Hanford City Council
September 17, 2024

1A-40 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

Figure 9: Kings County All Transit Performance Score

Source: AllTransit.cnt.org, 2022
Fargo Ave
Remnoy
V Lacey Blvd I ac y 13lvd
Overall t ransit score that looks at connectiv ity, access to jobs , and frequency of service. ■ < 1 ■ 1-2 ■ 2-4 ■ 4-5 ■ S-6 6-7 7-9 9+
AIITransit TM Performance Score

4.0 City: Hanfor d, CA
Low combinat ion of t rips per week and numb er of
jobs accessible enabling few people to ta ke transit
to work
On Average Househo lds have:

Transit Routes wit hin½ M ile
,v#i Jobs Accessible in 30-m i nut e t rip
«•• Commute rs Who Use Transit
Show Transit Agencies (3)

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024
1A-41
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 10: Kings County High quality transit stops and transit area (1/2 mile)

Source: Caltrans, 2022. U.S.; Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Updated 2022. 2 4.o3l
J
r~.05
~ I_- 4.02
I

16.01 1
Legelld
L__J City Boundaries
!: : : :, CA county selection
1::::1 Census Tract Boundary
Cities in Kings County
r:==i Avenal
1::::1 Corcoran
r:==i Hanford
1::::1 Lemoore
Grangev ille 1-----1 ..,,......,,....__.._ 0 -+------1 J 1/ 2 Mile from High Quality Transit Area G High Qualiti' Transit Stops
5 • CA Transit Stops
1:/ 0RD
12

1A-42

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Employment Opportunities
Kings County’s economy has an important impact on housing needs. Employment growth typically results in increased housing demand in areas that serve as regional employment centers. Moreover, the type of occupation and income levels for new employment also affects housing demand. This section describes the economic and employment patterns in Kings County and how these patterns influence housing needs.

Figure 11: Employment by Industry of Kings County Workforce

Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table DP03

Kings County supports a diversified economy as illustrated in Figure 11. This figure shows the proportion of jobs held by residents (civilian employed population 16 years and over) living in the County. Based on the Census ACS 2016- 2020 information, the education, health care, social assistance industry was the largest employer of Kings County residents, providing approximately 10,800 jobs, or 20% of workforce. As important as agriculture is to the County, the agriculture sector was the second largest employer of its residents, which employed 8,300 residents or 15% of the workforce. Kings County’s civilian labor force was estimated at 57,800, with an unemployment rate of 7.0% (not seasonally adjusted). This compares to the state wide unemployment rate of 4.1%. However, compared to recent trends, Kings County’s unemployment rate has decreased significantly from the 2020 annual average unemployment rate of 12.0%. Historically, agriculture has played a key role in Kings County’s economy. Agriculturally oriented counties tend to have higher unemployment rates and greater seasonal variations in unemployment. Kings County is ranked 8 th among
California counties in agricultural production with an annual gross value of $2. 5 billion. According to the Kings County 2022 Annual Agricultural Crop Report, milk remains the County’s leading commodity, followed by pistachios (second) and cotton (third). With climate change and the long-term severe drought as well as the 2023 wet winter/spring, it is uncertain to what extent future water supplies will affect agriculture.

Education, health care,
social assistance
20%
Agriculture
15%
Public admin.
13%
Retail trade
10%
Arts, entertainment,
recreation,
accomodation, food
services
8%
Manufacturing
7%
Professional, scientific,
management, admin.
7%
Transportation,
warehousing, utilities
6%
Construction
4%
Other services, except
public admin.
3%
Finance, insurance, real
estate
3%
Wholesale trade
3%
Information
1%
~

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 12: High Quality transit stops and transit area (1/2 Mile) & Jobs within 45-minute transit commute.

Sources: Caltrans, 2022; Smart Locations Database, 2018.

2 QJ
>
~
Grangev ill e
L------"'" 4 . 0 2
1------ -+.!rt-kson Ave

16.01 5
!:: ::r
)>
<
t1>
1 Grangev ill e Blvd

IFJ ORD
12 Legend
~ Oty Boundaries
'::: :• CA oounty selection
c::::::J Omsus Tract Boundary
Cities in Kings County
c:::J Avenal
c:::J Corcoran
c:::J Hanford
c:::J Lemoore
Tran,it Area
==:J l / 2 Mile from High Quality Transit Area
O High Qllality Transit Stops
Jobs vJithin '1S-minute tral'i$it commute
No Data
0 l - 2,500
- 2,501 - 5,000
- 5,001 - 10,000
- l 0,OOl - 25,000
- 25,001 - 50,000
- 50,001 - 100,000
- 100,001 - 250,000
- > 250,000

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-44 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Farmworkers

Kings County is one of the state’s major agricultural areas, ranking 8th among California counties in total agricultural production. According to the Kings County Agricultural Commissioner, 84% of the total land area in the County is devoted to farmland. Table 18 shows the County’s top three leading agricultural products in 2022 were milk ($999 million), pistachios ($228 million), and cotton ($192 million).

Recent Census data in Table 19 shows that 15% of employed Kings County civilian residents (16 years and over) worked in agriculture and related industries. Of the four cities, the highest percentage of civilian workers in agricultural related jobs was Avenal, where 45% of its workers w ere in this industry. This was followed by Corcoran workers at 30%.

Table 20 presents the number of farms and hired farm workers in Kings County. According to the 2017 U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census estimates, there were 507 farms and a total of almost 7,000 hired farm workers countywide. The largest number of workers (5,820) were employed at farms with 10 or more employees or 83% of the countywide total number of hired workers. Also, there were more permanent hired workers (worked more than 150 days) than seasonal workers (worked less than 150 days) for bo th farm operations with less than 10 employees and with more than 10 employees.

Table 18: Leading Agricultural Crops, Kings County
Crop Rank Value
Milk 1 $999,866,000
Pistachios 2 $228,785,000
Cotton 3 $192,811,000
Tomatoes, Processed 4 $177,492,000
Cattle & Calves 5 $151,274,000
Almonds, Total 6 $132,323,000
Corn, Silage 7 $123,941,000
Alfalfa, Hay 8 $67,540,000
Wheat, Silage 9 $60,112,000
Plums 10 $55,245,000
Source: Kings County, Dept. of Agriculture, 2022 Crop Report, September 2023

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-45

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT Table 19: Agricultural Employment by Jurisdiction
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table DP-3

Agricultural workers, and especially farmworkers, have special housing needs due to their relatively low wages. According to an article in Rural Migration News , the average hourly wage for all California farmworkers in the years 2015- 2019 was approximately $12.

3. This is equivalent to approximately
$25,000/year for full -time work. As a result, farmworkers often overpay for housing (in relation to their income) and/or live in overcrowded and substandard living situations.

The nature of agricultural work also affects the specific housing needs of farm workers. For instance, farmworkers employed on a year-round basis generally live with their families and need permanent affordable housing much like other lower -income households. Migrant farmworkers who follow seasonal harvests generally need temporary housing only for the workers themselves.

California has a statewide shortage of farmworker housing projects. For instance, the number of agricultural employee housing facilities registered with the California HCD has dramatically declined since the 1950s.

Between 1955 and 1982, grower-registered facilities declined from 9,000 to 1,414 camps. By 1998, only 500 camps were registered with HCD, none of which were in Kings County. According to growers, the dramatic decline in labor camps is due to the high cost of maintaining housing and the climate of litigation facing growers who maintain camps. Additionally, most farm owners/managers hire most of their workers through temporary agencies for planting, picking, pruning, or other specific tasks, so that providing full-time housing for workers is not practical.

Although no farmworker camps exist in Kings County, the County does have a significant number of government-subsidized housing projects (e.g., Section 515 and public housing) that house farmworkers and their families. Many farmworkers live in mobile homes on the farming site. A new farmworker housing project was completed in Hanford during the 2003-2008 planning period. That project involved the renovation of an existing former motel into temporary and/or long-term, permanent agricultural employee housing. The project included 24 units plus parking, courtyard, children’s play areas and open space.

In addition, there is a 40- unit apartment complex in unincorporated Kettleman City that serves farm labor families. This apartment includes 10 two-bedroom units, 20 three-bedroom units, and 10 four-bedroom units,

3 https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/blog/post/?id=2805
Jurisdiction of Civilian Employed
Pop. (16 and over) Number of Agricultural Workers % of Total Workers Avenal 1,617 45%
Corcoran 1,275 30%
Hanford 2,213 9%
Lemoore 692 6%
Unincorporated 2,474 22%
Kings County 8,271 15%
I I

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-46 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

with approximately 70-100 farmworkers residing in the apartment complex. The Constraints analysis contains a discussion of each jurisdiction’s land use and zoning policies and regulations regarding farmworker housing.

In communities with large farmworker populations, farmworker housing needs are met through homeownership assistance and rehabilitation loans.

Table 20: Hired Farm Labor-Workers, Kings County
Farmworkers No. of Farms No. of Hired Workers
Percent of Total County
Hired Workers
Total Hired Farm Labor 507 6,998
Farm operations with less than 10 employees 351 1,178 17% Permanent (> 150 days) 275 1,034 15%
Seasonal (< 150 days) 246 677 10%
Farm operations with 10 or more employees 156 5,820 83% Permanent (> 150 days) 96 3,046 44%
Seasonal (< 150 days) 49 2,241 32%
Source: USDA, 2017 Census of Agriculture

Most loans under both types of programs are issued to people working in the agricultural industry.

Moreover, many occupants of Section 515 projects and other subsidized projects are also employed in the farming industry. In Lemoore the farmworker population is significantly smaller, although many farmworkers also access standard homeownership and/or rehabilitation loans. The Housing Plan (Chapter 5) includes Program 3.10 Farmworker and Employee Housing where the City permits farmworker housing in conformance with Health and Safety Code §17021.5 and §17021.6. In addition, the City will assist interested developers by providing incentives, identifying suitable sites, and assisting in preparation of funding applications.

Jobs-Housing Balance and Commute Patterns

Commuting patterns in Kings County have an important implication for housing needs. Larger employers in the County (e.g., three state prisons, Naval Air Station Lemoore, and agricultural industries) generate a significant number of jobs. However, the workf orce employed at these institutions or in the agricultural industries may live in other communities for a variety of reasons, including preferences, the availability of suitable housing, or other reasons.

Commuting patterns show the relationship between where people live and where they work. Long commuting distances increase traffic congestion that strains the existing overcrowded road and highways infrastructure systems that are often in need of maintenance. Long commuting distances also contribute to poor air quality, increases expenses to the commuting workforce, and has been shown to have negative consequences on personal health. One of the aims of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan is to direct new housing growth to employment centers to balance the jobs-housing ratio and decrease commuting distances.

Table 22 shows that 38% of the City of Hanford’s workforce aged 16 years and older who do not work at home travel less than 15 minutes to work and another 32% of workers travel 15-30 minutes to work. The

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-47

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT average time to work for countywide workers was 24 minutes.

Table 21: Travel Time to Work
Note: Workers included those 16 years and over who did not work from home.; Source: Census ACS 2016 -2020 Table S0801
Table 22: Work Locations of City/County Resident Workers Note: Workers included those 16 years and over who did not work from home.; Source: Census ACS 2016 -2020 Table S0801
Educational Opportunities

The Kings County Board of Education establishes the mission and primary objectives for the Kings County Superintendent of Schools and ensures that activities and programs remain focused on the goals identified within the California Department of Education educational rules and regulations. The Kings County Board of Education establishes the mission and primary objectives for the Kings County Superintendent of Schools and ensures that activities and programs remain focused on the goals identified within the California Department of Education educational rules and regulations. According to the Kings County office of education as of Oct 2021 there are a total of 19,429 students enrolled in elementary schools and about 8,179 students in high schools across the county as per data submitted by the districts. Figure 13 below shows some of the school districts in Kings County.

Travel Time to Work Hanford Kings County
Less than 15 minutes 38.0% 36.80%
15-30 minutes 30.8% 32.00%
30 to 59 minutes 25.3% 25.10%
60 or more minutes 5.9% 6.10%
Average Travel Time 24 min. 23 min.

Travel Time to Work Hanford Kings County
Number of Resident Workers
(Age 16 and over) 23,502 56,560
Work in Same City/County) 45.7% 75.6%
Work Outside of City/County 54.3% 24.1%
Total 100% 100%

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-48 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Figure 13: School districts in Kings County

Source: Kings County, Cal EM
....

STATE of CALIFORNIA
- ~ay9, lnterSla'le
-- ligj,Nays Stale Roue
-- 1rngS CotSL,Y M~ ROOO!I
-- l<ings Col.61ty Wat~~
--+- - ..

E:Z:j Ti>thi-Y- Tribe
~ Naval Aw Stmlon Lemoore
f-1 ~ Co...,_ty C~ COfJlrTIIJfl~
• Kings CO Office d ti.JealiOn
scnool Dlstrlcts
CORCORAN JOINT l/ IRED
IW"FORDJOINTl,t< ION HIGH

LEMOORE UNION HIGH
Reef - Sunset
Unified
FRESNO
COUNTY
Utica
,;
~ >-
~
I-
§
0 l>
~
~

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

1A-49

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Environmental Health
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reports CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores for the unincorporated county, suggesting relatively adverse environmental conditions throughout the county. (see Figure 14). According to OEHHA, except for some of the smaller tracts in the center of the cities of Hanford, Lemoore, and Corcoran the rest of the areas have scores above the 90th percentile. The environmental conditions in Kings County likely due to the dominance of commercial agricultural practices and natural resource extraction, both of which are known to have negative impacts on the surrounding areas resulting from air pollution and other contaminants.

The primary indicators leading to the high environmental scores as reported by OEHHA’s CalEnviroScreen vary across the county, but include ozone, particulate matter (PM) 2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic releases, drinking water contaminants, chemical cleanup, lead in housing, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water, and solid waste. Ozone, diesel particulate, and PM 2.5, forms of pollution generated by car traffic and industrial uses, score higher throughout the county. In the unincorporated county, pesticide use, groundwater threats, and solid waste facilities are more prevalent than in urbanized areas, reflecting the presence of agricultural industries and chemical and waste storage outside of urban areas. Nearly all of Kings County is Senate Bill (SB) 535 -qualifying disadvantaged communities excluding areas around Lemoore, north of Hanford and some tracts in Corcoran. This indicates that the unincorporated county represents an area of potential concern regarding fair housing and disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards and a concentration of vulnerable populations. The CalEnviroScreen scores in Hanford, California, display a varied environmental and socioeconomic landscape across the city. In most regions of Hanford, the CalEnviroScreen scores are above 75%, suggesting that these areas face significant pollution burdens and vulnerabilities.

This high score is indicative of greater environmental and health risks, potentially including higher levels of pollutants, greater exposure to toxic substances, or socio-economic factors that amplify these risks, such as lower income levels or limited access to health care. Contrastingly, the northern areas of Hanford have somewhat lower scores, ranging from 50- 75%. These scores, while still indicating some level of environmental and socioeconomic concerns, are comparatively less severe than the higher-scoring regions of the city. Additionally, there is a single tract within Hanford with an even lower CalEnviroScreen score, falling in the range of 25-50%. This could indicate that this particular area experiences fewer environmental health risks or has better socio-economic conditions compared to other parts of the city.

These disparities in CalEnviroScreen scores across Hanford highlight the uneven distribution of environmental and socio-economic challenges within the city. Understanding these variations is crucial for local policymakers and community organizations in tar geting interventions and resources to those areas most in need. Further, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) develops flood maps that identify areas with the highest risk of flooding, differentiating them by the degree of severity and frequency of flooding anticipated. The city of Hanford is only at a minor risk of flooding when compared to the rest of the county.

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

Figure 14: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 & high-quality transit stops (Transit area ½ mile)

Source: Caltrans, 2022; OEHHA, 2
l eg•nd
l.__l City Boundaries
~:: :• CA county selectk>n
c::::::J CBnsus Tract Boundary
Cities: in Kings County
c:::::J A.v@nal
c::::::J Corcoran
c:::::::J Hanford
c:::::::J Lemoore
L_J 1/2 Mile from Hi~h Qu•lity Transit Are•
o High Quality Transit Slops
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 • Percentile Score
- 0 - 25%
- > 25 -50%
- > 50 - 75%
- >75 - 100%
- None

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

Figure 15: Flood Hazard Zones

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2022; OEHHA, 2021; CalFire, updated 2023.

Grangevill e
5 I

4.02 1------ ""4-kson Ave

16.01 6.03
a
1 00
rl
:;
► <
r1>
Grar:igeville Blvd
[7
r
)
Lil'IJl,'l td
U~ r1oml 110111m l /I.rem• (rrMA)
- l '!l)Annu.il Ulance HoodK,,uard
- o.,~ A 111111a l 0 11,i11 ,i r .1c>:1d 11~1r-111I
- lk !llll.tlmy rk,odv,ay
~~1P.d ,"II t-m-1'11,-iy
Future Conditions 1% Annu.il Chance Rood
11~.atlll
Arm \\'1th ~ durt!d 1ur.k nu~ rn 1 ~
- HIOh
- V1:1y lligh
r:::J v:nw s lr<1ct tK>und.:uy
<.ltles In Klr~s <.:ountv
□ /\\'('U,11
D Corcoran
C] H.inford
□ L~OOOl i:'
OCAwunly

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

F) DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS

Housing Mobility
Housing tenure (owner vs. renter) influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential mobility is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing evidencing a lower turnover rate than rental housing. The vacancy rate also indicates the match b etween the demand and supply of housing. Table 23 details housing tenure and vacancies in Kings County and incorporated communities according to the Census ACS 2016- 2020 estimates. Vacancy rates of 5% to 6% for rental housing and 1.5% to 2.0% for ownership housing are generally considered to be optimum. A higher vacancy rate may indicate an excess supply of units, a softer market, and result in lower housing prices. A lower vacancy rate may indicate a shortage of housing and high competition for available housing, which generally leads to higher housing prices and diminished affordability.

The balance between owner -occupied and rental housing, along with vacancy rates, shapes the housing market dynamics. For instance, areas with high owner occupancy and low vacancy rates may see appreciating property values, while areas with high rental vaca ncy rates might experience stagnating or declining property values. The demand exceeds the supply, driving up rental costs, which can disproportionately affect lower-income residents and contribute to housing insecurity.

Table 23: Household Tenure and Vacancy Rates

Housing Type
Hanford Kings County
Units % Units %
Occupied housing units 18,960 95.8% 43,604 94.20%
Owner-occupied housing units 11,353 57.4% 23,368 50.50% Avg. HH size of owner-occupied units 2.98 3.12
Renter-occupied housing units 7,607 38.5% 20,236 43.70% Avg. HH size of renter-occupied units 3.03 3.17
Vacant housing units 824 4.2% 2,663 5.80%
For rent 46 0.2% 446 1.00%
Rented, not occupied 71 0.4% 140 0.30%
For sale only 29 0.1% 426 0.90%
Sold, not occupied 66 0.3% 194 0.40%
For seasonal or occasional use 9 0.0% 54 0.10%
All other vacant 603 3.0% 1,403 3.00%
Homeowner vacancy rate 0.3% 1.80%
Rental vacancy rate 0.6% 2.10%
Total housing units 19,784 100.0% 46,267 100.00%
Source: Census, ACS 2016-2020, Tables DP04 and B25004

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-53 APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

According to the census, the housing vacancy rate in Kings County is 1.8% among homeowner units and 2.1% for rental units. The homeowner rate is in the optimal range mentioned above. However, the rental vacancy rate is much lower than the optimal rate of 5% - 6%. When you consider Hanford’s rental vacancy rate, it is much lower than the optimal rate. This indicates the likelihood that the housing demand exceeds the housing supply and has driven up rental cost in the area. Additionally, unlike Kings County, Hanford’s homeowner vacancy rate is also much lower than the optimal range; Hanford’s rate is .3% while the optimal rate 1.5% -

2.0%.

Hanford consists of more owners who occupy their own units in comparison to Kings County where about half of homeowners occupied their own unit. In turn, renter -occupied housing units are less common in the City of Hanford compared to Kings County. These conditions , areas with high owner occupancy and low vacancy rates, may see appreciating property values.

Housing Typology

The City of Hanford has 19,784 housing units. From 1990 to 2020, Hanford has increased by population by

90.3%. As seen in Table 25, the number of housing units in Hanford has increased by 70.4%. over the span of 30 years.

Although the City of Hanford has not kept up with projected housing needs over time and has implemented density bonuses for developers, the amount of 5+ units decreased from 1990 to 2020; 2,208 5+ units to 2,187 5+ units. This seems to align with building permit data as seen on Table 26. The small rate of 5+ unit production paired with possible demolition might explain the slight decrease of these types of units in roughly the last 30 years.

According to Table 23, more residents in Hanford live in housing units constructed in the last 30 years compared to residents in California in general. In California, the largest share of residents live in housing units built between 1970 to 1979, followed by units built between 1980 to 1989, and then 1950 to 1950. For Hanford residents, the most live in units built between 1990 to 1999, followed by 1980 to 1989, and then from 2000 to 2009.

Half of Hanford’s housing stock is 3-bedroom units, followed by 2 bedroom units, and then 4 bedroom units. 1 bedroom and studios make up 8.5% of the housing stock. Finally, 5+ bedroom units make up 2.9% of the housing stock.

Within the housing units, there are different room typologies. As seen on Table 25, Hanford consists of

25.6% 2-person family households and 17.6% of 1-person nonfamily households, for a total of 43.2%. These two households’ housing needs can be met well by 1 bedroom and studio units but there are only 8.5% of these units available. Therefore, additional 1 bedroom and studio units should be incentivized. In turn, there

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT may be units where multiple 2-person family or 1-person nonfamily households sharing housing units for affordability and removing larger units off the market for family households that are smaller than 5 persons.

In contrast, Hanford has a larger share of large households, 5 or more people, compared to California; large households make up 16% of Hanford’s households. Housing needs for these households can be met well by 4+ bedroom units. Therefore, 21.1% of units is a little more than adequate for the number of large households.

