Clovis City Council
November 4, 2024

Program H12. Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance
The City shall adopt a Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance to require all new residential developments of more than 10 units to include a certain set aside percentage of affordable housing units. The City shall conduct a financial feasibility analysis for the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance to evaluate a range of feasible affordable housing set aside percentages and mechanisms by which a residential housing developer may meet the required set aside percentage (e.g., in lieu fee, land donation, off-site construction). The set aside percentage shall be the highest percentage supported by the analysis that does not exceed 10 percent, and shall be no less than 5 percent even if the highest percentage supported by the analysis is less than 5 percent. The affordable housing required by the set aside percentage must be affordable to low- and very low-income households, as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement.

The In Lieu Fee analysis shall identify a per-unit or per-square-foot formula for fees sufficient to cover the need for gap financing, and to ensure that revenue generated by the In Lieu Fees is sufficient to facilitate the construction of enough affordable housing to meet the set aside percentage requirement.  Objective: At least 320 low- and very low-income housing units, depending on overall housing production.  Timeframe: Adopt the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance by February 28, 2025, or as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

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.

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.

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 H-2.4 Substandard Housing. Provide for the removal of all unsafe, substandard dwellings that cannot be economically repaired.

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.

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).

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.
163
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Plan
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 2-9
Implementation Programs
Program H13. 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 include: 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. If the owners are amenable to retaining the properties as affordable housing, the City shall reach out to a list of qualified non-profit affordable housing developers to determine interest in purchasing and/or managing at-risk units. If necessary and feasible, the City shall provide financial assistance (e.g., HOME, CDBG, State and Federal funding sources) to prevent the conversion of affordable housing units to market rate. 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 also minimize displacement of current tenants by negotiating a relocation policy with the owner, whenever possible, and providing support and education to tenants at least 6 months prior to conversion.  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).

Program H14. 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.
 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 H15. 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 Utilities Department, the library, and via the offices of local utility providers.  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). 164
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Plan

Program H16. 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 grants and/or loans to low- income homeowners, including low-income senior (60 years and older) households, to complete health, safety and other repairs on owner-occupied homes, including mobile homes. This program has proven very effective at addressing health and safety issues in the City’s housing stock. 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. Target at least 50 percent of resources in relatively lower-income areas.  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).

Program H17. 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 H18. 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. In addition, the City shall encourage residents to participate in PG&E energy conservation services and assistance programs. 165
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Plan
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 2-11
 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

H-3.7 Farmworker Housing. Support the use of available Federal, State, and local resources to provide and enhance housing opportunities for farm workers.

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.
166
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Plan

Implementation Programs
Program H19. 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 (e.g., CDBG, HOME), 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 extremely 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.  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 H20. 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.
 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 H21. 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.
 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).

Program H22. 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 167
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Plan
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 2-13
rights, available services, and responsible agencies in English and Spanish, and/or other languages, and distribute materials at libraries, community facilities, City offices and public counters, on the City website, and to multifamily rental housing in low/mod income census tracts. If the City should receive fair housing complaints, City staff shall direct individuals to US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Fair Housing Council of Central California, and other housing agencies.  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 H23. Fair Housing Testing
The City shall continue to grow its 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 (e.g., HUD, CDBG, General Fund) to conduct fair housing testing for discriminatory practices in private rental housing and provide fair housing counseling training in the region.
 Objective: Encourage FHCCC to conduct 8-10 fair housing tests to understand local issues of housing discrimination and ensure compliance with fair housing laws, and provide fair housing training meetings/conferences.
 Timeframe: Conduct fair housing testing in 2024, coordinate fair housing training annually.  Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

Program H24. 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. In addition, 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, and/or other languages.
 Objective: Assist five 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).

Program H25. 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 168
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Plan

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.  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 H26. Actions to Address Homelessness
• The City shall continue to coordinate with Fresno Madera Continuum of Care to provide capacity and strengthen 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 the existing permanent supportive housing development, and work with local services providers to identify a site and funding opportunities to support the development of a shelter and/or transitional and supportive housing with capacity to accommodate at least 76 homeless persons. The City and non-profit service providers will continue to provide information on housing opportunities and free transit services to unhoused people living in Clovis. (Timeframe:

Ongoing; annually maintain a database of land available for a new shelter; initiate coordination with local service providers in January 2025 and annually thereafter).
 Objective: Provide supportive services to the City’s most vulnerable populations by providing shelter, services and/or temporary housing assistance for at least 76 persons.  Timeframe: See above.
 Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

Program H27. Neighborhood Revitalization
The City shall work to increase opportunity for all neighborhoods throughout the city, with an emphasis on improving existing conditions in areas of greatest need. 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, CDBG funding, and other state and federal funding for 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. The City shall work with volunteer organizations, such as Tree Fresno, to improve livability in older residential neighborhoods.  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, particularly in relatively lower-income neighborhoods and areas of higher concentrations of persons with disabilities. Aim 169
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Plan
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 2-15
to allocate about $450,000 in CDBG funds for projects that improve infrastructure, provide amenities, or improve housing conditions in areas of greatest need and target 1-2 improvements per year in relatively lower-income areas.
 Timeframe: Ongoing, annually review and identify capital improvement projects and funding priorities.

Pursue state and federal grant funds annually.
 Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Engineering Division), Public Utilities, and City Council.

Program H28. 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 by right in the R4 zone or another zoning district that allows residential uses consistent with Government Code Section 65583. Ensure that the zone selected to allow emergency shelters has sufficient capacity to meet the City’s estimated need of 76 beds and is in proximity to transportation, amenities, and homeless services. Ensure that the definition of “emergency shelters” and that development standards and other requirements for emergency shelters comply with state law. • Reduce 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 (i.e., remove the use permit requirement) subject to objective criteria and clear, specific to use regulations.
• Allow single-room occupancy (SRO) housing as a permitted use in the R4 zone and establish development standards specific to SRO housing to encourage and facilitate the use, including realistic parking standards and density equivalency standards.
• Amend the definition of “family” to remove provisions requiring that residents have established ties and control over who becomes family member.
• Rezone any remaining mobile home parks to the Mobile Home Park (MHP) zoning district that are not yet zoned MHP to support the protection of all mobile home parks in the city. • Modify the procedure for providing reasonable accommodations to remove any unduly constraints for persons requesting an accommodation and ensure that the process protects confidential information (e.g., remove responsibility of proposing an alternative accommodation that may provide equivalent levels of benefit from the applicant, remove the finding related to potential impacts on surrounding properties, ensure requests for reasonable accommodation are considered confidentially for projects requiring discretionary approval at a public hearing).  Objective: Compliance with State law.
 Timeframe: Amend the zoning code by December 2024.
 Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division). 170
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Plan

Program H29. Farmworker Housing
The City of Clovis shall review funding opportunities annually, and the City shall provide technical support and offer incentives to housing developers, such as the Fresno Housing Authority and Self-Help Enterprises as well as owners of existing farmworker housing, in the application of funds for farmworker housing. This includes HCD (e.g. Joe Serna grant program), other programs administered by California’s Office of Migrant Services (OMS), and other funding sources that may become available to build new farmworker housing and rehabilitate existing farmworker housing. The City shall coordinate with other local jurisdictions in the region, as well as employers and local organizations, on regional strategies to integrate farmworker housing into affordable housing.  Objective: Support and incentivize development of 80 lower-income units for farmworkers and their families.

Particular focus will be given to encouraging housing mobility by facilitating development of farmworker units in higher resource neighborhoods.
 Timeframe: Meet with farmworker housing owners, developers, and advocates every two years starting in Spring 2025 to discuss their needs and offer assistance in the form of letters of recommendation for grant applications, assistance with site identification and grant opportunities, and discuss incentives for constructing farmworker housing. Annually review the availability of funding opportunities to provide housing vouchers or other forms of rental assistance for farmworkers, and apply for funding as opportunities arise. Identify development opportunities for farmworker housing at least twice in the planning period.  Responsible Department: Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department (Housing Division).

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
Units
Low-Income
Units
Moderate-Income
Units
Above Moderate-Income
Units
Total
Units
New Construction1 2,926 1,549 1,448 3,054 8,977
Rehabilitation2 200 200 400
Conservation and Preservation3 808 809 1,617
Notes:
1 New Construction objective is equal to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). 2 Rehabilitation objective is equal to the program objectives for Program H-13. 3 Conservation and preservation target is based on the 260 assisted units considered “at risk” of converting to market rate, 867 existing mobile homes, and 490 housing choice vouchers, assumed to be 50/50 very low/low-income. 171
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-1
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 presented 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 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 in Fresno County, after the city of Fresno. Other cities in Fresno County have 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.

The city of Clovis has experienced rapid growth over the past several decades; between 1980 and 2020, the population grew by an average of over 20,000 people per decade, from a total population of 33,021 to 120,124 (shown in Figure 3-1). From 2010 to 2020, the population in Clovis grew by nearly 25,000 people. According to the California Department of Finance, Clovis was the 12th fastest growing city in California between 2021 and 2022 in terms of numeric change with a 2022 population of 123,665. 172
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 City’s population is expected to continue to grow at a rapid pace. FCOG produces population projections for the Fresno region based on economic growth and data from the 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, respectively) while the unincorporated county is projected to grow by only 8 percent from 2019 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%
36%
40%
26%

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
173
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 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 a 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 a high number of children and young families can point to the need for more diverse family housing and related services.

Figure 3-2 shows the population distribution by age group for the city of 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). 174
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-2 Population by Age by Jurisdiction, 2020

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

Racial and Ethnic Composition
As shown in Table 3-3, 49.5 percent of the population in the city of Clovis is non-Hispanic White, compared to 28.7 percent in all of Fresno County and 36.5 percent statewide. Conversely, the Hispanic or Latino population in Clovis is

32.7 percent of the population, less than that of Fresno County (53.4 percent) but similar to the percentage of Hispanic/Latino population statewide (39.1 percent). The Black population in Clovis (2.6 percent) is proportionately less than that of both Fresno County (4.4 percent) and the State of California (5.4 percent). The Asian population in Clovis (10.7 percent) is similar to Fresno County (10.4 percent) but lower than the State 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.

While the Hispanic/Latino population in Clovis is proportionally smaller than other areas of the county, the number of residents in Clovis identifying as Hispanic or Latino has increased since the year 2000 at a 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

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
175
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-5
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: US 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 for the future. This section describes employment trends in the city of Clovis to offer insight into the industry and occupation types within the city, Fresno County, and California. This section also provides an understating of the balance of housing and employment in Clovis.

