, no fair housing cases in the city were filed with the FHEO office.
The City is under the Kern Plan Jurisdiction (or County) for purposes of federal HUD funding of CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs. Other jurisdictions in the Kern Plan include the cities of McFarland, Shafter, Arvin, Ridgecrest, Tehachapi, and the unincorporated County. Residents in these areas can access the County’s Fair Housing Counseling for information on fair housing, while local organizations such as the Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance are available to aid residents with pursuing housing discriminations and lawsuits. While the City has not had any enforcement complaints within the City, Program 4.1 adds an action committing the City to establishing a method to formally track cases.
Local Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors
In addition to information presented in the analysis of fair housing, additional local data and knowledge is helpful to fully analyze potential impediments to fair housing. The City’s land use patterns have been shaped by a combination of natural features and man-made infrastructure, each of which has contributed to distinct socio-economic conditions across neighborhoods.
Topography plays an important role in shaping development intensity. Hillside areas, where slopes limit subdivision density, are characterized by larger residential lots, higher property values, and predominantly owner-occupied housing. In contrast, low-lying areas and floodplains have historically been developed with more affordable housing or industrial uses, and these areas are more likely to house lower-income households.
Major arterials remain defining features of the city’s land use and socio-economic patterns.. These impacts disproportionately affect lower-income communities. At the same time, areas with direct access to major arterials have attracted commercial growth and higher-income commuters, reinforcing uneven development patterns. Major arterial roadways also shape growth by concentrating retail and services along commercial strips, while simultaneously acting as barriers that reduce walkability and limit neighborhood connectivity.
Together, these physical and infrastructural features have reinforced differences across the city: older core neighborhoods tend to be denser, more affordable, and more transit-dependent, while suburban edges are characterized by higher-income households, newer housing, and stronger automobile orientation. Understanding these patterns is essential to guiding equitable capital improvement planning, as infrastructure investments can help mitigate long-standing socio-economic divides.
The following summarizes other local knowledge in the City:
» The City is the 3rd largest in land area in the State. » The City relies predominantly on employers outside or on the outskirts of the City, such as Edwards Air Force Base, Mojave Air and Space Port, and the California City Correctional Center. » Because of the concentration of residents in the central areas of the city, resources tend to also be concentrated in this area. Limited formal park space is available in the central areas of the city, though there is
93 a large central park on California City Boulevard and another smaller park in the west side of the central area.
Sidewalks are not widely available in the city and bike routes are not available in the city, though there is no difference between parts of the city in this regard. School catchment areas are not divided by neighborhood, so access to schools are not different between parts of the city. The City’s limited transit access is concentrated in the central area of the community and on the far west side of the city. Environmental scores under CalEnviroScreen are moderate in this area of the city.
» Much of the eastern portion of the City is planned for with paved streets in certain areas but remains largely undeveloped. These areas do have infrastructure in place, due in part to the anticipated development boom that never took place. Therefore, much of the infrastructure upgrades will likely need to occur in the City’s core area. The census tract covering this area is the City’s only Disadvantaged Community under SB 535, but has a very low percentage of the city’s population.
» To help recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, the City received nearly $3.4 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding. The City used this funding for projects such as a splash pad and a skate park. » The City is relatively homogenous across all AFFH factors. For example, there are no concentrations of femaleheaded households, persons with disabilities, or low-income households relative to other neighborhoods in the City.
» According to the latest Kern Transit Unmet Needs Report, the 250 bus service from California to Lancaster meets the highest criteria for Kern Transit, and is suggested to “Continue or Expand Service”. This service has an annual ridership of nearly 37,000.
» California City schools were rated similarly to those of adjacent, rural communities such as Mojave and Tehachapi.
Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
There have been no recent lawsuits, settlements, consent decrees or other related legal matters related to housing in California City.
In addition to assessing demographic characteristics as indicators of fair housing, jurisdictions must identify how they currently comply with fair housing laws or identify programs to become in compliance. The City enforces fair housing and complies with fair housing laws and regulations through a twofold process: review of local policies and codes for compliance with State law, and referral of fair housing complaints to appropriate agencies. Table 4-6 identifies how the City complies with fair housing laws.
