HERE
TO
STAYA POLICY-BASED BLUEPRINT FOR
DISPLACEMENT AVOIDANCE IN FRESNO
A PRODUCT OF A DIGNITY-
INFUSED COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT POLICY
DESIGN PROCESS
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF
FRESNO BY THRIVANCE GROUP
OCTOBER 2021
PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT
Here to Stay Public Comment Report Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 3
Public Comment Outreach Activities 4
WHO RESPONDED? 6
Policy Preferences 8
POLICY RANKINGS 8
Majority Preferred 8
Renters vs. Owners Policy Prioritization 12
Policies Preferred by Those in the Transform Fresno Project Area 12 Policy Preferences by Age Group 14
Policy Preferences by Race 15
Anti-Displacement Considerations 20
DISPLACEMENT BURDEN ANALYSIS 20
Who is Being Displaced? 21
Gender 21
Age 22
Race 22
Community 23
Parents 24
Policy Preferences Among those Who’ve Been Displaced 25 Qualitative Findings 26
FEEDBACK 26
Resident Solutions 26
Community Based Organization Feedback 27
Real Estate Interest Group Feedback 28
Final Recommendations 29
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 29
RANKED RECOMMENDATIONS 30
Decision-making Formula 30
Final Ranked Recommendations 32
Appendixes i
REAL ESTATE INTEREST GROUP FORM LETTER ii
Names of those who submitted the form letter iv
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION LETTERS vi
RESIDENT LETTERS xx
COMMUNITY STUDY SESSION SUMMARY xxvi
HERE TO STAY SURVEY INSTRUMENT xxxi
ORIGINAL HERE TO STAY POLICY RANKINGS xlvi
TRANSFORM FRESNO PROJECT MAP xlix
ALL GRAPHS li
Executive Summary
To satisfy the requirements of the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) grant, which funded research to identify implementable anti-displacement policies, Thrivance Group was tasked with identifying three policies the City of Fresno would pursue to meet the specific objectives of the City’s displacement avoidance plan. The findings from this process also include requirements and policies outlined in the Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, and Housing Element Program 12A.
The Fresno Housing Element is a mandated chapter of its general plan and its purpose is to ensure decent and affordable housing for all persons in the City of Fresno. Adopted in 2016 and amended in 2017, it contains 28 programs designed to further the city’s housing goals. Program 12A of the Housing Element requires the establishment of an Anti-Displacement Task Force, annual gathering of data and reporting on displacement, identification of a set of actions (policies) that would allow residents and merchants to remain in their neighborhoods, and pursuit of funding for development of mixed income and affordable housing, along with posting of relevant information on the City’s website. The City established the Task Force in 2018 and produced its first annual report on Displacement in 2019. The Here to Stay report was intended to guide the Anti-Displacement Task Force’s future efforts in studying, reporting on, and preventing displacement.
To arrive at the policy recommendations, Thrivance Group conducted a series of community engagement activities that resulted in 46 anti-displacement preliminary policy recommendations. The 46 preliminary recommendations were shared widely for public comments and feedback to determine a consensus-based prioritization and ranking of the 46 proposed policies. The Thrivance Group produced theHere to Stayreport toensure Fresno residents had a transparent overview of the details of each policy recommendation as well as how the recommendations came about. TheHere toStayreport was a package of policy recommendations intended to provide a plan of action to continue moving the City of Fresno and its elected officials toward citymaking with the goal of making Fresno more healthy, more economically stable and more equitable. While the report was the result of a year-long research and community engagement effort, paid for by the City of Fresno, the policies recommended throughout were crafted in the spirit of community-based policy development and with the long-term sustainability of both former and current residents at the core of the effort’s intentions and motivations.
TheHere to Stay Public Comment Reportprovides anoverview of 1) how public comment outreach was structured, 2) the quantitative analysis of public comments and surveys, 3) the qualitative analysis of submitted letters and Supported by California Strategic Growth Council’s Transformative Climate Commu nities Program with funds from California Climate Investments – Cap-and-Trade Dollars at Work existing socio-economic conditions, 4) a final prioritization of the 46Here to Stay policies informed by public feedback, and 5) Thrivance Group’s final recommendations for near-term implementation of the priority policies.
Summary of Final Recommendations
The ranked list of recommended policies being submitted by Thrivance Group to the city of Fresno are: 1) Fair Chance Housing, 2) Eviction Right-to-Counsel, 3) Rent Stabilization, 4) Increase Local Hire and Living Wage Minimum on Local Contracts, 5) City of Fresno “Here to Stay” Community Land Trust, 6) “Here to Stay” Homeowner and Renter Assistance Programs, 7) “Here to Stay” Deposit Program, 8) Moratorium on Encampment Sweeps, 9) Public Health Impact Reports, 10) Environmental Justice and Climate Resiliency Planning , 11) Fresno-Specific Universal Design Standards, 12) Department of Anti-Displacement and Homelessness Intervention, 13) Here to Stay Affordability Index, 14) Right To Return Home, and 15) Dignified Tiny House Villages and Scattered Site Housing.
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 2of 34 Introduction
BACKGROUND
How We Got Here
The Thrivance Group was contracted by the City of Fresno to research and evaluate potential displacement avoidance policies to ensure that the changes coming to Fresno through the Transformative Climate Communities project would be most beneficial to existing Fresno residents and former Fresno residents looking to return home. As part of the agreement, Thrivance Group wrote and published a report titled:Here to stay:a blueprint for displacement-avoidance.
The initial assignment was to develop recommendations that would directly benefit residents in the Southwest Fresno area. However, the policy recommendations would have to apply to the broader region of Fresno, given the nature of displacement and migration throughout the region.
For example, the City of Fresno could adopt a package of policies that specifically apply to Southwest Fresno, but how will the people who've already been displaced from Southwest Fresno and live in other regions of Fresno benefit from those interventions? The following statements, which can be found in several places on the Transform Fresno website, describe the origin of the Transformative Climate Communities project and how displacement avoidance fits in, follows:
The Transform Fresno suite of projects is funded through the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) grant through the Strategic Growth Council and is made up of 24 projects, a Community Engagement Plan and a Displacement Avoidance Plan. The Transform Fresno Displacement Avoidance Plan (DAP) describes potential policies as it relates to avoiding displacement activities that the Transform Fresno community has identified as ways for residents and businesses to remain intact should the threat of displacement occur specific to Transform Fresno.
Here is the statement from the Transform Fresno project that directed the Thrivance Group’s work:
The basis of what we hope to accomplish from the consultant’s work is to address the following questions:
●Is displacement currently taking place in the Transform Fresno Project Area? If so, what is the cause? If not, what is the probability of future displacement occurring in the Transform Fresno Project Area?
●What are the potential factors that would contribute to continued or future displacement?
●What are potential steps to mitigate further or future displacement? ●Include policy recommendations, strategies, and other tools that can prevent or mitigate displacement
Fresno’s current Displacement Avoidance Plan outlines existing policies within the City of Fresno. These are the policies, plans, ordinances, and programs currently in place to prevent displacement of existing households within the project area, such as the production of affordable Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 3of 34 housing, preservation of affordable housing, tenant protections, and support, protections for small businesses, business stabilization and wealth building. City of Fresno staff are tasked with overseeing and monitoring policy development. The Anti-Displacement Task Force, Outreach and Oversight Committee, Fresno City Council, and Staff are all in some way responsible for reporting milestones such as data gathering and analysis, policy development, community support, City Council or Mayoral support, and adoption.
Public Comment Outreach Activities
The public comment period was initially scheduled to remain open for 45 days. However, given COVID-19 constraints and a desire to provide feedback opportunities for as many people as possible, the public comment period lasted 89 days. During the public comment period, the following engagement activities were deployed by the City of Fresno:
Community Study Sessions -4 virtual workshops calledcommunity study sessions were facilitated by the City of Fresno to provide an in-depth level of detail regarding the 46 policy recommendations. Each session addressed a different set of policies, with the intention of workshopping all 46 policies by the end of the public comment period. During each study session, live polls were conducted and public comments were collected. Each session had Spanish, Hmong, and Punjabi interpretation available. Below is a snapshot of study session attendance:
Meeting Date Total registeredTotal Attendees Staff
7/22/2021 76 61 10
8/12/2021 105 56 9
8/19/2021 101 45 9
8/26/21 115 27 9
Partner-Led Study Sessions -4 community partnershosted their own informational study sessions to ensure the inclusion of those who would most likely be impacted by the policy recommendations. Below is a snapshot of partner-led study sessions:
Host Format # of participants
Faith in the Valley / Fresno State Zoom 35
Disability Advisory Commission
Housing Subcommittee Zoom 10
Developing the Region’s Inclusive
and Vibrant Economy
(DRIVE)/Fresno Community Health
Improvement / Partnership (FCHIP)
Zoom 18
Central Valley Community
Foundation (CVCF) In person 25
88 Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 4of 34 Hard Copy Reports for Pickup -Hard Copy printouts of theHere to Stayreport were made available by the City of Fresno in English, Hmong, and Spanish. The following pickup locations were publicized:
●Fresno County Library
●West Fresno Branch Library
●Central Branch Library
●St. Rest Baptist Church
●Westside Church of God
●Rising Star Missionary Baptist Church
●Mary Ella Brown Community Center
●Centro La Familia
●Fresno City Hall
●Fresno Metro Ministry
Phone Banking and Canvassing -Thrivance Group dispatchedcommunity partners and Dignity Team staff to canvass neighborhoods within the Transform Fresno project area for 20 hours over a two week period in August 2021. Canvassers distributed postcards promoting the public comment period and collected manual comments. During the final two weeks of the public comment period, Thrivance Group staff phone banked 375 residents within the Transform Fresno project area to remind them to submit comments and surveys before the deadline.
Thrivance Group staff assisted residents with digital survey submissions during the phone banking sessions.
COUNTING EVERY VOICE
The following public forms of feedback were included in the analysis for theHere to Stay Public Comment Report:
●168 verified form-letters (a single letter submitted by multiple people) submitted by landlords and real estate agents [included in qualitative analysis] ●122 digital surveys submitted through the Transform Fresno website [included in quantitative analysis]
●5 manually completed surveys collected by Thrivance Group staff [included in quantitative analysis]
●3 letters from community based organizations who serve residents within the Transform Fresno project area [included in qualitative analysis]
●7 letters emailed delivered in person by individual residents [included in qualitative analysis]
●176 comments submitted byHere to Staystudy sessionattendees [included in qualitative analysis]
●70 open-ended comments submitted by residents through the Transform Fresno website (included in the appendixes of this report) [included in qualitative analysis] Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 5of 34
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESPONSE
The Thrivance Group used a sample size calculator to determine the minimum number of responses required to consider the survey effort scientifically significant. A scientifically significant sample size means we can trust that the findings are accurate. A statistically significant result is a result that cannot be attributed to chance. Once scientific significance is achieved, it is unlikely that surveying additional people would result in a significant change in the findings. Using the SurveyMonkey sample size calculator, we determined that our ideal sample size for a scientifically significant finding would be 384 adult respondents citywide (assuming Fresno’s adult population is 375,796 people and assuming the population of the Transform Fresno project area is 48,046 people. Despite having a substantial response, scientific significance could not be established to determine political will ofeachpolicy recommendation because form letter submissions were not verifiable by zip code to a degree of confidence and they did not contain specific feedback about the policies themselves. And, while study sessions provided excellent qualitative information, study sessions were attended by people who also submitted surveys, so they could only be counted once.
Given the inherent limitations in the sample size of those surveyed, the results were validated by cross-referencing the demographic composition of the surveyed population against the overall known demographics of the general population of the City of Fresno. Survey response rates were also compared to recent voting turnout rates. When modifying the population sizes to reflect the number of people who are civically engaged through voting, an ideal target sample size was achieved. Therefore, the results of the survey effort had moderate-high validity.
WHO RESPONDED?
Race and Ethnicity
White survey respondents were
overrepresented in the survey
results. When racial demographics
of respondents were compared to
citywide demographics, white
(non-Hispanic) respondents showed
up at a rate of 36.4% while they
make up 26% of the Fresno
population.
Latino/Hispanic respondents were
underrepresented by 10% at a
response rate of 34.3%. Black,
Asian/Pacific Islander, and
Indigenous response rates were
9.3%, 7.1%, and 2 % respectively.
(see RACE AND ETHNICITY graph)
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 6of 34
Gender
People who identify as
“woman” comprised 50% of all
responses. “Men'' made up
37.1% of respondents. Over
6% of respondents identified as
Gender Queer, Gender
Non-Conforming, and
Transgender.
The significance of gender
queer and gender
non-conforming representation
in the survey results cannot be
understated. This is especially
significant because gender
queer and gender
non-conforming residents are
an expressed priority in the
Here to Stay report. The
number of people who identify
as LGBTQ was not captured
with the survey questions, although the fact that those who identify as non-binary, questioning, gender queer, or trans participated in the data collection is relevant and important. (see GENDER graph)
Age
The largest age group represented in survey
responses was 25-34 years old at a
response rate of 37.1%. 35-44 year-olds
were also significantly represented at a rate
of 29%. 18-24 year-olds responded at a rate
of 11.3%. 55-64 year-olds represent 8.9% of
responses. 45-54 year-old responded at a
rate of 7.3%. Respondents 65 years of age
and older were 5.6% of respondents. One
respondent was less than 18 years old.
(see AGE graph)
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 7of 34
Policy Preferences
POLICY RANKINGS
Majority Preferred
7 policies were selected by more than 50% of all survey respondents. Homeowner and Renter Assistance Programs, Fair Chance Housing, Land Trusts, Rent Stabilization, and Eviction Right-to-Counsel were the most popular with more than 75 people selecting each. The Deposit Program, and Increasing Local Hire and Minimum Wage Requirement on Contracts were also favored among the majority of respondents.