Employment by Occupation
In 2020, management, business, science, and arts occupations accounted for the largest sector of employment across California, Fresno County and the city of 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 were 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 smaller than those of the county as a whole (13.9 percent and 14.4 percent, respectively). 176
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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
177
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 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 job-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, located directly to the West, is larger and the main employment center in the county. As of 2020, there were 35,068 jobs and 51,408 employed residents in Clovis. The jobs-to-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). 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 Table 3-6, only about 24 percent of Clovis workers live in Clovis; the remaining portion of the Clovis workforce commutes from other areas. Most workers commute from the city of Fresno, making up about 40 percent of the Clovis workforce. As for where Clovis residents work, nearly half (48.5 percent) of Clovis residents were employed in the city of Fresno in 2020, compared to about 17 percent of Clovis residents that worked in Clovis. In addition, the data from 2020 shows that of the workers earning $1,250 per month or less, 8,619 of them live in Clovis but work elsewhere (“outflow”) and 7,914 of them live elsewhere and work in Clovis (“inflow”).
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
178
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

Table 3-6 Top 5 Work/Residence Destinations, Clovis, 2020 Where Clovis Workers Live Where Clovis Residents Work
Jurisdiction Count Share Jurisdiction Count Share
Total Clovis Workers 34,788 100.0% Total Clovis Employed Residents 50,688 100.0% Fresno (city) 13,992 40.2% Fresno (city) 24,598 48.5%
Clovis 8,495 24.4% Clovis 8,495 16.8%
Sanger 512 1.5% Visalia 833 1.6%
Madera 394 1.1% Madera 591 1.2%
Visalia 350 1.0% Los Angeles (city) 539 1.1%
Other 11,045 31.7% Other 15,632 27.4%
Source: US Census Bureau, OnTheMap, 2020.

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 those of the county, which 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 is comparable to the 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)
179
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-9
Projected Job Growth
According to the 2019-2050 Growth Projections prepared by FCOG, 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 Fresno 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 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 a household; “other” types of households are unrelated people residing in the same dwelling unit; and 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) and that of California (49.7 percent). Female householders with no spouse or partner present make up the second 180
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

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 rent costs 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 181
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-11
Housing Tenure by Race and Ethnicity
Homeownership rates often vary 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 White 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/Latino 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 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
182
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 household’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 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:
183
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-13
Income Distribution
Median household income has been typically higher in the city of Clovis when compared to the county and the State of 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, 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 households in the city of Fresno 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 availability of affordable housing for those households. In the city of Clovis, 73.3 percent of homeowners have a household income level at or above 100 percent AMI. In contrast, just 26.7

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
184
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

percent of the City’s renters have a household income above the AMI (see Figure 3-10), and 29.2 percent of Clovis households with extremely low-income (less than 30 percent of the AMI) are homeowners. Most households with extremely low-income 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 US 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 Fresno County or the State of California as only 3.2 percent of occupied housing units in Clovis are defined as overcrowded. Of these units, 2 percent have 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room and 1.2 percent have more than 1.5 persons per room, which is 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.

As described in more detail in Chapter 4, “Fair Housing Assessment,” renter households have a higher rate of overcrowding (5.9 percent) compared to owner-occupied households (1.5 percent).

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
185
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 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 the city of 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. As described in the “Housing Costs and Affordability” section of this chapter, the median rent in Clovis is $1,247 per month according to ACS, almost double what an ELI family could afford.

ELI households typically consist of minimum wage workers, seniors on fixed incomes, persons with disabilities, and farmworkers. This income group is disproportionately likely to live in overcrowded and substandard housing conditions. This group of households has specific housing needs that require greater government subsidies. 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. Housing choice vouchers, which serve to subsidize rents, are one of the most prevalent programs available to ELI households; however, there is generally an insufficient number of vouchers to meet the demand. The City supports access to services through local

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 186
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

and countywide programs that are available to extremely low-income households, including childcare services, youth services, job/employment services, food/meal programs, health services, and other services.

In Clovis, there are 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.

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.

In recent years rising rents, higher incomes and credit standards imposed by landlords, and insufficient government assistance has exacerbated the problem. Without adequate assistance this group has a high risk of homelessness.

Virtually all ELI households are expected to need aid, including housing cost subsidies and social services. State law requires the City to identify the projected need for ELI housing. 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.

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, and highlights that nearly 50 percent of senior households have incomes that are less than $50,000 annually and are considered lower-income households.

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. 187
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 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, although 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 becomes 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.

Existing Resources for Elderly Residents
As of 2023, Clovis has three affordable senior housing developments with 233 rental units restricted to lower-income seniors (see Table 3-20 for more information). According to community care licensing data from the California Department of Social Services, there are 75 licensed residential care homes for seniors with nearly 850 beds. In addition, the City’s Senior Center offers a variety of educational, recreational, and health-related services for older adults, including advocacy services to help seniors access housing or legal counseling. The City leverages Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and CalHome funds for a Housing Rehabilitation program that provides grants to

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
188
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

low-income households to make needed repairs and eligible modifications, including weatherization, which allows seniors in older homes to make the necessary repairs to age in place. In addition, Clovis seniors have access to several regional support programs that connect adults with disabilities and seniors with resources such as Adult Protective Services operated by the Fresno County Senior Resource Center and the Fresno/Madera Area Agency on Aging.

Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities typically have special housing needs because of their physical and/or developmental capabilities, fixed or limited incomes, and higher health costs associated with their disabilities. A disability is broadly defined by the US Census Bureau 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. Many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care. When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence. Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk of housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Approximately 11 percent of Clovis residents have one or more disability, lower than the proportion of 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

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
189
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-19
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, cognitive difficulty, self-care difficulty, or hearing and vision difficulty as shown in Figure 3-13. 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 developmental disabilities in Clovis is the home of a parent /family /guardian (see Table 3-11).

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 and Programs for Persons with Disabilities Persons with disabilities in Clovis have different housing needs depending on the nature and severity of the disability.

Those with physical disabilities generally require more modifications to their housing units, such as wheelchair ramps, elevators or lifts, wide doorways, accessible cabinetry, and modified fixtures and appliances. If a disability prevents a person from operating a vehicle, then being close to services and access to public transportation are particularly important. If a disability prevents someone from working or limits their income, the cost of housing and costs of needed modifications are likely to be even more challenging. Those with severe physical or mental disabilities may also require supportive housing, nursing facilities, or care facilities. In addition, many people living with disabilities rely solely on Social Security income, which is insufficient to afford market rate housing.

Living arrangements for people with disabilities depends on the severity of the disability. Many people live independently with other family members. To maintain independent living, people with disabilities may need special housing design features, income support, and in-home supportive services for persons with medical conditions.

Special design and other considerations for people with disabilities include single-level units, availability of services, group living opportunities, and distance to accessible transit. While regulations adopted by the state require all ground floor units of new apartment complexes with five or more units to be accessible to persons with disabilities, single-family units have no accessibility requirements.

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.

Clovis residents have access to services provided by Fresno County and other regional providers. The Fresno County Senior Resource Center, which operates the Adult Protective Services program, assisting both disabled adults and seniors with all requests for assistance. In addition, the Arc of Fresno and Madera Counties, located in the City of 190
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

Fresno, provides personalized support to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities that require assistance to maintain independent lifestyles including adult day programs, community living services, certified benefit planning, and employment support. Locally, the City operates Round Up, a paratransit service for Clovis residents with disabilities who have difficulty accessing the fixed-route transit service. Round Up’s service area includes Clovis as well as a limited area of the City of Fresno. Rides requested outside of the service area can be coordinated with Fresno Handy Ride. In addition, the City leverages CDBG and CalHome funds to operate a Housing Rehabilitation program that provides grants to low-income homeowners to make necessary repairs and modifications, which may be used for accessibility improvements or other modifications needed to support continued independent living and aging in place.

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 3-6 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 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. 191
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-21
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 assistance (e.g., emergency shelters) are available. The most recent PIT was conducted on January 24, 2023, and showed that 4,493 people experience homelessness in Fresno and Madera Counties, a 6.6 percent increase from the 2022 PIT. As shown in Figure 3-15, homelessness decreased dramatically in the late 2000s but has been on the rise since 2015. Of the 4,493 people experiencing homelessness in 2023, 2,758 were unsheltered, 1,431 were in emergency shelters, and 304 were in transitional housing.

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 192
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

Figure 3-15 Fresno City and County/Madera County CoC- Homelessness by Type Over Time, 2005-2023

Source: US HUD, CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2022, 2023).

The 2023 PIT found that most people experiencing homelessness in the region, 3,207 people, reside in the City of Fresno and identified only 605 people experiencing homelessness in the remaining portions of Fresno County, including 76 people experiencing homelessness in the zip codes that include the City of Clovis (see Table 3-13).

Table 3-13 Estimated Number of People Experiencing Homelessness by Jurisdiction, 2023 Location Total
Clovis (Zip Codes: 93611, 93612, 93613, 93619)1 76
Fresno (city) 3,207
Fresno County (outside of the city of Fresno) 605
Madera (city) 541
Madera County (outside of city of Madera) 140
Total 4,216
Source: FCOG Data Packet, 2022 - Fresno-Madera Continuum of Care, 2022. 1 Zip code area includes area outside the city of Clovis limits with the City of Fresno and unincorporated Fresno County. 2023 City-specific estimates are not available.

The 2023 PIT findings also show that approximately 86 percent of people experiencing homelessness in the Fresno and Madera region were single adults or couples, and 14 percent were people in family households that included children. Most people were between the ages of 18 and 64 (85 percent), while 9 percent were under the age of 18 and 6 percent were 64 or older. Approximately 63 percent of people experiencing homelessness were male; more than half of the region’s unhoused identified as Hispanic/Latino; 33 percent identified as having a serious mental illness; 19 percent identified as survivors of domestic violence; and 6 percent were identified as veterans. About 33 2,261 787 129 815 1,542 1,431
2,649
420 193 145
336 304
6,734
2,342
1,061
2,681
2,338 2,758
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2022 2023
Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Unsheltered
193
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-23
percent of people experiencing homelessness were “chronically homeless” (i.e., experienced homelessness for one year or longer) and had at least one disabling condition.

