Clovis City Council
March 20, 2023

1.2 Housing Element Organization
This Housing Element satisfies the requirements of state law (Government Code Section 65583(a)) and is
organized as follows:
• Chapter 1 - Introduction. This chapter includes an
introduction to the Housing Element, description of
state housing element law, general plan consistency,
and a summary of community participation.
• Chapter 2 - Housing Plan. This chapter establishes
goals, policies, and implementation programs to
affirmatively further fair housing and meet the City’s
housing needs for all residents, including residents
at all income levels and those with special needs.
• Chapter 3 - Housing Needs Assessment. This
chapter analyzes demographic and socio-economic
conditions; existing housing stock characteristics;
housing affordability, overpayment, and
overcrowding; and special needs for persons
experiencing homelessness, persons with
disabilities, seniors, large families, farmworkers, and female-headed households.
• Chapter 4 - Assessment of Fair Housing. This
chapter provides an analysis of fair housing issues
in the city, including integration and segregation,
racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty,
disparities in access to opportunity, and
disproportionate housing needs.
• Chapter 5 - Sites Inventory and Funding Resources.

This chapter identifies opportunities for housing
production to meet the City’s fair share of regional
housing needs, as determined by the regional
housing needs allocation (RHNA).
• Chapter 6 - Constraints Analysis. This chapter
analyzes potential governmental constraints on the
production of housing, including land use controls,
permits and processing procedures, fees, and
zoning for a variety of housing types. This chapter
also analyzes non-governmental constraints such as
land and development costs and the availability
of financing.
• Chapter 7 - Opportunities for Energy Conservation.

This chapter analyzes opportunities for energy
conservation in residential development including
green building and energy-efficiency requirements
and energy conservation programs.

Housing Element Goals

162
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Introduction
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 1-3
• Chapter 8 - Evaluation of the Previous Housing
Element. This chapter summarizes accomplishments
during the previous Housing Element planning
period and evaluates each of the previous programs.

1.3 General Plan Consistency
The City of Clovis General Plan, adopted in 2014, is the City’s long-term blueprint for future growth and
includes goals and policies that convey a long-term
vision for the City of Clovis community and guides local decision-making to advance that vision. Upon adoption,
this Housing Element will be incorporated into the
City of Clovis General Plan, updating the existing
housing element.

The Land Use Element establishes the general
distribution, location, and extent of future land uses and provides standards for the intensity and density of the built environment. It establishes policies to guide land use, development, and redevelopment. The land use
framework identified in the Land Use Element is the
basis for the residential sites inventory included in
Chapter 5, “Sites Inventory and Funding Resources,” and contains goals and policies consistent with those in the Housing Element including:
• Policy 3.6 Mix of housing types and sizes.

Development is encouraged to provide a mix of
housing types, unit sizes, and densities at the block
level. To accomplish this, individual projects five
acres or larger may be developed at densities
equivalent to one designation higher or lower than
the assigned designation, provided that the density
across an individual project remains consistent with
the General Plan.
• Policy 5.1 Housing variety in developments. The
Clovis General Plan has been planned to provide a
variety of housing product types suitable to each
stage of a person’s life. Each development should
contribute to a diversity of housing sizes and types
within the standards appropriate to the land use
designation. This policy does not apply to projects
smaller than five acres.
• Policy 5.2 Ownership and rental. Encourage a
mixture of both ownership and rental options to
meet varied preferences and income
affordability needs.
• Policy 5.3 Innovative housing. Encourage innovative
housing product types, including multigenerational,
cooperative, and variations on live-work housing.
• Policy 5.4 Transit oriented development. Encourage
the provision of retail and employment
opportunities in areas served by transit, recognizing
the needs of the transit-dependent population.
• Policy 5.5 Jobs for residents. Encourage
development that provides job opportunities in
industries and occupations currently underserved in
Clovis.
• Policy 5.6 Workforce housing. Encourage the
development of workforce housing that serves the
needs of those working in Clovis.
• Policy 6.2 Smart growth. The city is committed to
the following smart growth goals.

A. Create a range of housing opportunities and
choices
B. Create walkable neighborhoods
C. Encourage community and stakeholder
collaboration
D. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a
strong sense of place
E. Make development decisions predictable, fair,
and cost-effective
F. Mix land uses
G. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty,
and critical environmental areas
H. Provide a variety of transportation choices
I. Strengthen and direct development toward
existing communities
J. Take advantage of compact building design
K. Enhance the economic vitality of the region
L. Support actions that encourage environmental
resource management
State law requires that several other General Plan
elements be reviewed and/or modified upon adoption
of the Housing Element. Senate Bill (SB) 1035 requires
the safety element to be revised upon update of the
housing element to include new information on fire
hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and
resilience strategies. SB 1000 also requires the City to address environmental justice when updating two or
163
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Introduction

more elements after January 1, 2018. The City is
conducting an evaluation of its current General Plan,
which may lead to the initiation of a comprehensive
General Plan update to address these requirements
within the planning period.

The Housing Element is consistent with the other
elements of the General Plan and the City will maintain consistency between the Housing Element and the
other General Plan elements so that policies introduced in one element are consistent with other elements.

1.4 Community Participation
In an effort to engage a broad array of community
interests, including lower-income residents and
underserved communities, the City is using a variety of strategies throughout the Housing Element update
process to engage the community. The City is using a
diverse range of tools to attract a wide range of
community engagement, including:
• Project Webpage
• One-on-One Consultations
• Focus Group Meetings
• Community Workshops
• Online Community Survey
• Planning Commission and City Council Meetings
The following summarizes the activities and methods
being used to meaningfully engage the community and
other stakeholders during the planning process. The
Housing Element Update team is applying creative
outreach techniques to ensure involvement of a wide
and diverse range of community and stakeholder
voices. Collaboration and engagement began early in
the process, to promote community ownership of the
plan, and is continuing through plan adoption.

Community engagement activities are being conducted
in English and Spanish to provide opportunities for a
broad segment of the community to participate.

Engagement Tools and Activities
Project Webpage
The City is hosting a project webpage for the Housing
Element update. The webpage includes an overview of
the project and schedule, frequently asked questions
(FAQs), contact information for the project team, and a sign-up link for the project mailing list. The webpage is being maintained throughout the Housing Element
update process and routinely updated to include
announcements of future engagement events, materials
and summaries of past events, and draft documents.

Language translation of the webpage was provided
through the web browser.

164
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Introduction
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 1-5
One-On-One Stakeholder Consultations
The Housing Element Update team held phone
consultation meetings with a variety of stakeholders,
including affordable and market rate housing
developers and housing advocates. The purpose of
these conversations was to gather data, discuss housing issues specific to Clovis, and share information on
available resources with stakeholders.

Some affordable housing developers have expressed
concerns related to increased costs and regulatory
requirements, such as permitting, and suggested that
an affordable housing fee deferral program could be
established. A fee deferral program could be in the
form of a loan and could be used as gap financing to
leverage state and federal funding. Affordable housing
developers also suggested that an inclusionary
requirement be established to ensure affordable
housing is provided in new growth areas. Generally,
affordable housing developers shared a good working
relationship with city staff and City Council.

Market rate developers also shared financial constraints to housing, including high impact fees, specifically for multi- family development; high land costs; and high
construction costs. In addition, development standards
related to street widths, specifically for cul-de-sacs, are higher than other jurisdictions and add to the cost of
housing production. Developers also shared that the
recent increase in interest rates has slowed market
demand for home sales. Some also expressed that the
cost of structured parking is a barrier to building multi- family residential at densities of 30 units per acre or more.

Housing advocates shared a number of suggestions for
housing element programs regarding tenant
protections, homeownership assistance, mobile home
park preservation, extreme weatherization
improvements, and inclusionary zoning. Some housing
advocates also emphasized the need to directly address
fair housing disparities in the city by planning for multi- family affordable housing through appropriate zoning
and infrastructure studies to support high density
development in high resource areas.

Several of these comments are noted in the constraints
analysis and policies and programs were added to the
Housing Plan in response to stakeholder input,
including:
• Policy H-1.4 Distribute Housing Opportunities
(increase the supply of affordable housing and
special needs housing in highest opportunity areas)
• Program H4. Affordable Housing Fee Reduction
(reduce impact fees for affordable housing)
• Program H8. Development Standards (review
parking, street width standards, and height limits to
facilitate housing development)
• Program H10. Mobile Home Rent Review and
Stabilization (monitor, enforce, and expand
outreach about the Mobile Home Rent Review and
Stabilization Ordinance)
Focus Group Meetings
The Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) is leading a
multi-jurisdictional housing element update process for 15 jurisdictions in Fresno County. Although Clovis is not participating in the multi-jurisdictional effort, Clovis is engaging in community outreach efforts conducted by
FCOG. The City is participating in two focus group
meetings provided through the multi-jurisdictional
effort. The first focus group meeting is planned for Fall 2022 and is intended as an introductory meeting,
intended to provide an overview of the Housing
Element update process and to gather initial feedback
on housing in the region. The second focus group
meeting is planned to discuss fair housing in the region, including patterns of segregation, special needs groups, and access to opportunity.

FCOG held the first stakeholder focus group meeting on
October 25, 2022, to gather feedback on regional
housing needs and fair housing issues. Stakeholders
identified a number of barriers to new housing
development and access to existing affordable housing
opportunities. Stakeholders identified financial
constraints as a primary barrier to new housing
construction. Rising construction costs due to labor and supply chain shortages coupled with outdated
infrastructure add significant costs to new housing in
the region. Affordable housing development also has
the additional challenges with securing project
financing. In addition, residents struggle with the
affordable housing placement process, indicating a
need for additional education and outreach to boost
financial literacy and help lower-income residents better compete for affordable housing opportunities.

Stakeholders also expressed concerns about the stability of existing housing in the region, particularly mobile
home parks as well as aging housing stock. Corporate
acquisition of mobile home parks is rising nationwide,
leading to heightened risk of displacement for current
residents. Many residents are on fixed incomes and are
165
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Introduction

unable to keep up with repairs and maintenance
without financial assistance, which may lead to eviction.

Stakeholders suggested rent control and tenant
protection measures for mobile home park residents, as
well as funding assistance for mobile home purchase
and rehabilitation needs.

FCOG held the second stakeholder focus group
meeting on November 15, 2022, to gather feedback on
regional housing issues from additional stakeholders.

Stakeholders expressed similar concerns identifying
financial constraints as a primary barrier to new housing construction. Rising labor and material costs, coupled
with local development impact fees, significantly impact the financial feasibility of market-rate and affordable housing projects. Some stakeholders emphasized the
importance of process streamlining, particularly the
expansion of by-right development and CEQA
streamlining, to remove regulatory barriers that
constrain projects. These stakeholders expressed
concern that additional regulatory programs, such as
inclusionary zoning and rent control measures, may
raise overall project costs and further increase housing prices.

Stakeholders also identified the difficulty that lower- income residents have qualifying for both rental and
ownership opportunities as a major barrier to accessing affordable housing. Rising rents and home prices are
difficult for lower-income residents to keep up with,
particularly those on fixed incomes. Residents interested in purchasing a home often have difficulties qualifying for financial assistance, despite being unable to
shoulder the financial weight of homeownership in the
current housing market. Some stakeholders emphasized
the importance of culturally competent homeless
outreach services to improve accessibility as well as the accuracy of surveys counting the number of people
experiencing homelessness.

Two community workshops will have taken place during
the Housing Element update process. One workshop
occurred early in the process on August 24, 2022 and
the second workshop will occur later in the process
after the public review draft Housing Element is
released. The following provides a description of each
community workshop.

Community Workshops

166
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Introduction
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 1-7
Community Workshop #1
The first workshop was intended to educate the
community on the purpose of the Housing Element and
collect input on community needs and key housing
issues facing residents. An overview of housing element requirements and the overall process was presented to
set the stage for the process by providing current
demographic information, housing trends, and special
needs of Clovis residents. Preliminary information on
the sites inventory was also provided. Input was
gathered from participants on their own experiences
related to housing challenges as well as their priorities for addressing housing needs in Clovis.

The workshop was held in-person at Tarpey Elementary
School on Wednesday, August 24, 2022 from 6-7:30
pm. The venue was chosen for its central location,
transit access, and proximity to existing affordable and multi-family developments to promote participation
from community members typically underrepresented
in City planning processes. Live Spanish interpretation was provided. The workshop was advertised through a
variety of channels:
 Three advertisements on social media platforms
(Facebook, Instagram, and Next Door).
 Workshop advertisement on the main page of the
City’s website.
 Clovis Round Up newspaper (August 17th edition).
 Emails to project interest list.
 Flyers distributed to 12 existing multi-family housing developments and two mobile home parks.

Seventeen participants attended the workshop. After a
presentation providing an overview of the Housing
Element Update process, the Housing Element Update
team facilitated station exercises to collect community feedback.

Community members appreciate the family friendly
small-town feel of Clovis, with its trails, landscapes, and “Old Town.” Several community members shared
challenges related to investors buying homes to rent or sell at a profit; the availability of affordable housing and housing for seniors; homelessness; and infrastructure to accommodate a growing city. Participants expressed
the need for public transit, safe bike paths, and street lights; and several expressed the importance increasing equitable decision making to support housing with
equal access to safety and community centers, support
mixed use development, and facilitate less judgement
on apartment housing. Several participants also
mentioned the need to relax the City’s cottage home
requirements, support multigenerational floor plans,
and develop Old Town (i.e., Central Clovis) to its full potential. Participants suggested that multi-family
development be supported:
 Near schools, hospitals, and the Clovis Community
Medical Center;
 Near parks and trails;
 In Old Town but limit height and scale to be
compatible with the existing character;
 In conversions or repurposing of existing buildings;
and
 In new growth areas.

167
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Introduction

Policies and programs were added to the Housing Plan
or modified in response to community input, including:
• Policy H-1.4 Distribute Housing Opportunities
• Policy H-1.6 Infrastructure Capacity and Priority
• Program H7. Missing Middle Housing Tools and
Resources
• Program H21. Actions to Address Homelessness
• Program H22. Neighborhood Revitalization
Community Workshop #2 (TBD)
A second community workshop is planned for March 15,
2023, to collect feedback on the public review draft of the Housing Element. The workshop will primarily focus
on the housing sites inventory and implementation
programs. The public draft will be presented and small
group discussions will be facilitated to gather input and address any comments from the community. A
summary will be added in a future draft.

Online Community Survey
A web-based survey was broadly distributed from
August 15, 2022, to September 12, 2022, to gather
information from the community on housing needs and
housing policy priorities. The survey included questions related to household demographics, housing
conditions, and housing issues and priorities. Although the survey was voluntary and is not considered
statistically valid, it does provide a glimpse of residents’ perspectives on housing issues in the city. The survey
was provided in English and Spanish.

Invitations to participate in the survey were provided on the project webpage, through email invitation (to
persons signing up on the project webpage), the City’s
social media account, as well as all community
workshop advertisements.

The City received 185 responses to the survey, including 184 responses in English and one in Spanish.

Approximately 85 percent of survey participants were
homeowners, and the majority of respondents were
couples with child(ren) (48 percent). Participants
expressed that housing affordability, for both renters
and those who desire to purchase a house, are the
greatest housing problems facing Clovis residents. A
summary of key survey responses is shown in Figures 1-
1 and 1-2. See Appendix A for the complete survey and
participant responses.

Planning Commission and City Council Study Session
(TBD)
A joint study session with the Planning Commission
and City Council is planned for March 20, 2023, to
obtain feedback on the Housing Element and
authorization to submit the draft Housing Element to
HCD for the state-mandated review period. A summary
will be added in a future draft.

Community Workshop Responses
What are the biggest housing issues facing Clovis
residents?
• “Availability of housing the average person
can afford”
• “[Limited] senior housing”
• “Infrastructure to accommodate a growing
city: schools, water, shopping, traffic”
• “Zoning for more multi-family housing”
• “Housing variety”
What can be done to make Clovis a thriving and
equitable community?
• “More mixed-use centers along corridors with
better public transit”
• “Increased equitable decision making, division
of housing projects throughout community
with equal access safety, walking trails,
community centers…”
168
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Introduction
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 1-9
Figure 1-1: Survey Responses to “What do you feel is the most significant housing problem facing Clovis residents ?

Source: Clovis Housing Element Community Survey, 2022
Figure 1-2: Survey Responses to “Have you recently experienced or are currently experiencing any of the following housing issues?

Source: Clovis Housing Element Community Survey, 2022.
2%
9%
11%
13%
14%
14%
15%
16%
20%
38%
48%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Housing conditions are poor
Housing sizes don’t meet family needs
Not enough housing for sale
None of the above
Not enough shelters or services for people…
Other
Not enough places to rent
Too expensive to maintain homes
Not enough housing options for seniors or people…
Rents are too high
Buying a house is too expensive
4%
5%
6%
13%
18%
20%
22%
49%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other housing issue
Significant rent increase
Too many people living in one home (overcrowding)
Struggle to pay rent or mortgage (e.g., sometimes
paying late, not paying other bills to pay rent, not…
Adult child living at home due to inability to afford
housing
Want to move but can’t find/afford a home that
meets my needs or my family’s needs
Lack funding to make necessary home repairs
None of the above
169
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 2-1
CHAPTER 2 | Housing Plan

2.1 Goals and Policies
This chapter of the Housing Element contains the goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing in Clovis. The focus of the Housing Plan is to identify goals, policies, and programs to meet the housing needs of all income groups while preserving and enhancing existing neighborhoods, removing impediments to housing growth, reducing living expenses that are indirectly related to housing, such as transportation costs and energy costs, and to affirmatively further fair housing.

This Housing Element includes three goal statements. Under each goal statement, the element sets out policies that guide the City toward reaching its goals. Implementation programs are listed at the end of each goal section and describe the proposed action, the City departments with primary responsibility for carrying out the program, the timeframe for accomplishing the program, and the program objectives. The following definitions describe the various components that are used in the Housing Plan:
• Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable. • Policy: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment. • Implementation Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy. Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an estimated timeframe for its accomplishment. The timeframe indicates the calendar year in which the activity is scheduled to be completed.

These timeframes are general guidelines and may be adjusted based on City staffing and budgetary considerations.
• Quantified Objective: The number of housing units that the City is targeting for construction, conservation, or rehabilitation during the time frame of the Housing Element based on anticipated market conditions and available resources.

Goal H1. Accelerate Housing Production
Provide an ample supply of housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for households at all income levels.

Policies
H-1.1 Housing Production Target. Maintain an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land to support the production of at least 8,977 housing units in Clovis between 2023 and 2031 to accommodate the local and regional housing need. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 1.1, modified] H-1.2 Remove Barriers to Housing Production. Work to ensure that local policies and standards do not unreasonably constrain the production of affordable housing units. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 2.7] H-1.3 Variety of Housing Types. Facilitate development of a wide range of different housing types for people of all income levels to diversify the housing stock in Clovis neighborhoods and provide units for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income and special needs households, including people with disabilities, senior citizens, and people in need of assisted, supportive, and/or transitional housing . [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 1.2, modified]
170
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan

H-1.4 Distribute Housing Opportunities. Distribute new housing, affordable and market rate, supportive housing, and special needs housing across all neighborhoods and increase the supply of affordable housing and special needs housing in highest opportunity areas and in neighborhoods that currently have fewer affordable housing units or special needs housing to affirmatively further fair housing. [Source: New] H-1.5 Diversify Housing in Single-Family Neighborhoods. Encourage and facilitate “missing middle” housing in existing single-family neighborhoods through the construction of accessory dwelling units, SB 9 ministerial lot splits, and ministerial duplexes. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 2.6, modified] H-1.6 Infrastructure Capacity and Priority. Ensure the adequate provision of water, sewer, storm drainage, dry utilities, roads, public facilities, and other infrastructure necessary to serve new housing. Continue to provide priority sewer and water to lower-income housing units, consistent with Government Code Section 65589.7. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 1.7]
H-1.7 By-Right Housing on Previous Housing Element Sites. Allow developments with at least 20 percent affordable lower-income housing units by-right, consistent with objective development and design standards, on lower - income sites counted in previous housing cycles, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2 . (See Table B-1 for a listing of eligible sites) [Source: New] H-1.8 Incentives for Affordable Housing. Encourage development of affordable housing through development incentives, such as the Density Bonus Ordinance, fee waivers or deferrals, and expedited processing. [Source:
2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 2.3]
H-1.9 Technical and Financial Assistance. Provide technical and financial assistance to developers, nonprofit organizations, or other qualified private sector interests in the application and development of projects for Federal and State financing for affordable housing. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 2.4] H-1.10 New Funding for Affordable Housing. Pursue grant funding to subsidize the development of affordable housing for low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households through new construction, acquisition, and/or rehabilitation. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 2.5] Implementation Programs
Program H1. Annexation Program
The City shall work with applicants to annex land for residential development within the near-term annexation areas shown on Figure 5-1 (i.e., Wilson, Shepherd North, Heritage Grove Specific Plan Phase 1). The City shall work with applicants on approval of subdivision tract maps, environmental review, and annexation by the Fresno Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO).
 Objective: Create capacity for 2,538 housing units (inventoried as above moderate income)  Timeframe: Wilson (TM6343) and Shepherd North (TM6205) Subdivisions: work with applicants on approval of subdivision tract maps by the end of 2023 and LAFCO approval by early 2024. Heritage Grove Specific Plan Phase 1: Work with the applicant on approval of the specific plan and subdivision tract maps in early 2024 and LAFCO approval by Summer 2024.
 Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division). 171
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 2-3
Program H2. No Net Loss Procedures
The City will provide for a variety of housing types and maintain adequate sites to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 8,977 units. As part of this, the City shall develop a monitoring system to maintain an inventory of sites suitable for future residential development and track development activity. To ensure sufficient residential capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA need, the City shall make findings related to the potential impact on the City’s ability to meet its unmet regional housing needs allocation when approving applications to rezone sites included in the lower- and moderate-income sites inventory or develop a lower- or moderate-income housing element site with fewer units or at a higher income than what is assumed for the site in the Housing Element sites inventory, consistent with “no-net-loss” zoning requirements in Government Code Section 65863. If at any point it is determined that the City does not have adequate capacity to meet the unmet lower- or moderate-income RHNA, the City shall identify and make available a replacement site within 180 days. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 3 and Program 5, modified]
 Objective: Monitor development and other changes in the inventory to ensure the City has remaining capacity consistent with its share of the regional housing need. Make replacement sites available within 180 days.  Timeframe: Continually update the inventory of residential land resources as projects are approved.  Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division).

Program H3. Surplus Public Land
The City shall regularly review the inventory of City- and other publicly-owned surplus, vacant, or underused land no longer needed for current or foreseeable future public operations that should be considered for sale or lease for development of affordable housing. The City shall prioritize the review of sites within highest resource areas. This includes considering the subdivision of larger publicly-owned sites to create new parcels that may be considered surplus. The City shall prioritize identification of surplus public lands in highest resources areas to improve housing mobility options for lower-income households. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54222, the City shall actively market the land to affordable housing developers and consider opportunities to partner with affordable housing developers. The City will work with other public agencies, such as Fresno County, Fresno Housing Authority, and school districts to implement this program. [Source: New]  Objective: One publicly-owned site to declare surplus public lands in high and highest resource areas to improve housing mobility for lower-income households.
 Timeframe: Review inventory of public lands annually; publicize inventory on City website and send to non- profit developers annually.
 Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division).

Program H4. Affordable Housing Fee Reduction Program
The City will identify funding sources to implement the Affordable Housing Fee Reduction Program to reduce impact fees for affordable housing developments. The City will prioritize providing funding to affordable housing developments in highest resource areas or developments that include permanent supportive housing in any part of the city. [Source: New Program]
 Objective: Provide fee reductions in support of 350 affordable housing units during the planning period.  Timeframe: Pursue new funding sources in 2024 and annually thereafter.  Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division). 172
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan

Program H5. Affordable Housing Incentives and Support
The City will continue to work with housing developers to expand affordable housing opportunities for lower income households and special needs groups including seniors, persons with physical and developmental disabilities, farmworkers, large families, extremely low-income households, and persons experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of becoming unhoused, by creating partnerships, providing incentives, and pursuing funding opportunities. Actions will include but are not limited to the following. • Promote the use of the density bonus ordinance, application process streamlining, and the Affordable Housing Fee Reduction Program to encourage affordable housing, with an emphasis on encouraging affordable housing in highest resource areas; (Timeframe: Ongoing, as projects are proposed; annual outreach to developers) • Establish a ministerial approval process for land divisions or lot line adjustments on large sites (in the lower income sites inventory) resulting in parcel sizes that enable affordable housing development ; ( Timeframe:

October 2024)
• Prepare and publish administrative procedures for the processing of housing developments eligible for streamlined review pursuant to SB 35. (Timeframe: January 2024) • As projects are proposed, and at least proactively on an annual basis, partner with nonprofit and for -profit affordable housing developers to support their financing applications for state and federal grant programs, tax - exempt bonds, and other programs that become available. (Timeframe: Ongoing, as projects are proposed; annual outreach to developers)
The City will prioritize supporting affordable housing developments in highest resource areas that promote housing mobility for lower-income and special needs populations or projects that will reduce displacement risk due to overcrowding, overpayment, or other burdens, such as in southwest Clovis. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 7, modified]
 Objective: Provide technical assistance and incentives to support development of 1,100 lower-income housing units during the planning period, including 500 low-, 500 very low-, and 100 extremely low- or special needs housing units.
 Timeframe: See above.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

Program H6. Missing Middle Housing Tools and Resources
The City shall promote the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), cottage homes, and ministerial lot splits and duplexes, particularly in higher resource single-family neighborhoods, through the following actions:
• Review and amend development standards (e.g., setback, height, parking) to remove barriers to ministerial lot splits and duplexes in single-family zones.
• Amend Section 9.40.020 of the Development Code to clarify that ADUs are permitted in all residential and mixed-use zones.
• Annually review legislative changes to ADU regulations and update the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Sections

19.20.190 and 19.20.195), as necessary, to maintain compliance with State law; • Annually advertise the free streamlined cottage home plans to eligible property owners, as well as pre-reviewed ADU plans, such as those provided by the San Joaquin Valley REAP Program; 173
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 2-5
• Prepare and distribute informational handouts and hold community workshops to promote missing middle housing tools and resources to homeowners throughout the city, particularly in high resource areas, to promote mixed-income neighborhoods. [Source: New Program]
 Objective: Facilitate the construction of 200 ADUs, cottage homes, and ministerial lot splits and duplexes, with a goal of 75 percent in highest resource areas.
 Timeframe: Update existing ADU ordinance by June 2024. Review ADU legislative changes annually and update within the timeframe required by new legislation. Update development standards by July 2025; distribute infill cottage and ADU plans and informational handouts and hold community workshops in September 2025 and every two years thereafter.
 Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division) and Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division) Program H7. Density Bonus Ordinance
Monitor Density Bonus law and update Density Bonus Ordinance as necessary to ensure consistency with State law.