(see POLICIES SELECTED BY MORE THAN 50% OF THOSE SURVEYED graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 8of 34
Moderately Preferred
23 policies were selected by less than 51%, but more than 33% of people. The broad range of policies that did not appear to be definitively rejected indicate the likelihood that a demographic analysis of those who prefer these policies would reveal identity-specific needs. (see POLICIES SELECTED BY MORE THAN 33% OF THOSE SURVEYED graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 9of 34
Not Preferred
15 policies were selected by less than 33% of people. These policies are among the most complex recommendations and would likely require a vast amount of resources and inter-agency coordination. Additional education and research on these policies would likely shift perspectives in favor of implementing them.
(see POLICIES SELECTED BY LESS THAN 33% OF THOSE SURVEYED graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 10of 34
General Consensus
When respondents were asked to select a preferred bundle of priorities based on the overall focus area of each package, they selected packages that only contained a few of the individual policies that were preferred or moderately preferred. This suggests that, when asked to make a decision based on morality and values, expressed priorities contradict those that are conveyed using terminology that sounds political. Nearly 79% of respondents prefer policies that 1) are sustainable and build capacity for anti-displacement over time, and 2) reduce harm and seek to provide immediate relief to those who are most negatively affected by displacement pressures. (see POLICIES PACKAGES PREFERRED BY THOSE SURVEYED graph) All 168 respondents from the Real Estate Interest Group described on pg 27 disagreed with rent control. Only 5 survey respondents indicated disagreement withspecificpolicies:
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 11of 34
Renters vs. Owners Policy Prioritization
To gain insight into which policies were preferred by residents with different housing statuses, the survey asked each respondent, “Do you rent or own your home?” Residents were given multiple options to select, including: “Don't havestable housing (staying with family/friends, couch surfing) Homeless (living outside, shelter, car),”“I own my current home,”and “I rent,” Their respective preferences were the following:
Top priorities among
unhoused people
surveyed:
●Moratorium on
Encampment Sweeps
●Fair Chance Housing
●Eviction Right-to-Counsel
●Right To Return Home
●One-to-One Affordable Unit
Replacement Action Plan
Top priorities among
homeowners surveyed:
●Eviction
Right-to-Counsel
●“Here to Stay”
Homeowner and Renter
Assistance
●Fresno “Here to Stay”
Community Land Trust
●Increase Local Hire and
Living Wage Minimum
on Local Contracts
●Environmental Justice
and Climate Resiliency
Planning
Top priorities among
renters surveyed:
●Fair Chance Housing
●Eviction
Right-to-Counsel
●“Here to Stay”
Homeowner and Renter
Assistance Programs
●City of Fresno “Here to
Stay” Community Land
Trust
●“Here to Stay” Deposit
Program
Policies Preferred by Those Living within the Transform Fresno Project Area To assess the extent to which overall preferred policies reflected the preferences of those who would most likely be benefitted and protected by the policies, a data analysis was conducted to show the preferences of those living within (and directly adjacent to) the Transform Fresno project area zip codes. 46% of those who responded to the survey live within the Transform Fresno project area. It’s important to note, that living outside of the Transform Fresno project area does not mean a respondent cannot be (or hasn’t been) impacted by displacement. To a certain extent, all Fresno residents will be impacted by each of the recommended policies. It is, however, necessary to center the final recommendations around the needs and priorities who are experiencing the brunt of displacement pressures. Many of those residents live in the Transform Fresno project area.
(see PERCENTAGE OF SURVEY RESPONSES BY ZIP CODE graph)
(see PERCENTAGE OF SURVEY RESPONSES WITHIN/ADJACENT THE TRANSFORM FRESNO PROJECT AREA graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 12of 34 The most preferred policies
among those surveyed and living
in the Transform Fresno project
area were:
●“Here to Stay” Homeowner
and Renter Assistance
Programs
●Rent Stabilization,
Conversion Restrictions, and
“Affordable in Perpetuity”
Designations
●Fair Chance Housing
●“Here to Stay” Deposit
Program
●Eviction Right-to-Counsel
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 13of 34
Policy Preferences by Age Group
The nature of priorities varied across the age groups. The most notable variation in preferences was among survey respondents 55 years and older. The aging adult respondents mostly preferred policies that provided direct protections to tenants and homeowners, while middle-age adults between the ages of 35 and 54 prefered policies that tackle the socio-economic root causes of housing instability.
(see TOP 5 POLICIES PER AGE GROUP table)
TOP 5 POLICIES PER AGE GROUP
18-24 35-44 25-34 45-54 55-64 65+
City of Fresno
“Here to Stay”
Community Land
Trust
City of Fresno
“Here to Stay”
Community
Land Trust
Automatic Anti-
Displacement
Zone
Automatic Anti-
Displacement
Zone
Rent Stabilization,
Conversion
Restrictions, and
“Affordable in
Perpetuity”
Designations
Rent Stabilization,
Conversion
Restrictions, and
“Affordable in
Perpetuity”
Designations
Fair Chance
Housing
Fair Chance
Housing
Fair Chance
Housing
Dignified Tiny
House Villages
and Scattered Site
Housing
Mandatory
Inclusion of
Displacement
Analysis in all
CEQA Analyses
Unofficial Eviction
Tracking Program
“Here to Stay”
Affordability
Index
Environmental
Justice and
Climate
Resiliency
Planning
Department of
Anti-
Displacement and
Homelessness
Intervention
Department of
Anti-
Displacement and
Homelessness
Intervention
Land BanksRight To Return
Home
“Here to Stay”
Deposit Program
Eviction
Right-to-
Counsel
Eviction
Right-to-Counsel
Eviction
Right-to-Counsel
“Here to Stay”
Deposit Program
Fresno-Specific
Universal Design
Standards
“Here to Stay”
Homeowner and
Renter
Assistance
Programs
“Here to Stay”
Homeowner
and Renter
Assistance
Programs
Rent Stabilization,
Conversion
Restrictions, and
“Affordable in
Perpetuity”
Designations
“Here to Stay”
Homeowner and
Renter Assistance
Programs
“Here to Stay”
Homeowner and
Renter Assistance
Programs
Rapid Rehousing
Dispatch
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 14of 34 Policy Preferences by Race
Relying solely on the aggregate (overall) rankings of policy preferences is not advisable becausemajoritypreferences rarely represent theneeds and priorities of those who are most marginalized. A racial analysis of survey responses was conducted in order to determine which policies were uniquely preferred among the different racial groups.
Policies Preferred by the Majority of Black/African/African American Respondents In addition to the 7 policies (indicated as green bars in the graph) that represent the overall preferences of the majority of all survey respondents, the following policies were also preferred among the majority of Black survey respondents:
●Department of Anti-Displacement and Homelessness Intervention ●Environmental Justice and Climate Resiliency Planning
●Mandatory Impact Area Notification System
●One-to-One Affordable Unit Replacement Action Plan
●Public Health Impact Reports
(see POLICY PREFERENCES: SELECTED BY MAJORITY OF BLACK RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGE) graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 15of 34
Policies Preferred by the Majority of Indigenous Respondents Of the 7 policies that represent the overall preferences of the majority of all survey respondents (indicated as green bars in the graph), Indigenous respondents only preferred 3: Fair Chance Housing, Eviction Right-to-Counsel, and the “Here to Stay” Deposit Program. The “Here to Stay” Affordability Index was also preferred among the majority of Indigenous survey respondents. (see POLICY PREFERENCES: SELECTED BY MAJORITY OF INDIGENOUS RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGE) graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 16of 34
Policies Preferred by the Majority of White Respondents In addition to the 7 policies that represent the overall preferences of the majority of all survey respondents (indicated as green bars in the graph), the following policies were also preferred among the majority of White survey respondents:
●Dignified Tiny House Villages and Scattered Site Housing ●“Here to Stay” Affordability Index
●Unofficial Eviction Tracking Program
(see POLICY PREFERENCES: SELECTED BY MAJORITY OF WHITE RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGE) graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 17of 34
Policies Preferred by the Majority of Hispanic/Latino Respondents In addition to the 7 policies that represent the overall preferences of the majority of all survey respondents (indicated as green bars in the graph), the following policies were also preferred among the majority of Hispanic/Latino survey respondents:
●Public Health Impact Reports
●Affordability Index
(see POLICY PREFERENCES: SELECTED BY MAJORITY OF HISPANIC/LATINO RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGE) graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 18of 34
Policies Preferred by the Majority of Asian and Pacific Islander Respondents Of the 7 policies that represent the overall preferences of the majority of all survey respondents (indicated as green bars in the graph), Fair Chance Housing was the only policy preferred by the majority of Asian and Pacific Islander respondents. (see POLICY PREFERENCES: SELECTED BY MAJORITY OF ASIAN/PI RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGE) graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 19of 34
Anti-Displacement Considerations
DISPLACEMENT BURDEN ANALYSIS
To determine the policy priorities of the most impacted populations, survey responses were filtered to capture the specific needs for those who’ve recently experienced displacement. 26.6 of all respondents experienced displacement within the last 10 years. (see PERCENTAGE OF THOSE SURVEYED WHO/VE RECENTLY BEEN DISPLACED graph) Ifthis rate of displacement is occurring across theentire City of Fresno, 38,350 people would be directly impacted.
***The survey sample size is too small to make a definitive prediction regarding citywide displacement, however, even a fraction of this degree of impact would have devastating impacts across the region.
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 20of 34
Who is Being Displaced?
To determine which populations
are most likely to be experiencing
the greatest magnitude of
displacement vulnerability, the
survey analysis included a
demographic analysis of all
respondents who responded
“yes” to having been displaced
within the last 10 years.
Gender
While the proportional likelihood
of displacement across the
gender identities of people
who’ve been displaced was, for
the most part, consistent with the
overall distribution of gender
identities across all survey
respondents, Non-Binary,
Questioning, Queer, and
Transgender respondents
were 300% more likely to
have experienced
displacement.
While roughly a quarter of
heterosexual, cis-gender
people had experienced
displacement, 66% of
Non-Binary people who
responded had experienced
displacement. 75% of
transgender respondents
were displaced.
(see GENDER - RECENTLY
DISPLACED graph)
(see GENDER - PERCENTAGE OF
THOSE SURVEYED RECENTLY
DISPLACED graph)
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 21of 34
Age
While the number of
respondents who had
experienced displacement was
proportionally consistent with the
distribution of age across
responses in the overall survey
count, people between the ages
of 45 and 54 were over three
times more likely to have been
displaced. People between the
ages of 35 and 44 were 25%
less likely to be displaced than
all other age groups.
(see AGE - RECENTLY DISPLACED graph)
Race
While the number of
respondents who had experienced
displacement was proportionally
consistent with the distribution of
race across responses in the overall
survey count, people who identified
as mixed race, or “other” were
nearly 400% more likely to have
been displaced. Hispanic/Latino
respondents were 5% more likely to
have been displaced. An important
caveat, here, is while a causal
connection between race and
displacement cannot be made, the
circumstances surrounding
displacement vary depending on
race–as evidenced by the racial
analysis of policy preferences.
(see RACE - RECENTLY DISPLACED graph)
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 22of 34
Community
Of those who had housing, the distribution
of renters vs.homeowners across
responses was somewhat consistent with
renter/homeowner demographics citywide.
Renters were overrepresented in the
survey by 7%.
(see DISPLACEMENT RISK INDICATORS -
PERCENTAGE OF RENTERS graph)
61% of respondents who’d recently
experienced displacement were renters
and 35% were homeowners. Of those
surveyed who had recently been displaced,
30% ended up living in the Tower
community, 18% moved to the Fig Loop
neighborhood, 18% moved downtown, 9%
moved to the Fresno State area, and 9%
continue to experience houselessness.
