RECEI ED
o: ') ::) f: ti Special �ouncil M eeting zozz Ai,, '· 1 · 1 .- 9 Apral 27, 2022
CITY OF FRESNO
CITY CLER:'/'.�F-RESNO CITY COUNCIL
Information Packet
ITEM(S)
File ID 22-628
WORKSHOP - One Fresno Housing Plan
Contents of Supplement:
One Fresno Housing Strategy
ltem(s)
Supplemental Information:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets.
Supplemental Packets are produced as needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, 2600 Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2). In addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call City Clerk's Office at 621-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open and accessible. If you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see Security.
Housing Plan
ONE FRESNO Fiscal Year
23–25 Housing Strategy
Published April 18th, 2022
Office of the Mayor
Housing Strategy
2 | Page
Introduction – An open letter
Fresno’s residents have spoken. We desire an “inclusive, prosperous, beautiful city where people take pride in their neighborhoods and community. We seek a government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people.” I am confident that we will realize this One Fresno vision. First, however, we must, as a community, address our city’s housing crisis.
As of 2019, 46 percent of U.S. renters reported being cost burdened (spending more than 30% of their income on rent), while nearly one of four Americans reported being severely cost burdened (spending more than half of their income on housing).1 When a person is spending more than half their income on shelter, they must make some very tough decisions between shelter, food, childcare and health care. These are decisions no one should have to make – and the recent pandemic has exacerbated these realities.
In our great state of California, the housing crisis is even more pronounced. Californians at every income level spend a larger share of their income on rent than households in the rest of the nation.
2 And while the City of Fresno is relatively affordable compared to Bay Area and Southern California metro areas, a 28 percent jump in one-bedroom rent prices between January 2021 and January 2022 put our city among the top 10 highest increases in the nation during that same time span.3 In fact, just last year the Los Angeles Times reported that the City of Fresno has become the nation’s “hottest housing market.”4
While we value growth and open our arms to those who desire to make Fresno their home, it is incumbent as a local government that we shepherd responsible growth. Historic poor land use planning, inequitable fair housing practices and the basic imbalance of supply and demand have all led Fresno to its current state of needing approximately 15,000 new and converted affordable housing units between now and 2025 to meet our residents’ needs.
I admit that solving our housing challenges will not be simple. And while ‘developing as much quality housing as fast as possible at a price every Fresno resident can afford’ is a lofty goal – I believe it is an important pursuit. To make progress towards our needs, it will take all of us as One Fresno to roll up our sleeves and chip in. Fresno residents deserve nothing less. My first mayoral priority is focused on this effort. Through this document, I invite you into a new three- year journey to make significant progress on our city’s housing challenges through this actionable housing strategy.
One Fresno,
Mayor Jerry P. Dyer | City of Fresno
Housing Strategy
3 | Page
CONTENTS
Introduction – An open letter ..................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... 4 ONE FRESNO Housing Strategy - Background ...................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 1: Introduction – The State of Housing ................................................................. 8 CHAPTER 2: State of Vulnerable Populations ...................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 3: National, State, and Regional Response ......................................................... 20 CHAPTER 4: Different Markets Different Needs.................................................................. 26 CHAPTER 5: Affordable Housing Strategy Overview ........................................................ 40 CHAPTER 6: Affordable Housing Strategy Priority Recommendations .......................... 50 CHAPTER 7: Housing the Unhoused Strategy Overview ................................................... 71 CHAPTER 9: Fresno Housing Forward .................................................................................. 93 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 95 Public Input References – Item A .................................................................................... 96 Cited Source References – Item B .................................................................................... 97 Other References .............................................................................................................. 100
Housing Strategy
4 | Page
Acknowledgments -
The Dyer Administration would like to acknowledge the voices of over 3,000 Fresnans who have provided public input via City Council meetings and through various reports. This collective input has served as a basis by which the One Fresno Housing Strategy is framed.
From 2017 to the present, these reports include but are not limited to Fresno’s 2021 -2022 Annual Action Plan, Evicted in Fresno Report, Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, DRIVE’s Permanent Affordable Housing Plan, Financing Valley Infill Report, Here to Stay Report, 2020 Impediments to Fair Housing Report, Southwest Specific Plan, and Street2Home Report. In addition to this input, we would like to thank the following individuals who have personally contributed to content found within this plan.
City Contributors
Administrator of RDA Successor Agency - Marlene Murphy
Asst. Dir. of Planning and Development Dept. - Phil Skei Chief of Staff to Council President Esparza - Araceli Garcia Muñoz
Former Chief of Staff to Councilmember Arias - Dolores
Barajas
Chief of Staff to Councilmember Bredefeld - Nicole DeMera Chief of Staff to the Mayor - Kelli Furtado
Council Assistant to Councilmember Arias - Gabriela Olea Deputy Chief of Staff to the Mayor - Chris Montelongo
Deputy District Director for Council President Esparza - Leefong Mouavangsou
Deputy Mayor - Matthew Grundy
Director of Housing and Homeless Initiatives - H. Spees Director of Planning and Development Dept. - Jennifer Clark District 1 Councilmember - Esmeralda Soria
District 3 Councilmember - Miguel Arias
District 6 Councilmember - Garry Bredefeld
Division Manager of Planning and Development Dept. -
Terry Cox
EA to the Director of Housing and Homeless Initiatives - Gloria Meyers
Mayor - Jerry Dyer
Planning Manager in Planning and Development - Sophia
Pagoulatos
Community Contributors
Bonadelle Neighborhoods, Neighborhoods Director of
Operations - John Bonadelle
Central California Land Trust, Board Member - Patience
Milrod
Central California Legal Services, Executive Director - Patience Milrod
Chinatown Fresno Foundation, Project Director - Jan Minami Department of Housing and Community Development,
HCD Representative II - Jerry Zuniga
Fresno County Board of Education, Board member - James
Martinez
Fresno County, Program Administrator - Sonia De La Rosa Fresno EOC, LGBTQ+ Resource Center Manager - Jennifer
Cruz
Fresno EOC, Sanctuary Director - Misty Gattie-Blanco
Fresno Housing Authority, CEO - Tyrone Williams
Fresno Housing Authority, Chief Real Estate Officer -
Michael Duarte
Fresno Housing Authority, Assistant Director - Doreen Eley Fresno Housing, HMIS Analyst - Nicole Henson
Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries, Executive Director - Christine Barker
Fresno Metro Ministry, Executive Director - Keith Bergthold Fresno Mission, CEO - Matt Dildine
Fresno Mission, Chief Ministry Officer - Priscilla Robbins Fresno/Madera Continuum of Care, Executive Director -
Jamie Sharma
Habitat for Humanity Greater Fresno Area, CEO - Ashley
Hedemann
Highway City Community Development Corporation,
Executive Director - April Henry
Lennar Homes, Division President - Mike Miller
Lowell Community Development Corporation, Executive
Director - Esther Carver
Mental Health Systems, Program Manager Malissa Holt
Mental Health Systems, Northern California Regional
Housing Director - Edith Rico
Mental Health Systems, Program Manager - Deanna Kivett
Mental Health Systems, Training Services Director - Angie Jenkins
Poverello House, Client Services Manager - Robert Huerta Poverello House, Director of Program Development - Sara Mirhadi
Poverello House, Executive Director - Zach Darrah
RH Community Builders, Community Development
Director - Michael Smith
RH Community Builders, Executive Director - Katie Wilbur RH Community, President - Brad Hardie
Self-Help Enterprises, CEO - Tom Collishaw
South Tower Trust, Director - Kiel Lopez-Schmidt
Southwest Fresno Development Corporation, Executive
Director - Lynne Jones
Southwest Fresno Development Corporation, Founder -
Allysunn Walker
Turning Point, Deputy Regional Director - Jody Ketcheside Turning Point, Deputy Regional Director - Michael Thomas West Care, COO - Shawn Jenkins
West Care, Deputy Administrator - Maryann Knoy
Wilson Homes, COO - Jeffrey Harris
Housing Strategy
5 | Page
ONE FRESNO Housing Strategy - Background
Incorporated on October 12th, 1885, the City of Fresno is California’s fifth-largest city. Like other cities across the Nation, over time our housing needs have evolved. Similar to other California cities, housing availability and affordability have risen to the top of Fresno’s most pressing issues. Accordingly, as part of his One Fresno vision, Mayor Jerry Dyer identified ‘Housing and Homelessness’ as the most important of his six Mayoral
initiatives.
Upon taking office in January 2021 in the midst of a global pandemic, the Dyer Administration was met with a public safety crisis on our freeways. In the span of a few weeks, several of our unhoused neighbors walked into traffic and were hit and killed, and 618 fires had been started on our embankments over the previous year. Immediate action had to be taken for the sake of public safety.
Leveraging state Project Homekey grant funding to acquire and transform hotels into emergency housing, the Dyer
Administration launched Project Off-Ramp. Project Off-Ramp aimed to ‘off-ramp’ individuals from a life of homelessness to an on-ramp to housing, services, and a productive life. Through our collective efforts, last year we were able to house and provide wrap-around services for over 500 of our unhoused neighbors.
The great result of this effort is that our freeways are no longer home to the unhoused in our community.
While focusing on addressing the urgent needs through Project Off-Ramp, Mayor Dyer desired to initiate a longer and more strategic effort to confront our City’s housing needs. In January, he convened an initial group of City Staff and City Council members to initiate the development and launch of the One Fresno Housing Strategy.
Led by Deputy Mayor Matthew Grundy and co-chaired by
Jennifer Clark, the City’s Director of Planning & Development, Phil Skei, Assistant Director of Planning & Development, and Fresno Housing Authority CEO Tyrone Williams, the following 3- year housing strategy was created. This effort involved research, thought, and collaboration from a broad group of stakeholders, including City Staff and Council, for- and not-for profit developers, housing advocates and other individuals who all care deeply about the present and future state of Fresno’s housing.
Housing Strategy
6 | Page
What is a Housing Strategy?
Not to override or compete with a city’s Housing Element, a local housing strategy comprehensively describes the approach a city plans to take to meet its housing objectives.
Often developed by the Mayor’s Office, a local housing strategy coordinates the actions of all the local government agencies and divisions that administer policies and programs affecting housing. According to localhousingsolutions.org, “the best local housing strategies utilize the full set of tools that local governments have at their disposal, including zoning ordinances, building codes permitting processes, property tax abatements, and federal, state, and local housing subsidies. They also engage the private and nonprofit sectors as key partners.” Aligned with best practice, the Fresno’s Housing Strategy aims to:
1. Analyze Fresno’s housing needs that illustrate the problems Fresno is seeking to solve. (I.E. The strategy aims to identify the city’s current and projected housing need by affordability level and product type, and then make recommendations that will help satisfy the need).
2. Identify areas where policy objectives will need to be employed to achieve the strategy goals.
3. Develop a comprehensive approach to meeting these objectives by identifying the full array of resources available in the community to reach the strategy priorities.
4. Identify funding sources and contingencies to meet strategy priorities.
5. Develop a plan for implementing the recommended approaches.
6. Establish a list of numerical goals and associated milestones to use to track and monitor progress and to uncover shortfalls
It is important to note that this plan is an actionable, iterative and living document that makes recommendations based on data points known at the time of publishing. As community needs, funding opportunities, and priorities shift, so too could recommendations found within this strategy.
Housing Strategy
7 | Page
“Nothing in life is to
be feared, it is only to
be understood. Now is
the time to understand
more, so that we may
fear less.”
Marie Curie
Noble Prize Winner
Housing Strategy
8 | Page
CHAPTER 1: Introduction – The State of Housing
Our Nation is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis. It is no different in California or Fresno. As we aim to continue addressing our local housing needs, it is essential that we become intimately aware of the challenges we face. As Nobel Prize winning physicist Marie Curie stated, “nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.” This introductory chapter of the One Fresno Housing Strategy is aimed squarely at providing context regarding the depth and breadth of our national, state and local affordable housing challenges.
U.S Rental Housing Market
According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, “the U.S. has a shortage of ~6.8 million rental homes affordable and available to extremely low-income renters, whose household incomes are at or below the poverty guideline or 30% of their area median income.” In fact, per the map in chart 1a, nationally only 37 affordable and available rental homes exist for every 100 extremely low-income renter households. Extremely low-income renters face a housing shortage in every state and major metropolitan area, including the District of Columbia. Among states, the supply of affordable and available rental homes ranges from 20 for every 100 extremely low-income renter households in Nevada to 61 in Mississippi and Wyoming. Among the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S, the supply ranges from 16 affordable and available rental homes for every 100 extremely low-income renter households in Las Vegas, NV to 50 in Providence, RI.” The reality is no state has an adequate supply of affordable rental housing for the lowest income renters.
Chart 1A -The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Rental Homes Chart - https://reports.nlihc.org/gap Housing Strategy
9 | Page
The basic economic principle of supply and
demand has greatly affected housing
affordability and burden for renters across
the U.S. According to Harvard University’s
Joint Center for Housing Studies, “in 2019,
some 46 percent of renters were at least
moderately cost burdened (spending more
than 30 percent of income for rent and
utilities), including 24 percent with severe
burdens (spending more than half of
income for housing).
5” See chart 2a.
After a cool down early in the pandemic,
rental housing markets in 2021 heated up
again. Harvard’s Housing Vacancy Survey
in the third quarter of 2021 put the total
number of U.S. renter households at 44
million, “an increase of about 870,000
households from the first quarter of 2020.
With this resurgence in demand, the overall
rental vacancy rate dropped to just 5.8
percent—its lowest reading since the mid-
1980s.” With record low supply and record
high demand, the lack of housing
affordability has been felt by every state in
our Union.
U.S Ownership Housing Market
Unfortunately, affordable home ownership nationally has also been trending in the wrong direction. According to the American Community Survey, in 2019 1 out of 3 households were cost burdened in the U.S. (1 in 5 homeowner and 1 out of 2 renter households). Cost burden has become more pronounced after the start of the pandemic. In fact, due to the combination of record-high home prices and record-low inventory, housing affordability has eroded for many consumers since the pandemic’s start. “Since 2019, home prices have spiked 30 percent – or about $80,000 for a typical home, while housing inventory has declined to under one million units available for sale” according to the National Association of Realtors. 1 out of every 3 households are
cost burdened in the U.S.
Chart 2a
Housing Strategy
10 | Page
California Housing Overview
It is no secret that the State of California has long experienced an affordable housing crisis. High housing costs are the major reason California has the nation’s highest functional poverty rate, and the second lowest home ownership6 rate. Despite periodic production spurts, a new Public Policy Institute of California7 report found that “the state added 3.2 times more people than housing units over the last 10 years. There are now 2.93 Californians for every occupied housing unit…” Compared to other states, a recent McKinsey Global Institute report found that California ranks 49th in the nation for housing units per capita with only 358 homes per 1,000 people.
Beyond our current need, California’s Department for Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) ‘Statewide Housing Assessment through 2025
8 indicated our state must produce 180,000
new units annually to meet demand. Unfortunately, for the past 10 years California has averaged less than 80,000 new homes annually. While this has not always been the case, following the “Great Recession” production of housing has not returned to the level required to meet the projected housing need. At our current rate of housing production projections forecast by 2025 California will be 1.8 million housing units short of demand. The result of this unconscionable truth is that without a drastic change, our state is not only facing an affordable housing crisis, but also a shelter crisis.
At our current rate of housing production, projections forecast by 2025 California will be 1.8 million housing units short of demand.
Chart 3a
Housing Strategy
11 | Page
California Rental Housing Market
California currently has 5.89 million renter
households. Of those, 53.4 percent are considered
‘cost burdened,’ while 28.7 percent are considered
‘severely rent burdened.’ It’s no wonder 9 of 10
Californians consider housing affordability a
problem, and because of it, nearly one in three are
considering leaving the state, per 2021 Public Policy
Institute of California Research
9. Source: 2017 National Low-Income Housing Coalition tabulations of 2015 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) housing file.
California Ownership Housing Market
HCD’s statewide housing assessment found that “since the 1950s, California’s homeownership rate has fallen below the national rate, with a significant gap persisting since the 1970s.
Between 2006 and 2014, the number of housing units that were owner occupied fell by almost 250,000 in California, while the number of renter-occupied units increased by about 850,000.” As of 2020, 55 percent of all California households were owner occupied. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, “much of the increase in rental units occurred among formerly owned single-family detached housing units.”
In the final quarter of 2021, the median priced California home was $797,470. At this price, only 1 in 4 Californians’ can currently afford to purchase a median-priced single-family detached home
10. Income Category Definitions
• Extremely Low-Income: 0-30% of
area median income (AMI)
• Very Low-Income: 31-50% AMI
• Low-Income: 51-80% AMI
• Moderate-Income: 81-120% AMI
• Above-Moderate Income: 121% and
above AMI
Chart 4a
Housing Strategy
12 | Page
Regional + Local Housing Market Overview
Fresno County, long known as being one of California’s few remaining metropolitan areas with relatively affordable housing, is seeing continued population growth – and rising housing cost.
Countywide, an estimated 76,228 renter households – which accounts for around 53 percent of all rental households – spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. And according to the California Housing Partnerships Housing Needs Report for Fresno County more than 36,000 low-income households lack affordable housing in Fresno County.
An estimated 36,779 owner households with mortgages – around 32 percent of all owner households with mortgages – spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. As the chart below reveals, median home prices for single-family homes post-recession have continued to climb across Fresno County
11. Magnified by the recent pandemic, population growth does not appear to be slowing in the greater Fresno area. According to HCD, through 2025 the Fresno region is expected to realize a 17 percent population increase. Population growth rate is forecast to be particularly higher in historically disadvantaged communities.
Fresno County Median Price of Single-Family Home
Chart 5a
Housing Strategy
13 | Page
Fresno County has a long history
of concentrated poverty and
housing challenges. According to
Cal-Environscreen 4.0, in Fresno
nearly a third of the census tracts
are in the 90
th percentile most
environmentally and
economically disadvantaged in
the State. As seen in heat map 6a,
the State’s highest housing
growth is expected in places like
Fresno (communities with
existing environmental and
socioeconomic disparities).
Regional + Local Rental
Housing Market
According to data from real
estate listing website Zumper,
“rent increases in Fresno topped national charts in 2021, with a 28 percent increase in one- bedroom rent prices between January 2021 and January 2022. Prices for two-bedroom rentals also shot up nearly 27 percent and were among the top 10 highest increases in the nation during that same time span. As of January 2022, rental prices in Fresno for a one-bedroom apartment have increased to a median of $1,400 a month, and two-bedroom apartments are an average of $1,700 a month.”
This is the second straight year that Fresno’s rental prices have been among the nation’s highest.
An Apartment List study found that Fresno’s 2020 rent increases were 10.8 percent – second highest in the nation – and the city of Fresno had the nation’s highest four-year rent increase.
Regional + Local Ownership Housing Market
As of 2019, only 46.3 percent of the Fresno’s housing units were owner-occupied. This percentage is well below both the national and state averages of 64.8 percent and 54.8 percent respectively.
Currently, Fresno’s housing market is very competitive, scoring 82 out of 100 on Redfin.com’s ‘compete score’ rate (where 100 is most competitive). In February 2022, Fresno home prices were up 20.2 percent compared to last year, selling for a median price of $367,000.
One reason for the record housing cost increases is due to the fact that Fresno has become the pressure valve release for high-cost housing in the Bay Area and L.A. areas. In fact, a 2021 Los Angeles Times article deemed Fresno the nation’s “Hottest Housing Market.”
13 The nation's
hottest housing
market? Surprise
- it's Fresno
- Los Angeles Times - 2021
Map 6a
Housing Strategy
14 | Page
Chapter 1 - State of Housing Summary
1. The U.S. is in an affordable housing crisis where 1 out of every 5 homeowners and 1 out of every 2 renters are cost burdened (spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs).
2. The State of California is in an affordable housing crisis where 1 out of every 2 renters are cost burdened and only 1 in 4 Californians’ can currently afford to purchase a median-priced single-family detached home.
3. The County of Fresno is in an affordable housing crisis where 1 out of every 2 renters are cost burdened and 1 out of every 3 homeowners are cost burdened.
4. The City of Fresno is in an affordable housing crisis. With one of the hottest housing markets in the Nation, Fresno, the state’s fifth largest city is affordable to only 1 in 3 renters.
Housing Strategy
15 | Page
“The true measure of
any society can be
found in how it treats
its most vulnerable
members”
Mahatma Gandhi
Indian Lawyer and Social Activist
Housing Strategy
16 | Page
CHAPTER 2: State of Vulnerable Populations
To understand our most urgent housing needs, we look at how housing affordability impacting our most housing-challenged. Unhoused and precariously housed populations require targeted policy and programmatic responses. Some of these vulnerable populations are described below including older adults, persons with disabilities, low-income households, and persons experiencing homelessness. Generally speaking, studies show that low-income homeowners are more likely to be older, live in the Southern U.S, be people of color, and have no more than a high school education.14
Age - Studies show low-income homeowners
are significantly more likely to be 65 or older.
Meanwhile, homeownership among Americans
over 65 years old is declining, whereas most
Millennial renters plan to buy a home in the
near future. Seniors will make up more than a quarter of California’s population by the year 2060, according to state projections. Affordable, accessible, and well-located housing is central to quality of life for people of all ages, but especially for older adults.
A study from the
Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies estimates that by 2038, 2.4 million more seniors will be low-income and without affordable housing. As of 2017, respectively, 26 percent of homeowners and 54 percent of renters aged 65 and older are housing cost burdened.
Helping our seniors secure affordable and accessible housing is key. Particularly important is the need to help our aging community ‘age in place.’ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines aging in place as “the ability to live in one’s own home and community safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age, income, or ability level.”
As mentioned, our aging population is growing rapidly. The population over age 75 began to accelerate after 2020. According to a JCHS report, “at that time of life, renters are more likely to require assistance with activities of daily living. Investing in supportive housing for the elderly is necessary to keep up with the forecasted demand.