Table 23: Total Housing Units Over
Time

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Total Units 7,364 11,610 14,721 18,493 19,784
Percent Change 57.66% 26.80% 25.62% 6.98%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(STF1:T65), 1990(STF1:H1), 2000(SF1:H1); ACS 16- 20 (5-year Estimates), Table B2001

Table 25: Total Housing Units by Type Over Time
2010 Percent 2015 Percent 2020 Percent
Total 17,994 18,769 19,784
1, Detached 13,126 72.9% 13,739 73.2% 14,964 75.6%
1, Attached 611 3.4% 280 1.5% 311 1.6%
2 467 2.6% 436 2.3% 786 4.0%
3 or 4 1,186 6.6% 1,404 7.5% 1,072 5.4%
5 to 9 1,260 7.0% 806 4.3% 626 3.2%
10 to 19 307 1.7% 451 2.4% 362 1.8%
20 to 49 261 1.5% 337 1.8% 549 2.8%
50 or More 380 2.1% 828 4.4% 650 3.3%
Mobile Home 387 2.2% 479 2.6% 433 2.2%
Boat, Rv, Van, Etc. 9 0.1% 9 0.0% 31 0.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25024

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-55 APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

Total Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms (2020)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25041

Table 26: Building Permits by Number of Structures Authorized Number of Structures Authorized City of Hanford City of Hanford Kings County Kings County One Housing Unit 210 98.6% 300 98.7%
Two Housing Units 0 0.0% 1 0.3%
Three and Four Housing Units 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Five or More Housing Units 3 1.4% 3 1.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey 2019, Table AD:T2

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Table 27: Total Occupied Housing Units by
Year Built

City of
Hanford Percent Kings
County Percent

California

Percent

Total: 18,960 43,604 13,103,114
2014 Or Later 692 3.6% 1,414 3.6% 294,667 2.2%
2010 To 2013 383 2.0% 1,057 2.0% 234,646 1.8%
2000 To 2009 3,191 16.8% 7,557 16.8% 1,432,955 11.0%
1990 To 1999 3,812 20.1% 8,348 20.1% 1,448,367 11.1%
1980 To 1989 3,268 17.2% 6,287 17.2% 1,967,306 15.1%
1970 To 1979 2,536 13.4% 6,621 13.4% 2,290,081 17.5%
1960 To 1969 1,689 8.9% 4,424 8.9% 1,740,922 13.3%
1950 To 1959 1,440 7.6% 3,156 7.6% 1,767,353 13.5%
1940 To 1949 909 4.8% 2,122 4.8% 763,029 5.8%
1939 Or Earlier 1,040 5.5% 2,618 5.5% 1,163,788 8.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25036

Local Median Housing Costs
In the City of Hanford, the median monthly housing costs is $1,152. For the wider Kings County, the median costs are slightly lower at $1,094. In contrast, California's median is significantly higher at $1,688. From 2010 to 2020, t he City of Hanford’s median monthly housing cost increased by a smaller percentage, 8.1%, compared to Kings County at 14%. California’s rate of increase is more than double Hanford’s rate at 19.8%.

In Hanford, the median monthly owner cost with a mortgage as a percentage of household income is 21.9% and 9% for those homeowners without a mortgage. The percentage that renters spend is much higher at 28.1% which is just shy of the acceptable standard to spend on housing, one third of income. However, as seen below, overcrowding and overpayment is an issue in Hanford. It is important to note that these figures are medians.

The following sections provide further context of fair and affordable housing by analyzing overcrowding, overpayment, and homelessness.

Table 28: Median Monthly Housing Costs Over Time
2010 2015

2020
Percent Change
(2010 to 2020)
City of Hanford $1,066 $1,054 $1,152 8.1%
Kings County $960 $978 $1,094 14.0%
California $1,409 $1,419 $1,688 19.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Table B25105

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-57 APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

Table 29: Median Monthly Housing Costs by Tenure as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months
2010 2015 2020
Median Gross Rent 29.0% 29.4% 28.1%

Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs -
Total 23.0% 20.5% 18.9%

Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs -
Units with a Mortgage 26.0% 23.4% 21.9%

Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs -
Units without a Mortgage 10.9% 10.1% 9.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Tables B25071, B25092

Figure 16: Median Gross Rent and Percent Change Over Time (1980-2020)

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

Overcrowding

Overcrowding is often closely related to household income and the cost of housing. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household to be overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens; and to be severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 occupants per room. Overcrowded $219
$421
$569
$846
$1,026

92.24%

35.15%

48.68%

21.28%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
100.00%
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Percent Change
Median Gross Rent
Median Gross Rent Percent Change
-

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT households are usually a reflection of the lack of adequate income for housing.

Table 30 details the percentage of households that live in overcrowded situations. Overcrowding is more prevalent among renters than owners. For example, countywide, 12% of renters and 5% of owners reported more than one person per room.

Table 30: Overcrowding by Tenure
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25014

In figure 18 it could be seen that the city of Hanford exhibits diverse patterns of overcrowding across different areas, reflecting a complex urban housing situation. Central and southern regions of the city are marked by higher rates of overcrowding, with 15-20% of housing units in some tracts experiencing this issue. dropping below 5.19%, which is notably lower than the statewide average. This indicates that housing in these areas is relatively more spacious or that fewer people are living in each household. Severe o vercrowding, which typically refers to more extreme cases where the number of occupants per room is high, also varies within the city. Some areas have 2.5% to 6.5% of severely overcrowded units, indicating pockets of the city where living conditions are quite cramped. Interestingly, the edges of Hanford have rates below 2.5%, suggesting more comfortable living spaces, whereas a specific tract in the west shows a higher range of severe overcrowding, between 6.5% and 12.5%.

Overpayment

State and federal housing law defines overpayment as a household paying more than 30% of gross income for housing expenses, including utilities. Housing overpayment is especially problematic for lower-income households that have limited resources for other living expenses.

As shown in Table 31 , a significant portion of lower -income households in each community overpaid for housing according to HUD CHAS data (special tabulations based on the Census ACS). However, the overpayment rate varied by tenure and income level. More than half of all very- low- and extremely-low- income households in all jurisdictions, both owners and renters, were reported to be overpaying. In most Occupants per Room Hanford Kings County
Total households 18,960 43,604
Owner occupied: 11,353 23,368

0.50 or less 66.0% 60.70%

0.51 to 1.00 29.5% 34.20%

1.01 to 1.50 3.3% 3.90%

1.51 to 2.00 0.2% 0.70%

2.01 or more 0.9% 0.50%
Renter occupied: 7,607 20,236

0.50 or less 42.3% 39.70%

0.51 to 1.00 45.2% 48.10%

1.01 to 1.50 8.8% 8.70%

1.51 to 2.00 2.8% 2.90%

2.01 or more 0.8% 0.60%

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-59 APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

communities, however, more rental households than owner households were overpaying. Few households with incomes above the median faced overpayment – often less than 10% of households.

Table 31: Household Overpayment by Tenure
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census ACS 2014-2018

The data from figures 19 and 20, which illustrate overpayment by renters and homeowners in Hanford at the tract level, reveal distinct patterns of housing affordability challenges within the city. For renters, the overpayment rate is considerably high, ranging from 20% to 60%. Notably, the central areas of Hanford exhibit a higher range of overpayment, between 40% and 60%, indicating that a significant portion of renters in these areas are spending a substantial part of their income on housing. This could reflect higher rental costs or lower income levels among renters in these central areas. In contrast, the peripheral areas of Hanford show somewhat lower rent overpayment rates, falling between 20% and 40%. This suggests that while housing affordability is still a concern in these areas, it is not as severe as in the central parts of the city. When it comes to homeowners, the pattern of overpayment is somewhat different. Higher levels of overpayment among homeowners are observed towards the edges of the city and near the Home Garden region, with rates ranging between 40% and 60%. This indicates that homeownership in these areas may be associated with higher mortgage payments relative to income, or possibly higher property values.

Hanford’s Program 3.9 Affordable Housing Assistance implements various strategies to continue the construction of affordable housing. The City seeks applicable grants from state and federal sources including funding specifically targeted to ELI housing, provide an inventory of housing sites to interested developers, continue to provide a density bonus to qualifying projects, provide financial and regulatory assistance such as reduced fees and/or modified development standards, fee reductions and concurrent processing of lot mergers for multi-family projects that include units affordable to lower -income households, and continue to pursue housing production and rehabilitation with nonprofits including assistance in preparing grant applications.

Housing for very-low- and extremely-low-income persons will be prioritized where feasible. In addition, the City’s affordable housing incentives will be promoted on the website and in handouts provided at the Planning Income Category Hanford Kings County
Owners
<= 30% 82.4% 79.00%
>30% to <=50% 67.1% 68.60%
>50% to <=80% 53.9% 48.30%
>80% to <=100% 46.0% 32.80%
>100% 7.7% 7.40%
Total 22.8% 22.50%
Renters
<= 30% 77.9% 79.30%
>30% to <=50% 85.2% 78.30%
>50% to <=80% 53.4% 57.00%
>80% to <=100% 32.2% 22.50%
>100% 7.2% 6.40%
Total 42.1% 43.20%

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT counter.

Figure 17: Total and Percent Change Cost-Burdened Owner Households Over Time (1980- 2020)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(STF3), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25091
512
734
1,365
2,224
2,002

43.36%

85.97%

62.93%
-9.98%
-20.00%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%
100.00%
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Percent Change
Total Households
Cost-burdened Households Percent Change
-

SECTION 1A-3: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Figure 18: Overcrowding in Kings County

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021 l ~tf>,n, I
c:::J Census TrnLl Boundmv

01.ies iu Kinys Cou11ly
D ilvC11al
D O>"co.-an
c:J 11antord
c::::J I i'!rnu:111-!
[=1 C:::ily IJrn1rn lt11iP.s
c:::J C:A <iitmly
Percent at SC-vcrcty Overcrowded Unlts
·»Gr.angeville / / .~ 2.s%
;/,0 2.,% 6., %
~ G.5% - 12., %
~ 12.5% - 25%
5 -~ ~ / -:......~~B+w-tf,.;.../~ :::::: > 1.'i%
~ A ~~ • '---'----~ /
/ ~» ,~
r~-
/ fur
P. r
00~1 ~
1-'P.rcP.nr ()( c NP.rITowdP.d llnlts
~.19% 10%
- 10% 1, %
_ 1,% · 20%
1111 ;,,) 41%

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-62 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Figure 19: Overpayment by renters (ACS, 2017-2021) – Tract Level

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021

2 , 4.03
t------;1'!11::l<son :/!.ye

16.01 !';
:::r.
)>
<
11)
1 00 ,...
~
)>
;::
n,
Grangeville Blvd
Legend
D rP.nsus Tr~c.t Aounc1nry
Cit ies in Kings County
D /\vena l
D Corcomn
D l lanford
D Lemoore
D City Boundar ies
D CA county
Overpayment by Renters (2017-2 0 21) - ACS Tract
Level
Percen t of Renter Households for whom Gross Rent
(Contract Rent Plus Tenant-Paid Utlll~es) Is 30.0
PE,Jrc P.111 rn Mou-! of Hrni~P.ll[)lrl lr K.mru-~
< 2 0°/o
- 20% - 40%
- 40% - 60%
- 60% - 80%
- >80%

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Figure 20: Percentage of Homeowners Overpaying

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021 2 6.03
Grangev ill e
5 rf05
....___._.,,, 4.02
r
t,-:-------tmt:·1<s0 n A.Me

16.01 1
00 rl
-:J'
l> ;:::
r1)
Grarage11ille Blvd
· ~f!nd
[=:J f'~m, 11i. Tr,"lr.t Rourn1,1ry
Cttlcs tn Kings Countv
□ ~vena l
c:::J l.'.Orcoran
c:::J 1 Ianford
c:] Lcmooro
I Uly Uourllklr iF:s
r::::J CA c mml ~
Pt>rr.:1t1tl vf Owr1""1 l b1s~l1ulUs will1 Mu, l~yes wl1us1 Monthly ONr« Cost:; arc 30% Of More ot Houscholi
.-: ? 0%
?0% 40%
- 10%-GO%
- 60%-80%
- >80%

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-64 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Homelessness

In Homelessness is often the result of multiple factors that converge in a person’s life. The combination of loss of employment, inability to find a job because of the need for retraining, and high housing costs lead to some individuals and families losing their housing. For others, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities or drug and alcohol addictions along with an inability to access the services and long -term support needed to address these conditions. Obtaining an accurate assessment of the magnitude of the homeless population is difficult because many individuals are not visibly homeless but rather live with relatives or friends, in hotels/motels or shelters, and other temporary accommodations. To address the needs of homeless people in Kings County, the Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance (KTHA) conducted a Point-in-Time (PIT) survey of homeless people in these two counties in January 2022. The study used HUD’s definition of homelessness, which is defined as people who reside in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or places not meant for human habitation such as cars, parks, sidewalks, and abandoned buildings.

Table 32: Homeless Persons
Jurisdiction Estimated Homeless
Avenal 4
Corcoran 17
Hanford 260
Lemoore 8
Unincorporated area 24
Kings County totals 313
Source: Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance Point-in-Time Survey, 2022

Based on the 2022 PIT survey, the following portrait of the 313 homeless individuals counted in Kings County included:
• 22% chronically homeless
• 39% persons with disability
• 20% suffer from mental disability.
• 12% suffer from substance abuse problems.
• 11% victims of domestic violence
• 6% veterans
• 2% unaccompanied children
• 12% young adults under age 25
In 2022, 39% of the homeless population was housed in temporary living arrangements (31% in emergency shelter and 8% in transitional housing). Over half (61%) were unsheltered and homeless or in a car.

Table 2-29 presents the 2022 PIT homeless counts for the four cities and unincorporated areas of the County.

The table shows that the City of Hanford had the highest counted with 260 homeless individuals or 83% of the countywide total. This was followed by the unincorporated area with 24 homeless individuals. Avenal had the lowest count with four homeless individuals.

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-65

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Table 33: Shelter Facilities in Kings County
Source: Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance, 2023

Table 33 lists the shelter facilities in Kings County that served the homeless. It identifies an inventory of 126 emergency shelter beds (78% use rate), 27 transitional housing beds (89% use rate), 64 permanent supportive housing beds (89% use rate), 15 other permanent housing beds (93% use rate), and 103 rapid rehousing beds (100% use rate) in Kings County. Additional emergency assistance is provided by the Salvation Army in Hanford, which provides short -term assistance in the form of food, financial assistance for rent and utility bills, motel vouchers and bus or plane tickets. Corcoran Christian Aid provides food, vouchers, and other types of emergency financial assistance within Corcoran.

Total
Project Name & Organization
PIT
Beds
Use
Count
Use
Rate

EMERGENCY SHELTER
Barbara Saville Shelter - DV 15 4 27%
Barbara Saville Woman's Shelter 23 6 26%
EHA Kings 7 7 100%
PRK Holiday Lodge 57 57 100%
PRK Stardust Hotel 17 17 100%
Temporary Housing Program 7 7 100%
Total 126 98 78%

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
KGM Men's Transitional 15 15 100%
KGM Women's Transitional 6 6 100%
New Song Academy 6 3 50%
Total 27 24 89%

PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Anchors II 6 4 67%
Anchors IV 6 5 83%
Grace Homes 13 13 100%
Hope Survives 6 6 100%
Kings County Act 28 28 100%
Kings VASH 5 1 20%
Total 64 57 89%

OTHER PERMANENT HOUSING
HAKC Emergency Housing Voucher 15 14 93%
Total 15 14 93%

RAPID REHOUSING
Bringing Families Home 16 16 100%
HANA 4 4 100%
Housing Support Program 76 76 100%
Kings Rapid Rehousing 1 1 100%
RRH4 Kings 6 6 100%
Total 103 103 100%

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-66 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Despite these services, a significant shortage in emergency shelters and transitional housing remains. In 2007 the State Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 2, which strengthened the planning and zoning requirements for emergency shelters and transitional/ supportive housing. SB2 requires that all jurisdictions adopt zoning regulations that allow emergency shelters by -right in at least one zone, subject to objective development standards, or as an alternative, the jurisdiction may meet the need through a mul ti-jurisdictional agreement with up to three adjacent jurisdictions. As noted in the Constraints section, all of the jurisdictions in Kings County have adopted zoning regulations for emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing in response to SB 2. In Kings County and surrounding counties, the number of unsheltered individuals went down dramatically from 2005 to 2020. The number of individuals in emergency shelters and transitional housing did not change drastically.

Hanford’s Program 3.11 Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing objective is to continue the establishment of emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing. Hanford allows emergency shelters by-right in the OR zone and transitional/supportive housing are permitted subject to the same regulations that apply to other residential uses of the same type, in the same zone.

Figure 21: Visalia, Kings, Tulare Counties CoC - Homelessness by Type Over Time (2005- 2020)

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

95 110 123
143
138 184
206
125
3,560
414 413 837
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2005 2010 2015 2020
Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Unsheltered■ ■ ■

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-67

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

G) DISPLACEMENT RISK

The Urban Displacement Project, a joint research and action initiative of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the level of displacement risk at the census tract level. The EDR provides three layers of displacement information. The “Overall Displacement” map layer shows the number of income groups experiencing any displacement risk. The dark red tracts (2 income groups), our models estimate displacement (Elevated, High, or Extreme) for two income groups. In the light orange tracts categorized as “Probable”, one or all three income groups had to have been categorized as “Probable Displacement”. In figure 1A-17 it could be observed that all the cities in the county and the southern western region are at predominant risk of At-Risk displacement. "At risk of displacement" refers to the likelihood of residents, particularly low-income renter households, being forced to move out of their neighborhoods due to various factors. This concept is often evaluated in the context of gentrification, rising housing costs, and changing neighborhood dynamics. The city of Hanford is at risk of displacement in the southern and central areas while a tract contains 1 income group displacement the rest of city is at lower risk of displacement. While the neighboring areas have lower risk of displacement as well.

According to the Urban Displacement Project's Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California, displacement risk is determined by evaluating census tract characteristics that are strongly correlated with a net loss of low-income renter populations. Essentially, a high displacement risk suggests that more low- income households are leaving a neighborhood than moving in, often due to factors like affordability, development pressures, or changes in the housing market.

The City of Hanford’s Program 3.3 Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing objective to monitor the status of publicly assisted housing affordable units. Hanford has approximately 766 units of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households created through City, state, and federal programs.

However, these units have no identified risk of converting to market-rate housing in the next decade.

Additionally, the City works with interested agencies and community organizations to provide technical and/or financial assistance in return for extended affordable controls.

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-68 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Figure 22: Estimated displacement risk – Overall displacement by tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), UCB – Urban Displacement Project, 202 2 j 4.03 7
1~.05
(

4.02 QJ
> <(
Grangev ill e
5 1------ mt-kson Ave

16.01 6.03
a
1 Grangeville Blvd
Hanford
00 .....
~
)>
< Cl)
Low IJata Quailrty
Lower DisDl~cc1ncrrt R.i$k
1111 Al m ~k uf l>ii..1Jl;11:t!l1~ 11
- 1 lmorn~C1111Jp l )is,ilm:+!rntml
- 2 Income Groups 0 1:spbccmcnt
t:J Ccnsm; Tract Bounda1y
Cities In Kings County
c:::J Avl-!rn1I
c:::J OJf LOrllll
c:::::J Hantord
c:::J Lemoore
I City Boundaries
c:::::J Q\ county

SECTION 1A-2: CONSTRAINTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

1A-69

Sites Analysis

This section provides a review of available vacant sites in the City of Hanford that allows and facilitates production of the city’s regional share of housing as required by State Law. This data is supplemented with local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more accurate depiction of fair housing issues in the City of Hanford. The following issues are addressed:

a. Future Housing Needs Including Segregation/Integration b. R/ECAPs and RCAAs
c. Access to Opportunity
d. Disproportionate Housing Needs
e. Sites Inventory Findings

To determine where the county has sufficient land to accommodate its share of regional housing needs for all income groups, the county must identify “adequate sites.” Under the State law (California Government Code section 65583[c][1], adequate sites are those with appropriate zoning in and development standards, with service and facilities, needed to facilitate and encourage the development of housing for all income levels.

Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) has introduced a duty to affirmatively further fair housing into California state law. AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification includes not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the 6
th Cycle RHNA, but also considers whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. This section analyzes the role of all sites, regardless of income level, in assisting to affirmatively further fair housing and consider how the development of new affordable housing options can promote patterns of equality and inclusiveness.

Additionally, State law requires that planning for housing be coordinated and integrated with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). To achieve this requirement, the RHNA plan must allocate housing units within the region consistent with the development pattern included in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). In September 2022, KCAG adopted the 2022 RTP/SCS update, which incorporates assumptions for housing and employment growth that affect future transportation needs. To achieve the RHNA consisten cy requirement, this RHNA used the same RTP assumptions for future housing development from the present (2022) to the RTP/SCS 2050 horizon year.

The goal of the RHNA Plan is to promote a fair distribution of attainable housing among the four cities and the unincorporated County in a way that also helps meet the state’s housing goals. Attainable housing is defined as housing that is both sufficient in supply and affordably priced. The total housing units specified in the RHNA plan for each jurisdiction are not to be construed as quotas for development. The RHNA Plan only determines the number and affordability of housing units that jurisdictions need to plan for through land use policies, regulations, infrastructure plans, and other housing assistance programs. Construction and development of these allocations is not a requirement of the

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-70 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

RHNA plan.

A) Future Housing Needs including Segregation/Integration The 6th Cycle RHNA for the 2024-2032 period projects the City of Hanford’s future housing needs as 5,547 units; the City of Hanford’s 5th Cycle RHNA determined a need for 4,832 units. The total housing needs include 684 units for extremely low-income (approx. 60.64% of the RHNA Very Low-Income allocation), 685 units for very low-income, 993 units for low- income, 1,066 units for moderate-income, and 2,119 units for above moderate-income. Housing for lower- income households represents 42.58% of the above housing needs.

Table 34: Kings RHNA 2024-2032 by Income Level
Jurisdiction
Extremely
Low* Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
City of Hanford 684 685 993 1,066 2,119 5,547
Kings County Total 1,128 1,129 1,672 1,753 3,747 9,429
Percentage (Hanford) 60.64% 60.67% 59.39% 60.81% 56.55% 58.83%

Table 11 provides data on the growth of the household population in Hanford and Kings County over a thirty-year period.

In Hanford, the household population saw a substantial increase, starting from 29,927 in 1990 and rising to 56,945 by 2020. This growth represents an addition of 27,018 persons, translating to a significant 90.3% increase in population over these three decades. Comparatively, Kings County also experienced population growth, but at a much slower rate, 53.1%.

This data highlights that Hanford's popu lation growth significantly outpaced that of the overall county, marking it as a key area of demographic change within Kings County.

City of Hanford Hispanic population was 47.1% in the year 2010 with a slight increase by 2020 at 49.4%. The percentage of White residents decreased from 41.1% in 2010 to 37.3 % in 2020.

The City has considered trends and patterns related to integration and segregation based on racial and ethnic factors, disability, family status, seniors, and median household income. The City of Hanford faces similar challenges to Kings County as a whole in terms of household characteristics, partially because the averages are affected by the most populous city in the County, Hanford. It has similar levels of seniors, youth under 18, female -headed households, people with disabilities. There are some patterns of is olation or segregation with female headed households . The City of Hanford includes 27% of Kings County’s farmworker population close to the same level of farmworkers in all unincorporated Kings County. Hanford has many areas that are identified as Low-Medium Segregation. This is a similar pattern to the
northern portions of Kings County. These populations have unique needs that existing systems do not serve well so targeted efforts and programs are required to make an impact.

The City of Hanford will continue to work with Kings County Community Development Agency to develop and implement various Housing Element programs. The y will actively participate in the C ity’s efforts to prioritize and implement the following strategies:

1. Research, identify, and apply for funds available through the CDBG and HOME Programs, Mobile home Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program (MPRROP), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Cap-and-Trade Program, and other funding sources that support affordable housing development and preservation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency, homeownership, code enforcement, farmworker housing, etc.

SECTION 1A-2: CONSTRAINTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

1A-71

2. Implement the following Housing Programs:
• Program 3.1. - Code Compliance
• Program 3.2 - Housing Rehabilitation Program
• Program 3.3 - Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing • Program 3.4 - Adequate Sites
• Program 3.5 - Density Bonus Program
• Program 3.6 - Planned Unit Development
• Program 3.7 - First Time Homebuyer Programs
• Program 3.8 - Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
• Program 3.9 - Affordable Housing Assistance
• Program 3.10 - Farmworker and Employee Housing
• Program 3.11 - Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing • Program 3.12 - Housing for Persons with Disabilities
• Program 3.13 - Promote Equal Housing Opportunities
• Program 3.14 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and promote affordable housing by facilitating mixed-use, higher density and infill development near transit stops, existing community centers, and downtown. • Program 3.15 – Update and Amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in compliance with State Laws • Program 3.16 – Adequate Infrastructure for Affordable Housing • Program 3.17 – Review and Update Site Inventory to Meet RHNA Targets

3. Foster partnerships with non- profit affordable housing developers and experts within the community- based organization’s membership.