TABLE 4-6. COMPLIANCE WITH FAIR HOUSING LAWS
Title Statute Description Compliance Efforts
Density Bonus Law Government Code
Section 65915
The density bonus ordinance allows
up to a 50.0 percent increase in
project density depending on the
proportion of units that are dedicated
as affordable, and up to 80.0 percent
for projects that are completely
affordable, in compliance with State
law.
To ensure compliance,
the City of California City
has included Program 2.3
to ensure compliance
with current State law
(Government Code
Section 65915 ).
94 Title Statute Description Compliance Efforts
No Net Loss Law Government Code
Section 65863
The City has identified a surplus of
sites available to meet the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation.
The City is in compliance.
Housing
Accountability Act
Government Code
Section 65589.5
The City does not condition the
approval of housing development
projects for very low-, low-, or
moderate-income households, or
emergency shelters unless specific
written findings are made. Further,
the City currently allows emergency
shelters by-right, without limitations,
in at least one zone that allows
residential uses.
The City is in compliance.
Senate Bill 35 Government Code
Section 65913.4
The City has established a written
policy or procedure, as well as other
guidance as appropriate, to streamline
the approval process and standards
for eligible projects.
The City has included
Program 2.3 to establish
a SB 35 streamlining
approval process and
standards for eligible
projects.
Senate Bill 330 Government Code
Section 65589.5
The City relies on regulations set forth
in the law for processing preliminary
applications for housing development
projects, conducting no more than five
hearings for housing projects that
comply with objective general plan
and development standards, and
making a decision on a residential
project within 90 days after
certification of an environmental
impact report or 60 days after
adoption of a mitigated negative
declaration or an environmental
report for an affordable housing
project.
Consistent with SB 330,
housing developments
for which a preliminary
application is submitted
that complies with
applicable general plan
and zoning standards are
subject only to the
development standards
and fees that were
applicable at the time of
submittal. To ensure
compliance with SB 330,
the City has included
Program 2.3 to help
streamline submitted
applications.
California Fair
Employment and
Housing Act and
Federal Fair
Housing Act
Government Code
Section 12900 -
12996
Title VIII of the
Federal Civil
Rights Act
The City provides protections to
residents through referrals to legal
assistance organizations.
The City is in compliance.
95 Title Statute Description Compliance Efforts
Anti-Discrimination
in Zoning and Land
Use
Government Code
Section 65008
The City reviews affordable
development projects in the same
manner as market-rate developments,
except in cases where affordable
housing projects are eligible for
preferential treatment, including, but
not limited to, on residential sites
subject to AB 1397.
The City is in compliance.
Assembly Bill 686 Government Code
Section 8899.50
The City has completed this AFH
analysis and has identified programs
to address identified fair housing
issues.
The City has completed
this analysis.
Equal Access Government Code
Section 1195 et
seq.
The City offers translation services for
all public meetings and offers
accessibility accommodations to
ensure equal access to all programs
and activities operated, administered,
or funded with financial assistance
from the state, regardless of
membership or perceived
membership in a protected class.
The City is in compliance.
Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues
In discussions with stakeholders and fair housing advocates and through this assessment of fair housing issues, the City identified Factors Contributing To Fair Housing Issues, as shown in Table 4-7. While a variety of strategies are identified in this element to address the fair housing issues, the most pressing issues are listed below. Contributing factors are shown next to each issue, and related actions that are being taken to address these. Primary contributing factors and meaningful actions related to those factors are shown in bold.
96 TABLE 4-7. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issue
Contributing Factor Priority Meaningful Actions
Low incomes citywide,
high unemployment
Limited employment
opportunities within the city,
including high-paying
employment opportunities
Limited job training
opportunities
Medium Program 4.1 Access to Resources
and Place-Based Revitalization
High rates of
overpayment among
renters
Limited number of apartments
or other high-density rental
options
High Program 1.1 Support Affordable
Housing
Program 1.2 Housing Authority of
the County of Kern (HACK)
Program 1.3 Extremely LowIncome Households
Program 1.5 Adequate Sites for
Housing
Program 1.6 Promote Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Program 2.3 Zoning Amendments
Low school
performance scores
High levels of socioeconomic
disadvantage among students
High rates of chronic absence
among K-8 students
Teacher retention challenges
Medium Program 4.1 Access to Resources
and Place-Based Revitalization
Lack of transportation
options
Few transit stops, limited
frequency
No intra-city transit options
beyond Dial-a-Ride services
Low-density nature of
development within the city
and region, which limits active
transportation viability
Limited automobile access
Medium Program 4.1 Access to Resources
and Place-Based Revitalization
97 5. Housing Sites Inventory
California law (Government Code Section 65583 [a][3]) requires that the Housing Element contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and nonvacant (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for redevelopment. State law also requires an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The RHNA is the State of California–required process that seeks to ensure cities and counties are planning for enough housing to accommodate all economic segments of the community. The process is split into three steps.