Income - Housing affordability is inextricably linked to household income. In terms of income, in the U.S. approximately half of all homes currently listed for sale (51 percent) are affordable for households with at least $100,000 of income. Median household income was $67,521 as of the 2020 U.S. Census, which means most homes are unaffordable to most U.S. households15.
A minimum annual income of $148,000 was needed to qualify for the purchase of a $797,470 statewide median-priced, existing single-family home in the fourth quarter of 2021, per PRN Newswire.16.
Known as the ‘Silver Tsunami’
10,000 Americans turn 65 every
day
Housing Strategy
17 | Page
Local housing costs have increased at a record level in the City of Fresno while wages have not kept pace with the increase. According to UC Berkeley’s Labor Center, 41.7 percent of residents in Fresno County work in low wage jobs (earning less than $14.35 per hour). Per HCD, affordable 1-bedroom rent for a full-time minimum wage worker is $728 currently per month in the City of Fresno whereas median rental prices for that same one-bedroom apartment in Fresno have increased to a median of $1,400 a month.
While Fresno is more affordable than average state rents, according to Payscale.com the City of Fresno’s housing costs are still 2 percent higher than the national average while utility costs are 26 percent higher than the National average.
17 Race and Ethnicity - Median income is an important factor when considering housing affordability by race and ethnicity. Nationwide, nearly half of all Asian households earn more than $100,000 annually. However, 35 percent of white households, 25 percent of Hispanic households and only 20 percent of black households have incomes greater than $100,000, as depicted below in chart 8a.
In both times past and present home ownership continues to be the foremost way households accumulate generational wealth. When looking at homeownership by race and ethnicity, we see a fairly large discrepancy. Where about 64 percent of white (non-Hispanic) people own homes, only 47 percent of ethnic minorities are homeowners. The rate is lowest among black people (43 percent) and Hispanics follow at 46 percent. Ownership amongst other minorities, including Asian Americans, is around 57 percent per Eye on Housing.
For nearly a century, a racial homeownership gap ranging between 20 and 30 percentage points has existed between black and white Americans. Shockingly, 52 years after
housing discrimination was outlawed via the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the black homeownership rate is essentially the same (43 percent). This rate of homeownership by race is the nation’s lowest.
18 Race is particularly relevant as California’s
population is projected to become increasingly racially diverse through 2040 according to the National Equity Atlas.
20%
25%
35%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Black
Hispanic
White
Asian
% of US Households that earn $100k+ by race
In the U.S., white
people, on average,
are 50% more likely
to own homes than
other races.
Chart 8a
Housing Strategy
18 | Page
Within our State, the California Association of Realtors tracks housing affordability by ethnicity.
The affordability gap between Black and white households in 2020 was the greatest in San Francisco County with a differential of 27 percent. Fresno County is not far behind with the differential between black and white households at 23 percent.19
As previously mentioned, according to Cal-Environscreen 3.0, in the City of Fresno nearly a third of the census tracts are in the 90
th percentile most environmentally and economically
disadvantaged in the State. Due to historic housing segregation, much of this poverty is concentrated in previously racially redlined areas of South and Southwest Fresno. These areas are disproportionately overrepresented by people of color. As a result of substandard housing and other factors Fresnans in these areas are expected to live on average 20 years less than the life expectancy of those in North Fresno per Fresno State Sociology research.20 Now, we can trace the roots of today's affluence and poverty back to the neighborhoods where people grew up via interactive mapping tools like the U.S. Census Bureau’s Opportunity Atlas.21
Persons Experiencing Homelessness - A
wise man once said, “the truth will set you
free, but at first glance it might hurt.” Our
State’s last homeless count in January 2020
found at least 161,000 people without a roof
over their heads on any given night. This number represents 22 percent of the entire nation’s homeless population. By comparison, California has 12 percent of the total population in the United States. California also had the highest number of unaccompanied homeless youth, homeless veterans, and people experiencing chronic homelessness in the United States, with nearly one-third of the nation’s homeless youth, nearly one-fourth of the nation’s homeless veterans, and more than one-third of the nation’s chronically homeless residents. Most of California’s homeless population resides in major metropolitan areas; however, homelessness impacts communities of all sizes and people experience homelessness throughout all regions of the state.
While the City of Fresno realized 59.3 percent reduction in homelessness in Fresno between 2011 and 2017, which represented the most significant reduction in homeless for any major City on the West Coast over that time period, the number has continued to increase in recent years.
Recent estimates indicate that the City of Fresno has
approximately 4,000 individuals experiencing
homelessness within its borders (67 percent of which are unsheltered). As we await new Point in Time (PIT) count data in June of 2022 (a count of sheltered and
unsheltered people experiencing homelessness on a
single night conducted by the Fresno-Madera
Continuum of Care per HUD requirements), we believe
of the 4,000+ persons experiencing homelessness, there
are approximately 1,500 shelter beds available to our
homeless on a given night. Thus, we have a net
approximate need of 2,500+ available emergency
shelter beds to truly start our City’s unhoused down a
successful path on the housing continuum.
1 in 5 homeless persons in our
Nation live in California.
1131 1022
1486 2510
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
2019 2020
2020 Point-in-Time
Count of Homeless
Persons
Region Outside City City
Chart 9a
Housing Strategy
19 | Page
Other - The 2021 City of Fresno Annual Action Plan Needs Assessment identified particular need among populations including domestic violence survivors, veterans, LGBTQ+, deaf and hard-of-hearing, persons with intellectual disabilities, youth, victims of human trafficking, and the elderly. Services of need identified included employment programs and services, mental health services, and addiction and recovery services.32
Chapter 2 – State of Vulnerable Populations Summary
1. Studies show that low-income homeowners are more likely to be older, live in the South, be people of color, and have no more than a high school education.
2. Unhoused and Precariously Housed populations require targeted policy and programmatic responses.
3. Age - Studies show low-income homeowners are significantly more likely to be 65 or older
4. Income - Local housing costs have increased at a record level in the City of Fresno while wages have not kept pace with the increase. In Fresno, affordable 1-bedroom rent for a full-time minimum wage worker is $728 however as of January 2022 prices for 1-bedroom apartments have increased to a median of $1,400 a month.
5. Race – In the U.S homeownership rates among blacks are the lowest. Nationally, historic racial inequities have led to a significant affordability gap between black and white households. Fresno County is second worst in the state with a 23 percent gap.
6. Persons experiencing homelessness - 1 in 5 persons experiencing homelessness in our Nation live in California. 2,500+ emergency shelter beds are needed now to meet the needs of our City’s unhoused population.
Housing Strategy
20 | Page
CHAPTER 3: National, State, and Regional Response
Federal Housing Crisis Response
While many have been aware of the housing crisis for some time, more recently additional resources and collaborations have taken shape. In March 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), “which provided needed
relief from the COVID-19
pandemic, including a variety of housing relief funding such as $5 billion for emergency Housing Choice Vouchers, $10 billion for the Homeowner Assistance Fund and $5 billion for the HOME program. This relief included $21.55 billion in Emergency Rental Assistance funds, also known as ERA2. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2021, signed during the previous
administration, but mostly implemented by the Biden administration, made the first round of ERA, or ERA1, possible and provided $25 billion, but with different rules than ERA2.
During his first year in office, the President also worked to increase the nation’s affordable housing stock. On the campaign trail, the President made a series of promises to increase and improve the supply of affordable housing. These pledges included constructing 1.5 million energy-efficient homes to address the affordable housing crisis, providing Section 8 (choice) housing vouchers for all who need them, and eliminating exclusionary zoning practices.
Though all of these goals have not yet been realized, as many are contingent on passing the Build Back Better Act (BBBA), some tangible steps to increase the supply of affordable housing through regulatory and administrative actions have been taken.
In September 2021, the President announced a plan to increase affordable housing by 100,000 homes for both renters and homeowners over the next three years. One segment of this plan included restarting the Federal Financing Bank and HUD Risk Sharing program. This program provides low-cost capital to state housing finance agencies to build and preserve more affordable rental housing. This capital can be used in conjunction with the investments in the American Rescue Plan Act and other sources.
To further increase housing supply, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) increased Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s (the government sponsored entities, or GSEs) LIHTC investment cap to $850 million each per year, up from $500 million each per year. To better target underserved communities with this LIHTC investment, FHFA increased the portion of the GSE LIHTC investment cap for mission-related investments from 40 percent to 50 percent.
FHFA set new housing goals for the GSEs at the end of 2021.
If the housing provisions in the BBBA were to pass, either as a part of a pared down bill or separately, the impact on affordable homes could be substantial. According to a Novogradac analysis
22, these provisions would finance nearly 1 million affordable homes over 2022-2031.
An estimated 819,900 homes could be financed using the LIHTC and an estimated 125,000 owner-occupied homes using the proposed Neighborhood Homes Tax Credit.”
Housing Strategy
21 | Page
State Housing Crisis Response
The Governor of California has also prioritized resources to address the housing crisis.
Governor Gavin Newsom has stated “the idea that every person can achieve a better life, regardless of where they start out — is central to who we are as Californians. Even in a time of economic growth and record employment, too many Californians are experiencing the squeeze of stagnant wages and the rising price of building-block necessities such as housing, health care, education, and childcare. We can and must reanimate the California Dream, building a California for All.”
On September 16, 2021, Governor signed bipartisan legislation intended to expand housing production in California, streamline the process for cities to zone for multi-family housing, and increase residential density, all in an effort to help ease California’s housing shortage. The suite of housing bills includes California Senate Bill (“SB”) 8 (Skinner), SB 9 (Atkins), and SB 10 (Weiner). Each of the bills took effect on January 1, 2022.
Additionally, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released a new Statewide Housing Plan, a statutorily required report updated every four years to outline housing challenges and strategies to address them over the next 10 years. The updated plan sets a path forward to meet California’s required goal of adding at least 2.5 million homes over roughly eight years, with no less than 1 million of those homes targeted for lower-income households. This represents the cumulative number of homes that cities and counties across California must zone for through 2030 by law and is more than double the housing planned for in the last eight-year housing needs cycle
23.”
The Statewide Housing Plan lays out a vision to ensure every Californian has a safe, stable, and affordable home. The state is working towards three objectives to achieve this vision:
1. Keep Californians in their homes
2. Produce more affordable and climate-smart housing; and
3. Continue to act with urgency to address homelessness and housing need
Similar to the One Fresno Housing Strategy, the Statewide Housing Plan describes why we need to urgently act to address the state’s housing affordability crisis, what we know about California’s housing crisis, including how we got here and growing challenges, what the housing needs in California are, what our state and local governments are currently doing to address the problem, where we are going in the future, and how we will track our progress.
Additionally, the 2021-22 state budget appropriated $1.75 billion to fund a new HCD program, California Housing Accelerator. The California Housing Accelerator program is funded with monies received from the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund established by the federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). The intent of this program is to reduce the backlog of projects “stuck” in the funding pipeline. Then in April of 2022, the California Housing Finance Agency introduced a forgivable equity builder loan to help first-time homeowners, while HCD also announced $67 million for CalHome Program projects.
Housing Strategy
22 | Page
Vulnerable Populations Response
Aging populations – HUD’s Section 202 program, established in 1959, has been the primary means of expanding housing with supportive services” for our aging population. Aside from addressing a growing demand for subsidized housing for aging adults, aging in place friendly accessibility enhancements such as grab-bars or handrails in the bathroom, extra-wide hallways and doors, and a bedroom on the entry level are needed. 24 At the State level, recognizing that California’s over-65 population is projected to grow to 8.6 million by 2030, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order calling for the creation of a Master Plan for Aging (MPA). The Master Plan serves as a blueprint that can be used by state government, local communities, private organizations and philanthropy to build environments that promote an age friendly California. 25
The MPA was released on January 6th, 2021. It outlines five goals and twenty-three strategies to build a California for All Ages by 2030. The State’s 2021-22 Enacted Budget includes significant new investments to build an age and ability friendly California and support the growing and diversifying population of older adults, people with disabilities, and family caregivers. There are currently two existing City of Fresno Aging in place programs in operation. They include a senior paint and critical repair programs that focus on aging homeowner home rehabilitation.
Income Response - To realize housing affordability, housing prices must come down and/or wages must go up. From the top-down we must deploy more affordable units into our market. From the bottom up, wages must increase so households can afford the cost of available housing. A recent report by Fresnoland shared that “average wages for common Fresno jobs found that only those employed in two of the top 10 most common occupations locally — healthcare and educational professionals — garner enough wages to afford… a two- bedroom apartment today.26”
The Dyer Administration is committed to
working collaboratively with regional
partners to focus on improving economic
growth and mobility for residents in
sectors that provide not only entry level
employment opportunities, but paths that
lead to higher paying jobs. An example of
this is found in the flyer (image 10a) where
the Dyer Administration has worked with
the Big 13 City Mayors and the Governor
to secure $7.4 million to launch a youth
workforce program in the Summer of
2022. Targeting marginalized young
people aged 16 -30, the program will
provide job training, wrap around services,
a livable wage, and provide career paths
for better paying jobs at City Hall. This is
but one of many local efforts focused on
workforce development.
Image 10a
Housing Strategy
23 | Page
Racial Equity in Homeownership – Today, the homeownership rate for African Americans is approximately 42 percent to 45 percent. To eliminate the gap between black and white homeownership rates it would require the addition of approximately 165,000 new black homeowners annually over the next 20 years in the U.S. to reach a 60 percent black homeownership by 2040, per the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. 27
In 2021, CalHFA launched its Building Black Wealth Initiative to address homeownership gaps.
The purpose of the campaign – which includes elements of education, outreach and connection to housing resources – is to address the significant gap in homeownership between black families and other races. The California Association of Realtors19 has initiated a similar effort. “The wide affordability gap in California between whites and people of color demonstrates the legacy of systemic racism in housing, which has created inequities in homeownership rates across these communities,” said C.A.R. President Dave Walsh. “Closing the homeownership gap is essential to closing the generational wealth gap in our country, and that’s why C.A.R. is committed to addressing barriers and disparities to make equity in housing and access to affordable homes a reality for all people.”
Among legislative actions C.A.R. is taking to address housing discrimination is introducing several Fair Housing and Equity bills including:
• Requiring California real estate professionals to take implicit bias training • Removing discriminatory language in property records
• Prohibiting discrimination against people living in affordable housing • Repealing Article 34 of the California Constitution
• Boosting housing construction so homeownership is accessible to all
In addition to the Administration offering its support
in the repealing of Article 34 of the California
Constitution and other strategic efforts, the Dyer
Administration is committed to identifying funding
sources that improve home ownership amongst
minority groups in Fresno.
In 2021 the Administration formed a partnership with
the Realtist of Fresno County
28 (a NAREB trade
association focused advancing home ownership
amongst blacks), and the National Association of
Hispanic Real Estate Professionals (NAHREP)29 to
provide homeownership education and down payment
assistance through Federal Home Loan Bank of San
Francisco’s WISH program. This program which
provides up to $22,000 in down payment assistance to
low to moderate income makers will be continued to be
leveraged to improve home ownership rates of first-
time home buyers in Fresno.
Image 11a
Housing Strategy
24 | Page
Addressing Homelessness - In September of 2021 the Biden Administration launched a new initiative called House America.30 House America is an “All-Hands-on-Deck Effort to Address the Nation’s Homelessness Crisis is a federal initiative in which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH).” The initiative invites mayors, city and county leaders, tribal nation leaders, and governors into a national partnership. House America is utilizing historic investments provided through the American Rescue Plan (ARP) to address the crisis of homelessness through a Housing First approach.
Meanwhile California has enacted a bevy of recent bills and is investing $22 billion to tackle these systemic issues, with $12 billion allocated for homelessness and behavioral health services to help get tens of thousands of people off the streets or avoid homelessness altogether.
Combined, the funding will lead to the creation of over 84,000 new affordable homes for Californians, including over 44,000 new housing units and treatment beds for people exiting homelessness. The new homelessness funding also includes $5.8 billion to add more than 35,000 new housing units through Homekey – a national model for homeless housing.
With regard to Homekey funding, since 2021 the City of Fresno has utilized Homekey funding to successfully launch the Mayor’s ‘Project Offramp’ initiative. And as mentioned earlier, since January of 2021 over 500 unhoused individuals have received housing and services through strategic hotel conversions into emergency shelter. While there is much yet to be done to fully address the needs of the unhoused, these most recent successes offer reason for future optimism as one way we can address our City’s homelessness challenges.
Chapter 3 - National, State, and Regional Response Summary
1. In light of our National housing crisis the Biden administration has initiated provisions will finance nearly 1 million affordable homes over 2022-2031.
2. At the state level, HCD has released a new Statewide Housing Plan goal of adding at least 2.5 million homes over roughly eight years, with no less than 1 million of those homes targeted for lower-income households.
3. Both Federal, State and local efforts have began to address racial equity and our unhoused and precariously housed populations’ housing needs. Chief amongst them have been efforts centered around closing the black/white ownership gap and housing our homeless.
4. The City of Fresno is committed to doing its part to address the needs of our unhoused and precariously housed and has already launched and or supported innovative programs to support the unhoused, workforce development, aging in place, and minority focused down payment assistance programs.
Housing Strategy
25 | Page
“All truths are easy to
understand once they
are discovered; the
point is to discover
them.”
Galileo Galilei
Astronomer
Housing Strategy
26 | Page
CHAPTER 4: Different Markets Different Needs
Chapters 1 and 2 the One Fresno Housing Strategy raised awareness on the state of housing at the national, state and regional levels; with a focus on the needs of our unhoused and precariously housed community members. Chapter 3 provided insight on the corresponding response at each level. We will now look at the City of Fresno’s unique housing needs. Only once we ‘discover’ these needs, we can position ourselves locally to best address them.
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans (aka housing elements) as part of their “general plan.” General plans serve as the local government’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include seven elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
Each jurisdiction (city council or board of supervisors) must prepare an Annual Progress Report (APR) on the jurisdiction’s status and progress in implementing its housing element using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Each jurisdiction’s APR must be submitted to HCD and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research annually (covering the previous calendar year). Every eight years, California sets a target to meet the State’s housing needs. This target sets the number of homes needed at each income level. As a local government, we must likewise plan for enough housing to meet the housing needs in our community. This is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). 31 Recently, in Fresno County – like the
vast majority of jurisdictions statewide –
housing production during the last
RHNA cycle did not keep pace with
need. Per HCD, “local jurisdictions are
required to both zone sufficient land to
meet housing need and adopt plans and
regulations to make it easier for
developers to build housing to serve
households of all income levels.” For the
5 th round need cycle (2015 – 2023),
Fresno County, like many other
Counties across the state, did not meet
the target housing goals per RHNA’s
2020 annual progress report as markets
are not developing and constructing
affordable housing units at an amount
necessary to satisfy RHNA. (Map 12a red
indicates counties that have not met goals)
32 Map 12a
Housing Strategy
27 | Page
In our current RHNA cycle (5th cycle) the City of Fresno’s RHNA target for the 8-year period ending in 2023 has a planning goal aimed to accommodate 23,565 units. As of the end of 2021, (and with only two years remaining in the current cycle) the City of Fresno has significant ground to make up in order to meet its target RHNA. See chart 13a below.
COF RHNA vs. Building Permits Issued
2015-
2019
2020 2021 Total Remaining
RHNA
489* 68 92 649* 5,017
285* - 25 310* 2,979
1,505 - 11 1,516 2,055
7,099 2,184 2,134 11,417 -
9,378 2,252 2,262 13,892 10,051
In this new housing need cycle for RHNA (6th round), the state is not only requiring that local governments plan for more housing, it insists on a much larger proportion of the planned units actually getting built, and has provided local governments with some of the needed tools.
Unfortunately, local housing data beyond 2019 is not readily available to assess Fresno’s local needs. Our City Housing team, however, has conducted thorough research to better understand the City’s local housing needs by affordability levels and housing types across the housing continuum. First, lets look at where we have been.
Chart 13a
Housing Strategy
28 | Page
Fresno’s Historic Housing Production
In the last 20 years, the City of Fresno’s population has grown by approximately 90,000. Since 2010, our local population has grown 6.79 percent. See chart 14a
During that same time period, the City has added 30,000 housing units. In the graph below 14b orange represents single-family production, and blue represents multifamily production.
With these data points in mind, since 2010, available housing units have grown at 6.62 percent, or approximately 0.16 percent slower than the population growth. If household size remained constant over that period, the City of Fresno would have produced approximately 4,800 fewer units than population demand. This was, however, not the case, and the City of Fresno now not only has a shortage of affordable housing units, but a mismatch of housing product compared to our community need. We will now investigate our community’s needs.
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
City of Fresno Population and Growth Rate
Census Estimates Growth Rate
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
City of Fresno Historical Housing Production
Single Family Multiple Family
Chart 14a
Chart 14b
Housing Strategy
29 | Page
Fresno’s Housing Needs by Income Level
When addressing Fresno’s affordable housing needs, we
must look at cost burden. As mentioned earlier in this
plan, being housing cost burdened means spending more
than 30 percent of income for rent/mortgage and utilities, whereas being severly cost burdened means spending
more than half of income for rent/mortgage and utilities.
In order to avoid housing cost burden, chart 15a provides an overview of what households can afford by inome level per HUD guidelines.
Since household income and costs don’t line up precisely – i.e., the lowest income households do not live in the lowest cost units – it is difficult to accurately predict the exact need. However, we can make some assumptions. First, we need to focus on both housing production and affordability. As shown earlier, there is a gap in production based on population growth.
Second, we need to prioritize the housing production of units for households with the highest need. Chart 15b below provides a look at the necessary number of units needed in Fresno by income level to ensure renters and owners are not cost burdened. As an example, the City of Fresno needs 21,001 units for Fresnans who can afford no more than $500 on monthly housing costs. The fact that there are not many units that meet this criterion underscores the mismatch between the availability of affordable housing and needs of households in our City.