(see CURRENT COMMUNITY ZIP CODE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE WHO'VE BEEN DISPLACED graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 23of 34
Parents
While many of the survey respondents who’d experienced displacement cited a variety of impacts to their quality of life as a result of the displacement, the responses of those who had childrenandexperienced displacement were particularlyalarming. 39.3% of all survey respondents indicated they had children. While one could expect to see economic pressure and rent burden listed as displacement impacts, the number of responses that included negative impacts to emotional well-being and mental health indicate anti-displacement measures must include a comprehensive set of mental health supports and resources–especially for parents. (see PARENT RESPONSES: HOW HAS DISPLACEMENT AFFECTED YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE IN GENERAL? graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 24of 34
Policy Preferences Among those Who’ve Been Displaced
An analysis of the data was conducted to determine the policies preferred by the majority of people who’ve been recently displaced. In addition to the 7 policies that were preferred across all survey respondents, the majority of people who recently experienced displacement also preferred the following:
●Public Health Impact Reports
●Moratorium on Encampment Sweeps
●Environmental Justice and Climate Resiliency Planning
●Department of Anti-Displacement and Homelessness Intervention (see POLICIES SELECTED BY MORE THAN 50% OF THOSE WHO'VE BEEN DISPLACED graph) Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 25of 34
Qualitative Findings
FEEDBACK
Resident Solutions
Survey respondents were given an opportunity to provide the City with their own insight into preventing displacement in the City of Fresno. An open-ended response field was included in the survey and asked:What can the City and its residentsdo together to address the issue of displacement?The following solutions were offeredup by residents:
●Follow through
●Focus efforts on expanding protections for renters
●Identify a long term, dignified solution to homeless encampments ●Promote job creation by supporting existing residents with their entrepreneurial aspirations
●Find a way to provide immediate person-to-person displacement-prevention assistance in a more timely manner
●Improve communication with Fresno residents by investing in quality community engagement that leads to tangible action and outcomes
●Destigmatize and take a more compassionate approach to poverty ●Prevent large, corporate landlords from increasing rents arbitrarily while restricting their ability to continue developing in neighborhoods like the Tower and Downtown Fresno where displacement burden is increasing
●Educate elected officials and the public about racial justice and the discriminatory implications of unequal access to permanent, quality affordable housing ●Establish a universal basic income for all tenured residents ●Provide free healthcare
●Make corporations and big businesses pay more to fund housing, community clean up, and mental health
●Establish more awareness of community priorities among elected officials ●Create more public spaces that are free to access and use ●More accountability for slum lords and predatory landlords ●Provide loans for residents to make repairs and improvements to their property ●Provide a place for sleeping and bathing behind businesses and in parking lots ●Enact an eviction moratorium
●Work with landlords to ensure equity in the implementation of the policies ●Distribute affordable housing across all neighborhood in the city ●Reduce real estate lobbying
●Make use of chronically vacant homes
●Improve access to important civic engagement processed and documents ●Include residents in the implementation of the proposed policies Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 26of 34 Community Based Organization Feedback
Three manual letters were submitted by community based organizations. The three letters represented a total of 8 organizations:
●Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
●Fresno Barrios Unidos
●Fresno Building Healthy Communities
●Cultiva La Salud
●Fresno Metro Ministry
●Upholdings
●Better Blackstone CDC
●Disability Advisory Commission (DAC) (this is a Mayor-appointed commission primarily comprised of representatives of CBOs)
The following summary of comments derived from the letters:
●Regarding eviction right to counsel: the City has already taken the first steps in creating an Eviction Protection Program that aims to help residents who might be or are facing evictions. While it is a good start, this program needs to be expanded, and there needs to be additional programs attached. The Fresno Right to Counsel Coalition has drafted a proposal with how and what to include in a comprehensive Right to Counsel ●In addition to the Homeowner Assistance Program referenced in the Here to Stay Report, we recommend a comprehensive program that provides a “one-stop-shop” targeting Black, Indigenous, and peoples of color. Assistance should include a homeowners education program, working with banks and credit unions to create programs that help people improve their credit, enforcement of fair housing violations, and creating a coalition of realtors who value and work towards creating more equitable and inclusive communities
●Of the recommended policies, the low hanging fruit opportunities are: Cargo/Freight Prohibition, Community Land Trust & Land Banks, Environmental Justice and Climate Resiliency Planning, Expanded Anti-Displacement Task Force Oversight, Expanded Project Roomkey, Homeowner and Renter Assistance Program, Rental Registration Program, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for Anti-Displacement Automatic Set-Aside ●Policies that are critical to implement despite required resources are: Department of Anti-Displacement and Homelessness Intervention, Deposit Program, Fair Chance Housing, Mandatory Impact Area Notification System, Mandatory Inclusion of Displacement Analysis in all CEQA Analyses, Residential Eminent Domain Moratorium, Unofficial Eviction Tracking Program
●Policies that should be prioritized as time and resources permit are: Commercial Affordability Fund, Dignified Tiny House Villages and Scattered Site Housing, Increase Local Hire and Living Wage Minimum on Local Contracts, Independent Youth Housing Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 27of 34 Coordination, Kinship Housing Permissions, Public Health Impact Report, Rapid Rehousing Dispatch"
●Greenfield development must bear a fair share of displacement mitigation costs, which could be captured through a regional displacement mitigation impact fee ●Some policies will hinder high quality infill developments that meet countless other goals of the City while also increasing costs and further slowing the development process ●The investment in displacement avoidance measures as outlined in the report is essential to the independence of people with disabilities and the older adult population of Fresno
●It is critical that these policies take into account the complexity and needs of individuals who have intersecting identities identified as the highest risk ●One size does not fit all, and even the most universally designed home may still not work for everybody. The DAC strongly recommends the development of local policies requiring a certain percentage of new tracks [sic] of single family homes include universal design features, such as zero-clearance entries without steps, larger restrooms and built-in structural elements for adaptable features that will not require substantial modification costs for the potential homeowner
●Incorporate Just Cause Protections
●Incorporate Inclusionary Zoning
●Recommend that any developments that contain a minimum of 50% of building floor space for deed restricted housing units for extremely low income: 0-30% of AMI, very low income: 30% to 50% of AMI, and lower income: 50% to 80% of AMI, be exempt from extraordinary local regulations and oversight not contained in the current City Development Code, Building Codes, Planning or Public Works standards or review procedures
Where applicable, these recommendations will be included in the final analysis and recommendations.
Real Estate Interest Group Feedback
One form letter was submitted multiple times by individuals within the real estate investment, management, and development community. The form letter was modified and submitted by one individual. In addition to this, a manual letter was submitted by an individual. The total number of letters submitted by people with expressed real estate interests is 3. 168 verifiable submissions were counted for the form letter that was submitted by members of the CA Apartment Association. This interest group is composed of landlords, developers, and realtors. Of the 168 verified submissions, 13 letters were submitted by people with zip codes Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 28of 34 directly within the Transform Fresno project area. 40 letters were submitted by people associated with zip codes neighboring the Transform Fresno project area.
Letters submitted by those with expressed real estate interests included the following direct feedback:
●Invest in high quality affordable homes
●There is a general disagreement with rent control
●There is a belief that renters already have enough protections and that the implementation of recommendations in theHere to Stayreport would cause owners of rental property to take their units off of the market and would discourage new investment ●There is general disagreement with any kind of bureaucracy ●There is a general disagreement with fair chance housing ●The approach should seek to reduce barriers for developers instead of protecting tenants
●There is a belief that rising evictions are the result of recent tenant protections Where applicable, these recommendations will be included in the final analysis and recommendations.
Final Recommendations
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
A total of 15 policies are being recommended. 7 policies were selected by more than 50% of all survey respondents. Given the fact that these policies have been selected as preferred policies through resident consensus, Thrivance Group is recommending the implementation of all of the following policies:
1.Homeowner and Renter Assistance Programs
2.Fair Chance Housing
3.Land Trusts
4.Rent Stabilization
5.Eviction Right-to-Counsel
6.Deposit Program
7.Increasing Local Hire and Minimum Wage Requirement on Contracts In addition to being asked to select each individual policy they prefer, survey respondents were asked to select one of three policy bundles that were packaged together by Thrivance Group to determine level of preference related to an overarching desired outcome. The majority of responses were split across two objectives/bundles:
●Sustainable Benefits (43.3% preferred) -policiesthat provide sustainable capacity for ongoing displacement avoidance
●Intervention and Harm Reduction (35.4% preferred) -policies that reduce harm and provide the most immediate relief
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 29of 34 Thrivance Group took into consideration the unique needs of specific communities as well as the preferred policy outcomes. In addition to the 7 policies that garnered consensus among all survey respondents, Thrivance Group is recommending the inclusion of the following 8 policies which did not have general consensus, but 1) had consensus among several specific populations, 2) would help close equity gaps in land use practices, and 3) received expressed agreement from residents beyond the survey responses:
8.Environmental Justice and Climate Resiliency Planning- Priority policy among people who’ve recently experienced displacement, homeowners, Black respondents and people ages 35 - 44. Also included in the Sustainable Benefit policy bundle
9.Department of Anti-Displacement and Homelessness Intervention- Priority policy among people who’ve recently experienced displacement, Black respondents, people ages 25-34, and people ages 45-54. Also included in the Sustainable Benefit policy bundle
10.Public Health Impact Reports- Priority policy amongthose who’ve recently experienced displacement, Black respondents and Hispanic/Latino respondents. Also included in the Intervention and Harm Reduction policy bundle.
11.Moratorium on Encampment Sweeps- Priority policyamong unhoused people and people who’ve recently experienced displacement. Also included in the Intervention and Harm Reduction policy bundle.
12.Here to Stay Affordability Index- Priority policyamong Indigenous respondents, ispanic/Latino respondents, and white respondents. Also included in the Intervention and Harm Reduction policy bundle.
13.Right To Return Home -Priority policy among unhousedpeople and people ages 65+.
Also included in the Intervention and Harm Reduction policy bundle.
14.Dignified Tiny House Villages and Scattered Site Housing- Priority policy among white respondents and people ages 45-54 (who are the most likely to be displaced age group). Also included in the Intervention and Harm Reduction policy bundle.
15.Fresno-Specific Universal Design Standards- Prioritypolicy among people ages 65+.
Also included in the Intervention and Harm Reduction policy bundle.
RANKED RECOMMENDATIONS
Thrivance Group filtered the final policy recommendations through the same scoring system used in the initialHere to Stayreport.
Decision-making Formula
To determine our recommended sequence, Thrivance Group considered four equity-oriented priorities and ranked each policy recommendation in each category. The policies that ranked highest across categories were prioritized.
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 30of 34 I.Who is Most at Risk?
The greatest priority in the prioritization process was to meet the immediate needs of those who are currently most at risk of displacement. Based on our Social Climate Analysis and Resident Interviews, Thrivance identified eight populations (Risk Focus Areas) who are experiencing the most displacement burden at this time:
●Aging Adults
●People with Disabilities
●Young Adults
●Veterans and People Returning Home from Institutionalization ●Farmworkers and People with Documentation Challenges
●Third Generation Black Households
●Southeast Asian Residents
●Community Advocates
The policy recommendations that were most likely to address the needs of multiple populations on our Risk Focus Area list ranked higher than those that weren’t.
II.How soon can we take action?
Thrivance Group then took the list of policies and assessed the type of logistical, administrative and political steps that would need to be taken in order to implement the recommendations. The policies that were most likely to have feasible near-term implementation ranked higher than the others.
III.Will the policies fix more than one systemic issue? The third layer of prioritization was an assessment of whether or not the recommendation could meet objectives beyond anti-displacement. An example of added functions would be a policy that is recommended as a displacement avoidance measure but could also potentially improve economic vitality in a community. For this ranking, Thrivance Group ranked policies that could be expressed as direct and intentional acts of atonement higher than the other possible functions of the policies.
IV.How much funding potential does each policy have?
The fourth layer of prioritization was an assessment of what it would take to build a strong argument for the policy if we needed to seek funding for its implementation. Recommendations that had strong alignment with existing programs or had known potential funding streams ranked higher than others.
V.Final Ranked List
For the last process of prioritization, the 15 recommended policies were given adjusted ranks They were ranked based on original score and then assigned an adjusted rank, numbered 1-14; there was one tie.
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 31of 34 Thrivance added up the numerical value of each policy’s rank on each Thrivance Group adjusted ranked list plus the ranked score deriving from the public comment period. The policies with the lowest score were ranked higher than the ones with higher combined totals. The 7 policies selected by public general consensus through the public comment period remained fixed in the top 7 spots but were reordered within those spots, based on the formula. This ranking became our final recommended prioritization.
Final Ranked Recommendations
The following table is the final ranked list of the policies Thrivance Group recommends as informed by theHere to Staypublic comment period.The table also includes modifications, clarifications, and additional details that were informed by the public comment period.
Public
Comment
Rank
Final
Score
(TG
Adjusted
Rank +
Comment
Rank)
Final Rank Policy Public Feedback
2 4 1 Fair Chance Housing
Those who provided comments/feedback on this
policy emphasized that the implementation must
work to find a balance between giving people a
chance to live dignified lives while also ensuring
community safety. It was also important to
respondents that this be implemented citywide and
not just in one part of the city. Several residents
requested education regarding the policy as it has
been implemented in other cities/counties. visit
fairchacehousing.orgfor more information
5 10 2 Eviction
Right-to-Counsel
Study session participants expressed a strong
degree of support for this policy. They felt it would
help prevent discriminatory eviction. Many felt it
should be universally applied as opposed to being
decided by a clerk. One resident suggested this
policy include a 24-hour hotline (answered by
person) to provide emergency eviction legal aid.
4 11 3
Rent Stabilization,
Conversion Restrictions,
and “Affordable in
Perpetuity” Designations
Those who agreed with this policy also felt the policy
needed to go beyond the State's existing level of
regulation and that it should include a programmatic
way to actively prevent unlawful evictions in real
time. This policy was particularly important among
the aging adult session participants. One caveat that
was suggested by a study session participant was
that the policy implementers should consider a
waiver [from restrictions] for historical homes.
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 32of 34 7 13 4
Increase Local Hire and
Living Wage Minimum on
Local Contracts
Residents who agreed as well as those who
disagreed with this policy expressed a strong
sentiment that the implementers should find a way to
achieve this without having an adverse affect on the
cost to develop to the extent that it would deter
economic growth.
3 15 5
City of Fresno “Here to
Stay” Community Land
Trust
Those who provided comments on this policy
expressed that there was a need to ensure the
consideration of the needs of immigrants when
implementing this policy/program. One study session
participant suggested connecting this with
opportunities to own/build small businesses. It was
also noted by a resident that in order for this to be
sustainable, the implementers must ensure
affordability in perpetuity. Lastly, several residents
urged to implement this through partnerships with
resident leaders and advocacy organizations.
1 15 6
“Here to Stay”
Homeowner and Renter
Assistance Programs
Supporters of this policy recommended the City
incorporate undocumented people and farmworkers.
There was strong support for the down payment
component of the policy. One resident insisted the
City ensure property value limitations associated
with the program don't create additional
restrictions/burden for potential homebuyers.
Additionally, it was recommended that the program
incentivize realtors/agents to work with people
participating in the program. If this program were to
include credit repair support and support finding
loans that aren't high interest, it could help stabilize housing across the City. Additional support
requested by residents was the inclusion of support
for compiling the required documents.
6 19 7 “Here to Stay” Deposit
Program
Residents asked that this policy include a limit on the amount of security deposit a landlord can collect.
11 12 8 Moratorium on
Encampment Sweeps
Resident asked that the implementation of this policy
include a formal way to support self-managed camps
10 14 9 Public Health Impact
Reports
8 16 10
Environmental Justice
and Climate Resiliency
Planning
15 18 11
Fresno-Specific
Universal Design
Standards
Study session participants asked to include this
policy in redeveloping areas in addition to
addressing existing development and infrastructure.