When changes to Density Bonus requirements are made, prepare updated handouts and website information to publicize changes. [Source: New Program]
 Objective: Ensure that the City’s development standards are consistent with State Density Bonus law.  Timeframe: Annually review legislative updates and update local ordinances and informational materials within 6 months, as necessary.
 Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division).

Program H8. Development Standards and Zoning Consistency Review and update the Zoning Code to identify and remove constraints on housing development, including the following:
• Reduce parking standards for multifamily housing.
• Review minimum street width requirements and consider additional modifications to remove barriers. • Increase building height maximums in the R-2 and R-3 zones and amend to reduce constraints to multifamily housing development.

Initiate a comprehensive Development Code update to address inconsistencies between the Development Code and the General Plan land use designations and standards. [Source: New Program]  Objective: Accelerate housing production by ensuring that the City’s development standards facilitate rather than constrain new development.
 Timeframe: Review and amend development standards by June 2025; initiate Code update to address General Plan consistency by 2027.
 Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division).

174
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan

Goal H2. Preserve and Improve the Existing Housing Stock Preserve and improve the existing housing stock to ensure safe and sanitary housing conditions, prevent displacement, and maintain housing affordability.

H-2.1 Affordable Housing Preservation. Preserve assisted rental housing for long-term occupancy by low- and moderate-income households. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 3.6] H-2.2 Housing Rehabilitation Assistance. Assist low-income homeowners and owners of affordable rental properties in maintaining and improving residential properties through housing rehabilitation and energy retrofit programs. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 3.2] H-2.3 Code Enforcement. Continue code enforcement efforts to identify substandard or noncompliant housing and work with landlords and property owners to preserve the existing housing stock. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 3.3]
H-2.4 Substandard Housing. Provide for the removal of all unsafe, substandard dwellings that cannot be economically repaired. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 3.4] H-2.5 Mobile Home Park Preservation. Preserve mobile home parks as an affordable housing option by continuing to enforce the Mobile Home Rent Review and Stabilization Ordinance to protect residents from displacement. [Source: New Policy]
H-2.6 No Net Loss of Housing Stock. Ensure that sites being redeveloped for housing do not result in a net reduction in housing units, consistent with Government Code Section 66300(d). [Source: New Policy] H-2.7 Energy Efficient Construction. Actively implement and enforce all State energy conservation requirements for new residential construction and encourage the use of energy conserving techniques in the siting and design of new housing. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 6.1 and 6.2] Implementation Programs
Program H9. Preserve At-risk Affordable Housing
The City shall monitor affordability agreements for existing affordable housing units and communicate with property owners regarding their long-term plans for the affordable units. A total of 260 publicly assisted units in three projects are considered at risk of conversion to market rate prior to December 31, 2033. These are: 30 units at Cottonwood Grove, 100 units at Silver Ridge, and 130 units at Lexington Square. The City will strive to preserve these at -risk units as affordable housing. In the event at-risk units are not preserved, the City shall require the property owners to provide at least three years notice prior to the conversion of any deed-restricted affordable rental units to market rate, as well as notice at 12 months and 6 months prior to expiration. The City shall provide financial and/or technical assistance to property owners whose affordability restrictions will expire within 36 months for preservation and/or rehabilitation of the affordable units. The City shall also minimize displacement of current tenants by negotiating a relocation policy with the owner, whenever possible. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 9, modified]  Objective: Minimize displacement of affordable housing residents. Preserve 260 publicly assisted rental units.  Timeframe: Monitor at-risk units annually.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division). 175
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 2-7
Program H10. Mobile Home Rent Review and Stabilization
The City shall prevent displacement of mobile home park residents by monitoring and enforcing the Mobile Home Rent Review and Stabilization Ordinance. The City shall expand public outreach to mobile home park residents to increase tenant education on the ordinance by ensuring information is regularly distributed to all Clovis mobile home parks, distributing educational materials in multiple languages, and establishing a City staff ombudsman to aid residents in the process. [Source: New Program]
 Objective: Conserve 867 mobile homes within 5 existing mobile home parks to prevent displacement.  Timeframe: Distribute information on the Rent Review and Stabilization ordinance to local mobile home parks twice a year, beginning in 2024.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

Program H11. Code Enforcement
The City shall encourage the use of code enforcement processes to bring substandard housing units and residential properties into compliance with city codes. The City shall refer landlords and income-eligible homeowners to all relevant housing rehabilitation programs for assistance. Promotional material will be made available in multiple languages, posted on the City’s website, and available in hard copy at various community locations including but not limited to the public services counter, the public works department, the library, and via the offices of local utility providers. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 15]  Objective: Ensure that all housing units throughout the city are safe and sanitary. Provide assistance and resources to low, very low- and extremely low-income households.  Timeframe: Distribute outreach and educational materials by December 2024. Provide annual updates on code enforcements received and actions taken to abate through the Housing Element Annual Report.  Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Building Division).

Program H12. Housing Rehabilitation
The City shall continue to apply for CalHome funds and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, when eligible, to maintain the Home Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program, which provides loans to low-income homeowners to complete health and safety repairs on owner-occupied single family homes including low-income seniors (60 years and older) households who own and occupy a home to address visible health and safety problems.

The City shall continue to promote the Home Rehabilitation Program on the City website, at public counters, at mobile home parks, and to income-eligible households identified through the Code Enforcement program. [Source:
2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 14]
 Objective: Prevent displacement of lower-income homeowners, particularly seniors and mobile home park residents, by providing housing rehabilitation loans and grants to 250 lower-income households including 50 very-low and 50 extremely low-income households during the planning period.  Timeframe: Apply annually, or as NOFAs are released, for CalHome and CDBG funds; distribute program information annually.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).
176
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan

Program H13. Replacement Housing Program
The City shall adopt a policy and will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3) on sites identified in the site inventory when any new development (residential, mixed-use or nonresidential) occurs on a site that is identified in the inventory meeting the following conditions:
• currently has residential uses or within the past five years has had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, and
• was subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low-income, or
• subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or • occupied by low or very low-income households.
 Objective: To mitigate the loss of affordable housing units, require new housing developments to replace all affordable housing units lost due to new development.
 Timeframe: The replacement requirement will be implemented immediately upon adoption of the Housing Element and applied as applications on identified sites are received and processed, and local policy shall be adopted by June 30, 2025.

 Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division).

Program H14. Energy Conservation
Promote energy conservation in residential development by advertising local, state, and federal energy conservation programs including the Fresno Energy Services program, the Energy Efficiency Retrofit Loan Program, and Home Energy Renovation Opportunity (HERO) Financing. Additionally, the City shall encourage residents to participate in PG&E energy conservation services and assistance programs. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 18, modified]
 Objective: Improve quality of housing throughout the city and support the State’s energy goals by reducing energy consumption in residential development, while helping residents save money on housing costs.  Timeframe: Distribute outreach and educational materials by December 2024. Provide annual updates on code enforcements received and actions taken to abate through the Housing Element Annual Report.  Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division).

177
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 2-9
Goal H3. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Foster inclusive communities and remove barriers to housing for vulnerable communities including special needs populations and persons experiencing homelessness
H-3.1 Enforce Fair Housing Laws. Support the enforcement of fair housing laws prohibiting discrimination in lending practices and in the development, financing, sale, or rental of housing. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 5.1]
H-3.2 Inclusive and Equitable Community Engagement. Ensure inclusive community participation in all planning, public investment, and development review decision making by actively engaging all segments of the community, especially those that have historically been less engaged in City decision making, such as lower - income families, non-English speakers, and people of color. [Source: New Policy] H-3.3 Housing Choice Vouchers. Collaborate with the Fresno Housing Authority in its administration of Housing Choice Vouchers and development of affordable housing in Clovis. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 2.2]
H-3.4 Eliminate Barriers for Persons with Disabilities and Developmental Disabilities. Ensure local ordinances and development regulations provide equal housing opportunity for persons with disabilities and developmental disabilities. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 5.2] H-3.5 Increase Homeownership Opportunities. Expand homeownership opportunities that create stability and wealth building for lower- and moderate-income households through down payment assistance, sweat equity programs (e.g., Habitat for Humanity), and other homeownership programs. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 5.3 and 2.9, modified]
H-3.6 Improve Opportunity through Neighborhood Revitalization. Work to make all neighborhoods places of opportunity by prioritizing public improvements (such as streets and drainage, sidewalks and alleys, green spaces and parks, street trees, and other public facilities, amenities, and infrastructure) in neighborhoods with the greatest need, including neighborhoods with higher concentrations of poverty and limited existing resources and amenities. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 3.5, modified] H-3.7 Farmworker Housing. Support the use of available Federal, State, and local resources to provide and enhance housing opportunities for farm workers. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 4.3] H-3.8 Partnerships to Address Homelessness. Work in partnership with local departments, agencies, and non-profit organizations in Fresno County to facilitate the provision of housing and services for the homeless and those at-risk of becoming homeless. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Policy 4.6]

178
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan

Implementation Programs
Program H15. Resources for Special Needs Households
The City shall encourage additional housing resources for extremely low -income residents, particularly seniors and persons with physical or developmental disabilities. The City shall provide financial support annually, as available, to organizations that provide counseling information, education, support, housing services/referrals, and/or legal advice to extremely low-income households to mitigate risk of displacement and support housing stability for ext remely low-income households, persons with disabilities, and persons experiencing homelessness. The City will support the development of small group homes that serve developmentally disabled adults and will work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of units for persons with developmental disabilities in future affordable housing developments. [Source: New Program]
 Objective: Assist 100 extremely low-income households to reduce displacement risk, target outreach efforts in areas and neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty.  Timeframe: Ongoing; support expediting applications on an ongoing basis; review budget annually; provide financial support annually, as available.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

Program H16. Housing Choice Vouchers
The City shall work with the Fresno Housing Authority to disseminate information on incentives for participating in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program throughout the city, with a focus on increasing HCV housing opportunities for city residents in single-family neighborhoods and new developments. The City shall collaborate with the Housing Authority on an educational campaign to encourage landlords to actively participate in the HCV Program to affirmatively further fair housing. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 19, modified]  Objective: Increase Housing Choice Voucher participation and usage by 10 households in highest resource neighborhoods.
 Timeframe: Initiate educational campaign in 2024; Host first workshop by April 2025  Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division) Program H17. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
The City shall continue to analyze and address fair housing issues through the five-year review and update of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 20, modified]  Objective: Assess the City’s efforts to reduce discrimination and enforce fair housing laws throughout the city  Timeframe: Initiate study in 2023, publish results of analysis by December 2025  Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division) 179
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 2-11
Program H18. Distribute Fair Housing Information
In collaboration with other jurisdictions in the region, the City shall provide fair housing information to prospective home sellers, landlords, buyers, and renters. The City shall provide information and written materials on fair housing rights, available services, and responsible agencies in English and Spanish and distribute materials at libraries, community facilities, City offices and public counters, and on the City website. If the City should receive fair housing complaints, City staff shall direct individuals to HUD, DEFH, Fair Housing Council of Central California, and other housing agencies. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 20, modified]  Objective: Distribute fair housing information annually to all prospective home sellers, landlords, buyers, and renters throughout the city.
 Timeframe: Offer translated materials by December 2024 and continue to provide information and refer fair housing complaints on an ongoing basis.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

Program H19. Fair Housing Testing
The City shall establish a relationship with the Fair Housing Council of Central California (FHCCC) and coordinate with FHCCC in working with rental housing owners and tenants to ensure understanding and compliance with fair housing laws. The City shall partner with FHCCC to pursue funding to conduct fair housing testing for discriminatory practices in private rental housing. [Source: New Program]
 Objective: Encourage FHCC to conduct 8-10 fair housing tests to understand local issues of housing discrimination and ensure compliance with fair housing laws.  Timeframe: Conduct fair housing testing in 2024.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

Program H20. Homebuyer Assistance Program
The City shall continue to offer the Homebuyer Assistance program to first-time homebuyers to help purchase an existing or qualifying new home. The City shall work with HUD and HCD to revise the qualifying purchase price limit to expand opportunities. Additionally, the City will continue to promote homebuyer assistance programs provided through the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA). The City will advertise these programs through mailers or similar strategies in areas with high rates of lower-income and renter-occupied households, such as in Southwest Clovis, to increase awareness of housing mobility opportunities. The City shall provide materials in both English and Spanish. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 16 and Program 17, modified]  Objective: Assist three households per year with homebuyer assistance to support stability and wealth building for lower-income households.
 Timeframe: Annually pursue CDBG, HOME, and other funding opportunities to maintain the Homebuyer Assistance program. Begin work with HUD and HCD to revise the program limits annually if needed due to local market conditions.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division). 180
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan

Program H21. Multilingual Outreach on Affordable Housing Opportunities The City shall continue to provide outreach to community residents to inform them of opportunities to access affordable housing. The City shall place general information regarding affordable housing programs as well as promoting specific projects on the City website, in the City newsletter, at City Hall, in the local newspaper, and through social media. The City shall also continue to participate in annual housing fairs and other presentations and workshops to promote the City’s housing programs in the community. The City shall ensure materials are available in multiple languages. [Source: New Program]
 Objective: Increase availability of information about affordable housing opportunities and programs.

Conduct 8 workshops during the planning period.
 Timeframe: Prepare outreach materials in 2025 update annually as necessary.  Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

Program H22. Actions to Address Homelessness
• The City shall continue to coordinate with Fresno Madera Continuum of Care to provide capacity and s trengthen the County’s opportunities to locate, construct housing facilities, and provide supportive services to the area’s homeless population. (Timeframe: Ongoing; 2023-2031).
• The City shall participate in homeless prevention activities by promoting and providing funding as available that reduce the likelihood of residents experiencing homelessness as well as shorten the time someone experiences homelessness. Explore strategies and potential programs to increase employment opportunities and/or income for very low- and extremely low- income households and those at risk of becoming homeless. ( Timeframe: Provide
funding annually, as available. Present strategies and programs to increase employment opportunities for very low- and extremely low- income households and those at risk of becoming homeless to City Council in 2025) • The City shall work to provide an adequate supply of housing for people who are homeless or are at a risk of becoming homeless. Continue to support and improve the existing shelter for women and support the development of additional housing with capacity to accommodate at least 49 homeless persons. ( Timeframe:

Ongoing; annually maintain a database of land available for a new shelter) [Source: New Program]  Objective: Provide supportive services to the City’s most vulnerable populations by providing shelter and/or temporary housing assistance for at least 49 persons.
 Timeframe: See above.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

181
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 2-13
Program H23. Neighborhood Revitalization
The City shall work to increase opportunity for all neighborhoods throughout the city. The City Council shall annually review the City Capital Investment Program (CIP) to determine what special priorities are needed for capital improvement projects required to maintain the community’s older residential neighborhoods. The City shall prioritize capital improvement projects that provide amenities and neighborhood improvements in neighborhoods with the greatest need, including neighborhoods with high concentrations of low-income residents and limited existing resources and amenities. Projects that advance economic mobility and opportunity, prevent residential displacement, and improve transportation and connectivity will be of the highest priority. [Source: New Program]  Objective: Establish a capital-planning prioritization process to optimize the use of available resources for projects and guide an objective methodology used to produce equal and equitable outcomes.  Timeframe: Ongoing, annually review capital improvement projects and funding priorities.  Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Engineering Division), Public Utilities, and City Council.

Program H24. Zoning Code Amendments for Special Needs Housing The City shall amend the zoning code to ensure compliance with State law and remove barriers to housing, as follows:
• Allow “low barrier navigation center” developments by right in mixed -use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, consistent with Government Code Section 65662. • Allow for the approval of 100 percent affordable developments that include a percentage of supportive housing units, either 25 percent or 12 units, whichever is greater, to be allowed without a conditional use permit or other discretionary review in all zoning districts where multifamily and mixed-use development is permitted, consistent with Government Code Section 65651(a).
• Amend the zoning code to allow emergency shelters in a zoning district that allows residential uses by right consistent with Government Code Section 65583. Ensure requirements for emergency shelters comply with state law.
• Establish appropriate parking standards for residential care homes and remove parking requirements for occupants of emergency shelters consistent with Government Code 65583. • Amend the zoning code to permit group homes of more than six persons in all residential zones similar to other residential uses and revise procedures to promote objectivity and approval certainty. • Modify the procedure for providing reasonable accommodations to remove any unduly constraints for persons requesting an accommodation (e.g., remove responsibility of proposing an alternative accommodation that may provide equivalent levels of benefit from the applicant). [Source: New Program]  Objective: Compliance with State law.
 Timeframe: Amend the zoning code by December 2024.
 Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division).

182
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Plan

2.2 Quantified Objectives
One of the requirements of State law (California Government Code Section 65583[b]) is that the Housing Element contain quantified objectives for the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. State law recognizes that the total housing needs identified by a community may exceed available resources and the community’s ability to satisfy this need. Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The quantified objectives shown in Table 2-1 represent targets. They are estimates based on experience, anticipated funding levels, and housing market conditions. The quantified objectives are not designed to be minimum requirements. The quantified objectives are based largely upon implementation programs that have measurable outcomes. However, the Housing Element contains several policies and implementation programs that reduce barriers and create opportunities for affordable housing. These policies and programs are essential to meeting the City’s housing needs but are more qualitative and difficult to quantify.

Table 2-1 Summary of 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives, Clovis Program Types Very
Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above
Moderate-Income Total
New Construction1 2,926 1,549 1,448 3,054 8,977
Rehabilitation2 200 200 400
Preservation (At-Risk Housing)3 260 260
Notes:
1New Construction objective is equal to the RHNA
2Rehabilitation objective is equal to the program objectives for Program H-12. 3There are 260 assisted units considered “at risk” of converting to market rate.

183
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

CHAPTER 3 | Housing Needs Assessment
This section provides a comprehensive assessment of housing needs as the basis for developing responsive policies and implementation programs. This section summarizes demographic, employment, and housing characteristics for the jurisdictions in Fresno County. The main source of the information is the pre -approved data package for Fresno County provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which uses several data sources, including the 2010 and 2020 US Decennial Census, American Community Survey (ACS), and the California Department of Finance (DOF). Other sources of information in this section include the following: the Fresno County Council of Governments (FCOG), the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and local economic data (e.g., home sales prices, rents, wages).

3.1 Population and Demographic Profile
Population Trends
In 2020, the population of Clovis was 120,124 people, accounting for 11.9 percent of Fresno County’s total population (Table 3-1). Clovis is the second largest city within Fresno County, after the city of Fresno. Other cities within Fresno County are much smaller, with populations of around 25,000 or less, and account for small percentages of the total county population.

Table 3-1 Total Population by Jurisdiction (2020)
Jurisdiction Population Percent of County Population
Clovis 120,124 11.9%
Fowler 6,700 0.6%
Fresno (city) 542,107 53.7%
Kerman 16,016 1.6%
Kingsburg 12,380 1.2%
Orange Cove 9,649 .9%
Parlier 14,576 1.4%
Reedley 25,227 2.5%
Sanger 26,617 2.6%
Selma 24,674 2.4%
Fresno County (total) 1,008,654 100%
Source: US 2020 Decennial Census.

Clovis has experienced rapid growth over the past several decades. From 1980 to 2020, the population grew by an average of over 20,000 per decade from 33,021 to 120,124, as shown in Figure 3-1. In the most recent decade between 2010 and 2020, the population in Clovis grew by nearly 25,000 people . According to the California Department of Finance, between 2021 and 2022, Clovis was the 12th fastest growing city in California in terms of numeric change, with a 2022 population of 123,665.
184
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-1 Total Population and Percent Change Over Time, Clovis (1980-2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010; Social Explorer tables for Census 2020.

The population in Clovis is anticipated to continue to grow at a rapid pace. The Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) produces population projections for the Fresno region based on economic growth and data from the Department of Finance (DOF). The total population for Fresno County (including incorporated cities) is projected to increase from 1,018,240 in 2019 to 1,240,090 in 2050, an increase of 22 percent (see Table 3-2). Similarly, the population in Clovis (including the sphere of influence) is anticipated to increase by 24 percent, from 134,210 in 2019 to 166,160 in 2050.1 Firebaugh and Kerman are anticipated to grow at the fastest rate (35 percent and 30 percent) while the unincorporated county is only projected to grow by 8 percent from 2 019 to 2050.

1 The population estimates provided by Fresno COG include the population within the spheres of influence. The actual population in Clovis in 2020 was 120,124, as described above.
33,021
50,323
68,468
95,631
120,12452.4%

36.1%

39.7%

25.6%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Percent Change
Total Population
Total Population Percent Change
185
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-3
Table 3-2 Projected Population Growth by Jurisdiction (2019-2050) Jurisdiction 1 2019 2020 2030 2050 2019-2050
Percent Change
Clovis 134,210 134,780 147,760 166,160 23.8%
Coalinga 13,530 13,690 15,210 17,140 26.7%
Firebaugh 7,720 7,720 9,200 10,450 35.4%
Fowler 6,380 6,580 7,200 8,030 25.9%
Fresno (city) 592,350 596,060 647,980 728,200 22.9%
Huron 5,700 5,700 6,200 7,030 23.3%
Kerman 14,220 14,290 16,340 18,420 29.5%
Kingsburg 13,350 13,410 14,960 16,750 25.5%
Mendota 11,170 11,220 12,330 13,850 24.0%
Orange Cove 9,170 9,170 10,070 11,310 23.3%
Parlier 14,040 14,140 15,380 17,320 23.4%
Reedley 25,170 25,170 27,240 30,700 22.0%
Sanger 28,660 28,770 31,370 35,240 23.0%
San Joaquin 3,500 3,500 3,750 4,170 19.1%
Selma 26,960 27,000 30,360 34,100 26.5%
Unincorporated County 112,110 112,160 116,660 121,220 8.1% Fresno County (total) 1,018,240 1,023,360 1,112,010 1,240,090 21.8% 1 Jurisdiction includes 2017 published sphere of influence.

Source: Fresno Council of Governments, Fresno County 2019-2050 Growth Projections, October 2020.

Age Distribution
Although population growth strongly affects total demand for new housing, the distribution of age groups in the city can be telling of what types of housing the community needs or may need in the future. Most typically an increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while high num bers of children and young families can point to the needs of more diverse family housing types and related services.

Figure 3-2 below shows the population distribution by age group for Clovis, Fresno County, and California. According to the US Census Bureau, both Clovis and Fresno County have a higher proportion of children under age 18 (28.8 percent and 15.6 percent, respectively), than that of California (12.3 percent). Conversely, Clovis has a lower proportion of seniors over 65 (13 percent), compared to Fresno County (19.5 percent) and California (19.4 percent). 186
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-2 Population by Age by Jurisdiction (2020)

Source: US. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B01001.

Note: Percentages shown for respective geographies. For example, percent of age group in total state population, not by a specific smaller jurisdiction's share of the total state population.

Racial and Ethnic Composition
As shown in Table 3-3, 49.5 percent of the population in Clovis is White, non-Hispanic compared to 28.7 percent in Fresno County as a whole and 36.5 percent statewide. Conversely, the Hispanic or Latino population in Clovis is 32.7 percent, much less than that of Fresno County (53.4 percent), but similar to the proportion of the Hispanic or Latino population statewide (39.1 percent). The Black population in Clovis (2.6 percent) is also proportionately less than that of both Fresno County (4.4 percent) and California (5.4 percent), while the Asian population in Clovis (10.7 percent) is similar to that of Fresno County (10.4 percent) but lower than that of California (14.6 percent).

Table 3-3 Population by Race and Hispanic Origin by Jurisdiction (2020) Race/Ethnicity
City of Clovis Fresno County California
Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent White (Non-Hispanic) 55,809 49.5% 284,169 28.7% 14,365,145 36.5% Hispanic Or Latino 36,822 32.7% 528,293 53.4% 15,380,929 39.1% Black or African American 2,906 2.6% 43,660 4.4% 2,142,371 5.4% American Indian And Alaska Native 240 0.2% 4,459 0.5% 131,724 0.3% Asian 12,105 10.7% 102,986 10.4% 5,743,983 14.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 219 0.2% 1,305 0.1% 135,524 0.3% Some Other Race 279 0.2% 1,979 0.2% 124,148 0.3%
Two Or More Races 4,283 3.8% 23,353 2.4% 1,322,199 3.4% Total 112,663 - 990,204 - 39,346,023 -
Source: US Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B03002.

28.8% 15.6% 12.3%

8.0%

8.2%

6.6%

27.1% 7.3%

6.5%

23.1%

3.1%

2.8%

13.0%

19.5% 19.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City of Clovis Fresno County California
65 Years And Over
45 to 64 Years
25 to 44 Years
18 to 24 Years
Under 18 Years
187
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-5
While the Hispanic/Latino population in Clovis is proportionally smaller than other areas of the county, s ince 2000, the number of residents in Clovis identifying as Hispanic or Latino has increased at a much higher rate than those identifying as non-Hispanic White (see Table 3-4). In 2000, the Hispanic or Latino population made up 20.3 percent of the total population and the non-Hispanic White population made up 67.5 percent. By 2020, the Hispanic or Latino population made up 32.7 percent of the total population and the non-Hispanic White population made up only 49.5 percent. In addition, the non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic Asian populations have also increased during these same time periods.