Monthly Housing Cost
- Homeless – $0
- Extremely low – between $0 and $500
- Very low – between $500 and $1000
- Low – between $1000 and $1500
- Moderate – between $1500 and $2000
- Above moderate – more than $2000
21001
17114
7347
3318 694
1,253
2,091
4,619
6,085
4,613
1,253
2,091
4,619 6,085
4,613
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or more # OF COST BURDENED RENTAL HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME
>30% 20%-29% <20%
<$500
$500-$875
$875-$1250 $1250-$1875
>$1875
5214 3740 4573 5205 4174476 1,095 809 5,399 9,290528 2,117 2,402 7,027 27,656
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or more # OF COST BURDENED OWNER HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME
>30% 20%-29% <20%
Chart 15a
Chart 15b
Housing Plan
Fresno’s Housing Needs by Market Segments
Aside from looking at the housing of our City by income level, individual people have unique needs. Understanding the uniqueness of different constituent personas can help us produce housing appropriate to each need. ESRI is a GIS mapping software that boasts being “the most powerful mapping & spatial analytics technology available.” Its homelessness and housing solution ensures governments can identify the most suitable areas for affordable housing, mitigating homelessness, and growth capacity. The City of Fresno’s housing team utilized ESRI tapestry segmentation that classifies U.S. neighborhoods into unique segments, based on demographics and socioeconomic characteristics.
There are 14 ‘Life Modes’ in the ESRI Tapestry segmentation report. Of the 14, the City of Fresno has 10 which have at least 1 percent representation or greater. The five dominant segments in Fresno represent the majority (75 percent) of our Fresno households. The chart below provides definition to each segment.
Life Mode Common Descriptors of Household % of Fresno
Households
7 – Sprouting
Explorers
• Young homeowners with families.
• Multilingual and multigenerational households with children who represent second-, third-, or fourth- generation Hispanic families.
• Neighborhoods feature single-family, owner-occupied homes built at city's edge, primarily built after 1980. • Hardworking and optimistic, most residents aged 25 years or older have a high school diploma or some college education.
• Shopping and leisure also focus on their children—baby and children's products from shoes to toys and games and trips to theme parks, water parks, or the zoo. • Children enjoy playing video games on personal computers or handheld or console devices. • Many households have dogs for domestic pets.
• Generally, families living in single-family housing; in Fresno, this group largely lives south of Shaw Ave. and north of the Tower District.
• 30 percent are above moderate income, 30 percent are moderate income, and the other 40 percent are low or very low-income households.
• Note: Sprouting Explorers represent more than 26 percent of all households in Fresno but represent about 6 percent of all US households. (For more information on this segment see Appendix item 2a)
26.4%
13 – Next
Wave
• Urban dwellers; young, hardworking families.
• A large share are foreign born and speak only their native language. • Young, or multigenerational, families with children are typical.
15.5%
Chart 16a
Housing Strategy
31 | Page
• Most are renters in older multiunit structures, built in the 1960s or earlier. • Hardworking with long commutes to jobs, often using public transit to commute to work. • Spending reflects the youth of these consumers, focus on children (top market for children's apparel) and personal appearance.
• A top market for moviegoers (second only to college students) and fast food. • Partial to soccer and basketball.
• Primarily comprised of renters and would generally be grouped in the Tower or Southeast areas of Fresno. • These renters are challenged to find affordable housing in Fresno as 20 percent are low income, while the remaining 80 percent are very and extremely low income. Nearly all experience a housing cost burden. • Note: Next Wave represents 15 percent of the households in Fresno but represent less than 5 percent of all US households. (For more information on this segment see Appendix item 2a)
8 – Middle
Ground
• Lifestyles of thirtysomethings.
• Millennials in the middle: single/married, renters/homeowners, middle class/working class. • Urban market mix of single-family, town home, and multiunit dwellings. • Majority of residents attended college or attained a college degree. • Householders have traded their landlines for cell phones, which they use to listen to music, read the news, and get the latest sports updates on their favorite teams. • Online all the time: use the internet for entertainment (downloading music, watching YouTube, finding dates), social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn), searching for employment. • Leisure includes nightlife (clubbing, movies), going to the beach, some travel and hiking. • Looking for experiences rather than building wealth through homeownership. • Predominantly renters and prefer smaller homes.
• 25 percent of this life mode are moderate income, 67 percent are low income and the remaining less than 10 percent is very low income.
• Note: Middle Ground represents 13 percent of all households in Fresno but nationally is a faster growing segment.
12.5%
Mode 11 –
Midtown
Singles
• Millennials on the move—single, urban.
• Millennials seeking affordable rents in apartment buildings. • Work in service and unskilled positions, usually close to home or public transportation. • Single parents with very young children.
• Embrace the internet, for social networking and downloading content. • From music and movies to soaps and sports, radio and television fill their lives.
10.3%
Housing Strategy
32 | Page
• Brand-savvy shoppers select budget-friendly stores.
• Prefers to rent and is much more mobile than other market segments. • About 3 percent are extremely low income while slightly more than 33 percent are low income, and the remaining 60 percent are in between at very low income. • Note: Midtown Singles represent about 10 percent of all households in Fresno but nationally represent about 3 percent of the population.
Mode 5 –
GenXurban
• Gen X in middle-aged families with fewer kids and a mortgage. • Second-largest Tapestry group, composed of Gen X married couples, and a growing population of retirees. • About a fifth of residents are 65 or older; about a fourth of households have retirement income. • Own older single-family homes in urban areas, with 1 or 2 vehicles. • Live and work in the same county, creating shorter commute times. • Invest wisely, well insured, comfortable banking online or in person. • News enthusiasts (read a daily newspaper, watch news on TV, and go online for news). • Enjoy reading, renting movies, playing board games and cards, doing crossword puzzles, going to museums and rock concerts, dining out, and walking for exercise. • Typically, homeowners – generally south of Herndon.
• Just under half are moderate income and the remainder are above moderate. The households generally do not have cost burden.
• Note: GenXurban represent about 10 percent of all Fresno households but about 20 percent nationally.
10.2%
Housing Plan
After studying the five dominant segments per ESRI, City of Fresno households generally:
Fresno’s Existing Housing Product and Need
Currently there are approximately 183,547 housing units in the City of Fresno (of which ~86,193 are registered rental units). Chart 17a provides a count of existing owner and renter occupied units based on affordability level. The cost of housing has been assigned into income tiers to provide a better comparison with need. As one may see, most existing rental units fall into the very low- and low-income categories. (Note: this is an average based on an income range and a range of rents).
12243
15757 16540 16402 19051
1,500
7,017
33,321 30,958
14,794
4,048
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
homeless extremely low very low low moderate above moderate City of Fresno Existing Housing Unit Mix
Owner Renter
1. Are largely renter occupied (53.7 percent in Fresno vs. 35.9 percent nationally)
2. Are younger (median age in Fresno is 31 vs. 38.1 nationally)33
3. Have larger representation of dominant segments compared to national norms (see chart 16a); and
4. Have higher housing cost burdens than the national average (36 percent in Fresno vs. 30 percent nationally)34
Chart 17a
Housing Strategy
34 | Page
Chart 18a provides an overview of the existing housing needs of our community. (Note: housing needs for the unhoused are approximated as new Point In Time (PIT) data on homelessness will be released in June of 2022). When comparing this data there is a clear mismatch between available units and household needs within the City of Fresno. Most notably, there is a huge need for rental housing for very low-income households – and even some homeownership in this category.
When you combine the previous two charts of existing housing versus need we are left with chart 18b below. Negative numbers represent excess units that exist within the City of Fresno for the income category, while positve numbers represent a need for additional units within the income category. As an example, the City of Fresno needs 7,139 additional units produced or current inventory made available for those of the very low income range (those who can afford a housing cost of between $500 to $1,000 per month). Its no wonder why 60 percent of Fresno renter households are cost burdened.
566
21,332 20,979
24,819 22,409
4,000 3,746
40,460
22,133
9,584
4,503
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
unhoused extremely low very low low moderate above moderate City of Fresno Needed Housing Unit Mix
Owner Renter
(11,677)
5,575 4,439
8,417
3,358 2,500
(3,271)
7,139
(8,825)
(5,210)
455
(15,000)
(5,000)
5,000
15,000
25,000
35,000
45,000
homeless extremely low very low low moderate above moderate City of Fresno Needed Housing Unit Mix
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Chart 18a
Chart 18b
Housing Strategy
35 | Page
Fresno’s Housing Needs by Household Size
Based on average household size by life mode, we
established a demand model that shows which units
have the strongest market need. As you will find in
charts 19a and 19b below, our review of units by
bedroom size and demand indicates that we have a
much higher need for family units of 3-bedrooms
while there are particularly a much greater number
of smaller units available in the rental market.
When combining a review of rental demand by size and price, below in chart 19c one can see that the highest demand for rental units is again in the very low income category for three- bedroom units.
1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR
needed 1,146 26,882 42,891 9,505
available 28,899 29,101 29,101 5,720
(5,000)
5,000
15,000
25,000
35,000
45,000
55,000
65,000
Occupied Renter Units
Less than $500 $500 to $999 $1,000 to $1,499 $1,500 to $1,999 more than $2,000
one bedroom 1146 0 0 0 0
two bedroom 2414 7738 12661 3123 947
three bedroom 186 23514 9868 5767 3555
four bedroom 0 8812 0 694 0
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Rental Demand by Size and Price
Household size to unit size need
Size of 1.25-1.75 Needs 1-2 bed
Size of 1.75-2.25 Needs 2 bed
Size of 2.25-2.75 Needs 2-3 bed
Size of 2.75-3.25 Needs 3 bed
Size of 3.25-3.75 Needs 3-4 bed
Size of 3.75-4.25 Needs 4 bed
Chart 19a
Chart 19b
Chart 19c
1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR
needed 184 20,956 60,646 8,321
available 828 26,864 26,864 25,439
(5,000)
5,000
15,000
25,000
35,000
45,000
55,000
65,000
Occupied Owner Units
Housing Strategy
36 | Page
For homeownership demand, the same is true of three-bedroom units dominating all categories.
See chart 20a below. At first glance it may seem odd that there the analysis is a reporting a 0 need for one bedroom units across affordability levels. Again, this analysis assumes we are able to match existing and projected inventory with actual household size needs. This analysis is displaying if households were occupying units requisite to their household size, there would be sufficient inventory for one bedroom units at various levels. Currently this is not the case as larger households are occupying smaller units that are intended for households of 1.25 to 1.75 persons.
Fresno’s Housing Needs by Unit Type
Through our demand modeling, chart 20b below shows that the Fresno market is dominated by detached single-family units. This is extraordinary. Not just due to the juxtaposition with other markets nationally but because of the demand based on Life Mode types locally. In sum, 75,123 owner occupied single-family detached units plus 32,863 renter occupied single-family detached units totals 107,986 single-family detached units currently existing in Fresno.
Less than $500 $500 to $999 $1,000 to $1,499 $1,500 to $1,999 more than $2,000
one bedroom 184 0 0 0 0
two bedroom 327 2872 8003 6383 3371
three bedroom 56 11373 13369 16810 19039
four bedroom 0 6694 0 1626 0
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Owner Demand by Size and Price
32,863 75,123
1,325
150
95 639
151
2,512
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 1, detached
1, attached
2 apartments
3 or 4 apartments
5 to 9 apartments
10 or more apartments
Mobile home or other
City of Fresno Existing Unit Types
Owner Renter
Chart 20a
Chart 20b
Housing Strategy
37 | Page
Chart 21a showcases the demand for various unit types within our City ranging from single- family detached units, to single-family attached units, to multifamily housing units, to mobile home or other types of housing.
Note the previous chart’s scale extended to 80,000 units. This chart extends to 45,000 units to allow data to be viewable.
As one may see, the demand for single-family detached units is much lower than the product’s availability. There is a significantly higher demand for attached products ranging from single- family attached – sometimes known as townhomes or row houses – to larger multifamily buildings.
In the chart 21b below, existing unit types have been overlaid with the need. While the middle five categories (single-family attached, duplex, 3-4 unit, and 5-9 unit buildings) could be interchangeable in demand, all lead to the same conclusion. Our supply is not meeting the demand for a diversity of rental options, especially those in a apartment building. For instance, we need an additional 13,233 single-family attached units to meet Fresnan housing needs. While this could be due to a number of factors,the most important is that total housing cost including some utilities and maintenance is generally included in a complex but less likely to be included in a single-family detached unit.
- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 1, detached
1, attached
2 apartments
3 or 4 apartments
5 to 9 apartments
10+ unit apartments
Mobile home or other
City of Fresno Unit Type Demand
Above Moderate Moderate Low Very Low Extremely Low
-28310
13233
5166 5342
1351 2827
-2059
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0 10,000
20,000
2500
Gap by Unit Types
1, detached 1, attached 2 apartments
3 or 4 apartments 5 to 9 apartments 10 or more apartments Chart 21a
Chart 21b
Housing Strategy
38 | Page
There is real demand not currently being met by supply. This need has been exacerbated by out of town investors purchasing homes in an already competitive market, and renting these homes to locals rather than the locals being able to purchase the homes in the first place because they can not compete with out of town investors.. To meet our community’s needs and to bring about market balance, we estimate it is nessessary that we convert 8,000 units of rental single- family homes to homeownership for persons in the 60 to 80 percent AMI bracket.
Furthermore, to address additional demand within our housing contiuum, we estimate needing approximately 500 units of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), 1,000 units of for hotel/motel acquisition and conversion, and 1,000 units of single room occupancy units (SROs). The afreomentioned needs will largely support our homeless and will be further discussed in chapter 7 of this plan.
In the City of Fresno’s current housing pipeline, we are aware of ~1,700 affordable housing units planned for completion in Fresno within the next three years. And while we are thankful for these developers and the households that these units will serve – this number is well below our need. Sadly, only 73 of these units are currently earmarked for affordable homeownership.
It is said that ‘insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.’ If we do not as community band together with an aggressive plan to meet our community’s housing needs, we are bound to repeat history.
Chapter 4 – Different Markets Different Needs Summary
1. The City of Fresno does not have sufficient housing inventory to meet the affordability needs of its households. As an example, Fresno needs 21,001 units for households who can afford no more than $500 on monthly housing costs.
2. There is a significant mismatch between existing types of housing stock and the needs of households by family size. As an example, the City of Fresno has a glut of 28,310 single-family detached units over and above what Fresno households need based on household size.
3. Between now and the end of 2025, to meet demand, City of Fresno residents need:
a. 7,139 additional units produced and made available for those of the very low- income range (can afford a housing cost of between $500 to $1,000 per month). b. 8,000 units of rental single-family homes converted to homeownership for persons in the 60 to 80 percent AMI bracket.
c. 500 units of ADUs, 1,000 units of hotel/motel acquisition, and 1,000 units of Single Room Occupancy Units (SROs) to address the needs of the unhoused
Housing Strategy
39 | Page
“Where there is no
vision, the people
perish...”
King David
King and Psalmist
Housing Strategy
40 | Page
CHAPTER 5: Affordable Housing Strategy Overview
Having heard from constituents across our city, Mayor Jerry Dyer set forth his One Fresno vision to unify our entire community around something every Fresnan desires. We desire “An inclusive prosperous, beautiful city where people take pride in their neighborhoods and community. We seek a government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people.” To make this vision a reality Mayor Dyer has set forth six priorities with the first being focused on housing and homelessness. Having spent significant time listening to our City’s needs, in 2022 Mayor Dyer initiated the creation of this One Fresno Housing Strategic Plan.
What is a housing strategy?
As mentioned earlier, a local housing strategy comprehensively describes the approach a city plans to take to meet its housing objectives. Often developed by the Mayor’s Office, a local housing strategy coordinates the actions of all the local government agencies and divisions that administer policies and programs affecting housing. According to localhousingsolutions.org, “the best local housing strategies utilize the full set of tools that local governments have at their disposal, including zoning ordinances, building codes permitting processes, property tax abatements, and federal, state, and local housing subsidies. They also engage the private and nonprofit sectors as key partners.”
The City of Fresno’s Housing Strategy Vision is simple. Our goal is:
Our Housing Strategy Objective aims to:
The City of Fresno’s Housing Strategy Goal is as follows:
To develop as much quality housing as fast as possible
at a price every Fresno resident can afford.
Seek to take advantage of every housing opportunity to
maximize short term production of housing types.
Create an environment that leads to the 3-year completion, rehabilitation, and preservation of 6,926 affordable and 4,110 market-rate housing units by identifying available land, vacant property and financial resources while deploying a wide range of development partners to increase housing
options across the housing spectrum throughout the City.
Housing Strategy
41 | Page
Definition of Priorities
In light of our housing crisis we are making various recommendations to address our challenges. We have grouped our priorities within several categories. Every recommendation falls within the four categories of Preserving housing, Producing housing, Promoting Equity, and/or Preventing Displacment. Priority recommendations are a result of public input that has informed reports from a variety of sources spanning the last decade. The following are definitions and details regarding each priority by category.
Continue funding Aging in Place home
preservation programs – Aging in Place
(AIP) is focused on supporting our aging
population. By definition, AIP is the ability
to live in one's own home and community
safely, independently, and comfortably,
regardless of age, income, or ability level.
Two existing City of Fresno AIP programs
include the senior paint and critical repair
programs. The City's Planning Year 2022
Annual Action Plan will go to Council in
April and we are recommending funding
levels similar to years past. Ultimately,
funding levels will be determined by the
annual action plan process.
Create (R
3) restore, rehabilitate, and
revitalize loan fund – Building the capacity
of the ‘builders’ is key to our reaching our
housing goals. Often times organizations do
not have cash problems but have cash flow
problems. We recommend establishing a
revolving loan fund that will empower
organizations focused on rehabilitation of
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
(NOAH), that secures affordability as a
condition of a low or no-interest loan.
This priority cooperates with Developing
the Region’s Inclusive and Vibrant
Economy (DRIVE) Permanent Affordable
Housing investment plan, it’s Community
Investment Act Plan and is recommended
by local affordable housing agencies like
Habitat for Humanity Greater Fresno Area.
Preserve Housing
Housing Strategy
42 | Page
Declare City of Fresno ‘State of housing
emergency’ - In light of the severity of the
issues outlined in this report a state of
housing emergency should be declared in
the City of Fresno. Said declaration will
assist our strategic streamling efforts at
addressing our housing crisis.
Deploy multiple rounds of funding
availability notices – We recommend
determining new and recurring local, state,
and federal funding opportunities and then
deploying multiple rounds of funding
availablitly notices instead of the current
one round funding availability window.
This recommendation comes by way of
affordable housers like the Fresno Housing
Authority as they aim to more quickly
produce affordable housing.
Employ City Staff to shepherd the housing
strategy and affordable housing projects
through completion - For many developers
the entitlement process in Fresno has
proven to be a major barrier for developing
projects efficiently. Two ombudsmen with
real power will be hired to work closely
with developers in an effort to shepherd
affordable projects to fruition. The creation
of a proactive City staff annexation team
would also be value. This aligns with the
Mayors intent on establishing a 'We work
for you' culture and complements our
operations improvement plan efforts.
Enact Restrictive Covenants - For all
developments receiving public funds
including but not limited to CDBG, HOME,
ESG, Housing Trust Fund, Land Trust
Funding, Impact Fee Waivers, General Fund
Contributions etc. the City proposes
requiring that a predetermined percentage
of the development include affordable
housing unit development. Receipt of
funding would be tied to requiring
affordability covenants.
Encourage the completion of new private
sector market rate housing - Housing types
across the housing continuum are needed;
including market rate housing. Through our
planning and building department, the City
will continue to encourage the development
of market rate housing developed by
market rate builders including but not
limited to entities like Granville Homes,
Lennar Homes, McCaffrey Homes, Gary
McDonald Homes, Wilson Homes,
DeYoung Homes, Bonadelle
Neighborhoods and others.
Encourage accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
development - Accessory Dwelling Units
are secondary housing units on a traditional
single-family residential property. ADU’s
includes a variety of housing types,
including cottages, flats, conversions, etc.
ADUs are not typically mobile, or on
wheels. ADU's can be helpful in multi-
generational households, and as wealth
generators.
We recommend partnering with local ADU
builders such as California Tiny Homes and
Pre-Fab Innovations to acquire and deploy
units across the city. Forging partnerships
with CBO’s with career tech school
programs like Fresno City College’s
Construction Department will provide
opportunities for the construction of units at
competitive price points, while
simultaneously providing valuable
volunteer, workforce development, and
trade training experience to its participants.
Produce Housing
Housing Strategy
43 | Page
Enhance City affordable housing density
bonus – Currently state law requires that
the City have certain bonuses and
considerations for projects that include
covenanted affordable housing based on
income classifications. The City can go
further than the state bonus law in ensuring
the long-term affordability of not just rental
units but owner-occupied units as well. We
recommend tying developer density
bonuses and/or concessions to the
affordability of units built. This is a
recommendation from the 2020 Analysis on
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
report
34. Enhance code lien waiver program –
The City of Fresno currently has a code lien
waiver program in which it publishes APNs
of properties with existing code lien's, along
with programs for responsible property
owners to apply for waivers of those lien's,
should they purchase from the responsible
property owner in a private sale. We
recommend taking steps to better market
this program and tying tiered incentives to
affordablility covenants placed on the
subject property.
Ensure RHNA targets are revisited,
discussed, and re-aligned with state -
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) is a process mandated by
California state law that requires cities and
unincorporated areas of counties to plan for
new housing to accommodate projected
growth. RHNA operates on an eight-year
cycle. The Dyer Administration will meet
with key decision makers to push for
equitable expectations and revised RHNA
targets.
Establish inclusionary zoning ordinance –
Inclusionary housing programs are local
policies that tap the economic gains from
rising real estate values to create affordable
housing for lower income families. We
recommend establishing a program that
requires developers to sell or rent 10 percent
of new residential units to lower-income
residents. Affordability covenants can be
coupled with existing density bonus and
other incentive programs. This is a
statewide best practice supported by
multiple agencies and is a necessary
measure to meet our RHNA targets and
address our affordable housing crisis.
Establish Land Bank - Land banking is the
process of accumulating parcels of land for
future development. For real property that
does not meet the threshold to qualify for
the City's receivership program, land
banking could be utilized. With the
authority of the land bank, the City would
identify underutilized land and vacant
properties. After establishing the Land
Bank, over the next three years hundreds
units could be added to the affordable
housing pipeline.