1. Regional Determination: HCD provides each region with a regional determination of housing need—that is, the total number of units split into four income categories. This is the total number of units that the County and cities in the region must collectively plan to accommodate.
2. RHNA Methodology: Councils of Governments (COG), including Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG), are responsible for developing a RHNA methodology for allocating the Regional Determination to each City and County.
This methodology must further specific State objectives, including, but not limited to, promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection; ensuring jobs-housing balance; and affirmatively furthering fair housing.
3. Housing Element Updates: Each City and County must adopt a Housing Element that demonstrates how the jurisdiction can accommodate its assigned RHNA through its zoning. HCD reviews each jurisdiction’s Housing Element for compliance with State law.
The City’s share of the regional housing need was determined by a methodology prepared by HCD as part of the Regional Housing Needs Plan, adopted in November 2021. In accordance with Kern County’s Regional Housing Needs Plan, the Kern COG, a regional planning agency, is responsible for distributing the RHNA to each jurisdiction within its jurisdiction. The RHNA is distributed by income category. Kern COG has allocated a total RHNA of 427 units. This is divided by income category, as shown in Table 5-1.
TABLE 5-1. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION, 2023–2031 Income Category Allocation Percentage
Very Low* 39 9%
Low 25 6%
Moderate 100 24%
Above Moderate 263 61%
Total 427 100%
Source: KernCOG 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, adopted July 21, 2022.
Note: It is assumed that 50 percent of the very low-income units (19 units) are allocated to the extremely low-income category.
98 Units Constructed or Approved
Since the Housing Element projection period runs from June 30, 2023, to December 31, 2031, the City’s RHNA can be reduced by the number of new units built or approved since June 30, 2023. City staff compiled an inventory of all residential units that have been constructed, are under construction, or have been issued a building permit within the current Housing Element planning period. Since the beginning of the planning period, 129 units have been constructed, are under construction, or have received building permits. The 129 units have progressed beyond the project approval stage, and have received building permits. Specifically, 15 of the 129 units approved since June 30, 2023, have already received a certificate of occupancy. These are primarily projects that received building permits in the early portion of 2024. The City anticipates that, as the planning period progresses, most, if not all, the building permits will complete their project.
These are predominantly single-family homes, though one accessory dwelling unit and one duplex were permitted during this period, and one existing duplex had a third unit added. Based on a survey of current rents and sales prices in the city compared to home sizes that were permitted, it is estimated that 51 of these units may have rents or sales prices that would make them affordable to moderate-income households. However, the City has taken a conservative approach and credited all 129 units to the above moderate-income category.
Availability of Land
State Housing Element law emphasizes the importance of adequate land for housing and requires that each Housing Element “…identify adequate sites… to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels…” (California Government Code Section 65583[c][1]). To allow for an adequate supply of new housing, land must be zoned at a variety of densities to ensure that development is feasible for a wide range of income levels.
The identified land must also have access to appropriate services and infrastructure, such as water, wastewater, and roads.
To demonstrate the City’s capacity to potentially meet its RHNA, an adequate sites inventory was conducted. The inventory must identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for households of all income levels.
The analysis of the relationship of suitable sites to zoning provides a means for determining the realistic number of dwelling units that could actually be constructed on those sites in the current planning period. The analysis also identifies the zoning districts the City believes can accommodate its share of the regional housing needs for all income levels.
The sites identified are currently available and will allow for the development of a variety of housing types that will meet the needs of lower-income households identified in the RHNA Plan process as well as moderate and above moderate-income households.