4. Engage the community by “getting the word out” on key community planning meetings, informing the public on available housing programs, and translating affordable housing-related materials and interpreting at community workshop in Spanish. The city will arrange for provisions of Spanish translation materials and provide interpreters at community workshops.

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-72 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

B) R/ECAPS and RCAAs

HUD has developed a census tract-based definition to assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), R/ECAP is defined as a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: R/ECAPs must have a non- white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines nei ghborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAPs if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. According to the HCD AFFH Dataset, there is one R/ECAP area, census tract 11, near the municipal airport, in the City of Hanford.

In addition to RECAPs utilized by HUD, scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs created the Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) metric to tell the story of segregation more fully in the United States5. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 1) 80 percent or more of the population is White, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016.)

Only the northwest portion of the City of Hanford fits the criteria of income of $125,000 and a population that is 80 percent or more White.

The R/ECAP area, census tract 11 is also characterized by a CalEnviroScreen Percentile score over 75% which indicates high environmental hazards that include ozone, particulate matter, pesticide, toxic releases. This score is prevalent in southern Hanford as well as Kings County as a whole.

Notably, there are lower scores or environmental hazards in north Hanford which is characterized by higher levels of wealth; particularly the northwest area is identified as a RCAA. North Hanford has Highest and High Resource areas, which means areas with stronger access to economic, environmental, and educational opportunities.

The distribution of RHNA sites throughout the city should consider the northwest portion as one of the priority areas for affordable housing units to further choice.

C) Access to Opportunity

The City of Hanford has a mix of resource area types. The northern areas of Hanford have Highest and High Resource areas while the south has more Moderate, Low Resource, and High Segregation & Poverty areas. The area along Highway

SECTION 1A-2: CONSTRAINTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

1A-73

198 also has a higher amount of transit access and connectivity, as shown on Figure 1A-12. The city must prioritize areas with Highest, High Resource and transit access to accommodate new development . N ew residential and mixed -use development in the identified areas will help to create more housing affordable to households at lower income levels, introduce new residents to the areas which can contribute to greater neighborhood stability, and expand opportunities for people to both live and work in Hanford . Taken together, new residential and mixed- use development in the identified areas will help to diversify the land use pattern and improve the conditions of these census tracts by providing greater housing choice and a broader range of goods and services, and otherwise supporting community revitalization.

In Figure 18, the City of Hanford exhibits diverse patterns of overcrowding across different areas, reflecting a complex urban housing situation. Central and southern regions of the city are marked by higher rates of overcrowding, with 15- 20% of housing units in some tracts experiencing this issue. The edges of Hanford have rates below 2.5%, suggesting more comfortable living spaces. In comparison to Kings County as a whole, Hanford and the northern portion of Kings County is less overcrowded than the southern portion.

Census tracts as seen in Figure 8 the north and western areas around Hanford generally displayed poverty rates below 10%, indicating a lower prevalence of poverty compared to other areas. While the central areas have the highest level of 30%-40% and the eastern regions show a slight decrease and lie around 20-30%.

The overall poverty rate for Kings County stood at 16.4%, marking a 2.19% increase from the previous year. The median household income in 2021 was reported at $63,267, showing a growth of 2.78% from the previous year. According to the American Community Survey data from 2017 to 2021, 17.7% of persons in Kings County were in poverty. These statistics underscore the diverse economic landscape of Kings County, where certain areas exhibit significantly higher poverty rates, highlighting the need for targeted socioeconomic interventions.

With areas in the southern portions of Hanford with higher percentages of overcrowded and severely overcrowded units, as can be seen in Figure 18: Overcrowding in Kings County, there is a need to provide assistance to develop programs to address affordability and overcrowding.

The General Plan land use map and zoning ordinance identify those areas of the city that are to be developed with residential uses, and what standards apply to the different types of residential uses. Such standards are a necessary tool to promote and ensure a healthy, compatible, and high-quality living environment. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a wide range of residential uses, with densities ranging from 1 to 10 units per acre in lower density residential zones; 7 to 20 units in Medium Density Resident ial zones; 14 to 29 units per acre in the higher density multi -family, Neighborhood Mixed-Use, and Residential-Office zones (See Housing Element, Appendix B, Table B 3, Land Inventory, for details).

Existing density bonus ordinance allows a developer to request a density bonus of up to 35 percent over the maximum density that is allowed by the zone in which the project is located if the developer agrees to reserve a certain percentage

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-74 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

of the units as available to lower income households and/or senior citizens. A Program has been added to amend the Density Bonus Ordinance to be compatible with new changes in law, as applicable. Some of these changes remove zoning barriers for “shared housing” projects and areas with “very low vehicle travel” which can help to reduce overcrowding rates and improve housing choice for residents in Hanford. The City is currently updating the Zoning Code affecting those changes.

In order to enhance opportunities for affordable housing development, allowable densities are proposed to be increased to 20 units/acre in the Medium Density Residential category and 29 units/acre in the High-Density Residential category.

Therefore, if the City provides opportunities to increase density in areas zoned for Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential which also coincide with census tracts 10.02 and 11, it can provide more affordable units in areas with high quality transit stops and higher concentrations of female headed households, person with disabilities, and Low- Medium Segregation.

Moreover, the sites affirmatively further fair housing by helping to stimulate investment in areas where additional opportunities are desired, and where new residential and/or mixed- use development can help to improve some of the opportunity level characteristics discussed earlier in this chapter.

D) Disproportionate Housing Needs

The 6th Cycle RHNA projects the City of Hanford’s future housing needs at 5,547 units; the City of Hanford’s 5th Cycle RHNA determined a need for 4,832 units.

Figure 23 shows the vacant residential lots in Hanford. The total number of units that could be accommodated in Hanford during the 2024-32 planning period are 2719.97 lower income housing units and 3,395.95 moderate and above-moderate income housing units accounting for a total of 6,115.93 units, which exceeds the RHNA requirements.

E) Sites Inventory Findings

The 6th Cycle RHNA determined a need for 5,547 units in the City of Hanford. Potential new units based on existing zoning is 6,115.92 units.

SECTION 1A-2: CONSTRAINTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

1A-75

Table 35: Potential Housing Units 2024-2032

General Plan

Zone

Acres
Potential New Units by Income

Lower
Moderate
and
Above

Total

HANFORD
VLDR/LDR RL5/RL8/R-1-
12 342 678 678
MDR RM-3 126 496 382 878
OR/HDR/Mixed OR/RM-2 81 1122 1122
Sub-Total 549 1618 1060 2678

Table 35 shows that the sites identified to meet City’s RHNA needs are at all income levels, provided that the structures containing the units meet all development standards specified in the zoning ordinance.

Based on the various figures in the Fair Housing Issues, the City of Hanford is identified as Racially Integrated on the peripheral west and east with Low -Medium Segregation from north to south. Some areas in the north and center lack sufficient data. The is no identified High POC or High White Segregation. Hanford is not in flood hazard or fire hazard severity zones.

Below is Table 36 summarizing different characteristics of each of the census tracts in the City of Hanford.

I I I I I

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-76 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Table 36: Characteristics by City of Hanford Census Tracts Characteristics Census Tract 6.03 Census Tract

6.04 Census Tract 6.02 Census Tract

7.01 Census Tract 7.02 Census Tract 8
Figure 1A-1
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas
Highest Resource Highest Resource High Resource High Resource High Resource Low Resource Figure 1A-2:

Local Median Income
>$120,000 $84,097 -120,000 $84,097 -120,000 $84,097 -120,000 $60,000 - $84,097 $60,000 - $84,097 Figure 1A-3:

Poverty Status
< 10% < 10% < 10% 10% - 20% < 10% 20% - 30%
Figure 1A-4:

Local Racial Demographics
No Data
Applicable
No Data
Applicable
Low-Medium
Segregation
Low-Medium
Segregation
Racially Integrated Racially Integrated
Figure 1A-5:

Local RCAAs
RCAA RCAA Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Figure 1A-6:

Single Parent Female Headed
Households with Children

Less than 20%

Less than 20%

Less than 20%

20%-40%

20%-40%

Less than 20%
Figure 1A-7: Population with
a Disability

< 10%

< 10%

< 10%

10% - 20%

10% - 20%

10% - 20%
Figure 1A-10: Jobs Within 45-
Minute Transit Commute

Figure 1A-12:

CalEnviroScreen 4.0
> 50% - 75% > 50% - 75% > 25% - 50% > 25% - 50% > 50% - 75% >75% - 100% Figure 1A-13:

Flood Hazard Zones
No Identified Risk Tiny area of .2%
Annual Chance
Flood Hazard
Tiny area of .2%
Annual Chance
Flood Hazard
No Identified
Risk
Tiny area of .2%
Annual Chance
Flood Hazard
Small area of .2%
Annual Chance
Flood Hazard
Figure 1A-14:

Overcrowded Units
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)

5.19% - 10%
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)

5.19% - 10%
Figure 1A-14:

Severely Overcrowded Units

< 2.5%

< 2.5%

2.5%-6.5%

< 2.5%

< 2.5%

< 2.5%
Figure 1A-15:

Overpayment by Renters
40% - 60% 20%-40% 40% - 60% 20%-40% 20%-40% 20%-40%

SECTION 1A-2: CONSTRAINTS

Figure 1A-16: Percentage of
Homeowners Overpaying

20%-40%

20%-40%

20%-40%

20%-40%

20%-40%

20%-40%
Figure 1A-17: Estimated
Displacement Risk
Lower
Displacement Risk
Lower
Displacement
Risk
Lower
Displacement Risk
Lower
Displacement
Risk
Lower
Displacement Risk
Lower
Displacement Risk

Characteristics Census Tract

9.01 Census Tract

9.02 Census Tract

10.01 Census Tract

10.02 Census Tract

10.03 Census Tract
11 Census Tract 12
Figure 1A-1
TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Areas
Low
Resource
Low Resource Highest
Resource
High
Segregation &
Poverty
Low Resource Low Resource Low Resource
Figure 1A-2:

Local Median Income
$35,000 -
$60,000
$35,000 -
$60,000
$60,000 -
$84,097
$35,000 -
$60,000
$60,000 -
$84,097
< $35,000 $60,000 -
$84,097
Figure 1A-3:

Poverty Status
30% - 40% 20% - 30% < 10% 30% - 40% < 10% 30% - 40% < 10% Figure 1A-4:

Local Racial Demographics
No Data
Applicable
No Data
Applicable
Low-Medium
Segregation
Low-Medium
Segregation
Low-Medium
Segregation
Low-Medium
Segregation
Low-Medium
Segregation
Figure 1A-5:

Local RCAAs
Not a RCAA Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Figure 1A-6:

Single Parent Female Headed
Households with Children

Less than 20%

Less than 20%

Less than 20%

20%-40%

Less than 20%

20%-40%

Less than 20%
Figure 1A-7: Population with
a Disability

10% - 20%

10% - 20%

10% - 20%

< 10%

< 10%

10% - 20%

10% - 20%
Figure 1A-10: Jobs Within 45-
Minute Transit Commute

Figure 1A-12:

CalEnviroScreen 4.0
>75% - 100% >75% - 100% >75% - 100% >75% - 100% >75% - 100% >75% - 100% >75% - 100% Figure 1A-13:

Flood Hazard Zones
No Identified
Risk
No Identified
Risk
No Identified
Risk
No Identified
Risk
No Identified
Risk
Small area of
.2% Annual
Chance Flood
Hazard
No Identified
Risk
Figure 1A-14: < 5.19% < 5.19%

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-78 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Overcrowded Units (Statewide
Average)

5.19% - 10% (Statewide
Average)
10% - 15% 10% - 15% 10% - 15% 5.19% - 10%
Figure 1A-14:

Severely Overcrowded Units

2.5%-6.5%

2.5%-6.5%

< 2.5%

6.5% - 12.5%

< 2.5%

2.5%-6.5%

< 2.5%
Figure 1A-15:

Overpayment by Renters
40% - 60% 40% - 60% 20%-40% 40% - 60% 20%-40% 40% - 60% 20%-40% Figure 1A-16: Percentage of
Homeowners Overpaying

40% - 60%

20%-40%

20%-40%

20%-40%

20%-40%

40% - 60%

20%-40%
Figure 1A-17: Estimated
Displacement Risk
At Risk of
Displacement
At Risk of
Displacement
Lower
Displacement
Risk
1 Income Group
Displacement
Lower
Displacement
Risk
At Risk of
Displacement
Lower
Displacement
Risk

Figure 23: City of Hanford Vacant Sites 6,000 Square Feet or Greater

Figure 24: City of Hanford and Unincorporated Area Vacant Land Inventory

City of Hanford Zoning
Vacant Sites 6,000 Square Feet or Greater
~ Ill
City of Hanford and Unincorporated Area
Vacant Land Inventory
....... ; , -···---~- ~
----+---- - -· ...
--
LEGEND
=:J Flood Zones
D Vacant Land 6,000 sq ft+
D eity Area
Parcels
Zoning
AP MX·N
• C·H 0
C· N • O·R
• C·R PF
• c-s • R·H
• co R-l-12
• l·H R-l·S
H R-l-8
. MX·C R· M
. MX-D
Map prepared by:

Madelison Faria
April 23, 2024
Kings count y community
DevelOpment Agency
HOOWLac.eyBlvd, Hanfonl, CA'l323'l
(s ~9}!1SN647
-;.... __ ;;;0·7c::5 __ _':1·~ iles
LEGEND
Vaca nt Land
Flood Zone
City Boundaries
~150nFa
S.,,Nf'l'lber1 2023
«"9c-a,,fyC-urilty

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-80 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Figure 25: Figure 24 with Census Tracts & Block Groups

Census Tract 6.03
Census Tract 6.03 consists of several vacant land sites. According to the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas map, this area is classified as Highest Resource with a local median income over $120,000. It is also identified as a Racial Concentration Area of Affluence and is a Lower Displacement Risk area. In addition, there is no identified risk in terms of the flood hazard zones. Prioritizing new housing development in this area can result in higher integration, varied income distribution and further choice for lower income households.

Census Tract 6.04
This tract is primarily made up of vacant land. This area is identified as Highest Resource with a local median income between $84,097 to $120,000. Additionally, it is identified as a Racial Concentration Area of Affluence and is Lower Displacement Risk. There is very little of .2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard. It is adjacent to Census Tract 6.03 which is also in the northwest of the City of Hanford. Prioritizing new housing development in this area can result in higher integration, varied income distribution and further choice for lower income households.

Census Tract 6.02
There is one site in this census tract. It is classified as a High Resource area with a local median income of $84,097 - $120,000. The area is identified as Low-Medium Segregation with no identified flood hazard risk and low environmental risk, >25% - 50%, measured by the CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Between 2.5% - 6.5% of households in this area experience severely overcrowded units.

City of Hanford and Unincorporated Area
Vacant Land Inventory
12 't
LEGEND
Vacant Land
Flood Zone
D City Boundaries
CJ Census Blocks
CJ Census Tracts
Happrcpari:dby­
Madditon Faria
A,H"il 23, 2024
tungs County Community
Dev,elOl)ment Agency
l <!OOWUtt;!lM:l , Nllnfari,,U.~12XI
,~)t~Z-264 1
____ __ _____c',,,.,.

Census Tract 7.01
There are only a few vacant land sites. This area is identified as High Resource with a local median income between $84,097 to $120,000. The tract is identified as Low-Medium Segregation and Lower Displacement Risk. The area has between 10% - 20% of the population experiencing poverty and 20% -40% of single parent female headed households with children. This area has no identified flood hazard risk. Between 20% - 40% of homeowners pay over a third of their income towards their housing needs.

Census Tract 7.02
Within this tract, there are only a few vacant land sites. This area is identified as High Resource with a local median income of $60,000-$84,097. The poverty status rate is less than 10% and is one of two Racially Integrated census tracts. It also has a higher rate of single parent female headed households with children, between 20% - 40%, and population with a disability, at 10% - 20%. It is also identified as an area with Lower Displacement Risk.

Census Tract 8
There are a few areas of vacant land in this tract which is identified as Low Resource with a Lower Displacement Risk. It is one of two census tracts identified as Racially Integrated. In comparison to the other census tracts in Hanford, it has a higher rate of overcrowded units at 5.19% - 10%. Since this tract is a Low Resource and there are other census tracts that could benefit more from new housing production, this area does not have to be a priority for development.

Census Tract 9.01
There are a few areas of vacant land in this tract. Census tract 9.01 is identified as a Low Resource area with a local median income of $35,000 - $60,000. This census tract has the highest percentage of poverty in the City of Hanford at 30% - 40% and is identified as At Risk of Displacement. There is no identified risk of flood hazard but is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%) according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 metrics. Census tract 9.01 has a high percentage of overpayment for both owners and renters, 40% - 60%. Between 2.5% - 6.5% of households in this area experience severely overcrowded units.

This area is less suitable for housing production than other census tracts that have more opportunity access and less environmental hazard.

Census Tract 9.02
There are very few vacant sites in this tract, which is identified as Low Resource and At Risk of Displacement. The local median income is $35,000 - $60,000. The poverty level in this area is between 20% - 30% but there is not data available regarding the local racial demographics in terms of integration and segregation. There is no identified flood risk but the environmental hazard level according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is >75% - 100%. This census tract has some of the highest levels of overpayment by renters at 40%-60%. There are other census tracts that can benefit from incentivizing housing production

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-82 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

because it offers more opportunities and has less displacement and environmental risk.

Census Tract 10.01
There are some large areas of vacant land in this tract. According to the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas map, this tract is identified as Highest Resource and Lower Displacement Risk. The local area median income is $60,000 to $84,097 with less than 10% of the population experiencing poverty. It is as identified as Low-Medium segregation. There is no identified risk of flood hazard but is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%) according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 metrics. It is an area identified as Lower Displacement Risk. It has similar rates of overpayment by renters and homeowners, 20% - 40%, which is lower than about half of the other census tracts in Hanford. Census Tract 10.01 is more suitable for housing production because it offers more access to resources and has less displacement risk than other areas.

Census Tract 10.02
There are several vacant sites in this census tract. Census tract 10.02 is the only tract in Hanford that is identified as a High Segregation & Poverty and 1 Income Group Displacement Risk. The local median income of the area is $35,000 - $60,000 where 30% - 40% of households experience poverty. This census tract is one of four census tracts that consists of a higher percentage of single parent female headed households with children, 20% - 40%, compared to the other 9 census tracts. Census Tract 10.02 consists of the most severely overcrowded units compared to all the other census tracts in Hanford. There is no identified risk of flood hazard but is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%) according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 metrics. Since this area has high poverty and segregation, production of moderate income and above units should be prioritized here to diversity the socio-economic conditions and provide proximity to transportation access.

Census Tract 10.03
There are large areas of vacant land in census tract 10.03. This area is identified as a Low Resource Area, Lower Displacement Risk with no identified risk of flood hazard but is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%). It consists of 10% - 15% of overcrowded units, which is higher than the statewide average which is less than 5.19%. It is one of three census tracts with rates that high, the other 10 census tracts have lower rates. On the other hand, it has some of the lowest rates of severely overcrowded units in Hanford, less than 2.5%. Additionally, this census tract also has some of the lowest rates of single parent female headed households with children and people with a disability. Multi-family units in this area at different price points can help reduce overcrowding and diversify the socio-economic conditions of the area.

Census Tract 11
This area is identified as a Low Resource Area and At Risk of Displacement. It is also identified as an area with Low-Medium Segregation. Census Tract 11 has the lowest median income compared to the other 12

census tracts in Hanford. The local median income in this area is less than $35,000 and one of the highest levels of households experiencing poverty, 30% - 40%. This census tract has more single parent female headed households with children and people with a disability than other census tracts, 10% - 20% and 10% - 20% respectively. In this census tract, there is a small area of 2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard and is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%) according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 metrics. It has high rates of homeowners and renters paying more than a third of their income to housing needs, both at rates between 40% -60%.

Census Tract 12
There are no vacant sites in this census tract. Census Tract 12 is identified as a Low Resource Area, Lower Displacement Risk with no identified risk of flood hazard but is in the highest category of environmental risk (75% - 100%). The local median income is $60,000 - $84,097. It is identified as a Low-Medium Segregation area. It is an area characterized by a higher rate of overcrowded units, 5.19% - 10%, than the statewide average of 5.19%. However, it has some of the lowest rates, less than 2.5%, of severely overcrowded units in comparison to other census tracts in Hanford. This census tract is one of eight census tracts that has a higher concentration of people with a disability than the other five census tracts that has less than 10% of the population with a disability.

Summary
The vacant land sites are concentrated in the northwest areas of Hanford that has insufficient data in the census tract or in the southwest and southeast portions of Hanford that are identified as Low-Medium Segregation areas. However, the northwest portions of Hanford are also areas that are identified as Highest Resource and with median household incomes above $84,097. Therefore, a concentration of sites in the northwest portion of Hanford to accommodate its RHNA allocation do not unduly burden existing areas of concentrated racial or ethnic homogeneity or poverty. The intent of introducing new residential development in these areas is to add new housing to desirable areas and provide a range of housing choices at different prices for current and future residents. With a broader range of housing options, housing will become more affordable across the community, which should lessen the housing cost burden, particularly for renters in Hanford.

Further, an emphasis on increasing access in primarily single-family neighborhoods through ADUs, SB 9units, and alternative housing types as discussed in the Housing Plan will increase opportunities in areas where single family neighborhoods coincide with higher-than-average income levels, areas of opportunity, and lower diversity.

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-84 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Contributing Factors

Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues

The December 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Guidebook published by HUD identifies examples of contributing factors by each fair housing issue area: outreach, fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disparities in access to opportunities for persons with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risks, and sites inventory.

The County supports the recommendations of the 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) that was prepared by the California Coalition for Rural Housing. The FHEA analyzes patterns in racial and economic segregation, discusses how segregation impacts individuals’ and families’ ability to access housing opportunity, and proposes strategies and recommendations to create more equitable and integrated communities.

Based on the issues identified in this Fair Housing Analysis, the following are the top 5 issues to be addressed through the programs in the Housing Plan:

1. Maintaining and preserving the existing affordable housing stock;

2. Assisting in the provision of housing;

3. Removing governmental constraints, as necessary;

4. Providing adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing; and

5. Promoting equal housing opportunity.

After considering these issues and FHEA recommendations, the County has identified in Table 37 potential contributing factors to fair housing issues in unincorporated Kings County and outlines the meaningful actions to be taken. The meaningful actions listed in the Table relate to the actions identified in the Housing Plan.

Table 37: Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues

AFH Identified Fair Housing
Issue

Contributing Factors
Priority
Meaningful Actions
Limitations in local
Consolidated Planning
Processes, ongoing CDBG and
HOME funding allocations,
Housing Elements Processes,
and other city planning
documents.