Disability advocates emphasized the need to go
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 33of 34 beyond Universal Design Standards to ensure true
accessibility. One way to do that is to directly engage the disability community.
9 18 12
Department of
Anti-Displacement and
Homelessness
Intervention
Study session participants suggested using this
policy to fund/resource CBOs already supporting
unhoused and rent-burdened people
12 21 13Here to Stay Affordability
Index
13 23 14 Right To Return Home
Residents recommended including a program like
this for small businesses and including moving costs
for residents that are returning.
14 27 15
Dignified Tiny House
Villages and Scattered
Site Housing
A study session participant suggested planning and
implementing these villages in each council district to ensure equity.
Here to Stay Public Comment Report | October 2021 34of 34
APPENDIX
REAL
ESTATE
INTEREST
GROUP
FORM
LETTER ii
NAMES OF
THOSE WHO
SUBMITTED
THE FORM
LETTER iv
CA Apartment Association Form Letter Submissions
Jason TompkinsMelba Gauci Vilya Osa Nehemias Cedillo Samantha Miller Kellie Newsome Steve GallegosNiklas HugossonPaul Pena Amanda Chavez Christian MorganYVETTE ORTIZ George Dagher Vanessa Diaz Michael PerezKatrina Corona Matt Nutting Bonnie Allen Ryan Caglia Karen FarrarBetsy SchannoChris Darling Gabriela Rodriguez Elizabeth Dohrer Channelle CharestBrigitte Gibson Stephanie Strobel Ben Diener Alissa Bowen Sara Durbin Adam Collins James Hayes Debbie Der Torosian Patrick Ellis Jeff Davenport Michelle LaBorin Jonathan CorreaMaria McAnally Heather Weatherly Brett Fugman Mark LafferreBrittany Delgado Lydia Ortiz Joshua Myer Reza Assemi Michael Goldfarb Devon PrendergastCandy Pate Manuel RoblesRodika Nika massoud Assemi John Heffron Kelly Holcomb Nina Smith Valerie RuizAlbert RamirezJulia Berry Julie Rosenfeld Crystal Reed Jorge Diaz Patricia Sanchez Grace RustigianGreg Bethke Kimberly Smith JUDY SAKAMOTO Rudy Ramos Oscar SolteroMichael Salles Christopher Garcia Matthew Spenhoff Paul Wiley Theresa Wright Elizabeth WileyHolly Bundy Sabrinna Garcia Ken Warkentin Michael Moats Sarah Tanner ALICIA DIAZ Regina Hannah Bruce Higton kim wybenga Adam Goldfarb Karlene Grogan Rodika Nika William Leifer Linda Blied Debbie Gong Brett Guerra Tina Marie Allread Deborah Lenox Jeanny CauleySusan Savage Lacey Heidrich Warren Fortier Arvin Mahal Scott Ellis David Thomas Francy Hernandez Marz Garcia Gabriela Najera Heidi Falany Mark Scoffield Samantha matheus Samuel Goza Janene OsburnDanielle FalaschiDavena Witcher Kimberly Murphy abby mors Johanna Paul Shannel Kwonjerry henry DEBORAH OLSON Dean Alexander Mia Quick Renee Ruiz Miguel Perez Jan WestonPatricia Caffee Keith Ragadio Michalene Everett-Martinez Marcus Gervais Tomas Ross Brad Hardie Deanna Randall Cynthia Meyer Letty Massoyan Angie Tarr Kirstie Christie Tiffany Rubio David Tittle Karen Doane Sean WoodGina Dobson Albert Silva Brent Turnbull MAGDY IBRAHIM Heather WoodJayne Holland Gregory TerzakisVic Alberti Lauren Davila sandeep sekhon Michelle Lung Karie Wild Esther Espirito Eva Domingues Rebecca Wharton Andre Nicolet Kelly Brugetti krystal trepal Sandra Mas prisma alaniz Brenda Flory Christopher David Kailee Vacha Valerie Escobedo David Jackson Angel Jackson Robert Howerton Melissa Garcia Tony Montelongo Leslie Torres David Kochergen Daniel LantisClarissa Hernandez Kasey Avila COMMUNITYBASEDORGANIZATIONLETTERS vi
September 10, 2021
Fresno City Hall
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno St.
Fresno, CA 93721
<Sent via email>
Dear Dr. Destiny Thomas and Ms. Sophia Pagoulatis,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Here to Stay Report (Draft Report). The undersigned organizations focus our work on partnering with South Fresno neighborhoods to support and elevate community-driven priorities and solutions.
Through our advocacy and organizing efforts over the years, residents have consistently raised issues regarding their housing. Whether it’s issues with uncontrolled rent increases, uninhabitable living conditions, or not having the tools to become homeowners, attaining housing stability is a goal many have for their families. As such, our comments below reflect comments and recommendations from resident partners.
First, we commend the consulting group, The Thrivance Group, for their work and commitment in developing a comprehensive Draft Report providing anti-displacement recommendations while engaging with community members. We especially appreciate the section onLessons from Engagement-Based Research.The Draft Report identifies 46 policies to prevent and mitigate displacement. These policies cover most of the issues and concerns we have heard from resident partners over the years.
As referenced in the Draft Report, there is no single solution that solves Fresno’s housing crisis. As such, we are uplifting the following policies as key to stabilizing the housing issues Council should adopt and implement immediately:
1.Rent Stabilization, Conversion Restrictions, and “Affordable in Perpetuity” Designations— For years, Fresnans have struggledto stay housed, but the situation is only worsening as the current pandemic is ravaging our communities.
Recent reports named the City of Fresno facing one of the nation's fastest rental increases despite having statewide protections like AB 1482. It is up to this City’s leadership to step up and protect half of the City’s residents who identify as renters.
2.Just Cause Protections— The Draft Report does notrecommend this as a policy; however, we urge the City to consider and adopt such a policy immediately. Just cause protections work in conjunction with a Rent Stabilization policy similar to the statewide bill AB 1482. There are additional protections the City must enact to protect tenants that AB 1482 does not cover. This includes expanding who receives these protections to all renters regardless of the type of unit.
3.Eviction Right-to-Counsel— As of July 2021, the Cityhas already taken the first steps in creating an Eviction Protection Program that aims to help residents who might be or are facing evictions. While it is a good start, this program needs to be expanded, and there need to be additional programs attached. The Fresno Right to Counsel Coalition has drafted aproposalwith how and what to include in a comprehensive Right to Counsel.
4.Comprehensive Homeownership Program— In additionto the Homeowner Assistance Program referenced in the Here to Stay Report, we recommend a comprehensive program that provides a “one-stop-shop” targeting black, indigenous, and peoples of color. Some of the assistance such a program must provide include a homeowners education program, working with bank and credit unions to create programs for folks working on improving their credit, enforcement of fair housing violations, and creating a coalition of realtors who value and work towards creating more equitable and inclusive communities.
Such a program aims to reverse racist practices such as predatory lending, denial of loans for people of color, or the proactive role realtors played in keeping African Americans out of white neighborhoods and maintaining the status quo.
This program must work with various stakeholders such as financial institutions, real estate experts, market-rate and affordable housing developers, and community groups. The City should immediately work towards establishing this program.
Additionally, the policies below are urgent and easy to implement as the City or another public agency completes something similar. These policies are “low-hanging fruit” the City should aim to initiate as soon as possible.
●Cargo/Freight Prohibition— This policy closely resembles the aim of the Air Districts Community Emission Reduction Plan policy to complete a truck reroute study. This study will ultimately recommend alternative truck routes to avoid going into low-income communities. Staff must actively engage and support these efforts to adequately fulfill the goal set by The Thrivance Group. ●Community Land Trust & Land Banks— The City shouldaim to support the creation of Community Land Trusts, especially those that will provide homeownership opportunities. The ability to own one’s home is the American dream many strive to achieve, which is no different for Fresno renters. A comprehensive and successful community land trust program will provide low-income residents with the opportunity to have secure housing and contain community-focused initiatives such as community greening efforts and financial literacy programs.
●Environmental Justice and Climate Resiliency Planning— The City Council allocated $400,000 to support a climate resilience plan in the most recent budget.
The description by the City Council is in line with the policy identified in the Draft Report and should be worked on as the same. Thus, this policy can be implemented relatively quickly as the funding must be spent this year to avoid reallocating it in next year’s budget.
●Expanded Anti-Displacement Task Force Oversight—This recommendation is easy to implement and, thus, can be completed in a relatively quick timeframe.
Once established, the Task Force would fall under the purview of the Department of Anti-Displacement and Homelessness Intervention. In addition to the functions noted in the Draft Report, this Task Force should also seek to support small businesses, especially those owned by people of color, from being displaced.
There should also be clarity on how this Task Force collaborates with existing District Implementation Committees related to land and development in neighborhoods. Lastly, this Task Force, along with City Council, must receive updates on implementing the Here to Stay Report in conjunction with the annual Displacement Reports listed in the City’s Housing Element. ●Expanded Project Roomkey— As the City received millionsof dollars from state resources to provide unhoused residents dignified shelter, there are still a large number of people the program has been unable to help. This includes folks who may be living in their car, going from friends and families home, or are living in overcrowded situations. We can only expect these situations to worsen without sufficient tenant protections like rent stabilization or a fully funded Eviction Protection Program. The City needs to expand this program and provide adequate services that support people with their help.
●Homeowner and Renter Assistance Program— We commendthe City for committing part of the Permanent Local Housing Allocation to a first-time homebuyer downpayment assistance program. However, because of the limited funds from PLHA, we expect the program to assist a few dozens of households.
Currently, the City is also providing renter assistance from federal funds that have been instrumental in keeping homes stabilized and providing Fresnans some relief. Even after funding is exhausted, these two instrumental programs should continue through local financing from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund the City established.
●Rental Registration Program— Approximately four yearsago, Fresno’s City Council adopted the Rental Housing Inspection Act. There have been lessons learned. Staff and Council need to modify and implement to realize this ordinance’s full intent. This includes but is not limited to improved responses to renters’ requests, proactive inspections, and more vigorous enforcement of egregious actors.
●Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for Anti-Displacement Automatic Set-Aside — This is one funding mechanism to sustainably support the City’s recently established Affordable Housing Trust Fund. We recommend the City adopt a tax increment financing district in a high opportunity area for the sole purpose of incentivizing more affordable housing options. This must include both homeownership and rental opportunities.
The proposed policies below will require more effort and resources to implement; however, they are critical policies the City must implement as soon as possible. ●Department of Anti-Displacement and Homelessness Intervention— If the City wants to address Fresno’s housing crisis seriously, it needs a dedicated team that will outlive any administration or council offices. Fresno needs qualified Staff specifically tasked with managing our ever-increasing populations without housing, increasing our housing production for all income levels—especially for the lowest of incomes—, increasing homeownership rates—especially amongst people of color—, and preserving the affordable housing stock we do have. This department would also be in charge of overseeing and expanding the City’s newly created Affordable Housing Trust Fund. It will also manage other policies noted in the Draft Report, which I will mention those programs below. ●Deposit Program —Despite existing laws that are supposedto protect tenants from landlords simply keeping the entire deposit without reason, there is an unspoken understanding tenants should not expect it back. This occurs even when the tenant has not done any damage beyond what is legally permitted. As such, the City should develop a deposit program within the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
●Fair Chance Housing— As the report identifies, studieshave shown that background and criminal record reports may be erroneous. Due to many structural inequities, community members of color are also more likely to have conviction histories. Denying tenants with arrest and conviction records makes it harder for them to get back on their feet and negatively impacts the families of people with arrest and conviction records. Additionally, these are frivolous costs a renter on limited income must pay in addition to the initial application. City Council must enact such a policy similar to other jurisdictions to stabilize our housing and reduce homelessness.
●Mandatory Impact Area Notification System— Residentsof color continue to bear the burden of having incompatible land-uses in their communities.
Development that emits toxic pollutants as well as brings heavy, medium, and light-duty traffic. These facilities are often placed without any notice, and even when a notification is sent, it is predominantly in English in technical terminology.
It is essential to meaningfully engage a community when incompatible land-uses may come into their neighborhood. This first starts by notifying residents of projects as soon as a permit is submitted. Moreover, developers of these facilities must also be required to engage and be responsive to the community. ●Mandatory Inclusion of Displacement Analysis in all CEQA Analyses— Even in areas where direct displacement is not occurring, residents see such significant changes to their community they feel they have no choice but to leave.
A prime example of this is in South Central Fresno, where the substantial increase in warehouse development has changed their community so much, they no longer recognize it. A comprehensive CEQA analysis of potential displacement is essential to ensure residents want to stay in their communities. ●Residential Eminent Domain Moratorium— Implementingthis policy will aid in addressing the valid distrust and fear residents have of their government staff and elected officials. Throughout the Southwest Specific Plan and the Transformative Climate Communities process, it is abundantly evident residents continue to feel the pain and fear they or their friends experienced. This is one step to amending this city’s role in uprooting predominantly black residents from their homes.
●Unofficial Eviction Tracking Program— Having a programlike this will provide the City with invaluable information to develop and implement data-based policies and programs. This is a relatively easy enough program to establish that will likely not require too much maintenance after that.
Lastly, the policies below are also important, but we recognize staff has limited capacity and resources. As such, the policies listed below are policies the City should look towards implementing as soon as feasible.