99 Sites Identified in Previous Housing Element
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(c), a nonvacant site identified in the previous planning period and a vacant site that has been included in two or more previous consecutive planning periods cannot be used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA—unless the site is subject to an action in the Housing Element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. None of the vacant sites included in the sites inventory were included in two previous consecutive planning periods.
Zoning to Meet the RHNA
Housing Element law requires jurisdictions to provide an analysis showing that zones identified for lower-income households are sufficient to encourage such development. The law provides two options for preparing the analysis: (1) describe market demand and trends, financial feasibility, and recent development experience; or (2) use default density standards deemed adequate to meet the appropriate zoning test. According to State law (California Government Code Section 65583.2[c][3][B]), the default density standard for California City is 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The City has included several sites (listed in Table A-1) that are within zones that permit up to 40 units per acre and are assumed to accommodate the City’s lower-income RHNA. All sites identified have existing water and sewer access or are within close proximity to existing water and sewer infrastructure such that access could be easily extended to the parcel.
The analysis of the relationship of suitable sites to zoning provides a means for determining the realistic number of dwelling units that could actually be constructed on those sites in the current planning period. The following assumptions were used to determine the income categories according to the allowed densities for each site:
» Lower-Income Sites. Sites between 0.5 and 10 acres in size that allow at least 20 units per acre were inventoried as feasible for lower-income (low- and very low-income) residential development. This includes sites zoned RM1 with a General Plan land use designation of High-Density Residential, which allows up to 40 units per acre.
» Moderate-Income Sites. Sites of 0.25 acres or larger that were were zoned R1 with a land use designation of Medium-Density Residential, which allows up to six units per acre, were also inventoried as feasible for moderate-income residential development.
» Above Moderate-Income Sites. Sites zoned R2 with a General Plan land use designation of Medium LowDensity Residential (allowing up to four units per acre) or sites zoned R4 with a General Plan land use designation of Estate Residential (allowing up to one unit for every two acres) were inventoried as feasible for above moderate-income residential development. A small number of sites with R1 zoning and a MediumDensity Residential land use designation were inventoried as feasible for above moderate-income residential development.
Realistic Development Potential
By comparing the net densities achieved by development projects with the maximum allowable densities for their properties, likely buildout densities of vacant land in the city can be projected. All but 4 of the 101 homes that were issued building permits between 2018 and 2022 were individual single-family homes. The other four were projects with between two and four units. Table 5-2 shows a sample of homes that were issued building permits and their density per acre compared to the maximum density of the zone in which they were built. All houses were considered marketrate.
100
The available sample projects developed at an average of 81 percent of the maximum density. However, considering the significant difference in the percentage of maximum units that were developed on sites in the R1 zone compared to sites developed in the RM1 zone, average development capacities of R1 and RM1-zoned examples were also evaluated separately. Recent development examples in the R1 zone developed at an average of 90 percent of the maximum permitted capacity. The City elected to take a conservative approach, so in the RHNA inventory listed in Table 5-3, sites in the R1, R2, and R4 zones were inventoried as having a realistic development capacity of 85 percent of the maximum. Recent development examples in the RM1 zone had an average development capacity of 10 percent of the maximum capacity. Sites that were identified to meet the RHNA in Table 5-3 that were within the RM1 zone were assigned a realistic capacity based on the zone’s minimum required density of six units per acre. No sites with commercial zoning were identified in the sites inventory.