Existing low-density
residential
development under
general plan and
zoning code
Gap between low
density and medium
density and high-
density classification
High Program 3.9 Affordable
Housing Assistance:

Through direct financial
assistance such as CDBG
and HOME, priority
entitlement processing,
regulatory incentives such as
density bonus and modified
development standards,
Assist in the provision of
housing by removing
government constraints and
promoting equal housing
opportunity

Limitations in zoning
code and density
classifications
Permission of pre-
approved design, and
development standards
High Program 3.9 Affordable
Housing Assistance

Programs 3.8 Section 8
Rental Assistance

Program 3.10 Farmworker
and Employee Housing

Program 3.11 Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing

Program 3.12 Housing for
Persons with Disabilities

Funding for marginalized or
distressed communities, such as
Transit Oriented Development
Funds, Strategic Growth
Council grants, HCD's
Housing-Related Parks
Program, Safe Routes to
School, and Brownfield
funding.

Ensuring funding is
available for
marginalized and
distressed community
High Research, identify, and
apply for funds available
through the CDBG and
HOME Programs, Mobile
home Park Rehabilitation
and Resident Ownership
Program (MPRROP),
United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Cap-
and-Trade Program, and
other funding sources that
support affordable housing
development and
preservation, infrastructure
investment, energy
efficiency, homeownership,
code enforcement,
farmworker housing, etc.

Program 3.7 First-Time

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-86 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Homebuyer Program

Program 3.8 Section 8
Rental Assistance

Program 3.14 Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and promote affordable
housing by facilitating
mixed-use, higher density
and infill development near
transit stops, existing
community centers,
downtown
Provide guidance for site
selection of affordable housing
developments.

Housing Element
identifies adequate sites
to accommodate the
City’s share of the
Regional Housing Needs
Allocation of 5,547 units
High Program 3.4 Adequate Sites:

Adequate sites are those with
sufficient development and
density standards, water and
sewer services, and adequate
infrastructure.

Develop a program to educate
and encourage landlords to
accept Housing Choice
Vouchers.

Lack of readily available
information regarding fair
housing resources and
assistance to persons in
filing a complaint

Lack of education of
public and housing
providers regarding rights
and responsibilities under
the AFH and FEHA
High Program 3.13 Promote Equal
Housing Opportunities

Develop and implement a
proactive code enforcement
program that holds property
owners accountable and
proactively plans for resident
relocation when necessary.

Code enforcement High Program 3.1 Code
Compliance, 3.2 Housing
Rehabilitation Program,
Disproportionate Housing
Needs, including Overpayment
and Substandard Housing

Ongoing need for
affordable housing

Need for assistance with
monthly housing costs

Lack of local information
regarding available
housing rehabilitation,
emergency repair, and
weatherization programs

Need for targeted
housing revitalization
strategies
Medium Program 3.8 Section 8 Rental
Assistance Program

Program 3.11 Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing

Program 3.10 Farmworker
and Employee Housing

Program 3.12 Housing for
Persons with Disabilities

Use design tools to seamlessly
integrate affordable housing
development into larger mixed-
income developments.

Limitations in zoning
code and density
classifications ·

Approval process
Medium Program 3.5 Density Bonus
Program

Program 3.6 Planned Unit
Development
Displacement Risk Land use and zoning laws

Displacement of residents
due to economic
pressures
Medium
Program 3.3 Preservation of
At-Risk Affordable Housing

APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD

1A-88 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Kings County Lemoore Corcoran Hanford Avenal Kings (Unincorporated)
• • • • •

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Draft - July 2024

Prepared By:

Realty Planners Group
Fallbrook, California

Kings County Lemoore Corcoran Hanford Avenal Kings (Unincorporated)

Gtyof

LEMOORE

CALIFORNIA
• • • • •

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1A-ii KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COUNTY OF KINGS
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ........................................................ 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 Outreach ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues ........................................................................................... 7 Sites Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 53 Contributing Factors .................................................................................................................. 61

SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-iii

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT TABLES
Table 1: Kings County Household Population Growth, 1990-2020 .................................................... 8 Table 2: Fair Housing Compliance City of Lemoore......................................................................... 10 Table 4: Population by Race by Hispanic Origin Over Time (Simplified) .......................................... 13 Table 5: Household Income Distribution by Tenure ......................................................................... 17 Table 7: Total Households in Poverty .............................................................................................. 20 Table 8: Percent of Households in Poverty Over Time .................................................................... 20 Table 9: Lower Income Households Overpaying by Tenure (City) ................................................... 21 Table 10: Household Characteristics ............................................................................................... 21 Table 11: Household type by tenure ................................................................................................ 20 Table 12: Households by Size ......................................................................................................... 20 Table 13: Tenure by Household Size .............................................................................................. 21 Table 14: Household type by tenure ................................................................................................ 29 Table 15: Household Tenure and Vacancy Rates ........................................................................... 34 Table 16: Travel Time to Work ........................................................................................................ 37 Table 17: Overcrowding by Tenure .................................................................................................. 42 Table 18: Household Overpayment by Tenure ................................................................................ 43 Table 19: Homeless Persons .......................................................................................................... 47 Table 20: Shelter Facilities in Kings County .................................................................................... 48 Table 21: Leading Agricultural Crops, Kings County........................................................................ 49 Table 22: Agricultural Employment by Jurisdiction .......................................................................... 50 Table 23: Hired Farm Labor-Workers, Kings County ....................................................................... 51 Table 24: Kings RHNA 2024-2032 by Income Level ........................................................................ 54 Table 25: Potential New Dwelling Units by Zone ............................................................................. 56 Table 26: Characteristics by City of Lemoore Census Tracts .......................................................... 59 Table 27: Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues ..................................................................... 61

FIGURES
Figure 1: Local Racial Demographics by Tract ................................................................................. 15 Figure 2: Local Median Income (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT ........................................................... 18 Figure 3: COG Geography TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2023 ..................................................... 19 Figure 4: Poverty Status (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT ..................................................................... 23 Figure 5: Local RCAAs .................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 6: Single-Parent Female-Headed Households with Children .................................................. 26 Figure 7: Population with a Disability ................................................................................................ 28 Figure 8: Kings County All Transit Performance Score ..................................................................... 32 Figure 9: Kings County High Quality Transit Stops and Transit Area (1/2 mile) ............................... 33 Figure 10: Employment by Industry of Kings County Workforce ...................................................... 35 Figure 11: High Quality transit stops and transit area (1/2 Mile) & Jobs within 45-minute transit commute. ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 12: School districts in Kings County ..................................................................................... 38 Figure 13: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 & high-quality transit stops (Transit area ½ mile) ........................... 40 Figure 14: Flood Hazard Zones........................................................................................................ 41 Figure 15: Overcrowding in Kings County ........................................................................................ 44 Figure 16: Overpayment by renters (ACS, 2017-2021) – Tract Level………………………………………XX
Figure 17: Percentage of Homeowners Overpaying ......................................................................... 46 Figure 18: Estimated displacement risk – Overall displacement by tract .......................................... 52 Figure 19: City of Lemoore and Surrounding Unincorporated Area Vacant Land Inventory ............. 57 Figure 20: City of Lemoore Vacant Sites 6,000 Square Feet or Greater .......................................... 59

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-4

SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-5

LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Introduction
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”1
California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires local jurisdictions to analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. Although this is the Housing Element for the County of Kings, Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10) requires all local jurisdictions to address patterns locally and regionally to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region. This section is organized by fair housing topics strategies to address the identified issues . Through discussions with housing service providers, fair housing advocates, and this assessment of fair housing issues, the County of Kings identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues.

The AFFH analysis must contain the following:

1. Outreach

2. Assessment of Fair Housing
a. Key Data and Background Information
b. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
c. Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
d. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty e. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
f. Disproportional Housings Needs
g. Displacement Risk

3. Sites Inventory

4. Identification

1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (April 2021 Update), April 27, 2021, preface page, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf.

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-6

Outreach
a) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
State law requires local governments to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation in three formal community meetings to initiate the Housing Element. To that end, each jurisdiction has provided opportunities for residents, interested parties, and local officials to participate in the update process and offer recommendations regarding housing needs and strategies to address those needs.

The public participation process for this Housing Element involved four major stages:

1. Public workshops and meetings in each of the four cities and the unincorporated County during the preparation of the Draft Housing Element.

2. Publication of the Draft Housing Element and subsequent review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

3. Revisions to the Housing Element to address comments from HCD and publication of a revised Draft Housing Element.

4. Public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council of each city and the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of Kings County prior to adoption of the final Housing Element.

b) CITY OF LEMOORE WEBSITE

City of Lemoore website ( https://lemoore.com/departments/community-development#/) serves as the main conduit of information for individuals who can access material online. The website is regularly updated to reflect ongoing community input opportunities, advertise draft housing element, and answer commonly asked questions. The website includes the following information:
• Upcoming meeting information
• Environmental Studies and Impact Reports
• Notices of Public Hearings
• Links to Housing Element and other Planning Documents

c) GENERAL MULTI-LINGUAL ADVERTISEMENTS

The City utilized a variety of methods to advertise the project, engage the community, and solicit input on the Housing Element (including fair housing analysis). These efforts are summarized herein to demonstrate the City’s meaningful commitment to community collaboration. The city has prepared workshop flyers (in English and Spanish), and sent emails to stakeholders requesting involvement and providing flyers and outreach information in English and Spanish.

SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-7

d) COMMUNITY MEETING

The City of Lemoore held a public workshop during a City Council meeting on November 7th, 2023 at 5:30 pm. Several members of the community were present in the audience. During the workshop presentation, city staff and consultants provided a description of the Housing Element adoption process and timelines for adoption. Consultants and city staff also provided information on 6 th cycle RHNA allocations as well as a
timeline for HCD certification.

Assessment of Fair Housing Issues

This section provides an overview of available federal, state, and local data to analyze fair housing issues in the City of Lemoore. This data is supplemented with local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more accurate depiction of fair housing issues in Hanford, and a more informed perspective from which to base goals, policies, and programs to affirmatively further fair housing. The following issues are addressed:

a) Key Data and Background Information
b) Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
c) Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
d) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty e) Disparities in Access to Opportunity
f) Disproportionate Housing Needs
g) Displacement Risk

A) KEY DATA AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Kings County is located within the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley, with Fresno County to the north and west, Tulare County to the east, and Kern County to the south. Created in 1893, Kings County was carved from the western portion of Tulare County and later added another 100 square miles. The Kings River, from which the County derives its name, runs along the northern edges and flows south towards the center of the County. Historically, this river flowed farther south to what was once Tulare Lake. Kings County is comprised of four cities (Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore), four unincorporated community service areas (Armona, Home Garden, Kettleman City, and Stratford), and a few other smaller community pockets. Agriculture remains the predominant landscape of Kings County, with approximately 84% of its land area used for agriculture.

Lemoore, incorporated on July 4, 1900, is a city in Kings County, located 7.5 miles (12 km) west-southwest of Hanford and is home to the Naval Air Station Lemoore, a master jet base housing F -18 and F -35 squadrons assigned to the Pacific fleet. Between the decades of 1990 and 2020, as shown in Table 2- 1 of the Housing Element, Lemoore had the highest population increase (98.5%) among the four cities in the county from 1990 to 2020.

Table 1A-1: Kings County Household Population Growth, 1990- 2020 presents the growth in household populations within Kings County, specifically focusing on the period from 1990 to 2020. The table breaks down this growth with particular attention to Lemoore. For Lemoore, the household population in 1990 was 13,606, which increased to 19,710 in 2000, 24,514 in 2010, and reached 27,014 in 2020. This represents a

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-8 significant increase of 13,408 people over the 30-year period, equating to a 98.5% growth in population. In comparison, the total household population of Kings County was 89,469 in 1990. This figure grew to 109,332 in 2000, then to 131,402 in 2010, and finally to 136,964 in 2020. The county's overall growth was 47,495 persons, which is a 53.10% increase over the same 30 years. The table highlights the substantial population growth in Lemoore, which significantly outpaced the overall growth rate of Kings County, indicating a major demographic shift in the area over these three decades. Overall, though according to DOF2 Kings County is projected to reach approximately 153,400 by the year 2030, an increase of 12% over the 2020 estimate.

Table 1: Kings County Household Population Growth, 1990-2020

Jurisdiction
Household Population Change 1990-2020
1990 2000 2010 2020 Persons %
City of Lemoore 13,606 19,710 24,514 27,014 13,408 98.5% County Totals 89,469 109,332 131,402 136,964 47,495 53.10%

Note: All numbers exclude persons in group quarters (State prisons and Naval Air station Lemoore); Sources: Census 1990, 2000, 2010; Cal.DOF, , E5 and E8 Population and Housing Estimates.

The City of Lemoore is committed to providing an environment to meet the housing needs of the community. Lemoore evaluated the 5 th Cycle Housing Program Evaluation for 2014 to 2024. The following are some of its accomplishments as shown in Appendix A. • 4.1 Code Enforcement: City staff continued to work with property owners to remedy issues and assisted the Business License division, Planning and Building departments, and the Fire Department to enforce state and local regulations.
• 4.2 Housing Rehabilitation Program: Using HOME funds, the city of Lemoore assisted lower- income households with rehabilitation based on available funds. • 4.5 Planned Unit Developments: The City promoted the benefits of PUD alternatives to traditional development.
• 4.6 First Time Homebuyer Program: The City offered first -time home ownership assistance to very-low income homebuyers through HOME funding.
• 4.7 Section 8 Rental Assistance Program: The city continued to assist Kings County Housing Authority in promoting the section 8 program.
• 4.8 Affordable Housing Assistance: The City followed the surplus land act process and sold 4+ acres for a 108-unit affordable housing project. The City was also a co-applicant with the developer and Kings Area Rural Transit in applying for AHSC funds to improve infrastructure including sidewalks and bike lanes, and EV bus transportation. • 4.9: Senior and Special Needs Housing: The City has been supportive of special needs housing including affordable senior housing, housing, rehabilitation of units and development of second units to support special housing needs. The City supported the development of the Cinnamon Villas II Senior Housing project consisting of 28 units.

2 California, Department of Finance, P-4 Report, Population Projections for California Counties 2015-2030, March 2015

SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-9 • 4.10: Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing: The Zoning Code was amended and follows state law. Transitional and supportive housing are considered residential uses and are permitted in most zones subject to the same requirements as other r esidential uses in that zone. Emergency shelters are allowed by right in the Community Facilities zone subject to development standards.
• 4.11: Employee and Farmworker Housing: The City completed objectives consisting of processing a Zoning Code amendment, assisting developers, and providing regulatory incentives concerning farmworker housing.
• 4.13: Promote Equal Housing Opportunities: The City referred fair housing questions and complaints to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing office in Fresno. Information on fair housing was posted in public offices and on the City website..

The City supports the recommendations of the 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) that was prepared by the California Coalition for Rural Housing. The FHEA analyzes patterns in racial and economic segregation, discusses how segregation impacts individuals’ and families’ ability to access housing opportunity, and proposes strategies and recommendations to create more equitable and integrated communities. Some of the recommendations include:

Use the data and findings in the FHEA document to guide local Consolidated Planning Processes, ongoing CDBG and HOME funding allocations, Housing Elements Processes, and other city planning documents:
1) Actively seek funding for marginalized or distressed communities, such as Transit Oriented Development Funds, Strategic Growth Council grants, HCD's Housing- Related Parks Program, Safe Routes to School, and Brownfield funding. 2) Develop and implement a proactive code enforcement program that holds property owners accountable and proactively plans for resident relocation when necessary. 3) Consider new technologies and/or products such as modular housing construction to reduce costs and increase access to housing.
4) Prioritize basic infrastructure improvements like water, sewer, and street lights. 5) Support acquisition and rehabilitation programs to combat vacant or blighted properties. 6) Use the FHEA data and the opportunity indices to help guide site selection of affordable housing developments.
7) Use design tools to seamlessly integrate affordable housing development into larger mixed- income developments.
8) Develop a program to educate and encourage landlords to accept Housing Choice Vouchers.

The availability of adequate and affordable housing to meet the needs of current and future residents is an important housing goal. To accomplish this goal, a comprehensive assessment of housing needs provides the basis for developing responsive policies and programs.

B) FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT OUTREACH CAPACITY

Equal access to housing is fundamental to each person being able to meet essential needs and to pursuing personal, educational, employment, or other goals. In recognition of equal housing access as a fundamental right, the governments of the United States and the State of California have both established fair housing as a right protected by law. Federal fair housing laws prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental, lease, or negotiation

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-10 for real property based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability. The California fair housing laws are built upon the federal laws and add marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, and “any arbit rary factor” as protected categories under the laws. Many factors in the public and private domains impede equal access to housing or fair housing choice. Impediments to fair housing choice are:

• Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or • Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor. To affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity, a community must work to remove or mitigate impediments to fair housing choice. The City of Hanford is dedicated to providing fair housing opportunities to all residents and to ensure that all applicable laws are complied with throughout the city

The City of Lemoore provides resources and programs to address fair housing concerns. Below is a table that discusses laws and compliance regarding fair housing. Further discussion of programs is found in the Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element and in the Contributing Factors section of this AFFH report.

Table 2: Fair Housing Compliance City of Lemoore

Law Description Compliance
California Fair
Employment and
Housing Act
(FEHA)
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
applies to public and private employers, labor
organizations and employment agencies and
prohibits discrimination in housing and
employment on the basis of protected
characteristics.

The FEHA prohibits those engaged in the
housing business –
landlords, real estate
agents, home sellers, builders, mortgage
lenders, among others – from discriminating
against tenants or homeowners based on
protected characteristics.

It is also illegal for cities, counties, or other local government
agencies to make zoning or land-use
decisions, or have policies, that discriminate against
individuals based on those traits.

The city complies with employment
requirements through strict enforcement
of hiring practices and regular training of
hiring managers and human resources
staff.

All development projects with City
funding are required to comply with
FEHA.

Under the Community Development
Block Grant Program, the City of
Hanford’s Community Development
Department operates a Fair Housing
Program under Title VIII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968 aimed at combating
illegal discrimination in housing.

The City of Hanford is working to identify
community development priorities, fair and
affordable housing needs, and factors that
shape equal access to housing for
incorporation into the City’s 5- Year
Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, &
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice.

Government Code
Section 65008
Covers actions of a city, county, city and county,
or other local government agency, and makes
those actions null and void if the action denies an
individual or group of individuals the enjoyment
of residence, landownership, tenancy, or other
land use in the state because of membership in a
Compliance is achieved by uniform
application of the City’s codes,
regulations, policies and practices,
including development standards, design
guidelines, application submittal
requirements, fees and approval findings.

SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-11 protected class, the method of financing, and/or the
intended occupancy.

For example, a violation under Government Code
section 65008 may occur if a jurisdiction applied
more scrutiny to reviewing and approving an
affordable development as compared to market-rate
developments, or multifamily housing as
compared to single family homes.

Hanford supports the recommendations of the
San
Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity
Assessment and cooperates with the State in
the development of the Assessment of Fair
Housing
Government Code
Section 8899.50
Requires all public agencies to administer programs
and activities relating to housing and community
development in a manner to affirmatively further
fair housing and avoid any action that is materially
inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively
further fair housing.

Compliance is achieved through
consultations with community stakeholders
and support agencies as part of program
evaluation and funding decisions.

Government Code
Section 11135 et
seq.

Requires full and equal access to all programs and
activities operated, administered, or funded with
financial assistance from the state, regardless of
one’s membership or perceived membership in a
protected class.

Compliance is achieved through
promotion/availability of activities and
programs to all persons of all backgrounds
to participate equally in community
programs and activities.

Housing
Accountability Act
(Gov. Code, §
65589.5.)
Provides that a local agency shall not disapprove a
housing development project, for very low, low -,
or moderate-income households, or an emergency
shelter, or condition approval in a manner that
renders the housing development project infeasible
for development for the use of very low, low -, or
moderate-income households, or an emergency
shelter, including through the use of design review
standards, unless it makes certain written findings,
based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the
record.

Compliance is achieved through the
development review process consistent with
the Housing Accountability Act.

Additionally, the city continually reviews its
development standards and t o ensure they
facilitate an objective and equitable review
of applicable projects.

XX
Excessive
Subdivision
Standards (Gov.

Code, § 65913.2.)
Provides that, in exercising its authority to
regulate subdivisions a city, county, or city and
county shall:
a) Refrain from imposing criteria for
design, as defined in Section 66418, or
improvements, as defined in Section
66419, for the purpose of rendering
infeasible the development of housing
for any and all economic segments of
the community. However, nothing in
this section shall be construed to
enlarge or diminish the authority of a
city, county, or city and county under
other provisions of law to permit a
developer to construct such housing.
b) Consider the effect of ordinances
adopted and actions taken by it with
respect to the housing needs of the
region in which the local jurisdiction is
situated.
c) Refrain from imposing standards and
criteria for public improvements
including, but not limited to, streets,
sewers, fire
stations, schools, or parks,
which exceed the standards and criteria
being applied by the city, county, or
city and county at that time to its
Compliance is achieved through the
implementation of a fair and equitable
development review process which is
administrated consistent with the Excessive
Subdivision Standards Act.

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-12 publicly financed improvements
located in similarly zoned districts
within that city, county, or city and
county.

Housing Element
Law (Gov. Code, §
65583, esp. subds.
(c)(5), (c)(10).)
Section 65583 stipulates that the housing element
shall consist of an identification and analysis of
existing and projected housing needs and a
statement of goals, policies, quantified
objectives, financial resources, and scheduled
programs for the preservation, improvement,
and development of housing. The housing
element shall identify adequate sites for
housing, including rental housing, factory-built
housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters,
and shall make adequate provision for the existing
and projected needs of all economic segments of
the community.

Subdivision (c)(5) provides that, in order to make
adequate provision for the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community, the
program shall promote and affirmatively further
fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for
all persons regardless of race, religion, sex,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, color,
familial status, or disability,
and other
characteristics protected by the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
(commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3
of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and
federal fair housing and planning law.

Compliance is achieved through preparation
and adoption of a Housing Element found to
be in substantial compliance with State
Housing Element law by the California
Department of Housing and Community
Development.

C) INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION PATTERNS AND TRENDS

To inform priorities, policies, and actions, an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics. Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area. Conversely, integration refers to a condition in which there is a not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area. The following analysis will analyze levels of segregation and integration for race and ethnicity, persons with disabilities, familial status, age, and income to identify the groups in Lemoore that experience the highest levels of segregation. Minorities are often concentrated in impoverished areas and lack access to resources such as jobs, educational opportunities, life services and face other disadvantages.

Racial Demographics
The Table 1A-3 presents a comparison of the racial and ethnic composition between Lemoore and Kings County.

It reveals that in Lemoore, 56.0% of the population is not Hispanic or Latino, with 38.5% being White, 5.7% Black or African American, 0.2% American Indian/Alaska Native, 7.4% Asian, 0.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 4.1% from other races or identifying with two or more races. In contrast, Kings County has 45.10% of its population not identifying as Hispanic or Latino, with a breakdown showing 31.60% White, 5.90% Black

SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-13 or African American, 0.80% American Indian/Alaska Native, 3.60% Asian, 0.10% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 3.20% from other races or two or more races. Additionally, Hispanic, or Latino individuals of any race make up 44.0% of Lemoore's population and 54.90% in Kings County.

From 2010 to 2020, the White Alone Non-Hispanic population decreased by 14.3% while the Hispanic or Latino of Any Race population increased by 32.1%. The Asian Alone Non Hispanic population increased by 14.4%.

Although the City of Lemoore has a large Hispanic or Latino population at 44%, it is approximately 10% smaller in comparison to Kings County. Additionally, a lthough 7.4% is a small share out of 100%, the City of Lemoore’s Asian population is double the Kings County average.