Table 3-4 Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, Clovis (2000, 2010, and 2020) Race/Ethnicity
2000 2010 2020 Percent
Change
2010-2020 Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent Hispanic Or Latino 13,876 20.3% 24,514 25.6% 36,822 32.7% 50.2% Not Hispanic or Latino 54,592 79.7% 71,117 74.4% 75,841 67.3% 6.6% White 46,186 67.5% 55,021 57.5% 55,809 49.5% 1.4%
Black or African American 1,207 1.8% 2,360 2.5% 2,906 2.6% 23.1% American Indian And Alaska Native 679 1.0% 754 0.8% 240 0.2% -68.2% Asian 4,322 6.3% 9,965 10.4% 12,105 10.7% 21.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 75 0.1% 187 0.2% 219 0.2% 17.1% Some Other Race 131 0.2% 153 0.2% 279 0.2% 82.4%
Two Or More Races 1,992 2.9% 2,677 2.8% 4,283 3.8% 60.0% Total 68,468 -- 95,631 -- 112,663 -- --
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, 2010, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B03002.

3.2 Employment Trends
Information on the local workforce and how it is changing over time can help estimate potential housing and employment needs in the future. This section describes employment trends in Clovis to provide insight into industry and occupation types within Clovis, Fresno County, and California and to provide an understating of the balance of housing and employment within Clovis.

Employment by Occupation
In 2020, management, business, science, and arts occupations accounted for the largest sector of employment across California, Fresno County and Clovis. As shown in Figure 3-3 and Table 3-5, the proportion of employees occupied by this sector was higher in Clovis (43.7 percent) and California (40.3 percent) than in the county as a whole (31.2 percent). Similar to California and Fresno County, sales and office occupations was the next largest sector in Clovis, followed by service occupations (17 percent). The proportion of Clovis residents employed by production, transportation, and material moving occupations (9.1 percent) and natural resources , construction, and maintenance occupations (7.1 percent) was much smaller than those of the county as a whole (13.9 percent and 14.4 percent, respectively).
188
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-3 Total Employment by Occupation (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table C24050.

Table 3-5 Employment by Occupation (2020)
Occupation
City of Clovis Fresno County California
Number of Persons
Employed
Percent of
Total
Number of Persons
Employed
Percent of
Total
Number of Persons
Employed
Percent of
Total
Management, Business, Science, and
Arts Occupations 22,460 43.7% 127,355 31.2% 7,517,770 40.3% Service Occupations 8,744 17.0% 79,821 19.5% 3,376,613 18.1% Sales and Office Occupations 11,913 23.2% 85,799 21.0% 3,903,884 20.9% Natural Resources, Construction, and
Maintenance Occupations 3,634 7.1% 58,938 14.4% 1,638,447 8.8% Production, Transportation, and
Material Moving Occupations 4,657 9.1% 56,712 13.9% 2,210,180 11.9% Total 51,408 408,625 18,646,894
Source: US Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table C24050.

43.7%

31.2%

40.3%

17.0%

19.5%

18.1%

23.2%

21.0%

20.9%

7.1%

14.4%

8.8%

9.1%

13.9% 11.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City of Clovis Fresno County California
Production, Transportation, And
Material Moving Occupations
Natural Resources, Construction, And
Maintenance Occupations
Sales And Office Occupations
Service Occupations
Management, Business, Science, And
Arts Occupations
189
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-7
Balance of Jobs and Housing
The location of a person’s home in relation to their workplace directly impacts commute times and regional traffic. It can also impact physical, mental, and financial wellbeing. Providing a balanced jobs to housing ratio (close to 1.0) allows more people to live and work in the same city. Although Clovis is the second largest city in the county, the city of Fresno, directly to the west, is much larger and is the main employment center in the county. As of 2020, there were 35,068 jobs and 51,408 employed residents in Clovis. The jobs-household ratio in Clovis has remained relatively stable over the last decade, from 0.9 in 2010 to 0.86 in 2015 and 0.96 in 2020 (see Figure 3-4 below). Improving and maintaining the balance between jobs and appropriately priced housing can help reduce commutes, alleviate traffic congestion and the associated environmental and social impacts.

Figure 3-4 Jobs-to-Household Ratio Over Time, Clovis (2010-2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25003, C24050.

Table 3-6 displays data from the US Census Bureau OnTheMap web-based mapping and reporting application, which uses data from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics to show where workers are employed and where they live. As shown in the table below, only about 24 percent of Clovis workers also live in Clovis. While the remaining portion of the Clovis workforce commutes from other areas. Most workers commute from the city of Fresno, making up about 39 percent of the Clovis workforce. As for where Clovis residents work, nearly half (49.2 percent) of Clovis residents worked in the city of Fresno in 2019 compared to 17 percent of Clovis residents that worked in Clovis.

28,743 29,655
35,068
31,867
34,512
37,726

0.90 0.86

0.93 0.82

0.84 0.86

0.88 0.90

0.92 0.94
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2010 2015 2020
Jobs-to-Household Ratio
Total Jobs and Households
Total Jobs Total Households Jobs-to-Household Ratio
190
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Table 3-6 Top 5 Work/Residence Destinations, Clovis (2019) Where Clovis Workers Live Where Clovis Residents Work
Jurisdiction Count Share Jurisdiction Count Share
Total Clovis Workers 35,252 100.0% Total Clovis Employed Residents 49,595 100.0% Fresno (city) 13,896 39.4% Fresno (city) 24,420 49.2%
Clovis 8,442 23.9% Clovis 8,442 17.0%
Sanger 499 1.4% Visalia 770 1.6%
Visalia 347 1.0% Madera 607 1.2%
Madera 325 0.9% Los Angeles 507 1.0%
Other 11,743 33.3% Other 14,849 29.9%
Source: US Census Bureau, OnTheMap, 2019.

Unemployment
Similar to statewide and national trends, the average annual unemployment rate in Clovis decreased by 8.1 percentage points between 2010 and 2021. As shown in Figure 3-5, unemployment was at its highest (13.5 percent) in 2010 and at its lowest (3.8 percent) in 2019. Jurisdictions throughout the nation experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment trends in Clovis generally follow countywide unemployment trends and are now showing signs of general improvement and recovery. As of June 2022, the unemployment rate in Clovis is 3.1 percent and the unemployment rate in Fresno County is 5.8 percent. This compares with an unadjusted unemployment rate of 4.0 percent for California and 3.8 percent for the nation during the same period.

Figure 3-5 Annual Average Unemployment Rates by Jurisdiction (2010-2021)

Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Clovis 13.5% 13.2% 12.1% 10.5% 9.1% 7.9% 5.3% 4.6% 4.0% 3.8% 8.1% 5.4% Fresno (City) 18.4% 18.1% 16.6% 14.5% 12.7% 11.1% 7.7% 6.8% 5.9% 5.8% 11.2% 8.2% Fresno (County) 17.1% 16.8% 15.4% 13.4% 11.7% 10.3% 9.5% 8.6% 7.6% 7.4% 11.7% 9.2%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%
Clovis Fresno (City) Fresno (County)
191
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-9
Projected Job Growth
According to the 2019-2050 Growth Projections prepared by the Fresno Council of Governments, the number of jobs in Fresno County is projected to increase from 405,300 in 2019 to 475,000 in 2050, an increase of 17 percent. As shown in Table 3-7, job growth in Clovis is projected to outpace that of the County with over 9,000 new jobs, a 25 percent increase, from 2019 to 2050. Although job growth is anticipated to occur at a slower pace than many smaller jurisdictions in the county, such as Firebaugh, Huron, and Kerman, it is still expected to outpace that of the city of Fresno, the largest job producer in the county.

Table 3-7 Projected Job Growth by Jurisdiction (2019-2050) Jurisdiction 1 2019 2020 2030 2050 2019-2050 Percent
Change
Clovis 36,060 33,260 38,770 45,200 25.3%
Coalinga 2,700 2,540 3,000 3,240 20.0%
Firebaugh 1,160 1,090 1,310 1,620 39.7%
Fowler 2,990 2,740 3,490 3,610 20.7%
Fresno (city) 257,140 237,950 272,810 299,960 16.7%
Huron 1,240 1,180 1,510 1,630 31.5%
Kerman 2,800 2,590 3,780 4,090 46.1%
Kingsburg 3,750 3,490 4,490 4,720 25.9%
Mendota 910 840 970 1,070 17.6%
Orange Cove 640 600 650 710 10.9%
Parlier 2,300 2,150 2,300 2,570 11.7%
Reedley 5,820 5,390 6,810 6,960 19.6%
Sanger 5,570 5,150 5,930 7,010 25.9%
San Joaquin 480 440 420 490 2.1%
Selma 6,540 6,090 7,530 7,930 21.3%
Unincorporated County 75,200 69,700 78,620 84,210 12.0% Fresno County (total) 405,300 375,200 432,400 475,000 17.2% Source: Fresno Council of Governments, Fresno County 2019-2050 Growth Projections, October 2020.

3.3 Household Characteristics
Household type and size, varying income levels, and the size and types of special needs populations all affect the type of housing needed by residents. This section describes the various household characteristics contributing to housing needs in Clovis and gives perspective on how to meet the needs of residents.

Household by Type
A household is defined as all persons living in a housing unit. For the purpose of the data presented in this section, families are a type of household and include people related by blood, marriage, or adoption who live together. A single person living alone is also a household. “Other” types of households are unrelated people residing in the same dwelling unit. People living in group quarters, such as dormitories or convalescent homes, are not counted as households.

As shown in Figure 3-6 below, most households in Clovis are married-couple households (54 percent), almost half of which have children. This is higher than the Fresno County proportion of married-couple households (47.3 percent) 192
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

and that of California (49.7 percent). Female householders with no spouse or partner present make up the second largest proportion of households in Clovis (25.5 percent), of which approximately one-third have children. Only 13.7 percent of total households in Clovis are single-male households, less than the proportion of single-male households in both the county and the state (17 percent).

Figure 3-6 Households by Type (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B11012 Housing Tenure
The number of homeowners compared to renters can be an indicator of the level of housing insecurity in a city or region. Generally, renters can be displaced more quickly if rents increase. Clovis has seen an increase in homeownership in recent decades, from 60.4 percent of housing units being owner -occupied in 2000 to 65.1 percent being owner-occupied in 2020. As shown in Table 3-8, the rate of homeownership in Clovis in 2020 (65.1 percent) was higher than the countywide rate (53.7 percent) and the statewide homeownership rate (55.3 percent). Conversely renter occupancy is much lower than the surrounding region and state. This trend indicates greater housing security in Clovis, but may also reflect a limited rental housing supply.

Table 3-8 Tenure by Housing Tenure (2020)
City of Clovis Fresno County California
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total Occupied Housing Units 37,726 310,097 13,103,114 Owner Occupied 24,548 65.1% 166,420 53.7% 7,241,318 55.3% Renter Occupied 13,178 34.9% 143,677 46.3% 5,861,796 44.7% Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009.

29.5%

25.3%

28.4%

24.5%

22.1%

21.2%

3.6%

3.8%

4.3%

3.1%

4.5%

2.5%

18.7%

20.2%

21.5%

6.8%

7.3%

4.7%

12.2%

15.3%

16.0%

1.4%

1.6%

1.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
City of Clovis
Fresno County
California
Married-Couple Household Married-Couple Households with Children <18 years Cohabiting Couple Household Cohabiting Couple Household with Children <18 years Single-Female Household Single-Female Household with Children <18 years Single-Male Household Single-Male Household with Children <18 years 193
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-11
Housing Tenure by Race and Ethnicity
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across the state and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth, but also stem from past federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for certain communities, while facilitating homebuying for white residents. Although these practices have been banned, their impacts are still evident in the Clovis area and across the nation.

Data on housing tenure by race is shown in Figure 3-7. Note that data for all racial groups, except White, are not available by Hispanic origin. In Clovis, homeownership rates were highest among Asian households (74.1 percent), two or more race households (73.4 percent), non-Hispanic White households (65.6 percent), and American Indian and Alaska Native alone households (65.2 percent). Both Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander households and Black households experience the lowest rates of homeownership (40.6 percent and 25.8 percent, respectively).

Homeownership rates among Hispanic or Latino households in Clovis were lower than that of Asian alone and W hite alone (non-Hispanic) households at 60.7 percent, but were much higher than Hispanic/Latino homeownership rates in Fresno County (45.0 percent) and California (44.9 percent).

Figure 3-7 Housing Tenure by Race or Hispanic Origin, Clovis (2020)

* The Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity in the source of this information (Table B25003) so each racial category accounts for Hispanic / non-Hispanic ethnic characteristics.

Source: Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25003 Housing Tenure By Age
Figure 3-8, below, depicts the proportion of senior (65 years and older) households that rent or own their home in 2020. In Clovis and across the region and the state, homeownership rates are higher among seniors than the total population. As shown below, 74.4 percent of seniors own their homes in Clovis, this proportion is slightly higher than in the county (71.4 percent), and in the state (73.2 percent). Over time the proportion of senior households that own their homes has increased. From 2010 through 2020, the rate of homeownership among seniors increased by 5.4 percent, indicating an increase in housing security for seniors in Clovis.

65.6%

40.6%

65.2%

74.1%

25.8%

51.7%

73.4%

60.7%

34.4%

59.4%

34.8%

25.9%

74.2%

48.3%

26.6%

39.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
White Alone
Non-Hispanic
Black Or
African
American
Alone
American
Indian And
Alaska Native
Alone
Asian Alone Native
Hawaiian And
Other Pacific
Islander Alone
Some Other
Race Alone
Two Or More
Races
Householder
Hispanic or
Latino of Any
Race
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
194
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-8 Senior (65 Years and Older) Household by Tenure (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25007 Household Income Characteristics
Household income is the most important factor affecting housing opportunity, as it determines a ho usehold’s ability to afford its preferred type and location of housing, and to balance housing costs with other basic needs. Income levels can vary considerably among households based on age, number of workers, education level, type of employment, and/or race and ethnicity, among other factors.

The standard income categories used by HCD are provided below in Table 3-9, and include the categories of acutely low, extremely low, very low, low, median, and moderate income. The income levels are determined in relation to the median household income Fresno County, adjusted by household size. In 2022, the Fresno County Area Median Income (AMI) was $80,300 for a family of four.

Table 3-9 State Income Limits, Fresno County, 2022
Income Category Definition
Fresno County 2022 Income Limit by Household Size
1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person
Acutely Low <15 % of Fresno County AMI $8,450 $9,650 $10,850 $12,050 Extremely Low 16-30 % of Fresno County AMI $16,350 $18,700 $23,030 $27,750 Very Low 31-50 % of the Fresno County AMI $27,300 $31,200 $35,100 $38,950 Low 51-80 % of the Fresno County AMI $43,650 $49850 $56,100 $62,300 Median 81-120 % of the Fresno County AMI $56,200 $64,250 $72,250 $80,300 Moderate >121 % of the Fresno County AMI $67,450 $77,100 $86,700 $96,350 AMI= Area Median Income
Fresno County 2022 Area Median Income (AMI) for a four-person household = $80,300 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2022

74.4%

71.4%

73.2%

25.6%

28.6%

26.8%
City of Clovis
Fresno County
California
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Owner Occupied: Renter Occupied:
195
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-13
Income Distribution
Median household income has typically been higher in the city than the county and California. The 2016-2020 ACS estimates the annual median household income in Clovis as $84,119, almost 1.5 times higher than that of the County ($57,109), and slightly higher than that of California ($78,672).

As shown in Figure 3-9 below, Clovis has more high-income households than other jurisdictions in the region. Nearly

65.0 percent of households in Clovis earn more than 100 percent of the AMI, compared to 7.3 percent making less than 30 percent of the AMI, which is considered extremely low-income. In contrast, 45.8 percent of Fresno city households make more than 100 percent of the AMI, while 15.8 percent make less than 30 percent of the AMI, and

48.7 percent of households countywide make more than 100 percent of the AMI, while 13.5 percent make less than 30 percent of the AMI.

In Fresno County, 30 percent of the AMI is equivalent to an annual income of $27,750 for a family of four. Many households with single wage earners and even multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, and farmworkers – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

Figure 3-9 Households by Income Level (2018)

Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2014-2018.

Household Income by Tenure
Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters. Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of available housing that is affordable for those households. In Clovis, 73.3 percent of Clovis residents that are homeowners have a household income level at or above 100 percent

13.5%

7.3%

15.8%

12.8%

7.2%

13.4%

16.2%

13.0%

16.1%

8.7%

7.6%

8.9%

48.7%

64.9%

45.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fresno County Clovis Fresno (City)
Extremely Low <30% AMI Very Low 30-50 % AMI Low 50-80% AMI Mod 80-100% AMI Above Mod Income >100% AMI
196
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

AMI, compared to just 26.7 percent of Clovis renters who also have a household income above the AMI (see Figure 3-10). In contrast, only 29.2 percent of Clovis households with extremely low incomes (less than 30 percent of the AMI) are homeowners and the majority of households with extremely low incomes rent (70.8 percent).

Figure 3-10 Income Distribution by Tenure, Clovis (2018)

Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2014-2018.

Overcrowding
Overcrowding can occur when housing costs are so high relative to income that families double up or take in roommates or extended family members to share their housing costs. The U.S. Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as being occupied by more than one person per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. In Clovis, overcrowding is less common than in the county or the state. Only 3.2 percent of occupied housing units in Clovis are defined as overcrowded, of which 2 percent have 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room and 1.2 percent have more than 1.5 persons per room and are considered severely overcrowded (see Figure 3-11). In comparison, 9.7 percent of housing units in Fresno County are overcrowded, 3.6 percent of which are severely overcrowded, and 8.2 percent of housing units in California are overcrowded, 3 percent of which are severely overcrowded.

29.2%

34.7%

42.0% 45.6%

73.3%

70.8%

65.3%

58.0% 54.4%

26.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Extremely Low <30%
AMI
Very Low 30-50 % AMI Low 50-80% AMI Moderate 80-100% AMI Above Moderate >100% AMI
Owner Renter
197
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-15
Figure 3-11 Percentage of Overcrowded Housing Units (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25014.

3.4 Special Needs Populations
Special needs populations include specific demographic or occupational groups that call for specific program responses. These groups may often spend a disproportionate amount of their income on housing and can often experience discrimination based on their specific needs or circumstances. The state requires that housing elements address several different special needs groups, including extremely low-income households, senior households, persons with disabilities, large families, female-headed households, people experiencing homelessness, and farmworkers.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income (ELI) households are those with an income of 30 percent or less of the AMI. In 2022, a family of four making $27,750 would be classified as ELI in Clovis. This income equates to a wage of about $13.34 per hour for a full-time single wage-earner, less than the state minimum wage of $14.00 per hour for employers with 25 employees or less or $15.00 per hour for employers with 26 employees or more. A four-person extremely low-income household could afford a monthly housing cost of $694.

In Clovis, there are a total of 2,655 ELI households, 70.8 percent of which are renter-occupied, and 29.2 percent of which are owner-occupied. As shown in Table 3-10, approximately 80 percent of ELI households pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing and approximately 73 percent pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Generally, renter-occupied ELI households experience higher rates of overpayment, or cost burden, than owner-occupied ELI households.

2.0%

6.1%

5.2%

1.0%

2.2%

2.2%

0.2%

1.4%

0.8%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
City of Clovis
Fresno County
California

1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 1.51 to 2.00 occupants per room 2.01 or More occupants per room 198
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Table 3-10 Extremely Low-Income Households Overpaying by Tenure, Clovis (2018) Owner
Occupied Percent Renter
Occupied Percent Total Percent
ELI Households with Cost Burden (paying more
than 30% income on housing) 595 76.8% 1,525 81.1% 2,115 79.7% ELI Households with Severe Cost Burden
(paying more than 50% of income on housing) 520 67.1% 1,415 75.3% 1,935 72.9% ELI Households with at least One Housing
Problem 595 76.8% 1,555 82.7% 2,150 81.0%
Total Number of ELI Households 775 - 1,880 - 2,655 -
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2014-18 (5-Year Estimates) Note: Local jurisdictions must supplement HUD’s overpayment data with current data that reflect local market conditions.

State law requires the city to identify the projected need for ELI housing because virtually all ELI households are expected to need aid, including housing subsidies and social services. To calculate the projected housing needs for ELI households, the City assumed that 50 percent of the very low-income housing need (see the “Regional Housing Needs Allocation” Section for more details) is equal to the ELI housing need. As such, in Clovis, there is a projected need for 1,436 ELI housing units during the 2023-2031 planning period.

Households with extremely low incomes have a variety of housing situations and needs. Most ELI households will be seeking rental housing, including more deeply affordable housing types like deed -restricted units and single-room occupancy units. Some ELI households may also have large families or include household members with mental or other disabilities and special needs and require supportive services.

Senior Households
Senior households, defined as households headed by someone 65 or older, often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. As discussed in Section 3.1, “Population and Demographic Profile,” persons 65 years and older made up 17.3 percent of the total Clovis population in 2020.

Consistent with the housing tenure for the total Clovis population, most seniors, or 74 percent, are homeowners.

Homeownership amongst the Clovis senior population is slightly higher than that of Fresno County (71.4 percent) and California (73.2 percent).

Figure 3-12 shows the distribution of senior households by income in Clovis. As depicted in the figure below, nearly 50 percent of senior households have incomes that are less than $50,000 annually. About 16 percent have incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 and 10 percent of senior households in Clovis have a household income of $75,000 to $99,999. The remaining senior households have incomes that are greater than $100,000, with 6.4 percent of seniors with incomes of $200,000 or more.
199
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-17
Figure 3-12 Senior (65 Years and Older) Households by Household Income , Clovis (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B19037.

Most seniors experience some changes in their housing needs as they age, al though the degree to which housing needs change and the type of changes that seniors need as they age vary substantially from one individual to the next. Some examples of senior housing needs include:
• Accessibility Improvements. Many individuals develop a need for physical adaptations to their homes, such as entry ramps or shower grab bars, to improve accessibility and accommodate new physical limitations. • Access to Transit. For many seniors, having access to public transportation and other services become s more important as they age due to decreased mobility or increased difficulty with driving. • Financial Assistance. Seniors with low incomes may need financial assistance to afford rent, property taxes, mortgage payments, or home repairs.
• Long-Term Care. Seniors with more serious medical needs or physical limitations may require in-home care or assisted living as they age.

There are a range of potential living arrangements that seniors may seek out as their housing needs change with age, depending on their specific needs, financial resources, and other factors. These can include remaining in their own homes, potentially with adaptability features or financial assistance; independent living for seniors, which may be market-rate or affordable; and various types of assisted living and skilled nursing facilities with services on-site.

Persons with Disabilities
A disability is defined as a long-lasting condition that impairs an individual’s mobility, ability to work, or ability to perform self-care. Persons with disabilities include those with physical, mental, developmental, or emotional disabilities. Persons with severe disabilities often have special housing needs because of limited incomes and higher health care costs due to their disability.

18.2%

29.8%

15.6%

10.0% 9.6%

4.4%

6.1% 6.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Less Than
$25,000
$25,000 To
$49,999
$50,000 To
$74,999
$75,000 To
$99,999
$100,000 To
$124,999
$125,000 To
$149,999
$150,000 To
$199,999
$200,000 Or
More
200
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Approximately 11 percent of Clovis residents have one or more disability, lower than the countywide population with disabilities (13.1 percent), and slightly higher than the state population with disabilities (10.7 percent). As shown in Figure 3-13, the most common disabilities are ambulatory difficulties and cognitive difficulties, representing 47 and 41 percent of the total population of persons with disabilities, respectively.

Figure 3-13 Disability by Type for Population with a Disability, Clovis (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B18102 - B18107.

Persons with Development Disabilities
State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities.

Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, mild to severe mental retardation, and other cognitive or physical impairments. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.

According to the data from California Department of Developmental Services, 1,259 residents in Clovis had a developmental disability in 2021. A developmental disability could include any of the residents reporting an ambulatory difficulty, independent living difficulty, a cognitive difficulty, a self-care difficulty, or a hearing and vision difficulty as shown in Figure 3-15 above. Of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up nearly 52 percent (or 652 individuals), while adults account for 48 percent (or 607 individuals). The most common living arrangement for individuals with development disabilities in Clovis is the home of a parent /family /guardian (see Table 3-11).

28.1%

21.3%

41.1%

47.1%

22.4%

35.3%
With a Hearing
Difficulty
With a Vision
Difficulty
With a Cognitive
Difficulty
With an
Ambulatory
Difficulty
With a Self-Care
Difficulty
With an
Independent Living
Difficulty
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%Percent of Population with Disabilities
201
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-19
Table 3-11 Population with Development Disabilities by Place of Residence, Clovis, (2020) DDS Data on People with Developmental Disabilities - Residence City of Clovis Fresno County State Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 1,011 8,602 309,381
Independent /Supported Living 85 931 27,881
Community Care Facility 84 666 23,728
Intermediate Care Facility 34 230 6,188
Foster /Family Home 40 369 8,288
Other 5 114 4,792
Source: DDS Quarterly Consumer Report, December 2021.

Housing Needs for Persons with Disabilities
The type of housing that is suitable for persons with disabilities varies substantially based on the nature and extent of the disability. Because households that include people with disabilities are disproportionately lower income, many persons with disabilities need affordable housing options. Some individuals with disabilities may be best served in housing with supportive services that can help them live independently or with licensed care. Design of accessibility modifications, proximity to services and transit, availability of group living opportunities, and affordability are some common considerations that are important for serving this need group. Incorporating “barrier -free” design in all new multi-family housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for residents with disabilities.