101
TABLE 5-2. Sample Development Densities
Assessor’s
Parcel Number Status Calculated Acres Zoning General Plan Land Use Maximum
Density
per Acre
Maximum
Units
Permitted
Units in
Project
Percentage of
Maximum Units
Developed
203-131-19 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.22 RM1 High Density Residential 40 9 1 11% 203-132-17 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.31 RM1 High Density Residential 40 12 1 8% 203-323-06 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.22 RM1 High Density Residential 40 9 1 11% 208-274-01 Building Permit Issued 2022* 0.21 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 2 200% 203-021-09 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.22 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 1 100% 203-051-18 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.23 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 1 100% 203-073-01 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.24 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 1 100% 203-132-01 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.21 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 1 100% 203-153-20 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.23 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 1 100% 203-162-01 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.24 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 1 100% 203-183-09 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.22 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 1 100% 203-194-18 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.22 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 1 100% 203-222-15 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.25 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 2 1 50% 203-222-16 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.24 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 1 100% 203-222-17 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.36 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 2 1 50% 299-221-15 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.17 R1 Medium Density Residential 6 1 1 100% 209-020-10 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.51 R2 Medium Low Residential 4 2 1 50% 209-051-16 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.53 R2 Medium Low Residential 4 2 1 50% 302-500-33 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.41 R2 Medium Low Residential 4 2 1 50% 302-500-36 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.35 R2 Medium Low Residential 4 1 1 100% 302-500-48 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.35 R2 Medium Low Residential 4 1 1 100% 302-500-50 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.38 R2 Medium Low Residential 4 2 1 50% 302-500-59 Building Permit Issued 2022 0.38 R2 Medium Low Residential 4 2 1 50% 215-040-42 Building Permit Issued 2022 1.16 R4 Estate Residential 0.5 1 1 100% 234-142-12 Building Permit Issued 2022 2.14 R4 Estate Residential 0.5 1 1 100% 234-142-13 Building Permit Issued 2022 2.10 R4 Estate Residential 0.5 1 1 100% 234-142-29 Building Permit Issued 2022 1.96 R4 Estate Residential 0.5 1 1 100% Average 81%
Average, R1 Only 90%
Average, RM1 Only 10%
Source: City of California City Annual Progress Reports, 2018-2022. *Constructed.
102
Small Sites
A small site is classified as a site that is smaller than one half acre in size. Because of the development history of California City, much of the city’s central area is already divided into parcels that are smaller than one half acre. Because the City is focusing development efforts within close proximity to existing infrastructure and services in the central area, the vacant land inventory identified in Table 5-4 is predominantly on sites that are less than one half acre in size. As shown in Table 5-2, many sites that have been developed in recent years have been on sites that were smaller than 0.5 acres, including sites as small as 0.17 acres.
Between 2018 and 2023, building permits were issued for 1,169 single-family detached homes in Kern County that were determined to be affordable to moderate- or lower-income households. Of these, 212 were determined to be affordable to lower-income households (including 16 rental units). This represents 18 percent of all single-family detached homes developed in the county during that period. Of the lower-income single-family detached homes, 124 reported use of affordability mechanisms such as a density bonus, the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA), inclusionary requirements, former redevelopment authority funding, USDA funds, CalHome, or the HOME program. An additional 36 homes affordable to lower-income households reported performing some type of comparison of home values or sale prices to affordability limits, or by using the HCD affordability calculator. This indicates that single-family development in the region has the potential to be affordable to lower-income households, either through available funding mechanisms or because of current unsubsidized prices in the housing market. While no homes in California City were reported as having affordable sale or rental prices, as part of Program 1.5 the City will more proactively collect this data from applicants and report this data as part of the Annual Progress Report (APR) to HCD.
As discussed in Section 3, based on HCD 2023 income limits, the maximum affordable sales price for a four-person household was $118,664 for an extremely low-income household, $163,163 for a very low-income household, $260,863 for a low-income household, and $397,722 for a moderate-income household of four. In an August 2024 survey of stickbuilt single-family and manufactured homes on Zillow.com, there were 74 homes available in the central area of the city with a sale price ranging from $165,000 to $319,000 that would be affordable to moderate-income households or lower based on the estimated affordability limit for a household of four. Of these homes, 14 would be affordable to low-income households. One additional home was available on the far east side of the city with a sale price that would be affordable to a low-income household of four. No homes were available at sale prices at or below the maximum affordable sale price for a very low-income household of four. Of the 14 homes for sale that would be available to a low-income household, 2 were manufactured homes in the Desert Hacienda Park. The remaining 12 were on lots between 0.18 acres and 0.25 acres. This indicates that single-family homes on small lot sizes have the potential to be affordable to low-income households in California City. However, only sites larger than 0.5 acres were inventoried to meet the lower-income RHNA. Sites between 0.25 and 0.5 acres were inventoried to meet the moderate and above moderate-income RHNA.