Establish Pre-Receivership loan program -
Receivership is a legal remedy that exists in
federal and state courts and provides an
aggrieved party the option of placing an
asset (in our context real property) into legal
custody, meaning that the court
dispossesses the party in control of that real
property and puts it into the hands of a
court-appointed agent—the receiver. While
the City currently has a receivership
program, this strategy recommends the
creation of a Pre-Receivership program.
The Pre-Receivership program could
integrate affordable housing permanency
through coordination of local non-profits
with the City of Fresno through access to or
right of first refusal to purchase and/or
complete rehabilitation of substandard
housing poised for receivership with the
ASET Division. This program could
leverage R
3 loan fund while tying properties
to affordability covenants. This sort of
program is supported by organizations like
Central Caliornia Legal Services (CCLS).
Housing Strategy
44 | Page
Establish social impact bond / loan fund -
Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) are an outcomes-
based (pay-for-success) model where
private investors contribute debt capital to
fund projects with social goals. Repayment
to investors is contingent upon achieving
certain program targets. The repayment will
be less if outcomes are not achieved. The
City of Richmond has a good example of
launching a successful social impact bond
for housing revitalization. Fresnos'
establishment of a social impact bond/loan
will help us fund our mission.
Execute recommendations from 2021
planning and development operations
improvement plan – An effort was
undertaken to conduct a preliminary
finding review of the building and planning
department to identify ways the City could
enhance/streamline its services to its
customers. This report
(see appendix item 1a)
yielded three staffing, four systems, and 10
structural findings along with
corresponding improvement
recommendations that are all currently
being addressed. The result of this effort
will lead to expedited timing and ‘red
carpet’ customer service. 140 current and
past employees along with customers
provided input into this report.
Grant broad ministerial approval process
throughout City of Fresno -
The City of Fresno's current site plan review
process is at odds with ministerial vs.
discretionary process best practices. By
enacting broad citywide ministerial housing
approvals, it is estimated that our planning
process could be reduced from nine to three
months. This is an important long term
remedy to expedite housing production in
light of our housing emergency.
Launch alternative affordable housing
finance model via pilot program –
This is an option for the City of Fresno
and/or Fresno’s Public Housing Authority
revolving loan to offer private affordable
housing developer funding for renovation
of naturally occurring affordable housing.
In exchange for a small loan with
competetive terms, and a non-profit tax
break, the private company will be required
to lock in affordability for up to 55 year
covenants and support housing for lower
income AMIs.
Identify then form strategic relationships
with financial institutions to support
affordable housing lending - The
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),
enacted in 1977, requires the Federal
Reserve and other federal banking
regulators to encourage financial
institutions to help meet the credit needs of
the communities in which they do business,
including low- and moderate-income (LMI)
neighborhoods. Financial institutions with a
less than ‘satisfactory’ CRA rating will be
strategically targeted by Fresno with the
request that they identify affordable
housing projects that they can underwrite
for community benefit.
Leverage housing trust fund – Housing
trust funds are distinct funds established by
the City that receive ongoing dedicated
sources of public funding to support the
preservation and production of affordable
housing and increase opportunities for
families and individuals to access decent
affordable homes.
The City of Fresno established its housing
trust fund in 2021 championed by
Councilmember Esmeralda Soria. We
intend to focus funds on eligible projects
that include new construction of affordable
rental housing for households earning
below 60 percent of AMI. Other uses
include affordable rental and ownership
housing, emergency shelters, permanent
supportive housing, transitional housing
and ADUs.
Housing Strategy
45 | Page
Leverage section 108 loan - loan guarantee
pool and/or loan fund – HUD’s Section 108
Loan Guarantee Program provides
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) recipients with the ability to
leverage their annual grant allocation to
access low-cost, flexible financing for
economic development, housing, public
facility, and infrastructure projects. The
City of Fresno will use these dollars to
facilitate additional affordable housing
development for projects below 80 percent
of AMI.
Partner with tax objector agencies –
A nonprofit affordable housing
organization may file an objection to the
sale for taxes on any property in order to
rehabilitate and sell or rent to low-income
persons, or construct residential dwellings
to sell or rent to low-income persons. The
City will work closely with such non-profits
interested in utilizing this Chapter 8 tax
objection to add additional units to our
City’s affordable housing stock.
Partner with and support capacity
building of local Community Land Trust –
Community land trusts (CLT’s) are
nonprofit, community-based organizations
designed to ensure community stewardship
of land. CLT’s are primarily used to ensure
permanent housing affordability. The City
of Fresno would help build the capacity of
our local CLT which would in turn acquire
and/or build affordable housing that
remains so in perpetuity. Establishing or
parting with a CLT is a recommendation of
the 2016 City of Fresno consultant report on
the ‘Impediments to Fair Housing’ and the
recently produced ‘Here to Stay Report’ by
the Thrivancegroup.
Partner with and build capacity of local
Mixed-Income Neighborhood Trust
(MINT) - The MINT has been identified as a
powerful tool for accelerating the
development of high quality affordable
rental housing. Through the Fresno
Community & Economic Development
Partnership (CEDP) Housing Working
Group, Fresno Community Development
Corporations (CDCs) across Council
Districts 1, 3, and 7 have been collaborating
on the launch of the Central Fresno
Neighborhood Trust (“CFNT”). CFNT will
develop, own, and manage a scattered site
rental portfolio, governed by community
stakeholders, and legally mandated to
preserve affordability and belonging for
today’s renters. The MINT and Central
Caliornia Land trust would complement
one another in purpose.
Provide more options within single-family
only zoning districts – The 2020 Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice report
states that “when Fresno drafted and
adopted its current General Plan in 2014
(along with a Housing Element
Amendment in 2017), it recommended
large-scale rezones to allow for both more
housing units and greater diversity of
housing types, infill development, and use
of vacant land for residential uses. The City
then adopted a new Development Code and
updated Zoning Map in 2015 and 2016,
respectively, to be more consistent with the
policy goals of the General Plan related to
housing and to codify those rezonings.”
The City's Planning Department intends to
bring forward a large package of updates to
the zoning code in late 2022 which would
include an update to the City's cottage
home section, and would allow for more
missing middle housing types to bridge the
gap between single-family and multi family
districts. Ultimately this effort will provide
more options and flexibility of housing
types above and beyond the State’s current
requirement.
Housing Strategy
46 | Page
Pursue attracting pre-fabricated housing
headquarters to re-locate to Fresno -
No longer novel, pre-fab housing has
proven to reduce construction costs, waste
and time. Meanwhile the construction of
quality housing would not be
compromised. Attracting a business(es)
that would headquarter in Fresno will align
housing needs, workforce development
efforts, and lead to positive economic
impact. The City’s Economic Development
Department will work to identify and work
with the EDC to locate two to five potential
agencies ultimately endeavoring to make at
least one builder local.
Pursue strategic conversion of office space
to affordable housing –Evaluating then
fast-tracking the conversion of existing
facilities for affordable housing use will be
essential to developing not just affordable
but market rate housing as well. The market
currenly has a reduced need of commercial
space, and an increased interest by the
developer community to convert office
spaces to mixed-use buildings and housing.
Remove density cap / By Right -
Density caps are a common challenge for
affordable housing. Density caps often raise
the development cost per unit as it limits
the number of dwelling units on a property,
and does not allow developers to maximize
the number of units that can be built. The
City of Fresno is currently working on a
corridor focused mixed use text amendment
that will help alleviate this concern.
Shepherd existing affordable housing
projects in process through the pipeline –
The City is currently aware of ~1,700
affordable housing units that are currently
in the queue to be developed by FY25. We
intend to support the shepherding of these
projects through completion.
Strategically incentivize the development
of affordable housing – In order to further
incentivize the development of affordable
housing, the City of Fresno will prioritize
the offering of fee waivers to affordable
housing projects only. While this relegation
will exclude downtown development
projects, we will proactively market this
waiver program to affordable housing
agencies.
Additionally, we are recommending a
significant subsidization of affordable
housing projects that will provide
affordable housing options to households
making between 50 and 80 percent of AMI.
Later in our strategic plan chapter we will
outline how this investment would be
allocated to yield 1,200+ units of affordable
shelter in the next three years.
Based on a recent survey monkey survey of
11 agencies involved in local affordable
housing, the primary impediment to their
"organization maximizing its ability to
create housing stock to help satisfy our
community's needs" was due to the lack of
"subsidies to offset development and/or
construction costs."
Housing Strategy
47 | Page
Continue eviction protection program –
Championed by the City Council in 2021 the
City of Fresno launched its Eviction
Protection Program (EPP). The program is
designed to fight potentially unlawful
evictions and is overseen by the City
Attorneys Office.
Continue to deploy and seek additional
funding for ERAP – The City of Fresno has
received nearly $64 million in Emergency
Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) I and
ERAP II funding from the federal and state
governments to provide emergency rental
assistance to improve housing stability. The
City of Fresno’s ERAP is available to City of
Fresno renters and landlords that have been
negatively impacted by COVID-19 and are
unable to pay their rent and utilities. The
City intends to also apply for ERAP III
when funding becomes available.
Conduct environmental justice and climate
resiliency planning – Climate Resilience
Planning complements public sector
planning efforts. It is the process by which
residents of under-resourced and impacted
communities define for themselves the
complex climate challenges they face, and
the climate solutions most relevant to their
unique assets and threats. Council Vice
President Maxwell led an effort to allocate
$400,000 to initiate a climate resilience plan
in the most recent budget.
Additionally the City recently updated its
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan on 2021,
which serves as the City’s Climate Action
Plan. Environmental justice and climate
resiliency planning are separate state-
required planning mandates. Staff intends
to do this work for our next General Plan
update, which is scheduled for 2024.
Execute housing stability fund objective –
Housing Stabilization Funds (HSF) typically
support the preservation, new construction,
and rehabilitation of affordable housing
projects, including first-time homebuyer
opportunities and affordable rental projects.
In 2021 the city of Fresno allocated funding
to Breaking the Chains and the Marjoree
Mason Center for the purpose of furthering
housing stability.
Re-juvenate the Mobilehome Rent Review
& Stabilization Commission - The
Commission serves the purpose of
protecting mobilehome park residents from
excessive rent increases. The Mayors office
will continue to recommend new
appointments to the commission subject to
Council approval to help ensure that should
a need to meet occur, the Commission is
available to ensure rent increases are
occurring as allowed by current regulations.
Support SB847 (State) – This bill under
consideration creates a commonsense grant
program administered by California’s
Housing and Community Development
Department (HCD), which would distribute
state funds on behalf of tenants who are
unable to pay rent due to a COVID-19
hardship and do not qualify under the
Federal Emergency Rental Assistance
Program (FERAP).
Prevent Displacement
Housing Strategy
48 | Page
Advocate for Repeal of Article 34 (state) –
Article 34 of the State Constitution prohibits
the development of a low-income affordable
housing project with state or local public
financing or assistance unless and until a
majority of the voters of the jurisdiction has
approved it. This dampens the capacity of
public housing authorities developing
affordable housing statewide. Fresno will
engage lobbyists to assist with ways the
Administration can support repeal efforts.
Disincent rental of single-family owner
occupied homes - In order to meet our
community need of converting 8,000 units
of rental single-family homes to
homeownership for persons between 60 to
80 percent of AMI we must responsibly
disincentiveze the rental of certain owner
occupied units in strategic ways. (including
but not limited to long term rental housing
like Airbnb). This is necesssary to begin to
shift the single-family detached rental
product to hoemowners to stabilize
neighborhoods and increase affordability.
To do this we will employ a combination of
increasing the business license fees for
single-family detached product and
decreasing the business license fees for
attached product. Additionally, we will
identify high volume owners of single-
family residential properties for rent, and
develop a program that incentivizes them to
sell to first-time home buyers, or extend a
rent-to-own option to prospective buyers.
Establish Affordability Index - It has been
recommended by the Here to Stay Report
that the City of Fresno should establish a
affordability index which "takes into
account other contributing factors to
displacement burden. Households that
technically earn above the median income
are also subject to displacement risks that
are unique to Fresno and skew the validity
of standard affordability."
Establish ‘Open Fresno’ - Full Access to
Data and Plans through a GeoHub
Platform - The City’s Planning and
Development Department is currently
exploring more user-friendly portals that
would allow viewers to see development
projects in their area and follow projects
more easily. As such, pursuit of a GeoHub
is underway.
Fight PG&E Rate Increases - Outside of
housing costs, utility costs pose the second
greatest cost burden on households. Mayor
Dyer has publicly challenged PG&E
regarding its proposed rate hike. Over the
last 10 years, the utility’s electricity rates
have increased by 85 percent. If approved
by the California Public Utilities
Commission, the proposed hike, along with
already approved increases this year and
next, would send utility costs skyrocketing
by an additional 40 percent over the next
five years. In addition to opposing these
increases, the City will promte
opportunities for residents to take
advantage of utility assistance programs
and solar opportunities.
Fund rent stabilization program – The
administration recommends supporting a
voluntary pilot program that financially
incentivizes landlords in exchange for tying
rental property to affordabilty covenants. In
exchange for rehabilitation funds,
affordability covenants would be required
on the subject property. It is worth noting
that State laws have currently limited rent
increase amounts allowed for mobilehome
parks due mainly to fixed incomes often
found in the aging population. The One
Fresno Housing Strategy does not propose
rent caps for the private
market outside of
what already exists for mobilehome parks.
Promote Equity
Housing Strategy
49 | Page
Launch rapid rehousing landlord voucher
incentive program – Fresno’s Housing
Authority has proposed a voucher incentive
program that promotes equity for voucher
holders who are competing with non-
voucher holders in the housing market. The
program is intended to incentivize
landlords to continue renting to housing
choice voucher holders (HCV), and also
incentivize landlords to begin renting to
HCV holders.
Pursue attaining State ‘pro-housing’
designation (state) - The Prohousing
Designation Program was officially
established with the passage of the
Governors Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Budget,
which provided a spectrum of support,
incentives, and accountability measures to
help meet California’s housing goals. The
Program provides incentives to cities and
counties in the form of additional points or
other preference in the scoring of
competitive housing, community
development, and infrastructure programs.
The City of Fresno will pursue attaining this
designation.
Re-establish City and partner led
downpayment assistance programs -
In an effort to increase low income
ownership (specifically targeting black and
brown homeownership in Fresno), the
Mayors office has partnered with Realtist of
Fresno County and the National Association
of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals
(NAHREP), to market downpayment
assistance through Federal Home Loan
Bank of San Francisco’s WISH program.
Additionally, the City will connect
perspective 1
st time homebuyers to Bank of
America’s Community Homeownership
Commitment® program36 and other down
payment assistance programs. Separately,
the city will leverage HCD’s Permanent
Local Housing Allocation funding to
ressurrect its own down payment assistance
program.
Reduce or waive Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) impact fees for affordable housing
projects (state) - New CEQA rules on
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) require
projects to mitigate the number of VMTs
generated above the adopted threshold.
Projects within 1/2 mile of high quality
transit corridors are mostly exempt, as are
projects that include a "high" amount of
affordable housing. The city will determine
what that percentage will be. The City is
proposing to create a VMT mitigation fee
that would pay for active transportation
capital improvements (that would increase
pedestrian, bike and transit ridership). Our
for-profit developer community has
expressed real concern regarding VMT’s.
Support affordable housing education
resident academy - The City will leverage
the Mayor’s newly launched Office of
Community Affairs (OCA) to partner
residents with agencies that are providing
homebuyer education counseling. We will
market via City media outlets and to
community groups such as neighborhood /
homeowners’ associations, Rotary and other
similar clubs, and associations of Realtors,
homebuilders, and lenders.
Housing Plan
CHAPTER 6: Affordable Housing Strategy Priority Recommendations
Strategy Overview
With the housing strategy ‘vision, objective, goal’ and priority definitions in mind, the One Fresno Housing Strategy Committee worked with City Staff, City Council, and members of the community to best understand how we might build a S.M.A.R.T (Simple, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timebound) strategy to meet desired outcomes.
The One Fresno Housing Strategy’s priorities are aligned with HUD’s ‘House America’ priorities, California’s Statewide Housing Objectives31, the City of Fresno’s local Housing Element37, and local studies and reports produced by outside agencies (see Appendix item A). In total, this plan highlights 47 priorities that will help meet this strategy’s goal in the area of affordable housing with additional priorities specific to addressing our unhoused needs in chapter 6. (Note: Priorites below are not listed in order of importance but are grouped by category)
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
1 Preserve
Existing
Housing
Continue funding
Aging in Place home
preservation programs
Keep Californians
in their homes
Objective
4/Program 22:
Housing
Rehabilitation
O = Fresno/Madera Agency
on Aging
O = Habitat for Humanity
R = Financing Valley Infill
Ownership
2 Preserve
Existing
Housing
Create (R3) restore,
rehabilitate, and
revitalize loan fund
Keep Californians
in their homes
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R - DRIVE
R - Southwest Specific Plan
Funding resolution
and program
guidelines. (Potential
policy change)
Rental +
Ownership
3 Prevent
Displacement
Continue eviction
protection program
Keep Californians
in their homes
Objective
3/Program
12A:
Downtown
Displacement
O - CCLS
R - Evicted in Fresno
R - Here to Stay
Annually adopted
resolution with
funding to the CAO
Rental
Housing Strategy
51 | Page
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
4 Prevent
Displacement
Continue to deploy
and seek additional
funding for ERAP
Keep Californians
in their homes
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R - Evicted in Fresno
R - DRIVER - Here to Stay
Rental +
Ownership
5 Prevent
Displacement
Execute housing
stability fund objective
Keep Californians
in their homes
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R - Here to Stay
R - Evicted in Fresno
Funding resolution Rental
6 Prevent
Displacement
Re-juvenate
Mobilehome Rent
Review & Stabilization
Commission
Keep Californians
in their homes
Objective
2/Program
10A: Mobile
Home Parks
Rental
7 Prevent
Displacement
Support SB 847 (State) Keep Californians
in their homes
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R - Evicted in Fresno
R - Financing Valley Infill
Rental
8 Produce Declare state of
housing emergency
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline + Re-
house
households
experiencing
homelessness
through a
housing first
approach
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing +
Continue to act
with urgency to
address
homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
Resolution Rental +
Ownership
Housing Strategy
52 | Page
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
9 Produce Deploy multiple
rounds of funding
availability notices
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R = Financing Valley Infill Policy direction Rental +
Ownership
10 Produce Employ City Staff to
shepherd housing
strategy and
affordable housing
projects through
completion
O = Private Developers Rental +
Ownership
11 Produce Enact Restrictive
Covenants
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
2,4/Program
5: Housing
Funding
Sources;
Program 15:
Development
Incentives
O = Habitat for Humanity
O = Self-Help Enterprises
O = South Tower Trust
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Text amendment Rental +
Ownership
12 Produce Encourage the
completion of private
sector new market rate
housing
Objective
1/Program 1:
Adequate Sites
for Housing
O = Private
Builder/Developers
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Rental +
Ownership
13 Produce Enhance City
affordable housing
density bonus
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
2/Program 4:
Density Bonus
R = Impediments to Fair
Housing
R = Financing Valley Infill
Text amendment Rental +
Ownership
Housing Strategy
53 | Page
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
14 Produce Enhance code lien
waiver program
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective 2,4:
Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources;
Program 22:
Housing
Rehabilitation
O - Private property owners
O - Habitat for Humanity
R- Here to Stay
R - Southwest Specific Plan
Resolution Rental +
Ownership
15 Produce Ensure RHNA targets
are revisited,
discussed, and re-
aligned with state
Objective
1/Program 1:
Adequate Sites
R = Financing Valley Infill Rental +
Ownership
16 Produce Establish inclusionary
zoning ordinance
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
5/Program 26:
Fair Housing
O = Other city and National
best practices
Code modification
and resolution
Ownership
17 Produce Establish Land Bank Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
1/Program 1:
Adequate Sites
for Housing
O = Housing Authority
R = Evicted in Fresno,
R = Financing Valley Infill
R = Here to Stay
Resolution
establishing program
and funding
Rental +
Ownership
18 Produce Establish Pre-
Receivership loan
program
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
4/Program 22:
Housing
Rehabilitation
O - CCLS
R - Here to Stay
R - Southwest Specific Plan
Policy direction
and/or funding
resolution
Rental +
Ownership
Housing Strategy
54 | Page
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
19 Produce Establish social impact
bond - loan fund
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R = DRIVE
R = Evicted in Fresno
R = Financing Valley Infill
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Funding resolution
and policy
Rental +
Ownership
20 Produce Execute
recommendations
from 2021 planning
and development
operations
improvement plan
O = Private Developers
R = Survey Monkey staff
survey
Rental +
Ownership
21 Produce Grant broad
ministerial approval
process throughout
City of Fresno
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
3/Program 15:
Development
Incentives
O = Other cities
O = Financing Valley Infill
Rental +
Ownership
22 Produce Launch alternative
affordable housing
finance model via pilot
program
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R – DRIVE Rental +
Ownership
23 Produce Identify then form
strategic relationships
with financial
institutions to support
affordable housing
lending
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R = DRIVE
R = Evicted in Fresno
R = Financing Valley Infill
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Policy direction Rental +
Ownership
Housing Strategy
55 | Page
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
24 Produce Leverage housing trust
fund
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R = Evicted in Fresno
R = Financing Valley Infill
R = Here to Stay
Funding resolution Rental +
Ownership
25 Produce Leverage section 108
loan - loan guarantee
pool and/or loan fund
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R = DRIVE
R = Evicted in Fresno
R = Financing Valley Infill
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Funding resolution
and policy
Rental +
Ownership
26 Produce Partner with
affordable housing tax
objector agencies
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
4/Program 22:
Housing
Rehabilitation
O - Habitat for Humanity
R - Here to Stay
Policy direction Rental +
Ownership
27 Produce Partner with and build
capacity of local
Community Land
Trust
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
O = Central California Land
Trust
R = Here to Stay
R = Downtown
Neighborhoods Community
Plan
R = HFHI Affordable for Good
Report
Funding resolution
and policy direction
Rental +
Ownership
28 Produce Partner with and build
capacity of local
Mixed-Income
Neighborhood Trust
(MINT)
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R = DRIVE
R = Evicted in Fresno
Funding resolution
and policy direction
Rental
Housing Strategy
56 | Page
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
29 Produce Provide more options
within single-family
only zoning districts
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
3/Program 15:
Development
Incentives
R = Financing Valley Infill
R = Here to Stay
Text amendment Rental +
Ownership
30 Produce Pursue attracting pre-
fab housing
headquarters to
relocate to Fresno
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing +
Continue to act
with urgency to
address
homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 6:
Partnerships
with
Affordable
Housing
Developers
Policy direction Rental +
Ownership
31 Produce Pursue strategic
conversion of office
space to affordable
housing
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
1/Program 1:
Adequate Sites
for Housing
R = Southwest Specific Plan Code modification Rental +
Ownership
32 Produce Remove density cap /
By Right
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
1/Program 1:
Adequate Sites
for Housing
Text amendment Rental +
Ownership
33 Produce Shepherd existing
housing projects in
process through the
pipeline
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing
Objective
4/Program 21:
Neighborhood
Infrastructure
R = Southwest Specific Plan Rental +
Ownership
Housing Strategy
57 | Page
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
34 Produce Strategically
incentivize the
development of
affordable housing
Add new units
of affordable
housing into
the
development
pipeline
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing + MPA
Strategy A: More
Housing Options
Objective
3/Program 15:
Development
Incentives
O = Community Development
Corporations
O = Economic Development
Corporations
O = Fresno Housing Authority
O = Habitat for Humanity
O = Self-Help Enterprises
O = South Tower Trust
R = DRIVE
R = Evicted in Fresno
R = Financing Valley Infill
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Funding resolution Rental +
Ownership
35 Produce Encourage accessory
dwelling unit (ADU)
development
Re-house
households
experiencing
homelessness
through a
housing first
approach
Produce more
affordable and
climate-smart
housing +
Continue to act
with urgency to
address
homelessness and
housing need
Objective
1/Program 1:
Adequate Sites
for Housing;
Objective
3/Program 15:
Development
Incentives
Funding resolution Homeless
36 Promote Equity Advocate for Repeal of
Article 34
Objective
5/Program 27:
Equitable
Communities
Only applies to
public housing
authority
Rental +
Ownership
37 Promote Equity Conduct
Environmental Justice
and Climate Resiliency
Planning
Objective
5/Program 27:
Equitable
Communities
R = Here to Stay
Housing Strategy
58 | Page
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
38 Promote Equity Disincent rental of
single-family owner
occupied homes
Objective
2/Program 8:
Homebuyer
Assistance
O = SW Fresno Development
Corporation
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Policy direction and
possibly a funding
resolution and/or
code modification
Ownership
39 Promote Equity Establish Affordability
Index
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R = Here to Stay Rental +
Ownership
40 Promote Equity Establish 'Open
Fresno' - Full Access to
Data and Plans
through a GeoHub
Platform
Objective
5/Program 27:
Equitable
Communities
R = Here to Stay Rental +
Ownership
41 Promote Equity Fight PG&E Rate
Increase
Objective
3/Program 13:
Home Energy
Tune-Up or
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
Policy direction
42 Promote Equity Fund rent stabilization
program
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R = DRIVE Policy direction and
funding resolution
Rental
43 Promote Equity Launch rapid
rehousing landlord
voucher incentive
program
Objective
5/Program 26:
Fair Housing
O = Housing Authority
R = DRIVE
R = Here to Stay
Funding resolution Rental
Housing Strategy
59 | Page
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
44 Promote Equity Pursue attaining State
prohousing
designation
Objective
2/Program 5:
Housing
Funding
Sources
R = Financing Valley Infill
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Resolution Rental +
Ownership
45 Promote Equity Re-establish City and
partner led down
payment assistance
programs
Objective
2/Program 8:
Homebuyer
Assistance
O = Habitat for Humanity
O = Highway City CDC
O = Self Help Enterprises
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Policy direction and
funding resolution
Ownership
46 Promote Equity Reduce or waive
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) impact fees for
affordable housing
projects
Objective
3/Program 15:
Development
Incentives
O = For and not-for profit
developers
R = Financing Valley Infill
R = Downtown
Neighborhoods Community
Plan
R = Here to Stay
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Rental +
Ownership
Housing Strategy
60 | Page
Item Category Priority HUD National
Housing
Objective
Alignment
Statwide Housing
Plan Objective
Alignment
Housing
Element
Alignment
Local Organization or Report
iAlignment
(O = Org. recommendation
R = Report recommendation)
Policy/Resolution or
Code modification
recommendation
Impact on
Rental,
Ownership
or Housing
for the
unhoused
47 Promote Equity Support affordable
housing education
resident academy
Objective
5/Program 26:
Fair Housing
O = Lowell CDC
O = SW Fresno Development
Corp
O = Realtist of Fresno County
O = NAHREP
O = Habitat for Humanity
O = Self-Help Enterprises
O = Community Housing
Council
O = FIRM
R = DRIVE
R = Financing Valley Infill
R = Downtown
Neighborhoods Community
Plan
R = Southwest Specific Plan
Policy direction Rental +
Ownership
Housing Strategy
61 | Page
Strategy funding recommendations and outputs
Being good stewards of once in a lifetime State and Federal funding to invest in housing is key. In order for this strategy to be comprehensive, it not only ties priorites to policies, but it outlines funding recommendations (where applicable) along with the expected output of said investment.