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 at Butterfly Gardens 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. As homeless is often a cross-jurisdictional issue, there are a variety of resources and programs that are available regionally for people experiencing homelessness, including:
• Multi-Agency Access Program (MAP Point): Traveling food truck and fixed locations that provide linkage to government resources and services (e.g., housing, behavioral health, physical health, food linkages, and transportation), and also provide all intake processing for applicants seeking housing assistance through agencies as part of the FMCoC, at no cost to residents of Fresno County. This program is funded by Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health and operated by Kings View Corporation. • Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH): Street outreach for people experiencing or at- risk of homelessness and offers referrals to housing resources, medical care, mental health counseling, and social services. This program is funded by Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health and operated by Kings View Corporation.
• Fresno County Behavioral Health WARM Line: Available during weekday business hours for non-emergency emotional and coping support for residents throughout Fresno County, operated by Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health.
• Multi-Agency Response to Community Homelessness (MARCH): Countywide collaboration to address homelessness through coordination of resources regionally and cross-jurisdictionally, engagement of the community, and collection of private funding to support community-specific programs. 194
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

• Turning Point of Central California: Offers mental health and rehabilitation services including full-service partnership and assertive community treatment programs to adults and children diagnosed with mental illness or who at-risk of being hospitalized, homeless, and/or incarcerated. • Fresno County Department of Social Services Homeless Assistance: Offers temporary and permanent housing, and arrears payments for families eligible for CalWorks once during a 12-month period. • Catholic Charities: Operates short-term shelters, community thrift stores and food pantries to provide basic necessities to individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Also offers services that provide rent and mortgage payment assistance, DMV ID vouchers, application assistance for CalFresh and food stamps, application assistance for PG&E discounts and immigration services, and senior companionship. • Emergency Housing Vouchers: Assists persons experiencing, or at-risk of becoming, or recently homeless and those fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking. Operated by Fresno Housing Authority and Fresno-Madera Continuum of Care. • United Way: Offers emergency informational services to connect persons in need with Homeless Prevention Programs, food and shelter services, help with landlord-tenant conflicts, and referrals to legal services. • Central California Food Bank. Operates Groceries2Go program which provides grocery boxes of shelf-stable food items through an appointment-based system, CalFresh enrollment assistance, fresh produce distribution via mobile pantry and neighborhood market programs, meal delivery to seniors, and distribution of food acquired through partnership with USDA to community partners operating local food banks.

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 face unique challenges securing affordable housing due to a combination of limited English language skills, very low household incomes, and difficulty qualifying for rental units or home purchase loans.

There are generally three types of farmworkers in the state:
• Permanent Residents: Permanent residents of the county in which they work and may require housing which accommodates families, including housing affordable to extremely low-income households for seasonal workers who do not work in the off-season.
• Migrant Farmworkers: Temporary residents who perform agricultural labor on a seasonal or temporary basis and typically need housing for individuals, such as single occupancy rooms, bunkhouses, or dormitory style living. • H-2A Visa Workers: Temporary residents who enter the United States under a federal guest worker program for a limited term and require a sponsor employer who provides housing, meals, and transportation to the job site.

A growing number of migrant workers do not leave California during the non-farm season, but instead stay in the area and perform non-farm work such as construction and odd jobs. Data collected as part of the USDA Census of Agriculture indicates that the composition of farmworker households has changed since 1996 to include more families and fewer individuals. As a result, farmworker housing needs have likely shifted from primarily seasonal housing for migrant workers (such as dormitory-style housing available during peak labor activity in May through October) towards more permanent affordable housing for low wage working families, although there remains a need for both housing types.

Farmworker Population
Official estimates of farmworker populations vary widely depending on the data source and are generally available at a countywide or regional level. Estimates by government agencies based on traditional data collection tend to underestimate the true numbers. Government agencies that track farm labor do not consistently define farmworkers 195
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-25
(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). Further, farmworkers may be difficult to count due to their mobility, shared housing situations, and distrust of authorities. Many farmworkers may be undocumented residents, who are less likely to participate in traditional data collection methods.

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 (55.4 percent), working less than 150 days per year. 2020 ACS estimates that there were 36,163 people in Fresno County (8.8 percent of the overall workforce) employed in the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining industries. However, this ACS data does not accurately capture the farmworker population as it includes employment in various non-agricultural industries and excludes farm labor contractors, which significantly underestimates the number of farmworkers. It is estimated that roughly 60 percent of the workers on the state’s crop farms are farm labor contractors.2 Estimations based on tax, wage, and employment data collected from employers by California EDD indicate that Fresno County’s total farm labor employment in 2021 was 96,300 farmworkers.

Table 3-14 Hired Farm Labor, Countywide, 2017
Labor Term Number of Farm Operations Number of Workers
Year-Round Labor (150 days or more) 1,557 16,876
Seasonal Labor (Less than 150 days) 1,753 20,943
Total1 2,540 37,819
Source: USDA Agricultural Census, Table 7, 2017.
1 770 farming operations reported hiring both permanent and seasonal workers.

According to occupational data from California EDD, the median wage for farmworkers statewide in 2022 was $14.72 per hour or $30,625 annually. Farmworkers in the Fresno region had a slightly lower median wage of $14.52 per hour or $30,202 annually, which is considered between low- and very low-income based on HCD’s household income limits for Fresno County. Seasonal farmworkers (employed in farm labor less than 150 days per year) who do not find supplemental income during the off-season are often considered extremely low-income.

There is little data available on farmworkers in Clovis. The 2017 Agricultural Census estimates that there were 351 active farm operations within the 93611, 93612, 93613, and 93619 zip codes covering Clovis and the surrounding area.

Of these, 254 farm operations are located in the 93619 zip code), which includes mostly unincorporated land to the north and east of the City of Clovis limits. As of 2023, there is very little active agricultural land within the City’s limits.

Active agriculture occurs along the City’s periphery, including sites in the Northwest Urban Center actively under annexation by the City to be developed with urban uses. According to 2020 ACS estimates, 1.1 percent of the City’s workforce is employed in the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining industries (approximately 661 residents). As described above, there are limitations in using this ACS data as an approximation for the farmworker population. However, Clovis’ share of workers employed in that category of industries is smaller than all other Fresno County jurisdictions, which suggests that Clovis also has a comparatively smaller population employed in agriculture.

Between September 2021 and January 2022, Fresno County conducted a Farmworker Survey and a Farmworker Employer Survey. A second round of each survey was conducted between February 2022 and July 2022. In total, Fresno County surveyed 240 farmworkers and 170 farm employers throughout the county. 37.0 percent of respondents reported being citizens, 38.2 percent reported being permanent residents, 16.2 percent identified their status as undocumented workers, 6.3 percent did not respond, and 1.3 percent had H-2A visa status. Approximately

99.6 percent of farmworkers surveyed were Hispanic/Latino and 81.7 percent of respondents reported a monthly income less than $2,500 (corresponding to an extremely low-income household of four). There was only 1 respondent to the Survey who reported working in the Clovis area; no respondents reported living in the City. Refer to Chapter 4 for an in-depth analysis of survey findings in relation to local and regional fair housing issues.

2 Rural Migration News Blog 230. UC Davis, July 2021.
196
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

Resources for Farmworkers
The Fresno Housing Authority manages 194 units of seasonal farmworker housing for migrant farmworkers. This includes 131 housing units in Parlier owned by the State of California, Office of Migrant Services, and 64 units in Firebaugh. These units are open about six months of the year, from April through October, to serve agricultural workers during planting and harvesting seasons when most workers are needed. The Housing Authority also owns and manages three year-round housing complexes exclusively located for farm laborers in the Cities of Mendota, Orange Cove, and Parlier. Both seasonal and year-round units are restricted to legal US residents who earn at least $5,752.50 annually from farm labor. The cost of managing and maintaining the complexes is subsidized by state and federal funding sources.

The HCD Employee Housing Facilities Permit Services database reports that there are 36 dedicated employee housing units in Clovis reserved for workers with H-2A visa. These units are privately-funded and provided by employers as a requirement of the H-2A visa program. An additional 30 units are reserved exclusively for farmworkers at Willow Family Apartments.

The following is a list of organizations that provide resources and support to Central Valley farmworkers that can be accessed by Clovis residents:
• Binational Central California: Provides services related to immigration, health care, and educational resources. • United Farm Workers Foundation: Provides assistance related to immigration status filings including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, family-based petitions, naturalization/citizenship; representation before the Board of Immigration Appeals, legislative advocacy, and referrals to other support services. • California Farmworker Foundation: Provides services related to education, workforce development, health care, immigration, and community wellness.
• California Rural Legal Assistance: Provides legal counseling and representation in matters of housing advocacy, immigration law, removal defense, impact litigation, labor and employment, pesticide and work safety, sexual harassment prevention.
• Green Raiteros: Provides transportation assistance, workforce development and small business support. • Rural Mobile Health: Offers medical services and screenings at no cost. • Centro La Familia: Offers domestic violence assistance, sexual assault and human trafficking services, consumer and family advocacy, CalFresh outreach and education, telecommunications education and assistance in multiple languages, and immigration support services.
• Central California Legal Services: Provides legal counseling and support. • Fair Housing Council of Central California: Provides fair housing advocacy and tenant support. • Cultiva La Salud: Provides services related to promoting health equity for disadvantaged communities including free food distribution, grocery assistance, and health care outreach. • Self-Help Enterprises: Provides services related to housing including the development and management of affordable housing for farmworkers and other low-income residents, financial and technical assistance for home- building or rehabilitation, as well as fair housing advocacy and tenant support and education. 197
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-27

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.

Figure 3-16 Total Housing Units, Clovis, 1990-2020

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. 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
21%
10%
23%
14%
8%
12%
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
198
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

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.

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 increased by only 52 percent and mobile homes have increased only just 12 percent.

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

Source: Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, 2021. 2022. 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
199
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-29
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 of 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. The largest proportion of the housing stock (8,528 units) was built in the early 2000s (see Figure 3-18). 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 before 1970. If not already rehabilitated, these homes will likely need repair.

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). 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
200
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

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 is nearly 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
201
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-31
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
202
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

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.
203
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-33
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%
32%
158%
9%
-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 204
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

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
205
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-35
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.
$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
206
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

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
-i
ncome 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.