As discussed in Section 3, based on HCD 2023 income limits, the maximum affordable rent price for a four-person household was $2,514 for moderate-income households, $1,649 for low-income households, $1,031 for very lowincome households, and $750 for extremely low-income households. In an August 2024 survey of single-family or manufactured rentals listed on Zillow.com, 22 homes were listed at rents ranging from $790 to $1950 a month that would be affordable to moderate-income households and three of those homes were listed at rents that were affordable to low-income households. This indicates that existing single-family homes can also be rented at rates that are affordable to moderate and lower-income households within the city without subsidy.
103
Though the only deed-restricted affordable housing project currently in California City is an apartment complex, regionally, other affordable housing projects have been constructed in buildings of between one and four units. For example, the Housing Authority of the County of Kern (HACK) lists seven affordable developments managed by HACK that are within cottage-style projects of four or fewer units per building or are in single-family homes. Six are in the Bakersfield area and one is in Delano. This suggests that lower-density housing can be developed as affordable housing in Kern County. Through Program 1.2 the City will partner with organizations such as HACK and Self-Help Enterprises to facilitate the development of affordable housing on smaller housing lots, including as small-lot apartment projects, single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes. Additionally, the City will offer expedited processing for lot consolidations as requested to assist developers that are assembling smaller sites for purposes of developing affordable housing.
Land Inventory
The City prepared an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites available to accommodate the City’s RHNA. Table 5-3, Vacant Residential Land Inventory, provides the characteristics of each site, including zoning, General Plan designation, acreage, and realistic capacity for the sites currently zoned for housing at varying densities. Figures 5-1 through 5-7map the location of each site in the city.
Table 5-3 provides a summary of the site capacity to meet the City regional housing needs allocation and Table A-1 in Appendix A provides a site by site listing of each parcel.
No sites included in the inventory to meet the RHNA are located within a floodplain. In addition, Program 4.1 commits to applying for funding to overcome any infrastructure accessibility concerns.
TABLE 5-3. SUMMARY OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND
General Plan Zone Total
Acreage
Maximum
Density
per Acre
Maximum
Capacity
Realistic
Capacity Low Moderate Above Moderate
High Density Residential RM1 35.93 40 1436 215 215 0 0
Medium Density Residential R1 198.37 6 1376 1354 1304 50 Medium Low Density Residential R2 0.92 4 4 3 3
Estate Residential R4 203.4 0.5 98 98 98
Total -- 438.62 -- 2914 1670 215 1304 151
104
Site and Environmental Constraints
The City’s Safety Element addresses the topic of public health and safety following State requirements in Section 65302(g) of the California Government Code. State law requires that the Safety Element contain background information and goals and policies to address multiple natural hazards, analyze the vulnerabilities from climate change and contain policies to improve climate change resilience, and assess residential areas with evacuation constraints. The Housing Element sites inventory was screened for the presence of the following hazard zones:
1. FEMA, 100-year flood zone
2. Department of Water Resources (DWR), Dam Inundation Zone
3. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones
4. California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation, landslide susceptibility
5. California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation, liquefaction susceptibility
6. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) a. State Responsibility Areas (SRAs)
b. Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs)
There are no known environmental constraints or conditions in the city that could preclude development on identified sites within the planning period, including hazards, airport compatibility, and related land use controls, shape, contamination, easements, or overlays.
Meeting the RHNA
Table 5-4 compares California City’s RHNA to the sites inventory capacity. Accounting for units constructed or approved and the current site capacity the City will have a surplus of 151 units for lower-income households (including extremely low, very low, and low), 1204 units available to moderate-income households, and 17 units affordable to above moderateincome households, for a total surplus of 3,469 units. Additionally, while the City is not relying on accessory dwelling units to meet the RHNA, Program 1.6 has been included to promote and incentivize this housing type to provide an additional unit surplus.
TABLE 5-4. SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY COMPARED TO THE 6TH CYCLE RHNA Income Category 2023 – 2031
RHNA
Units
Constructed or
Approved
Vacant
Residential
Site Capacity
(Table A-1)
Total
Capacity
Unit
Surplus
Very Low 39
0 215 215 151
Low 25
Moderate 100 0 1,304 1,304 1,204
Above Moderate 263 129 151 280 17
Total 427 129 1670 1799 1372
Source: California City, 2024.
It is assumed that some of the moderate capacity will be available to accommodate the above moderate RHNA to provide additional surplus, if needed.