In sum, this three-year strategy calls for an investment of $101,645,000 and will yield 4,695 affordable housing units between 15 to 100 percent of area median income. Of the 4,695 affordable units, apporximately 25 percent will be built to satisfy this strategy’s goal of constructing two to three bedroom units affordable to housholds who can pay between $500 - $1000 per month.
Currently this strategy also projects an additional 4,110 units of market rate housing to be completed over the next three years in Fresno. While the city of Fresno has averaged 1,340 new housing units annually over the past three years, this strategy if executed, will set Fresno on a path to meet these targets.
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investment
Recommended
Additional
Investment
Funding
source FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
<
15 %
<
30 %
<
50 %
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100%
>
100%
Total
Units
1 Preserve
Existing
Housing
Continue
funding Aging
in Place home
preservation
programs
$350,000 $2,100,000 CDBG $700,000 $700,000 $700,000
2 Preserve
Existing
Housing
Create (R3)
restore,
rehabilitate,
and revitalize
loan fund
$1,000,000 HOME $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 10 5 10 25 3 Prevent
Displaceme
nt
Continue
eviction
protection
program
$750,000 $900,000 ERAP
III
$900,000
Housing Strategy
62 | Page
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investment
Recommended
Additional
Investment
Funding
source FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
<
15 %
<
30 %
<
50 %
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100%
>
100%
Total
Units
4 Prevent
Displaceme
nt
Continue to
deploy and
seek additional
funding for
ERAP
$64,000,000 TBD ERAP
III
TBD TBD TBD
5 Prevent
Displaceme
nt
Execute
housing
stability fund
objective
$750,000
6 Prevent
Displaceme
nt
Re-juvenate
Mobilehome
Rent Review &
Stabilization
Commission
7 Prevent
Displaceme
nt
Support SB 847
(State)
8 Produce Declare state of
housing
emergency
9 Produce Deploy
multiple
rounds of
funding
availability
notices
HOME-ARP:
$4,000,000
ARPA(1of2):
$11,880,000
LHTF: $5,000,000
HOME:
$14,960,056.42
HOME-CHDO:
$1,437,316
CDBG: $2,369,784
NSP3:
$1,173,304.22
TOTAL:
$40,820,460.60
CDBG
HOME
HOME-
CHDO
ARPA 2
PLHA 1
& 2
PLHS
LHTF
CDBG:
$4,658,852.03
HOME:
$2,872,260
HOME-
CHDO:
$493,453
ARPA(2of2):
~$50,000,000
PLHA 1 & 2:
$4,961,322
LHTF:
$1,500,000
TOTAL:
$64,485,887
PLHA
3&4: TBD
HOME:
TBD
HOME-
CHDO:
TBD
LHTF:
$1,500,000
CDBG:
TBD
TOTAL:
TBD
HOME:
TBD
HOME-
CHDO:
TBD
LHTF:
$1,500,000
CDBG:
$TBD
TOTAL:
TBD
Housing Strategy
63 | Page
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investment
Recommended
Additional
Investment
Funding
source FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
<
15 %
<
30 %
<
50 %
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100%
>
100%
Total
Units
10 Produce Employ City
Staff to
shepherd
housing
strategy and
affordable
housing
projects
through
completion
$270,000+ /
per year
General
Funds
$278,100 $286,443 $295,036
11 Produce Enact
Restrictive
Covenants
20 20
12 Produce Encourage the
completion of
private sector
new market
rate housing
3960
Market
rate
not
include
d in
totals
3960
Market
rate not
included
in totals
13 Produce Enhance City
affordable
housing
density bonus
10 10 20 20 60
14 Produce Enhance code
lien waiver
program
15 15
15 Produce Ensure RHNA
targets are
revisited,
discussed, and
re-aligned with
state
Housing Strategy
64 | Page
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investment
Recommended
Additional
Investment
Funding
source FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
<
15 %
<
30 %
<
50 %
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100%
>
100%
Total
Units
16 Produce Establish
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance
130 130 130 390
17 Produce Establish Land
Bank
$5,000,000 CDBG $5,000,000 10 40 10 40 100
18 Produce Establish Pre-
Receivership
loan program
$1,000,000 HOME $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 10 20 10 40 19 Produce Establish social
impact bond -
loan fund
$3,000,000 Bond $3,000,000 20 10 20 50
20 Produce Execute
recommendatio
ns from 2021
planning and
development
operations
improvement
plan
21 Produce Grant broad
ministerial
approval
process
throughout
City of Fresno
20 20 20 60
22 Produce Launch
alternative
affordable
housing
finance model
via pilot
program
TBD
Housing Strategy
65 | Page
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investment
Recommended
Additional
Investment
Funding
source FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
<
15 %
<
30 %
<
50 %
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100%
>
100%
Total
Units
23 Produce Identify then
form strategic
relationships
with financial
institutions to
support
affordable
housing
lending
50 50
24 Produce Leverage
housing trust
fund
$5,000,000 $4,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 100 100 25 Produce Leverage
section 108
loan - loan
guarantee pool
and/or loan
fund
$15,000,000 CDBG $0 $15,000,000 $0 25 100 50 25 200 26 Produce Partner with
affordable
housing tax
objector
agencies
10 10 10 30
27 Produce Partner with
and build
capacity of
local
Community
Land Trust
$1,000,000 CDBG $1,000,000 5 5 5 10 25
Housing Strategy
66 | Page
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investment
Recommended
Additional
Investment
Funding
source FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
<
15 %
<
30 %
<
50 %
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100%
>
100%
Total
Units
28 Produce Partner with
and build
capacity of
local Mixed-
Income
Neighborhood
Trust (MINT)
$2,000,000 TBD $2,000,000
29 Produce Provide more
options within
single family
only zoning
districts
10 20 30
30 Produce Pursue
attracting pre-
fab housing
headquarters to
relocate to
Fresno
$250,000 $250,000 10 10 10 30
31 Produce Pursue
strategic
conversion of
office space to
affordable
housing
5 5 10 180
Mark
et
Rate
20 32 Produce Remove
density cap /
By Right
10 10 20 20 60
33 Produce Shepherd
existing
housing
projects in
process
through the
pipeline
$3,000,000 TBD $3,000,000 249 146 249 434 622 1700 Housing Strategy
67 | Page
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investment
Recommended
Additional
Investment
Funding
source FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
<
15 %
<
30 %
<
50 %
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100%
>
100%
Total
Units
34 Produce Strategically
incentivize the
development of
affordable
housing
$14,000,000
through FY25
(HOME,
HOME-
CHDO, PLHA
3&4)
Additional
funding could
come from
ARPA 2of2,
LHTF, CDBG
$56,000,000 HOME
&
CDBG
$50,000,000 $20,000,000 400 200 600 1200
35 Produce Encourage
accessory
dwelling unit
(ADU)
development
$5,625,000 TBD $1,875,000 $1,875,000 $1,875,000
75 10 20 20 125
36 Promote
Equity
Advocate for
Repeal of
Article 34
37 Promote
Equity
Conduct
Environmental
Justice and
Climate
Resiliency
Planning
$400,000
38 Promote
Equity
Disincent
rental of single
family owner
occupied
homes
Housing Strategy
68 | Page
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investment
Recommended
Additional
Investment
Funding
source FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
<
15 %
<
30 %
<
50 %
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100%
>
100%
Total
Units
39 Promote
Equity
Establish
Affordability
Index
40 Promote
Equity
Establish 'Open
Fresno' - Full
Access to Data
and Plans
through a
GeoHub
Platform
41 Promote
Equity
Fight PG&E
Rate Increase
42 Promote
Equity
Fund rent
stabilization
program
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 10 5 10 25
43 Promote
Equity
Launch rapid
rehousing
landlord
voucher
incentive
program
$1,000,000 ARPA I $1,000,000 50 125 25 100 300 44 Promote
Equity
Pursue
attaining State
prohousing
designation
Housing Strategy
69 | Page
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investment
Recommended
Additional
Investment
Funding
source FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
<
15 %
<
30 %
<
50 %
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100%
>
100%
Total
Units
45 Promote
Equity
Re-establish
City and
partner led
down payment
assistance
programs
$2,471,100 PLHA 10 20 10 40
46 Promote
Equity
Reduce or
waive Vehicle
Miles Traveled
(VMT) impact
fees for
affordable
housing
projects
TBD
47 Promote
Equity
Support
affordable
housing
education
resident
academy
TOTALS
$74,721,100 $101,645,000
$64,878,100 $43,236,443 $3,495,036 249 266 1249 1089 1782 50 10 4695
*Note to the reader: The FY23 – FY25 individual year totals may not equal the total ‘recommended additional investment’ as there are instances where dollars are currently committed on an annual basis to certain programs beyond the recommended additional investment.
Housing Plan
Chapter 6 – Affordable Housing Recommendations Summary
1. We have identified 47 priorities that will help us meet our strategic housing goals.
2. Our plan’s priorities are aligned with HUD’s ‘House America’ priorities, California’s Statewide Housing Objectives, the City of Fresno’s local Housing Element, and local studies and reports produced by outside agencies
3. Our three-year strategic plan effort call for an investment of $101,645,000 and will yield 4,695 affordable housing units between 15 to 100 percent of area median income.
Of the 4,695 affordable units, apporximately 25 percent of the units will be built to satisfy this plan’s goal of building two to three bedroom units affordable to housholds who can pay between $500 - $1000 per month.
4. We also project an additional 4,110 units of market rate housing to be completed over the next three years in Fresno.
Housing Strategy
71 | Page
CHAPTER 7: Housing the Unhoused Strategy Overview
As mentioned in Chapter 2’s focus on vulnerable populations, Fresno is not dissimilar to many other cities across the nation that are experiencing the challenge of homelessness. Addressing our City’s homelessness challenge has become priority number one.
Following a series of early 2020 incidents involving the unhoused, it became apparent for public safety, that persons experiencing homelessness living on these embankments were the most endangered residents in our community. Leveraging state Project Homekey Round 1 grant funding to acquire and transform hotels into emergency housing, the Dyer Administration launched Project Off-Ramp upon taking office in 2021. Project Off-Ramp aimed to ‘off-ramp’ individuals from a life of homelessness to an on-ramp to housing, services, and a productive life. Through these efforts, in 2021 over 500 of Fresno’s unhoused were housed which became a demonstrable success highlighted by our State’s Governor.
One thing that became abundantly clear during the City’s Project Off-Ramp effort was that additional shelter options were needed to successfully transition unhoused persons along the housing continuum; and to ensure there were no bottlenecks for others needing emergency shelter. This plan addresses this need. As a part of this planning process a 20 member Housing for the Unhoused and Precariously Housed Subcomittee was convened to address this issue.
The committee was comprised of the following members:
One Fresno Housing for the Unhoused and Precariously Housed Subcomittee • Zach Darrah, Poverello House
• Sonia De La Rosa, Fresno County
• Matt Dildine, Fresno Mission
• Doreen Eley, Fresno Housing
• Brad Hardie, RH Community
• Nicole Henson, Fresno Housing
• Malissa Holt, Mental Health Systems
• Robert Huerta, Poverello House
• Angie Jenkins, Mental Health Systems
• Shawn Jenkins, West Care
• Jody Ketcheside, Turning Point
• Maryann Knoy, West Care
• Sara Mirhadi, Poverello House
• Edith Rico, Mental Health Systems
• Priscilla Robbins, Fresno Mission
• Michael Smith, RH Community
• Michael Thomas, Turning Point
• Katie Wilbur, RH Community
• H Spees, City of Fresno
• Phil Skei, City of Fresno
The Subcommittee realized immediately that there are many whose life situations cause them to experience shelter or housing vulnerability including but not limited to:
o Older Adults
o Foster Youth
o Victims of Domestic Violence and
Human Trafficking
o Those formerly incarcerated/reentry
population
o LGBTQ+
o Those with physical or behavioral health
needs and/or suffering substance abuse
disorder
o Those impacted by poverty and/or
other negative social determinants of
health
For the purpose of this report, The Subcommittee focused on the unhoused population, first because this unique population touches on many if not all of these additional vulnerable populations, and second because of the extreme vulnerability experienced by the unhoused.
Housing Plan
Definition of Priorities in Addressing Homelessness
The Subcommittee has grouped priorities within several categories across the City of Fresno’s homeless services and housing continuum. (see graphic 22a below). Every recommendation falls along the continuum spanning from homelessness through homeownership. Each step has a series of strategic priority recommendations that totaling 24 in all. The descriptions on the next page provide insight into each of these priorities.
Graphic 22a
Housing Plan
Leverage Homeless Assistance Response
Team (H.A.R.T) – H.A.R.T is a
compassionate, responsive, lawful and
effective outreach engaging unsheltered
individuals and families to take the first
step off the streets and into a new future.
Outreach activities include essential
services necessary to reach out to people
experiencing homelessness and connect
them with housing options and/or
critical services. HART's multi-
disciplinary, multi-agency team includes
outreach workers, code enforcement
professionals, law enforcement officers,
housing providers, community-based
organizations (CBOs) committed to
whole-person care and response.
We intend to utilize the Mayors H.A.R.T
team on an ongoing basis to meet people
where they are and engaging them at the
first step along the continuum.
Encourage accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
development (for persons at-risk of or
experiencing homelessness) – While our
affordable housing section of this strategy
highlighted the priority to utilize ADUs to address our broad affordable housing
needs, we believe various types of ADUs
can be deployed at different stages along
the continuum including use for
emergency shelter, transitional housing,
rental housing and even home ownership
for the unhoused.
Additionally, per local LGBTQ+
community feedback, the lack of non-
congregate housing for transgender
houseless individuals is of great need and
this housing product could certainly help.
Establish Shelter Housing Reserve Fund –
In providing housing supports, funding
ongoing operations is key. We recommend
establishing a reserve fund for operations,
support services, maintenance, and repair
for various types of shelters and activities
(e.g., case management provided at
shelters, triage centers, including tiny home
villages, sleeping cabins, Project Homekey-
funded shelters/triage centers, hotels used
for temporary housing, etc.)
Support Fresno Mission Urban Housing
Initiatives - Fresno Mission, one of the most
longstanding faith-based CBOs serving the
unhoused and under-resourced in our
community, has a wide range of urban
housing plans in the works ranging from
micro homes to tiny homes to dormitories
to apartments with up to 1,000 units in their
plans for three separate projects within the
city limits of Fresno. We recommend
supporting these initiatives.
Street Response and Beyond
Housing Strategy
75 | P a g e
Employ Diversion Strategies - Diversion
employs strategies that help people
experiencing a housing crisis quickly
identify and access safe alternatives to
emergency shelter. Aimed at helping
households stay safely in current housing
or, if that is not possible, move to other
housing without requiring a shelter stay
first. Priority is given to households who are
most likely to be admitted to shelters or be
unsheltered if not for this assistance.
Encourage permanent supportive housing-
Decent, safe, affordable, community-based
housing that provides tenants with the
rights of tenancy and links to voluntary and
flexible supports and services for people
with disabilities who are experiencing
chronic homelessness is important.
Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is
housing with indefinite leasing or rental
assistance paired with supportive services
to assist persons with a disability or
families with an adult or child member
with a disability achieve housing stability.
PSH provides community‑based housing
enabling individuals and families that
were unhoused to live as independently as
possible. The Housing First approach is a
cornerstone of effective PSH programs.
The first priority for admission to PSH
should be for those who experience chronic
homelessness. PSH can be at a single site
model or a scattered site model.
Numerous cost studies across the country
have demonstrated the cost‑effectiveness
of PSH.
Preserve and Increase Permanent
Supportive Housing – Housing for Healthy
California Program (HHC) and No Place
Like Home (NPLH) programs are funding
sources that can be leveraged for providing
the resources needed to build and operate
PSH. These efforts will require a
behavioral/mental (through the Fresno
County Department of Behavioral Health
for NPLH) and/or medical supportive
services agreement in addition to working
with the Housing Authority to secure
Housing Choice Vouchers for these sites.
Homelessness Prevention
Housing Strategy
76 | P a g e
Establish Sleeping Cabin Village) - A
sleeping cabin community provides
emergency shelter as a transformational
first step off the streets for the unhoused
in downtown Fresno.
Poverello House’s Village of Hope
community will provide 24-hour staff,
security and navigation services to those
staying in the 100 square foot prefabricated
sleeping cabin unit. These units are used
throughout the country as a temporary,
quick, cost-effective way to provide safe,
humane emergency shelter for people
experiencing homelessness. Units include
electricity, air conditioning, heating,
lighting, and charging stations as well as
beds and a desk area. The Village of Hope
will include an 800 square foot community
services unit and six bathroom/shower
units, two of which will meet Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility
standards.