T
his section describes the ability of households at different income levels to pay for housing based on HCD 2022 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 2022 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, Table 3-19 shows affordable purchase prices at two different interest rates: 4.5 percent and 7 percent. As shown in Table 3-19, 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.
207
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-37
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 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 experience 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). 208
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

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. Table 3-20 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%
209
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-39
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 100 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 180 mixed-income units, has 37 affordable units that expired on December 31, 2022 (before the start of the planning period). 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 3-20 below. The Sierra Ridge project was funded with tax-exempt bonds. The City had no formal relationship with the project. The project sought funding from the State of California and was regulated by the State of California. Clovis was made aware of the expiration of affordability requirements and engaged the ownership of the complex when it was apparent they were not complying with the state noticing and timing requirements. The State of California engaged and the proper noticing was conducted with additional time allotted. The City also engaged the Fresno Housing Authority about funding strategies to assist impacted occupants. Vouchers were discussed, but to date, the owner has limited the increase in rent and the impacted occupants have not pursued vouchers to City staff’s knowledge.

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. 62+ 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 3-20, 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. 210
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

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.

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 Table 3-21, 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 t he 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. 211
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-41
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 Center3, 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 inland area was about $400,000 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 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.

Potential Financial Resources
Table 3-23 lists available funding sources that may be available for the preservation of affordable housing in Clovis.

These include programs from federal, state, and private resources.

3 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 212
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

Table 3-23 Financial Resources
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Federal
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)
Grants administered and awarded by the state on
behalf of HUD to cities through an annual
competitive process.

Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homebuyer Assistance
Economic Development
Infrastructure Improvements
Homeless Assistance
Public Services
HOME Investment Partnership Act Funds
Flexible grant program for affordable housing
activities awarded by the state on behalf of HUD to
individual cities through an annual competitive
process.

Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homebuyer Assistance
New Construction
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
Rental assistance payments to owners of private
market-rate units on behalf of very low-income
tenants.

Rental Assistance
State Programs
Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
Deferred payment loans for new construction,
rehabilitation, acquisition, and preservation of
permanent and transitional rental housing.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
Acquisition
Preservation
California Housing Finance Agency (Cal
HFA) Residential Development Loan
Program
Low interest, short-term loans to local governments
for affordable infill, owner-occupied housing
developments. Links with CalHFA’s Down Payment
Assistance Program to provide subordinate loans to
first-time buyers. Two funding rounds per year.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
Acquisition
California Self-Help Housing Program
State program that provides technical assistance
grants and loans as well as deferred payment
conditionally forgivable mortgage assistance loans for
the rehabilitation or construction of new affordable
housing.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
CalHome
Grants to cities and nonprofit developers to offer
homebuyer assistance, including down payment
assistance, rehabilitation, acquisition/rehabilitation, and homebuyer counseling. Loans to developers for
property acquisition, site development,
predevelopment, and construction period expenses
for homeownership projects
Predevelopment, Site Development, Site
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Acquisition/rehab
Down Payment Assistance
Mortgage Financing
Homebuyer Counseling
Tax Exempt Housing Revenue Bond
Supports low-income housing development by
issuing housing tax-exempt bonds requiring the
developer to lease a fixed percentage of the units to
low-income families at specified rental rates.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
Acquisition
Private Resources/Lender/Bank Financing
California Community Reinvestment
Corporation (CCRC)
Nonprofit mortgage banking consortium designed to
provide long-term debt financing for affordable
rental housing. Nonprofit and for-profit developers
contact member banks.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
Acquisition
213
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 3-43
Table 3-23 Financial Resources
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Northern California Community Loan
Fund (NCCLF)
Offers low-interest loans for the revitalization of low- income communities and affordable housing
development.

Acquisition
Rehabilitation
New Construction
Low-Income Investment Fund (LIHF)
Provides below market-loan financing for all phases
of affordable housing development and/or
rehabilitation.

Acquisition
Rehabilitation
New Construction
Administrative Resources
RH Community Builders
RH Community Builders is a nonprofit housing
developer active in the region. The organization
develops cost-effective, high quality, permanently
affordable housing throughout the Central Valley and
beyond. RH Community Builders is focused on
building a multi-faceted approach to ending
homelessness in the Central Valley. By assisting
community members in accessing needed services
and increasing the inventory of affordable housing.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
Acquisition
Source: FCOG Draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element 2023-2031.

214
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Housing Needs Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.
215
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-1
CHAPTER 4 | Assessment of Fair Housing

4.1 Introduction
Community amenities and access to opportunities are not always equitably accessible or attainable due to different social, economic, or cultural barriers. Because of this, it is important the City of Clovis ensures that sites for housing, particularly lower-income units, are available throughout the City and that residents have fair and equitable access to amenities and opportunities. This chapter provides an assessment of the City’s plans for fair housing, including lower- income units, 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.” Thus, cities and counties are required to take deliberate actions to address disparities in housing needs, access to opportunity, and settlement patterns 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 of Clovis 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 American Community Survey (ACS), the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Tool, and the City’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2019).

In addition, the City of Clovis, as an entitlement jurisdiction, is required to prepare and submit an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) to US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This requirement replaced the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice that the City has prepared to satisfy HUD requirements in the past. The AFH 216
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

is a mechanism by which HUD ensures that jurisdictions receiving federal financial assistance are taking meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing. Similar to the required analytical components of the Housing Element Assessment of Fair Housing, HUD requires that the AFH evaluate who lacks access to opportunity and inequities among protected class groups, patterns of integration and segregation, and mechanisms by which racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty can transform into areas of opportunity. The City of Clovis will prepare and submit an AFH in compliance with the requirements of federal law.

4.2 Notes on Geospatial Analysis
In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by census tracts. Census tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the US 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 is related to a locality’s and fair housing groups’ ability to disseminate information related to fair housing, providing outreach and education to inform community members 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 testing. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act are the primary fair housing laws in the State of California. State law further extends anti-discrimination protections in housing to several classes that are not covered by the federal FHA of 1968, including prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to protect the people of California from housing-based discrimination pursuant to the California FEHA, Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act.
• FEHA prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics.
• Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) prohibits business establishments in California from discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. • Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51.7) guarantees the right of all persons within California to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.

Fair housing outreach and education is imperative for people experiencing discrimination, so they know when and how to seek help. In Fresno County, local housing, social services, and legal service organizations include the Fair Housing Council of Central California, Central California Legal Services, California Rural Legal Services, and the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. Below is a more detailed description of fair housing services provided by local housing, social services, and legal service organizations. 217
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-3
• Fair Housing Council of Central California. The Fair Housing Council of Central California is a professional, non- profit, civil rights organization dedicated to the elimination of discrimination in housing and the expansion of housing opportunities for all persons. The Fair Housing Council accomplishes its goal through the advocacy of equal housing opportunities, assisting victims of housing discrimination and enforcing compliance with fair housing laws, including the Community Reinvestment Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. It provides a multifaceted program of private enforcement, education and outreach, research and advocacy to affirmatively further the goal of equal housing opportunity in the San Joaquin Valley.
• Central California Legal Services. Central California Legal Services Inc. is a private, not-for-profit, public interest law firm established to provide free civil legal assistance to low-income individuals, families, organizations, and communities.
• California Rural Legal Services. California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. is a nonprofit law firm serving low-income residents of California's rural areas and small cities. • Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. The Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (Leadership Counsel) advocates at the local, regional, and statewide levels on the overlapping issues of land use, transportation, climate change, safe and affordable drinking water, housing, environmental justice, equitable investment, and government accountability. Based in the San Joaquin and Eastern Coachella Valleys, Leadership Counsel services include community organizing, research, legal representation, and policy advocacy.

The City demonstrates compliance with fair housing laws and other related laws through the following:
• The City complies with SB 330 (Gov. Code, Section 65589.5), relying on regulations set forth in the law for processing preliminary application for housing development projects, conducting no more than five hearings for housing projects that comply with objective general plan and development standards, and making a decision on a residential project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report, or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental report for an affordable housing project. • The City demonstrates compliance with Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, Section 65915-65918) through its density bonus ordinance. The City has included Program H7 (Density Bonus Ordinance) to monitor density bonus law and update the ordinance as needed to be consistent with recent State law. • The City will comply with No-Net-Loss (Gov. Code, Section 65863) through identifying a surplus of sites available to meet the RHNA allocation and tracking the remaining capacity as projects are approved on sites in the inventory (Program H2).

In June 2019, the team preparing the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in Clovis conducted a review of rental housing advertisements to identify fair housing violations or impediments. All advertisements were examined for language that indicates that housing would not be made available to persons in protected classes. A total of 450 listings on Craigslist and Zillow were reviewed and no fair housing impediments or violations were identified.

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 72 race discrimination complaints). 218
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

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 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.

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. 219
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-5
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 Regional Housing Needs (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 contended that its Housing Element is in full compliance with all regulations governing affordable housing and filed an appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeal.2 In April 2023, the appellate court partially affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling that the City’s use of a zoning overlay was not sufficient to meet the City’s Fourth Cycle carryover lower-income housing rezone allocation. However, the appellate court remanded the plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination and violations of City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing for further proceedings in the Superior Court. The City filed a petition for review of the appellate court’s ruling, and on July 19, 2023, the California Supreme Court sent notice indicating that the City’s petition was denied. On July 20, 2023, the Court of Appeal issued its Remittitur returning the case back to the Fresno County Superior Court to conduct further proceedings consistent with the Court of Appeal opinion. A status conference with the Superior Court was held on December 5, 2023.

On February 20, 2024, City Council and the plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement ending legal proceedings of the case. To address the action items from the Settlement Agreement (Appendix B), the Housing Element includes several implementation programs related to the following:
• Establishment of a Local Housing Trust Fund with a commitment to contribute at least $1.8 million to support affordable housing development;
• Dedication of City-owned sites to the development of affordable housing; • Rezoning of small infill parcels throughout the City to accommodate approximately 1,300 multifamily housing units; • Adoption of a Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance to require a certain percentage of housing units in new housing development projects be affordable to lower-income households; and • Creation of a development impact fee deferral program, deferring the payment of significant portions of the City development impact fees for qualifying affordable housing projects. • Increase the minimum density in the R-3 zone from 15 units/ acre to 20 units/ acre.

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 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.