The California Department of Developmental Services provides community-based services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. The City of Clovis, along with other jurisdictions in Fresno County, is serviced by the Central Valley Regional Center, which provides a point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities.

Female-Headed Households
Single-parent households typically need services, such as childcare and affordable health care. Female-headed households with children, in particular, tend to have lower incomes than two-parent families, which limits their housing options and access to private services such as childcare services and recreational activities for their children.

The 2016-2020 ACS reported 9,632 female-headed households in Clovis, accounting for 25.5 percent of all households. Of the female-headed households in Clovis, 26.7 percent live with their children. As shown in Figure 3-8 above, Clovis has a lower percentage of female households with children (6.8 percent) than Fresno County (7.3 percent), but a higher percentage than that of California (4.7 percent).

Table 3-12 below shows the poverty status of female-headed households with children, no spouse present. In Clovis, almost 24 percent of female-headed households with children fall below the federal poverty line, a substantially smaller proportion than in the county (44 percent) and the statewide proportion, 31 percent. In comparison, the poverty rate of all households in Clovis is approximately 6 percent which is much lower than that of female-headed households with children (i.e., 23.7 percent).

Table 3-12 Female-Headed Households with Children, No Spouse Present, by Poverty Status (2020) City of Clovis Fresno County California
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Below Poverty Line 896 23.7% 16,010 44.3% 300,472 31.0% Above Poverty Line 2,890 76.3% 20,123 55.7% 667,869 69.0% Total 3,786

36,133

968,341

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B17010 202
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Large Households
Large households, defined as households with five or more members, often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city does not include larger housing options, large households could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In addition, a lack of larger apartment units could cause large households who rent to face overcrowding and more housing insecurity. Approximately 5,388 households, or 14.3 percent of total Clovis households, are large households with 5 or more members. Most large households, 69.2 percent, are owner occupied, and 30.8 percent are renter occupied. Figure 3-14 shows large households by size in Clovis, Fresno County, and California. Clovis has a slightly higher percentage of large households than the state but has a lower percentage of large households than the county.

Large households are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms. Of the 37,726 total occupied housing units in Clovis, about 27,895 units, or 74 percent, have three bedrooms or more. However, most large units are occupied by homeowner households and only 5,442 units with three bedrooms or more are occupied by renter households. Based on this data, there are adequate units for large households who are able to purchase a home, however large households seeking to rent face greater difficulty finding a home that can meet their needs.

Figure 3-14 Percentage of Large Households (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009 Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting the lack of affordable and accessible housing and supportive services. Housing insecurity is a serious issue, and although there are a range of social, economic, and psychological factors, the limited development of affordable housing is one of the main factors contributing to homelessness.

The Fresno-Madera Continuum of Care (FMCoC) conducts two annual surveys to understand homelessness in the Fresno and Madera region. The Point-in-Time Count (PIT) measures how many people are experiencing homelessness and the Housing Inventory Count (HIT) measures how many units of housing assistanc e (e.g.,

8.0%

9.6%

7.8%

4.3%

4.7%

3.3%

1.9%

3.9%

2.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
City of Clovis Fresno County California
5-Person Household 6-Person Household 7-or-More Person Household 203
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-21
emergency shelters) are available. The most recent PIT was conducted on February 23, 2022, and showed that 4,216 people experience homelessness in Fresno and Madera Counties, a 15.8 percent increase from the 2020 PIT. As shown in Figure 3-15, homelessness decreased dramatically from in the late 2000s but has been on the rise since 2015. Of the 4,216 people experiencing homelessness in 2022, 2,338 were unsheltered, 1,524 were in emergency shelters, and 336 were in transitional housing.

Figure 3-15 Fresno City and County/Madera County CoC- Homelessness by Type Over Time (2005-2022)

Source: US HUD, CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2022).

The 2022 PIT found that most people experiencing homelessness in the region, 3,397 people, reside in the city of Fresno and only identified 541 people experiencing homelessness in the remaining portions of Fresno County, including 49 people experiencing homelessness in Clovis (see Table 3-13).

Table 3-13 Estimated Number of People Experiencing Homelessness by Jurisdiction, 2022 Location Total
Clovis 49
Fresno City 3,397
Fresno County (outside of Fresno city) 541
Madera City 223
Madera County (outside of Madera city) 55
Total 4,216
Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 - Fresno-Madera Continuum of Care, 2022.

The 2022 PIT findings also show that approximately 80 percent of people experiencing homelessness in the Fresno and Madera region were single adults, 6 percent were parents, and 11 percent were their children. The remaining 4 percent lived in families that included two or more adults but no children. Approximately 60 percent of people experiencing homelessness were male; nearly half of the region’s unhoused identified as Hispanic/Latino; 19 percent 2,261 787 129 815 1,542
2,649
420 193 145
336
6,734
2,342
1,061
2,681
2,338
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2022
Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Unsheltered
204
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

identified as having a serious mental illness; 15 percent identified as survivors of domestic violence; and 5 percent were identified as veterans. About 25 percent of people experiencing homelessness were “chronically homeless” or have experienced homelessness for at least 12 out of the last 36 months.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the state , particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances.

There are three major types of facilities that provide shelter for homeless individuals and families: emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. These types of facilities are defined below:
• Emergency Shelter provides overnight shelter and fulfills a client’s basic needs (i.e., food, a place to sleep, shower, and/or restroom facilities) either on-site or through off-site services. The permitted length of stay can vary from one day to six months, depending upon whether the shelter is short-term or long-term. Current best practices for addressing homelessness include shifting away from the use of emergency shelters and toward homelessness prevention and rapid-rehousing. This shift has been occurring within the county. • Transitional Housing is a residence that provides housing for up to two years. Residents of transitional housing are usually connected to rehabilitative services, including substance abuse treatment, mental health care, employment services, individual and group counseling, and life skills training. • Permanent Supportive Housing refers to permanent service-enriched affordable housing that is linked with on- going supportive services (on-site or off-site) and is designed to allow formerly homeless clients to live at the facility on an indefinite basis.

While there are no emergency shelters within Clovis, the Marjaree Mason Center operates one safe house in Clovis for victims of domestic violence. The shelter can house up to 30 people. In addition, there are another 73 permanent supportive housing beds that recently were completed and are now fully occupied by individuals with disabilities and at-risk of homelessness.

The Fresno Madera Continuum of Care also coordinates services to the area’s homeless population. Its member agencies are responsible for the Fresno & Madera Regional 10-year Plans to End Homelessness, through: homeless prevention activities, outreach and assessment, emergency housing, transitional housing, health and mental healthcare access, and supportive services. The Continuum of Care also ensures availability of supportive permanent and affordable housing.

Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through seasonal or permanent agricultural labor. Farmworkers are generally considered a special housing needs group due to their limited income and often-unstable nature of their employment. Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers are typically categorized into three groups: 1) permanent, 2) seasonal, and 3) migrant. Permanent farmworkers are typically employed year-round by the same employer. Seasonal farmworkers work on average less than 150 days per year and earn at least half of their earned income from farm work. Migrant farmworkers are seasonal farmworkers who have to travel to do the farm work so they are unable to return to their permanent residence within the same day.

Farmworkers have a difficult time locating affordable housing in Fresno County. Due to a combination of limited English language skills and very low household incomes, the ability to obtain housing loans for home purchase is extremely limited. For the same reasons, rentals are also difficult to obtain. Housing ne eds include permanent family housing as well as accommodations for migrant single men, such as dormitory -style housing, especially during peak labor activity in May through October.
205
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-23
A growing number of migrant workers do not leave California during the no n-farm season, but instead stay in the area and perform non-farm work such as construction and odd jobs. Housing needs of this migrant but non - farmworker population are partially addressed by year-round housing units, but additional migrant units are needed.

Migrant and other seasonal farmworkers usually do not have a fixed physical address and work intermittently in various agricultural and non-agricultural occupations during a single year, with only casual employer-employee links.

Many workers and/or their families live in rural, often remote areas and are reluctant to voice their housing needs and concerns to local government or housing authorities.

Estimating the size of the agricultural labor force is problematic as farmworkers are historically undercou nted by the census and other data sources. For instance, the government agencies that track farm labor do not consistently define farm labor (e.g., field laborers versus workers in processing plants), length of employment (e.g., permanent or seasonal), or place of work (e.g., the location of the business or field). As shown in Table 3 -14, the 2017 USDA Agricultural Census reported 2,540 farms and estimated 37,819 farmworkers in Fresno County.

Most farmworkers were seasonal, working less than 150 days per year.

Table 3-14 Hired Farm Labor (Countywide), 2017
Fresno County
Farms 2,540
Workers 37,819
Source: USDA Agricultural Census, Table 7, 2017.

The USDA Agricultural Census does not provide data on farmworkers at the city level; however, according to the 2017 ACS, there were 661 employees in the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining industry living in Clovis. This would indicate that up to 1.7 percent of permanent farmworkers in Fresno County live in Clovis.

Farmworkers living in urban areas of the county often have similar needs for affordable rental housing as other lower-wage earners.

3.5 Housing Stock Characteristics
This section describes the housing stock in the city of Clovis, including an analysis of development trends, housing conditions, housing prices, and affordability.

The number of housing units in Clovis has more than doubled since 1990, from 18,888 units to 42,576 units in 2020.

Housing growth was highest in the early 2000s but dropped during the recession in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

Since 2015, housing production has increased and in 2020 the rate of housing growth surpassed 2000 levels. Figure 3-16 shows the total number of housing units and percent change over time for Clovis. 206
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-16 Total Housing Units, Clovis (1990 to 2020)

Source: Department of Finance, Table E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2022.

Housing Unit Types
Of the 45,835 housing units in Clovis in 2022, detached single family homes make up the largest proportion, accounting for nearly 75 percent. This proportion of detached single family homes is higher than that of Fresno County (68 percent), and substantially higher than that of California (57 percent). The proportion of multifamily homes with 5 or more units in Clovis (14 percent) is slightly less than that of Fresno County (16 percent). However, both Clovis and Fresno County have a substantially smaller proportion of multifamily units than California as a whole (24 percent). Clovis also has a lower proportion of mobile homes (2.1 percent) than both Fresno County (4.3 percent) and the state (3.9 percent). Table 3-15 shows housing units by type in Clovis, Fresno County, and California.

Table 3-15 Total Housing Units by Type (2022)

City of Clovis Fresno County California
Housing Units Percent of
Total Units Housing Units Percent of
Total Units Housing Units Percent of
Total Units
Total 45,835 343,513 14,583,998
Single Family, Detached 33,919 74.0% 233,817 68.1% 8,341,577 57.2% Single Family, Attached 783 1.7% 7,594 2.2% 1,010,851 6.9% Multifamily, 2 to 4 units 3692 8.1% 34,288 10% 1,168,669 8.0% Multifamily, 5 or more units 6458 14.1% 53,118 15.5% 3,500,674 24.0% Mobile Home 984 2.1% 14,695 4.3% 562,223 3.9%
Source: Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, 2022. 11,327
14,741 16,758
22,112
25,505 27,808
31,9916,682
7,133
7,450
7,925
8,762
9,263
9,625
879
897
915
936
959
960
960

20.6%

10.3%

23.3%

13.7%

8.0%

12.0%
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Total Housing Units
Percent Change
Single Family Multifamily Mobile Homes Percent Change
207
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-25
Figure 3-17, below, shows the number of housing units in Clovis by type from 1990 through 2022. As shown, the growth in single family units substantially outpaced that of multifamily units and mobile homes. The number of single family homes has tripled since 1990, while the number of multifamily units has only increased by 52 percent and mobile homes have only increased by 12 percent.

Figure 3-17 Total Housing Units by Type Over Time, Clovis (2010 to 2020)

Source: Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, 2021. 2022.

Housing Age
The age of a community’s housing stock can provide a general indicator of overall housing conditions. In general, housing units over 30 years in age are likely to exhibit signs of rehabilitation needs, such as new roofing, foundation work, and new plumbing. Approximately 54 percent of the Clovis housing stock was built in 1990 or later. T he largest proportion of the housing stock (8,528 units) was built in the early 2000s (see Figure 3-18 below). One-third of homes in Clovis were built between 1970 and 1989 and may need repair during the Housing Element planning period. In addition, approximately 12 percent of homes were built prior to 1970. If not already rehabilitated, these homes will likely need repair.
11,327
14,741
16,758
22,112
25,505
27,808
31,991
34,702
6,682 7,133 7,450 7,925 8,762 9,263 9,62510,150
879 897 915 936 959 960 960 984
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Housing Units
Year
Single Family Multifamily Mobile Homes
208
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-18 Total Occupied Housing Units by Year Built, Clovis (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25036.

Vacancy Rate
A vacancy rate measures the overall housing availability in a community and is often a good indicator of how efficiently for-sale and rental housing units are meeting the current demand for housing. As of 2020, 4.2 percent of housing units, or 1,649 units, were vacant; much lower than the Fresno County vacancy rate of 7 percent and the California vacancy rate of 7.8 percent. The lower overall vacancy rate in Clovis is due in part to the smaller number of units that are for seasonal or recreational use as well as the higher proportion of ownership housing, which tends to have a lower vacancy rate compared to rental housing. Of the vacant units in Clovis, 34 percent are identified as available for rent, 20 percent are identified as for sale, and 10 percent are held vacant for seasonal, recreational or occasional use (see Figure 3-19 below). In Clovis, the ownership housing vacancy rate is about 1.6 percent, while the rental housing vacancy rate is 5.4 percent.
3,354
2,086
8,528
6,434
5,634
7,106
2,508
1,304
297 475
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2014 Or
Later
2010 To
2013
2000 To
2009
1990 To
1999
1980 To
1989
1970 To
1979
1960 To
1969
1950 To
1959
1940 To
1949
1939 Or
Earlier
209
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-27
Figure 3-19 Percent of Total Vacant Units by Type (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25004.

Note: The US Census provides the following definitions:
- For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use: These are vacant units used or intended for use only in certain seasons or for weekends or other occasional use throughout the year. Seasonal units include those used for summer or winter sports or recreation, such as beach cottages and hunting cabins. Seasonal units also may include quarters for such workers as herders and loggers. Interval ownership units, sometimes called shared-ownership or timesharing condominiums, also are included here. - For Migrant Workers: These include vacant units intended for occupancy by migratory workers employed in farm work during the crop season. (Work in a cannery, a freezer plant, or a food-processing plant is not farm work.) - Other Vacant: If a vacant unit does not fall into any of the categories specified above, it is classified as "Other vacant." For example, this category includes units held for occupancy by a caretaker or janitor, and units held for personal reasons of the owner.

Substandard Housing Conditions
Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. The ACS provides some sense of substandard housing conditions, as shown in Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21. There are lower percentages of housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities in Clovis compared to the county and state. Similarly, the percentage of owner-occupied housing units lacking complete kitchen facilities in near 0 percent, less than that of the region and state. However, just over 1 percent of renter-occupied housing units in Clovis lack complete kitchen facilities, slightly higher than both the county and the state. 34%
21% 21%
11%
6% 5%
20%
10%
7%
4%
4%
5%
11%
24% 34%

0.0%

1.4%

0.3%
21%
33%
28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City of Clovis Fresno County California Other Vacant
For Migrant Workers
For Seasonal, Recreational, Or Occasional
Use
Sold, Not Occupied
For Sale Only
Rented, Not Occupied
For Rent
210
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-20 Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities by Tenure (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25049.

Figure 3-21 Occupied Housing Units Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities (2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25053.

0.07%

0.14%0.13%

0.22%

0.10%

0.30%

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

0.35%
Owner Occupied, Lacking Plumbing Facilities Renter Occupied, Lacking Plumbing Facilities City of Clovis
Fresno County
California

0.15%

1.09%

0.13%

0.76%

0.20%

1.00%

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%
Owner Occupied, Lacking Complete Kitchen
Facilities
Renter Occupied, Lacking Complete Kitchen
Facilities
City of Clovis
Fresno County
California
211
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-29
Housing Conditions Survey
In July 2020, the City of Clovis conducted a survey to assess the extent of housing rehabilitation needs in Clovis in response to Goal 3 of the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element. The City surveyed 6,059 randomly selected properties, representing approximately 20 percent of the total housing units in Clovis. The survey focused on the condition of roofing, siding, and windows or doors for single family residential units and did not include any multifamily residential units. The survey also looked at the condition of curbs, sidewalks, and porches or stairs. Note that units with missing portions or no sidewalk were included in the poor rating. Each category was rated as good, medium, or poor. Note that units with missing portions or no sidewalk were included in the poor rating. Overall, the survey found that homes in Clovis are in good condition, with scores of 90 percent or higher in all categories (see Table 3-16).

Table 3-16 Clovis Housing Conditions Survey Results (2020) All Groups Good (housing units) Medium (housing units) Poor (housing units) Average Score Roof 4,878 1,092 89 93%
Windows 5,457 562 37 97%
Siding 4,905 1,072 81 93%
Curbs 6,027 28 4 100%
Sidewalk 5,258 50 751 91%
Porch/Stairs 5,901 139 19 99%
Total Housing Units Surveyed 6,059 Overall Score 96%
Source: City of Clovis, Housing Survey Report, July 2020.

As anticipated, the survey found that older homes built in 1960 or earlier had some of the lowest scores, while newer homes built in 2001 or later tended to have the highest scores. The survey did not provide a score of the condition of units overall, rather the survey focused on individual aspects of a home (i.e., roof, window, siding). One unit may have been recorded as having poor roof conditions and poor siding conditions. Therefore, to avoid double counting the same unit, this analysis focuses on roof conditions. The survey identified 89 housing units with roofs in poor condition making up approximately 1.5 percent of all units surveyed. Applying this percentage to the total number of housing units in Clovis (45,835) would suggest that around 690 units might require rehabilitation.

3.6 Housing Costs and Affordability
The cost of housing is directly related to the extent of housing problems in a community. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, there will be a correspondingly higher prevalence of overpayment and overcrowding. This section summarizes the cost and affordability of the housing stock to Clovis residents.

Home Values and Market Trends
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages, and job outlook, coupled with the land and construction costs. Data from the ACS, shown in Figure 3-22 below, indicates that median home values have increased since 1980 with the largest increase in home value occurring from 2000 to 2010 (i.e., a 158 percent increase). From 2010 through 2020, home values continued to rise although at a much slower rate. As of 2020, the ACS estimates the median home value in Clovis at $341,800. The 2020 median home value in Clovis is higher than the Fresno County median home value of $271,000, but much lower than state median home value of $538,500.
212
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-22 Median Housing Value and Percent Change Over Time, Clovis (1980-2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, Census 1980(ORG STF1), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077.

Home values have continued to rise since 2020. Figure 3-23 shows the Zillow Home Value Index from 2012 to 2022 and indicates a substantial increase in home values from 2020 through 2022. As of July 2022, the Zillow Home Value Index for Clovis is $511,511. This increase in home values since 2020 mirrors trends seen in both the city of Fresno and California as a whole and reflects changes to the economy and housing needs in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
$66,700
$92,300
$122,100
$314,700
$341,800

38.38%

32.29%
157.74%

8.61%
-50.00%

0.00%

50.00%
100.00%
150.00%
200.00%
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Percent Change
Median Housing Value (Dollars)*
Median Value (Dollars) of Owner Occupied Homes Percent Change 213
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-31
Figure 3-23 Zillow Home Value Index, 2022

Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow.

Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), July 2022.

Rent Values and trends
Rents in Clovis are higher than rents in the region, but lower than the statewide average. According to the 2020 ACS, median rents are $1,247 in Clovis, $1,209 in Fresno County, and $1,586 in California as a whole. Between 2010 and 2020, Clovis saw a 31 percent increase in rents, from $951 to $1,247 (see Figure 3-24), although the rate of rent increase from 2010 to 2020 is lower than the decade prior. $223,000
$364,000
$511,000
$144,000
$264,000
$375,000
$308,000
$567,000
$788,000
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Clovis Fresno (city) California
214
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-24 Median Gross Rent and Percent Change Over Time, Clovis (1980-2020)

Source: US Census Bureau, Census 1980(ORG STF3), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25064.

Zumper provides more current data on rent prices in Clovis. As shown in Table 3-17, rents in Clovis have continued to increase from the 2020 ACS estimates. As of February 2023, average rents for smaller units range between $1,450 for a studio apartment to $1,594 for a two-bedroom unit. Rent prices for larger units (3 or 4 bedrooms) range between $2,295 and $2,596 on average. Note: the large percentage increase in the studio rental rate may be due to a small sample size, as studio units are relatively rare in Clovis. ).

Table 3-17 Average Rent, Clovis (2022-2023)
Unit Type Average Rent (February 2023) Average Rent (February 2022) % Change from 2022 Studio $1,450 $1,100 32%
One Bedroom $1,428 $1,659 -14%
Two Bedroom $1,594 $1,644 -3%
Three Bedroom $2,295 $2,206 4%
Four Bedroom $2,596 $2,397 8%
Source: Zumper Data accessed at https://www.zumper.com in February 2023.

Housing Affordability
The affordability of housing in Clovis can be assessed by comparing market rents and sales prices with the amount that households of different income levels can afford to pay for housing. This information can reveal who can afford what size and type of housing.

Housing is classified as “affordable” if households pay no more than 30 percent of their income for rent (including a monthly allowance for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly homeownership costs (including mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance). Since above moderate-income households do not generally have problems finding affordable units, affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that are low to moderate income. $580
$951
$1,247
22%
64%
31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
2000 2010 2020
Percent Change
Median Gross Rent
Median Gross Rent Percent Change
215
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-33
This section describes the ability of households at different income levels to pay for housing based on HCD 202 2 income limits. Table 3-18 shows the 2022 HCD income limits for Fresno County. The AMI for a four-person household in the county was $80,300 in 2022. Income limits for larger or smaller households were higher or lower, respectively, and are calculated using a formula developed by HUD.

Table 3-18 HUD/HCD Income Limits based on Persons per Household, Fresno County (2022) Income Categories
Persons per Households
1 2 3 4 5 6
Acutely Low (15% AMI and lower) $8,450 $9,650 $10,850 $12,050 $13,000 $14,000 Extremely Low (16-30% AMI) $16,350 $18,700 $23,030 $28,750 $32,470 $37,190 Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) $27,300 $31,200 $35,100 $38,950 $42,100 $45,200 Low Income (51-80% AMI) $43,650 $49,850 $56,100 $62,300 $67,300 $72,300 Median Income (100% AMI) $56,200 $64,250 $72,250 $80,300 $86,700 $93,150 Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) $67,450 $77,100 $86,700 $96,350 $104,050 $111,750 Source: CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2022 Table 3-19 shows maximum affordable monthly rents and maximum affordable purchase prices for homes using 202 2 State income limits for extremely low- to moderate-income households in Fresno County (including Clovis). Because mortgage interest rates have been increasing in recent years, the table shows affordable purchase prices at two different interest rates: 4.5 percent and 7 percent. As shown in the table, a three-person household with an annual income of $56,100 is classified as low income in 2022. A household with this income could afford to pay a monthly gross rent (including utilities) of up to $1,403 or could afford to purchase a home priced at or below $223,968 with an interest rate of 4.5 percent or $172,577 with an interest rate of 7 percent. Market-rate rents for apartments in Clovis are generally higher than the rental rates that low-income households can afford and are significantly higher than what very low- or extremely low-income households can afford. However, market-rate rents are generally affordable to moderate-income households. A moderate household of 4 persons could afford to purchase a home priced at or below $448,768 with an interest rate of 4.5 percent or $345,795 with an interest rate of 7 percent. This is less than the Redfin July 2022 median home sale price of $475,000. While home prices were generally affordable to moderate - income households in recent years when interest rates were closer to 3 or 4 percent, with the recent increase in interest rates, median priced homes are now out of reach for moderate-income households. However, ownership housing in Clovis is generally more affordable than most other areas of California.

216
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Table 3-19 Ability to Pay for Housing Based on HCD Income Limits, Fresno County (2022) Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely Low-Income Households at 30% of Median Family Income Income Level $16,350 $18,700 $23,030 $27,750 $32,470 $37,190 Max. Monthly Gross Rent 1 $409 $468 $576 $694 $812 $930 Max. Purchase
Price 2

4.5% interest $65,274 $74,656 $91,943 $110,786 $129,630 $148,474 7% interest $50,297 $57,526 $70,846 $85,366 $99,886 $114,405 Very Low-Income Households at 50% of Median Family Income Income Level $27,300 $31,200 $35,100 $38,950 $42,100 $45,200 Max. Monthly Gross Rent 1 $683 $780 $878 $974 $1,053 $1,130 Max. Purchase
Price 2

4.5% interest $108,990 $124,560 $140,130 $155,500 $168,076 $180,452 7% interest $83,981 $95,979 $107,976 $119,820 $129,510 $139,046 Low-Income Households at 80% of Median Family Income
Income Level $43,650 $49,850 $56,100 $62,300 $67,300 $72,300 Max. Monthly Gross Rent 1 $1,091 $1,246 $1,403 $1,558 $1,683 $1,808 Max. Purchase
Price 2

4.5% interest $174,264 $199,016 $223,968 $248,721 $268,682 $288,644 7% interest $134,278 $153,351 $172,577 $191,650 $207,031 $222,412 Moderate-Income Households at 120% of Median Family Income Income Level $67,450 $77,100 $86,700 $96,350 $104,050 $111,750 Max. Monthly Gross Rent 1 $1,967 $2,249 $2,529 $2,810 $3,035 $3,259 Max. Purchase
Price 2

4.5% interest $314,161 $359,108 $403,822 $448,768 $484,632 $520,497 7% interest $242,075 $276,708 $311,162 $345,795 $373,430 $401,065 Notes: Incomes based on HCD State Income Limits for 2022; FY 2022 AMI: $80,300. 1 Assumes that 30 percent of income is available for either: monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners insurance
2 Assumes 95 percent loan (i.e., 5 percent down payment) and 30-year term; assumes taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’ insurance account for 21 percent of total monthly payments Source: CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2022 and Ascent, 2022.