Table 3: Race and Ethnicity

Racial /Ethnic Group City of Lemoore Kings County
Not Hispanic
or Latino 56.0% 45.10%
White 38.5% 31.60%
Black or
African American 5.7% 5.90%
American Indian/
Alaska Native 0.2% 0.80%
Asian 7.4% 3.60%
Native Hawaiian
/Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.10%
Other races or
2+ races 4.1% 3.20%
Hispanic or Latino
(any race) 44.0% 54.90%
Total 100% 100%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B03002

Table 4: Population by Race by Hispanic Origin Over Time (Simplified) 2000 2010 2020
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 6,013 9,820 12,971
White Alone Non-Hispanic 9,674 10,068 8,630
Black or African American Alone Non-Hispanic 1,373 1,450 1,487 American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic 217 200 234 Asian Alone Non-Hispanic 1,607 1,924 2,202
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone Non-
Hispanic 62 89 97
Some Other Race Non-Hispanic 35 47 133
Two or More Races Non-Hispanic 731 933 1,284
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, 2010; Social Explorer Table for Census 2020.

Gini Index
The Gini index is a measure of the extent to which the distribution of income among families/households within a community deviate from a perfect equal distribution. The scale is from 0 to 1, with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing the highest poss ible level of inequality. The Gini coefficient for California is 0.49

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-14 and .41 for Kings County. Lemoore’s Gini coefficient is .39. The City of Lemoore and Kings County has a similar amount of inequality in terms of distribution of income among households.

SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-15

Figure 1: Local Racial Demographics by Tract
\
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD); OBI, 2020 2 KI NGS CO UNTY

4.03 ,4.05 ,,
.-
9800
1 ...,
s:t
Grangevill e
5 Arm ona
□
Leu,,11d
CJ C.Cnsus li·ac.t Bounda1y
U L~ iu Kinys Cour1ly
C) Avcnal
C) corooran
CJ Ha11lo1d
CJ Lernoo,~
I City Bounda~es
CJ CAooun ty
IW<.iiJI ~ lt:!9'-llio11jl 11lt!ylUlior1 (Ot:H, :.!020) lrm.:l No Data Applicable to 2021 Census Tract
Boundary
I Roclally l nte.<Jrated
L_ Low-Medium Segregat ion
L_ I lioh POC S"')r-tion
I I llgh Whit• S<>(Jr"(Jallo n

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE
1A-16 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Income Distribution
The City of Lemoore consists of 6 census tracts and is the third most populous city Kings County. Highway 198 runs east through the City, while Highway 41 runs north through the city.

Along with housing prices and rents, household income is the most important factor affecting housing opportunities within Kings County. Housing choices such as tenure (owning versus renting), housing type, and location are dependent on household income. On the other hand, however, household size and type often affect the proportion of income that can be spent on housing. According to the ACS 2016-2020 Table S1901, the median household income for the entire County was reported as $61,556.

In general, the City of Lemoore’s median household income is $68,658, above the county average of $61,556 according to the Census ACS 2016- 2020 Table S1901; s uggesting that Lemoore's residents earn on average

11.5% more than the broader Kings County population. The City of Lemoore’s median household income is higher than City of Hanford, City of Corcoran, and City of Avenal. In contrast, when Lemoore's median income is measured against the state of California's median, which is $78,672, it falls short by 12.7%, demonstrating that Lemoore's median household income is below the state average. These figures highlight a disparity within the local and state economic landscape, with Lemoore sitting above the median of its county, yet below California's overall median income levels.

As seen in Figure 1A-2, the majority of the City of Lemoore has varied income ranges with eastern regions consisting of income between $35,000 - $60,000. The western regions consist of income ranges of $60,000 - $84,097 with a small portion towards the west consists of a tract with median household income of $84,097 - $120,000. The City of Lemoore’s workforce consists of a larger proportion that participate in “white-collar” jobs when compared to other counties such as Corcoran and Avenal that consists of lower median incomes as a larger proportion of the workforce participates in more "blue collar jobs".

Although median household income is a common benchmark for comparison, the distribution of household income also provides a useful measure of housing needs in a community. In housing analysis, households are typically grouped into categories, expressed rel ative to the Area Median Income (AMI) and adjusted for family size. Using State of California income thresholds, the income groups analyzed were as follows:

• Extremely low income: Up to 30% of AMI
• Very low income: 31-50% of AMI
• Low income: 51-80% of AMI
• Moderate income: 81-120% of AMI
• Upper income: Above 120% of AMI
Table 5 estimates the percentage of households by tenure within each income category in each jurisdiction as reported in HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the Census ACS 2014-2018. Countywide, almost one-quarter (24%) of owner households were in the lower -income category (80% or less than the AMI --extremely-low, very-low, and low incomes), while over one-half (55%) of renter households were in the lower-income category.

In the City of Lemoore more than 75% of owners belonged to the upper -income category while the renters were mostly distributed in the moderate income and lower income categories with a significant 35% in the upper income category as well. As witnessed at t he county and city levels, renters experience a higher

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-17 APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

proportion of lower-income households.

Table 5: Household Income Distribution by Tenure

Income Category Lemoore Kings County
Owners
<= 30% 5.3% 5.50%
>30% to <=50% 4.4% 7.30%
>50% to <=80% 8.3% 11.00%
>80% to <=100% 7.0% 8.60%
>100% 75.0% 67.50%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
Renters
<= 30% 11.5% 17.70%
>30% to <=50% 16.4% 14.60%
>50% to <=80% 18.8% 22.80%
>80% to <=100% 18.4% 11.40%
>100% 35.0% 33.50%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census ACS 2014-2018

In the City of Lemoore, much like in Kings County and California, there are income disparities when comparing race and ethnicity. Before examining the physical concentration of resources, integration, and segregation in Hanford, this discussion will cover local median household income, pover ty status, extremely low -income households.

The White Alone Non- Hispanic and Asian Alone Non- Hispanic earn the highest median household incomes , $77,953 and $74, 167. The Black or African American Alone Non- Hispanic median household income is approximately $15,000 less than White Alone Non- Hispanic and Asian Alone Non- Hispanic earners. The Hispanic or Latino of Any Race median household income is $56,311, significantly lower than $77,953 median household income earned by White Alone Non- Hispanic demographic. The S ome Other Race Alone Non- Hispanic and American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Non- Hispanic demographic have the lowest median household income, $53,281 and $44,507.

Table 6: Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic
Origin

City of
Lemoore
Kings
County California
White Alone Non-Hispanic $77,953 $74,918 $90,496
Black Or African American Alone Non-Hispanic $61,510 $56,076 $54,976 American Indian And Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic $44,507 $44,842 $60,182 Asian Alone Non-Hispanic $74,167 $80,530 $101,380
Native Hawaiian And Other Pacific Islander Alone Non-Hispanic $98,864 $81,682 Some Other Race Alone Non-Hispanic $53,281 $47,592 $59,287 Two Or More Races Non-Hispanic $72,188 $76,733
Hispanic Or Latino of Any Race $56,311 $49,373 $62,330
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B19013.

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE
1A-18 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Figure 2: Local Median Income (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. ACS 5yr estimates (2017-2021). Updated: March 2023.

1 2
Grangev ill e
5 r4.05 ,
9800

16.01 l.eqend
Median Hous.E!hold :r-.co1lE rl i>ail : 2 -lCf'lths ( intlatior..-ad}us:b;,d to 2021) L__J c: S35,000
[=:J $3S,OOO - $,GO,000
- $6-0.000 -184,097
- $84,Wi - -il20,000
- :~ $120,000
~ Clty 11nun,,:;1rP-~
f=ii ccro..s --i;:ia Boond,;iry
Cities in kings Coor.ti,
l=a h·Mki'l
c:::::::J Cvtw rc111
c::::::::I H.inford
c::::::::J LY ltXI~

1A-19
APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

Figure 3: COG Geography TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2023

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), Updated Jan 2023. 2 9800
Legend
~ City Boundaries
':.:: :• CA <oonty selection
C=1 Cansus Tract Bounda tjl
Citi:S in Kings Count','
C=:J Avenal
c=:l Corcoran
l=::J Hanford
c::::::J Lemoore
- Highest Resourea
- High Reoource
Moderate Resource
L¢w REGour¢e
HiQh Segreg ation & Po•1ertf
Missing/Jnsuffici@nt Data

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEEMORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-20

Poverty Status

In 2021, Kings County, California, experienced varying levels of poverty across different regions. According to Table 7, below, 13.1% of households in Kings County are in poverty, 4.1% higher than California.

The City of Lemoore’s poverty rate is 10.3%. As seen in Figure 2, Census tracts reveal the percentage of the population in the last 12 months whose income is below poverty level. Lemoore’s largest census tract displays poverty rates below up to 10% except for the central tracts which showcase poverty rates between 10-20%.

Notably, the household poverty rate from 2010 to 2015 increased by around 1.3% ; while the total households in Lemoore increased by 364 households, and the number of households in poverty increased by 114 households.

Then from 2015 to 2020, the household poverty rate and the number of households in poverty decreased even as the total number of households increased from 6,077 to 6,591 households.

Table 7: Total
Households in Poverty

City of
Lemoore Percent Kings
County Percent California Percent
Income Below Poverty Level 681 10.3% 4,464 13.1% 806,599 9.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B17019.

Table 8: Percent of Households in Poverty Over
Time

2010 2015 2020
Income in the Past 12 Months Below Poverty Level 614 728 681 Total Households 5,713 6,077 6,591
Percent of Households in Poverty 10.7% 12.0% 10.3%
Percent Change 6.4% 8.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B17019.

Section 8 assistance is administered by Kings County Housing Authority.

Extremely Low-Income Households

In 2006, state law was amended (Assembly Bill 2634) to add the extremely low -income (ELI) category (up to 30% AMI) to the required analysis of household characteristics and housing growth needs. Due to their limited incomes, these households have greatest difficulty finding suitable housing at an affordable price . Table 11 estimates the percentage of households by tenure within each income category in each jurisdiction as reported in HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the Census ACS 2014-2018.

Countywide, almost one-quarter (24%) of owner households were in the lower -income category (80% or less than the AMI --extremely -low, very-low, and low incomes), while over one -half (55%) of renter households were in the lower -income category. The City of Lemoore has about 5.3% of extremely low -income category owners and 11.5% percent of extremely low-income category renters.

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

1A-21

As Table 9 shows, in Lemoore over half of owner-occupied lower income households face a cost burden of over 51%. Renter occupied lower income households face a cost burden of approximately 82%. Extremely low- income households have high rates of overpayment. Owners in other income categories overpay for housing at rates between 41.8% to 69.7%. These high rates indicate that there is less affordable housing choice for low and extremely low-income households. Further discussion on overpayment can be found in t he Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk section.

Table 9: Lower Income Households
Overpaying by Tenure (City)

Owner
Occupied
Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Renter
Occupied Total Total
Cost Burden > 30% 544 69.7% 1,610 82.6% 2,150 78.8%
Cost Burden >50% 400 51.3% 815 41.8% 1,215 44.5%
Total Lower Income Households 780 1,950 2,730
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2014-18 (5-Year Estimates)

Familial Status
A household refers to the people occupying a home, such as a family, a single person, or unrelated persons living together. Families often prefer single-family homes or condominiums to accommodate children, while single people generally occupy smaller apartments or condominiums. Single-person households often include seniors or young adults. Table 10 displays household composition by community as reported by the Census ACS 2015- 2020. Families comprised approximately 78% of all households within Kings County.

Countywide, the proportion of single households (male and females living alone) was approximately 17%.

Table 10: Household Characteristics

Age Group Lemoore Kings County
Total Households 8,803 43,604
Family Households 74.9% 78.30%
With own children under 18 years 37.6% 41.30%
Married/Cohabiting Couples 60.3% 61.20%
With own children under 18 years 28.0% 32.20%
Male Householder, no spouse/partner present 19.5% 16.20% With own children under 18 years 2.9% 2.40%
Living Alone 12.0% 8.30%
Age 65+ 3.1% 2.50%
Female Householder, no spouse/partner present 20.2% 22.60% With own children under 18 years 6.7% 6.80%
Living Alone 8.5% 8.80%
Age 65+ 3.8% 4.70%
Nonfamily Households 25.1% 21.70%
Average Household Size 2.94 3.14
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Tables DP-2, B11012, and S1101 As reflected in the table, the City of Lemoore contains a total of 8,803 households, with family households

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEEMORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-22

constituting 74.9% slightly lower than Kings County's 78.3%. Within these family households, 37.6% have children under 18 years, compared to 41.3% in Kings County. Married or cohabiting couples represent 60.3% of Lemoore's households, with 28.0% of these households including children under 18, which is less than the corresponding 32.2% in Kings County. In Lemoore, male householders without a spouse or partner make up a higher proportion (19.5%) than in Kings County (16.2%), and 2.9% of these households incl ude children, slightly more than Kings County's 2.4%. Individuals living alone represent 12.0% of Lemoore's households, which is higher than in Kings County where it is 8.3%. This includes a 3.1% portion of those aged 65 and over living alone in Lemoore, as opposed to 2.5% in Kings County. Female householders without a spouse or partner account for 20.2% of Lemoore's households, with 6.7% of them having children under 18, both figures slightly lower than those in Kings County. In terms of living alone, 8.5% of females in Lemoore do so, compared to

8.8% in Kings County. The average household size in Lemoore is 2.94, which is smaller than Kings County's average of 3.14.

Familial Status

In Lemoore, there is a near even split between owner-occupied and renter-occupied family households, whereas in Kings County, a slightly higher percentage of family households are rented. Married- couple families make up nearly half of Lemoore's households, but again, Kings County has a higher percentage, suggesting that married couples are more prevalent there. Interestingly, both regions have more married-couple families owning their homes than renting. As shown in Table 11, the proportion of female-headed households is approximately

14.6% in the City of Lemoore. Female householder households without a spouse or partner are also less common in unincorporated. These households often face challenges, particularly in terms of resource access and opportunities, especially for children in single-parent, female-headed households. As seen in Figure 12, City of Lemoore predominantly has less than 20% percent of single -parent female-headed households with children; however, there is a single central tract with between 20-40%.

Notably, across all jurisdictions, the data reveals that a higher percentage of female -headed households are renters rather than homeowners. This trend is indicative of the economic challenges and housing affordability issues faced by these households. Add itionally, while family -oriented living is prominent in both regions, Lemoore exhibits a higher diversity in household types, with a significant presence of nonfamily households and a more balanced distribution between homeowners and renters for tailored policy interventions and support services.

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEEMORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-20

Table 11: Household type by tenure

Household Type
Lemoore Kings County
HH % HH %
Total Households 8,803 43,604

Family households: 6,591 74.9% 34,155 78.30%
Owner 3,809 43.3% 18,997 43.60%
Renter 2,782 31.6% 15,158 34.80%
Married-couple family: 4,397 49.9% 23,236 53.30%
Owner 3,118 35.4% 14,704 33.70%
Renter 1,279 14.5% 8,532 19.60%
Male householder no wife present: 912 10.4% 3,653 8.40% Owner 279 3.2% 1,499 3.40%
Renter 633 7.2% 2,154 4.90%
Female householder no husband present: 1,282 14.6% 7,266 16.70% Owner 412 4.7% 2,794 6.40%
Renter 870 9.9% 4,472 10.30%
Nonfamily households: 2,212 25.1% 9,449 21.70%
Owner 813 9.2% 4,371 10.00%
Renter 1,399 15.9% 5,078 11.60%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25007

Table 12: Households by Size

City of
Lemoore Percent Kings
County Percent California Percent
Total: 8,803 43,604 13,103,114
Family Households: 6,591 74.9% 34,155 78.3% 8,986,666 68.6% 2-Person Household 1,893 21.5% 9,940 22.8% 3,209,170 24.5% 3-Person Household 1,763 20.0% 7,998 18.3% 2,054,635 15.7% 4-Person Household 1,567 17.8% 7,984 18.3% 1,945,127 14.8% 5-Person Household 970 11.0% 4,886 11.2% 1,006,126 7.7% 6-Person Household 330 3.7% 2,216 5.1% 433,324 3.3%
7-Or-More Person Household 68 0.8% 1,131 2.6% 338,284 2.6% Nonfamily Households: 2,212 25.1% 9,449 21.7% 4,116,448 31.4% 1-Person Household 1,800 20.4% 7,439 17.1% 3,114,819 23.8% 2-Person Household 332 3.8% 1,652 3.8% 774,224 5.9%
3-Person Household 50 0.6% 242 0.6% 135,683 1.0%
4-Person Household 17 0.2% 34 0.1% 59,938 0.5%
5-Person Household 13 0.1% 82 0.2% 19,730 0.2%
6-Person Household 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6,805 0.1%
7-Or-More Person Household 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5,249 0.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B11016

I
-- --- --- ----
+
+
+
+
+
..
+
+
+

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

1A-21

Table 13: Tenure by Household
Size

City of
Lemoore
City of
Lemoore
Kings
County
Kings
County California California
Total Occupied Housing Units 8,803 43,604 13,103,114
Total Large Households (5 or More
Persons) 1,381 15.7% 8,315 19.1% 1,809,518 13.7%
5-Person Household 983 11.2% 4,968 11.4% 1,025,856 7.8% 6-Person Household 330 3.7% 2,216 5.1% 440,129 3.3%
7-or-More Person Household 68 0.8% 1,131 2.6% 343,533 2.6% Owner-Occupied 4,622 52.5% 23,368 53.6% 7,241,318 55.3% 1-Person Household 730 8.3% 3,694 8.5% 1,416,913 10.8%
2-Person Household 1,225 13.9% 7,071 16.2% 2,403,865 18.3% 3-Person Household 934 10.6% 4,338 9.9% 1,235,833 9.4%
4-Person Household 984 11.2% 4,161 9.5% 1,182,987 9.0%
5-Person Household 544 6.2% 2,443 5.6% 567,528 4.3%
6-Person Household 149 1.7% 1,113 2.6% 238,866 1.8%
7-or-More Person Household 56 0.6% 548 1.3% 195,326 1.5% Renter-Occupied 4,181 47.5% 20,236 46.4% 5,861,796 44.7% 1-Person Household 1,070 12.2% 3,745 8.6% 1,697,906 13.0% 2-Person Household 1,000 11.4% 4,521 10.4% 1,579,529 12.1% 3-Person Household 879 10.0% 3,902 8.9% 954,485 7.3%
4-Person Household 600 6.8% 3,857 8.8% 822,078 6.3%
5-Person Household 439 5.0% 2,525 5.8% 458,328 3.5%
6-Person Household 181 2.1% 1,103 2.5% 201,263 1.5%
7-or-More Person Household 12 0.1% 583 1.3% 148,207 1.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009

Race
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps help to identify areas within the community, that provide stronger access to economic, environmental, or educational opportunities for residents or, conversely, provide more limited access to opportunities. It uses economic and education indicators that include the following:
• Percentage of population with income above 200% of federal poverty line • Percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above, • Percentage of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or in the armed forces • Value of owner-occupied units
• Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards • Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed literacy standards • Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEEMORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-22

• Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low-resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for lower-income households and communities of color to housing in high-resource areas.

As seen in Figure 3, most of the City of Lemoore is designated as Highest Resource with central consisting of high resources areas with some areas lacking data. As the City of Lemoore is recognized for its high resources in the TCAC and HCD Opportunity Maps, it stands at the cusp of significant economic and developmental growth. This distinction could attract businesses and skilled professionals, leading to job creation and enhanced standards of living. The City may also see an increase in housing developments, including affordable housing, supported by state incentives.

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 4: Poverty Status (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. American Community Survey (ACS), 2017-2021. 2 KINGS COUNTY
r4.05
#
1 Q}
> <(

6.03 Grangev ill e t----4--l
5 Armona
a
Legend
c::=J City Bouridaries
: : : CA county selectioo
c::::::::J Census - rad: Boundary
mies in Kings County
c::::::::J A\leflal
c::::::::J Corcoran
c::::::::J Hanford
c:==i ~
% of Populanoo "1ose income in the past 12 months is beloo poverty level < 10%
10% - 20%
- 20% - 30%
- 30% - 40%
- >40%

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

1A-24

As shown in Figure 1, there are variations in the local racial demographics and the segregations. In the City of Lemoore there doesn't seem to be the existence of High -White segregation as most of the areas surrounding Lemoore are racially integrated. While some of the central tracts have no data available most of the tracts in the city reveal an integrated atmosphere . This corresponds with the HCD opportunity map as the areas with highest resources seem to have racial integration. This could imply a positive correlation between resource availability and racial diversity, suggesting that areas with more resources are more likely to be integrated.

In Figure 5, the City of Lemoore is mapped as not an RCAA. While the neighboring areas to the city seem to show a Low -Medium segregation. The RCAAs generally coincide with TCAC/HCD highest- resource areas and/or relatively higher-income parts of the City of Lemoore

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-23 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024| DRAFT

Figure 5: Local RCAAs

Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019. Updated: March,2021 L ~ ORE
)
W Grar:igeville Blvd
r
KINGS COUNTY.

Lem oo re
Lemoore
Grangevill e
Arm ona
Jacksolil Ave
a
Legend
Qty Boundaries
r;::: :, CA county selection
Cities in Kings County
C=:J Avenal
C=:J Corcoran
C=:J Hanford
c:::J Lemoore
Nata RCAA
- RCAA

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

Figure 6: Single-Parent Female-Headed Households with Children

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021. Updated: March 2023. 2 KINGS COUNTY
,J
r4.05
(
L..:

4.02 9800
1 .....

Grangev ill e
5 Armona

6.03 a
Lege,nd
□ C:mr.ur. ll'l'!trt lb.mMry
atles In Khas Coo.ant,,
C] A\<en.11
c::J cu~;onm
0 Hilnford
t=] I Hllort~
I I CityOoll'Kl~,i~
C)O\r<ll f'lty
- 20% 40%
- 40% CJU'll:I
- 60%·80%
- 80% 100¾

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-23 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024| DRAFT

Disability Rates and Services
Due to the multitude of possible functional limitations that may present as disabilities, and in the absence of information on external factors that influence disability, surveys like the Census Bureau’s ACS are limited to capturing difficulty with only selected activities. As such, people identified by the ACS as having a disability are, in fact, those who exhibit difficulty with specific functions and may, in the absence of accommodation, have a disability. To capture a variety of characteristics that encompass the definition of disability, the ACS identifies serious difficulty with four basic areas of functioning – hearing, vision, cognition, and ambulation.3

As presented in Table 14, the largest number of Kings County residents with disabilities was in the 18 to 64 years age group or the working age population with 8,357 individuals, which represented 11% of the total age group. However, disabilities were most common among senior ci tizens (65 years and over).

Approximately 41% of total seniors reported one or more types of disability. At the local level, the proportion of seniors reporting some type of physical disability ranged at around 41.2% at the city of Lemoore. The most commo n type of disability among seniors was having ambulatory difficulty.

Developmental Disabilities as defined by federal law; “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments. • Is manifested before the individual attains age 18.
• Is likely to continue indefinitely.
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity:
a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self-sufficiency. • Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.

The Census Bureau does not record developmental disabilities. According to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percentage of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is 1.5 percent. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

3 Source: American Community Survey 2013 Subject Definitions. Beginning in 2008, questions on disability represent a conceptual and empirical break from earlier years of the ACS. Hence, the Census Bureau does not recommend any comparisons of disability data to 2007 and earlier ACS disability data, or to disability estimates from the 2000 Census.)