Increase capacity and sustainability of
long-standing community shelter
assets - These longstanding privately
funded shelters and service providers
are critical for the long-term viability of
Fresno's homeless service delivery
system. They include but are not limited
to:
• Fresno Mission
• Poverello House
• Marjaree Mason Center
• Salvation Army
• Evangel Home, and others
Emergency Shelter
Housing Strategy
77 | P a g e
Fund Domestic Violence (DV) housing -
The support of shelters/triage centers that
serve women and families who are in
danger, fleeing violence or victims of
domestic violence is an important ongoing
investment in our community.
Right size and sustain Family Shelters –
Shelters/Triage Centers serving families
and households with dependent minors
which may include but not limited to
pregnant parents, parenting youth,
households engaged in reunification and/or
child welfare services need funding to
render said services.
Right size and sustain Triage Centers -
Triage Centers provide 24/7 housing-
focused emergency shelter that provides
low barrier access to either dormitory or
semi-private accommodations with on-site
services including diversion, case
management, connection to community
resources, housing placement, and
stabilization of health issues. Funding these
efforts requires the largest investment of all
of our existing efforts in order to address
our City’s homelessness challenge.
Acquire additional Motels for shelter
transition and affordable housing
conversion – Through the acquisition of
former motels, transitioning them into
Triage Centers/Emergency Shelters and
then renovating them into Affordable
Housing, several goals along the continuum
of housing for unhoused populations can be
met. This effort has already proven
successful however our housing plan calls
for an additional 1,000 hotel/motel room
conversions to meet our housing needs.
Triage Center
Housing Strategy
78 | P a g e
Continue support of Crossroads Village -
Crossroads Village is home to 165
households that are exiting homelessness.
While residing at Crossroads Village,
residents receive case management and
supportive services from RH Community
Builders and other community partners.
Additionally, Crossroads Village has ample
community meeting space to host trainings,
collaborative meetings, and community
engagement.
Convert some Triage Center Housing to
Bridge Housing - Bridge Housing provides
a shelter for households that have been
assessed for housing and are in the process
of being permanently housed. Bridge
housing allows for households to be in a
safe environment and easily located while
housing is being secured. Converting some
triage center housing into bridge housing is
an important step to add more units along
the continuum.
Encourage shared housing; congregate
living - Shared housing is defined as using
written agreements to formalize the co-
residence of two or more households within
the same housing unit where each
household contributes to the finances using
their own income or benefits. Shared
housing tends to result in a somewhat
equal power dynamic, wherein each family
feels that it has a claim to the space. Shared
housing is not time‑limited or temporary
housing. There are many forms of shared
housing, and we believe it is a necessary
spoke in the wheel of our combatting
homelessness in Fresno, including for those
with serious mental illnesses.
Expand Recovery/Sober Living residences
- Relapse can be common among people
treated for substance use disorders. High
rates of relapse highlight the need for new
ways to address substance use disorder
treatment. This is where peer-run,
recovery-oriented housing can fill a service
gap. These homes offer safe, alcohol- and
drug-free environments that afford people
in recovery with the opportunity to
continually surround themselves with other
people who are pursuing the same goal of
recovery and wellness. These homes do not
require state licensure or a conditional use
permit (CUP).
We see these offering potentially two levels
of service for single or double occupancy.
(i.e., three-bedroom homes with six
residents or three-bedroom homes with
three residents, with the latter residents at a
higher level of self-sufficiency/income.
Explore expansion of worker dorms -
Worker dormitories/bunk houses for
employed individuals are a great safe
exit/transitional housing option. Residents
live in a safe and secure dormitory‑style
environment and are not required to
participate in any program functions.
Individuals pay a daily, weekly or monthly
rate to live in the facility. Residents are self-
sufficient and provide their own food and
hygiene products. Facilities provide
bedding and lockers. Residents may have
access to on‑site medical care, limited case
management and connection to
employment specialists.
Safe Exits / Transitional Housing
Housing Strategy
79 | P a g e
Promote independent living; room &
boards — Independent Living and Room
& Board options are privately owned
homes or complexes. They serve residents
that do not need medication oversight, are
able to function without supervision, and
live independently.
Based in San Diego, the Independent
Living Association (ILA) has developed
quality standards that are best practices for
independent living facilities and provides
an online directory of certified independent
living facilities. The Fresno County
Department of Behavioral Health plans
contracted with the ILA for technical
assistance to ensure quality shared living
environments. There is an opportunity to
grow capacity by marketing the ILA
concept to potential owners/operators.
Convert Triage Centers to Affordable
Housing – We recommend the conversion
of various former motels transitioned into
emergency shelter into Affordable Housing
through private partnerships and the use of
Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Housing Strategy
80 | P a g e
Invest in Rapid Rehousing - Rapid
Rehousing provides housing relocation and
stabilization services as well as short-
and/or medium-term rental assistance as
necessary to help individual and
households move as quickly as possible
into permanent housing and achieve
stability.
Support Affordable home ownership –
The final step along the continuum is to
assist households in achieving the
American Dream – home ownership. A
lower cost opportunity to build equity can
come by way of buying one’s own
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Launch landlord recruitment, engagement,
mitigation funds program - Landlord
Engagement and Risk Mitigation services
recruit and retain landlords to house
families experiencing homelessness. For
example, the Fresno/Madera Continuum of
Care (FMCoC) Risk Mitigation Funds have
provided financial compensation to
landlords that have rented to clients and
experienced monetary losses beyond the
security deposit.
As we partner with local ADU builders
such as California Tiny Homes and Pre-Fab
Innovations to acquire and deploy units,
permanent financing can be secured by
ready home buyers.
Affordable Rental Housing
Home Ownership
Housing Strategy
81 | P a g e
Plan Overview
The goal of the housing the unhoused strategy is ‘to reduce Fresno’s family homelessness by 35 percent and single adult homelessness by 20 percent by June 2024 while maintaining a safe exit rate of above 50 percent in 90-120 days from our shelters/triage centers.’ Similar to the affordable housing strategy, the housing the unhoused strategy intends to utilize a S.M.A.R.T (Simple, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timebound) goal approach to ensure success.
This strategy’s priorities are aligned with HUD’s ‘House America’ priorities, California’s Statewide Housing Objectives31, the City of Fresno’s local Housing Element37, and local studies and reports produced by outside agencies (see Appendix item A). Below you will see each priority and the alignment of these other agencies and reports (if applicable). Additionally, the chart below calls which underlying policies, resolutions, text amendments and/or code modifications will be required to make the priority a reality.
In total, we have identified 24 priorities that will meet this strategy’s goal in the area of housing the unhoused. (Note: Priorities below are not listed in order of importance but are grouped by category)
Item Category Priority Statewide Housing Plan
Objective Alignment
Housing Element
Alignment
Outside agency
recommendation
Policy/Resolution or Code modification
recommendation
1 a. Street
Response
Leverage Homeless Assistance
Response Team
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction and funding resolution
2 All Encourage accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) development (for persons
experiencing homelessness)
Produce more affordable and
climate-smart housing +
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
1/Program 1:
Adequate Sites for
Housing; Objective
3/Program 15:
Development
Incentives
Funding resolution and text amendment
needed
3 All Establish Shelter Housing Reserve
Fund
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Funding resolution
CHAPTER 8: Housing the Unhoused Strategic Plan
Housing Strategy
82 | P a g e
Item Category Priority Statewide Housing Plan
Objective Alignment
Housing Element
Alignment
Outside agency
recommendation
Policy/Resolution or Code modification
recommendation
4 All Partner with Fresno City College
for HOPE Project (students
experiencing homelessness 18-74
years of age)
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction
5 All Support Fresno Mission Urban
Housing Initiatives
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Depending on location any of the sites
may require a GPA/rezone to allow the
mix of uses
6 b.
Homelessness
Prevention
Employ Diversion Strategies Continue to act with urgency to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction
7 b.
Homelessness
Prevention
Encourage permanent supportive
housing (Connected to Preserve
and Increase Permanent
Supportive Housing)
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction and funding resolution
8 b.
Homelessness
Prevention
Preserve and Increase Permanent
Supportive Housing
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Funding resolution
9 c. Emergency
Shelter
Establish Sleeping Cabin Villages Continue to act with urgency to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Potential code modification
10 c. Emergency
Shelter
Increase capacity and
sustainability of long-standing
community shelter assets.
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction and funding resolution
11 d. Triage
Center
Fund Domestic Violence housing Continue to act with urgency to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction and funding resolution
12 d. Triage
Center
Right size and sustain Family
Shelters
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction and funding resolution
Housing Strategy
83 | P a g e
Item Category Priority Statewide Housing Plan
Objective Alignment
Housing Element
Alignment
Outside agency
recommendation
Policy/Resolution or Code modification
recommendation
13 d. Triage
Center
Right size and sustain Triage
Centers
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction and funding resolution
14 d. Triage
Center
Acquire additional Motels for
shelter transition and affordable
housing conversion
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction and funding resolution
15 e. Safe Exits/
Transitional
Housing
Continue support of Crossroads
Village
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Funding resolution
16 e. Safe Exits/
Transitional
Housing
Convert some Triage Center
Housing to Bridge Housing
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction and funding resolution
17 e. Safe Exits/
Transitional
Housing
Encourage shared housing;
congregate living
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Possibly a code modification
18 e. Safe Exits/
Transitional
Housing
Expand Recovery/Sober Living
residences
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Possibly a code modification
19 e. Safe Exits/
Transitional
Housing
Explore expansion of worker
dorms
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Possibly a code modification
20 e. Safe Exits/
Transitional
Housing
Promote independent living; room
& boards
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Possibly a code modification
21 e. Safe Exits/
Transitional
Housing
Convert Triage Centers to
Affordable Housing
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Policy direction and funding resolution
22 f. Affordable
Rental
Housing
Invest in Rapid Rehousing Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Funding resolution
Housing Strategy
84 | P a g e
Item Category Priority Statewide Housing Plan
Objective Alignment
Housing Element
Alignment
Outside agency
recommendation
Policy/Resolution or Code modification
recommendation
23 f. Affordable
Rental
Housing
Launch landlord recruitment,
engagement, mitigation funds
program
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Funding resolution
24 g. Home
Ownership
Support Affordable home
ownership (i.e. Tiny Home
condos; Self-Help housing; Habitat
for Humanity) See Item #3 ADUs
for similar cost/investment/unit
information.
Continue to act with urgency
to address homelessness and
housing need
Objective
2/Program 9:
Homeless
Assistance
Homeless
Collaborative
Subcommittee
Possibly a code modification
Housing Strategy
85 | P a g e
Strategic plan funding and outputs
Leveraging, state, federal, local and private funding will be essential to tackle the challenges our unhoused community faces. In order for this strategy to be comprehensive, it not only tied priorities to policies, but also outlined the funding recommendations (where applicable) along with the expected output of said investment.
In sum, the three-year housing the unhoused strategy calls for an investment of $153,184,000 and will yield 2,231 affordable housing units for the unhoused between 0 to 50 percent of area median income. We believe these 2,231 units will provide shelter for thousands of formerly unhoused persons.
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investme
nt
Recommen
ded
Additional
Investment
Funding
source
FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
< 15% < 30% <
50%
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100
%
>
100%
Total
Units
1 a. Street
Response
Leverage
Homeless
Assistance
Response Team
$2,500,000 $7,500,000 City General
Fund, various
State and
Federal
funding
sources
$2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 0
2 All Encourage
accessory
dwelling unit
(ADU) (exits
from
homelessness)
$3,375,000 $1,125,000
$1,125,000 $1,125,000 25 50 75
3 All Establish
Shelter
Housing
Reserve Fund
$4,500,000 Part of COF
Annual Budget
$1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 All N/A
4 All Partner with
Fresno City
College for
HOPE Project
(students
experiencing
homelessness
18-74 years of
age)
State HHAP
Grants
TBD
Housing Strategy
86 | P a g e
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investme
nt
Recommen
ded
Additional
Investment
Funding
source
FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
< 15% < 30% <
50%
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100
%
>
100%
Total
Units
5 All Support Fresno
Mission Urban
Housing
Initiatives
$2,500,000 $2,500,000 32 32 64
6 b.
Homeless
ness
Preventio
n
Employ
Diversion
Strategies
$402,000 $1,500,000 HHAP
HEAP
$500,000 $500,000 $500,000 469
Hous
ehold
s
469
Hous
ehold
s
938
Hous
ehold
s
7 b.
Homeless
ness
Preventio
n
Encourage
permanent
supportive
housing
(Connected to
Preserve and
Increase
Permanent
Supportive
Housing)
N/A
8 b.
Homeless
ness
Preventio
n
Preserve and
Increase
Permanent
Supportive
Housing
County
Housing
Authority
200 200
9 c.
Emergenc
y
Shelter
Establish
sleeping cabins
village
$3,000,000
(includes
$1.3M
acquisitio
n and
$1.7M
operation
s for
downtow
n Village
of Hope
in 2022
$11,500,000 State and
Federal
funding
sources
$4,700,000 $3,400,000 $3,400,000 50 50 100 200
Housing Strategy
87 | P a g e
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investme
nt
Recommen
ded
Additional
Investment
Funding
source
FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
< 15% < 30% <
50%
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100
%
>
100%
Total
Units
10 c.
Emergenc
y Shelter
Increase
capacity and
sustainability
of long-
standing
community
shelter assets.
$5,000,000 Multi-Agency
Response to
Community
Homelessness
(MARCH);
Philanthropies;
Qualifying
Public Dollars
$1,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 333 333 334 1000 11 d. Triage
Center
Fund Domestic
Violence
housing
Check
HHAP,
ESG and
other
current
COF,
County,
FMCoC
and
private
funding.
Ongoing at
current or
increased
levels
Private and
Public
12 d. Triage
Center
Right size and
sustain Family
Shelters
Check
HHAP,
ESG and
other
current
COF,
County,
FMCoC
and
private
funding
$15,000,000 City is
currently
applying for
Family
Homeless
Challenge
Funds from the
State of
California to
provide
continued
services in
place currently
at Step Up on
99, which is
scheduled for
conversion to
affordable
housing in
2023.
$5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Housing Strategy
88 | P a g e
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investme
nt
Recommen
ded
Additional
Investment
Funding
source
FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
< 15% < 30% <
50%
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100
%
>
100%
Total
Units
13 d. Triage
Center
Right size and
sustain Triage
Centers
$18,370,00
0 $55,110,000 State and
Federal
funding
sources
(tentative)
$18,370,000 $18,370,000 $18,370,000 835
Opera
tions
835
Opera
tions
14 d. Triage
Center
Acquire
additional
Motels for
shelter
transition and
affordable
housing
conversion
Multiple
via ARPA
funding
TBD TBD TBD
15 e. Safe
Exits/
Transitio
nal
Housing
Continue
support of
Crossroads
Village
County
operating
and
supportin
g this site
with
plans to
convert to
permanen
t housing
in late
2022/earl
y 2023
N/A
16 e. Safe
Exits/
Transitio
nal
Housing
Convert some
Triage Center
Housing to
Bridge
Housing
Included
under
Item 11
(Triage
Centers)
17 e. Safe
Exits/
Transitio
nal
Housing
Encourage
shared
housing;
congregate
living
$1,500,000 State/Federal/
Private
$500,000 $500,000 $500,000 50 50 100
Housing Strategy
89 | P a g e
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investme
nt
Recommen
ded
Additional
Investment
Funding
source
FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
< 15% < 30% <
50%
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100
%
>
100%
Total
Units
18 e. Safe
Exits/
Transitio
nal
Housing
Expand
Recovery/Sobe
r Living
residences
$600,000 State funds due
to their
flexibility.
Requires more
research.
Philanthropic
investment
could be
strategic here.
$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 60 60
19 e. Safe
Exits/
Transitio
nal
Housing
Explore
expansion of
worker dorms
N/A
20 e. Safe
Exits/
Transitio
nal
Housing
Promote
independent
living; room &
boards
$600,000 State funds due
to their
flexibility.
Requires more
research.
Philanthropic
investment
could be
strategic here.
$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 60 60
21 e. Safe
Exits/
Transitio
nal
Housing
Convert Triage
Centers to
Affordable
Housing
$14,000,00
0 $42,000,000 LIHTC, Local,
State, Fed
$14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 192 192 22 f.
Affordabl
e
Rental
Housing
Invest in Rapid
Rehousing
$1,500,000 State or Federal
Funding
$500,000 $500,000 $500,000 100 100
Housing Strategy
90 | P a g e
# Category Priority Existing
funding/
investme
nt
Recommen
ded
Additional
Investment
Funding
source
FY23
Funding
amount
FY24
Funding
amount
FY25
Funding
amount
< 15% < 30% <
50%
<
60 %
<
80 %
81-
100
%
>
100%
Total
Units
23 f.
Affordabl
e
Rental
Housing
Launch
landlord
recruitment,
engagement,
mitigation
funds program
Agreeme
nt
between
County
and RH
Communi
ty
Builders
beginning
2019
through
2024 in
the
amount of
1,093,000
$999,000 State Funding $333,000 $333,000 $333,000 60 60 60 180 24 g. Home
Ownershi
p
Support
Affordable
home
ownership (i.e.
Tiny Home
condos; Self-
Help housing;
Habitat for
Humanity) See
Item #3 ADUs
for similar
cost/investmen
t/unit
information.
TBD
$35,272,000 $153,184,000
$52,928,000 $50,128,000 $50,128,000 1162 575 494 0 0 0 0 2231 Housing Strategy
91 | P a g e
Chapter 8 – Housing the Unhoused Strategic Plan Summary
1. We have identified 24 priorities that will help us meet our strategic homeless housing goals.
2. Our plan’s priorities are aligned with HUD’s ‘House America’ priorities, California’s Statewide Housing Objectives, the City of Fresno’s local Housing Element, and local studies and reports produced by outside agencies
3. Our three-year strategic plan effort calls for an investment of In sum, our three-year homeless strategic plan effort calls for an investment of $153,184,000 and will yield 2,231 affordable housing units for homeless individuals between 0 to 50 percent of area median income. These 2,231 units will provide shelter for thousands of homeless persons.
Housing Plan
“The time is always
right to do the right
thing.”
Martin Luther King Jr”
Minister and Civil Rights Activist
Housing Strategy
CHAPTER 9: Fresno Housing Forward
Benchmarks and tracking
To ensure the strategy goals are met, we must measure and benchmark progress towards the strategy along the way. To this end, the City of Fresno’s ISD team has created an externally facing tool where we will be able to track our communal progress on a quarterly basis. First we will invite developers granted personal sign on priveledges to access our One Fresno Housing database. Then they will provide updates on prospective projects they anticipate on the horizon and provide details regarding unit count, type, affordability level, estimated time of completion etc. City of Fresno Planning and Development staff will work to ensure there is synchronization between these prospective projects and actual permitted project progress. (See sample below)
The good news is that in the spirit of transpearancy and our collective pursuit this strategy’s goals, the public will have full access to view these high level details with the push of a button.
For our homeless efforts we will continue to track our progress through our Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) Multi-Agency Access Program (MAP) 38 and remain
connected at the State level via California’s, Homeless Data Integration System (HDIS )39.
Housing Strategy
Reason for Optimism
The City of Fresno’s housing challenges were not created overnight. Nor will they be solved in a single day – however, being One Fresno means being collectively aware of what our community’s needs are, and as loving neighbors, individually contribute to the solution. With communitywide concern, historic inbound funding, tremendous political will, and some favor, we will turn the tide of Fresno’s housing affordability issues. This strategy is a living document and will be revised as needed, as the plan is executed over the next three years.
With an eye on the future and the realities of our housing crisis, the time is now to rally together as One Fresno to make strategic housing investments for the sake of those who need it most.
There is a cost to what has been proposed in this strategy, but rhetorically we must ask, if not now then when? As the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “The time is always right to do the right thing.” Now is our time.
The following is a glimpse of a potential project iniative that was not addressed in this strategy that demonstrates the type of innovation and creative potential our City has on the horizon.
Project initiative: Scaling Up Equitable Housing in California The Vision: Be one of three CA communities that will contribute towards the goal of creating 30,000 new affordable and middle-income units prepared with three shovel ready master planned developments in two years that build equity and sustainability into the process and outcomes.
Partners: Mayor’s Office, Fresno Housing Authority, Downtown Partnership, Central Valley Community Foundation
Goal: Build 10,000+ Units on 30 Acres of publically identified land in Downtown Fresno Proximate to the Future High Speed Rail Station
Housing Strategy
Appendix
Housing Strategy
Public Input References – Item A
This report is a biproduct of input from a broad group of stakeholders from public, community, nonprofit, philanthropic and corporate representatives. Recommendations found within this strategy considered input from the following reports:
Annual Action Plan - City of Fresno (2021-2022): To access utilization of federal funds, the City carries out a planning process to identify the scope of housing and community development needs in its jurisdiction and how the available funding can best be used to meet those needs. As part of the plan, a community needs survey was deployed and received input from 500 individuals.
Evicted in Fresno: A report published in 2019 by Dr. Janine Nkosi, Dr. Amber Crowell, Karla Arana, Central California Legal Services, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, and Faith in the Valley.
Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan: adopted in 2016, this Community Plan is the result of an intense public process that involved input from over 300 residents, business owners, and property owners from Fresno’s Downtown Neighborhoods in a series of public meetings and a six-day, open, participatory Design Workshop.
DRIVE’s Permanent Affordable housing Plan: Launched in 2019, the Fresno D.R.I.V.E.
Initiative (Developing the Region’s Inclusive and Vibrant Economy) is a 10-year Community Investment Plan drafted with input from a 300-person steering committee representing over 150 organizations in the Greater Fresno Region.
Financing Valley Infill: A 2021 report published by the Council of Infill Builders; a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation of real estate professionals committed to improving California through infill development.
Here to Stay: Funded by the California Strategic Growth Council, Thrivence’s a 2021 report as part of the Transformative Climate Communities work, represents input from 582 individuals who participated in city and partner led workshops, surveys and letters writing.