Overpayment
Overpayment, also known as housing cost burden, is a critical issue for many households of various income levels.

Overpayment occurs when households spend more than 30 percent of gross monthly income on housing. Severe overpayment or cost burden occurs when housing costs represent more than 50 percent of gross monthly income.

Lower-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Paying too much for housing puts lower-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or eventually homelessness.

Figure 3-25, below, shows approximately 32 percent of households in Clovis experience high housing costs relative to their household incomes. Overpayment is more common in renter-occupied households than in owner-occupied households, with about 45 percent of renter households experiencing overpayment, 24 percent of which experi ence severe overpayment. Only about 24 percent of owner households experienced overpayment, 9 percent of which experienced severe overpayment. Overpayment is more prevalent in lower-income households, with 74 percent of lower-income households (earning less than 80 percent of AMI) experiencing overpayment (see Figure 3-26). 217
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-35
Figure 3-25 Overpayment by Tenure, Clovis (2018)

Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2014-18 (5-Year Estimates).

Figure 3-26 Lower-Income Households Overpaying by Tenure, Clovis (2018)

Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2014-18 (5-Year Estimates).

3.7 Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
State housing element law requires an analysis of the potential for rent-restricted low-income housing units to convert to market-rate housing within 10 years from the start of the planning period, and to propose programs to preserve or replace any units at risk of conversion, also known as “at-risk units”. This section presents an inventory of all affordable rental housing in Clovis and identifies those units at risk of conversion by 2033.

Assisted Housing Inventory
Table 3-20 presents the inventory of publicly-assisted affordable rental housing in Clovis. As of 2022, there are 582 rent-restricted affordable units in 9 housing developments. The table indicates the affordability levels for each development. Of the rent-restricted units, 260 units (45 percent) are at risk of expiration and conversion to market rate by 2033. The projects with expiring affordable units are Cottonwood Grove (30 units), Silver Ridge (100 units), and Lexington Square (130 units).

14.7% 20.5% 17.0%

9.4%

24.3%

15.2%

24.1%

44.9%

32.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total
Cost Burden >30% to <=50% Cost Burden >50%

22.0% 27.0% 25.1%

44.4%

51.8% 49.1%

66.4%

78.7% 74.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total
Cost Burden > 30% to <=50% Cost Burden >50%
218
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

Cottonwood Grove is an apartment community with 150 total units, of which 30 are rent-restricted affordable to very low- and extremely low-income households. The affordability restriction on the affordable units is set to expire in 2033. Silver Ridge is a senior housing development for persons 62 years of age or older. Of the 1 00 total units in the development, all are rent restricted to very low- and extremely low- income senior households, making 50 percent or less than the AMI. The affordability period for these units is projected to expire in 2029. Lexington Square is located just east of Fresno State University. All 130 units in the development are rent-restricted affordable to households making 60 percent or less of the AMI and are set to expire in 2029. In addition, Sierra Ridge, which has a total of 180 mixed-income units, has 37 affordable units that expired on December 31, 2022 (prior to the start of the planning period); however, the property manager seems to still be charging below market rents. The City has been in contact with the property managers, and they do not intend to preserve any of the affordable units; therefore, Sierra Ridge was not included in Table 3-19 below.

Table 3-20 Inventory of Assisted Affordable Units, Clovis (2022) Name Address Age
Restrictions
Affordability
Level # of Units # of Affordable
units
Affordable Units
Expiration (At Risk –
Y/N)
Cottonwood Grove 732 N. Clovis Ave 50% AMI 150 30 2033 (Yes) Coventry Cove 190 N. Coventry 50% AMI 140 28 2059 (No) Hotchkiss Terrace 51 Barstow Ave. 62+ 50% AMI 74 74 2059 (No) Roseview Terrace 101 Barstow Ave. 62+ 50% AMI 59 59 2065 (No) Silver Ridge 88 N. Dewitt Ave. 62+ 80% AMI 100 100 2029 (Yes) The Willows 865 W. Gettysburg 60% AMI 77 77 2060 (No)
Lexington Square 1300 Minnewawa 60% AMI 130 130 2029 (Yes) Magnolia Crossing 22, 32, 42 Sierra Ave. 80% AMI 48 24 2072 (No) Solivita Commons 725 W. Alluvial 60% AMI 60 60 2076 (No) Total 838 582
“At-Risk” Units 260
Source: City of Clovis, 2022.

Preservation of At-Risk Rental Units
This section evaluates the affordable rental units in Clovis at risk of converting to market-rate rents by 2033. As presented in Table 3-18, Clovis has 260 rental units which are projected to expire during this period, of which 100 units are senior housing.

While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Once the affordability period expires, these households will need additional help to stay in their homes. Typically, it is faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing. Preservation and replacement options typically include provision of tenant rental assistance; acquisition or construction of replacement units; or transfer of ownership to a non-profit. Each of these options is described below.

Acquisition or Transfer of Ownership
Transferring ownership of an at-risk project to a non-profit housing provider is generally one of the least costly ways to ensure that the at-risk units remain affordable for the long term. By transferring property ownership to a non - profit organization, affordability restrictions can be secured, and the project would become potentially eligible for a greater range of governmental assistance.
219
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 3-37
This preservation option, however, is not feasible for all of the at-risk affordable units in Clovis since the at-risk units in Cottonwood Grove are located within larger market-rate developments, and it is not likely that the for-profit companies would be willing to sell the property.

Rental Assistance
Rent subsidies are another potential method for preserving affordability. Through a variety of funding sources, the City could potentially provide rental vouchers similar to those provided through the Housing Choice Vouchers program (formerly Section 8). The level of subsidy required to preserve at-risk affordable housing through rent subsidies is estimated to equal the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a lower - income household. Table 3-21 shows this calculation to estimate the rent subsidies required to preserve 260 affordable units. Based on the estimates and assumptions shown in the table, approximately $ 308,750 annually would be required to preserve the expiring affordable units or $9,262,500 for 30 years of subsidy.

Table 3-21 Estimated Cost to Subsidize Rents, Clovis (2022) Per Unit Affordable Rent1
Unit Size
Total
1BR 4 2BR 3BR
A Low-Income Rent (80% AMI) $1,169 $1,324 $1,480
B Very Low-Income Rent (50% AMI) $731 $829 $926
C Average (A & B) $950 $1,077 $1,203
D Per Unit Fair Market Rent2 $904 $1,137 $1,607
E Monthly Per Unit Subsidy (D–C) $0 $60 $404
F Annual Subsidy/Unit (E * 12) $0 $725 $4,850
Total “At Risk” Units3 130 78 52 260
Total Annual Subsidy $0 $56,550 $252,200 $308,750
1 Affordable rent calculation is based on 1.5 persons per bedroom. 2 2022 HUD Fair Market Rent.
3 Assumes 50% of total “At Risk” units are 1-bedroom, 30% are 2-bedroom, and 20% are 3-bedroom. 4 No subsidy is needed because the per unit fair market rent is below the amount affordable to lower-income households for a 1- bedroom unit.

AMI = Area Median Income
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, Fair Market Rents 2022; Ascent 2022.

Another way rent subsidies could be structured is as a rent buy-down. This would involve the City providing a one- time assistance loan to the property owner to cover the present value of the decrease in rents associated with the extended affordability term compared with market rents achievable on the units. This approach offers a benefit to the owner in that they receive cash upfront from the loan, providing funds for rehabilitation improvements.

Construction of Replacement Units
New construction is often more expensive than acquisition and rehab. The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, size of the units, location, land costs, and type of construction. According to a report by the Terner Center2, the average cost statewide to develop a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit funded affordable housing development was $480,000 per unit in 2019. While lower than the rest of the state, inland areas (including the Central Valley) experienced the greatest percent increase in development costs since the recession.

According to the report, the average cost to build an affordable unit in the greater i nland area was about $400,000

2 The Costs of Affordable Housing Production: Insights from California’s 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Terner Center for Housing Innovation. U.C. Berkeley. March 2020. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/LIHTC_Construction_Costs_2020.pdf 220
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Housing Needs Assessment

per unit in 2019. Assuming an average cost of $400,000 per unit, it would cost an estimated $104 million to replace the 260 at-risk units. Any new affordable housing development would require public subsidy.

Comparison of Preservation Options
The cost of new construction of replacement units is highest at approximately $118.8 million. In comparison, the annual costs of providing rental subsidies to preserve the 297 assisted units are relatively low ($308,750 annually or $9,262,500 over 30 years).

Entities Qualified to Preserve At-Risk Units
HCD maintains a list of organizations interested in participating in the state’s Opportunity to Purchase and Right of First Refusal program. The entities registered for Fresno County are listed in Table 3 -22.

Table 3-22 Qualified Entities, Fresno County, December 2021 Organization City
Fresno Housing Fresno
Fresno Housing Authority Fresno
ACLC, Inc Stockton
Better Opportunities Builder, Inc. Fresno
Fresno Co. Economic Opportunities Commission Fresno
The East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU) Los Angeles ROEM Development Corporation Santa Clara
Self-Help Enterprises Visalia
Volunteers of America National Services Sacramento
L + M Fund Management LLC Westchester, NY
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), December 2021.

221
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-1
CHAPTER 4 | Assessment of Fair Housing

4.1 Introduction
Throughout California, community amenities and access to opportunities are not always equitably accessible or attainable due to different social, economic, or cultural barriers in society. Because of this imbalance, it is important to ensure that sites for housing, particularly lower-income units, are available throughout Clovis and where residents have fair and equitable access to amenities and opportunities. This chapter provides an assess ment of fair housing to ensure Clovis plans for housing, particularly lower-income housing, with specific consideration of access to jobs, good education, health services, and transportation.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Government Code Chapter 15 Section 8899.50, signed into law in 2018 under Assembly Bill (AB) 686, requires all public agencies in California to “administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” This means cities and counties must take deliberate actions to address disparities in housing needs, access to opportunity, and settlement pattern s for protected populations.

Consistent with Government Code Section 65583, housing elements are required to address the following components:

1. Inclusive and Equitable Outreach: Local jurisdictions must make a diligent effort to equitably include all community stakeholders in the housing element participation process.

2. Assessment of Fair Housing: All housing elements must include an assessment of integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

3. Analysis of Sites Inventory: Local jurisdictions must evaluate and address how particular sites available for housing development will meet the needs of households at all income levels. The housing element must analyze and conclude whether the identified sites improve or exacerbate fair housing issues in the community.

4. Identification of Contributing Factors: Based on findings from the previous steps, housing elements must identify, evaluate, and prioritize the contributing factors related to fair housing issues.

5. Policies and Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: Local jurisdictions must adopt fair housing policies and actions that are significant, meaningful, and sufficient to overcome identified patterns of segregation and affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). The housing element should include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress and fair housing results.

Assessment of Fair Housing
This chapter serves as an assessment of fair housing practices in the City and has been prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10). It examines existing conditions and demographic patterns within the City , including concentrated areas of poverty, concentrated areas of low- and median- income housing, and areas of low and high opportunity. Information on Clovis is also compared to regional trends, describing settlement patterns across the Central Valley. The analysis is primarily based on data from the ACS, the HCD AFFH Tool, and the City’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2019).
222
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

4.2 Notes on Geospatial Analysis
In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximately by census tracts. Census tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data. However, where available, some of the analysis uses data derived from a smaller geographic scale (i.e., census block groups) to better show spatial difference in which different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts. Fresno County is used as the primary point of comparison for regional trends. References to the “Central Valley” refer to the San Joaquin basin within Fresno County.

4.3 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to ensure community members are aware of fair housing laws and rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing.

Fair Housing Complaints
The City complies with federal and state fair housing laws, which are enforced by HUD and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (FEH). Both the City and Fresno County refer discrimination complaints to FEH, which dual files fair housing cases with HUD’s Region IX Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), as part of the Fair Housing Assistance Program. In Fresno County, the most common types of housing discrimination complaints between 2006 and 2020 were discrimination on the basis of disability or race (see Table 4-1). Of the total number of the race discrimination complaints, the vast majority of complaints were based on discrimination on the basis of Black or African-American race (62 complaints out of a total of 72 race discrimination complaints).

Table 4-1 Housing Discrimination Complaints Filed with HUD, Fresno County, 2006-2020 Basis of Complaint Number of Complaints
Race 72
Color 7
National origin 28
Disability 136
Familial status 38
Religion 5
Sex 24
Retaliation 39
Source: HUD FHEO 2020
Similarly, discrimination on the basis of disability was the most common type of housing complaint filed with FHEO in the City between 2015 and 2019, as shown in Table 4-2 below. FHEO reported that a total of 12 complaints were filed in the City during this time period. As of September 2019, eight cases were closed within the five- year reporting period, six were determined to not have cause, two were settled, and the remaining four have not been closed.

223
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-3
Table 4-2 Housing Discrimination Complaints Filed with HUD, City of Clovis, 2015-2019 Filing Date Status Closure Date Closure Reason Basis Issues 4/21/15 Closed 3/14/16 No cause
determination
Religion Discriminatory refusal to rent; Discriminatory advertising, statements and notices
9/24/15 Closed 7/1/16 No cause
determination
Disability Failure to make reasonable accommodation
10/27/15 Open N/A N/A Disability Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning and land use 1/27/16 Closed 1/6/17 No cause
determination
Familial
status
Discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate for rental; discriminatory advertising, statements and notices
4/5/16 Open N/A N/A Disability Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning and land use 11/7/16 Closed 8/16/17 No cause
determination
Disability Discriminatory refusal to rent; discriminatory advertising, statements, and notices
3/22/17 Closed 4/20/17 Conciliation/
settlement
successful
Disability Discriminatory advertising, statements and notices; discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities; discriminatory acts under Section 818
5/18/17 Closed 5/18/18 No cause
determination
National
origin,
Disability
Discriminatory advertising, statements, and notices;
discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities; discriminatory acts under Section 818
8/2/18 Closed 10/18/18 Conciliation/
settlement
success
Religion Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities
9/25/18 Closed 11/26/18 No cause
determination
Race Discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges relating to rental; other discriminatory acts
3/14/19 Open N/A N/A Sex,
Retaliation
Other discriminatory acts
3/14/19 Open N/A N/A Retaliation Discriminatory acts under Section 181 (coercion, etc .) Source: City of Clovis Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2019.

Martinez v. City of Clovis et al.

In 2019 , Central California Legal Services (CCLS), on behalf of a local citizen, filed suit in the Fresno County Superior Court against the City of Clovis alleging that the City’s Housing Element was out of compliance with state law by failing to meet a commitment in the 2016 Housing Element to provide an adequate supply of suitably zoned land for lower-income housing development.
1 The complaint also alleged that the inadequate supply of land zoned for affordable housing is discriminatory towards people based on race and income, in violation of both federal fair housing law and state law. The Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the City’s application of the RHN zoning overlay did not sufficiently meet the City’s obligation to provide suitably zoned land for housing affordable to lower-income households. The Court, however, did not find that the City’s housing policy violated federal fair housing law or that its actions were discriminatory. The City contends that its Housing Element is in full compliance with all regulations governing affordable housing, and this matter is currently on appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
2 Fair Housing-Related Outreach
As discussed in Chapter 1, “Introduction”, the City conducted extensive community outreach through the Housing Element update process to obtain input from a diverse array of community members and stakeholders. Community

1 Desiree Martinez v. City of Clovis, et al., Fresno County Sup. Ct. Case No. 19CECG03855 2 Fifth District Court of Appeal Case No. F082914
224
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

workshops were held in person, and live translation services were made available to reduce language barriers.

Community engagement notifications and flyers, community workshops, and the online survey were provided in English and Spanish. In addition, the project website enabled language translation in the web browser and included accessibility features for those who are visually impaired. Notes and summaries from community workshops were uploaded to the project website. During the housing element update process, community members expressed concerns related to fair housing issues: rising cost of housing for both renters and prospective homebuyers, availability of affordable housing and housing for seniors, homelessness, and a perceived lack of opportunity for community input. Additional details on the community engagement opportunities, including the online survey results, are available in Chapter 1.

4.4 Patterns of Residential Integration and Segregation Race and Ethnicity
Fresno County has grown in diversity in recent decades and has higher shares of Hispanic/Latino (53.4 percent) and Asian residents (10.4 percent) than the national average (18.4 percent and 5.7 percent respectively) according to ACS estimates. Figure 4-1 shows the spatial distribution of non-White populations by block group in the region. Generally, patterns of settlement indicate most of Fresno County is predominantly non-White, with large clusters of block groups in the City of Fresno and areas adjacent to State Route (SR) 5 and SR 99 reporting more than 81 percent of their population as non-White. As shown in Figure 4-2, Hispanic residents tend to make up a majority of the population in these areas, either by a sizeable or predominant margin. In contrast, White residents tend to make up a majority of the population in the areas extending east of the City of Fresno to the County’s eastern border, either by a sizeable or predominant margin.

As of 2020, the City of Clovis has a population of over 120,000, with a sizable growth of 138 percent of its total population since 1990. According to ACS data, the largest racial group in Clovis’ population is non-Hispanic White (49.5 percent). One third of residents were Hispanic/Latino (32.7 percent) and roughly one in ten residents were Asian (10.7 percent). Clovis’ non-Hispanic Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native residents comprises 2.7 percent and 1 percent of the City’s population, respectively. As of 2017, 12 percent of the City’s population was foreign-born.

Figure 4-3 shows the concentrations of the total non-White population by block group in Clovis. Unlike Fresno County, there are no block groups where non-White residents make up more than 81 percent of the population.

However, there are several block groups in the southern area of the City where the total non-White population makes up between 61 percent and 81 percent of the population, particularly in Historic Helm Ranch and Cougar Estates. As shown in Figure 4-4, these census tracts are consistent with areas where the non-Hispanic White population is the predominant racial/ethnic group by the slimmest margins in the City (by less than 10 percent) White residents outnumber non-White residents by the most significant margins in several block groups particularly in the northern and eastern areas of the City, such as the Dry Creek, Heritage Grove, Valencia Grove and Loma Vista neighborhoods.

Although Clovis remains less diverse than Fresno County as a whole, the City has experienced significant changes in the demographic composition of its population. Between 1990 and 2020, following statewide trends, the non-White share of the City’s population has increased steadily, while the percentage of non- Hispanic White residents has decreased from two-thirds (67.5 percent) in 1990 to half (49.5 percent) of the City’s population in 2020. The City’s Asian population experienced the largest increase in the relative share of the City’s total population, from 6.3 percent in 1990 to 10.7 percent in 2020. Clovis’ growing diversity is reflected in Figure 4-5 which shows 2010 and 2018 Diversity Index scores by block group in the City. The Diversity Index summarizes racial and ethnic diversity, where 100 reflects perfect diversity and 0 reflects complete homogeneity. This index score approximates the likelihood that two randomly selected people within a geographic area are from the same racial or ethnic background. Figure 4-5 indicates that the City has become more diverse as a whole over time, with areas of higher diversity consistent with areas with a predominantly non-White population.
225
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-5
Figure 4-1 Percent of Total Non-White Population, Fresno County, 2018

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 226
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-2 Predominant Population by Racial/Ethnic Majority, Fresno County, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 227
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-7
Figure 4-3 Percent of Total Non-White Population, Clovis, 2018

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 228
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-4 Predominant Population by Racial/Ethnic Majority, Clovis, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 229
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-9
Figure 4-5 Diversity Index, Clovis, 2010 and 2018

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 230
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-11
Dissimilarity Index
The dissimilarity index (DI) provides another measure of the magnitude of segregation within a city or county. The DI measures the degree to which two specific groups are distributed across a geographic area. The DI varies between 0 and 100 and measures the percentage of one group that would have to move across neighborhoods to be distributed the same way as the second group. A dissimilarity index of 0 indicates conditions of total integration under which both groups are distributed in the same proportions across all neighborhoods. A dissimilarity index of 100 indicates conditions of total segregation such that the members of one group are locat ed in completely different neighborhoods than the second group. For example, if an index score is above 60, more than 60 percent of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation. The following can be used to interpret the index:
 <40: Low Segregation
 40-54: Moderate Segregation
 >55: High Segregation
It is important to note that the DI uses non-Hispanic White residents as the primary comparison group. That is, all DI values compare racial and ethnic groups against the distribution of non -Hispanic White residents and do not directly measure segregation between two minority groups (e.g., Black and Hispanic/Latino segregation).

Generally, the City has low levels of racial/ethnic segregation according to the DI . According to the DI, the highest levels of racial segregation within Clovis are between Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Black residents and non-Hispanic White residents as shown in Table 4-3. For example, Clovis’ Pacific Islander/White dissimilarity index of 0.86 indicates that 86 percent of Pacific Islander (or White) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Pacific Islander and White residents. However, when analyzing the dissimilarity index, it is important to note that dissimilarity index values are less reliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction’s total population. Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Black residents comprise less than 1 percent, 1 percent, and 2.7 percent of the Clovis population respectively.

Table 4-3 Dissimilarity Index Scores for Fresno County and the City of Clovis, 2019 Race/Ethnicity City of Clovis Fresno County
Asian vs. White 0.24 0.44
Pacific Islander vs. White 0.86 0.80
Black/African American vs. White 0.36 0.59
Hispanic/Latino vs. White 0.22 0.47
American Indian/Alaska Native vs. White 0.63 0.72
Source: U.S Census ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019.

Asian and Hispanic/Latino groups comprise 10.7 percent and 32.7 percent of the City’s population respectively, and therefore provide a more reliable measure of segregation using the dissimilarity index methodology. These groups received comparable dissimilarity index values less than 0.25, indicating relatively low levels of segregation for these groups.

Comparatively, Fresno County as a whole has moderate to high levels of racial/ethnic segregation according to the countywide dissimilarity index, as shown in Table 4-3. Similarly to Clovis, segregation of Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Pacific Islander residents is not reliably measured by the dissimilarity index as these groups each comprise less than 5 percent of the County population. Asian and Hispanic populations are moderately segregated, with dissimilarity index scores of 0.44 and 0.47, respectively. It is important to note the countywide dissimilarity index includes census tracts within Clovis.
231
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

As discussed earlier in this section, Clovis is predominantly White (see Figure 4-4) and less diverse than Fresno County. Although the DI reflects low levels of segregation at the local level, this could be skewed by a relatively low level of diversity in Clovis. Relatively higher levels of segregation at the County level suggest that the local dissimilarity index provides an incomplete measurement of the City’s role in regional patterns of racial/ethnic segregation.

Income
Each year, HUD receives custom tabulations of ACS data from the U.S. Census Bureau known as "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy). It demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance by estimating the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30 percent, 50 percent, and 80 percent of median income). HUD defines a Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income).

Regional Trends
Figure 4-6 below shows the household median income by block group in Fresno County. Most of Fresno County has a household median income below the California state median income in 2020 (less than $87,100) particularly in the Central Valley area. Throughout the region, the highest median income is often found in medium-density urban areas, outside of the central core of the cities in the suburban residential developments, as is the pattern in the incorporated cities of Fresno and Clovis in Fresno County, and Visalia and Porterville in Tulare County, as well as unincorporated areas outside of these cities and in the vicinity of the national forest areas in the eastern portions of these counties. Lower-income concentrations are found within older city cores in the larger jurisdictions. However, in contrast to areas in the state with higher-density populations and uses, the San Joaquin Valley counties are not heavily populated and are instead heavily agricultural, with more lower-income households located in unincorporated areas.

Table 4-4 lists Fresno County and Clovis households by income category and tenure. Based on the above definition,

47.9 percent of Fresno County households are considered LMI as they earn less than 80 percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). Almost 68 percent of renters are considered LMI compared to only 30 percent of owner-occupied households.

Table 4-4 Households by Income Category and Tenure in Fresno County and City of Clovis, 2015-2019 Income Distribution Overview
Fresno County Clovis
Owner Renter Total Owner Renter Total
Household Income < 30% HAMFI 6.8% 28.1% 16.7% 4.5% 15.8% 8.6% Household Income <30% to 50% HAMFI 8.9% 20.0% 14.1% 4.9% 13.9% 8.2% Household Income >50% to 80% HAMFI 14.7% 19.8% 17.1% 9.5% 22.2% 14.2% Household Income >80% to <100% HAMFI 9.8% 9.1% 9.4% 8.4% 12.1% 9.8% Household Income >100% HAMFI 59.8% 23.1% 42.7% 72.6% 36.1% 59.2% Total Number of Households 164,125 143,780 307,905 23,570 13,590 37,160 Source: HUD CHAS, ACS Estimates 2015-2019.
232
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-13
Figure 4-6 Median Income, Fresno County, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

Local Trends
As discussed in Chapter 3, “Housing Needs Assessment”, median household incomes in Clovis tend to be higher than the County and statewide median incomes. As shown in Table 4-5, the City’s median household incomes exceed Fresno County’s by 147 percent and the statewide median by 106 percent.

Table 4-5 Median Household Income, 2020
Jurisdiction Median Household Income
Clovis $84,119
Fresno County $57,109
California $78,672
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-Year Estimates 2016-2020, Table B19013.

Only 31 percent of all households in Clovis are considered LMI, compared to 48 percent of all Fresno County households (see Table 4-4). Household incomes by housing tenure follow the same pattern as Fresno County where owner-occupied households tend to have higher household incomes than renter -occupied households (51.9 percent of renter households are considered LMI, compared to only 18.9 percent of owner households). 233
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-7 shows the median household income by block group in the City of Clovis. Block groups with a household median income lower than the state median income are clustered in Central/Old Town Clovis as well as the Historic Helm Ranch and Cougar Estates neighborhoods in the southwestern area of the City. Median incomes are highest in the newer areas of City, located along the northern and eastern City boundaries. In these areas, median household incomes tend to be greater than $100,000. Generally, the areas with a lower household median income tend to correlate with areas that have greater concentrations of non-White residents, while the more affluent areas in the northern and eastern areas of the City tend to have a predominantly White population.