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

Figure 7: Population with a Disability

MERCED

COU NTY

M ADERA COUNTY
\9
r

SAN BE N ITO
COUNTY
Oiablo
Range
[ill
~ .. 5252 ft
QJ
~---,---___: Li::=l....--------' '-"-~~ ali~ga
~~~ o □
c:::J CA county
;: : : , CA county selection
C=:J City Boundaries
Percent of population with a disabi lity
r=J < 10%
c:::J 10% - 20%
El!!!!!!I 20% -30%
-
30% -40%
-
> 40%
Cities in Kings County
c:::J Avenal
c:::J Corcoran
c:::J Hanford
Lemoore
~~
~r~

FRES N O COUNTY

KI N GS COU N TY
TuleRiver
/
ful
~::l
(./)
a,
'-
O>
= C
KER N COU~ TY
L..

O>
1 ~ ano
K!.llgs River
N
5 Miles
10

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-23 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024| DRAFT

Table 14: Populations with Disability Type by Age

Disability Type by Age
Lemoore Kings County
Persons % Persons %
Population under 18 years w/disability 197 3.0% 1,498 3.70% With a hearing difficulty 43 0.7% 193 0.50%
With a vision difficulty 61 0.9% 480 1.20%
With a cognitive difficulty 108 1.6% 890 2.20%
With an ambulatory difficulty 40 0.6% 127 0.30%
With a self-care difficulty 65 1.0% 219 0.50%
Population 18 to 64 years w/disability 1,439 9.3% 8,357 10.70% With a hearing difficulty 250 1.6% 1,632 2.10%
With a vision difficulty 197 1.3% 1,354 1.70%
With a cognitive difficulty 629 4.1% 3,009 3.80%
With an ambulatory difficulty 488 3.1% 4,087 5.20%
With a self-care difficulty 180 1.2% 1,424 1.80%
With an independent living difficulty 330 2.1% 3,094 4.00% Population 65 years and over w/disability 1,174 41.2% 6,179 40.80% With a hearing difficulty 458 16.1% 2,657 17.60%
With a vision difficulty 207 7.3% 1,265 8.40%
With a cognitive difficulty 218 7.6% 1,458 9.60%
With an ambulatory difficulty 804 28.2% 3,807 25.10%
With a self-care difficulty 151 5.3% 1,500 9.90%
With an independent living difficulty 347 12.2% 2,659 17.60%

Note: Numbers represent people, not disabilities. Persons may report more than one type of disability Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table S1810 and C18108

The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community- based services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. Kings County is served by the Central Valley Regional Center (CVRC) which is based in Fresno. During 2014, CVRC served approximately 16,200 clients, of which about 900 to 1,000 lived in Kings County ( 0). The Kings County Rehabilitation Center in Hanford also offers rehabilitation, vocational and life training, and operates four group homes for mentally and physically handicapped individuals. State and federal law mandate minimum accessibility standards for housing. For example, local governments that use federal housing funds must meet federal accessibility guidelines for new construction and substantial rehabilitation. At least 5% of the units must be accessible to persons with mobility impairments, and an additional 2% must be accessible to persons with sensory impairments. New multi-family housing must be built so that:
1) The public and common use portions of such units are readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons;
2) The doors allowing passage into and within such units can accommodate wheelchairs; and +

1A-30 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

3) All units contain adaptive design features. In addition, state law requires all jurisdictions to provide reasonable accommodation in the application of housing policies and regulations.

D) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty

To better understand fair housing, HUD uses the designation Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) which requires:
• a non-white population of 50 percent or more in a metropolitan or micropolitan area, or a non-white population of 20 percent or more outside of these areas. • extreme poverty, defined as census tracts with either 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line or with a poverty rate of three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

None of the census tracts in Lemoore is identified as a R/ECAP.

HCD has a designation called Racial Concentration of Areas of Affluence (RCAA) which is also based on two factors:
• A location quotient based on the percentage of white, non- Hispanic or Latino population in the census tract compared to the average percentage of total white population for the COG region. • If the median income for the census tract is greater than 1.5 times the COG median income or State median income, whichever is lower.

As seen in the Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic origin table, apart from Asian and White Alone Non-Hispanic groups, all other racial groups and Hispanic or Latino of any race earned less than the median household income. Disparity when considering race and income in Lemoore is still reflected despite Lemoore’s overall median household income being higher than the county average. As seen on Table 6 Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin table, the median household income for White Alone Non-Hispanic households is $77,953 which is approximately $10,000 more than Lemoore’s average median income of $68,658. The median household income for Hispanic or Latino of Any Race is $56,311 , which is approximately $22,000 less than the White Alone Non -Hispanic population and below Lemoore’s median household income. The American Indian and Alaskan Native Alone Non-Hispanic population makes less than both groups by earning $44,507.

E) Access to Opportunity
Transit Mobility
Transit mobility refers to an individual’s ability to navigate the community and region daily to access services, employment, schools, and other resources. Indicators of transit mobility include the extent of transit routes, proximity of transit stops to affordable housing, and frequency of transit.

The need to plan for and address the mobility needs of the County’s growing population. Public Transportation services are available to people with lower incomes, seniors, and persons with disabilities through the Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) system, overseen by the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA) and through the City of Corcoran’s transit system, Corcoran Area Transit (CAT). Kings Area Regional Transit (KART) is Kings County’s public transportation provider. KART provides public

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-23 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024| DRAFT

transit service Monday through Friday and limited service on Saturdays. KART provides transportation services to the cities of Armona, Avenal, Corcoran, Grangeville, Hardwick, Hanford, Kettleman City, Laton, Lemoore, and Stratford. KART Paratransit (origin to destination) is available to eligible certified ADA passengers. In addition, KART provides regular transportation services to Fresno and Visalia Monday through Friday. All KART bus routes begin and end at the KART Terminal located at 504 W. 7th Street Hanford, California, west of the AMTRAK station in Downtown Hanford.

AllTransit is a transit and connectivity analytic tool developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology for the advancement of equitable communities and urban sustainability. The tool analyzes the transit frequency, routes, and access to determine an overall transit score at city, county, and regional levels.

AllTransit scores geographic regions (e.g., cities, counties, Metropolitan Statistical Areas [MSAs]) on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being complete transit connectivity. Figure 8 depicts the city of Lemoore’s AllTransit Performance score, including metrics representing average household transit access. Lemoore’s overall score is 4.2, demonstrating “low” connectivity. It is important to note that this score is for only the City of Lemoore, as AllTransit does not provide a score just for the unincorporated county. Kings County’s score is consistent with comparable counties, which are typified by rural and semi -rural communities.

However, the AllTransit methodology, which determines scores according to an “average” household, may not fully represent transit availability in the unincorporated areas, as the estimate is an average of both incorporated and unincorporated areas.

As is shown in Figure 9, many high qualities transit stops in terms of facilities, accessibility, and frequency of services they seem to be lacking in the city of Lemoore. There also seems to be a lack of high quality transit stops within the city. It’s also evident that the connectivity is focused on moving people within cities rather than between cities. Based on the information in the Kings County Transit Development Plan 2021 document, Kings County faces challenges in providing comprehensive transit services, especially in rural areas. The report identifies gaps in service and highlights the difficulty of connecting transit-dependent residents living in remote areas to services in larger communities.

1A-24 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

APPENDIX 1A: COUNTY OF KINGS

Figure 8: Kings County All Transit Performance Score

Source: AllTransit.cnt.org, 2022
Trans it Service
W Lacey Blvd
Hanford Armona Rd
Iona ve
Idaho Ave
Ove rall t ransit score t hat loo ks at connect ivity, access to j obs, and frequency of service. ■ <1 ■ 1 - 2 ■ 2 -4 ■ 4-5 ■ S-6 6-7 7-9 9 +
AIITransit TM Perfo rmance Score

4.2 City: Lemoore, CA
Low com bi nat ion of trips per week and numb er of
jobs accessible enabl ing few people to take t ransit
to work
On Average Households have:
l•l~M Comm uters Who Use Transit
Show Transit Agencies (3)

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1A-25 SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 9: Kings County High Quality Transit Stops and Transit Area (1/2 mile)

Source: Caltrans, 2022. U.S.; Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Updated 2022.

LEM~ ORE
2 KINGS COUNTY
0 9800

16.01 1
Grangev ille
5 e, Armona
0 12
a
L,agend
c:::::::::J City Boundaries
'::: :• CA county select io n
c::::J Census Tract Boundary
Cities in Kings Count";
c:::::::::J Avenal
c:::::::::J Corcoran
c:::::::::J Hanford
c::::J Lemoore
J 1/2 Mile frcm High QtJolity Transit Area
0 High Quality Transit Stops
• CA Transit Stops

1A-26 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Housing Mobility
Housing tenure (owner vs. renter) influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential mobility is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing evidencing a lower turnover rate than rental housing. The vacancy rate also indicates the match b etween the demand and supply of housing. Table 15 details housing tenure and vacancies in Kings County and incorporated communities according to the Census ACS 2016- 2020 estimates. Vacancy rates of 5% to 6% for rental housing and 1.5% to 2.0% for ownership housing are generally considered to be optimum. A higher vacancy rate may indicate an excess supply of units, a softer market, and result in lower housing prices. A lower vacancy rate may indicate a shortage of housing and high competition for available housing, which generally leads to higher housing prices and diminished affordability.

Table 15: Household Tenure and Vacancy Rates
Housing Type
Lemoore Kings County
Units % Units %
Occupied housing units 8,803 95.0% 43,604 94.20%
Owner-occupied housing units 4,622 49.9% 23,368 50.50%
Avg. HH size of owner-occupied units 3.15 3.12
Renter-occupied housing units 4,181 45.1% 20,236 43.70% Avg. HH size of renter-occupied units 2.70 3.17
Vacant housing units 459 5.0% 2,663 5.80%
For rent 100 1.1% 446 1.00%
Rented, not occupied 25 0.3% 140 0.30%
For sale only 250 2.7% 426 0.90%
Sold, not occupied - 0.0% 194 0.40%
For seasonal or occasional use - 0.0% 54 0.10%
All other vacant 84 0.9% 1,403 3.00%
Homeowner vacancy rate 5.1% 1.80%
Rental vacancy rate 2.3% 2.10%
Total housing units 9,262 100.0% 46,267 100.00%
Source: Census, ACS 2016-2020, Tables DP04 and B25004

The balance between owner-occupied and rental housing, along with vacancy rates, shapes the housing market dynamics. For instance, areas with high owner occupancy and low vacancy rates may see appreciating property values, while areas with high rental vacancy rates might experience stagnating or declining property values.

The demand ex ceeds the supply, driving up rental costs, which can disproportionately affect lower -income residents and contribute to housing insecurity. According to the census, the housing vacancy rate in Kings County was 1.8% among homeowner units and 2.1% for rental units. The proportion of renter -occupied housing units is higher in the city of Lemoore ( 45%) compared to Kings County (43.70%). However, the vacancy rate varied among communities and is around 2.3% for the City of Lemoore which is slightly higher than the figure for the county.

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-35 SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Employment Opportunities
Kings County’s economy has an important impact on housing needs. Employment growth typically results in increased housing demand in areas that serve as regional employment centers. Moreover, the type of occupation and income levels for new employment also affects housing demand. This section describes the economic and employment patterns in Kings County and how these patterns influence housing needs.

Figure 10: Employment by Industry of Kings County Workforce

Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table DP03

Kings County supports a diversified economy as illustrated in Figure 10. This figure shows the proportion of jobs held by residents (civilian employed population 16 years and over) living in the County. Based on the Census ACS 2016- 2020 information, the education, health care, social assistance industry was the largest employer of Kings County residents, providing approximately 10,800 jobs, or 20% of workforce. As important as agriculture is to the County, the agriculture sector was the second largest employer of its residents, which employed 8,300 residents or 15% of the workforce. Kings County’s civilian labor force was estimated at 57,800, with an unemployment rate of 7.0% (not seasonally adjus ted). This compares to the statewide unemployment rate of 4.1%. However, compared to recent trends, Kings County’s unemployment rate has decreased significantly from the 2020 annual average unemployment rate of 12.0%. Historically, agriculture has played a key role in Kings County’s economy. Agriculturally oriented counties tend to have higher unemployment rates and greater seasonal variations in unemployment. Kings County is ranked 8 th among
California counties in agricultural production with an annual gross value of $2. 5 billion. According to the Kings County 2022 Annual Agricultural Crop Report, milk remains the County’s leading commodity, followed by pistachios (second) and cotton (third). With climate change and the long-term severe drought as well as the 2023 wet winter/spring, it is uncertain to what extent future water supplies will affect agriculture.

Education, health care,
social assistance
20%
Agriculture
15%
Public admin.
13%
Retail trade
10%
Arts, entertainment,
recreation,
accomodation, food
services
8%
Manufacturing
7%
Professional, scientific,
management, admin.
7%
Transportation,
warehousing, utilities
6%
Construction
4%
Other services, except
public admin.
3%
Finance, insurance, real
estate
3%
Wholesale trade
3%
Information
1%
~

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 11: High Quality transit stops and transit area (1/2 Mile) & Jobs within 45-minute transit commute.

Sources: Caltrans, 2022; Smart Locations Database, 2018.

L E ~ O RE
2 KI NGS COU NTY
1 Q)
>
<(
Grangeville
5 12 \ .,,,,,,,, 4.l02
9800 y
~ ------ ..i.:;;....-: ___ ....._ ____ ...:.~ :,__-------- tei:kson Ave

16.01 a
Legend
== City Boundaries
'::: :• CA county selection
c:::::::J Census Tract Boundary
Citie~ in Kings County
c:::::::J Avenal
c::::J Corcoran
c:::::::J Ha nfo.-d
c:::::::J Lemoore
Transit Area
~ 1/2 Mile from High Quality Transit Area
O High Quality Transit Stops
Jobs within 45•minute transit commute
No Data
0 I - 2,500
- 2,501 - 5,000
- 5,001 - 10,000
- 10,0()1 - 25,000
- 25,001 - 50,000
- 50,001 - 100,000
- 100,00 1 - 250,000
- > 250,000

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024| DRAFT

1A-37

Jobs-Housing Balance and Commute Patterns

Commuting patterns in Kings County have an important implication for housing needs. Larger employers in the County (e.g., three state prisons, Naval Air Station Lemoore, and agricultural industries) generate a significant number of jobs. However, the workf orce employed at these institutions or in the agricultural industries may live in other communities for a variety of reasons, including preferences, the availability of suitable housing, or other reasons.

Commuting patterns show the relationship between where people live and where they work. Long commuting distances increase traffic congestion that strains the existing overcrowded road and highways infrastructure systems that are often in need of maintenance. Long commuting distances also contribute to poor air quality, increases expenses to the commuting workforce, and has been shown to have negative consequences on personal health. One of the aims of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan is to direct new housing growth to employment centers to balance the jobs-housing ratio and decrease commuting distances.

Table 16 shows that over one-third (37%) of the County’s workforce aged 16 years and older who do not work at home travel less than 15 minutes to work and another 32% of workers travel 15- 30 minutes to work. The average time to work for countywide workers was 23 minutes.

Table 16: Travel Time to Work
Note: Workers included those 16 years and over who did not work from home.; Source: Census ACS 2016 -2020 Table S0801

Educational Opportunities

The Kings County Board of Education establishes the mission and primary objectives for the Kings County Superintendent of Schools and ensures that activities and programs remain focused on the goals identified within the California Department of Education educational rules and regulations. The Kings County Board of Education establishes the mission and primary objectives for the Kings County Superintendent of Schools and ensures that activities and programs remain focused on the goals identified within the California Department of Education educational rules and regulations. According to the Kings County office of education as of Oct 2021 there are a total of 19,429 students enrolled in elementary schools and about 8,179 students in high schools across the county as per data submitted by the districts. Figure 12 below shows some of the school districts in Kings County.

Travel Time to Work Lemoore Kings County
Less than 15 minutes 36.8% 36.80%
15-30 minutes 37.0% 32.00%
30 to 59 minutes 23.2% 25.10%
60 or more minutes 8.0% 6.10%
Average Travel Time 21 min. 23 min.

1A-38 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 12: School districts in Kings County

Source: Kings County, Cal EM
Environmental Health
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reports CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores for suggesting relatively adverse environmental conditions throughout the county. According to OEHHA, except for some of the smaller tracts in the center of the cities of Hanford, Lemoore, and Corcoran the rest of the areas have scores above the 90th percentile. The environmental conditions in Kings County likely due to the dominance of commercial agricultural practices and natural resource extraction, both of which are known to have negative impacts on the surrounding areas resulting from air pollution and other contaminants.

The primary indicators leading to the high environmental scores as reported by OEHHA’s CalEnviroScreen vary across the county, but include ozone, particulate matter (PM) 2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic releases, drinking water contaminants, chemical cleanup, lead in housing, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water, and solid waste. Ozone, diesel particulate, and PM

2.5, forms of pollution generated by car
traffic and industrial uses, score higher throughout the county. In the unincorporated county, pesticide use, STATE or CALIFOR NIA
-- 1<.r,g5 Cowiy ""'°' R°"""
-- ~ County W.it,c('Wi1)'$
- -0\'
~ Tochi-Yolu! Tm:
~ N.l'llall A'I Sta110n LenlOa"e
[--1 ~ Cot.Qty CM:~ ComrTVJfl~
• Kings Co Offtee d cllcalion
School Dlstrlets

CORCORAN JOINT U IRED

HANFORD JOINT UNION HIGH

LEMOORE UNION HIGH
Reef - Sunset
Unified
FRESNO
COUNTY
Utica
,;
~ >-
~
I-
§
0 0
~
~

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024| DRAFT

1A-39

groundwater threats, and solid waste facilities are more prevalent than in urbanized areas, reflecting the presence of agricultural industries and chemical and waste storage outside of urban areas. Nearly all of Kings County is Senate Bill (SB) 535 -qualifying disadvantaged communities excluding areas around Lemoore, north of Hanford and some tracts in Corcoran. This indicates that the unincorporated county represents an area of potential concern regarding fair housing and disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards and a concentration of vulnerable populations.

Further, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) develops flood maps that identify areas with the highest risk of flooding, differentiating them by the degree of severity and frequency of flooding anticipated. In Kings County, while large pieces of including land just outside Lemoore and Corcoran, are classified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency at a high -risk for flooding, Hanford is not according to a map released by the Kings County Office of Emergency Services. Flood zones include Zone AO, AE, AH, and A, which indicate the depth of the 1.0% annual chance of flooding, and areas with a 0.2% annual chance of flooding (Figure 14). Lemoore and the Island District have many large swaths of land classified as high or moderate risk. West of Highway 41 along West Industry Avenue is one of the large swaths of high-risk land. North of town, at the intersection of Grangeville Boulevard and Highway 41 is another area classified as high risk. Corcoran is surrounded by both high-risk and flooded land to the west, south and north. The area inside city limits is largely not classified as high- risk, but the area just south of the city near Highway 43 is described by the map as flooded. Hanford on the other hand has only a minor risk of flooding.

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

Figure 13: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 & high-quality transit stops (Transit area ½ mile)

Source: Caltrans, 2022; OEHHA, 2021.

KINGS COUNTY
~A~b r4.05
" Lemoo.~re:::---
Legeod
C=:J City Boundaries
t : : :, CA county selection
c:::::J Census Tract Bou ndaty
Cities in Kings Colmt}'
c:::::l Avenal
c:::::J Corcoran
c::::J Hanford
c::::J Lemoore
c:zzJ 1/ 2 Mile from High Q uality Transit Area
o High Quolity Tronsit stops
CalEnvircScreen 4.0 - Percentile Score
- 0 - 25%
- > 25 - 50%
- >50 - 75%
- > 75 - 100%

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

5 Figure 14: Flood Hazard Zones

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2022; OEHHA, 2021; CalFire, updated 2023. 9800
1 ...,
s:t ,...

Grangevill e
5 Arm ona
12 ....
.j::. ,...
~
► <
(1)

6.03 a
~1:od
US flt.Ml I l-1a11<1 An:i:.:; (rtMI\}
- 1% /\nnu ,'11 <:111,111:(~ n u,ml I LM11u J
- D.JCl4 An nual Chllnr~ 1 IMtt ll:mtn1
- R,q,1u!;;l(JIY flwdW.tY
~pnd 11I rlnrn l•,My
htrum c:ondmnn$ 1% l\nnu.,1 ch.,nr-n Hood
l la,.-,u l
Ar i:., with 1{~11.irP.d IU~k I )UP. r n I P.V\'!F.

Mre- H,u .ird ~ve-J'lt't Lones
r.toder~-ite
- l li1,1h
- ¼:1yll i9h
Cili.:$ in Ki1:ir.i:; Cuuuly
c:J .-.,\:.,..,1
D l:i'lr<nrnn
c:J 11-1nroul
0 1,-,n,.1(lf(!
C) CA(.UUIILY

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

F) DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
Overcrowding

Overcrowding is often closely related to household income and the cost of housing. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household to be overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens; and to be severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 occupants per room. Overcrowded households are usually a reflection of the lack of adequate income for housing.

Table 17 details the percentage of households that live in overcrowded situations. Overcrowding is more prevalent among renters than owners. For example, countywide, 12% of renters and 5% of owners reported more than one person per room. The overcrowding data from the Census ACS 2016- 2020 for Lemoore and Kings County provides insights into the living conditions of both owner -occupied and renter -occupied households based on the number of occupants per room. Lemoore has a total of 8,803 households, with 4,622 owner-occupied and 4,181 renter-occupied.

Table 17: Overcrowding by Tenure
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25014

Many owner-occupied households in Lemoore, 57.5%, have a lower occupant per room ratio of 0.50 or less, indicating more spacious living conditions, while 40.0% have a ratio between 0.51 and 1.00, which is still within a reasonable range of personal space.

Comparatively, a smaller percentage of renter-occupied households in Lemoore, 48.6%, enjoy similar lower occupancy ratios, and a larger portion, 43.7%, fall into the 0.51 to 1.00 range, suggesting a trend towards higher density living for renters. Overcrow ding becomes more pronounced with ratios exceeding 1.00, affecting renters more significantly than homeowners, with 5.0% of Lemoore's renting households experiencing this compared to only 1.8% of owner -occupied households. Kings County broadly reflects this pattern, with a slightly higher proportion of owner-occupied homes having more generous space, and renters facing more crowded conditions. This comparison underscores a common trend where renters generally contend with more crowded living situations than homeowners.

Occupants per Room Lemoore Kings County
Total households 8,803 43,604
Owner occupied: 4,622 23,368

0.50 or less 57.5% 60.70%

0.51 to 1.00 40.0% 34.20%

1.01 to 1.50 1.8% 3.90%

1.51 to 2.00 0.6% 0.70%

2.01 or more 0.1% 0.50%
Renter occupied: 4,181 20,236

0.50 or less 48.6% 39.70%

0.51 to 1.00 43.7% 48.10%

1.01 to 1.50 5.0% 8.70%

1.51 to 2.00 2.4% 2.90%

2.01 or more 0.4% 0.60%

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-43 APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

5 Overpayment

State and federal housing law defines overpayment as a household paying more than 30% of gross income for housing expenses, including utilities. Housing overpayment is especially problematic for lower -income households that have limited resources for other living expenses.

As shown in Table 18 , a significant portion of lower -income households in each community overpaid for housing according to HUD CHAS data (special tabulations based on the Census ACS). However, the overpayment rate varies by tenure and income level. More than half of all very- low- and extremely-low- income households in all jurisdictions, both owners and renters, are reported to be overpaying. In most communities, however, more rental households than owner households ar e overpaying. There are few households with incomes above the median that overpays for housing – often less than 10% of households.

Table 18: Household Overpayment by Tenure
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census ACS 2014-2018

In Figure 15, the percentage of overcrowded units in the City of Lemoore is less than the statewide average of

5.19% while there is some representation of severely overcrowded units visible in a small portion of the city.