●Commercial Affordability Fund— Small businesses arethe backbone of this country’s economy. Despite that fact, small businesses often receive the least support — case in point, the loans businesses received during the pandemic mostly went to large companies. Creating a fund to help small businesses will ensure low-income, immigrant, and BIPOC populations have the necessary capital to jumpstart a career. Moreover, this should leverage existing resources that support small entrepreneurs in starting and expanding their businesses. ●Dignified Tiny House Villages and Scattered Site Housing— Resident partners have brought up Tiny housing as viable options. Specifically, older residents who live alone and/or on fixed incomes would benefit from this option.
In implementing this policy, Staff must be mindful not to concentrate these communities in any area and ensure they are in compatible neighborhoods with access to necessary resources and amenities.
●Increase Local Hire and Living Wage Minimum on Local Contracts— The City must stop providing millions of dollars in incentives to companies simply because they decide to locate here. City leaders must stop thinking so lowly of Fresno to think it can only attract businesses if we provide them financial incentives. Instead, the City should continue and expand local hire requirements and living wages as it has done with the recently adopted project labor agreement for public works projects.
●Independent Youth Housing Coordination— Throughoutthe nation, homeownership rates among young adults have fallen as housing prices continue to rise and wages stay stagnant. This leaves renting as the only viable option for many. Expanding social services and opportunities for young adults is needed as described in the Draft. As of 2018, there were5,088 registered youth who were facing homelessness. There need to be preventivepolicies such as this one to curve and house the young population.
●Kinship Housing Permissions— As stated in the DraftReport, “the cost of living now makes it virtually impossible for someone to secure dignified housing while also qualifying for public assistance.” This is true for many households in Fresno, whose wages have not been raised significantly but whose adult children can now help with costs. However, most times, these combined wages are still not enough to live comfortably. Additional income from a roommate or child should not constitute a denial of financial and public assistance. ●Public Health Impact Report— Data and research aredesperately needed, especially in areas such as Southwest Fresno, to understand the health impacts that development has on this area. Historically, Southwest Fresno has borne the brunt of industrial and hazardous land-use practices. There needs to be data to accurately capture the health impacts caused to residents to amend damage done through financial or health programs appropriately. ●Rapid Rehousing Dispatch— Fresno City is facing someof the fastest rising rents in the nation, which has only accelerated the housing crisis. Along with rental increases, there has been an increase in evictions to list those homes at market rates. Folks who have faced eviction notices should be among those who receive help to rapidly rehouse them and alleviate the financial and emotional burden that their family and themselves go through.
We recommend the following policies also be included in the Here to Stay Report and implemented as described below:
➢Inclusionary Zoning— There are several benefits ina Citywide policy to support mixed-income housing through inclusionary zoning or housing, especially in high opportunity areas. This will keep the City compliant with its Regional Housing Needs Allocation as currently, units for lower-income residents are disproportionately lower than moderate-income and higher units. We urge the City to enact such a policy and begin implementation immediately. The City can look to studies that have evaluated jurisdictions that have successfully implemented such a policy. This is one tool the City should look towards to support affordable housing production, inclusive communities, and even improve educational outcomes for low-income students.
As Fresno’s rental and housing market continue to top nationwide charts putting residents at risk of having to leave the City they know and love, we urge the CIty to act fast and implement meaningful policies and programs. We do not have the luxury of waiting for the right elected officials or prioritizing pet projects over addressing our housing crisis. Two out of three Fresnans pay 30% or more of their income towards housing; this means 2 out of 3 residents are one unexpected medical bill, car repair, or some other unforeseen circumstance that will put them at risk of losing their current housing.
If questions or comments arise regarding our comments, do not hesitate to contact Grecia Elenes [email protected] Martinez at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Karla Martinez & Grecia Elenes
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Ashley Rojas
Fresno Barrios Unidos
Kimberly Mcoy
Fresno Building Healthy Communities
Genoveva Islas
Cultiva La Salud
September 9, 2021 Sophia Pagoulatos Planning Manager City of Fresno Planning and Development Department 2600 Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93721 [email protected] RE: Comments on Here to Stay: A Policy-Based Blueprint for Displacement Avoidance in Fresno from Upholdings and Fresno Metro Ministry/Better Blackstone CDC Dear Sophia: Thank you for conducting meaningful public workshops on the ‘Here to Stay’ report and its far ranging 43 policy recommendations. Displacement is a critical issue for our times and for all Fresno communities, and so very important to raise up and systematically address with effective tested policies and programs. We are writing to offer some observations and recommendations from the perspective of Fresno based entities engaged in the formidable tasks of helping to implement the City of Fresno General Plan’s encouragement toward increased infill development. We view desirable infill as development that includes high quality affordable housing, expanded and new businesses, jobs, and community services, multi-modal streetscapes, and community open spaces integrated through placemaking and equitable transit-oriented development designs located in mixed-use zone districts on and near Bus Rapid Transit corridors. We believe desirable infill is essential for addressing Fresno’s daunting challenges related to achieving social, economic, environmental, and health equity, and long-term urban climate adaptation and resource resilience We also believe it is necessary to elevate and juxtapose the different cost burdens placed upon desirable infill versus still predominant greenfield development. Outward pushing greenfield development in Fresno has historically escaped the costs of mitigating the urban decay and extreme disparities and inequities left behind. Desirable infill development, on the other hand, is asked to help solve these and other issues with insufficient financial and regulatory incentives and meager public resource allocations relative to the growing scale of the community
disparities and inequities. In other words, greenfield development must bear a fair share of displacement mitigation costs, which could be captured through a regional displacement mitigation impact fee.
With respect to ‘Here to Stay’ report policy recommendations, we agree that land banks, community land trusts, fair chance housing, increased local hire and living wage minimums on local contracts, homeowner and rental assistance programs, and public health impact reports, are effective tested policies and programs. We also feel that a significant number of the other policy suggestions from the ‘Here to Stay’ report will actually hinder high quality infill developments that meet countless other goals of the City while also increasing costs and further slowing the development process. You must find a way to incentivize critical development , particularly housing development, at the same time that a critical and thoughtful eye is placed on anti-displacement policies.
In an effort to expedite construction of much needed high-quality desirable infill in Fresno, and reduce unnecessary cost and time burdens, we recommend that any developments that contain a minimum of 50% of building floor space for deed restricted housing units for extremely low income: 0-30% of AMI, very low income: 30% to 50% of AMI, and lower income: 50% to 80% of AMI, be exempt from extraordinary local regulations and oversight not contained in the current City Development Code, Building Codes, Planning or Public Works standards or review procedures.
Thank you for all you are doing to address this critical issue of displacement.
We look forward to working with you and many others on this issue going forward.
Please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
KR Bergthold
__________________________________________ _____________________________________ Jessica Berzac Keith Bergthold
Co-Owner & Principal Executive Director/CEO
Upholdings Fresno Metro Ministry/Better Blackstone CDC 6083 N. Figarden Drive, #656 3845 N. Clark St., #101
Fresno, CA 93722 Fresno, CA 93726
[email protected] [email protected]
cc/ Thomas Esqueda, Fresno City Manager
Tyler Maxwell, Council Member District 4
Nelson Esparza, Council Member District 7
August 10, 2021
[email protected]
RE: Here to Stay: A Policy-Based Blueprint for Displacement Avoidance in Fresno Attn: Attn: Courtney Espinoza - CMO, City of Fresno, Transform Fresno:
The Disability Advisory Commission (DAC) advises the City of Fresno in matters pertaining to individuals with a wide range of disabilities. The comment below were prepared by the DAC Housing Subcommittee on behalf of the Commission as a whole.
Overall, the Here to Stay: A Policy-Based Blueprint for Displacement Avoidance in Fresno report and policy recommendations as identified are supported by this Commission . The DAC is pleased to see the report emphasis on the disproportionate risk factors experienced by aging adults and people with disabilities. It is critical that the City look at these elements from a disability access lens when considering the priority of policies to prevent displacement, to provide affordable accessible housing, and create suitable living environments for displacement avoidance.
Individuals with disabilities represent 14 percent of our community. Fresno outstrips both state and national averages for the percentage of population identified as a portion of an overall community (11 % and 13%, respectively). As the population continues to age, these numbers are quite likely to increase . The investment in displacement avoidance measures as outlined in the report is essential to the independence of people with disabilitie$ and the older adult population of Fresno.
We would be remiss if we did not also emphasize the importance of considering intersectional identities. Individuals with disabilities and older adults who are also part of communities of color may be experiencing disproportionate discrimination rooted in identities .that span multiple areas of social positioning, privilege, oppression, and access. It is critical that these policies take into account the complexity and needs of individuals who have intersecting identities identified as the highest risk. Additional care must be taken to widen the lens by which these identities are viewed, understanding that identities rarely exist within a silo, and as such, neither should these policies.
The report states, "The intention guiding the key objective of these proposed recommendations is to reduce harm first and then to achieve systemic change in the near- and long-term." If this is going to be achieved through these policies, then they need to be mindful written, with an awareness of how implementation will be coordinated and funded. It is also critical to understand the economic inequities as a systemic risk factor for displacement of older adults and people with disabilities. These groups start with disproportionately lower economic opportunities due, in part, to discrimination in employment, living on a fixed income, and increased medical costs.
Additional focus must be given to these underlining contributing factors in order to truly avoid displacement.
The DAC primarily supports these three policy bundles as priorities for implementation :
1. Considering mobility and connectivity
2. Improving regulations and legal protections
3. Direct services and alternatives to eviction
Mobility and connectivity is an area that is of considerable and consistent emphasis to the DAC and community we serve and represent. Without accessible and available mobility or the underlying infrastructure of connectivity, older adults and people with disabilities are more likely to experience a sense of displacement within their own community and a sense of being homebound. To be able to participate and integrate fully into communities, accessible infrastructure, such as access to public transportation and complete and well-maintained sidewalks, is key.
Improving regulations and legal protections is critical for older adults, veterans , and persons with disabilities. Take for example a scenario in which an apartment complex is being renovated, either to provide more Section 8 housing or to transition from low- income housing to market-rate housing . In many cases, people who do not have Section 8 vouchers or cannot afford increases in rent become displaced. Improving regulations and legal protections for people facing these scenarios is critical to avoid displacement and homelessness.
The DAC also encourages the prioritization of the policy bundle for direct services and alternatives to evictions. There must be greater emphasis on providing legal help for existing tenants to avoid evictions and increased assistance with requesting reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. Many currently-housed community members with disabilities have tenant-landlord struggles that put them at risk of experiencing homelessness, including but not limited to unfair rental cost increases, refusal to provide reasonable accommodations, and unlawful eviction threat. While federal mandates state that tenants must be provided reasonable accommodations, having those needs actually met is a common struggle faced by older adults and people with disabilities . Many are left with little recourse and fear retaliation or displacement from their home if they push to have their legal rights met in rental housing. The policies need to include increased funding and resources to support community benefit organizations in providing these direct services, as currently there are not enough funds to meet the actual needs of this community.
Lastly, the DAC would like to discuss the policy objectives related to universal design standards. The spirit of the underlying principles of universal design is to meet every aspect of every disability. The DAC understands that universal design concepts are a positive step forward, however one size does not fit all, and even the most universally designed home may still not work for everybody. Reasonably affordable and adaptable housing is a critical element for aging in place and homeownership for people with disabilities. A great example is the structural supports built into a restroom wall to allow for the future addition of grab bars. Current state and federal regulations do not require single family homes to be built with this underlying structure. This presents a barrier to potential homeownership by people with disabilities and puts substantial financial burden on older adults on a fixed income who eventually require home modifications to support aging in place. The DAC strongly recommends the development of local policies requiring a certain percentage of new tracks of single family homes include universal design features, such as zero-clearance entries without steps, larger restrooms and built-in structural elements for adaptable features that will not require substantial modification costs for the potential homeowner.
Any questions on these comments can be addressed to Shannon M. Mulhall, Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator at 559-621-8716 or [email protected] . We would happily discuss any and all of the above issues.
Sincerely,
Frances Reyes Acosta, Chair
City of Fresno Disability Advisory Commission
RESIDENTLETTERS xx
Date July 22, 2021
TO: Transform Fresno
FROM: Scott Nichols
RE: Public comment on the Thrivance Group’s report titled “Here to Stay, a Policy-Based Blueprint for Displacement Avoidance in Fresno”.
Sirs
I am a 4th generation resident of the Central Valley and a 3rd generation retired resident of Fresno.
I have no educational nor business experience in urban planning but, I do have a desire to see our civic leaders use a common-sense approach to the complicated issues brought forth in this preliminary report.
I have read through the Thrivance Group’s report and have the following comments that I would like my comments to be put on into public record.
My comments will refer to the page numbers and paragraphs in the report.
The first paragraph frames the whole report in the light of white-inflicted racism on several different ethnic groups, that anyone who is not white is a victim, and white people are the oppressors. This mindset, based on Critical Race Theory (CRT), permeates the balance of the report and recommendations. CRT at its core, is a racist theory as it bases human value not on the content of your character, but on the color of your skin.
Where are their citations for the “hostile land acquisitions” from Indigenous Americans, “forced labor exploitation” of Black farmers, “unjust labor practices towards Brown migrants” (define what is ‘Brown”?), and “socio- economic alienation” of Hmong residents? To make blanket statements like these is irresponsible.
Paragraph 6. People who bring in capital investment into decaying neighborhoods are being characterized as destabilizing “Pioneers” who are “destabilizing” neighborhoods. Just the opposite, vacant land and vacant buildings are destabilizing factors in neighborhoods, and these pioneers are the ones taking financial risks to bring back usefulness to vacant buildings and lands.
Paragraph 7. The report states that “push out” of residents is due in part to “volatile policing”. What does that mean? This is another irresponsible blanket statement. An overwhelming majority of residents in poorer neighborhoods want a higher police presence, not a reduced police presence.
Paragraph 3. How does bringing in neighborhood preservation, historical preservation, business improvement districts, and tenant associations worsen racial tensions and class struggles?