Familial Status
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on certain protected classes, including "familial status," which refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old. Under the FHA, familial status discrimination occurs when a landlord, property manager, real estate agent, or property owner treats someone di fferently because they have a family with one or more individuals who are under 18 years of age. A “family” also includes people who are pregnant and people who are in the process of securing legal custody of a person under 18 years of age, including a family that is in the process of adopting a child, or foster parents. All families with children are protected by the FHA against familial status discrimination, including single-parent households and same-sex couples with children. Of particular consideration are female-headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers.

Rules that unreasonably restrict children or limit the ability of children to use their housing or the common facilities at the property may violate the FHA. Moreover, enforcing certain rules only against families with children may also violate the FHA. The following are the types of conduct that may violate the FHA:
 Refusing to rent, sell, or negotiate with a family because the family has one or more children under 18 years of age;  Advertising a preference for households without children or otherwise discouraging such families;  Lying about unit availability;
 Forcing families into housing units that are larger than necessary;  Designating certain floors or buildings for families with children, or encouraging families with children to reside in particular areas; and,
 Charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children under 18 years of age.

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021 234
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-15
Figure 4-7 Median Household Income, Clovis, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 235
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Regional Trends
Table 4-6 displays household types in Clovis, Fresno County, and California. Female-headed family households account for 6.8 percent of all households in Clovis. This is higher than the state average of 4.7 percent, but lower than the Fresno County average of 7.3 percent. The distribution of household types is similar across all jurisdictions, where single-person households are the predominant household type followed by married couple family household types .

Table 4-6 Households by Familial Status, 2019
Household Type Fresno County Clovis California
Female-Headed Family Households with Children 22,501 7.3% 2,568 6.8% 615,734 4.7% Male-Headed Family Households with Children 5,073 1.6% 547 1.5% 170,832 1.3% Married-couple Family Households 82,185 26.5% 10,419 27.6% 3,111,835 23.8% Single-Person Households 110,190 35.5% 11,6678 30.9% 4,909,776 37.5% Other Non-Family households 90,148 29.1% 12,514 33.2% 4,294,937 32.8% Total 310,097 37,726 13,103,114
Source: U.S Census ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019.

As seen in Figure 4-8, most of Fresno County has moderate to high rates of children in married-couple households, comparable to surrounding San Joaquin Valley jurisdictions. In the San Joaquin Valley, in areas where residences are typically more dispersed and uses are more agricultural or limited by topography, there is a higher incidence of families with children than is found in the central and southern neighborhoods of the City of Fresno, as well as portions of the Cities of Coalinga, Kerman, Mendota, Firebaugh, Fowler, Parlier, Orange Cove, and Sanger, inclusive of adjacent unincorporated areas. The highest rates of female-headed households with children in Fresno County, between 20.0 and 40.0 percent, are in, or immediately adjacent to, incorporated cities, likely where there is better access to schools, transit, services, and jobs, as well as a greater range of housing types to meet a variety of needs (see Figure 4-9). Higher rates of married-couple households are found further from urban centers, west of SR 99, in higher-income communities and in the eastern areas of the County.

Local Trends
Figure 4-10 shows the percentage of children living in married-couple households by census tract in Clovis. Generally, census tracts along the northern and eastern borders of the City report high concentrations of children living in married couple households (greater than 60 percent). Census tracts in Central Clovis and the western area of the City adjacent to the City of Fresno tend to report lower concentrations of children living in married -couple households; however, no census tracts report less than 20 percent of children living in married-couple households. Figure 4-11 indicates that the highest concentrations of children living in single mother headed households (40 to 60 percent) is clustered near the Historic Helm Ranch neighborhood. Adjacent census tracts contain a slightly lower concentration (20 to 40 percent), while the rest of the City reports a concentration less than 20 percent. These census tracts reflect high concentrations of female-headed households relative to Fresno County, although there are a few census tracts within the City of Fresno with higher concentrations. Generally, Clovis mirror trends observed at the regional level, where higher concentrations of single-parent households tend to cluster near urban centers where there is more proximate access to jobs and services, as well as more affordable housing options. 236
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-17
Figure 4-8 Children in Married Couple Households, Fresno County, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 237
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-9 Children in Female-Headed Households, Fresno County, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 238
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-19
Figure 4-10 Children in Married-Couple Households, Clovis, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 239
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-11 Children in Female-Headed Households, Clovis, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 240
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-21
Population with Disabilities
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with dis abilities through the FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and practices with disproportionate effects.

The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to persons with disabilities: (1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modificat ion requests. With regards to fair housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incom es that further limit their housing options.

Regional Trends
According to the 2015-2019 ACS 5-year estimates, 127,456 residents (13 percent of Fresno County’s population) reported having one of the six disability types listed in the ACS (hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living). The percentage of residents detailed by disability type are listed in Table 4-7 below.

Independent-living and ambulatory disabilities are the most common disability types in the County. Note that individuals may report multiple types of disability.

Table 4-7 Percentage of Populations by Disability Types in Fresno County and Clovis, 2019 Disability Type Fresno County Clovis
Hearing 3.7% 3.2%
Vision 3.2% 2.4%
Cognitive 5.8% 5.0%
Ambulatory 7.0% 5.7%
Self Care Difficulty 3.1% 2.7%
Independent Living Difficulty 6.9% 5.6%
Total 13% 11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2020, Table S1810.

In Fresno County, the percentage of individuals with disabilities increase with age, with the highest percentage of individuals with disabilities being those 65 years and older. Clovis shares the same pattern, with a smaller portion of the population with disabilities for every age group compared to Fresno County. Refer to Table 4-8 for the distribution of percentages by age.

Table 4-8 Percentage of Populations with Disability by Age in Fresno County and Clovis, 2019 Age Fresno County Clovis
Under 5 years 0.8% 0.5%
5-17 years 5.4% 5.3%
18-34 years 7.3% 6.7%
35-64 years 14.6% 10.5%
65-74 years 30.5% 25.8%
75 years and over 57.7% 56.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates 2016-2020, Table S1810. 241
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-12 shows the populations of persons with a disability by census tract in Fresno County using ACS data from 2015-2019. The only areas with a concentration of persons with a disability over 20.0 percent are in the Cities of Fresno and Clovis, suggesting a correlation between a greater variety of housing opportunities in more urbanized areas with access to public transportation, services, and amenities. Generally, the western area of the County near SR 5 has a lower concentration of people with disabilities (less than 10 percent) than the areas east of Clovis (between 10 and 20 percent).

Figure 4-12 Population with a Disability, Fresno County, 2014 and 2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

Local Trends
The City of Clovis has a slightly lower percentage of population with disabilities than Fresno County (a difference of

1.7 percent), and a different concentration of disability types. The most common disability types in Clovis are ambulatory disabilities (5.7 percent), independent living difficulties (5.6 percent), and cognitive disabilities (5 percent).

Figure 4-13 shows the population concentrations of persons with a disability by census tract in the City in 2014 and 2019. Generally, populations with disabilities are concentrated toward the western side of Clovis. The census tracts with the highest concentration are located near Central Clovis extending toward the City of Fresno boundary, with concentrations between 20 and 30 percent. These tracts contain four subsidized housing developments and three of the City’s five mobile home parks (see Figure 4-34), which are more financially accessible to individuals on fixed incomes or in need of supportive services. Near the northern and eastern borders, there tends to be a low concentration of populations with disabilities (less than 10 percent). Over time, the spatial distribution of residents with disabilities has shifted toward Central Clovis and away from the eastern outskirts of the City. 242
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-23
Figure 4-13 Population with a Disability, Clovis 2014-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 243
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-25
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Income
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) are neighborhoods in which there are both racial concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD’s definition of a R/ECAP is:
 A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR  A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower.

Households within R/ECAP tracts frequently represent the most disadvantaged households within a community and often face a multitude of housing challenges. R/ECAPs are meant to identify where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity. The majority of R/ECAPs in Fresno County are located within the City of Fresno, with other R/ECAPs located near San Joaquin, Sanger, and Reedley (see Figure 4-14).

Although there are no R/ECAPs in Clovis, the nearest is located just outside city limits near California State University, Fresno on the west side of SR 168. Census tracts within city limits adjacent to this R/ECAP tend to report higher poverty rates relative to the Clovis average (see Figure 4-15). The census tract with the highest poverty rate in Clovis (30 percent – 40 percent) in the Historic Helm Ranch neighborhood, also hosts a larger non-White population (61 percent to 81 percent) than other areas of the City (see Figure 4-3). So, while there are no census tracts that meet the HUD definition of a R/ECAP, the areas of the City described above are both lower-income and have higher concentrations of non-White residents.

Figure 4-14 R/ECAPs, Fresno County, 2009-2013

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 244
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-15 Poverty Status, Clovis, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 245
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-27
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are generally understood to be neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households and high household income rates. HCD’s methodology identifies RCAAs as census tracts with both a population of non-Hispanic white residents that is at least

1.25 times higher than the average total white population in the region and a median income at least 1.5 times higher than the regional average median income (or 1.5 times the state average median income, whichever is lower).

Figure 4-16 shows RCAAs identified using HCD’s methodology in Fresno County and the surrounding area. Regionally, RCAAs are localized to the north side of the Cities of Fresno and Clovis along the San Joaquin River and extend around the north and east side of Clovis. Outside of this area, the nearest RCAAs are located in Tulare County, bordering the southern Fresno County line. This aligns with regional racial demographic and median income data discussed above, which indicates that Clovis and northern areas of the City of Fresno tend to have a higher concentration of non-Hispanic white populations and higher median household incomes than elsewhere in the County.

Figure 4-16 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, Fresno County, 2015-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022, based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

Relative to the surrounding Fresno region, the City has a greater presence of higher -income households and a higher concentration non-Hispanic White residents, particularly along the northern and eastern portions of the City. These areas are generally identified as RCCAs in Figure 4-17. RCCAs are located north of Herndon Avenue and east of Fowler Avenue, areas that are predominantly zoned for low-density single-family residential housing. Households in RCCAs also tend to be primarily owner-occupied, with less than 40% of households in renter-occupied housing units (see Figure 4-37).
246
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-17 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, Clovis, 2015-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 247
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-29

4.5 Access to Opportunity
Across the nation, affordable housing has been disproportionately developed in minority neighborhoods with high poverty rates, thereby reinforcing the concentration of poverty and racial segregation in low opportunity and low resource areas. Several agencies, including HUD and HCD, in coordination with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), have developed methodologies to assess and measure geographic access to opportunity in areas throughout California. For this assessment, the opportunity indices prepared by HUD and HCD/TCAC are used to analyze access to opportunity in the City of Clovis.

Access to opportunity is a concept that approximates the link between place- based characteristics (e.g., education, employment, safety, and the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g., health, wealth, and life expectancy).

Ensuring access to opportunity means both improving the quality of life for residents of low -income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.

TCAC Opportunity Areas
TCAC Maps are opportunity maps created by the California Fair Housing Task Force (a convening of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)) to provide research and evidence-based policy recommendations to further HCD’s fair housing goals of (1) avoiding further segregation and concentration of poverty and (2) encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and affordable housing, program design, and implementation. These opportunity maps identify census tracts with highest to lowest resources, segregation, and poverty, which in turn inform the TCAC to more equitably distribute funding for affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program.

TCAC Opportunity Maps display areas by highest to lowest resources by assigning scores between 0 –1 for each domain by census tracts where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Refer to Table 4-9 for a list of domains and indicators for opportunity maps. Composite scores are a combination score of the three domains that do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation). The opportunity maps also include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
 Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under the federal poverty line;  Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the county
Table 4-9 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic  Poverty
 Adult Education
 Employment
 Job Proximity
 Median Home Value
Environmental  CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values Education  Math Proficiency
 Reading Proficiency
 High School Graduation Rates
 Student Poverty Rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020. 248
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

High resource areas have high index scores for a variety of opportunity indicators such as high employment rates, low poverty rates, proximity to jobs, high educational proficiency, and limited exposure to environmental health hazards. High resource tracts offer low-income residents the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic advancement, high educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Moderate resource areas have access to many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have fewer job opportunities, lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors that lower their indexes across the vari ous economic, educational, and environmental indicators. Low resource areas are characterized as having fewer opportunities for employment and education, or a lower index for other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. These areas have greater quality of life needs and should be prioritized for future investment to improve opportunities for current and future residents.

Regional Trends
Figure 4-18 provides a visual representation of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Fresno County based on a composite score, where each tract is categorized based on percentile rankings of the level of resources within the region. Areas of high segregation and poverty are clustered near and within the City of Fresno, with another cluster located east of SR 99 near the City of Parlier. Concentrations of low resource areas are located in the southwestern and central portions of the County, clustered near the Cities of Coalinga and Fresno. Additionally, the eastern Cities of Sanger and Reedley contain areas identified as high segregation and poverty. Parlier and Orange Cove, east of SR 99, are also identified as predominantly areas of high segregation and poverty, as well as Mendota, Fireba ugh, San Joaquin, and Huron in the eastern portion of the county. In the unincorporated county, high and highest resource areas are generally in the northeast and eastern portions of the county, extending into the Cities of Clovis, Reedley, and along the San Joaquin River.
249
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-31
Figure 4-18 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score, Fresno County, 2022

Source: Data downloaded from California State Treasurer in 2022.

Local Trends
Figure 4-19 shows the composite opportunity scores for the City of Clovis by census tract. Clovis is composed entirely of high and highest resource areas. High resource areas are clustered in the southwestern portion of the City and received comparatively lower scores in all three domains. These areas correspond with a higher percentage of children in female-headed households, lower median household income, and larger concentrations of non -White residents. Areas identified as RCAAs in Figure 4-17 are all located in highest resource areas, indicating that affluent White households tend to have the most optimal access to opportunity in the City. 250
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-19 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score, Clovis, 2022

Source: Data downloaded from California State Treasurer in 2022. 251
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-33
Educational Opportunity
Housing and school policies are mutually reinforcing, which is why it is important to analyze access to educational opportunities when assessing fair housing. At the most general level, school districts with the greatest amount of affordable housing tend to attract larger numbers of LMI families (largely composed of minorities). As test scores are a reflection of student demographics, where students of color routinely score lower than their White peers, less diverse schools with higher test scores tend to attract higher income families to the school district. This is a fair housing issue because as higher income families move to the area, the overall cost of housing rises and an exclusionary feedback loop is created, leading to increased racial and economic segregation across districts as well as decreased access to high-performing schools for non-White students.

Each year, the California Department of Education (DOE) publishes performance metrics for public schools in the state, including student assessment results for English Language Arts and Mathematics as they compare to the state grade-level standards and demographic characteristics of each school’s student population. The characteristics reported on include rates of chronic absenteeism and suspension, percentage of students that are socioeconomically disadvantaged, percentage of students that are in foster care, percentage of students learning the English language, and the percentage of high school students that are prepared for college. Chronic absenteeism refers to the percentage of students who are absent for 10.0 percent or more of instructional days that they were enrolled at the school, with the state average being 10.1 percent of students. Students who are eligible for free or reduced- priced meals, or who have parents or guardians who did not receive a diploma, are considered socioeconomically disadvantaged. TCAC and HCD rely on this data from DOE to determine the expected educational outcome in each census tract and block group within the state. TCAC and HCD’s educational domain score reflects mathematics proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates of all schools for which this data is available, culminating in a score ranging from 0 to 1, with higher values being the most positive expected educational outcome.

Regional Trends
There are 33 public school districts in Fresno County, with 49 private schools and 37 charter schools. Figure 4-20 demonstrates that the County’s most positive educational outcomes are located around Clovis and Auberry, with clusters in the City of Fresno and along the southern County line near Kingsburg, Reedley, and Riverdale. Cens us tracts in the far western portion of the County have the lowest education index scores (less than 0.25), with clusters of low-scoring census tracts in the Cities of Fresno, Parlier, and Selma. The lowest education scores within incorporated cities tend to be located near areas of high segregation and poverty. A few census tracts in the eastern unincorporated area of the County received low educational scores (less than 0.25); however, these census tracts are designated as highest resources areas because they received high economic and environmental scores otherwise.

These tracts have the lowest population density in the county, and likely either attend the higher performing schools in adjacent jurisdictions or are homeschooled.

Local Trends
The City of Clovis is part of Clovis Unified School District (CUSD), which serves close to 43,000 students. CUSD demographic data indicates that 48 percent of students reside in the City of Clovis. Generally, Clovis provides more positive education outcomes throughout the City than the County, with a majority of census tracts receiving high index scores (greater than 0.75) as shown in Figure 4-21. Census tracts with the highest education scores are located in the northern and eastern portions of the City, and are consistent with highest resource areas. Relatively lower education index scores are reported in census tracts located in the southwestern corner of the City, with the City’s lowest score reported in the census tract south of Gettysburg Avenue, between Willow and Minnewawa Avenue.

Although this census tract is located within a high resource area, it hosts a high concentration of low er income households, children in female-headed households, and non-White residents relative to the north and eastern areas of Clovis. Housing Element update community workshop participants highlighted a pattern of student test scores from schools in the northern/eastern region of Clovis tending to be higher than test scores from schools in the western region.
252
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-20 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Education Score, 2021

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 253
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-35
Figure 4-21 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Education Score, Clovis, 2021

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 254
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Economic Opportunity
Employment opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the HCD/TCAC economic domain opportunity index and (2) the HUD job proximity index. The HCD/TCAC economic opportunity index provide census tract -level scores for the economic domain by analyzing poverty levels, adult education, employmen t rates, proximity to low-wage or low- to moderate-skill jobs, and median home values. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greatest access to opportunities for positive economic outcomes. HUD’s jobs proximity index quantifies the ac cessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region by measuring the physical distances between jobs and places of residence. It varies from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating closer proximity to employment opportunities.

Regional Trends
According to June 2022 employment data from the State Employment Development Department, Fresno County had an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent, representing 26,200 residents. Firebaugh, Huron, and Reedley were amongst the cities with the highest unemployment rates, 14.4 percent, 12.9 percent, and 12.5 percent respectively. High unemployment rates in Fresno County tend to correlate with lower economic domain index scores. Figure 4-22 shows the economic domain index scores by census tract in Fresno County. Census tracts with the lowest economic index scores (less than 0.25) are clustered in rural areas near the western and eastern County boundaries, as well as in the Cities of Fresno, Sanger, Selma, and Reedley. Much of the land that is characterized as having the closest job proximity in eastern Fresno areas and counties to the north of Fresno County is rural farmland or open space, which suggests that the property owner lives and works on-site, compared to residents’ access to employment opportunities within incorporated jurisdictions. Census tracts with the highest economic index scores (greater than

0.75) tend to be clustered near SR 99 as well as the Cities of Fresno and Clovis.

Figure 4-23 shows the spatial variability of job proximity in Fresno County. Generally, areas with closest job proximity (greater than 80) are found in the Central Valley between SR 5 and SR 99. In this area, the economic opportunity index and the job proximity index are most consistent. The far western and eastern areas of the County have the furthest proximity (less than 20). In these areas, there is more variability between the two indices as the eastern region of the County (particularly in the area surrounding the City of Clovis) tends to be an area of higher economic opportunity despite further proximity from employment centers.

According to the U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), which reports the distance and direction between home and work for residents of each jurisdiction and the ratio between jobs and households, t he greatest concentration of jobs are in the City of Fresno (71.2 percent of Fresno County job s), City of Clovis (10.6 percent), City of Reedley (2.8 percent), City of Sanger (2.5 percent), and the City of Kerman (2.1 percent). 255
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-37
Figure 4-22 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Economic Score, Fresno County, 2021

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 256
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-23 Job Proximity Index, Fresno County, 2014-2017

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

Local Trends
In June 2022, the City of Clovis had an unemployment rate of 3.1 percent, representing one of the lowest unemployment rates in the County. As shown in Table 3-5 in Chapter 3, 82.9 percent of employed Clovis residents work outside of Clovis with 49.2 percent working in the City of Fresno. Based on ACS 2015-2019 5-year estimates, 76 percent of the Clovis population has a commute time less than 30 minutes; less than 20 percent has a commute time between 30 minutes and an hour; and less than 5 percent has a commute time greater than an hour.

Most of Clovis received an economic domain score greater than 0.75 indicating the most positive economic outcomes (see Figure 4-24). Only one census tract received a score less than 0.50, indicating lower access to opportunities for positive economic outcomes. This tract is located between Barstow and Shaw Avenue in the southwest corner of Clovis, which generally received lower scores relative to more positive economic opportunity scores in northern and eastern areas of Clovis. In contrast, this area received a job proximity index score of 60 indicating closer proximity to employment centers (see Figure 4-25).

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the southwestern area of Clovis tends to have a higher concentration of low - income households, The inconsistency between scores from these two indices in this area is likely a reflection of relatively lower scores across other indicators considered in the methodology us ed by TCAC and HCD to measure economic opportunity, such as median home values or poverty rates. 257
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-39
Figure 4-24 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Economic Score, Clovis, 2021

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 258
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-25 Job Proximity Index, Clovis, 2014-2017

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 259
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-41
No census tract within Clovis received a job proximity index score indicating residents have the closest proximity to jobs (greater than 80), consistent with the fact that a majority of employed Clovis residents are working outside City limits. Tracts with the City’s highest index ratings (between 60 and 80) are located in southwestern corner of the City, near Fresno State and Fresno Yosemite International Airport. These scores gradually decline toward the north and east borders where census tracts receive index scores less than 20, indicating residents experience the furthest proximity from employment centers. Although job proximity is an indicator considered in TCAC/HCD’s methodology for measuring economic opportunity, these areas received the City’s highest economic opportunity index scores. The northern and eastern areas of Clovis tend to have higher median home values and household incomes, as well as educational opportunity index scores indicating more access to positive educational outcomes . The overall level of affluence in these areas with furthest job proximity implies residents have greater financial flexibility to shoulder the potential economic burden of living farther away from workplaces.

Environmental Conditions
Across the country, lower-income households and racially segregated communities are disproportionately impacted by a combination of locational factors such as proximity to landfills, freeways, industrial areas, and other toxins and pollutants. A 2016 report entitled “Poverty Concentration and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit: Effects of Siting and Tenant Composition” studied whether nationally the LIHTC affects the concentration of poverty. The study examined who lives in LIHTC developments in different neighborhoods, and how neighborhoods and metropoli tan areas change after LIHTC developments are built. The study concluded that the distribution of affordable housing has been disproportionately developed in minority neighborhoods with poor environmental conditions and high poverty rates, thereby reinforcing poverty concentration and racial segregation in low opportunity and low resource areas.

The links between health and housing strongly indicate that improved housing and neighborhood environments could lead to reductions in health disparities.

The TCAC/HCD opportunity map scores for the environmental domain are based on the exposure, pollution burden, and environmental effect indicators used in the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment CalEnviroScreen 4.0 tool. CalEnviroScreen was developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to evaluate pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community’s vulnerability to the adverse effects of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also considers socioeconomic factors such as educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Measures of pollution burden and population characteristics are combined into a single composite score that is mapped and analyzed. Lower values on the index indicate greater cumulative environmental impacts on individuals arising from these burdens and population factors.

Regional Trends
The counties within San Joaquin Valley and surrounding jurisdictions to the east and west in the Fresno County region have a challenging environmental context as a major agricultural producer and part of the San Joaquin Valley air basin, raising serious air and water quality concerns. Much of Fresno County, particularly the western area along the SR 99 and SR 5 corridors, has low environmental index scores, as shown in Figure 4-26. These census tracts also received higher rankings across indicators of pollution burden in the CalEnviroScreen index (e.g., pesticides, drinking water contaminants, particulate matter, and ozone). The western portion of the county is primarily agricultural land with limited residential development, so these scores may be a reflection of agricultural industry practices. In the surrounding region, low environmental index scores are also mostly concentrated in the rural agricultural areas as well as urbanized communities along SR 99 and SR 5. Fresno County closely reflects the agricultural areas of Merced, Madera, and Tulare counties.

In east Fresno County, census tracts along SR 168 stretching from Clovis through Sierra National Forest received high environmental index scores (greater than 0.50), as well as areas bordering Monterey County in the west. Generally, CalEnviroScreen rankings of pollution burden decline east of City of Fresno, with greater distance from agricultural land and major highways.
260
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-26 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Environmental Score, Fresno County, 2021

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

Local Trends
As shown in Figure 4-27 areas of Clovis with the most optimal environmental conditions correlate with the areas of highest resource and racially concentrated areas of affluence. Environmental conditions tend to decline toward the western portion of the City towards the City of Fresno and Fresno Yosemite International Airport, with these areas receiving higher rankings across indicators of pollution burden in the CalEnviroScreen index. Generally, Clovis received index scores indicating more positive environmental outcomes than the Fresno region, particularly in the Central Valley area (see Figure 4-26). CalEnviroScreen data reports Clovis generally ranks lower than the City of Fresno in terms of pollution burden, especially in areas farther away from SR 168 and Fresno city limits. Clovis also tends to rank lower among indicators of socioeconomic burdens, such as education, linguistic isolation, and poverty. 261
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-43
Figure 4-27 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Environmental Score, 2021

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 262
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

4.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs generally refer to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing needs in the applicable geographic area. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Fresno County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
 Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income;  Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income;  Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room) ; and  Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom).

Severe housing problems are defined as households with at least 1 or 4 housing problems: overcrowding, high housing costs, lack of kitchen facilities, or lack of plumbing facilities.

Transportation Access
The Transportation Cost Index, developed by HUD, estimates the percentage of income that residents use to pay for transportation, measured at the census tract level on a 0 to 100 scale. The higher an index score, the lower the cost of transportation. Index scores can be influenced by factors such as access to public transportation, housing density, and proximity of employment centers and other services.