Figure’s 1A-15 AND 1A-16 represent overpayment by renters and owners respectively. While the percentage of homeowner’s overpaying remains below 20%, the overpayment data by renters varied. While the predominant figure reveals that most of the city of Lemoore consists of overpayment by renters between 20 and 40%. While this increases on a few tracts to above 40 and 60%. While there also exists a small portion where this figure is below 20%. The analysis of overpayment data for housing in the City of Lemoore reveals a distinct contrast between homeowners and renters. Notably, the rate of overpayment among homeowners is relatively low, staying below 20%, which suggests that the majority of homeowners in Lemoore are not heavily burdened by housing costs. On the other hand, renters face a more diverse and challenging situation.

Overall, this data underscores a notable divide in housing affordability between homeowners and renters in Lemoore, with renters generally facing more significant financial challenges in meeting their housing costs.

Income Category Lemoore Kings County
Owners
<= 30% 69.1% 79.00%
>30% to <=50% 60.5% 68.60%
>50% to <=80% 75.0% 48.30%
>80% to <=100% 42.6% 32.80%
>100% 10.1% 7.40%
Total 23.1% 22.50%
Renters
<= 30% 89.6% 79.30%
>30% to <=50% 91.2% 78.30%
>50% to <=80% 70.7% 57.00%
>80% to <=100% 8.4% 22.50%
>100% 7.8% 6.40%
Total 42.8% 43.20%

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Figure 15: Overcrowding in Kings County

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021 ...L....~7 ~~p
L~u~Kl li act Boundary D ecnsus r
Cili~ ill Kill!JS C:rn m ly
0 /\vcnal
c::::J Ct.lU :nr m i
D Hanford
□ , =~
I I Q ty Boon du ries
[:] CA m unty
. ~r.p_ly OVPrr.mwrlP.(1 lln lti;: ~ rr PnT of SP -
/. <2.5%
;;@ ~.YI', b.~~Yo%
Soo 6.5% - 12., ,
~ D .. 1% :I~%
:::::: > 2'5%
Vl-!lno w rl1-,d IJnil s
-
5 "'"'""' o[ O ·do /\vorogo) < J.l 9°''0 (Statcw1 ////// /) .S.IQ% - 10% -~""T7--] 10% 1J%
A r, - 1s% - 20%
~ - >20%
1 ~~ ora Ave

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

Figure 16: Overpayment by renters (ACS, 2017-2021) – Tract Level

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021 1 2

KINGS COUNTY

4.'o2
I
~ --====:::t~=--==a-:: :....L ___ ...;lL....!.... __ !.!.... ____ --t!d:1<"so 1,1 Awe

16.01 LeyerKl
D Census Tract Boundary
Cit ies in KinQs County
D Avenal
D Corcoran
c:::J H~nfmrl
c:::J l ~rrKK>IP.
n City Boundar ies
c:J rAcounty
overpayment by Kenters (ZUl / -lUl l ) - ACS lract
Level
l'crcent of Kenter Households for whom Gross Kent
(Contract Rent Plus Tenant-Paid Utilibes) is 30.0
Percent or More of Household Income
~ 20%
- 2:Uo/o - 40%
- 4U% - bU%
- bU% - 8U%
- > 80%

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

1A-46 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Figure 17: Percentage of Homeowners Overpaying

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021 1 2
Grangev ill e

KINGS COUNTY
5 Armona
~..:~lo ,4.os . ,,
Lemooi,;.re=---=--_...,

4.02 12
9800

6.03 a
L~ ~11c.J
c::::J 0msw.,; lfaLl Uourn.fauy
Cilit-'b in KinJs Crnmly
c::::J AW.ll<JI
c::::J f'.orra,m
c::::J H,, nton1
[=i l !'!rnoorf'!
D C1tv Bounda~c,
D U\ coonty
rcr<.ent of Owr.cr Houschcicl5 111tt11 t•1orb:la~ whos< r-trn1l hly Ow111-!r ( osl!-i ;11P. ROI!,',. nr t-l mP. uf H rn1SK1ul< lncomr-
< l W~
zov,u - 11.>¾,
- 40% 60%
- 00% 80%
. , 80%

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-47

Homelessness

In Homelessness is often the result of multiple factors that converge in a person’s life. The combination of loss of employment, inability to find a job because of the need for retraining, and high housing costs lead to some individuals and families losing t heir housing. For others, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities or drug and alcohol addictions along with an inability to access the services and long -term support needed to address these c onditions. Obtaining an accurate assessment of the magnitude of the homeless population is difficult because many individuals are not visibly homeless but rather live with relatives or friends, in hotels/motels or shelters, and other temporary accommodations. To address the needs of homeless people in Kings County, the Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance (KTHA) conducted a Point-in-Time (PIT) survey of homeless people in these two counties in January 2022. The study used HUD’s definition of homelessness, which is defined as people who reside in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or places not meant for human habitation such as cars, parks, sidewalks, and abandoned buildings.

Table 19: Homeless Persons
Jurisdiction Estimated Homeless
Avenal 4
Corcoran 17
Hanford 260
Lemoore 8
Unincorporated area 24
Kings County totals 313
Source: Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance Point-in-Time Survey, 2022

Based on the 2022 PIT survey, the following portrait of the 313 homeless individuals counted in Kings County included:
• 22% chronically homeless
• 39% persons with disability
• 20% suffer from mental disability.
• 12% suffer from substance abuse problems.
• 11% victims of domestic violence
• 6% veterans
• 2% unaccompanied children
• 12% young adults under age 25
In 2022, 39% of the homeless population was housed in temporary living arrangements (31% in emergency shelter and 8% in transitional housing). Over half (61%) were unsheltered and homeless or in a car.

Table 19 presents the 2022 PIT homeless counts for the four cities and unincorporated areas of the County.

The table shows that the City of Hanford had the highest counted with 260 homeless individuals or 83% of the countywide total. This was followed by the unincorporated area with 24 homeless individuals. The City of Lemoore has an estimated 8 homeless individuals, a very small number considering its 27,014 population.

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

1A-48 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Table 20: Shelter Facilities in Kings County
Source: Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance, 2023

Table 20 lists the shelter facilities in Kings County that served the homeless. It identifies an inventory of 126 emergency shelter beds (78% use rate), 27 transitional housing beds (89% use rate), 64 permanent supportive housing beds (89% use rate), 15 other permanent housing beds (93% use rate), and 103 rapid rehousing beds (100% use rate) in Kings County. Additional emergency assistance is provided by the Salvation Army in Hanford, which provides short -term assistance in the form of food, financial assistance for rent and utility bills, motel vouchers and bus or plane tickets. Corcoran Christian Aid provides food, vouchers, and other types of emergency financial assistance within Corcoran.

Total
Project Name & Organization
PIT
Beds
Use
Count
Use
Rate

EMERGENCY SHELTER
Barbara Saville Shelter - DV 15 4 27%
Barbara Saville Woman's Shelter 23 6 26%
EHA Kings 7 7 100%
PRK Holiday Lodge 57 57 100%
PRK Stardust Hotel 17 17 100%
Temporary Housing Program 7 7 100%
Total 126 98 78%

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
KGM Men's Transitional 15 15 100%
KGM Women's Transitional 6 6 100%
New Song Academy 6 3 50%
Total 27 24 89%

PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Anchors II 6 4 67%
Anchors IV 6 5 83%
Grace Homes 13 13 100%
Hope Survives 6 6 100%
Kings County Act 28 28 100%
Kings VASH 5 1 20%
Total 64 57 89%

OTHER PERMANENT HOUSING
HAKC Emergency Housing Voucher 15 14 93%
Total 15 14 93%

RAPID REHOUSING
Bringing Families Home 16 16 100%
HANA 4 4 100%
Housing Support Program 76 76 100%
Kings Rapid Rehousing 1 1 100%
RRH4 Kings 6 6 100%
Total 103 103 100%

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-49

Despite these services, a significant shortage in emergency shelters and transitional housing remains. In 2007 the State Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 2, which strengthened the planning and zoning requirements for emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing. SB2 requires that all jurisdictions adopt zoning regulations that allow emergency shelters by -right in at least one zone, subject to objective development standards, or as an alternative, the jurisdiction may meet the need through a multi -jurisdictional agreement with up to three adjacent jurisd ictions. As noted in the Constraints section, all of the jurisdictions in Kings County have adopted zoning regulations for emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing in response to SB 2.

Farmworkers

Kings County is one of the state’s major agricultural areas, ranking 8th among California counties in total agricultural production. According to the Kings County Agricultural Commissioner, 84% of the total land area in the County is devoted to farmland. Table 2- 24 shows the County’s top three leading agricultural products in 2022 were milk ($999 million), pistachios ($228 million), and cotton ($192 million).

Recent Census data in Table 21 shows that 15% of employed Kings County civilian residents (16 years and over) worked in agriculture and related industries. Of the four cities, the highest percentage of civilian workers in agricultural related jobs was Avenal, where 45% of its workers w ere in this industry. This was followed by Corcoran workers at 30%. Table 1A-15 presents the number of farms and hired farm workers in Kings County. According to the 2017 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census estimate s, there were 507 farms and a total of almost 7,000 hired farm workers countywide. The largest number of workers (5,820) were employed at farms with 10 or more employees or 83% of the countywide total number of hired workers.

Also, there were more permanent hired workers (worked more than 150 days) than seasonal workers (worked less than 150 days) for both farm operations with less than 10 employees and with more than 10 employees.

Table 21: Leading Agricultural Crops, Kings County
Crop Rank Value
Milk 1 $999,866,000
Pistachios 2 $228,785,000
Cotton 3 $192,811,000
Tomatoes, Processed 4 $177,492,000
Cattle & Calves 5 $151,274,000
Almonds, Total 6 $132,323,000
Corn, Silage 7 $123,941,000
Alfalfa, Hay 8 $67,540,000
Wheat, Silage 9 $60,112,000
Plums 10 $55,245,000
Source: Kings County, Dept. of Agriculture, 2022 Crop Report, September 2023

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

1A-50 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Table 22: Agricultural Employment by Jurisdiction
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table DP-3

Agricultural workers, and especially farmworkers, have special housing needs due to their relatively low wages. According to an article in Rural Migration News , the average hourly wage for all California farmworkers in the years 2015- 2019 was approximately $12.

4. This is equivalent to approximately
$25,000/year for full -time work. As a result, farmworkers often overpay for housing (in relation to their income) and/or live in overcrowded and substandard living situations.

The nature of agricultural work also affects the specific housing needs of farm workers. For instance, farmworkers employed on a year-round basis generally live with their families and need permanent affordable housing much like other lower -income households. Migrant farmworkers who follow seasonal harvests generally need temporary housing only for the workers themselves.

California has a statewide shortage of farmworker housing projects. For instance, the number of agricultural employee housing facilities registered with the California HCD has dramatically declined since the 1950s.

Between 1955 and 1982, grower-registered facilities declined from 9,000 to 1,414 camps. By 1998, only 500 camps were registered with HCD, none of which were in Kings County. According to growers, the dramatic decline in labor camps is due to the high cost of maintaining housing and the climate of litigation facing growers who maintain camps. Additionally, most farm owners/managers hire most of their workers through temporary agencies for planting, picking, pruning, or other specific tasks, so that providing full-time housing for workers is not practical.

Although no farmworker camps exist in Kings County, the County does have a significant number of government-subsidized housing projects (e.g., Section 515 and public housing) that house farmworkers and their families. Many farmworkers live in mobile homes on the farming site. A new farmworker housing project was completed in Hanford during the 2003-2008 planning period. That project involved the renovation of an existing former motel into temporary and/or long-term, permanent agricultural employee housing. The project included 24 units plus parking, courtyard, children’s play areas and open space.

In addition, there is a 40- unit apartment complex in unincorporated Kettleman City that serves farm labor families. This apartment includes 10 two-bedroom units, 20 three-bedroom units, and 10 four-bedroom units,

4 https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/blog/post/?id=2805
Jurisdiction of Civilian Employed
Pop. (16 and over) Number of Agricultural Workers % of Total Workers Avenal 1,617 45%
Corcoran 1,275 30%
Hanford 2,213 9%
Lemoore 692 6%
Unincorporated 2,474 22%
Kings County 8,271 15%
I I

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-51

with approximately 70-100 farmworkers residing in the apartment complex. The Constraints analysis contains a discussion of each jurisdiction’s land use and zoning policies and regulations regarding farmworker housing.

In communities with large farmworker populations, farmworker housing needs are met through homeownership assistance and rehabilitation loans.

Table 23: Hired Farm Labor-Workers, Kings County
Farmworkers No. of Farms No. of Hired Workers
Percent of Total County
Hired Workers
Total Hired Farm Labor 507 6,998
Farm operations with less than 10 employees 351 1,178 17% Permanent (> 150 days) 275 1,034 15%
Seasonal (< 150 days) 246 677 10%
Farm operations with 10 or more employees 156 5,820 83% Permanent (> 150 days) 96 3,046 44%
Seasonal (< 150 days) 49 2,241 32%
Source: USDA, 2017 Census of Agriculture

Most loans under both types of programs are issued to people working in the agricultural industry. Moreover, many occupants of Section 515 projects and other subsidized projects are also employed in the farming industry. Although the City of Lemoore has the smallest number and share of farm workers compared to the City of Hanford, City o f Corcoran, City of Avenal, and unincorporated Kings County, its farmworkers can also access standard homeownership and/or rehabilitation loans. The Housing Plan (Chapter 5) includes programs to address the housing and supportive services needs of farm workers.

G) Displacement Risk
The Urban Displacement Project, a joint research and action initiative of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the level of displacement risk at the census tract level.

The Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) map provides three layers of displacement information. The “Overall Displacement” map layer shows the number of income groups experiencing any displacement risk.

Many areas in the county are identified as At Risk of D isplacement. "At Risk of Displacement" refers to the likelihood of residents, particularly low-income renter households, being forced to move out of their neighborhoods due to various factors. This concept is often evaluated in the context of gentrification, rising housing costs, and changing neighborhood dynamics. The City of Lemoore is at a lower risk of displacement with a single central tract which is at a risk of displacement. According to the Urban Displacement Project's Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California, displacement risk is determined by evaluating census tract characteristics that are strongly correlated with a net loss of low-income renter populations. Essentially, a high displacement risk suggests that more low-income households are leaving a neighborhood than moving in, often due to factors like affordability, development pressures, or changes in the housing market.

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

1A-52 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Figure 18: Estimated displacement risk – Overall displacement by tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), UCB – Urban Displacement Project, 2022 1 2
Grangev ill e

KINGS COUNTY
5 4.03
Armona
r
Lemooi;.re::--........ --
J

4.02 12
9800

6.03 1.0.01
□
Low IJata Quailrty
Lower DisDl~cc1ncrrt R.i$k
1111 Al m ~k uf l>ii..1Jl;11:t!l1~ 11
- 1 lmorn~C1111Jp l )is,ilm:+!rntml
- 2 Income Groups 0 1:spbccmcnt
t:J Ccnsm; Tract Bounda1y
Cities In Kings County
c:::J Avl-!rn1I
c:::J OJf LOrllll
c:::::J Hantord
c:::J Lemoore
I City Boundaries
c:::::J Q\ county

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-53

Sites Analysis

This section provides a review of available vacant sites in the City of Lemoore that allows and facilitates production of the city’s regional share of housing as required by State Law. This data is supplemented with local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more accurate depiction of fair housing issues in the City of Lemoore. The following issues are addressed:

a. Future Housing Needs Including Segregation/Integration b. R/ECAPs and RCAAs
c. Access to Opportunity
d. Disproportionate Housing Needs
e. Sites Inventory Findings

To determine where the county has sufficient land to accommodate its share of regional housing needs for all income groups, the county must identify “adequate sites.” Under the State law (California Government Code section 65583[c][1], adequate sites are t hose with appropriate zoning in and development standards, with service and facilities, needed to facilitate and encourage the development of housing for all income levels.

Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) has introduced a duty to affirmatively further fair housing into California state law. AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification includes not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA but also considers whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced liv ing patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. This section analyzes the role of all sites, regardless of income level, in assisting to affirmatively further fair housing and consider how the development of new affordable housing options can promote patterns of equality and inclusiveness.

Additionally, State law requires that planning for housing be coordinated and integrated with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). To achieve this requirement, the RHNA plan must allocate housing units within the region consistent with the development pattern included in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).

In September 2022, KCAG adopted the 2022 RTP/SCS update, which incorporates assumptions for housing and employment growth that affect future transportation needs. To achieve the RHNA consisten cy requirement, this RHNA used the same RTP assumptions for future housing development from the present (2022) to the RTP/SCS 2050 horizon year.

The goal of the RHNA Plan is to promote a fair distribution of attainable housing among the four cities and the unincorporated County in a way that also helps meet the state’s housing goals. Attainable housing is defined as housing that is both sufficient in supply and affordably priced. The total housing units specified in the RHNA plan for each jurisdiction are not to be construed as quotas for development. The RHNA Plan only determines the number and affordability of housing units that jurisdictions need to plan for through land use policies, regulations, infrastructure plans, and other housing assistance programs. Construction and

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

1A-54 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

development of these allocations is not a requirement of the RHNA plan. a) Future Housing Needs including Segregation/Integration The City of Lemoore’s 6th Cycle RHNA projects future housing need for the planning period 2024-2032 as 2,329 units; the City of Lemoore’s 5th Cycle RHNA determined a need for the planning period 2014-2024 as 2,985.

Table 24: Kings RHNA 2024-2032 by Income Level
Jurisdiction
Extremely
Low* Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
City of Lemoore 293 293 437 408 898 2,329
Kings County Total 1,128 1,129 1,672 1,753 3,747 9,429
Percentage 11.76% 11.76% 15.86% 18.89% 41.71% 100%

The City of Lemoore has considered trends and patterns related to integration and segregation based on racial and ethnic factors, disability, family status, seniors, and median household income.

The City of Lemoore’s population in 2020 was approximately 27,014 individuals, close to the population of unincorporated Kings County which is 30,074 individuals. The City of Lemoore’s population was 24,514 in 2010, a 10.1% increase. The Hispanic population was 40% in 2010 and increased to 44% in 2020. The White population decreased from 41 % in 2000 to 3 8.5 % in 2020. The next significant group in Lemoore is the Asian population at 7.4%, that decreased slightly from 7.8% in 2010.

Of unincorporated Kings County, City of Hanford, City of Avenal, and City of Corcoran, it is only the City of Lemoore that consists of only Highest Resource and High Resource areas and is identified as Racially Integrated, where data is available. Additionally, the local median income is higher than the County average.

It has the smallest number of farmworkers and they make up the smallest percentage of total workers in Lemoore compared to the other jurisdictions.

Single female headed households with children, people with disabilities are distributed between the different census tracts with the exception one census tract having a slightly higher concentration.

The City of Lemoore will continue to work with Kings County Community Development Agency to develop and implement various Housing Element programs. They will actively participate in the City’s efforts to prioritize and implement the following strategies:

Research, identify, and apply for funds available through the CDBG and HOME Programs, Mobile home Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program (MPRROP), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Cap-and-Trade Program, and other funding sources that support affordable housing development and preservation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency, homeownership, code enforcement, farmworker housing, etc.

Implement the following Housing Programs:

Program 4.1 - Code Enforcement
Program 4.2 - Housing Rehabilitation Program
Program 4.3 - Zoning for Adequate Sites
Program 4.4 - Downtown Revitalization
Program 4.5 - Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Program 4.6 - First Time Homebuyer Programs
Program 4.7 - Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program 4.8 - Affordable Housing Project Assistance
Program 4.9 - Senior and Special Needs Housing

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-55

Program 4.10 - Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing Program 4.11 - Employee and Farmworker Housing
Program 4.12 - Housing for Persons with Disabilities and Special Needs Program 4.13 - Promote Equal Housing Opportunities
Program 4.14 – Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing Program 4.15 – Ensure the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is in Compliance with State Laws

b) R/ECAPS and RCAAs
HUD has developed a census tract -based definition to assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), R/ECAP is defined as a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: R/ECAPs must have a non- white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line.

Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAPs if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. According to the HCD AFFH Dataset, there are no identified R/ECAP areas in the City of Lemoore.

In addition to RECAPs utilized by HUD, scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs created the Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) metric to tell the story of segregation more fully in the United States5. RCAAs are defined as census tr acts where 1) 80 percent or more of the population is White, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016.) There is no census tract in Lemoore that fits the criteria of income of $125,000 and a population that is 80 percent or more white, and therefore the city has no RCAAs.

The distribution of RHNA sites throughout the city will therefore, not exacerbate racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or racially concentrated areas of affluence. c) Access to Opportunity
According to the COG Geography TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, the City of Lemoore is primarily made up of areas identified as Highest Resource and High Resource . The City has identified vacant land sites which are distributed all over the City of Lemoore with some areas that contain a higher number of parcels as seen in Figure 1A-18. The City of Lemoore contains resources well suited to support more housing production at all income levels. This will help reduce overcrowding rates, especially in Census Tract 4.03 and overpayment, especially with renters in Census Tract 4.07.

The General Plan land use map and zoning ordinance identify areas of the city that are to be developed with residential uses, and what standards apply to the different types of residential uses. Such standards are a necessary tool to promote and ensure a healthy, compatible, and high-quality living environment. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a wide range of residential uses, with densities ranging from a maximum of 3 units per gross acre in very low-density residential areas, up to 25 units per acre in the higher density multi-family areas.

Existing density bonus ordinance allows a developer to request a density bonus of up to 35 percent over the maximum density that is allowed by the zone in which the project is located if the developer agrees to reserve a certain percentage of the units as available to lower income households and/or senior citizens. A program has been added to amend the Density Bonus Ordinance to be compatible with new changes in law, as applicable. Some of these changes remove zoning barriers for “shared housing” projects and areas with “very low vehicle travel” which can help to reduce overcrowding rates and improve housing choice for residents in Hanford. The City is currently updating the Zoning Code effecting those changes.

In compliance with State Housing Law, the city will permit ADUs and JADUs within the City. In the last

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

1A-56 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

several years, the city has adopted amendments to the Municipal Code to include residential care facilities, emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, single -room occupancy (SRO), and employee/farmworker housing as a permitted use under various zones.

The introduction of greater housing choice, a broader cross-section of households provides more opportunities to live in the City of Lemoore and reduces overcrowding.

d) Disproportionate Housing Needs
The 6th Cycle RHNA projects the City of Lemoore’s future housing needs at 2,329 units; the City of Lemoore’s 5th Cycle RHNA determined a need for 2,985 units.

The total housing needs include 293 units for extremely low-income (approx. 12.6% of the RHNA allocation), 293 units for very low-income, 437 units for low- income, 408 units for moderate-income, and 898 units for above moderate-income. The need for lower income units totals to 1,023 units while the need for moderate and above housing units totals 1,306 units . Housing for lower income households represents 43.9% of projected housing needs.

Figure 19 shows the vacant lots in the City of Lemoore. The total number of units that could be accommodated in Lemoore during the 2024-32 planning period are 1,225 lower income housing units and 1,621 moderate and above-moderate income housing units. Available land can support 2,886 housing units which can meet RHNA allocation requirements.

The intent of introducing new residential development in these areas is to add new housing to desirable areas and provide a range of housing choices at different prices to current and future residents. With a broader range of housing options, housing will become more affordable across the community, which should lessen the housing cost burden, particularly for renters in the City of Lemoore.