Impediments to Fair Housing: A 2020 report published by the City of Fresno included the input of 790 Fresno residents.
Southwest Specific Plan: Adopted in 2017, this plan included input from 255 residents across various forums.
Street 2 Home Report: In 2018 Barbara Poppe engaged 66 individuals from 36 agencies to assess the Fresno community’s overall strengths and opportunities and advised on proven practices that have been shown to reduce homelessness in other communities.
Housing Plan
Cited Source References – Item B
1 -Harvard America’s rental housing report 2022 -
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_Americas_Rental_Hou sing_2022.pdf
2 -State of CA Governors Housing Plan 22-23 Budget - https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4535
3 -Fresno Bee - Zumper - https://www.fresnobee.com/fresnoland/article258073823.html
4 -Los Angeles Times - https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2021-03-31/fresno-rent- spike-taps-into-california-covid-housing-trends
5 -Harvard’s America’s Rental Housing Report 2022-
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_Americas_Rental_Hou sing_2022.pdf
6 -Cal Matters: California still No. 1 in poverty - https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/09/high- cost-california-no-1-in-poverty/
7 -Public policy institute of California - https://www.ppic.org/blog/new-housing-fails-to-make-up-for- decades-of-undersupply/?utm_source=ppic&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blog_subscriber
8 -HCD Statewide Housing Needs Assessment - https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans- reports/docs/sha_final_combined.pdf
9 - Public Policy Institute of California: Statewide Survey- https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic- statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-march-2021/
10 – California Association of Realtors: Housing Affordability Report - https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-housing-affordability-improves-in-fourth- quarter-2021-as-prices-level-off-and-incomes-grow-car-reports-301479423.html 11 -Fresno Bee - https://www.fresnobee.com/fresnoland/article258073823.html#storylink=cpy
12- -Fresno Bee - https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article258931233.html
13 -Los Angeles Times Housing & Homelessness article - https://www.latimes.com/homeless- housing/story/2021-03-31/fresno-rent-spike-taps-into-california-covid-housing-trends
14 – US. Census Bureau American Community Survey -
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/affordability-challenges-low-income-homeowners-have- intensified-during-pandemic
15 – Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020-
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60- 273.html#:~:text=Median%20household%20income%20was%20%2467%2C521,median%20household%20 income%20since%202011.
16 – Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020-
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60- 273.html#:~:text=Median%20household%20income%20was%20%2467%2C521,median%20household%20 income%20since%202011.
Housing Strategy
17 – PayScale.com – Cost of Living in Fresno https://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living- calculator/California-Fresno
18 -Forbes- https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2019/05/16/the-shocking-truth-about-the-u-s- black-homeownership-rate-50-years-after-the-1968-fair-housing-act/?sh=3a998ee463ba
19 -California Association of Realtors - California housing affordability by ethnicity report- https://www.car.org/aboutus/mediacenter/newsreleases/2021releases/haibyethnicity
20 – The Atlantic - Fresno’s Mason-Dixon Line
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/fresnos-segregation/567299/
21 – U.S Census Bureau – Opportunity Atlas https://www.opportunityatlas.org/
22 -Novogradac –Affordable Housing Center - https://www.novoco.com/notes-from- novogradac/president-bidens-first-year-office-what-he-has-accomplished-housing-and-clean-energy- what-he-has-yet
23 -HCD – Statewide Housing Plan - https://statewide-housing-plan-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/
24 – Harvard’s joint center for housing studies- Housing America's Older Adults 2019 - https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_Housing_Americas_Ol der_Adults_2019.pdf
25 – Cal HHS – Master Plan for Aging - https://mpa.aging.ca.gov/
26 – Fresno Bee: Broken Ladders: Who can afford to live in Fresno? Not many workers, analysis shows https://www.fresnobee.com/fresnoland/article259197618.html#storylink=cpy -
27 – NCRC- 60% Black Homeownership: A Radical Goal For Black Wealth Development https://ncrc.org/60-black-homeownership-a-radical-goal-for-black-wealth-development/
28 – Realtist of Fresno County - https://realtistoffresnocounty.wildapricot.org/
29 – NAHREP - https://nahrepfresno.org/
30 – HUD – House America
https://www.hud.gov/house_america#:~:text=House%20America%3A%20An%20All%2DHands,tribal %20nation%20leaders%2C%20and%20governors
31 -State of California – Statewide housing plan -
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/94729ab1648d43b1811c1698a748c136
32 City of Fresno 2021 -2022 Annual Action plan - https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp- content/uploads/sites/10/2021/01/2021-2022-Annual-Action-Plan-v2.5.pdf
33 Data Commons: Fresno profile -
https://datacommons.org/tools/timeline#place=geoId%2F0627000%2Ccountry%2FUSA&statsVar=Med ian_Age_Person
34 Habitat for Humanity State of the Nation’s Housing report - https://www.habitat.org/costofhome/2020-state-nations-housing-report-lack-affordable- housing#:~:text=In%202019%2C%2037.1%20million%20households,of%20their%20income%20on%20hou sing.
Housing Strategy
35 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice - https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp- content/uploads/sites/10/2020/02/Draft-2020-Analysis-of-Impediments-to-Fair-Housing-Choice.pdf
36 Bank of America’s Community Homeownership Commitment® program- https://promotions.bankofamerica.com/homeloans/downpaymentcenter?affiliateCode=020005ZKU0G0 G000000000&subCampCode=78905
37 FRESNO General Plan 2015-2023 Housing Element- https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp- content/uploads/sites/10/2018/01/FresnoHEAdoptedApril2017smallfi le.pdf
38 MAP Point at Poverello House - https://www.fresnomap.org/route/map-point-at-poverello-house/
39 CA.GOV HDIS- https://bcsh.ca.gov/calich/hdis.html
Housing Strategy
Other References
Item 1A - Operations improvement recommendation report
Item 2A – ESRI tapestry data
- END
1 Operations improvement
recommendation report
WE WORK FOR YOU
By Matthew Grundy
V3.3 February 22, 2021
2600 Fresno St.
Fresno CA 93721-3600
City of Fresno | Planning and Building
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
2 Preface
History
Incorporated on October 12, 1885 the City of Fresno is the 5th largest city in California with a population of 533,232 as of July 1, 2020. Fresno ranks in the upper quartile for Population Density and Diversity Index when compared to the other cities, towns and Census Designated Places (CDPs) in California.
Due to its size, over the years the departments under the purview of City Hall have had to keep pace with the volume and complexity requisite to serve its growing number of residents and clients well.
As aspired by all City of Fresno administrations to date, city staff and elected’ s aim to be good public servants. Similarly, and in the spirit of continuous improvement, Mayor Elect Dyer has cast a ‘One Fresno’ vision where local government is ultimately “owned by the people.” He has committed his administration to furthering a culture of service - “removing red-tape and rolling out red carpet” first to staff and by extension, all who engage City Hall.
Accordingly, Mayor Dyer has asked his Deputy Mayor to conduct a preliminary finding review of the building and planning department to identify ways the city, through its building and planning department, can enhance/streamline its services to its clients and residents. To this end, I humbly submit this Operations Improvement Recommendation Report.
Scope of work
Between Tuesday January 15th and Thursday, February 18th a series of trainings, interviews, emails, surveys, phone calls and teleconferences were conducted in an effort to gather substantive data points to better understand our building and planning department structures, systems, processes, and personnel. Information was collected from over 140 stakeholders
including but not limited to:
Current City of Fresno staff
Formerly employed City of Fresno staff
Neighboring city staff; and
Current City of Fresno customers
Given the scope of this review the following report findings are not exhaustive, nor do they purport to be 100% accurate as they are subject to human error. However, the following summary report represents a combination of both widely known and little-known facts with suggested mitigations that will help us serve better.
One Fresno,
Matthew Grundy | Deputy Mayor
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
3 Summary
Big Rock Findings and Mitigations
When conducting this assessment, a review of the City’s planning and building department’s staffing, systems, structures (and processes) were reviewed. These are hereby referred to as the S3 Study. Good news first - The City of Fresno’s planning and building department have all the ingredients present to meet its mission.
• Staffing – City of Fresno staff are largely bright, hardworking self-sacrificing employees.
City staff are generally dedicated employees that are interested in pursuing continuous improvement.
• Systems – The City of Fresno has the technology and systems in place that, if used properly can more than meet our growing city’s demands. (eg Accela, Bluebeam etc.) • Structures/Processes – Structures and processes are established and in place to provide guidance for customer success under our current operational paradigm.
Policies have been established and largely support code requirements.
In completing the S3 Study there are however several key observations that if remedied, would drastically improve the planning and building department operations. While there are no ‘silver bullet’ solutions to our doing business better in these departments, this mitigation summary aims to target the ‘Big Rocks.’ The phrase ‘Big Rocks’ is a focused best practice solution from Franklin Covey - a world leader in helping organizations achieve results that lead to meaningful and lasting changes. These Big Rocks represent the important priorities.
Below is a list of this report’s said Big Rock priorities identified during the scope of this study along with a short and non-exhaustive list of potential recommended mitigations. More in- depth detail and analysis will follow the summary.
Big Rocks Observations Recommended Mitigations
Staffing a. Based on our current way of doing business, the building and planning departments are understaffed
b. Lack of staff with subject matter expertise for
proper Accela program implementation and support;
lack of training for existing staff
a. Execute true staff capacity survey study; Hire key staff and create staff retention plan b. Hire this Accela SME as soon as possible (focused job description on supporting staff through system training and development and writing of program script); roll out comprehensive training plan for existing staff (targeted technical training modules) Systems a. Systems are not being fully utilized to their potential. Departments utilze Accela to varying
degrees cross-organizationally.
b. Systems are not fully integrated: Disconnect
between Blue Beam and Accela integration.
a. Leverage full potential of process automation and ability to automate pre-configured workflows to identify request types, route tasks associated with submissions, send internal communications, and deliver push notifications to the customers. b. Ensure current plan for integration occurs on time with fidelity.
Structures / Processes a. Deep seated organizational cultural issues:
1. Lack of trust between line staff and management
2. Departments not working cohesively (siloed
activities)
3. Lack of alignment between city vision and goals of
CEO and all city staff
b. Better Business - Site plan review process: We
often treat what is ministerial as what other cities
best practices would consider discretionary.
a. (Effectively deploy ‘We Work for You’ culture shift plan) Administration to work closely with Directors to ensure priorities are clearly shared with proper performance reporting in place to measure outcomes. Deploy various avenues of information sharing across the organization including but not limited to staff newsletters, roundtables, etc.. Create program to highlight good behavior.
b. Consider creating/changing/redefining the rules/code to ensure that less variances surface which increases time and cost expenditure. (i.e. Modify the rules to fit the model we aspire to have). Recommendation is to review and reconsider what needs to be treated as ministerial vs. discretionary. A best practice example of this would be to eliminate site plan review in planning dept. Procedurally site plan review would go straight to building department a la Sacramento, Visalia, Stockton etc.
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
4 Staffing Analysis
Fresno city staff are bright, hardworking self-sacrificing employees. Staff are generally dedicated employees that are interested in pursuing continuous improvement. This fact has been most evident over the past 8-10 years where improvements have been made. It cannot be understated that during this period of time, process volume has increased by 100% while staffing has increased by only 25%. Still, staff are in pursuit of continuous improvement. As such many were willing to participate in this survey and study.
Of the 140 stakeholders that were surveyed and or interviewed in this study, 112 were current City of Fresno staff with 10 being former City of Fresno Staff. Questions were asked formally via survey and informally via zoom meetings. 55% of respondents have worked for the city for six years or less, while 45% of the respondents have worked for the city 7+ years. Individuals that provided input were told their anonymity would be maintained over the course of reporting out their feedback.
Key Findings
1. Employees feel as if their departments are understaffed. (see graphic 1a) When interviewing staff and asking the question ‘How well staffed do you feel your department is?’ 78 of 112 respondents answered somewhat or extremely understaffed.
2. Based on our current way of doing business, the department is understaffed.
Per a February 1, 2021 report from building and planning department leadership, there is a 14% vacancy rate in the building department (two of 22) and a 20% vacancy rate in the planning department (six of 19). (Per FY20 data: See exhibit A). Additionally, the current org structure in planning and building department is not conducive to optimizing staff capacity. (See exhibit B).
Graphic 1a
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
5 3. As a result of higher turnover, there is a general lack of expertise and subject matter experts within building and planning department. There are deficits in department specific onboarding and ongoing staff training.
The average tenure for planning staff employees is 7.6 years while the average tenure for building and safety staff is 9.5 years. The average tenure for all city staff is 11.6 years; thus planning/building/safety is not retaining staff as long as other departments.
When meeting with external stakeholders, there was consistent sentiment expressed that they believe there are bright spots with our staff. Names such as Randy Guill, Will Tackett, Kristine Longoria, Charles Clark and Gustavo Rangel were all repeatedly highlighted by external respondents. However, it was also repeatedly stated that there just “weren’t enough of them to go around.”
Internal recurring discussions have surfaced a critical gap in staffing. There is an absolute need to hire of an Accela Implementation Project Manager. Without this position, there is a critical gap that would hinder our ability to provide ‘red carpet service’ to our staff and subsequently to the community. This need will be more thoroughly underscored in the ‘Systems’ section of this report.
Recommended mitigations to staff findings
1. Problem: Employees feel as if their departments are understaffed.
Proposed Mitigation: a. Senior leadership/personnel to meet with department directors to review most recent staff class and comp study, current job descriptions and employee roles and responsibilities. b. Consider re-classing/revising and redistributing responsibilities c. Operate with transparency providing regular updates to staff.
2. Problem: Based on our current way of doing business, departments are understaffed Proposed Mitigation: a. Based on the aforementioned class and comp study, work with personnel department to expeditiously fill positions. (See exhibit A) b. Consider restructuring to a more versatile organizational structure. (See exhibit B)
3. Problem: There is a general lack of expertise and subject matter experts within building and planning department. There are deficits in department specific onboarding and staff ongoing training
Proposed Mitigation: Create standardized framework for all department specific Accela onboarding training. Ensure personnel supports management in creation of individual training and cross training plans for every employee; Manage progress.
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
6 Systems Analysis
In Mid-2016, City Council at the request of city staff approved the purchase of the Accela Service Request Management system to be utilized cross departmentally. Accela as an SRM/CRM - is a branded, mobile and web-based application, that aims to help government keep pace with evolving citizen demands and facilitates customer relationship management.
This system was well worth the investment and was deployed in April of 2018. While there was a significant capital investment made in acquiring/deploying this system, there are also challenges related to its historic and current utilization by City Staff.
During this analysis a staff survey was deployed to measure user satisfaction. Approximately half of the respondents represented users in the building or planning department with 85% of the users stating that they use Accela on a daily basis. (see graphic 2a and 2b)
Key Findings
1. Accela platform roll out
was rushed, not fully
thought out, built out, or
fully adopted. System
was deployed in a non-
harmonious way across
departments.
Due to urgent timelines and
deadlines placed on staff to
deploy the system in earnest, unfortunately Accela was not built out with full department adoption. Additionally, full functional knowledge of system appears to not have been known or integrated at the time of deployment. Furthermore, ongoing system build out appears to be largely done in response to issues as opposed to proactive preemptive development with internal/external end users in mind.
Graphic 2a
Graphic 2b
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
7 2. Accela system onboarding and ongoing training is sub-par.
General Accela training does occur when new staff members are onboarded, however it is reported that job specific / department level Accela training is not fully standardized or “thorough enough.” It has also been reported that ongoing technical training is virtually “non-existent.” Several survey questions underscored this fact. We asked 112 users:
a. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest), how easy is Accela to use? The average response was 5.8.
b. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest), how helpful is Accela to fulfilling your core job responsibilities?
The average response was 6.
These responses demonstrate that system utilization in its current state, to its primary internal users is non-optimal.
(See Exhibit F in appendix)
3. External user feedback in the Accela FAASTER interface is largely negative External users primarily interface with Accela through the FAASTER portal. While recently added video tutorials have been a strong addition to supporting users, when surveying external customers (developers, engineers, architects etc.) there is overwhelming feedback that the system is:
a. Difficult to navigate
b. Transparency is lacking (regarding where they are in the real time queue); and c. Unless you have learned to navigate system nuances through prior use, you will likely struggle to utilize the system successfully for the first time.
These data points have resulted in an external experience where users feel our system is “not customer friendly.”
4. City systems are available for Accela integration but are not being leveraged for optimal use / user support
In the fall of 2020 staff successfully lobbied to secure Bluebeam via CARES funding as an ancillary system to integrate with Accela. Bluebeam is a software application that allows users to markup, takeoff, organize, and collaborate with PDF files. This was a needed solution given the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to enable customer plan submission support in a remote and paperless manner. The idea to procure Bluebeam was a good idea however integration has not fully taken place yet. Thus, there have been a series of early challenges and unintended consequences experienced by both internal and external stakeholders during the initial stages of roll out.
Additionally, The GIS function of Accela is being underutilized. In surveying comparable high performing cities, customers can leverage GIS systems to access full property details and a have access to step-by-step improvement process plan based on the property location and desired outcome. Where used optimally, this same customer detail is synchronized/shared across all city departments for over-the-counter customer communication support.
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
8 Recommended mitigations to system findings
1. Problem: Accela platform roll out was rushed, not fully thought out, built out, or fully adopted. System and was deployed in a non-harmonious way across departments.
Proposed Mitigation: While this is largely water under the bridge, senior leadership should call departments together for a re-visioning of building system for optimal use.
2. Problem: Accela system onboarding and ongoing training is sub-par.
Proposed Mitigation: Immediately hire internal Accela implementation project manager.
Work with front line staff, new hires, and Accela manager to build out training plan and modules.
3. Problem: External user feedback in the Accela FAASTER interface is largely negative Proposed Mitigations (includes external feedback suggestions):
4. Problem: City systems are available for Accela integration but are not being leveraged for optimal use / user support
Proposed Mitigation: a. Complete currently scheduled Bluebeam/Accela integration by June 2021. b. Build out GIS system functionality for optimal cross departmental and customer support. c. Invest in digital customer kiosks outside of building and planning department to provide step by step virtual guidance on planning/building process to walk ins. d. Consider adopting new technology to meet needs (e.g. Integral GIS etc.)
FAASTER Customer Experience Recommendations
○ If markup occurs in the system, ensure automatic notifications and reminders go out to customer.
○ Expedite plan routing and routing communication.
○ Ensure notes are or are not consistently being entered in system by staff. ○ Provide notes in real time by department as opposed to notes being received in aggregate at the end by the planning manager.
○ Allow customer agencywide sign on access so that it is not relegated to one or 2 users. ○ Add ticketing function that allows customers to see in real time where they are in the queue of plans submitted. (e.g. You are #45 of #125 plans under review etc.)
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
9 Structures/Processes Analysis
The greatest challenges within the planning and building departments lie within the structures/processes component of this analysis; however, the greatest opportunities for growth and positive change also reside here. Current City Structures/Processes fall into one of three buckets:
A. Some structures/processes are a bi-product of archaic and outdated methods (dating back to1972) that have never been fully overhauled. Instead, these structures/processes have continued to be added onto, modified, and augmented over the years without real re-structuring based on modern best practices.
B. Some structures/processes are a derivative of more recent efforts that despite being aligned with best practices, are not being followed.
C. Some structures/processes are aligned with best practices and are being followed
For the sake of brevity and intent, this report will focus on elements that fall into buckets A and B.
1. City cultural structures are impeding progress in departments.
According to survey and interview data, staff generally feel “beat up, underappreciated, overworked and/or underpaid.” Much of this sentiment is an outcome of structures that need repair. While management has recently put forth efforts to remedy these issues, decades long dysfunction influencing broken structures include but are not limited to:
a. City Administration not empowering staff, giving them autonomy to solve problems, think outside the box and occasionally make mistakes. b. Some staff not feeling supported by administration.
c. A history of Council members publicly humiliating staff. d. Developers who when not happy with a project or plan outcome, usurp staff, and go directly to Council members and the Mayor’s office. e. Council members/others giving direction to staff outside the chain of command. f. City attorney office had a history of operating in more of an advisory role, however in recent years have transitioned into more of a decision maker role, often making policy calls that “feel” unnecessarily cumbersome to staff.
2. City government regulations and structural deficiencies have created an environment where it is hard to remove bad actors.
Currently it is very difficult to secure employee enterprise-wide performance and personnel data - let alone interpret it. As a result, in some cases there are perceived inequities that are an outcome of improper and/or inconsistent documentation of personnel matters. These known issues among staff and their peers appear to disincentivize positive performance.
3. While policies are in place, they are followed with extreme rigidity In 2010 a Policies and Procedures manual was created. 10-15 policies were subsequently developed through 2019. In light of a significant amount of new planning staff in recent years that have not been trained well, they seem to interpret policies with extreme rigidity and often fail to be “problem solvers.”
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
10 4. City plan review process not in line with best practices The development application workflow is spelled out below. After researching best practices across other CA cities, it appears our site plan review process is at odds with ministerial vs. discretionary process best practices. The City of Fresno often treats what most other cities consider ministerial as discretionary. As a result, we have created a structure that is an incubator for variances (subsequently leading to an increase in staff time and costs to provide services). See our current workflow below in graphic 3 with explanation of proposed changes in Exhibit C of the appendix.
5. We appear to be process oriented as opposed to outcome oriented.
In surveying the developer community, there is nothing more important to them than “time and certainty.” We appear to be very process driven and not people driven.
Examples include the amount of staff time spent on drafting reports that few, if any actually read. Standard current reports that are generated and shared among staff don’t appear to truly drive action.
While not verified, externally developers, engineers, and other customers have stated that they automatically estimate a ~20-30% increase in cost and 3X factor in time when developing in the City of Fresno. As an example, when comparing like project timelines across cities; what took five weeks for lot line adjustment in one city took six months in Fresno still without response or resolve.