Regional Trends
Throughout the San Joaquin Valley region, public transit opportunities are typically available in the more urban areas .

In the more rural areas, there is less public transit mobility. Privately contracted or individually managed services providing intercity and rural area connectivity are provided on a specified jurisdictional level. In Fresno County, there are several transit options available to residents. The Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) operates 25 transit subsystems that operate in 13 rural incorporated cities throughout the Valley. Several of the connections operate on fixed-route schedules, although most are on demand or require reservations. The FCRTA’s transit services are available to the elderly (60+), disabled, low-income, and general public patrons within each of the 13 rural incorporated cities of Fresno County. FCRTA offers connections to the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area through the following area transportation providers:
 Fresno Area Express (FAX) with 16 scheduled, fixed-route service with connections to Valley Children’s Hospital in Madera County
 FAX’s Handy Ride Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) demand-responsive services  Clovis Transit’s Stageline with two scheduled, fixed-route services  Clovis Transit’s Round-Up’s demand-responsive ADA services  Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) scheduled, fixed-route service to Fresno and Hanford  Dinuba Connection scheduled fixed-route travels from Dinuba to Reedley with transfers to Cutler-Orosi, Orange Cove, Parlier, Sanger, and Fresno
 Yosemite Area Regional Transit System offers a fixed-route system from Fresno to the Yosemite Valley with options for commuter passes, and reduced fares for seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities  ValleyRides rideshare matching service for commuters within the San Joaquin Valley region While there are a variety of transit options available in Fresno County, residents in many smaller incorporated jurisdictions, agricultural, and rural communities are more limited than elsewhere in the region to demand -responsive 263
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-45
transit options that do not offer weekend service, which may limit em ployment opportunities for those employed in certain occupations, such as retail, medical/hospital, or restaurant services, and present a barrier to housing mobility for those households reliant on transit.

Fresno County generally scores low on the Transportation Cost Index, indicating residents pay the highest portions of their incomes on transportation (Figure 4-28). Areas with moderately lower transportation costs tend to be concentrated in the Cities of Fresno and Clovis, reflecting that residents in ur ban areas of Fresno County have more readily available public transportation options.

Local Trends
As shown in Figure 4-29, most of Clovis received transportation index scores reflecting residents experience a high transportation cost across the City. The lowest transportation costs in the City are found bordering the City of Fresno along SR 168, but these remain high relative to the spectrum of the cost index. Clovis is primarily served by Clovis Stageline Transit, with connections to regional transit services such as Fresno Area Express, Madera County Connection, Fresno County Rural Transit, and Amtrak. The City does not offer any high- frequency transit service (defined as service with average headways less than 15 minutes) and weekday service on major ro utes run twice an hour between 6 AM and 7 PM. The City provides in-town transportation for seniors and disabled residents through Clovis Round Up Paratransit Service.

According to AllTransit, an online source of transit connectivity, access, and frequency data, Fresno (5.0), Reedley (2.2), Huron (1.2), Coalinga (1.1), and Clovis (1.1) had the best transit opportunities as they are the most urbanized areas. AllTransit reports that 33 percent of jobs and 42.5 percent of low-income households in Clovis are located within half a mile of transit. However, only 0.34 percent of commuters use local transit, compared to 2.06 percent in the City of Fresno which provides closer job proximity to employment centers. While Clovis ranks better than rural areas in the county, residents are not well served by frequently available transit. Limited access to transportation opportunities limits employment opportunities for lower-income households without reliable transportation. It also presents a greater barrier to housing affordability and mobility. 264
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-28 Transportation Cost Index, Fresno County, 2015-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 265
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-47
Figure 4-29 Transportation Cost Index, Clovis, 2015-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 266
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Cost Burden and Overpayment
Housing cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as households paying 30 percent or more of their gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities. Renters are more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. Fair housing cost burden is considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording other necessary expenses, such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.

Regional Trends
Relative to California as a whole, Fresno County has a lower percentage of renter and owner households overpaying for housing. Figures 4-30 and 4-31 show the concentrations of cost-burdened owner- and renter-occupied households by census tract. Generally, renters and home-owners are more likely to be overpaying for housing in the communities surrounding SR 99. As shown in Table 4-10, both the City of Clovis and Fresno County have a lower proportion of homeowners overpaying for housing, while the City has a higher proportion of renters overpaying for housing relative to the regional average (51 percent compared to 45 percent). While the Fresno County region has relatively low housing values and lower housing costs compared to many areas of the state; homeowners and renters experience housing cost burdens on par with state levels due to the region’s comparatively lower incomes.

Table 4-10 Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure City of Clovis Fresno County California
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Owner Occupied Renter-Occupied Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Cost Burden between 30%
and 50%
15% 21% 15% 24% 17% 24%
Cost Burden >50% 9% 24% 10% 27% 13% 26%
Total Number of
Households
22,275 14,150 164,125 143,780 7,154,580 5,889,685
Percentage of Households
that Experience Cost Burden
25% 51% 24% 45% 30% 50%
Source: HUD CHAS 2015-2019.
267
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-49
Figure 4-30 Cost Burdened Owner Households, Fresno County, 2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 268
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-31 Cost Burdened Renter Households, Fresno County, 2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

Local Trends
Figure 4-32 shows the spatial trends of overpayment for Clovis renters between 2014 and 2019. In 2014, more than 40 percent of renters in several census tracts were overpaying, especially in the Central Clovis, Historic Helm Ranch, and Cougar Estates neighborhoods. Housing cost burden and overpayment for renters has generally declined in more recent years with most census tracts experiencing less than 40 percent of renters overpaying for housing in 2019.

However, a cluster of census tracts located south of Nees Avenue along the western C ity boundary experienced an increase in housing cost burden relative to 2014, with more than 60 percent of renters overpaying for housing.

Similarly, Figure 4-33 shows overpayment trends for Clovis homeowners between 2014 and 2019. Unlike over payment among renters, overpayment among homeowners has not consistently declined across the City over time. The concentration of homeowners overpaying for housing increased in Central Clovis to more than 60 percent in some census tracts, and more than 40 percent in census tracts in between Bullard Avenue and Shaw Avenue. However, new growth areas such as Heritage Grove, Harlan Ranch, and Loma Vista experienced a decline in homeowner overpayment within the same period. Generally, areas with highest median household incomes and economic opportunity scores experienced a decline in cost burden during this period. Conversely, cost burden is highest where household median incomes and economic opportunity scores are lowest. 269
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-51
Figure 4-32 Cost Burdened Renter Households, Clovis, 2014 and 2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 270
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-53
Figure 4-33 Cost-Burdened Owner Households, Clovis, 2014 and 2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 271
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-55
Overcrowding
Overcrowding of residential units, in which there is more than one person per room, can be a potential indicator that households are experiencing economic hardship and are struggling to afford housing. However, it can also reflect cultural differences, as some cultures are more likely to live in larger, multigenerational households. Overall, overcrowding occurs in Clovis at a lower rate, with 3.1 percent of households that are overcrowded, compared to Fresno County as a whole, where 9.6 percent of households are overcrowded.

Regional Trends
This regional trend is also reflected in the spatial distribution of overcrowded households shown in Figure 4-34. Most census tracts west of SR 99 have a concentration of overcrowded households that is greater than the statewide average of 8.2 percent, with several census tracts reporting more than 20 percent of households are overcrowded.

Generally, overcrowding is less common in the eastern region of the County with most census tracts to the east of the City of Fresno tending to have concentrations lower than the statewide average. Typically, areas with higher rates of lower-income households and more dense housing types have higher rates of overcrowding, as is seen in census tracts within or adjacent to the incorporated jurisdictions in the region, although overcrowding also is shown in some of the agricultural areas, suggesting the presence of extended or large families or lack of appropriately sized housing units.

Local Trends
Figure 4-35 shows the percentage of overcrowded households in Clovis by census tract. Most census tracts in the City report rates of overcrowding less than or equal the statewide average. However, there are three census tracts within the City’s sphere of influence reporting rates of overcrowding between 8.3 percent and 12 percent. One of these, located in the Historic Helm Ranch neighborhood, is predominantly non-White (see Figure 4-3 Total Non- White Population) and has relatively larger proportions of residents with disabilities and children in female- headed households, as well as lower median household incomes.

As with most disproportionate housing needs, renter households are more likely to experience overcrowded conditions. As shown in Table 4-11, renter households have higher rates of overcrowding than owner-occupied households; they are nearly 4 times more likely to be subjected to overcrowding than owner-occupied units.

Table 4-11 Occupants Per Room for Households by Tenure, City of Clovis Tenure Total Households Percent of Households in Units with 1 or fewer occupants per room
Percent of Households in Units 1.1
or more occupants per room
Owner-Occupied 24,548 98.5% 1.5%
Renter-Occupied 13,178 94.1% 5.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates 2016-2020.

272
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-34 Overcrowded Households, Fresno County, 2015-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 273
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-57
Figure 4-35 Overcrowded Households, Clovis, 2015-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 274
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Substandard Housing
High housing costs can often result in households, particularly renters, living in substandard conditions to afford housing. Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions.

Using the general age of the housing stock in the region, approximately 65 percent of housing units in Fresno County are older than 30 years and may need repairs. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, shown in Table 4-12, 0.88 percent of households in Fresno County lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.35 percent of households lack complete plumbing facilities. Renter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households.

Table 4-12 Substandard Housing Conditions by Tenure in Fresno County Percent of Owner-Occupied
Households
Percent of Renter-Occupied
Households Percent of All Households
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0.24% 1.63% 0.88%
Lack complete plumbing facilities 0.24% 0.47% 0.35%
Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020 (5-Year Estimates).

As shown in Table 4-13, substandard housing conditions in Clovis follow similar patterns in Fresno County, where higher percentages of renter households have substandard housing conditions compared to owner households. In particular, the data shows that Clovis has a higher percentage of renter households lacking complete kitchen facilities than countywide figures.

Table 4-13 Substandard Housing Conditions by Tenure in Clovis Percent of Owner-Occupied
Households
Percent of Renter-Occupied
Households Percent of All Households
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0.23% 3.11% 1.24%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 0.11% 0.39% 0.20%
Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020 (5-Year Estimates).

As described in Chapter 3, Housing Needs Assessment, the City conducted a Housing Condition Survey to assess the exterior conditions of a random selection of single-family residential units. It is important to note that the survey did not cover the interior conditions of homes, and therefore does not reflect substandard living conditions in the City.

Generally, the survey found most of the City’s poor scores for exterior conditions were found in the survey group located in Central/Old Town Clovis and Historic Helm Ranch. Poor scores also tended to correlate with the age of the home, with poor conditions most common in homes built before 1960.

Homelessness
The number of people experiencing homelessness has increased throughout the Fresno region in recent years and was further exacerbated by the economic impacts of the 2020 outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. As described in Chapter 3, the last homeless census and housing survey was conducted by the Fresno-Madera Continuum of Care in February 2022 and identified 49 people experiencing homelessness in Clovis. The majority of whom were unsheltered . Based on regional trends, people experiencing homelessness in Fresno County are predominantly single adults; although 18 percent were either parents or children. Nearly half of those surveyed identified as Hispanic/Latino and 15 percent identified as survivors of domestic violence.

Following the date of the homeless housing survey, construction was completed on the City’s first permanen t supportive housing facility, known as Butterfly Gardens. The facility provides permanent supportive housing to up to 75 individuals, including those with disabilities who are at-risk of becoming homeless. Butterfly Gardens is located on Willow Avenue in the Historic Helm Ranch community. Expanded supportive housing capacity in Clovis, particularly in 275
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-59
communities sensitive to displacement risk (see Figure 4-36), will help build community resilience to shifting economic conditions.

Gentrification and Risk of Displacement
Gentrification, is the process by which higher-income households move to lower-income neighborhoods, changing the essential character of that neighborhood. Gentrification is often associated with displacement, which occurs when housing costs or neighborhood conditions force people out and drive rents so high that lower -income people are excluded from moving in.

Renter occupancy and high rent burdens are the most common reasons for displacement to occur since renters may not be able to afford to stay in their homes as rents increases. Both home values and rents have increased steadily in the Fresno region since 2010, with sharp accelerations in both starting in 2020 as a result of the economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. As discussed in Chapter 3, the median rent in Clovis as of 2020 was $1,247 per month, which is slightly higher than the Fresno County median of $1,209 and lower than the statewide medi an of $1,589.

Although there is no ACS data available on median rent since 2020 specific to Clovis, rent trends in large metropolitan cities in the Central Valley with comparable rent prices to Clovis show sharp increases in rent pricing since 2020 (see Figure 3-26). As Clovis rents already trend higher than Fresno County, any rent increase disproportionately impacts low-income households which are already at a higher risk of displacement as rents increase and access to affordable housing decreases.

The location affordability index, developed by HUD, measures standardized household transportation and housing cost estimates. Housing cost estimates are based off ACS estimates from 2015-2020 and as such, do not reflect current rents which are likely to have increased since 2020 as discussed above. As shown in Figure 4-37, the location affordability index found that households in Historic Helm Ranch and Central Clovis had the City’s lowest median gross rents. All of the City’s mobile home parks are located in these areas, which tend to require lower rents relative to other housing types. Most of the City’s subsidized housing developments are located in census tracts with median gross rents less than $1,500.

Comparably higher rents (greater than $1,500) are generally found in the northern and eastern areas of the City, with the highest rents found north of Nees Avenue in the Deauville Circle and Wawona Ranch neighborhoods as well as within the Loma Vista Specific Plan area in the southeast. Coventry Cove Apartments is the only affordable housing development located in area with a median gross rent exceeding $1,500.

Displacement Risk
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out and rents become so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion of very low-income residents was above 20 percent in 2017 and the census tracts meet two of the following criteria:
 Share of renters greater than 40 percent in 2017;
 Share of Non-White population greater than 50 percent in 2017;  Share of very low-income households (50 percent AMI or below) that are also severely rent burdened households is greater than county median in 2017; or
 Nearby areas have been experienced displacement pressures.

Displacement pressure is defined as:
 A percent change in rent above the county median for rent increases between 2012 and 2017; or,  A difference between census tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in the county (rent gap) in 2017.
276
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Regional Trends
Using this methodology, sensitive communities were identified in a substantial portion of the western area of Fresno County between SR 5 and SR 99, as well as in the City of Fresno. Cities east of SR 99 such Clovis, Sanger, Parlier, Reedley, and Orange Cove also have sensitive communities identified (see Figure 4-36). These areas largely correspond to census tracts with low median incomes and high diversity and/or concentrations of populations of color, have been identified as sensitive communities, which are susceptible to changes if housing prices increase.

Figure 4-36 Communities Sensitive to Displacement, Fresno County, 2017

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022, based on U.C. Berkeley Urban Displacement Project data. 277
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-61
Figure 4-37 Location Affordability Index, Clovis, 2015-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 278
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Local Trends
Figure 4-38 shows the communities in the City of Clovis that are vulnerable to displacement. These include the Historic Helm Ranch and Cougar Estates neighborhoods in the southwestern portion of the C ity along the Fresno city boundary. Areas identified as sensitive communities correspond with lower median household incomes, higher percentages of renter units with housing choice vouchers, and larger concentrations of non-White residents relative to the rest of Clovis.

There are also several mobile home parks and subsidized housing located in sensitive communities (see Figure 4-41), which are particularly vulnerable to displacement as a form of existing affordable housing. The City’s mobile rent stabilization ordinance limits annual rent increase at mobile home parks to a percentage of the Consumer Price Index and provides an opportunity for mobile home park residents to request review of greater rent increases at a rent review hearing (the ordinance is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, “Constraints to Housing Development”).

Although all mobile home park residents have access to this program, rent review hearings must be requested by mobile home park residents, with a petition signed by at least half of the park’s residents and a deposit cover ing half of the cost of the public hearing. Use of this program may be limited by the ability of park residents to contribute or raise funds to cover the hearing deposit, as well as awareness and education on the terms of the ordinance. 279
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-63
Figure 4-38 Communities Sensitive to Displacement, Clovis, 2017

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 280
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

4.7 Other Relevant Factors
Rates of Homeownership
Homeownership is the largest asset of most households in the U.S. and, for many low -income households, provides an opportunity for future generations to attain homeownership by increasing the family’s wealth. One of the most prevalent consequences of residential segregation is the intergenerational inaccessibility of homeownership. Clovis has high rates of homeownership relative to Fresno County and the State, with 65.1 percent of housing units occupied by homeowners compared to 53.7 percent in Fresno County and 55.3 percent statewide.

Figure 4-39 shows the distribution of renter households in Clovis. The percentage of renters is highest in the southwestern area of the City, with census tracts in Historic Helm Ranch and along the western City boundary reporting more than 60 percent of households occupied by renters. Census tracts with lowest proportions of renters and the highest homeownership rates are in the eastern areas of Clovis, particularly in the Harlan Ranch, Loma Vista, and Valencia Grove neighborhood areas. These areas correlate with the highest median household incomes and the lowest concentrations of non-White residents.

Disparities in homeownership rates by race/ethnicity reflect historical federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color and the resulting generational wealth gap. In Clovis, homeownership rates are lowest among Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (2 5.8 percent) or Black (40.6 percent) residents relative to Hispanic or Latino (60.7 percent) 3, Asian (74.1 percent) or non-Hispanic White (65.6 percent) residents (see Figure 3-9).

Housing Choice Vouchers
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), or Section 8 vouchers, can show patterns of concentration and integration to help inform needed actions. In Fresno County, vouchers are allocated by the Fresno Housing Authority to residents throughout the county. Participants can use their voucher to find the housing unit of their choice that meets health and safety standards established by the local housing authority. In Fresno County, HCV use is most concentrated within the City of Fresno with nearly 52 percent of households in tracts along SR 41 (1,800 HCVs in four tracts) and a concentration of areas with rates between 15 and 30 percent of households in the central portion of the City and along the SR 99 corridor. The higher rates of HCV use also tend to correspond to, or are adjacent to, census tracts where public housing or subsidized housing is located. By comparison, Clovis has a relatively low percentage of housing choice vouchers. As shown in Figure 4-40, renter occupied households using housing choice vouchers are primarily located in southwest Clovis, with the surrounding areas reporting no data on housing choice voucher usage.

Census tracts with the highest percentage of households using housing choice vouchers are located in Central Clovis and Historic Helm Ranch (between 5 and 15 percent). Census tracts in the City of Fresno, outside Clovis city limits, report significantly higher rates of HCV usage (between 15 and 30 percent). Stakeholders interviewed as part of the Housing Element update process indicated that it is difficult for residents to find housing in Clovis using a HCV, as rent prices in Clovis generally exceed HCV rent limits and there is a limited supply for low -income affordable housing.

3 Homeownership by race data was not disaggregated from Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Homeownership among Hispanic/Latino residents could be skewed higher by higher rates of homeownership among Hispanic/White residents. See Figure 3-9. 281
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-65
Figure 4-39 Renter-Occupied Households, Clovis, 2012-2016

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. 282
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-40 Housing Choice Vouchers Use, Clovis, 2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022, based on U.S. HUD. 283
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-67
Location of Existing Publicly-Supported Affordable Housing The geographic distribution of existing publicly-supported affordable housing is an important factor in examining fair housing choice and patterns of segregation by income and race/ethnicity. Table 4-14 lists existing subsidized rental housing developments in Clovis, as of 2022. Existing affordable housing, including mobile home parks, is generally concentrated in the southwestern portion of the City, closer to the City of Fresno and transit services (see Figure 4-41). Four of the City’s eight subsidized housing developments are located in highest resource areas (see Figure 4-19), north of Herndon Avenue and east of Fowler Avenue.

Table 4-14 Existing Subsidized Affordable Rental Housing in Clovis, 2022 Name Address
Solvita Commons 725 Alluvial Avenue
Silver Ridge (age 62+) 88 Dewitt Avenue
Roseview Terrace (age 62+) 101 Barstow Avenue
Lexington 1300 Minnewawa Avenue
Hotchkiss Terrace (age 62+) 51 Barstow Avenue
Coventry Cove 190 N Coventry Avenue
Cottonwood Grove 732 N Clovis Avenue
Magnolia Crossing (age 62+ assisted living) 32 W Sierra Avenue The Willows 865 W Gettysburg Avenue
Source: City of Clovis 2022.
284
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-41 Subsidized Housing and Mobile Home Parks, Clovis, 2022

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022, based on U.S. HUD. 285
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-69

4.8 Assessment of Sites Inventory and Fair Housing
State housing element law, Government Code Section 65583(c)(10), requires that the sites inventory ( see Chapter 5) be analyzed with respect to AFFH. By comparing units inventoried in approved projects and on vacant and underutilized sites to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity throughout the City.

The City was assigned a total Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 8,977 new housing units, which includes 2,926 very low-, 1,549 low-, 1,448 moderate, and 3,054 above moderate-income housing units. Based on the assumptions and methodology applied in the sites inventory analysis (see Chapter 5), the City has identified capacity for 15,168 units within the planning period with sufficient capacity to meet the City’s RHNA at all income levels.

As previously described, access to opportunity is well-distributed within Clovis, with no areas of moderate or low resource identified within City limits (see Figure 4-19 TCAC Composite). Socioeconomic indicators analyzed in this assessment tend to reflect that older neighborhoods in Central and southwest Clovis may be more likely to experience fair housing issues. Residents in these neighborhoods are more likely to be non- White with relatively lower median household incomes than residents in neighborhoods in the northern and eastern areas of the City.

Because Clovis as a whole is fairly affluent, expanding the supply of affordable housing anywhere within the City will expand access to opportunity and housing mobility for lower-income residents.

Older areas of the City surrounding Central Clovis are mostly built-out, with limited vacant or underutilized land available for new development. As such, a significant portion of residential capacity identified in the sites inventory is located in the City’s new growth areas along the northern and eastern fringe. This is a product of the City’s development trajectory which plans for most new housing to occur in new growth areas, particularly focused in the Northwest Urban Center and the Loma Vista Specific Plan area. Master plans for these areas provide for a variety of land use types and residential densities, with significant lower-income capacity identified on higher-density sites that are assumed to develop with mixed-income housing (see Chapter 5), which will expand opportunity for lower-income residents in the City’s highest resource areas while helping build diverse neighborhoods.

Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation
As described previously, Clovis is predominantly non-Hispanic White and fairly affluent relative to the surrounding region. There are no racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty within city limits. However, older neighborhoods of Clovis, located in the southwestern core of the City, tend to have higher concentrations of non- White residents as well as lower median household incomes than the northern and eastern areas of the City. These areas also tend to have greater concentrations of people living with disabilities and single -parent households. Given that the city has a higher proportion of moderate- and above moderate-income households, the City has included implementation programs in the Housing Element aiming to increase the diversity of the housing stock to provide more “missing middle” housing for moderate-income households while also facilitating additional opportunities to develop lower income-housing and housing for special needs groups.

Race/Ethnicity
As described above, the City is predominantly non-Hispanic White, with a minority population that is predominantly Hispanic/Latino. The Non-White population is slightly larger in the southwestern area of the City, with block groups in the Historic Helm Ranch and Cougar Estates neighborhoods where non-White residents comprise between 61 and 81 percent of the population (see Figure 4-3). White residents outnumber non-White residents by the most significant margins in several block groups particularly in the northern and eastern areas of the City, such as the Dry Creek, Heritage Grove, Valencia Grove, and Loma Vista neighborhoods. These neighborhoods also ranked relatively low on the Diversity Index, indicating higher degrees of racial/ethnic homogeneity.

Figures 4-42 and 4-43 show the City’s sites inventory in relation to concentration of non-White residents by census tract. Approximately 14,052 units in the inventory (87 percent of the total capacity) is identified in areas which have a 286
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

majority White population. Only 2 percent of the total inventory capacity is located within census tracts where more than 60 percent of the population is non-White.

Figure 4-42 Sites Inventory and Predominant Racial Composition of Census Tract , Clovis

Source: Ascent, 2023.
0 1,292
3,640
12 100
3,272
231 464
7,140
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
61-80% 41-60% 21-40%
Number of Housing Units
Percent of Population Identifying as Non-White in Census Tract Sites Inventory v. Percent of Total Non-White Population of Census Tract
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 287
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-71
Figure 4-43 Sites Inventory and Racial/Ethnic Distribution by Census Tract, Clovis

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 288
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Income
As shown in the assessment above, block groups in Old Town Clovis, Historic Helm Ranch, and Cougar Estates neighborhoods have the lowest median household incomes in the City (lower than the 2020 statewide median household income of $87,100). Household incomes are highest in newer areas of the City, particularly along the northern and eastern boundaries, where the median household incomes exceed $100,000.

As shown in Figure 4-44, 89 percent of the total capacity (14,411 units) identified in the sites inventory is located in areas with median incomes from $100,000 to $200,000. Additionally, 89 percent of moderate income units and 83 percent of lower-income units are located in these areas to support opportunities for moderate-income and lower- income families to live in wealthier neighborhoods. There are four RHN overlay sites located in areas with lower median household incomes (less than $87,100), which collectively provide capacity for 411 lower -income units (see Figure 4-45).

Figure 4-44 Sites Inventory Distribution by Median Income of Census Tract, Clovis

Source: Ascent, 2023.
0 242
3,861
418 411
00 0
3,014
0 370
00 57
7,237
215 322 4
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
>$200k $150-$200k $100k-$150k $87k-$100k <$87k No Income Data Available
Number of Housing Units
Median Income of Census Tract
Sites Inventory V. Distribution of Median Income
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 289
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-73
Figure 4-45 Sites Inventory Distribution by Median Income of Census Tract, Clovis

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 290
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Figure 4-46 and Figure 4-47 show the sites inventory relative to RCAAs in the city. Most of the northern and eastern areas of the City meet the definition of RCAAs in the City of Clovis, specifically north of Herndon Avenue and east of Fowler Avenue. Housing in these areas is predominantly owner-occupied low density single-family homes. Most sites identified in the sites inventory are located in an RCAA, amounting to capacity for approximately 15,109 new housing units in these areas. Further, 89 percent of the moderate and lower-income housing capacity is located in an RCAA.