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
220
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

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 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.
221
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-7
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 US Census Bureau data. 222
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 US Census Bureau data. 223
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-9
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 US Census Bureau data. 224
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 US Census Bureau data. 225
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-11
Figure 4-5 Diversity Index, Clovis, 2010 and 2018

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 226
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
227
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-13
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 located 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.
228
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 US 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 near 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.
229
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-15
Figure 4-6 Median Income, Fresno County, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US 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 37 percent and the statewide median by 7 percent. Although household incomes have risen statewide over recent years, the City’s median household income grew faster between 2010 and 2021 than the state as a whole (33.0 percent compared to 29.2 percent).

Table 4-5 Median Household Income, 2010-2021
Jurisdiction Median Household Income (2010) Median Household Income (2021) Percent Change Clovis $63,229 $84,119 33.0%
Fresno County $46,430 $61,276 31.9%
California $60,883 $78,672 29.2%
Source: US Census Bureau ACS 5-Year Estimates 2010, 2021, 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). 230
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 the City, located along the northern and eastern 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 differently because they have a family with one or more individuals who are under 18 years of age. The term “family” also applies to people who are pregnant and people who are securing legal custody of a person under 18 years of age, including people adopting or fostering a child. All families with children are protected by the FHA against familial status discrimination, including single-parent households and same-sex parents 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. 231
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-17
Figure 4-7 Median Household Income, Clovis, 2016-2020

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 232
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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. 233
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-19
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 US Census Bureau data. 234
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 US Census Bureau data. 235
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-21
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 US Census Bureau data. 236
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 US Census Bureau data. 237
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-23
Population with Disabilities
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities 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 modification requests. Regarding fair housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs, which can be complicated by scarce affordable accessible housing and the higher healthcare costs experienced by people with a disability. In addition, many persons with disabilities may be on fixed incomes that further limit 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 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 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: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2020, Table S1810.

In Fresno County, the percentage of individuals with disabilities increases 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: US Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates 2016-2020, Table S1810. 238
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 US 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 4-43), 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. 239
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-25
Figure 4-13 Population with a Disability, Clovis 2014-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 240
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
241
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-27
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. Most 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’s limits near California State University, Fresno on the west side of SR 168. Census tracts within city’s 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 US Census Bureau data. 242
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 US Census Bureau data. 243
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-29
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 US Census Bureau data.

244
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

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. Relative to other areas, RCAAs in Clovis tend to exhibit the following characteristics:
• Higher degree of racial/ethnic homogeneity according to Diversity Index scores (see Figure 4-5) • Median household incomes greater than $100,000 per year (see Figure 4-7) • Fewer children in single-parent households (see Figures 4-10 and 4-11) • Lower rates of people living with disabilities (see Figure 4-13) • Higher scores of economic and educational opportunity based on the 2021 TCAC Opportunity Index (see Figures 4-21 and 4-24)
• Housing units are predominantly owner-occupied, with less than 40 percent of households in renter- occupied housing units (see Figure 4-41)
• Lower rates of housing cost burden (see Figures 4-32 and 4-33).

Contributing Factors to Residential Segregation
Municipal land use policies (e.g., zoning, code enforcement, and redevelopment) have created and reinforced patterns of racial and income-based segregation. In most cities throughout the San Joaquin Valley, it is common for higher income areas to be zoned exclusively single-family, low density residential, while lower-income areas contain most of the higher density residential zoning.3 Research demonstrates that when cities have more stringent land use policies and homogenous zoning, it causes them to diversify more slowly.4 This trend is applicable to development patterns and subsequent demographics in Clovis. Lower density zoning in addition to other regulatory constraints have increased affluence and intensified spatial inequality because middle- and low-income households have traditionally been excluded from opportunities to live in exclusive single-family zoned areas. These trends are discussed further in Section 4.7, “Other Relevant Factors.” Generally, RCAAs correlate with newer areas of the City annexed beginning in the 1980s (Figure 4-39). During this time, community interest and market trends were heavily skewed toward single-family homes and these areas were predominantly zoned for and built-out as low-density, single-family residential neighborhoods (Figure 4-40). With the 1993 General Plan Update, the City reoriented its land use plan around directing new growth into designated “urban centers,” which are planned to include a diverse mix of land uses including zoning for higher density single- family, multifamily, and mixed use products. As shown in Figure 4-40, zoning in areas annexed since 2000 implements the “urban centers” concept. These more recent annexation areas include a greater variety of zoning that more closely mimics zoning in Central Clovis.

Development of the urban centers as planned will help to balance the housing stock in these areas to include housing opportunities affordable to middle- and lower-income households. However, a continued market and community preference for single-family ownership housing continues to drive construction priorities and the phasing of private investment. As a result, increased housing choice and affordability in RCAAs have yet to materialize despite the availability of land zoned for higher-density housing. In recent years, there has been an uptick in developer interest and increased consumer demand for higher-density housing projects.

3 San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity Assessment, 2014. Available via: https://academics.fresnostate.edu/oced/documents/SJV_Fair- Housing-and-Equity-Assessment_April-2014.pdf
4 Trounstine, J, 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. Cambridge University Press. 245
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-31
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 US Census Bureau data. 246
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

As described in Section 4.8, “Assessment of Sites Inventory and Fair Housing,” the City has identified a significant portion of its lower-income housing capacity in RCAAs because the most recently annexed areas to the City contain more diverse zoning with significantly more high-density zoning than areas annexed before 2000. In this way, the sites inventory provides housing mobility opportunities for lower-income households in RCAAs, improving fair housing issues in the City. In addition, the Housing Element includes the following programs which will help to expand housing choice in RCAAs and areas of highest opportunity:
• Program H5 (Affordable Housing Incentives and Support) prioritizes support for affordable housing developments in highest resource areas;
• Program H6 (Missing Middle Housing Tools and Resources) prioritizes the distribution of information and workshops on ADUs and other missing middle housing types in areas of high resource; • Program H8 (Development Standards and Zoning Consistency) will increase the minimum density in the R-3 zone to 20 units per acre, which will help encourage more affordable housing on R-3 zoned sites within RCAAs; • Program H9 (Lot Configuration and Large Lot Development) will facilitate development of affordable housing on large sites, which are primarily located in master planned areas that are classified as RCAAs; and • Program H12 (Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance) will require a certain set aside percentage of affordable housing in new residential developments.

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 (i.e., economic, environmental, and education) 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; 247
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-33
• Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the county
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 various 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.

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.

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 of Fresno, clustered near the Cities of Coalinga and Fresno. In addition, 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, Firebaugh, 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.
248
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

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. 249
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-35
Figure 4-19 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score, Clovis, 2022

Source: Data downloaded from California State Treasurer in 2022. 250
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

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 of Fresno’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. Census 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 served by the 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 of Fresno, 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 lower- 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.
251
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-37
Figure 4-20 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Education Score, 2021

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 252
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-21 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Education Score, Clovis, 2021

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 253
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-39
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, employment 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 accessibility 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 US 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, the greatest concentration of jobs are in the City of Fresno (71.2 percent of Fresno County jobs), 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). 254
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

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 US Census Bureau data. 255
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-41
Figure 4-23 Job Proximity Index, Fresno County, 2014-2017

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US 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, 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 used by TCAC and HCD to measure economic opportunity, such as median home values or poverty rates. 256
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-24 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Economic Score, Clovis, 2021

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 257
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-43
Figure 4-25 Job Proximity Index, Clovis, 2014-2017

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 258
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

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 the City’s 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 metropolitan 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 2021 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 3.0 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.
259
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-45
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 US 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. 260
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-27 TCAC Opportunity Areas, Environmental Score, 2021

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 261
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-47
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 transit options that do not offer weekend service, which may limit employment 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 urban 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 routes run twice an 262
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

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.

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

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 263
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-49
Figure 4-29 Transportation Cost Index, Clovis, 2015-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 264
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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. CHAS 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.

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 homeowners 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.
265
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-51
Figure 4-30 Cost Burdened Owner Households, Fresno County, 2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 266
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 US 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 city’s western 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 overpayment 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.

267
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-53
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 US Census Bureau data. 268
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
269
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-55
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 US Census Bureau data. 270
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
271
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-57
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) 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: US Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates 2016-2020.

272
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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 US Census Bureau data. 273
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-59
Figure 4-35 Overcrowded Households, Clovis, 2015-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 274
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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
Lack 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 (FMCoC) in January 2023 and identified 76 people experiencing homelessness in Clovis and the surrounding area (data is only available at the zip code level), most of whom were unsheltered. Based on regional trends, people experiencing homelessness in Fresno County are predominantly single adults; although 14 percent were homeless families. More than half of those surveyed identified as Hispanic/Latino and 19 percent identified as survivors of domestic violence. Approximately 33 percent of those surveyed experienced chronic homelessness (i.e., experience homelessness for a year or longer) and lived with at least one disabling condition.

In Clovis, Neighborhood Services staff report that people experiencing homelessness are generally concentrated near commercial centers along Shaw, Herndon, and Ashlan Avenues. Additionally, FMCoC staff who participated in the 275
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-61
2023 PIT Count reported a large concentration of people living either in a vehicle or on the street near the Fresno County Department of Social Services building (located south of the intersection of Ashlan Avenue and Peach Avenue in southwest Clovis).

Before the date of the FMCoC homeless housing survey, construction was completed on the City’s first permanent supportive housing facility, known as Butterfly Gardens. The facility provides permanent supportive housing to up to 75 individuals (single adults), including those with disabilities who are at-risk of becoming homeless. Residents at Butterfly Gardens are both from the Clovis area as well as surrounding areas. Butterfly Gardens is located on Willow Avenue in the Historic Helm Ranch community. Butterfly Gardens expands the supportive housing capacity in Clovis, particularly in communities sensitive to displacement risk (see Figure 4-36), and will help build community resilience to shifting economic conditions.

To better assist the City in addressing the needs of the homeless in Clovis, City staff issued a homeless housing survey in March 2024 via email to local non-profit housing service providers and other City staff, including law enforcement and transit officials. Survey results identify the following primary causes of homelessness experienced in Clovis: low- wage jobs, income disruption, perceived lack of affordable housing, broken familial ties, preference to live unhoused, substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, and higher housing costs in Clovis. Transit or transportation is not identified as a hindrance for the unhoused in finding housing. Transit services are provided free of charge in Clovis, through the City-sponsored Clovis Round-up Bus/Transit system. Yet, many in the City, particularly the homeless, are unaware of the free service. Additionally, unhoused persons are at times unwilling to leave their possessions behind to take a City bus to obtain services. Strategically, City staff will continue to analyze ridership with the Clovis Round-Up Transit System to provide modifications to bus routes and pick up times to better service residents. Staff and non-profit service providers will also continue to provide service and information on housing opportunities to unhoused people living in Clovis.