Paragraph 4. The report presents gentrification in a totally negative light.
Also, there would be no gentrification of dying neighborhoods if the risk- takers, i.e., investors, were not able to make a reasonable return on their investment. This report characterizes “profit” as evil.
Paragraph 1. “Through Preliminary research, The Thrivance Group determined the pre-colonial history of the Yokuts and the state-sanctioned harms enacted against them must be included in the framework of ongoing anti-displacement research as well as policy proposals informed by such research” I have some questions about this statement:
1. What was the ‘preliminary research’?
2. Why should the City of Fresno in 2021, be held responsible for actions taken by Colonial Spaniards in the late 1700’s and then by Alta California Mexicans during the 1820’s to the 1840’s and finally by gold miners in the 1850’s? What is the point except to say again that all minorities currently living in Fresno should be viewed as “victims” through the prism of Critical Race Theory?
Paragraph 4. High Speed Rail. This report NEVER should have been commissioned in the first place given that the City and County of Fresno are dealing with a continuing, major displacement of homes, businesses, infrastructure and ag land which basically divides Fresno in two. City and County leaders have no idea if the High-Speed Rail project will even be completed. In my opinion, The High-Speed Rail project is THE major negative factor affecting land use planning in Fresno, especially in the downtown and SW areas of Fresno that are feeling the negative effects of this Jerry Brown boondoggle.
The only item I agreed with the report was on how affordable housing projects have aesthetic and material quality issues, and the need for wrap around support for those living in those projects.
Paragraph 3. CRT shows up again when the authors state that the City must “prioritize curing the impacts of the legacy of racism and slavery”.
Our country already did that during the American Civil War, and over 360,000 Union Soldiers gave their lives to defeat the Confederacy and to eliminate slavery. The City needs to reject this recommendation.
Paragraph 2. The report recommends making all their policies based on atonement. This is saying that the City must make all their policies based on race. This is CRT at its ugliest form. The City must reject this recommendation.
Paragraph 4. Why do We need African American Sign Language interpreters?
Paragraph 1. The authors want to have the City remove all guidelines using recommendations from “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design”. In actuality, it makes common sense to implement CPTED in urban planning. To quote the CPTED website: “CPTED is a multi- disciplinary approach of crime prevention that uses urban and architectural design and the management of built and natural environments. CPTED strategies aim to reduce victimization, deter offender decisions that precede criminal acts, and build a sense of community among inhabitants so they can gain territorial control of areas, reduce crime and minimize fear of crime”.
Paragraph 3. The authors recommend prohibiting background checks or inquiring about arrest or convictions records of ALL CRIMINALS at any stage of the application process. This is insanity. This turns criminals into victims. If adopted by the city, it would mean that landlords would have to rent housing to those arrested and/or convicted of child molestation, rape and murder. How does that policy improve the lives of our citizens? The Thrivance Group calls this “Fair Chance Housing” I call it insanity
Paragraph 4. The Thrivance group calls for citywide rent control. NO, NO, NO. How has that worked for New York and Berkeley? It has been well documented how rent control causes housing shortages and restricts the ability of low-income people to live in a rent-controlled city.
Paragraph 4. Climate change is the religion of the Leftist Socialists. The 10 hottest days in Fresno were set between 1898 and 1933. Climates have oscillations. The residents of Fresno thrived in the turn of the century without electricity, much less air conditioning. Back in 1970, during the first Earth Day, the “coming ice age” was the main concern. Environmental Justice is just another term for wealth redistribution. I urge the City leaders to use some common sense and reject this crock of socialism.
Paragraph 3. I recommend against implementing a “Here to Stay” Homeowner’s assistance program where the taxpayers are on the hook for forgiveness of loans only 7 years old. The city has no business being in the home lending business, that is left for bankers and mortgage companies.
Bottom Line, The Thrivance Group’s report and recommendations are totally biased and are based on CRT, (Racism), and Marxist ideologies.
Their recommendations need to be rejected outright by the governmental leaders of the City of Fresno. I recommend that the City first figure out how to deal with the negative urban impacts of the High-Speed Rail project, and then commission a new study from an UBIASED urban planning consulting firm that approaches urban planning from a positive, culturally unifying and financially responsible standpoint.
From: Mary Ann Quann
To: transformfresno
Subject: Here to Stay
Date: Friday, August 27, 2021 5:05:35 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Comments on Here to Stay
Nowhere could I find exactly how many residents completed the intake or questionnaire, although there were 50 interviewed. So it’s hard to know how statistically significant the results are. Page 23 refers to “a large number of people”. There are some recommendations that sound more appropriate for cities like L.A. or the Bay Area, rather than Fresno. For instance, the vacant lots and “brownfields” in West Fresno. If something like the proposed Increase Local Hire and Living Wage Minimum on Local Contracts were to discourage development of these vacant areas, that would be too bad for Fresno, but probably is not a problem in the Bay Area.
There is a comment on page 15, that non-owner-occupied homes are poorly maintained. This seems like a generalization.
The comments at the end of page 32 are VERY appropriate to this discussion as even the Thrivance Group had trouble navigating the social safety net!
On page 36, the report states “entrepreneurs who ran Black owned business…shared a common disdain for what they believe to be an unfair and excessively complicated bidding process”. So my conclusion is this (and other processes) should be made simpler and more accessible. At the bottom of page 48 is a recommendation that would instead increase complexity.
For the Blueprint, can I suggest that these be numbered? For the Community Land Trust, this may be a good idea but is it the role of city government? How much of a “contribution” would make a meaningful difference? The enhancements, although they may be just and fair, would require a whole new bureaucracy. I like the suggestion about Land Banks. The Impact Area Notification System sounds like a reasonable idea, but only if people know it exists and can get useful and up to date information there. CEQA Analyses are already problematic, without adding displacement analysis. Maybe that whole system could be overhauled instead.
The GeoHub Platform sounds like a great idea!
The Development, Evaluation and Technical Assistance department could be useful, in theory.
An unofficial Eviction Tracking Program sounds like a good idea as does a Tenant Experience Portal and a Meeting Access Portal. The Universal Design Standards sound like they might be useful, but is Fresno any different than other parts of the state?
One-to One Affordable Unit Replacement sound good in theory. But will certainly complicate private development (and what about those properties whose affordable status is expiring?). The Priority Permitting Program sounds like a good idea if there is no other way to move ahead promptly with these projects. Hostile Architecture Eradication sound good but I guess it’s going to be pretty subjective and the implementation is going to add another level of complexity to the design process.
Under Transportation and Connectivity, I’d like to hear something that sounds like it applies to Fresno, or the portion of Fresno that was part of the study.
An Eminent Domain Moratorium seems reasonable.
Fair Chance Housing does not sound reasonable. An employer or a bank making a loan (or even a volunteer organization) would not be prevented from doing a background check.
I am not in favor of rent control as it is seen to penalize property owners who do not keep up with the permitted rent increases, resulting in higher rents. I’m also not in favor of right of first offer unless the timeline is short.
The Affordability Index sounds like a good idea. The comments about Homelessness Intervention on page 59 sound good (nothing like that currently exists???) but would require a whole new bureaucracy.
Environmental Justice and Climate Resiliency planning should be done, whether or not the rest of the Here To Stay recommendations are implemented!
I’m not in favor of Eviction Right-to-Counsel as I think it will really add to housing costs, delay even lawful evictions and because it could be superseded by either making the process simpler and more flexible or by using mediation.
The Rental Deposit Program is interesting but would require a whole new bureaucracy. And then would those city employees have to go out and inspect the property when the tenant disagrees with what the landlord is claiming??? Homeowner and Renter assistance programs: this is a very generous concept and I wonder what it would cost and if it would be available to all who need it.
There is already a Rental Registration Program. Apparently it is not well run or at least action is not taken when there are repeated code violations. In my opinion, going after the bad landlords makes more sense than a whole new bureaucracy.
I’m very much in favor of Expanded Project Roomkey and Incentivized Eviction Mediation and Rapid Rehousing Dispatch (page 63). The Public Service Lease Incentive seems unnecessary if the individual qualifies based on income, although a system where points are given (as for veterans) would be reasonable.
Independent Youth Housing Coordination sounds like a good idea if this doesn’t exist.
Right to Return Home sounds like it would be complicated to define and administer. The tenant buyout regulation doesn’t sound like it’s relevant to Fresno. The Dignified Tiny House and Moratorium on Encampment Sweeps I’m very much in favor of. The Kinship Housing Permissions sounds like something that should have been done yesterday. Informed Livability does not provide specific enough information to render an opinion. It sounds very subjective.
Sincerely
Mary Ann Quann, former tenant, homeowner and landlord
From: Lance Armo
To: transformfresno
Subject: Here to Stay
Date: Friday, September 10, 2021 6:44:58 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
This is the most outrageous and unreasonable and unsensible idea I have heard of in 27 years of practicing landlord/tenant law. Obviously, I doubt you will publish this email or even finish reading it for that matter as it states the truth. From rent control, criminal background checks and the like clearly the people commissioning this report are not rental property owners. Nor do they know what this will cause to the current homeless and underprivileged.
Just take a look at the number of evictions rise in Fresno “after” our wonderful Governor instituted the TPA. This had made things worse for tenants, not better!! Review the facts. www.larmolaw.com
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Disclosure: To comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, we inform you that this is a communication from a debt collector. This may be an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.
However, if you are in bankruptcy or received a bankruptcy discharge, no attempt is being made to collect a debt and any information will be obtained for informational purposes only.
From: dallas blanchard
To: transformfresno
Subject: Transform Fresno Here to stay report comments
Date: Friday, September 10, 2021 2:58:53 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hello;
I'm writing to offer a few comments on the here to stay report. I attended all four of the workshops regarding the report and found them to be very informative. My interest in the subject comes from my being displaced from my home of 14 years in Fresnos Chinatown when speculators bought the building I was living in with several friends and kicked us all out. About half of those kicked out became homeless off and on for the next couple of years.
First off the vast majority of the report has some very good recommendations. The highlights I'd like to specifically support are; Right to Council, Unofficial Eviction Tracking Program, Community Land Trusts, Community land Banks, Tenant Experience Portal, Rent Stabilization and affordable in Perpetuity.
Adopting some of these recommendations will help to partially level the balance between tenants and Landlords. currently landlords, property management corporations, developers, etc. have all the power.
Which leads to illegal evictions, unsafe living conditions and homelessness. So it would really be nice if the city would do something to assist the people who actually vote rather then the monied interests who buy the cities alegiance.