105
Adequacy of Public Facilities
The vacant parcels selected for the Sites Inventory have access to necessary utilities. Domestic water service and wastewater service in California City is provided by the City. The City’s water and sewer system is run as a municipal water enterprise, meaning that maintenance and improvements are funded by user fees and connection fees.
California City utilizes groundwater and imported surface water. Imported surface water can be purchased from AVEK through standing agreements with the City. Additional supplies are available from AVEK and increased groundwater pumping is also available. The Wonder Acres area of California has a separate water system. Water for this area is purchased from AVEK but “wheeled” through the Mojave Public Utility District (MPUD) system. The City pays a “wheeling” charge for water delivered by MPUD. AVEK water delivered from MPUD is used exclusively in the Wonder Acres area, near Highway 14 and California City Boulevard. Currently, there are 38 service connections with water consumption remaining relatively consistent. Discussions with the General Manager of MPUD indicated that increased water supply to this community would not be a problem. The current agreement limits this water supply to a peak of 500 gallons per minute (gpm). A 1978 agreement provides for delivery of AVEK water that is transferred to California City via MPUD’s infrastructure. The City has significantly more water rights than it currently uses. The City groundwater (well) production is not limited by water rights but by pumping capacity. The City continuously addresses water supply and infrastructure capacity limits and, as part of Program 1.4 of the Housing Element, will give priority to affordable housing units.
California City also provides sewer service to the community. The City maintains one wastewater treatment plant with a design capacity of one million gallons per day. The plant serves only residents of the city. The City’s existing collection system has capacity to meet the needs of future development. In areas where municipal sewer infrastructure has not yet been extended, individual on-site septic systems are used for wastewater disposal. These systems are subject to lot size and density limitations and are regulated by the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department. The vacant parcels selected for the Sites Inventory are located within areas served by the City’s sewer system. The available capacity of both water and sewer infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate the housing unit growth anticipated in the RHNA.
106
This page intentionally left blank.
107
6. Housing Constraints
Various interrelated factors may constrain the ability of the private and public sectors to provide adequate housing that meets the needs of all economic segments of the community. These constraints can be divided into two categories:
governmental and nongovernmental. Governmental constraints consist of land use controls, development standards, processing fees, development impact fees, code enforcement, site improvement costs, development permit and approval processing, and provision for a variety of housing. Nongovernmental constraints include land availability, land cost, construction costs, and availability of financing.
Consistent with transparency requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 65940.1, subsections (a)(1)(A)) and (a)(1)(B)), all zoning and development standards, and fees are available on the City’s website.
Governmental Constraints
Land Use Controls
The California City General Plan establishes policies that guide all new development, including residential land uses.
These policies, along with zoning regulations, control the amount and distribution of land allocated for different land uses in the city. Table 6-1 shows the residential land use designations established by the General Plan.
TABLE 6-1. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL Designation Maximum Units
per Acre
Notes
Estate Density Residential 1 unit/2 acres The area known as Wonder Acres has land designated for residential use not to exceed one dwelling unit for each five acres of land.
Rural Density Residential 1 units/acre This land use designation allows for single-family houses and single-family subdivisions.
Low-Density Residential 2 units/acre This land use designation allows for single-family houses and single-family subdivisions.
Medium Low-Density
Residential
4 units/acre Shall mean land designated for single-family residential development not to exceed four dwelling units per acre for sewered properties and two dwelling units per acre for
unsewered properties.
Medium-Density
Residential
6 units/acre Shall mean land designated for single-family residential development attached or detached housing.
High-Density Residential 6-40 units/acre Shall mean land designated for single- and multifamily residential development attached and/or detached
housing.
Source: 2009 - 2028 California City General Plan.
108
Residential Development Standards in Residential Zones
Zoning regulations are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents as well as to implement the policies of the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance preserves the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. Table 6-2 shows the residential zones and permitted densities in each. Where the standards shown below entail a range of values, this is typically the result of differing standards for interior lots and corner lots. However, when the range of values applies to building height or lot coverage, the difference is due to dwelling type. Residential Zone Districts and Development Standards.
TABLE 6-2. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Zoning District
Density
Range
(du/ac)
Minimum Lot
Size (sq. ft.)