Farmworkers
According to the 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity Assessment, Fresno County and adjacent counties have the largest farmworker population compared to other regions in California. Farmworkers often face unique challenges securing affordable housing due to a combination of limited English language skills, very low household incomes, and difficulty qualifying for rental units or home purchase loans. As described in Chapter 3, state and local data collected by USDA over the last few decades indicates that California’s farmworker population has become more settled over time, as more migrant workers remain in the state during the farm off-season working construction and odd jobs. As a result, farmworker housing needs have shifted from primarily seasonal dormitory-style housing for individuals to permanent, deeply affordable housing for low wage working families. Although there remains a need for both types of farmworker housing, much of the housing need for family households is best met near services, schools, and other resources and amenities similar to other special housing needs groups. Farmworkers surveyed as part of Fresno County’s Farmworker Survey (see Section 3.4, “Special Needs Populations”) expressed a strong preference for detached single-family housing and aspired to future homeownership; only 0.02 percent of those surveyed expressed farmworker housing as a desirable future housing.

Although Census data indicates that Clovis likely has a small population of farmworkers relative to other jurisdictions in Fresno County, school enrollment data suggests that some of region’s farmworker population utilize services within Clovis. As shown in Table 4-14, there were approximately 5,902 migrant students enrolled in school districts throughout Fresno County with 43 migrant students enrolled in Clovis Unified School District (CUSD) during the 2020-2021 school year. Generally, migrant student enrollment has increased steadily throughout the county, while migrant student enrollment in CUSD has declined over the same time period. Nearly half of the county’s migrant student population attend school in the City of Fresno.

276
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Table 4-14 Migrant Student Attendance
Geography School District 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 Clovis Clovis Unified 51 51 49 44 43
Fresno (city) All 2,314 2,594 2,692 2,622 2,975
Fresno County All 4,780 5,061 5,185 5,445 5,902
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021) Farmworker households tend to have high rates of poverty and are disproportionately likely to overpay for housing and live in substandard or overcrowded conditions. As described in Chapter 3, most farmworkers surveyed (81.7 percent) reported incomes less than $2,500 per month, corresponding to an extremely low-income household of four (assuming one income earner). Farmworkers that are citizens or permanent residents may have access to publicly- subsidized affordable housing, although they must compete with other lower-income households for the limited supply of affordable units. Undocumented workers have even more limited options, as Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 excludes undocumented and other temporary residents from qualifying for most federally-subsidized housing units under the purview of HUD or USDA. This population of assistance-ineligible households is considered underserved and at higher risk of overpayment, overcrowding, and displacement, which are compounded by the legal complexities of eligibility and language barriers.

Many farmworkers pay market-rate prices for housing, despite having incomes qualifying for housing assistance, due to a shortage of employer-provided housing and difficulty securing publicly-assisted housing. As a result, farmworkers are likely to live in overcrowded and cost-burdened housing situations, as they often need to pool the incomes of multiple workers to afford market-rate rents. The average household size of survey respondents was 3.9 persons, and approximately 58.4 percent reported living in overcrowded conditions. As discussed in Section 3.6, “Housing Costs and Affordability,” recent rent and home sale prices in Clovis are generally out of the realm of affordability for very low- and extremely low-income households and it follows that farmworkers in the Fresno region are unlikely to be able to afford to rent or buy a home in Clovis.

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 increase. 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 median 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 3-24). 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 277
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-63
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 Area Median Income (AMI) or below) that are also severely rent burdened households is greater than county median in 2017; or • Nearby areas have 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.

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. 278
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

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. 279
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-65
Figure 4-37 Location Affordability Index, Clovis, 2015-2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 280
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Local Trends
Figure 4-38 shows the communities in the City of Clovis that are vulnerable to displacement based on data from the Urban Displacement Project in 2017. These include the Historic Helm Ranch and Cougar Estates neighborhoods in the southwestern portion of the City, along its boundary with Fresno. 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.

In a recent (2022) release of the UDP displacement-risk model which classifies displacement risk by a cumulative risk level, an estimated risk level for low-income households only (50-80 percent of AMI), and an estimated risk of displacement for very low-and extremely low-income households (0-50 percent of AMI), Central/Old Town Clovis was the only census tract with potential displacement happening or risk of displacement of the low-income population (50-80 percent of AMI). In addition to the characteristics described above, there are higher percentages of homeowners experiencing housing cost burden (mortgages and housing costs are greater than 30 percent of median incomes) in this area.

There are also several mobile home parks and subsidized housing located in sensitive communities (see Figure 4-43), 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 covering 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. 281
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-67
Figure 4-38 Communities Sensitive to Displacement, Clovis, 2017

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 282
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

4.7 Other Relevant Factors
In addition to the indicators analyzed above, there are several other factors that can influence housing mobility and access to opportunity in a jurisdiction. For example, historic development patterns may have resulted in neighborhoods that are largely or exclusively made up of single-family homes, or historic discrimination may have influenced a city’s racial and ethnic composition. Further, given current market trends, newer market rate neighborhoods may not be financially accessible to lower-income households without overpayment or overcrowding. Other factors may include public and private investment, local regulatory or economic development plans, and historic policies. Those factors that are considered relevant vary between jurisdictions and are described at the local level below.

Historical Context
Clovis has had a long history as a small western town community, known for its slogan, "Clovis - A Way of Life." The earliest recorded inhabitants of the region were members of the Yokuts tribe.5 Missionaries and trappers were the first non-native people to roam the area, beginning in the early 1800s. Miners soon followed during the Gold Rush period, displacing the many Native American tribes that were settled in the foothills and near the rivers.6 The City eventually grew up around the San Joaquin Division of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which played an important role in the founding and growth of Clovis. The extension of the railroad system throughout the San Joaquin Valley allowed the increased expansion of a market for the agricultural production of the region.

In the 1880s, Clovis’s main industry was grain farming. Clovis Cole was one of the area’s large farmers with over 50,000 acres in grain production. Cole, along with ranchers Clarence Pallos and George Owens, was the driving force in establishing the City of Clovis. In addition to the arrival of the “Iron Horse,” the completion of the 42-mile-long log flume from Shaver Lake and the development of the 40-acre Clovis mill and finishing plant led to the expansion of grain production and raising livestock, which were the driving forces in establishing the City of Clovis in 1891. 7 The
land was platted for large- and moderate-size ranching and farming operations.8 Around this time, residents started to develop vineyards and orchards in addition to ranching sheep and cattle. The establishment of orchards, vineyards, and ranches allowed more profitability with smaller tracts of land, and many pieces of land were subdivided into portions of agricultural colonies in the region.

For the first 21 years, there was no organized government in Clovis. With the growing population generated by the agriculture and lumber mill industries, residents voted to incorporate the City in 1912. The area grew at a relatively slow pace until the mid-1950s when the Fresno-Metropolitan Area began to increase rapidly in population, following the trend of post-World War II development throughout California. The City continued to grow without formal planning until 1964 when the first general plan was established. After 1964, the general plan and the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission, which established urban boundaries and service areas, were used to guide growth.

Land Use, Zoning Practices, and Municipal Growth Patterns Municipal land-use policies have a significant effect on race and class segregation. Zoning, for example, determines where housing can be built, the type of housing that is allowed, and the amount and density of housing that can be provided. Zoning can also directly or indirectly sway the cost of developing housing, making it harder or easier to accommodate affordable housing. Race and class segregation can be worsened or improved depending on placement of amenities like parks, libraries, roads, and transit stops, as well as negative land uses like freeways, landfills, and flight paths.

In some areas, the availability of land determines municipal growth. For example, in the San Francisco Bay area, there is little to no room for further expansion. This is not the case in Clovis as there is an abundance of land to the north and east of the city. Since its inception, the City has generally developed outward from its central business district.

5 Granville Homes, 2018. Cultural Resource Assessment for the McFarlane Ranch, City of Clovis Fresno County, California. Accessible via:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Home-Place-Cultural-Resource-Assessment.pdf 6 City of Clovis, nd. “About Clovis.” Accessible via: https://cityofclovis.com/government/about-clovis/ 7 Ibid
8 Mollring, M. 1999. An Analysis of Primary Factors Influencing Municipal Growth Patterns in Clovis, CA. page 9. Accessed via:
283
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-69
The original core of Clovis began to take shape in the 1890s with the construction of a rail line and the development of a major lumber mill. Early growth took place along Shaw and Tollhouse avenues, which together form the route of State Highway 168. During the 1960s, the city grew in a southwest direction primarily toward the amenities and jobs located in the city of Fresno. In the 1970s growth continued in a southwesterly direction. Beginning in the 1980s and continuing through the 1990s, growth switched direction and the city began expanding north and east from the original city center. From the 1950s through the present (2023), the City has emerged as a dynamic community with a population of over 120,000 residents and a land area of nearly 26 square miles. The City is served by California State Highways 168, 41, 99 and 180. Development tends to cluster near these and local transportation routes. Figure 4-39 displays growth patterns in the city from 1910-2021.

The City’s early general plans established land use designations allowing for a variety of housing types to be developed. Community interests and market trends in development were and continue to be primarily single-family homes. Before the 1993 General Plan update, more than 85 percent of the area developed with residential uses was in the form of low-density, single-family homes. With the 1993 General Plan, the City’s land use plan was reoriented around a new “Urban Center” concept, whereby most new growth would be directed to a series of three communities, termed “Urban Centers.” The Southeast, Northeast, and Northwest Urban Centers were each envisioned as a cluster of villages consisting of neighborhoods that are interconnected via multipurpose corridors.

Neighborhoods within each urban village were planned with a mix of self-sustaining land uses, including higher density single-family and multifamily residential uses to accommodate a full range of housing needs and products.

The 1993 General Plan also established a mixed use designation and described the intent to use that designation within the Urban Centers to provide for “senior, low-income, and creative applications of higher density housing types with densities up to 43 units per acre.”
A Specific Plan for the Southeast Urban Center, now referred to as Loma Vista, was adopted in 2003. The plan identifies a variety of residential neighborhoods, from rural estates and low-density, single-family lots to higher density residences. Loma Vista developed in the early 2000s, and today, the area is approximately 70 percent developed. At the core of Loma Vista are community centers to serve as entertainment and commercial hubs, and concentrated around these community centers are commercial uses, employment generating uses, and opportunities for higher density residential uses.