Thank You
Dallas Blanchard
COMMUNITYSTUDY SESSIONSUMMARYxxxvi
Session #DateFocus AreaPolicy Comments
17/22/21Community Ownership Community Land Trust
Company that owns large amounts of property do not take care of the qualikty/property Existing options are in poor condition
Need to consider the needs of low income communities
Need to consider the needs of immigrants
Landlords charge so much that there's no livelihood left Need to connect this with opportunities to own/build small businesses Must ensure affordability in perpetuity
Emphasis on meeting multiple objectives including enhancing the public safety netAddress impediments to homeownership for immigrantsEmphasis on maintaining affordability and benefit the existing communityConsider making this a partnership 17/22/21Community Ownership Civic Engagement fulfillment center Highly interested in thisShould focus on empowering residentsShould be paid opportunity for residentsThis should be multiple centers dispersed geographicallyCreate a consistent, community-based process for people to wheigh in on developmentEach CDC should have an engagement liaison to assist families in their neighborhoodsWill help build trustWe benefit from having engagement happen seperate from the governmentCould be anchored to CBOs but only if we expand their capacity/resourcesThis could happen in the form of grants 17/22/21Community Ownership Land Banks
Residents should be able to provide feedback on exactly what happens to the landStrong agreementConsider ways to prevent fires in abandoned buildingsCombine land trusts with land banksShould be governed and owned by community 17/22/21Community Ownership Civil Service Reclassification Improve hiring practices in generalNeed to better train people to work directly with the communityEthical way to terminate staff who are harmful to community and not rooted in equityMay be too difficult to implement 17/22/21Community Ownership Commercial Affordability fund Address difficulty securing capital and propertyNeed to identify a sustainable funding source 17/22/21Community Ownership Anchor institution Protections Protect the towerCould happen at the same time as zoning updatesHow can we resouce sites to maintain/sustain themselves 17/22/21Community Ownership Expanded anti-displacement task force Must include residentsLearn from/teach other citiesExand representation on the current ask forceInclude various industries in housingOpportunity for more collaborationNeed to include those who expeirence displacementNeed a way for people to get involved in the task force 17/22/21Community Ownership Increase local hire and living wageStrong AgreementNeed to do this without having an adverse affect on the cost to develop 17/22/21Community Ownership General Comments
Vacant homes should be made available to low income peopleVacant lost should be used to create parks nd open air food marketsDo not allow access to businesses that sell alcoholConsider incentivising smaller developmentsNeed to build accountability into all of the recommendations 28/12/21Mobility and Connectivity Practices Cargo/Freight Prohibition and Revenue Tax Should also restrict freight from traveling through certain communities altogetherConsider expanding to revenue tax across industries because off grandfather clauses that would make it difficult to implement thisConnect this to health evaluations along corridorsConsider bus depots and benefits of electrificationAlso need to regulate freight storage in communities 28/12/21Mobility and Connectivity Practices Public Works Prioritization and Mobility Justice Center neighborhood that have the greatest needs (equity)Could provide stipends to businesses for making improvementsFind ways to work around grant-related constraintsConsider adding a displacement burden analysis to the next ATP updateGrant funded projects should include addressing longstanding maintenance needs 28/12/21Mobility and Connectivity Practices Mobility Conditions Transportation Prioritization System No comments 28/12/21Regulations and Legal ProtectionsResidential Eminent Domain Moratorium Should include acknowledgment of past harms and an apology by the CityConsider a permanent version of thisReassess the need for this every five years Session #DateFocus AreaPolicy Comments
28/12/21Regulations and Legal ProtectionsFair Chance Housing Ensure safety while giving people a chanceStrong supportEducation needed on the nuances of the policies (for example, this wouldn't include sexual offenders)Put this in all areas of fresno, not just one neighborhood 28/12/21Regulations and Legal ProtectionsTIF for Anti-Displacement Automatic Set-Aside Only if the money is invested in the community and the community gets to say how the money is usedIncorporate a regional analysis/applicationFind a way to implement without being too restrictive during economic slow-downs 28/12/21Regulations and Legal Protections
Rent Stabilization, Conversion Restrictions, and "Affordable in Perpetuity" Designations Need to go beyond state level of regulationInclude a way to actively prevent unlawful evictionsImportant for aging adultsConsider a waiver for historical homes 28/12/21Regulations and Legal Protections"Here to Stay" Affordability Index Define "cost of living" 28/12/21Regulations and Legal ProtectionsDepartment of Anti-Displacement and Homelessness InterventionUse this to fund/resource folks/CBOs already supporting this population 28/12/21Regulations and Legal ProtectionsEnvironmental Justice and Climate Resiliency PlanningNo comments 38/19/21Direct Services and Alternatives to Eviction "Here to Stay" Homeowner and Renter Assistance Programs Need to incorporate undocumented peopleInclude farmworkersStrong support for downpayment componentEnsure property value limitations associated with the program don't create addition restrictions/burden for potential homebuyerIncentivize realators/agents to work with people participating in the programUse this program to reverse the impacts of redliningInclude credit repair support and support finding loans that aren't high interestConsider including a line of creditInclude support for compiling the required documentsProvide one-on-one navigation and a simplified application process 38/19/21Direct Services and Alternatives to Eviction Eviction Right-to-CounselWould help prevent discriminatory evictionShould be universal, not decided by a clerkStrong support for 24-hour (answered by person) eviction support line 38/19/21Direct Services and Alternatives to Eviction "Here to Stay" Rental Deposit ProgramInclude a limit on the amount of security deposit a landlord can collect 38/19/21Direct Services and Alternatives to Eviction Rental Registration Program Protect tenant not just the unitConsider a way to track larger landlords more closely while having support built in for smaller landlordsConsider revamping the code dept to make sure this policy is a successInclusionary renting 38/19/21Direct Services and Alternatives to Eviction Displacement Burden Access DesignationNo comments 38/19/21Direct Services and Alternatives to Eviction Expanded Project RoomkeyMake sure tenants have more influence over the type of wrap around services they have to opt into 38/19/21Direct Services and Alternatives to Eviction Incentivized Eviction MediationNo comments 38/19/21Direct Services and Alternatives to Eviction Rapid Rehousing DispatchNo comments 38/19/21Dignified Housing and Legacy ConsiderationsPublic Service Lease Incentive Include support for the non-profits they work forResource non profits to provide these tenants with wrap around support 38/19/21Dignified Housing and Legacy ConsiderationsIndependent Youth Housing Coordinator "Youth" should be defined the way govt. defines it - up to 26 y/oWould help keep college students in FresnoHas to include young people in foster careInstead of sweeping, provide sanitation supportCenter LGBTQ youth 38/19/21Dignified Housing and Legacy ConsiderationsRight to Return HomeNeed to include a program like this for small businessesInclude moving costs 38/19/21Dignified Housing and Legacy ConsiderationsTenant Buyout RegulationStrong support for rent board component 38/19/21Dignified Housing and Legacy ConsiderationsAutomatic Anti-Displacement ZoneNo comments 38/19/21Dignified Housing and Legacy ConsiderationsDignified Tiny Houses and Scattered Site HousingPut one village in each council district 38/19/21Dignified Housing and Legacy ConsiderationsMoritorium on Encampment Sweeps Find a way to support self-managed camps 38/19/21Dignified Housing and Legacy ConsiderationsKinship Housing PermissionsNo comments 38/19/21Dignified Housing and Legacy ConsiderationsInformed LivabilityWill provide additional renter protections and prevent illegal eviction 48/26/21Accountability and TransparencyMandatory Impact Area Notification System Make sure language imagery, messaging is acceptableGo beyond the minimum notification distinace required by CEQANotifications should follow the sphere of impactAdd text/mobile alerts like othe important city mattersDon't use community benefit agreements as a way of acceptingharmcommunity benefit agreements should be owned by the city and should have an accountability structureRely more on mailers for notificationsAttach fines for depelopers regarding community benefit agreements Session #DateFocus AreaPolicy Comments48/26/21Accountability and TransparencyMandatory Impact Area Notification System Make sure people can understand the language and they know exactly how thair property will be impactedFind a way to have interactive noticesExplain how/if resident feedback will actually impact project decisionsInclude renters, not just owners 48/26/21Accountability and TransparencyMandatory Inclusion of Displacement Analysis in CEQA Strong AgreementThe accountability aspect needs to be includedShould not be another box to check 48/26/21Accountability and TransparencyOpen Fresno GeoHub Platform Strong AgreementShould be configured like a one-stop shop for infoInterface should be seamless and easy to accessNeed interactive functions like scroll over on mapsMake sure the community knows it existsReplace the main fresno city website with thisShow city council voting records and public positions on projectsMake it as multilingual as possibleInclude info about financial institutionsInclude a feature that allows people to see property/parcel ownersShould include updates on the phases of projects 48/26/21Accountability and Transparency2030 Development, Evaluation, and Technical Assistance Department Expand existing departments to include these functionsNeeds to be properly fundedShould not let developers run this 48/26/21Accountability and TransparencyUnofficial Eviction Tracking How will it workNeeds to be a component of the open fresno portalpatterns of illegal evictions should be investigatedUse this to track root causes of displacement and eviction 48/26/21Accountability and TransparencyTenant Experience Portal Include shelters and temporary housingAdd this to the eviction tracking systemA tenant number can follow tenants throughout the system and they could update the portal as they need to 48/26/21Accountability and TransparencyMeeting Access portal Strong supportAll meetings should be accessible by one link and pageSearchable timelines/decision pointssearchable agendas 48/26/21Socially responsible development practicesSpecial Business Certification and Inclusive Procurement/RFP process Include/center LGBTQ communityPrioritize those who meet multiple points of needShould include local and small businessesExpose more people to the RFP processCould include a reparative approach for neighborhoods impacted by redlining 48/26/21Socially responsible development practicesLanguage Justice ClearinghouseStrong support 48/26/21Socially responsible development practicesFresno-Specific Universal Design StandardsInclude this in redeveloping areasInclude a way to address existing development 48/26/21Socially responsible development practicesHostile architecture eradication ordinance (not included in survey) Fine businesses for hostile infrastructureNeed trash cans, restrooms, and water fountainsDevelop after hours spaces that feel safe to peopleRe-imagine responses to so-called crime 48/26/21Socially responsible development practicesOne-to-one affordable unit replacement action plan Prioritize existing residentsConsider increasing the ratioEnsure there are no loopholes and go back at least 5 yearsReduce wait times for housing 48/26/21Socially responsible development practicesJoint development priority permitting program Strong supportPrioritize mixed income and mixed useCommunity should be a part of determining the priority levelInclude/center CBOsStart with small developers 48/26/21Socially responsible development practicesPublic health impact reportsNo comments Meeting DateTotal registeredTotal AttendeesStaff Links to Sessions 7/22/202176 61 10 https://reflect-vod-cmac.cablecast.tv/vod/11704-Here-to-Stay-Community-S-v1/vod.mp4 8/12/2021105 56 9 https://reflect-vod-cmac.cablecast.tv/vod/11699-HeretoStay081221-v1/vod.mp4 8/19/2021101 45 9 https://reflect-vod-cmac.cablecast.tv/vod/11698-Here-to-Stay-Community-S-v1/vod.mp4 8/26/21 (Rescheduled Session 2)115 27 9 https://reflect-vod-cmac.cablecast.tv/vod/11893-Here-to-Stay-Community-S-v1/vod.mp4 189 37 152
(including COF staff) (without COF staff)
7/29/2021 (rescheduled)74 51 947 Meeting Averagehttps://reflect-vod-cmac.cablecast.tv/vod/11705-Here-to-Stay-Community-S-v1/vod.mp4 HERE TO STAYSURVEYINSTRUMENTxli
Here to Stay: A Policy Based Blueprint for Displacement Avoidance in Fresno
RESIDENT SURVEY
1.What is your age? (circle)
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64; 65+
2.What is your gender? ______________________
3.What is your ethnicity? (Please select all that apply.) a.American Indian or Alaskan Native
b.Asian or Pacific Islander
c.Black or African American
d.Hispanic or Latino
e.White / Caucasian
f.Prefer not to answer
g.2 or more
h.Other (please specify)
4.Place a checkmark next to the policies you agree should be implemented 2030 Development, Evaluation, and
Technical Assistance Department
Anchor Institution Protections
Automatic Anti-Displacement Zone
Cargo/Freight Prohibition and Revenue Tax
City of Fresno “Here to Stay” Community
Land Trust
Civil Service Reclassification
Commercial Affordability Fund
Department of Anti-Displacement and
Homelessness Intervention
Dignified Tiny House Villages and Scattered
Site Housing
Displacement Burden Access Designation
Environmental Justice and Climate
Resiliency Planning
Eviction Right-to-Counsel
Expanded Anti-Displacement Taskforce
Oversight
Expanded Project Roomkey
Fair Chance Housing
Fresno Civic Engagement Fulfillment Center
Fresno-Specific Universal Design Standards
“Here to Stay” Affordability Index
“Here to Stay” Deposit Program
“Here to Stay” Homeowner and Renter
Assistance Programs
Incentivised Eviction Mediation
Increase Local Hire and Living Wage
Minimum on Local Contracts
Independent Youth Housing Coordination
Informed Livability
Joint Development Priority Permitting
Program
Kinship Housing Permissions
Land Banks
Language Justice Clearinghouse
Mandatory Impact Area Notification System
Mandatory Inclusion of Displacement
Analysis in all CEQA Analyses
Mobility Conditions Transportation
Prioritization System
Moratorium on Encampment Sweeps
One-to-One Affordable Unit Replacement
Action Plan
“OpenFresno” - Full Access to Data and
Plans through a GeoHub Platform
Public Health Impact Reports
Public Service Lease Incentive
Public Works Prioritization and Mobility
Justice
Rapid Rehousing Dispatch
Rent Stabilization, Conversion Restrictions,
and “Affordable in Perpetuity” Designations
Rental Registration Program
Residential Eminent Domain Moratorium
Right To Return Home
Special Business Certifications and Inclusive
Procurement and RFP Processes
Tax Increment Financing for
Anti-Displacement Automatic Set-Aside
Tenant Buyout Regulation
Unofficial Eviction Tracking Program
Here to Stay: A Policy Based Blueprint for Displacement Avoidance in Fresno
RESIDENT SURVEY
5.Which three policies would you like to see implemented first? _________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
6.Which focus area is most important to you? (circle) a.Reduce harm and provide the most immediate relief b.Sustainable capacity for ongoing displacement avoidance c.Dignified civic engagement and housing
7.Is there a policy listed in the Here to Stay report that you disagree with? ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
8.Is there a type of support or policy that wasn’t included in the document that you would like to see in Fresno? __________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
9.Which three policies are you most interested in learning more about? ____________ ____________________________________________________________________
10.Have you moved in the past 10 years due to an eviction, foreclosure, natural disaster, condo conversion, rent increase, neighborhood violence, or because your home became uninhabitable for other reasons (also known as displacement)? (circle) a. Yes b. no
11. What is the current/last neighborhood you lived in Fresno? ____________________________________________________________________
12.When did you move? (circle)
a.Less than a year ago
b.1 year - 3 years ago
c.3 - 5 years ago
d.5 -10 years ago
e.Not applicable
13.How long did you live in your previous neighborhood before you were displaced? (circle)
a.1 year or less
b.2-5 years
c.5-10 years
d.10-15 years
e.20 years - 30 years
f.30 years or longer
g.Still live in the same neighborhood
Here to Stay: A Policy Based Blueprint for Displacement Avoidance in Fresno
RESIDENT SURVEY
14.How long did/have you or your family lived in Fresno? (circle)
a.1 year or less
b.2-5 years
c.5-10 years
d.10-15 years
e.20 years - 30 years
f.30 years or longer
15.Why did you move? (circle)
a.I could not afford the rent
b.To be closer to my job
c.To be closer to family or friends
d.To be closer to the schools my kids
attend
e.To be closer to my doctors or other
service providers
f.I lost my housing to a fire or natural disaster
g.I lost my housing because my
landlord moved back in
h.I lost my housing because my
landlord no longer wanted to use it
as a rental property
i.I lost my housing because I was
evicted
j.I owned a home but it went into
foreclosure
k.Not applicable
Other (please specify) _______________________________________
16.Would you like to move back to your previous neighborhood in Fresno in the future? (circle)
a.Yes b.No c.Not applicable
17.If yes, why would you like to move back to Fresno? If you would not, why not? (circle)
a.Yes, I would like to be closer to
friends and family.
b.Yes, I would like to be closer to
work.
c.Yes, I would like to be closer to my
doctor or other medical amenities
not easily accessible to where I live
now.
d.No, I prefer the lifestyle of where I
live now compared to Fresno.
e.No, I am closer to my friends and
family where I live now.
f.No, I am closer to work where I live
now.
g.No, I am closer to my doctor or
other medical amenities not easily
accessible to where I lived in
Fresno.
h.Yes, I prefer the lifestyle I had in
Fresno.