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft)
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building Height
(stories)
Front Yard
Setback
(ft)
Single Story
Rear Yard
Setback (ft)
Two Story
Rear Yard
Setback (ft)
RA -
Residential/Agricultural 1 du/ac 43,560 sq. ft. 120 ft - 2 stories 25 ft 25 ft 20 ft R1 - One-Family Residential 6 du/ac 6,000 sq. ft. 60 ft 45% 2 stories 25 ft 5 ft 10 ft R2 - One-Family Residential 4 du/ac 10,000 sq. ft. 80 ft 4,500 sq. ft 2 stories 25 ft 20 ft 20 ft R3 - One-Family Residential 2 du/ac 20,000 sq. ft. 80 ft 6,000 sq. ft 2 stories 25 ft 20 ft 20 ft R4 - One-Family Residential 1 du/2 ac 80,000 sq. ft. 200 ft 11,750 sq. ft 2 stories 25 ft 25 ft 50 ft R5 - Estate Density
Residential 1 du/2 ac 200,560 sq. ft. 200 ft 15,250 sq. ft 2 stories 25 ft 25 ft 50 ft RM1 - Multiple Family
Residential 6 – 40 du/ac 4,356 sq. ft. 60 ft 50% 3 stories 15 ft 5 ft 10 ft RM2 - Multiple Family
Residential
20 – 40
du/ac 2,178 sq. ft. 60 ft 50% 3 stories 15 ft 5 ft 10 ft Source: City of California City, 2025
1 New RM2 Zoning District will be created as a part of Program 2.7. 2 As a part of program 2.2, the City will increase height limits to allow for 3 stories.
Source: California City Municipal Code Zoning Standards, 2022
109
To prevent traffic congestion and shortage of curb spaces, off-street parking shall be provided incidental to buildings or structures and major alterations and enlargements of existing uses. Off-street parking shall be in proportion to the need created by the land use. Off-street parking shall be laid out to protect the public safety and insulate surrounding land uses from their impact. Parking standards in all residential districts require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit (Table 6-3). These requirements are minimal and not considered a constraint to development. Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) requires the City to allow sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in an emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. For the purposes of tabulating the number of off-street parking spaces, the term "floor area" shall mean the gross floor area of a building and its accessory buildings on the same site measured from the outside wall. Applications for land use permits shall be accompanied by a detailed tabulation of the gross floor area and a calculation of the required number of off-street spaces. California City has included Program 2.4 to review parking standards for emergency shelters and revise as necessary to allow sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses in the same zone, in compliance with State law.
TABLE 6-3. RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS
Unit Type Number of Parking Spaces Required
Single-Family 2 covered parking spaces for each dwelling unit Multifamily 2 off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit; 0.25 guest parking space per dwelling unit for developments consisting of more than 50%of three- or fourbedroom units upon Commission approval.
Group Care Facilities 1 off-site parking space for each three beds.
Emergency Shelter1 1 off-site parking space for each three beds.
Mobile Home Park 2 covered parking spaces
Source: California City, updated October 2015
1 Program 2.4 has been included to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65583 (a)(4) to ensure parking standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or commercial uses within the same zone
Cumulative Impact of Development Standards
As shown in Table 6-4, the City evaluated the cumulative impact of its land use controls that limit sites’ building envelopes (setbacks, private open space, and parking) and lot coverage restrictions as potential constraints to development. The first step in the analysis was to determine the allowable building footprint given the site size and the maximum lot coverage permitted. The next step was to determine the maximum allowed developable space given the lot coverage and setback and parking requirements. Occupiable area on the second floor, and additional floors, was set equal to the first floor building footprint, based on the smaller of either the maximum lot coverage or the remaining lot area once setbacks and parking spaces were subtracted. The average unit size was calculated by dividing the total occupiable building area by the permitted number of units (site acreage x density). Density bonus units are not factored into the calculations.
Current development standards for zones allowing multifamily housing were analyzed hypothetical sites. In the RM-1 zone (1,004 square feet of lot area per unit; maximum 40 units per acre), the City analyzed development feasibility on a one-acre hypothetical site and found that the maximum permitted density could be achieved. Similarly, a half-acre