Graphic 3
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
11 6. Prior structures seemed to disincentivize outcome-oriented performance Previous programs aimed to improve productivity appear to have created an opposite effect. The ‘Money Back Guarantee’ program aimed to provide a full refund of costs associated with a project that did not meeting certain timeline guarantees. To avoid being penalized, some staff appeared to “find reasons” to kick projects back, thereby avoiding ‘starting the clock.’ This has carried on in some ways in our DNA in a form of risk-aversion. An example of this involves our planning checklist. The checklist must be completed prior to plan submission include an abundance of items that are not necessarily relevant for most projects, and are an amalgamation of items that seem to have been accumulated and layered on one another over time as a result of novel needs for unique projects and circumstances. Said checklist appears to impede customer plan submission but afford the city some protection against any and all potential risks.
Evidence was found when surveying customers. Many state that they get the impression that staff would “rather not say anything then to say something wrong.” Moreover, customers state that during plan submittal they have to have “i's triple dotted and t’s triple crossed to ensure their project doesn’t get kicked back.”
7. Budget cuts and pandemic stymied some internal mitigation progress To remedy some of the aforementioned concerns, staff laid plans that address some issues, however budget structures limited the ability of staff to mitigate problems effectively. In one such example, staff were told during the summer of 2020 that they would be meeting with our consultant, Byrne, every other Friday. Regular meetings were halted in October 2020 due to budget concerns and reservations about our ability to perform during the pandemic.
8. We are not asking the right questions. We are not asking the right people.
With a focus on customer service, it would serve us to perform more customer satisfaction related surveys. We must ask the right people.
While we boast having an on-time rate for 99% of planning applications processed, and 92% on-time rate for building application processed, unfortunately, these numbers are a bit misleading. We are not asking the right question. What we should be asking is “how easy or difficult is it for customers to submit applications for process?” In conducting this study it is evident that these rates are a bit artificial. Due to customers not having access to contact staff to verbally ask questions prior to application submission; many applications simply go unsubmitted. As a result, the clock never starts on many potential projects. This has been exacerbated during the pandemic and remote work; where staff have been less accessible by phone than before.
9. We are not structured for customer support
When reviewing ‘customer friendly’ city environments, often structures support a communicative, collaborative, partnership, exchange between the city and customer.
We have inherent structures that serve as barriers to customer support best practice.
As an example, we charge customers a fee to consult during idea stage, other high performing cities do not.
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
12 10. There is a fair amount of cynicism about the idea of systemic change From DPC to ACC, to BFF and BFF 2.0, there have been no shortage of ideas to streamline and improve structures/processing in our planning and building department.
Each novel initiative has been relatively similar in terms desired outcome, however each plan has been carried out with various degrees of follow completion.
As a result, staff and customers that have been around the city for 7+ years have developed a fair amount of pessimism around the thought of a ‘we work for you, culural phrasing as to them it appears to be just another iteration of past failed attempts to fix core issues. Only 1/3 or all survey participants expressed an interest in being contacted to be a part of future change.
Recommended mitigations to structural findings
1. Problem: City Cultural structures are impeding progress in departments Proposed Mitigation: (Effectively deploy ‘We Work for You’ culture shift plan).
Administration should work with directors to purposely deploy a ‘how can I serve you culture.’ Ensure priorities are clearly shared with proper performance reporting in place to measure outcomes. Deploy various avenues of information sharing across the organization including but not limited to staff newsletters, roundtables, etc..
2. Problem: City government regulations and structural deficiencies have created an environment where it is hard to remove bad actors
Proposed Mitigation: Follow through with deployment of Tyler technologies HR platform. Ensure enterprise-wide adoption, create proper reports and dashboards. Build structure of regular manager and personnel department detail reviews.
3. Problem: While policies are in place, they are followed with extreme rigidity Proposed Mitigation: See mitigation suggestion for problem 1. Consider deploying 360 evaluations or double-blind evaluations for management to ensure they are aware of how their staff views them.
4. Problem: City plan review process not in line with best practices Proposed Mitigation: Consider creating/changing/redefining the rules/code to ensure that less variances surface which increases time and cost expenditure. (i.e. Modify the rules to fit the model we aspire to have). Recommendation is to review and reconsider what needs to be treated as ministerial vs. discretionary. A best practice example of this would be to eliminate site plan review in planning dept. Procedurally site plan review would go straight to building department a la Sacramento, Visalia, Stockton etc. (See Exhibit C in appendix)
5. Problem: We appear to be process oriented as opposed to outcome oriented.
Proposed Mitigation: See mitigation suggestion for problem 1.
6. Problem: Prior structures seemed to disincentivize outcome-oriented performance Proposed Mitigation: Be vigilant ‘watchmen’ to ensure all future process or structural enhancements serve the mission and cultural priorities.
- A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
13 Customer Service Recommendations
1. Planning: Modify thresholds to allow larger square footage projects to be considered ministerial and not routed or have minimal routing. Recommend these low-level projects be approved by a committee (like DRC), rather than be formally routed. These minor projects can be huge time sinks waiting for approval. Most cities approve these types of project in a few days/weeks, not 2-3 months.
2. Public Works: Bring back the weekly engineers meeting (via Zoom or a similar mechanism).
3. General Comment: Response times. Use the Development Team meeting or a Director/AD level meeting to allow applicants a set time to get a question answered. This would save a lot of time compared to the e-mail back and forth that can go on for weeks or months now. If staff can’t get the answer in a few days, the applicant should have another option to move forward.
4. Public Works/Planning/Building and Safety: Public Works shouldn’t be so involved in the site plan review process or required to sign off on site plans for permits. Street work plans are required and that is the time for review by PW to verify standards are met.
5. Planning: DRC should be optional but not required for minor projects (unless DRC means approval/conditional approval).
6. Planning and Building: Fire’s comments/conditions are the only agency comments that can’t be seen in Accela/FAASTER. If they are short comments, Fire should put them in the system the same way other departments do so that they are visible to the applicant. This would reduce staff time.
7. For Building and Safety: Allow backchecks/correction verification via zoom, instead of having to resubmit and wait for comments.
8. For Building and Safety: The first set of comments requiring minor revisions/corrections on a plan check should only be routed to the person who made the comment and should be turned around quicker than three weeks. It is understandable that it is harder to monitor electronic documents and what was changed, but there are ways to do this without requiring a re-review of everything, by everyone.
9. Planning: Reduce timeline for projects requiring more than a CEQA exemption when an applicant hires a consultant through a 3rd party agreement (which is what the City is requiring now). Right now, 90 business days are added to the timeline for anything that can’t be exempted, but this only requires a couple of extra weeks for staff review (attorney review time is already part of the normal process).
10. Public Works: Plan checkers for improvement plans should only review to verify standards are met, not try to design or redesign.
11. General: A more comprehensive/high functioning website so people can get their questions answered there, instead of calling (this may not be an easy fix).
12. General: After a project goes through DRC approval, inspectors should not be able to request costly modifications after the fact. This leads to regular cost overruns which hurts us and our clients.
13. Planning: Eliminate level 1 - 4 intake priority status as these are completely arbitrary priority levels which receive no greater priority based on level.
14. For Building and Safety: System is online now. In backcheck customer has to resubmit plans that city staff reviewed originally under a new number. Why cant staff see the first submission and previous info submitted. Leads to more time and work for customer. New addendum required each time. (e.g. structural calcs etc.) Recommended mitigations to structural findings cont
7. Problem: Budget cuts and pandemic stymied some internal mitigation efforts Proposed Mitigation: Work closely with senior leadership and City Manager’s office to ensure all future budget priorities are kept to the degree possible. Work collaboratively and communicate openly as we ease out of pandemic and return to some normalcy.
8. Problem: We are not asking the right questions. We are not asking the right people.
Proposed Mitigation: Program then roll out regular surveys to stakeholders. Review the results and prioritize addressing common theme issues. The following is a distillation of the highest priority feedback recommendations from our external customers per recent interviews. (Review internal stakeholder feedback in graphic 3 of appendix)
9. Problem: We are not structured for customer support.
Proposed Mitigation: a. Create ticketing system and ensure customers can talk to staff by phone during idea phase to ask questions b. Do not charge for consultation c. Hire planner for over-the-counter consultory support. c. Move fire back to the 3 rd floor.
10. Problem: There is a fair amount of cynicism about the idea of systemic change..
Proposed Mitigation: Ensure internal structures are set up that will enable our meeting the Mayor’s Vision - to be a government that listens (to its own staff), keeps its promises, and is owned by the people.
Graphic
3 - A government that listens, keeps its promises and is owned by the people –
14 Conclusion
After reviewing this Operations Improvement Recommendation report it is easy to focus on the areas for improvement without paying attention to what we are doing well. As the report summary stated, with regard to our Staffing, Systems and Structures (and Processes), ‘the City of Fresno’s planning and building departments have all the ingredients to meet its mission.’
However, the findings within this report if left unchecked, will at best continue to leave large numbers of internal and external stakeholders dissatisfied. And at worst, if left unchecked, our reputation among our own staff and customers will worsen, leading to higher degrees of turnover and customers ultimately seeking services elsewhere. More pointedly, we will be responsible for mismanaging people and capital, two irreplaceable assets we have been entrusted with by the public during our time at City Hall.
The good news is that many are rooting for our success. During this study it was made clear that:
• Staff largely value working for the City of Fresno and are hopeful for the future. (in fact staff believe that if the Accela recommendations alone are made, productivity will increase by ~25%)
• Developers overwhelmingly would prefer to build in Fresno. (Sentiment is that we have geographic, demographic and other strategic advantages over neighboring cities. e.g.
Water Access)
• While outside cities have benefitted from some of our past challenges, one high ranking neighboring official stated that -
“Even though Fresno's building and planning
failures have given us more business in the past, the region will be hurt in the long run if Fresno does not do well. It would be prudent for us to look past our noses and do what we can to support Fresno’s progress.”
While Mayor Dyer has a vision for removing red tape and rolling out red carpet to our community, we must from the top down, first demonstrate red carpet treatment to our teammates. We must be the change we aspire to realize at City Hall. While it will undoubtedly take much political will, commitment, hard-work and no small amount of intellect to meet this mission; we are well able to accomplish this feat and be the implementers of change our community and co-workers need us to be.
-end-
1 Date Allocated Filled
Vacancy
Rate Allocated Filled
Vacancy
Rate
1/1/2013 36 33 8% 17 13 24%
1/1/2014 36 34 6% 22 16 27%
1/1/2015 40 34 15% 21 19 10%
1/1/2016 41 34 17% 19 17 11%
1/1/2017 45 38 15% 21 19 10%
1/1/2018 51 44 14% 19 19 0%
1/1/2019 50 39 22% 24 20 17%
1/1/2020 50 45 10% 25 21 16%
1/1/2021 50 46 8% 24 18 25%
Building and Safety Planning
Appendix
Exhibit A – Planning, Building and Safety Vacancy Matrix
Exhibit B – Staffing hierarchy (current and proposed)
Staffing is currently supported via the following org chart structures (see graphic 4 and 5 below):
Graphic 4
1 Currently, the City of Fresno’s Planning Dept. resembles more of a para-military structure (e.g Fresno PD), which works for some departments, but is not necessarily ideal for all (Planning).
While there may be no ‘silver bullet’ answer, conceptually there appears to be a more appropriate approach that would help us better support staffing capacity and outcomes. (see graphic 6 below)
The chart below refocuses our management structure to be more ‘project oversight oriented’ than ‘people oversight oriented.’ If restructured, we can have numerous ‘Principal Planners’ because the title does not imply that they must manage others, rather they would manage projects.
In numerous other cities, complex projects
or programs are not compatible with the
traditional management hierarchy that
exists in Fresno’s current job classification
system. Currently supervisors are
currently a bit more involved in project
management than would seem optimal. A
more appropriate model for Fresno could
be to supplement the existing one-
dimensional hierarchy largely organized
around the management or supervision of
staff, with a more versatile structure for the
management of large complex projects
which more likely includes teams of
consultants and interdepartmental
coordination.
Graphic 5
Graphic 6
1 Exhibit C – Recommendation on Ministerial vs. Discretionary process changes
Historically, Site Plan Reviews in the City of Fresno have been subject to CEQA. They were treated as quasi-discretionary permits. In 2008 when the updated Zoning Code was being designed, the intent was to make them ministerial, thereby they would be exempt from CEQA.
At that time, the goal of the updated Development Code was to have a modified Site Plan Review that was referred to as a ‘Development Permit’ rather than ‘Site Plan Review’ – thereby subjecting projects where appropriate to ministerial as opposed to a discretionary process. This can be accomplished by establishing clear thresholds between, Building
Permits, Development Plans and Conditional Use Permits.
By established said clear thresholds:
1. Building Permits would be ministerial, thereby they would be exempt from CEQA.
Taking such action would subsequently save a significant amount of processing/staff time and subsequent costs.
2. Development Plans would be ministerial or discretionary quasi-judicial. If the latter, they will require CEQA review. In addition, where the City has thresholds for certain studies, they would be subject to CEQA (e.g. # of vehicle trips, air quality, etc.).
With this segregation, most projects would be reviewed as part of the building permit process and would not require a separate submittal to planning. Defining segregations to inform options could include:
a. Building Permits: Apartments of less than 20 units; commercial and office space less than 20,000 sf, industrial space less than 40,000 sf.
b. Development Plan: Anything that exceeds the thresholds of a Building Permit under this option would apply. The planning team would have a longer and more in-depth review period. Additionally, projects that fall into this category would be subject to Council District Committee review, etc. In other words, this category is reserved for larger scale projects that require greater analysis but the use is still permitted by-right.
c. Conditional Use Permits: The CUP category is reserved for uses, not buildings. For example, alcohol sales, animal rendering, cannabis, drive-thrus, night clubs, etc.
Most projects would fall under the Building Permit and would not require lengthy Planning processes that include but are not limited to staff reports, conditions, etc. Projects would not be subject to review, by District Review Committees. This is a departure from our current way of doing business. While there may be a hesitance from the Council body to accept this recommendation, as it may appear there is a concession of authority, the Development Code provides a plethora of thresholds to ease concerns of not meeting council review standards (e.g. when are bike racks are required, refuse enclosures are needed, etc.).
Note: When the current version of the code was prepared, the intent at that time was to define various scenarios, to ensure staff would review projects against the code, thereby eliminating the need for discretionary review, CEQA, lengthy negotiations, etc. While the code was established with this in mind, it is not being lived out in practice today. 1 In short, the City has invested much effort in codifying clear and objective standards that could anticipate the issues and concerns that the City negotiates on a case-by-case basis. By reviewing most permits as part of the ‘Building Permit’ process, staff’s role and responsibility would become more of a technical review. (Comparable to the Building Department reviewing plans for compliance with the CA Building Code).
While the proposed appears like an oversimplification of the process; it is feasible. In fact, currently staff is in the process of ensuring all future projects in the South-Central specific planning area are approved as ministerial. This is the perfect case study for this recommendation being validated. Furthermore:
1. The focus is outcome oriented rather than process oriented.
2. This process relies on objective criteria. If the code is subjective or should there be political interference, it will not work. However, the code can be revised as deemed necessary.
3. If a project exceeds the thresholds or the use requires a CUP, the process would resemble the current Site Plan Review process. Note: that the SPR/DP process should be reserved for large scale projects and most projects are not large scale, rather they are moderate industrial, office, or commercial buildings
1 Different Markets
Different Needs
One Fresno Housing Plan Insights
Market Segments
Market Segmentation Analysis
ESRI Tapestry
Understand what makes your customers unique
People have unique needs. Understanding the uniqueness of different consumer personas can help you produce valuable products and services. Tapestry Segmentation classifies US neighborhoods into 67 unique segments, based on
demographics and socioeconomic characteristics.
Life Modes
1 9.00% 2
1.40% 3
0.60%
4 7.20%
5 10.20%
6 0.10%
7 26.40%
8 12.50%
9 3.20%
10 0.60%
11 10.30%
12 0.80%
13 15.50%
14 2.20%
Life Modes
1 9.00% 2
1.40% 3
0.60%
4 7.20%
5 10.20%
6 0.10%
7 26.40%
8 12.50%
9 3.20%
10 0.60%
11 10.30%
12 0.80%
13 15.50%
14 2.20%
Life Modes
1 9.00% 2
1.40% 3
0.60%
4 7.20%
5 10.20%
6 0.10%
7 26.40%
8 12.50%
9 3.20%
10 0.60%
11 10.30%
12 0.80%
13 15.50%
14 2.20%
Life Modes
1 9.00% 2
1.40% 3
0.60%
4 7.20%
5 10.20%
6 0.10%
7 26.40%
8 12.50%
9 3.20%
10 0.60%
11 10.30%
12 0.80%
13 15.50%
14 2.20%
Life Modes
1 9.00% 2
1.40% 3
0.60%
4 7.20%
5 10.20%
6 0.10%
7 26.40%
8 12.50%
9 3.20%
10 0.60%
11 10.30%
12 0.80%
13 15.50%
14 2.20%
Life Modes
1 9.00% 2
1.40% 3
0.60%
4 7.20%
5 10.20%
6 0.10%
7 26.40%
8 12.50%
9 3.20%
10 0.60%
11 10.30%
12 0.80%
13 15.50%
14 2.20%
Top 5 Life Modes Represented
In Ranked Order
1. Life Mode 7 – 26.4%
2. Life Mode 13 – 15.5%
3. Life Mode 8 – 12.5%
4. Life Mode 11 – 10.3%
5. Life Mode 5 – 10.2%
Life Mode 7 –Sprouting Explorers
•Young homeowners with families.
•Multilingual and multigenerational households with children who represent second-, third-, or fourth-generation Hispanic families. •Neighborhoods feature single-family, owner-occupied homes built at city's edge, primarily built after 1980. •Hardworking and optimistic, most residents aged 25 years or older have a high school diploma or some college education. •Shopping and leisure also focus on their children—baby and children's products from shoes to toys and games and trips to theme parks, water parks, or the zoo. •Children enjoy playing video games on personal computers or handheld or console devices. •Many households have dogs for domestic pets.
Life Mode 7 –Sprouting Explorers
7A
13,117
7B
2,320
7C
11,687
7D
7,603
7E
7,546
7F
2,783
Household Demographics
Sub
Group
Avg
Age Size Income
7A 31.4 3.12 $ 72,000
7B 34.0 3.78 $ 62,300
7C 32.5 3.19 $ 50,900
7D 28.9 3.62 $ 38,000
7E 27.4 3.98 $ 35,300
7F 34.6 3.20 $ 30,400
•Urban dwellers; young, hardworking families.
•A large share are foreign born and speak only their native language.
•Young, or multigenerational, families with children are typical. •Most are renters in older multiunit structures, built in the 1960s or earlier.
•Hardworking with long commutes to jobs, often using public transit to commute to work.
•Spending reflects the youth of these consumers, focus on children (top market for children's apparel) and personal appearance.
•Also a top market for moviegoers (second only to college students) and fast food.
•Partial to soccer and basketball.
Life Mode 13 –Next Wave
Life Mode 13 –Next Wave
13B
2,446
13C
3,425
13D
19,216
13E
1,356 Household Demographics
Sub
Group
Avg
Age Size Income
13B 28.3 4.12 $ 38,300
13C 27.3 3.35 $ 30,200
13D 28.6 3.17 $ 26,700
13E 32.2 2.82 $ 22,800
Life Mode 8 –Middle Ground
•Lifestyles of thirtysomethings.
•Millennials in the middle: single/married, renters/homeowners, middle class/working class.
•Urban market mix of single-family, town home, and multiunit dwellings. •Majority of residents attended college or attained a college degree. •Householders have traded their landlines for cell phones, which they use to listen to music, read the news, and get the latest sports updates on their favorite teams.
•Online all the time: use the internet for entertainment (downloading music, watching YouTube, finding dates), social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn), searching for employment.
•Leisure includes nightlife (clubbing, movies), going to the beach, some travel and hiking.
Life Mode 8 –Middle Ground
8B
1,177
8C
4,240
8E
13,321
8F
650
8G
1,863
Household Demographics
Sub
Group
Avg
Age Size Income
8B 37.4 2.06 $ 59,200
8C 33.0 2.41 $ 54,000
8E 34.9 2.57 $ 43,700
8F 39.4 2.12 $ 44,900
8G 32.4 2.66 $ 28,200
Life Mode 11 –Midtown Singles
•Millennials on the move—single, urban.
•Millennials seeking affordable rents in apartment buildings. •Work in service and unskilled positions, usually close to home or public transportation.
•Single parents with very young children.
•Embrace the internet, for social networking and downloading content.
•From music and movies to soaps and sports, radio and
television fill their lives.
•Brand-savvy shoppers select budget-friendly stores.
Life Mode 11 –Midtown Singles
11B
6,477
11C
7,640
11D
3,019
11E
483 Household Demographics
Sub
Group
Avg
Age Size Income
11B 29.8 2.04 $ 40,500
11C 29.3 2.65 $ 35,700
11D 33.9 2.12 $ 32,800
11E 28.5 2.67 $ 18,300
Life Mode 5 –GenXurban
•Gen X in middle age; families with fewer kids and a mortgage. •Second-largest Tapestry group, composed of Gen X married couples, and a growing population of retirees.
•About a fifth of residents are 65 or older; about a fourth of households have retirement income.
•Own older single-family homes in urban areas, with 1 or 2 vehicles.
•Live and work in the same county, creating shorter commute times.
•Invest wisely, well insured, comfortable banking online or in person.
•News enthusiasts (read a daily newspaper, watch news on TV, and go online for news).
•Enjoy reading, renting movies, playing board games and cards, doing crossword puzzles, going to museums and rock concerts, dining out, and walking for exercise.
Life Mode 5 –GenXurban
5A
3,501
5B
6,874
5C
2,632
5D
1,386
5E
2,973
Household Demographics
Sub
Group
Avg
Age Size Income
5A 48.0 2.52 $ 75,000
5B 42.0 2.35 $ 73,000
5C 40.9 2.51 $ 60,000
5D 39.0 2.47 $ 51,800
5E 47.0 2.31 $ 53,200
Housing Strategy
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno CA 93721