The 2014 General Plan continues to emphasize the Urban Center concept. The Northwest and Northeast Urban Centers were expanded and refined, following the village-oriented principles initially outlined in the 1993 General Plan.

Development in the Northwest Village, referred toas Heritage Grove, is underway, following the approval of a nearly 600-unit single-family subdivision in 2018 and Willow-Shepherd Northeast Prezone and Annexation in 2023.

Development in the Northeast Urban Center has not yet commenced, though the detailed planning necessary to support annexation and development is underway. Both areas are expected to accommodate most residential demand over the next several years. The mix of housing being planned in the urban centers is much more diverse than existing patterns of development, with some areas of housing planned at higher densities than anywhere else in Clovis.

While the 2014 General Plan permits a variety of housing types to be built, the vast majority (68 percent) of Clovis’ land area is zoned for lower density single-family homes, with no more than four units per acre, compared to 11 percent zoned for multifamily housing. The remaining 21 percent of land area in the City is non-residential. 9 Figure 4-
40 below displays the City’s Zoning Map. Most multifamily residential is in older sections of town and near commercial areas, or in the new urban centers of Loma Vista and the recently annexed portion of Heritage Grove.

Middle to upper-middle class residential areas, composed of predominantly single-family housing types, are located away from industry.

9 Low density zones are those designated R-R, R-A, R-1, R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-1-MD, R-1-PRD, R-1-24000, R-1-7500, R-1-8500, R-1-9500.

Multifamily designations include M-U, M-H-P, R-2, R-2-A, R-3, R-3-A, R-4, and RT. The remaining nonresidential land uses are commercial, industrial, public facilities, and open space. Note that this is analysis does not include recent annexations for Homeplace or Willow Corridor. 284
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-39 Historical Growth Patterns, City of Clovis, 1910-2021

Source: City of Clovis, Adapted by Ascent in 2023.
285
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-71
Figure 4-40 Zoning Districts, City of Clovis
Source: City of Clovis, 2023.
286
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

City Programs and Public Investments
The City of Clovis allocates CalHOME and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding every year for housing and community development projects. Typical projects include housing rehabilitation, street and alley reconstruction, park improvements, ADA improvements, and sidewalk repair. As the City of Clovis continues to grow, the City is targeting CDBG funding in lower-income neighborhoods to ensure that neighborhoods with affordable housing maintain their quality. Between 2018 and 2020, the City used CDBG grants to finance 16 capital improvement projects in Historic Helm Ranch and Central Clovis, including ADA improvements and sidewalk repairs, sewer infrastructure improvements, street and alley paving and resurfacing, and park improvements.

Grant Funding and Public Investments
Clovis estimates that it will receive CDBG funding of $3,750,000 over the next five years (2021-2025), with approximately 20 percent of those funds anticipated to be used for administrative costs.10 The following breaks down how the City anticipates prioritizing CDBG funding.
• Housing: $750,000 (24 percent) to be used to improve the quality of owner-occupied units, increase multifamily units for low- to moderate-income households, support transitional and permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness, and support regional efforts to end chronic homelessness. • Infrastructure: $1,337,500 (35 percent) to be used to improve the quality and increase the quantity of public improvements that benefit low- to moderate-income residents and neighborhoods, improve the quality and increase the quantity of facilities that benefit neighborhoods, seniors, and those with special needs, and provide funds to bring public facilities into ADA compliance.
• Economic Development: $250,000 (6 percent) to be used to support projects that create jobs for low- to moderate- income persons.
• Public Services: $562,500 (15 percent) to be used to provide crime awareness and additional policing that benefits low- to moderate-income neighborhoods, support senior and youth programs, support programs and activities that benefit those with special needs, and to support food pantry programs.

The City of Clovis is committed to leveraging as many funds as possible against the CDBG allocation. In 2021 the City provided $1 million to the Fresno Housing Authority for the construction of 60 units of affordable housing. The funding was provided through the City’s Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee Reduction Program. Funding went toward the Solvita Commons affordable multifamily housing complex located in the Northeast corner of Willow and Alluvial Avenues in Clovis. In 2022, the City provided $300,000 in Development Impact Fee Reduction funds to assist the City’s first permanent supportive housing development, Butterfly Gardens. The City was recently awarded $5 million in funds from the State of California CalHOME program. These funds are focused on owner-occupied rehabilitation including mobile home replacements, which typically house extremely low-income seniors at high risk of homelessness. In addition, a small portion of the funds will be used for down-payment assistance. The City also received and will be implementing an award of $1 million in CalHOME funds for down-payment assistance and an award of just over $2 million in Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds for a variety of additional affordable housing efforts.

Community Investment Program
The City’s total budget of $330.8 million for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 includes $49 million (15 percent) in capital improvement expenditures from the Community Investment Program (CIP). 11 Focal CIP projects include the Clovis
Sewage Treatment – Water Reuse Facility, new parks, major street improvements, and expansion of the City’s landfill.

The following major projects are included in the 2023-24 CIP:

10 City of Clovis, Annual Action Plan 2023-2024. Accessed via: https://cityofclovis.com/affordablehousing/cdbg-documents-2/ 11 City of Clovis, 2023. Budget-at-a-Glance: Fiscal Year 2023-24. Accessed via: https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Budget-at-a- Glance-2023-24.pdf
287
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-73
• Street Construction: $24.9 million. ADA improvements to City-owned right of way, rejuvenation and sealing of various street surfaces to increase longevity and reduce deterioration, pedestrian and bike improvements, traffic signal improvements, and multiple street widening and reconstruction projects. • Sewer System Improvements: $7.6 million. Reconstruction of sanitary sewer mains, design of wastewater master plan diversions, and work on the Sewer and Recycled Water Master Plans. • Housing and Community Development: $7.1 million. Assistance in the repair and rehabilitation of affordable housing and assist low-to-moderate-income families with their first home purchase. • Water System Improvements: $7.0 million. Investment for Water Development, construction of new water mains and granular activated carbon treatment facilities for removal of 1, 2, 3-Trichloropropane (TCP), improvements at various well sites, and design for an additional storage tank at the Surface Water Treatment Plant. • Park Improvements: $1.2 million. Acquire property for future parks, continue updating Master Plan for City Parks, and master planning for a regional park in the Northeast. • Refuse Improvements: $1.0 million. Landfill flare improvements to meet new requirements by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
• Government Facilities: $0.2 million. Upgrades and repairs to Fire Station Facilities.

CDBG funds were used or will be used to complete the following Capital Improvement Projects in the previous Consolidated Plan Period (2020-2024):
• ADA Improvements: Various Locations
• Helm/Lincoln Alley Reconstruction
• Alamos/Santa Ana Alley Reconstruction
• Cherry Lane/Oxford Alley Reconstruction
• Minnewawa/Cherry Lane Alley Reconstruction
• Helm/Ashlan Alley Reconstruction
• Ashcroft/Holland Alley Reconstruction
• Two additional alley reconstruction projects will replace 4 separate alleys in low-income areas.

Grants and capital projects are being used to increase the level of amenities in the open spaces of the older neighborhoods as opposed to relying on impact fees. There are also volunteer organizations, such as Tree Fresno, that have participated with the City of Clovis to plant trees in underserved areas. As part of the implementation of the Housing Element, programs are identified to upgrade the City’s infrastructure and improve neighborhood quality in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods with the greatest needs. In 2013, the City established a Core Area Impact Fee Reduction Program (Resolution 13-122) for infill projects. The program reduced development fees in the core area (south of Sierra Avenue and west of Locan Avenue) by eliminating sewer major facilities, parks, fire and police fees. Street fees (Outside Travel Lane, Center Travel Lane, Traffic Signals, and Bridges) were reduced to only what was necessary to reimburse developers. This program, effective until 2017, reduced development fees within the core area by as much as 70 percent. After the program ended, several of the benefits for the core area were continued through the reduction of streets and parks fees. On November 4, 2019, Clovis City Council passed a resolution authorizing the Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee Reduction Program. The program is intended to reduce impact fees for affordable housing projects that provide deed-restricted units to households that make at or below 80 percent of Area Median Income.
288
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Rates of Homeownership
Homeownership is the largest asset of most households in the US 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 4-41 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 racially concentrated areas of affluence having 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 (25.8 percent) or Black (40.6 percent) residents relative to Hispanic or Latino (60.7 percent) 12, Asian (74.1 percent) or non-Hispanic White (65.6 percent) residents (see Figure 3-7).

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 4-42, 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.

12 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 3-7. 289
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-75
Figure 4-41 Renter-Occupied Households, Clovis, 2012-2016

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on US Census Bureau data. 290
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-42 Housing Choice Vouchers Use, Clovis, 2019

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022, based on US HUD. 291
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-77
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 4-15 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 4-43). 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 4-15 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.
292
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

Figure 4-43 Subsidized Housing and Mobile Home Parks, Clovis, 2022

Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2022, based on US HUD. 293
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-79

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 inventory of sites included in the Housing Element improves or exacerbates fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity throughout the City. This section starts with a summary of the sites inventory capacity relative to fair housing indicators by census tract and then provides a more in-depth look at several of the key indicators.

Summary Analysis of Sites Inventory and Fair Housing
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 a total capacity of 14,821 units, which includes 133 ADUs. The analysis of sites inventory does not include ADUs, and analyzes 14,688 units within the planning period, which is sufficient capacity to meet the City’s RHNA at all income levels.13 A significant portion (approximately 64 percent) of residential capacity identified in the sites inventory is located in the City’s new growth areas along the northern and eastern edges of the City. 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 (Heritage Grove) and the Loma Vista Specific Plan area. As described in Section 4.7, neighborhoods in new growth areas are planned as complete communities. Master plans for these areas provide for a range of self-sustaining land uses, including mixed-density neighborhoods, commercial, civic, and open space uses.

As shown in Figure 4-44, the Housing Element identifies capacity for 9,526 housing units in new growth areas, including 3,145 lower-income units, 1,746 moderate-income units, and 4,635 above moderate-income units. Housing capacity in new growth areas accounts for more than the City’s total Sixth Cycle RHNA (106 percent), including approximately 73 percent of the lower-income RHNA as well as enough capacity to satisfy the moderate- and above moderate-income RHNA with a surplus.