Figure 4-46 Sites Inventory and Racially/Ethncially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, Clovis (Excel)

Source: Ascent, 2023.
4,403
529
3,014
370
7,692
143
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
RCAA Not RCAA
Number of Housing Units
Sites Inventory v RCAA Location
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 291
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-75
Figure 4-47 Sites Inventory and Racially/Ethncially Concentrated Areas of Affluence , Clovis

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 292
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Population with a Disability
In Clovis, most census tracts have a population with less than 20 percent of residents living with at least one disability.

However, western areas of the City, particularly in Central Clovis and north of Historic Helm Ranch, te nd to have larger concentrations of residents living with disabilities (20.8 percent). Figures 4-48 and 4-49 display the sites inventory relative to the percentage of the population with a disability by census tract. Compared to the distribution of residents with disabilities in Clovis, approximately 48 percent of total capacity identified in the sites inventory (7,675 units) is located in census tracts where 10-20 percent of the population has a disability of some sort; 52 percent of the total identified capacity is located in census tracts where less than 10 percent of the population lives with a disability. The sites inventory identifies capacity for a total of 4,932 lower income units that could provide additional housing opportunities for residents with disabilities.

Figure 4-48 Sites Inventory and Percent of Population with a Disability by Census Tract , Clovis

Source: Ascent, 2023.
1,784
3,148
1,251
2,133
4,640
3,195
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
10-20% <10%
Number of Housing Units
Percent of Population with Disabilities by Census Tracts Sites Inventory vs Population with Disabilities
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 293
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-77
Figure 4-49 Sites Inventory and Percent of Population with a Disability, Clovis

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 294
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Familial Status
Most areas of the City have less than 20 percent of children living in single female-headed households. However, census tracts located in the southwest corner of the City, in the Historic Helm Ranch and Cougar Estates neighborhoods, report higher concentrations between 40 and 60 percent. Married- couple households are the predominant family type in the northern and eastern portions of the City. Figures 4-50 and 4-51 show the distribution of units in the sites inventory at each income level relative to the percentage of single female- headed households with children (as a percentage of the total population of each census tract). Only 26 units from the sites inventory, all of which are assumed to develop as above moderate income housing, are located in census tracts that have between 40 and 60 percent of children in female-headed households. As such, most sites are located in areas of the City where married-couple households are the predominant family type.

Figure 4-50 Sites Inventory and Distribution of Female-Headed Households with Children

Source: Ascent, 2023.
0 240
4,692
0 268
3,116
26 31
7,778
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
40-60% 20-40% <20%
Number of Housing Units
Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households
Sites Inventory v. Children in Female-Headed Households Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 295
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-79
Figure 4-51 Sites Inventory and Distribution of Female-Headed Households with Children

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 296
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity
Expanding capacity for affordable housing development in Clovis will expand access to opportunity for lower- and moderate-income households. As shown in Figures 4-19 through Figure 4-27, Clovis is composed entirely of high and highest resource areas and provides residents citywide with opportunities for positive economic, educational, and environmental outcomes. Areas identified above as RCAAs correspond to areas of the City designated as highest resource, while the southwestern areas of the City, particularly Historic Helm Ranch and neighborhoods bordering Fresno city limits, are designated as high resource areas. Figures 4-52 and 4-53 present the sites inventory in relation to the 2022 TCAC opportunity areas. As shown in Figure 4-52, 97 percent of the total sites inventory (15,589 units) is located in highest resource areas.

Figures 4-54 through Figure 4-59 present the sites inventory in relation to TCAC economic, environmental, and educational opportunity scores. The sites inventory identifies almost all of its total capacity in areas providing most optimal access to educational and economic opportunity (97 and 96 percent, respectively). The City as a whole scores relatively lower on environmental opportunity index, reflecting regional environmental challenges. However, most of the inventoried capacity across all income levels is located in areas with environmental index scores greater than 0.50.

Figure 4-52 Sites Inventory and Distribution of TCAC Opportunity Index Composite Scores

Source: Ascent, 2023.
4,692
240
3,116
268
7,781
54 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Highest High
Number of Housing Units
TCAC Opportunity Areas
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 297
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-81
Figure 4-53 Sites Inventory and TCAC Opportunity Index Composite Scores

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 298
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-54 Sites Inventory and Distribution of TCAC Opportunity Index Economic Domain Scores

Source: Ascent, 2023.

Figure 4-55 Sites Inventory and Distribution of TCAC Opportunity Index Education Domain Scores

Source: Ascent, 2023.
4,855
77 3,026
358
7,757
78 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
>0.75 0.50-0.75
Axis Title
TCAC Economic Index Rating
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 4,692
240 0
3,116
268 0
7,734
96 5
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
>0.75 0.50-0.75 0.25-0.50
Number of Housing Units
TCAC Education Index Rating
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 299
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-83
Figure 4-56 Sites Inventory and Distribution of TCAC Opportunity Index Environmental Domain Scores

Source: Ascent, 2023.
517
4,238
1770
3,114
270211
7,620
4 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
>0.75 0.50-0.75 0.25-0.50
Number of Housing Units
TCAC Environmental Index Rating
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 300
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-57 Sites Inventory and TCAC Opportunity Index Economic Domain Scores

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 301
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-85
Figure 4-58 Sites Inventory and TCAC Opportunity Index Educational Domain Scores

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 302
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-59 Sites Inventory and TCAC Opportunity Index Environmental Domain Scores

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 303
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-87
Potential Effects on Disproportionate Housing Needs
As discussed previously, renters are disproportionately affected by housing needs including overpayment, substandard housing conditions, and displacement risk. Future housing opportunities identified in the sites inventory have the potential to ease overcrowding and cost burden as there would be more housing options available for a variety of income levels. Low-income households in the southwestern portion of the City, particularly in Historic Helm Ranch and mobile home parks, are sensitive to or at risk of displacement.

Overpayment
As described above, overpayment among Clovis renters has generally declined over time with most areas of the City reporting between 20 and 40 percent of renters paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income on housing costs. Figures 4-60 and 4-61 present the sites inventory relative to overpayment rates among renter households. All of the inventoried housing capacity identified in the sites inventory is located in areas of the City with overpayment rates between 20 and 40 percent, including 4,932 lower-income units. Although there are no sites identified in the areas of the City with higher rates of overpayment (between 60 and 80 percent), expanding supply of housing affordable to lower and moderate income in the City generally could alleviate conditions contributing to overpayment.

Figure 4-60 Sites Inventory Distribution by Cost-Burdened Renter Households

Source: Ascent, 2023.

0 4,932
0 3,384
0 7,835
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
60-80% 20-40%
Number of Housing Units
Percent of Renter Households for whom Gross Rent (Contract Rent Plus Tenant -Paid Utilities) is

30.0 Percent or More of Household Income
Sites Inventory vs. Cost Burdened Renter Households
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 304
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-61 Sites Inventory and Distribution of Overpayment by Renters Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 305
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-89
Overcrowding
Almost all census tracts in Clovis report less than 8.2 percent of households as overcrowded, with the exception of pockets located in Historic Helm Ranch and Deauville Circle along the northern border reporting rates between 8.3 and 12 percent. Figures 4-62 and 4-63 show the sites inventory relative to the distribution of overcrowded households in Clovis as of 2019. Approximately 98 percent of the total identified capacity in the sites inventory is located in areas with overcrowding rates less than 8.2 percent, including 4,690 lower -income units and 3,394 moderate income units. Although most of the lower-income capacity is identified in these areas, there are three RHN overlay sites identified in the inventory along Nees Avenue (see Figure 4-63) which together provide capacity for 242 lower income units. An increase in the supply of affordable housing in the city could help to alleviate conditions that contribute to overcrowding by reducing the gap between supply and demand for larger housing types and/or affordable housing options.

Figure 4-62 Sites Inventory Distribution by Overcrowded Households

Source: Ascent, 2023.
242
4,690
0 3,384
78 7,757
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000

8.3-12% <8.2
Number of Housing Units
Percent of Overcrowded Households in Census Tract
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 306
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-63 Sites Inventory and Distribution of Overcrowded Households

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 307
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-91
Displacement Risk
As the housing market strengthens in Clovis, there is concern that tenants may be priced out and at a greater risk of displacement as rent and home sales prices have risen dramatically across California and the Central Valley in recent years. Only a small portion of Clovis is considered vulnerable to displacement, with census tracts in southwest Clovis and Historic Helm Ranch identified as sensitive communities (see Figure 4-64). Most of the inventoried residential capacity (98.7 percent) is located on sites outside of these vulnerable areas, including 96.4 percent of the lower- income capacity (or 4,755 units) as shown in Figure 4-65. There is one RHN overlay site located in an area with elevated displacement risk that provides capacity for 244 lower income housing units. Additional affordable housing capacity identified in the sites inventory could provide more options to mitigate displacement for residents. 308
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-64 Sites Inventory and Displacement Risk

Source: Ascent, 2023. Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022. 309
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-93
Figure 4-65 Sites Inventory Distribution by Displacement Risk

Source: Ascent, 2023.

4.9 Summary of Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Actions HCD defines a fair housing issue as “a condition in a geographic area of analysis that restricts fair housing choice or access to opportunity, which includes such conditions as ongoing local or regional separation or lack of integration, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, significant disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, and evidence of discrimination or violations of civil rights law or regulations related to housing.”
Fair housing issues in Clovis are primarily related to segregation by income and race as compared to the greater region, disproportionate housing needs in older neighborhoods of the City, and increased risk of displacement as housing costs rise throughout the state. Access to opportunity is well-distributed throughout the City, with no area of the City ranking lower than “high resource.” There are no definitive concentrated areas of poverty. However, neighborhoods in southwest Clovis such as Historic Helm Ranch and Cougar Estates, tend to rank lower across all opportunity indicators relative to the rest of the City.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, neighborhoods in southwest Clovis with lower median household incomes and a high concentration of renter-households are at an elevated risk of displacement. This risk is particularly acute for residents of the City’s mobile home parks, who are more likely to be on fixed incomes or with otherwise limited economic mobility to weather rising housing costs. As such, the City has identified targeted strategies to prevent displacement of mobile home park residents.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(v), the Housing Element includes several policies and programs to proactively address fair housing issues and replace segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced communities. Table 4-15 below summarizes the fair housing issues, contributing factors, and meaningful actions (i.e., implementation programs) included in the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing in Clovis.

The details for each of the implementation programs can be found in Chapter 2, Housing Plan. 177
4,755
12 3,372
26 7,809
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Vulnerable Not Vulnerable
Number of Housing Units
Risk of Displacement
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 310
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Table 4-15 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions Assessment of Fair Housing
Identified Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timeframes Regional
segregation/integrations
patterns by race and income
While Clovis has been growing rapidly in recent
decades, most residential development in Clovis
has been single-family homes in large subdivisions,
reflective of the predominance of single -family
zoning in the City. New growth areas to the north
and east tend to include single family homes
affordable to households with higher incomes
relative to the region. Until recently, a large
percentage of new homes were sold at prices
affordable to moderate-income households, but
with rising home values, most new homes are now
(2022) only affordable to above moderate income
households.

The lack of affordable housing, and rental housing
generally, means that there is little opportunity for
lower-income residents and housing choice
voucher recipients to live in Clovis.

Facilitate the development of a wide range of
different housing types for all income levels to
diversify the City’s housing stock and provide
units for lower-income and special needs
households (Policy H 1.3)
Prioritize funding to affordable housing
developments in high or highest resource areas
or developments that include permanent
supportive housing (Program H5)
Provide technical assistance and incentives to
support development of 1,100 lower-income
housing units during the planning period, including
500 low-, 500 very low-, and 100 extremely low- or
special needs housing units. Prioritize supporting
affordable housing developments in highest
resource areas that promote housing mobility for
lower-income and special needs populations or
projects that will reduce displacement risk due to
overcrowding, overpayment, or other burdens, such
as in southwest Clovis. (Program H5)
Provide fee reductions in support of 350 affordable
housing units during the planning period (Program
H4)
Prioritize review of surplus public land for
sale/lease for development of affordable housing
in high and highest resource areas (Program H3)
One publicly-owned site to declare surplus public
lands in high and highest resource areas (Program
H3)
Encourage and facilitate “missing middle”
housing in existing single-family neighborhoods
(Policy H-1.5)
Facilitate the construction of 200 ADUs, cottage
homes, and ministerial lot splits and duplexes, with a
goal of 75 percent in highest resource areas
(Program H6)
Disproportionate housing
problems in Central Clovis
and southwest Clovis
As one of the first areas to develop in the City, the
housing stock and infrastructure in Central and
southwest Clovis (e.g., Historic Helm Ranch and
Cougar Estates neighborhoods) is aging. There is a
high concentration of low-income and renter-
occupied households in these areas relative to
newer neighborhoods in Clovis.

Encourage use of code enforcement processes
and housing rehabilitation assistance programs to
bring substandard housing units into compliance.
(Program H11)
Maintain funding and promote use of Home
Rehabilitation Loan and Grant program by low -
income homeowners, including mobile home
owners to complete necessary health & safety
repairs (Program H12)
Provide housing rehabilitation loans and grants to
250 lower-income households, including 50 very-
low and 50 extremely-low income households
during the planning period. (Program H12).

Prioritize capital improvement projects that
provide improvements or amenities in older, low-
income neighborhoods with limited existing
amenities (Program H23)
Establish a capital planning prioritization process to
guide an objective methodology used to produce
equal and equitable outcomes. Review funding
priorities annually. (Program H23)
311
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 4-95
Table 4-15 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions Assessment of Fair Housing
Identified Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timeframes Expand homeownership opportunities that create
stability and wealth-building for lower-income
households through down payment assistance
and sweat equity programs (Policy H-3.5)
Assist three lower-income households per year with
homebuyer assistance (Program H20)
Displacement risk due to
economic pressures for
residents in southwest Clovis
Rising home sale and rent prices are outpacing
wage growth in Clovis and throughout Fresno
County, creating a higher risk of displacement
especially for lower-income households. There is a
high concentration of low-income and renter-
occupied households in Central/southwest Clovis.

Heightened displacement risk is exacerbated by a
low supply of affordable housing, lack of assistance
opportunities for first time home-buyers, a lack of
tenant protections, and a shortage of resources
and support for low-income and special needs
households.

Preserve at-risk affordable housing units from
conversion to market rate units (Program H9)
Preserve 260 publicly-assisted rental units. (Program
H9)
Expand housing resources for extremely -low
income residents, particularly seniors and people
with disabilities, by providing financial support to
organizations that provide counseling, education,
housing services/referrals, financial support,
and/or legal advice to those populations
(Program H15)
Assist 100 extremely-low income households with
targeted outreach efforts in high poverty areas
(Program H15).

Expand homeownership opportunities for lower -
and moderate-income households through down
payment assistance, sweat equity programs, and
other homeownership programs (Policy H -3.5)
Assist three households per year with homebuyer
assistance to support stability and wealth building
for lower-income households (Program H20)
Ensure local ordinances and development
regulations provide equal housing opportunities
for persons with disabilities and developmental
disabilities (Policy H-3.4)
Amend the Zoning Code to ensure compliance with
state law regarding by-right development of group
homes of more than six, reasonable accommodation
procedures, and the provision of supportive housing
units by December 2024 (Program H24)
Displacement risk for mobile
home park residents
All of the City’s mobile home parks are located
within Central and southwest Clovis, where low -
income residents are at higher risk of displacement.

However, displacement risk for mobile home park
residents is particularly acute with recent trends of
investment firms purchasing mobile home parks.

Expand public outreach to mobile home park
residents on Mobile Home Park Rent Review and
Stabilization Ordinance and establish a City staff
ombudsman to assist residents in navigating
process (Program H10)
Conserve 867 mobile homes within five existing
mobile home parks, distribute educational materials
in multiple languages to residents twice a year,
beginning 2024 (Program H10)
Promote Home Rehabilitation Program at mobile
home park residents to assist with necessary
health and safety repairs (Program H12)
Provide housing rehabilitation loans and grants to
250 lower-income households, including 50 very-
low and 50 extremely-low income households
during the planning period. (Program H12).
312
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Table 4-15 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions Assessment of Fair Housing
Identified Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Targets and Timeframes Limited local fair housing
outreach and enforcement
Local fair housing enforcement and outreach is
limited relative to other areas in Fresno County.

Limited information on local fair housing issues is
exacerbated by a lack of representation of
marginalized communities in planning processes as
well as lack of education for landlords and tenants
on fair housing law.

Collaborate with Fair Housing Council of Central
California to conduct fair housing testing for
discriminatory practices in private rental housing
and ensure compliance with fair housing laws.
(Program H19)
Encourage FHCC to conduct 8 to 10 fair housing
tests, beginning in 2024. (Program H19)
Expand fair housing outreach to prospective
home sellers, landlords, buyers, and renters to
provide information on fair housing rights and
available services in multiple languages. (Program
H18)
Distribute fair housing information annually through
the City, begin offering translated materials in
December 2024. (Program H18)
Increase availability of information about
affordable housing opportunities and programs
in the City and ensure that information is
available in multiple languages (Program H21)
Prepare outreach materials in 2025 and conduct 8
community workshops during the planning period.
(Program H21)
Collaborate with the Fresno Housing Authority to
launch an educational campaign encouraging
landlords to actively participate in the HCV
program (Program H16)
Increase HCV participation and usage by 10
households in highest resource neighborhoods ,
initiate educational campaign in 2024, host first
workshop in April 2025 (Program H16)

313
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 5-1
CHAPTER 5 | Sites Inventory and
Funding Resources

5.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines state- wide projected housing needs and allocates new housing unit targets to regional council of governments (COGs). Th is process is called the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND). The RHND identified for each COG is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance (DOF) as well as state-required adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The RHND for the Fresno regio n for the 2023-2031 projection period totals 58,298 housing units.1 Each COG is tasked with developing a methodology to distribute the RHND to all its member jurisdictions. For Clovis, the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) developed a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) to determine each jurisdiction’s fair share, or Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

On June 30, 2022, the FCOG Board approved the Final RHNA Methodology, which allocated 8,977 housing units to the City of Clovis; just over 15 percent of the total countywide RHND. The RHNA for Clovis is broken down by the income categories shown in Table 5-1 below (i.e., very low, low, moderate, and above moderate).

Table 5-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, City of Clovis (June 30, 2023 – December 31, 2031) Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI)
Low Income
(50%-80% of AMI)
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of AMI)
Above Moderate Income
(>120% of AMI) Total
Housing Units 2,926 1,549 1,448 3,054 8,977
Percent of Total RHNA 33% 17% 16% 34% 100%
Notes: AMI = area median income. Fresno County 2022 Area Median Income is $80,300 for a 4-person household.

Source: Fresno Council of Governments, July 2022.

5.2 Residential Sites Inventory
As part of the housing element update, each jurisdiction must demonstrate that it has adequate zoning to accommodate the RHNA. The residential sites inventory identifies sites with general plan land use designations and zoning for future housing development and evaluates the adequacy of these sites in fulfilling the City’s share of regional housing needs.

Methodology
The Housing Element is required to identify and describe land available for residential development to meet the City’s RHNA for the June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2031, projection period. The City plans to accommodate the RHNA using a combination of the following:
• sites with approved residential development;
• vacant and underutilized sites with general plan land use designations and zoning that allow for additional housing development;

1 The RHNA is set for an eight and a half-year projection period (June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2031), which differs from the Housing Element planning period (December 31, 2023, through December 31, 2031). The projection period is the timeframe for which the regional housing need is calculated, whereas the planning period dictates the housing element adoption date and the timeframe for the housing element policies and programs.
314
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Sites Inventory and Funding Resources

• sites within the Central Clovis Specific Plan and Loma Vista Specific Plan; • sites within the Northwest Urban Center that are included in the Willow Corridor RHNA Annexation , including the Heritage Grove City Center Villages Master Plan, the “Urban Center” portion of the Heritage Grove Specific Plan, and one other site outside of those plan areas;
• near-term annexation areas, which include areas within the Northwest Urban Center, including in-progress and future phases of the Heritage Grove Specific Plan that are anticipated to initiate the annexation process in 2024, and one other site, TM6205 – Shepherd North, located outside the Northwest Urban Center, where annexation is currently underway; and
• a projection of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) construction.

Relationship Between Density and Income Level
Density can be a critical factor in the development of affordable lower-income housing. Higher density development can lower per-unit land cost and facilitate construction in an economy of scale. The following describes the assumptions used to determine the inventoried income categories and the realistic buildout capacity for each site. • Lower-Income Sites. State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a “default density standard” of 30 units per acre for Clovis, which is categorized as a metropolitan jurisdiction. This is the density that is “deemed appropriate” in state law to accommodate the City’s lower-income RHNA. Sites with land use designations that allow for development at a density of at least 30 units per acre were included in the inventory as meeting the lower-income RHNA.
• Moderate-Income Sites. Sites with a land use designation/zoning district that allows for multi-family development but does not meet the default density standard of 30 units per acre were included in the inventory as meeting the moderate-income RHNA.
• Above Moderate-Income Sites. Sites with a land use designation/zoning district that only allows for single-family housing and limited attached ownership housing (e.g., duplexes, townhomes) were included in the inventory as meeting the above moderate-income RHNA.

AB 725 Compliance
Assembly Bill 725 (2021) – which requires that at least 25 percent of the above moderate-income RHNA be accommodated on sites that have a density standard that allows at least four units of housing, and that at least 25 percent of the moderate-income RHNA be accommodated on sites that allow at least four units of housing but a density of no more than 100 units per acre. Sites included in the analysis were reviewed to confirm that they had a general plan or zoning designation that allowed the development of at least four units on a site. Sites included in this analysis include larger sites that meet the default density of 30 units per acre for lower-income housing; however, on many of these sites it is assumed only 50 percent of the capacity on these sites is counted toward the lower-income RHNA, with the remaining capacity meeting the moderate- and above moderate-income housing need. Based on the projected capacity of sites at different income categories included in the inventory, a total of 20 sites were identified in the moderate-income category that allow at least four units per parcel, with an overall capacity of 2,378 units, or 164% of the moderate-income RHNA. Of those sites, there are 11 that also have units included in the above-moderate income category that allowed more than 4 units on the site, with an overall capacity of 766 units or 25% of the above-moderate income RHNA.

Realistic Density
The inventory applies a realistic buildout density based on the development standards, market trends, and recent development to calculate capacity. Capacity on sites within the lower density zoning districts (i.e., R-A, R-1-A, R-1-AH, R-1, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-1-MH, R-1-MD and R-1-PRD) is calculated using 80 percent of the maximum allowable density.

For larger lots subdivided into single-family lots, it is assumed that one unit would be built per lot.

Table 5-2 shows the buildout density of recently approved residential developments. As shown in the table, residential developments in the R-2 zoning district were built at an average of 84 percent of the maximum allowable 315
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Sites Inventory and Funding Resources
Public Review Draft | March 2023 Page 5-3
density and multifamily developments in the R-3 zoning district were built at an average of 96 percent of the maximum allowable density. However, this calculation is based on a maximum density of 25 units per acre. The City is proposing to increase the maximum density in the R-3 zone to 30 units per acre, which would allow for increased density of multifamily developments in the R-3 zoning district (more discussion below). Very little multifamily development has occurred in the R-4 zoning district. Only one project was constructed at 64 percent of the maximum allowable density. Based on these recent multifamily developments, the inventory uses the following realistic density assumptions to calculate residential capacity. • R-2 Zoning District. Residential capacity on sites within the R-2 zoning is calculated using an assumed realistic density of 80 percent of the maximum allowable density, or 12 units per acre. • R-3 Zoning District. Residential capacity on sites within the R-3 zoning is calculated using an assumed realistic density of 24 units per acre, which is 80 percent of the maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac. • R-4 Zoning District. Residential capacity on sites within the R-4 zoning is calculated using an assumed realistic density equal to minimum allowable density, or 25 units per acre.

Table 5-2 Recent Multifamily Project Built Densities
Project Name/Location 1 Zoning
District
Maximum
Allowed Density Site Size (Acres) Number of Units Built Density Percent of Maximum Allowed Density
SPR2016-05 P-C-C n/a2 12 216 18
MFDR2021-001 R-2 15 15.72 216 13.74 92%
SPR2012-12 R-2 15 8.85 87 9.83 66%
SPR2014-10 R-2 15 3.15 47 14.92 99%
SPR2017-01 R-2 15 5.58 80 14.34 96%
SPR2018-29, Solavita R-2 15 4.18 60 14.35 96%
SPR2018-30 R-2 15 0.75 6 8.00 53%
R-2 Average 12.53 84%
SPR2008-13A2 R-3 25 0.41 10 24.27 97% / 81%
SPR2021-001 R-3 25 2.6 60 23.08 92% / 77%
SPR2018-25 R-3 25 6.43 158 24.57 98% / 82%
R-3 Average3 23.97 96% / 80%
SPR2018-11A2, Matharu R-4 43 11.67 321 27.51 64%
R-4 Average 27.51 64%
Butterfly Gardens RHN 43 1.82 75 41.2 96%
RHNA2022-001 RHN 43 7.92 279 35.2 82%
RHN Overlay Average 38.2 89%
1 All projects are market-rate except SPR2018-29, Solavita and Butterfly Gardens, both shown in italics. Both affordable projects were built at 96% of the maximum density.
2 When authorized by the General Plan, a specific plan or other City plan, residential may be included as an allowed use in the P-C-C District.
3 The City is proposing to increase the maximum density of the R-3 zone from 25 to 30 units per acre in order for the R-3 zone to meet the default density standard for lower-income sites. The percentage calculations are shown for both the 25 u/a and 30 u/a maximum density standard.

Source: City of Clovis 2022.
316
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

Sites Inventory and Funding Resources