i.Not applicable
Other (please specify) _______________________________________
18.Do you rent or own your home? (circle) a.Rent
b.I own my current home, but I used to rent in Fresno. c.Don't have stable housing (staying with family/friends, couch surfing) d.Homeless (living outside, shelter, car)
Here to Stay: A Policy Based Blueprint for Displacement Avoidance in Fresno
RESIDENT SURVEY
19.If you have stable housing, do you pay more for housing now, less, or the same as you did before your last move? (circle)
a.Same
b.More
c.Less
d.Not applicable
20.Do your children attend school in Fresno? (circle) a.Yes, they attend school in Fresno
b.No, they attend school outside of Fresno
c.I don't have children
21.Do you work in Fresno? (circle)
a.Yes
b.No
c.Unemployed
d.Retired
22.How has displacement affected your quality of life in general? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
23.What can the City and its residents do together to address the issue of displacement? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
24.Anything else you would like us to know? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
25.Would you like to stay up to date on the Here to Stay policies? a.Name ________________________________________________________ b.Email ________________________________________________________ c.Phone _______________________________________________________ d.Address ______________________________________________________
26.Would you like to be included in a $500 raffle for completed surveys? (must answer question 25 if ‘yes’? (circle)
a.Yes b. No
ORIGINAL HERETO STAY POLICYRANKINGSxlvi
Original Thrivance Group Ranked HTS Policy List
COMBINED
RANK POLICY SCORE
1 Moratorium on Encampment Sweeps 33
2 Fair Chance Housing 36
3 Expanded Anti-Displacement Taskforce Oversight 38 4 Fresno-Specific Universal Design Standards 44 4 Residential Eminent Domain Moratorium 44
6 Public Health Impact Reports 48
7 Eviction Right-to-Counsel 58
8 Displacement Burden Access Designation 59
9 Tenant Buyout Regulation 61
10 Civil Service Reclassification 62
11 Increase Local Hire and Living Wage Minimum on Local Contracts 65 12 Anchor Institution Protections 66
13 Rent Stabilization, Conversion Restrictions, and “Affordable in Perpetuity” Designations
68 14 Informed Livability 70
14 Special Business Certifications and Inclusive Procurement and RFP Processes 70 14 Environmental Justice and Climate Resiliency Planning 70 17 Rental Registration Program 72
18 Mandatory Inclusion of Displacement Analysis in all CEQA Analyses 73 19 “Here to Stay” Affordability Index 75
20 Joint Development Priority Permitting Program 76 20 Language Justice Clearinghouse 76
22 Kinship Housing Permissions 81
23 Fresno Civic Engagement Fulfillment Center 84 24 Public Service Lease Incentive 90
Original Thrivance Group Ranked HTS Policy List
25 Mandatory Impact Area Notification System 91 26 Right To Return Home 98
27 Public Works Prioritization and Mobility Justice 99 28 Department of Anti-Displacement and Homelessness Intervention 101 29 City of Fresno “Here to Stay” Community Land Trust 102 30 “Here to Stay” Deposit Program 104
30 Dignified Tiny House Villages and Scattered Site Housing 104 32 Independent Youth Housing Coordination 105 33 One-to-One Affordable Unit Replacement Action Plan 113 34 Incentivised Eviction Mediation 114
34 Cargo/Freight Prohibition and Revenue Tax 114 34 Unofficial Eviction Tracking Program 114
37 “Here to Stay” Homeowner and Renter Assistance Programs 116 37 Land Banks 116
39 “OpenFresno” - Full Access to Data and Plans through a GeoHub Platform 121 40 2030 Development, Evaluation, and Technical Assistance Department 122 41 Tax Increment Financing for Anti-Displacement Automatic Set-Aside 126 42 Mobility Conditions Transportation Prioritization System 135 43 Expanded Project Roomkey 137
44 Automatic Anti-Displacement Zone 151
44 Commercial Affordability Fund 151
46 Rapid Rehousing Dispatch 157
TRANSFORMFRESNOPROJECT MAPxlix
ALL GRAPHSli
25-34
37.1%
35-44
29%
18-24
11.3%
55-64
8.9%
45-54
7.3%
65+
5.6%
Under 18
0.8%
AGE
GENDER
Woman, She/Her
50%
Man, He/Him
37.1%
No Response
8.1%
Non-Binary, Questioning, Gender Queer
2.4%
Transgender Masculine/Man
Transgender Feminine/Woman
White
36.4%
Hispanic or Latino
34.3%
Black/African American
9.3%
Asian/Pacific Islander
7.1%
Other
5%
Indigenous
2.9%
2 or More
2.9%No Response
2.1%
RACE AND ETHNICITY
CITYWIDE
HTS SURVEY
0 25 50 75 100
Homeowner/Renter Assist. Pgm.
Fair Chance Housing
HTS Land Trust
Rent Stabilization, etc.
Eviction Right to Counsel
Deposit Program
Increase Local Hire/Wage
POLICIES SELECTED BY MORE THAN 50% OF THOSE SURVEYED
0 25 50 75
Affordability Index
EJ/Climate Resilience Planning
Public Health Impact Reports
Dpt. Anti-Displmt./Homelessness
Tiny House Villages
Auto-Anti-Displacement Zone
"Open Fresno" GeoHub
Eviction Tracking Program
Land Banks
One-to-One Unit Replacement
Moratorium, Encampment Sweeps
Rental Registration Program
Right to Return Home
Indp. Youth Housing Coordination
Incentivized Eviction Mediation
Tenant Buyout Regulation
Expand Anti-Displacement Taskforce
2030 Development/Evaluation Dept.
Eminent Domain Moratorium
Commercial Affordability Fund
Impact Area Notification System
Expanded Project Room Key
Displacement Analysis in CEQA
POLICIES SELECTED BY MORE THAN 33% OF THOSE SURVEYED
0 10 20 30 40
Civic Engagement Fulfillment Center
Public Works Prioritization and Mobility Justice
Rapid Rehousing Dispatch
Language Justice Clearinghouse
Displacement Burden Access Designation
Fresno-Specific Universal Design Standards
Mobility/Transportation Priority System
Cargo/Freight Prohibition/Tax
Kinship Housing Permissions
Public Service Lease Incentive
TIF for Anti-Displacement
Joint Development Priority Permit Program
Anchor Institution Protections
Special Business Certifications
Civil Service Reclassification
POLICIES SELECTED BY LESS THAN 33% OF THOSE SURVEYED
POLICY PACKAGES PREFERRED BY THOSE SURVEYED
Sustainable Capacity
43.3%
Reduce Harm/Immediate Relief
35.4%
Dignified Civic Engagement/Housing
21.3%
POLICIES THAT MORE THAN 1 PERSON SURVEYED DISAGREED WITH
1.6%Cargo/Freight Tax
2.4%Moratorium on
Encampment
Sweeps
4%Rent Control
4%General
Disagreement/All
PERCENTAGE OF THOSE SURVEYED WHO'VE RECENTLY BEEN DISPLACED QUESTION: Have you moved in the past 10 years due to an eviction, foreclosure, natural disaster, condo conversion, rent increase, neighborhood violence, or because your home became uninhabitable for other reasons (also known as displacement)?
26.6%
AGE - RECENTLY DISPLACED
25 - 34
39.4%
35 - 44
21.2%
45 - 54
21.2%
18 - 24
9.1%55 - 64
6.1%
Under 18
3%
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RECENTLY
DISPLACED SURVEY RESPONDENTS
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Woman, She/Her
50%
Man, He/Him
37.5%
Non-Binary, Questioning, Gender Queer
6.3%
Transgender Masculine
3.1%
GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF RECENTLY
DISPLACED SURVEY RESPONDENTS
GENDER - RECENTLY DISPLACED
No response
GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF
ALL SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Transgender Feminine/Woman
3.1%
GENDER - PERCENTAGE OF THOSE SURVEYED RECENTLY DISPLACED (PROPORTIONALITY)
21.7%
Man, He/Him
25.8%
Woman, She/Her
66%
Nonbinary, Questioning,
Gender Queer
100%
Trans Masc
50%
Trans Femme
RACE - RECENTLY DISPLACED
White
34.4%
Hispanic or Latino
31.3%
Black/African American
9.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander
6.2%
Indigenous
3.1%Other
12.5%
2 or More
3.1%
RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF RECENTLY
DISPLACED SURVEY RESPONDENTS
RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALL
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
0 10 20 30
Homeowner/Renter Assistance
Deposit Program
Rent Stabilization, etc.
Fair Chance Housing
Eviction Right to Counsel
HTS Land Trust
Public Health Impact Reports
Moratorium on Encampment Sweeps
Affordability Index
EJ and Climate Resiliency Planning
Dept. Anti-Displ./Homelessness
POLICIES SELECTED BY MORE THAN 50% OF THOSE WHO'VE BEEN DISPLACED 0 5 10 15 20
Auto-Anti-Displacement Zone
Tiny House Villages
Increase Local Hire/Living Wage
Land Banks
One-to-One Affordable Unit Replacement
Rental Registration Program
Unofficial Eviction Tracking Program
Commercial Affordability Fund
"Open Fresno" GeoHub
Incentivized Eviction Mediation
Residential Eminent Domain Moratorium
Mobility/Transpo. Prioritization System
Tenant Buyout Regulation
2030 Dept. Evaluation
Right to Return Home
Expanded Anti-Displacement Taskforce
Expanded Project Room Key
Civic Engagement Fulfillment Center
Residential Eminent Domain Moratorium
POLICIES SELECTED BY MORE THAN 33% OF THOSE WHO'VE BEEN DISPLACED 0 2.5 5 7.5 10
Rapid Rehousing Dispatch
Public Works Prioritization and Mobility Justice
Mandatory Anti-Displacement in CEQA
Public Service Lease Incentive
Mandatory Impact Area Notification
Kinship Housing Permissions
Fresno-Specific Universal Design
Language Justice Clearinghouse
Joint Development Priority Permit Program
TIF for Anti-Displacement Auto. Set-Aside
Special Business Certifications
Cargo/Freight Prohibition and Tax
Anchor Institution Protections
POLICIES SELECTED BY LESS THAN 33% OF THOSE WHO'VE BEEN DISPLACED
CURRENT COMMUNITY ZIP CODE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE WHO'VE BEEN DISPLACED Tower
30.3%
Fig Loop
18.2%
Downtown
18.2%
Fresno State
9.1%
Unhoused
9.1%
Clovis
6.1% Hammond
3%
Hoover
3%
Selma
3%
DISPLACEMENT RISK INDICATORS - PERCENTAGE OF RENTERS
Rent58%
Own42%
CITYWIDE
CENSUS DATA
SURVEY RESPONSE
DATA
Percentage of Fresno Residents Likely
Displaced within the Last 10 Years
38,350
(apprx)
Evicted/Foreclosure35.5%
Economic29%
Violence/Assault12.9%
Job Access9.7%
Habitability6.5%
School Access3.2%
Other3.2%
DISPLACEMENT RISK INDICATORS - DISPLACEMENT CAUSES
Negative Emotional, Mental Impacts, Stress38.2%
Economic pressure/Rent burden28.6%
General Negative Impacts14.3%
Negative Environmental Impacts9.5%
Social Isolation4.7%
Commute/Access to Education4.7%
PARENT RESPONSES:
HOW HAS DISPLACEMENT AFFECTED YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE IN GENERAL? 0 20 40 60 80
Homeowner and Renter Programs
Community Land Trust
Fair Chance Housing
Eviction Right to Counsel
Stabilization/Affordable in Perpetuity
Deposit Program
Local Hire and Living Wage on Contracts
Dept. Anti Displacement
Env. Justice
Mandatory Impact Notification
One to One
Public Health Impact Report
2030 Eval Dept
POLICY PREFERENCES: SELECTED BY MAJORITY OF BLACK RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGE) POLICY PREFERENCES: SELECTED BY MAJORITY OF INDIGENOUS RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGE) 0 25 50 75 100
Homeowner and Renter Programs
Community Land Trust
Fair Chance Housing
Eviction Right to Counsel
Stabilization/Affordable in Perpetuity
Deposit Program
Local Hire and Living Wage on Contracts
Affordability Index
POLICY PREFERENCES: SELECTED BY MAJORITY OF WHITE RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGE) 0 25 50 75
Homeowner and Renter Programs
Community Land Trust
Fair Chance Housing
Eviction Right to Counsel
Stabilization/Affordable in Perpetuity
Deposit Program
Local Hire and Living Wage on Contracts
Tiny Houses
Affordability Index
Eviction Tracking
POLICY PREFERENCES: SELECTED BY MAJORITY OF HISPANIC/LATINO RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGE) 0 25 50 75
Homeowner and Renter Programs
Community Land Trust
Fair Chance Housing
Eviction Right to Counsel
Stabilization/Affordable in Perpetuity
Deposit Program
Local Hire and Living Wage on Contracts
Affordability Index
Public Health Impact Report
POLICY PREFERENCES: SELECTED BY MAJORITY OF ASIAN/PI RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGE) 0 25 50 75
Homeowner and Renter Programs
Community Land Trust
Fair Chance Housing
Eviction Right to Counsel
Stabilization/Affordable in Perpetuity
Deposit Program
Local Hire and Living Wage on Contracts
PERCENTAGE OF SURVEY RESPONSES BY ZIP CODE
93728
21.3%
93704
11.7%
93710
9.6%
93721
9.6%
93722
5.3%
93726
5.3%
93706
5.3%
93730
4.3%
93703
4.3%
93711
4.3%
93701
3.2%93702
3.2%
93727
2.1%
93740
2.1%
93720
2.1%
93729
1.1%
93612
1.1%93662
1.1%
93705
1.1%
PERCENTAGE OF SURVEY RESPONSES WITHIN/ADJACENT THE TRANSFORM FRESNO PROJECT AREA Outside of Transform Fresno
53.6%
Transform Fresno
46.4%