The remaining 36 percent of inventoried housing capacity is located within the developed core of the city. The balance of capacity between new growth areas and infill sites is primarily driven by a limited supply of vacant and underutilized sites available for new housing development within the older and established neighborhoods of Clovis. The remaining 27 percent of the lower-income RHNA is satisfied on sites within the RHN overlay, which allows for higher density residential development suitable for lower-income housing opportunities (see Chapter 5 for additional analysis of the RHN overlay). RHN overlay sites are distributed through the City as shown in Figure 5-4 (Sites Inventory Map).

Using data and research from the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool 2.0 Table 4-16 presents the housing unit capacity and existing conditions as they relate to indicators of fair housing analyzed in this assessment for each census tract in the City. For more information about the indicators, refer to the local assessment discussed previously in this chapter (see Sections 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6). The census tracts and sites inventory are mapped and shown in Figure 4-45. 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). Because Clovis as a whole is fairly affluent relative to the region, expanding the supply of affordable housing anywhere within the City will expand access to opportunity and housing mobility for lower-income residents. However, socioeconomic indicators analyzed in this assessment reflect that residents of older neighborhoods in Central and southwest Clovis are more likely to experience fair housing issues such as housing cost burden. Residents in these neighborhoods are also 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 that are designated as RCAAs (see Figure 4-17). As shown in Figure 4-41, residents in Central and southwest Clovis are more likely to be renters compared to areas to the north and east where households are

13 The City’s total housing capacity to accommodate the RHNA is 14,821 units, including accessory dwelling units, as shown in Table 5-19. The 14,688 units described here refers to the capacity, excluding the 133 ADUs included in the inventory. 294
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

predominantly owner-occupied. Census tracts in older neighborhoods also rank lower on the TCAC Opportunity Index for indicators of economic and educational opportunity.

Overall, the analysis demonstrates that the sites inventory will improve existing fair housing conditions by providing more opportunities for affordable housing throughout Clovis, but particularly in new growth areas that are anticipated to be rich in amenities and opportunities. The programs in the Housing Element will further improve fair housing conditions in the city, beyond what is demonstrated in the sites inventory analysis.

Figure 4-44 Inventoried Housing Capacity by Area

Source: Ascent, 2024.

Note: Total housing capacity does not include units from pipeline projects. 1,937
1,208
1,186
1,158
588
592
3,682
953
1,182
6,777
2,749
2,960
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Heritage Grove (Northwest Urban Center)
Loma Vista Specific Plan (Southeast Urban
Center)
Outside New Growth Areas
Number of Housing Units
Sum of Total Housing Capacity
Above Moderate Income Housing
Capacity
Moderate Income Housing Capacity
Lower Income Housing Capacity
295
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-81
Figure 4-45 Sites Inventory by Census Tract, Clovis

Source: Ascent, 2024.

296
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing

This page intentionally left blank.

297
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-83
Table 4-16 Distribution of Housing Capacity by Census Tract and Fair Housing Indicators Census
Tract Neighborhood
Housing Capacity
(Vacant and Underutilized Sites + Approved Projects) Integration and Segregation Indicators Access to Opportunity Disproportionate Housing Needs/Displacement Risk Lower-
Income Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above
Moderate-
Income Units
Total
Housing
Units
Percent of
Total
Housing
Unit
Capacity
Non-White
Population1
Median
Household
Income
RCAA
Female-
Headed
Households
Disability
Rate
Poverty
Rate
TCAC Resource
Designation
TCAC
Economic
Domain
Score
TCAC
Education
Domain
Score
TCAC
Environmental
Domain Score
Overcrowded
Households
Renter
Overpayment
UDP
Displacement
Risk

31.02 Historic Helm
Ranch 0 0 11 11 0.07% 41 - 81%
$50,000 -
$87,100 No 40 - 60% 10 - 20% 10 - 20% High 0.50 - 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.3 - 12% 40 - 60% Vulnerable

31.03 Historic Helm
Ranch 0 0 0 0 0.00% 41 - 81%
$50,000 -
$87,100 No 40 - 60% 10 - 20%
30 -
40% High 0.50 - 0.75 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Vulnerable

31.04 0 0 0 0 0.00% 21 - 81%
$50,000 -
$87,100 No 20 - 40% 10 - 20% 10 - 20% High > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 0.25 - 0.50 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Vulnerable

55.12 66 0 3 69 0.45% 21 - 60%
$87,101 -
$99,999 Yes <20% < 10% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

55.13 137 0 3 140 0.92% 21 - 60%
$87,101 -
$149,999 Yes <20% < 10% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

55.14 0 0 0 0 0.00% 21 - 60%
$50,000 -
$149,999 Yes < 20% 10 - 20% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 60 - 80% Not Vulnerable

55.18 Harlan Ranch 0 0 127 127 0.83% 41 - 60%
$100,000 -
$149,999 Yes < 20% < 10% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 > 0.75 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Not Vulnerable

55.20 Deauville Circle 241 0 55 296 1.93% 21 - 60%
$100,000 -
$199,999 Yes < 20% < 10% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 > 0.75 8.3 - 12% 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

55.22 Wawona
Ranch/Dry
Creek 0 0 180 180 1.18% 21 - 60%
$87,101 -
$199,999 Yes < 20% < 10% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Not Vulnerable

55.24 Buchanan
Estates/Wawona
Ranch 0 258 0 258 1.69% 41 - 60%
$100,000 -
$149,999 Yes < 20% < 10% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 0.25 - 0.50 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Not Vulnerable

55.25 Heritage Grove
(Northwest
Urban Center) 2,083 1,377 4,393 7,853 51.33% 21 - 40%
$50,000 -
$149,999 Yes < 20% 10 - 20% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Not Vulnerable

56.02 Central
Clovis/Old Town
Clovis 62 256 19 337 2.20% 21 - 81%
$50,000 -
$87,100 No 20 - 40% 20 - 30% 10 - 20% High 0.50 - 0.75 > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

56.06 0 0 33 33 0.22% 41 - 60%
$50,000 -
$99,999 No < 20% 10 - 20% 10 - 20% Highest > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

56.07 0 12 0 12 0.08% 21 - 81%
$50,000 -
$87,100 No 20 - 40% 10 - 20%
20 -
30% High > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 0.25 - 0.50 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Vulnerable

56.08 0 0 0 0 0.00% 21 - 60%
$50,000 -
$87,100 No 20 - 40% 20 - 30% 10 - 20% High 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 0.75 0.25 - 0.50 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

57.01 Central
Clovis/Old Town
Clovis/Stanford
Addition 14 105 17 136 0.89% 21 - 81%
$50,000 -
$87,100 No < 20% 10 - 20% 10 - 20% Highest 0.50 - 0.75 > 0.75 > 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

57.02 274 0 14 288 1.88% 21 - 60%
$50,000 -
$149,999 No < 20% < 10% 10 - 20% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 > 0.75 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Not Vulnerable 298
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
299
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-85
Census
Tract Neighborhood
Housing Capacity
(Vacant and Underutilized Sites + Approved Projects) Integration and Segregation Indicators Access to Opportunity Disproportionate Housing Needs/Displacement Risk Lower-
Income Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above
Moderate-
Income Units
Total
Housing
Units
Percent of
Total
Housing
Unit
Capacity
Non-White
Population1
Median
Household
Income
RCAA
Female-
Headed
Households
Disability
Rate
Poverty
Rate
TCAC Resource
Designation
TCAC
Economic
Domain
Score
TCAC
Education
Domain
Score
TCAC
Environmental
Domain Score
Overcrowded
Households
Renter
Overpayment
UDP
Displacement
Risk

57.03 0 0 0 0 0.00% 21 - 60%
$50,000 -
$149,999 Yes < 20% < 10% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 > 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

57.04 0 0 2 2 0.01% 41 - 81%
$50,000 -
$87,100 No 20 - 40% 10 - 20% 10 - 20% High 0.50 - 0.75 > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Not Vulnerable

58.01 Cougar Estates 0 0 1 1 0.01% 41 - 60%
$50,000 -
$87,100 No 20 - 40% 10 - 20% < 10% Highest 0.50 - 0.75 > 0.75 > 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

58.02 Cougar Estates 64 0 21 85 0.56% 41 - 60%
$100,000 -
$149,999 Yes < 20% 10 - 20% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

58.04 0 0 0 0 0.00% 41 - >81%
$50,000 -
$99,999 No < 20% 10 - 20% 10 - 20% High 0.50 - 0.75 > 0.75 0.25 - 0.50 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Vulnerable

59.07 0 0 7 7 0.05% 41 - 60%
$87,101 -
$99,999 Yes < 20% 10 - 20% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 > 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

59.11 Loma Vista 182 200 22 404 2.64% 41 - 81%
$50,000 -
$99,999 Yes < 20% < 10% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Not Vulnerable

59.12 Loma Vista 1,208 857 2,067 4,132 31.00% 21 - 40%
$100,000 -
$149,999 Yes < 20% < 10% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 0.50 - 0.75 8.2% or less 40 - 60% Not Vulnerable

59.13 Loma Vista 279 0 24 303 1.98% 41 - 60%
$100,000 -
$149,999 Yes < 20% 10 - 20% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 > 0.75 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Not Vulnerable

59.14 Loma Vista 0 0 14 14 0.09% 61 - 81%
$100,000 -
$149,999 Yes < 20% 10 - 20% < 10% Highest > 0.75 > 0.75 > 0.75 8.2% or less 20 - 40% Not Vulnerable Total 4,610 3,065 7,013 14,688
Source: City of Clovis and Ascent, 2024. Data for fair housing indicators downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021 and adapted by Ascent; based on data from ACS.

Note: RCAA = Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence
300
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
301
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing
Final Housing Element | September 2024 Page 4-87
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 4-46 and 4-47 show the City’s sites inventory in relation to concentration of non-White residents by census tract. Approximately 13,395 units in the inventory (91 percent of the total capacity) is identified in areas where between 21 and 40 percent of the population is non-White. Only 2 percent of the total inventory capacity (228 units) is located within census tracts where more than 61 percent of the population is non-White.

Figure 4-46 Sites Inventory and Predominant Racial Composition of Census Tract, Clovis

Source: Ascent, 2024.
3,790
820
0 2,853
0 212
6,752
245 16
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
21-40% 41-60% 61-80%
Number of Housing Units
Percent of Population Identifying as Non-White in Census Tract Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units 302
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Assessment of Fair Housing