Table 25: Potential New Dwelling Units by Zone

General Plan

Zone

Acres
Potential New Units by Income

Lower
Moderate
and
Above

Total

LEMOORE
VLDR/LDR RL5/RVLD/RLD 332 990 990
MDR RLMD/RMD/RN 146 599 671 1270
HDR/Mixed RM-2, OR, PO 77 626 626

Sub-Total 555 1225 1661 2886

e) Sites Inventory Findings
The distribution of RHNA sites across the community will help to improve the opportunities and outcomes throughout the City. Furthermore, the RHNA sites will allow for development at densities needed to stimulate affordable housing development. Below is a summary of types of RHNA sites and characteristics within City of Lemoore census tracts.

I I I I I

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-57

Figure 19: City of Lemoore and Surrounding Unincorporated Area Vacant Land Inventory

Census Tract 2

Census Tract 2 contains only a small area in the west of the City of Lemoore. This area is zoned Wetland and Agriculture and does not contain any vacant land, as seen in Figure A1-18. This area is mostly identified as 1% of Annual Chance Flood Hazard and has the highest CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score compared to the rest of the census tracts. Additionally, there are no jobs within a 45- minute transit commute. This area does not require a targeted approach to encourage housing production.

Census Tract 4.02

There are two large, vacant sites zoned as Regional Commercial. This district is designated for large scale commercial development that serves local and regional needs. Sites are easily accessible from freeways and may contain a variety of goods and services, such as large format retail, department stores, eating and drinking establishments, hotels, and motels. This site is in proximity to 150+ Low Density Residential sites and a few Low Medium Density Residential sites.

The Low-Density Residential district is designated for single- family residential subdivisions at a range from a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 7 units per gross acre. Lot sizes range from 7,000 to 15,000 square feet.

The Low Medium Density Residential district is designated for higher density single- family residential development including small lot single-family, attached single-family and duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Typical residential density for this designation ranges from a minimum of 7 to a maximum of 12 units per gross acre.

If housing is produced in these areas prior to the development of the Regional Commercial sites, homeowners could benefit from higher rates of return over time.

City of Lemoore and Surrounding Unincorporated Area
Vacant Land Inventory
I
I j JI f
-
I - 1 •
.f!t1:.)
f----- ---'---.- -jl ..,jJ...,. ~ !I ~#~\~
•- TJ:l'lc,,
-""' -
l 'T l
JI
LEGEND
Vacant Land
Flood Zone
D City Boundaries
D Census Blocks
D Census Tracts
M2ippr~by·
Madel ison Faria
April 11, 2024
Kings coun t y Community
Development Agency
HOO W Lac~ Blvd, twlfonl, CA 932)0
('>Y.l}!!!iN 647
---'~·'--~
1 Miles

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

1A-58 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

In addition, potential new housing at these sites can be supported by Community Facilities zoned land.

Community Facilities zoned land is owned by public entities, including schools, administrative offices, corporation yards, and public facilities, including trash collection and solid waste facilities, sewage treatment ponds, and fire stations.

A large portion of the City of Lemoore is in census tract 4.02. It is identified as a Highest Resource area that has 0-2,500 jobs within a 45-minute transit commute. It is also a Lower Displacement Risk area with a lower poverty rate than most of the census tracts in the City of Lemoore. This area should be a priority area for lower income units.

Census Tract 4.03

There are 87 Low Density Residential zoned vacant sites adjacent to each other. These sites are also next to a large vacant site zoned Low Density Residential.

This census tract has the highest percentage of severely crowded units compared to the rest of all the other census tracts in the City of Lemoore. It is an area identified as High Resource and Lower Displacement Risk with no identified flood hazard risk. The local median income is between $60,000-$84,097. The City should target a range of housing units in a High Resource, Lower Displacement Risk area that has the highest percentage of severely overcrowded units in the City.

Census Tract 4.05

This census tract has several identified vacant sites identified on Figure 1A-18 that are zoned as Traditional Neighborhood Residential. This district is designated for older, historic neighborhoods in central Lemoore and new development that is designed with similar characteristics. Development features single- family residential homes at a density range from a minimum of 7 to a maximum of 12 units per gross acre with lot sizes between a minimum of 3,600 and a maximum of 7,500 square feet.

There is a large vacant property zoned Low Density Residential. This sight is adjacent to land zoned Service and Community Facilities. If housing is produced for lower income households, these households can especially benefit from proximity to community services.

Census Tract 4.07

Census Tract 4.07 has a few dozen vacant sites with various zoning designations scattered around the census tract. It is the only census tract that has some sites that are zoned for Downtown Mixed Use, Core.

This area is characterized as a Highest Resource area with a Lower Displacement Risk. It has the highest percentage of single parent female headed households with children and overpayment by renters compared to the rest of the census tracts.

Census Tract 4.06

There are only three vacant sites identified. One of the sites is in the .2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard risk area. One of the sites is zoned Low Medium Density Residential. The other site is zoned Medium Density Residential.

Medium Density Residential is designated for multi - family residential development, including apartments and townhomes. Development is typically 2 and sometimes 3 stories, with balconies, common area open space, and shared amenities. Residential densities range from a minimum of 12 to a maximum of 17 units per gross acre. Lot size to unit ratio is between 2,500 and 3,600 square feet. .

This area is a Highest Resource area and has the highest local median income, $84,097-$120,000, in the City

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-59

of Lemoore.

It would be advantageous if the Medium Density Residential zoned site can accommodate more of the lower income household units to further fair housing choice in an area that is characterized by higher economic resources.

Figure 20: City of Lemoore Vacant Sites 6,000 Square Feet or Greater

Table 26: Characteristics by City of Lemoore Census Tracts Characteristics Census
Tract 2
Census
Tract 4.02
Census
Tract 4.03
Census
Tract 4.05
Census Tract

4.07 Census Tract
XX
Figure 1A-1

TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Areas
Moderate
Resource
Highest
Resource
High
Resource
High
Resource
Highest
Resource
Highest
Resource
Figure 1A-2:

Local Median Income
$60,000 -
$84, 097
$60,000 -
$84,097
$60,000 -
$84,097
$35,000 -
$60,000
$60,000 -
$84,097
$84,097 -
120,000
Figure 1A-3:

Poverty Status
10% - 20% < 10% 10% - 20% 10% - 20% 10% - 20% < 10%
Figure 1A-4:

Local Racial
Demographics
Low-
Medium
Segregation
Racially
Integrated
Racially
Integrated
Racially
Integrated
No Data
Applicable
No Data
Applicable
Figure 1A-5:

Local RCAAs
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Figure 1A-6:

Single Parent Female
Headed Households with

Less than
20%

Less than
20%

Less than
20%

Less than
20%

20%-40%

Less than
20%
City of Lemoore Zoning
Vacant Sites 6,000 Square Feet or Greater
JI
HOUSTON AVE:

I
l ----·----.,.. ~·------. ,
LEGEND
lJ FloodZoncs
O vaaintt..1nd6,(l()()sqft-1-
D OtyAroa
□ Parcels
~Zoni119
. AQricultu:e
Medium
""'"" _,
Oowntown
•:~:ll!.e, -~ "'"'"" -·­. MixcdUse, -~
""" -·­MixedUse,
Tran~l lonal
· =11al -~ty
RL'5i<k!nt.lal
'"" Industria l
Park$and
Recreation/
"""'"" Basin
Parksand
Recreation/
Pood log

13.l!;in(PR)
Pr-Of~siooaj
°""" """' Service~
""'"'""'' FucU ies
- ~~clal
La.~ Density
Resioen(illl
La,,
M~um
Oensitv
R~tial - ~t!ooo
Medium
Ck:'nslty
Rcsidcfltlal
Rc-.ldcntlal
\/eiyl.ow
Density
R<:.·si<:k:nlial
. \v«lrlod
Map~redby:

Maddison Faria
April 16, 2024
Kings County Community
Development Agency
1400W~ Blv<t, Hanfon:l,CA932'.IO
(SS9}8S2-lG47
\,mes

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

1A-60 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

Children
Figure 1A-7: Population
with
a Disability

10% - 20%

10% - 20%

10% - 20%

< 10%

10% - 20%

10% - 20%
Figure 1A-10: Jobs
Within 45-Minute
Transit Commute

1-2,500

Figure 1A-12:

CalEnviroScreen 4.0
> 50% -
75%
> 50% -
75%
> 50% -
75%
> 50% -
75%
> 50% -
75%
> 50% - 75%
Figure 1A-13:

Flood Hazard Zones

1% Annual
Chance
Flood
Hazard
Western
portions
identified
as .02% or
1% Annual
Chance
Flood
Hazard
No
identified
flood hazard
No
identified
flood
hazard
No
identified
flood hazard
Significantly
identified as
.02% Annual
Chance
Flood Hazard
Figure 1A-14:

Overcrowded Units

5.19% -
10%
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
Figure 1A-14:

Severely Overcrowded
Units

< 2.5%

< 2.5%

2.5%-6.5%

< 2.5%

< 2.5%

< 2.5%
Figure 1A-15:

Overpayment by Renters
40% - 60% 20%-40% 20%-40% 40% - 60% 60%-80% < 20%
Figure 1A-16:

Percentage of
Homeowners
Overpaying

20%-40%

20%-40%

20%-40%

20%-40%

20%-40%

20%-40%
Figure 1A-17: Estimated
Displacement Risk
Lower
Displaceme
nt Risk
Lower
Displaceme
nt Risk
Lower
Displaceme
nt Risk
At Risk of
Displaceme
nt
Lower
Displacemen
t Risk
Lower
Displacement
Risk

Summary

The City of Lemoore’s RHNA sites are generally accommodated throughout the city and are not concentrated in areas with high racial or ethnic populations, persons with disabilities, female -headed households, senior households, or LMI households. For these reasons, the City finds that the sites proposed to accommodate its RHNA allocation do not unduly burden existing areas of concentrated racial or ethnic homogeneity, poverty, or other characteristics. Moreover, the sites affirmatively further fair housing by providing choice in Highest Resource and High Resource areas.

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-61

Contributing Factors

The December 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Guidebook published by HUD identifies examples of contributing factors by each fair housing issue area: outreach, fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disparities in access to opportunities for persons with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risks, and sites inventory.

The County supports the recommendations of the 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) that was prepared by the California Coalition for Rural Housing. The FHEA analyzes patterns in racial and economic segregation, discusses how segregation impacts individuals’ and families’ ability to access housing opportunity, and proposes strategies and recommendations to create more equitable and integrated communities.

Based on the issues identified in this Fair Housing Analysis, the following are the top 5 issues to be addressed through the programs in the Housing Plan:

1. Maintaining and preserving the existing affordable housing stock;

2. Assisting in the provision of housing;

3. Removing governmental constraints, as necessary;

4. Providing adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing; and

5. Promoting equal housing opportunity.

After considering these issues and FHEA recommendations, the City has identified in Table 27 potential contributing factors to fair housing issues in the City of Lemoore and outlines the meaningful actions to be taken. The meaningful actions listed in the Table relate to the actions identified in the Housing Plan.

Table 27: Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues

AFH Identified Fair Housing
Issue

Contributing Factors
Priority
Meaningful Actions
Limitations in local
Consolidated Planning
Processes, ongoing CDBG and
HOME funding allocations,
Housing Elements Processes,
and other city planning
documents.

Existing low-density
residential
development under
general plan and
zoning code
Gap between low
density and medium
density and high-
density classification
High Program 4.8 Assist
Affordable Housing
Development: Through
direct financial assistance
such as CDBG and HOME,
priority entitlement
processing, regulatory
incentives such as density
bonus and modified
development standards,

1A-62 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

Assist in the provision of
housing by removing
government constraints and
promoting equal housing
opportunity

Limitations in zoning
code and density
classifications
Permission of pre-
approved design, and
development standards
High Program 4.8Assist
Affordable Housing
Development: Through
direct financial assistance
such as CDBG and HOME,
priority entitlement
processing, regulatory
incentives such as density
bonus and modified
development standards,
administrative support to
developers on grant
applications.

Programs 4.7 Section 8
Rental Assistance

Program 4.9 Senior and
Special Needs Housing

Program 4.10 Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing

Program 4.11 Employee and
Farmworker Housing

Funding for marginalized or
distressed communities, such as
Transit Oriented Development
Funds, Strategic Growth
Council grants, HCD's
Housing-Related Parks
Program, Safe Routes to
School, and Brownfield
funding.

Ensuring funding is
available for
marginalized and
distressed community
High Research, identify, and
apply for funds available
through the CDBG and
HOME Programs, Mobile
home Park Rehabilitation
and Resident Ownership
Program (MPRROP),
United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Cap-
and-Trade Program, and
other funding sources that
support affordable housing
development and
preservation, infrastructure
investment, energy
efficiency, homeownership,
code enforcement,
farmworker housing, etc.

Program 4.4 Downtown
Revitalization

SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-63

Program 4.6 First-Time
Homebuyer Program

Program 4.7 Section 8
Rental Assistance

Program 4.8 Affordable
Housing Project Assistance
Provide guidance for site
selection of affordable housing
developments.

Housing Element
identifies adequate sites
to accommodate the
City’s share of the
Regional Housing Needs
Allocation of 2,329 units
High Program 4.3 Zoning for
Adequate Sites: Adequate
sites are those with sufficient
development and density
standards, water and sewer
services, and adequate
infrastructure.

Develop a program to educate
and encourage landlords to
accept Housing Choice
Vouchers.

Lack of readily available
information regarding fair
housing resources and
assistance to persons in
filing a complaint

Lack of education of
public and housing
providers regarding rights
and responsibilities under
the AFH and FEHA
High Program 4.13 Promote Equal
Housing Opportunities

Develop and implement a
proactive code enforcement
program that holds property
owners accountable and
proactively plans for resident
relocation when necessary.

Code enforcement High Program 4.1 Code
Enforcement, 4.2 Housing
Rehabilitation Program,
Disproportionate Housing
Needs, including Overpayment
and Substandard Housing

Ongoing need for
affordable housing

Need for assistance with
monthly housing costs

Lack of local information
regarding available
housing rehabilitation,
emergency repair, and
weatherization programs

Need for targeted
housing revitalization
strategies
Medium Program 4.7 Section 8 Rental
Assistance

Program 4.9 Senior and
Special Needs Housing

Program 4.10 Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing

Program 4.11 Employee and
Farmworker Housing

Program 4.12 Remove
Constraints on Housing for
Persons with Disabilities and

1A-64 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT

APPENDIX 5: CITY OF LEMOORE

Special Needs
Use design tools to seamlessly
integrate affordable housing
development into larger mixed-
income developments.

Limitations in zoning
code and density
classifications ·

Approval process
Medium Program 4.5 Planned Unit
Development (PUD)

Kings County Lemoore Corcoran Hanford Avenal Kings (Unincorporated)

LEMOORE

CALIFORNIA
• • • • •

14.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

Presentation of Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project Status and Discussion of Project and Funding Alternatives, and Impacts

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Presentation of Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project Status and Discussion of Project and Funding Alternatives, and Impacts

Recommended Motion: Provide direction on Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project Status and Project and Funding Alternatives, and Impacts BACKGROUND:

Staff recommends that City Council provide:

1. Direction on the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Project a. Scope
b. Construction Management/Inspection
c. Alternatives

2. Feedback to staff due to impact of decisions from '1' and direction (as needed)

PROJECT STATUS

The City has made significant progress on the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project (Project), now nearly at 90% design completion. It is planned to be ready for bid in October 2024, with a recommendation for contract award and contract executed by end of December 2024.

Due to a funding deadline associated with a large financial component of the project from the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the Project must be obligated (contract in place) before December 31, 2024 or obligated to another City Council approved project that meets the US Treasury guidelines.

The project will improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety, increase parking availability, provide traffic- calming features, improve stormwater drainage, upgrade/rehabilitate water and sewer lines, improve lighting, improve accessibility, replace trees and landscaping and include several other streetscape enhancements. This Project has been underway with Council authorization since June 2022, and has been under design since May 2023.

August 20, 2024 - At City Council's Meeting, Council took no official action to approve a contract for Construction Management and Inspection services for the Project. This has left staff needing to look

at doing this work internally, as no other direction or alternatives were provided by City Council to Staff.

Today's meeting is to present the Project's status, discuss with City Council Project Alternatives, including scope changes or shifting some funds to other projects, discussing the impacts, and requesting Council direction.

POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS

Project Scope Changes - Immediate Impact

In February 2024, the City submitted a $15.5 million application for a Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant to enhance sidewalks, streets, lighting, landscaping, pedestrian safety, public art, connectivity, and alleys in Downtown Hanford. The project also aimed to invest significantly in Hanford’s historic areas, including China Alley. The total RAISE funding available nationally to date amounts to $7.2 billion, with $1.8 billion allocated for the 2024 cycle.

The City's 2024 application positioned the proposed RAISE project as part of a broader revitalization and safety initiative for Downtown Hanford. The application highlighted that the City had already secured funding for construction improvements, including a roundabout designed to reduce speeding, lower greenhouse gas emissions, enhance connectivity, and improve walkability. It emphasized that the RAISE project was a continuation of the City's ongoing safety and sustainability efforts, building on the Downtown Improvement Project and the East Lacey Project.

Although the City's project was not funded in the 2024 cycle, it was designated as a "Project of Merit," meaning it received a "Highly Rated" status at every assessment level. This designation allows the project to be carried over as a "Highly Recommended" submission for the 2025 grant cycle, eliminating the need for a reapplication in 2025 and preserving its top recommendation status.

However, any changes to the project's scope or associated facts will result in the loss of its "Project of Merit" designation, necessitating a new application for 2025. A modified application, including one with a four-way stop or the removal of the Downtown project all together, will be less competitive, reducing or completely removing the City from contention to secure $15.5 million for improvements to the Downtown and the historic areas.

Council does have the authority to request scope change(s) to the Project as currently designed.

However, there will be significant challenges to get the project awarded by the end of the year deadline. In discussion with Engineering Staff, this is possible. However, time is of the essence in getting futher City Council direction.

Alternative Project Impacts

Should Council decide to transfer the funding to another project(s), there are several important factors to consider. According to SLFRF rules, funding may NOT be used for:
• No pension deposits, debt service or replenishing financial reserves. Since SLFRF funds are intended to be used prospectively, recipients may not use SLFRF funds for debt service or replenishing financial reserves (e.g., rainy day funds). While pension deposits are prohibited, recipients may use funds for routine payroll contributions connected to an eligible use of funds

(e.g., for public health and safety staff).

Staff does not recommend any alternative that deviates from SLFRF requirements and established policy.

At this time, should the current Project be unable to be delivered/obligated by the deadline, the only alternatives that Staff could utilize (and recommends) would be to allocate the funding to those established projects already approved by City Council. There are two established alternatives for the remaining SLFRF (approximately $4 million remaining as of the date of this report) previously approved (and potentially viable) by City Council:

a. Public Safety Salaries and Benefits (7/1/24 - 12/31/24) b. Xeriscape Projects at Police and Fire Stations (this may not be feasible closer to deadline)

Staff recently discussed the possibility of other alternative projects; however, significant challenges present themselves to the viability of the delivery of new projects so close to the obligation deadline.

Below is a listing of some projects that have recently been discussed with City Council or among staff and associated challenges or viability. None are recommended by Staff. They are presented as theoretical options for City Council's information. In addition, some projects listed may require funding beyond what may be available from current sources (meaning a General Fund impact) as only about $3.9 million in grant funding remains.

Project Estimated Cost Deliverability by 12/31/24
Police Patrol Vehicles (10)/ Fire
F250 (1) Replacements
~$1 million Possible, could order/purchase
vehicles for replacement
Hidden Valley - Phase 1 ~$4 million Not feasible, short timeline to obligation deadline
Youth Athletic Complex (YAC) -
Basin Turf
~$4.5 million Very challenging or not feasible,
short timeline to obligation
deadline
Court Street Promenade (at Civic
Center Park)
~$4 million Very challenging or not feasible,
short timeline to obligation
deadline

There are many other projects that the City has needs for, but most (if not all) would have significant challenges due to very limited time remaining to have SLFRF funds obligated. Adding multiple small projects adds additional challenges with resources available to prepare projects for bid or proposal in order to get encumbered. Multiple projects would not be recommended by Staff due to significant challenges of a short timeline. Of important note, the minimum timeline for a project to have a bid or proposal as required by federal guidelines and City Policy would be 2 to 3 months, which leaves very little time for outreach, preliminary scoping, and project vetting and development.

PROJECT PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION

On May 5, 2015, staff presented an item to City Council for the removal of five midblock crosswalks.

These crosswalk locations were determined to be non-compliant with current ADA requirements and needed excessive improvements to bring them into compliance. At that time, the Council heard comments and voted to remove two of the five crosswalks and to evaluate the others for upgrades to

meet ADA compliance.

In September 2018, as directed by the City Council, a Downtown Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety Committee was formed. The purpose of forming that committee was to meet with staff and consultants to discuss the potential for converting some downtown streets to one-way streets, traffic calming at intersections, safety lighting, and traffic controls in the downtown area. The intention was then to meet with the City Council and provide recommendations for a final report and plan for downtown improvements that would benefit pedestrian and vehicular safety. The committee consisted of local downtown business owners and representatives.

At the February 16, 2021, City Council meeting, staff, along with the City’s consultant, Peters Engineering, presented the Council with the results of the Downtown Committee’s recommendations for the Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Study. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to move forward with the recommendations of the committee. The recommendations included roundabouts along Douty Street at Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Streets, the removal of five midblock crosswalks on Irwin, Douty, and Sixth Streets, and the construction of pedestrian curb extensions at twenty-eight intersections in the downtown study area.

At the September 7, 2021, City Council Study Session, staff discussed the downtown traffic circulation and related improvements to improve safety and walkability, as well as potential funding opportunities from the Clean California Local Grant Program administered by the California Department of Transportation. Staff presented the committee's project recommendations for the Council's review and direction. The Council further discussed the midblock crosswalks and the project budget. It was the Council's consensus to direct staff to move forward with the recommendations. Additional appropriations would be presented to the Council at a future meeting for review and approval.

At the June 21, 2022, Council meeting Study Session, staff presented the ARPA funding information to Council and requested approval for allocations. Council approved the recommendation to allocate $4.4 million for Downtown Economic Development Improvements, including improvements to Sixth Street, Seventh Street, and Eighth Street. Should additional funding become available, or if existing funding is redirected, additional downtown intersections could be improved with curb extensions as identified in the Study.

At the December 6, 2022, City Council meeting, Council requested that staff present the potential development scenarios for the downtown, including the implications of including a roundabout at Seventh and Douty, three roundabouts on Douty, and all way stops on Douty.

At the December 20, 2022, City Council meeting, as requested by Council, Peters Engineering Group, along with City staff, presented the development scenarios and the implications for traffic, parking, future planning, and budget for each scenario. Council directed staff to circulate a Request for Proposals for the design of pedestrian improvements and a single roundabout at Seventh and Douty.

At the May 5, 2023, Council meeting, approved the design award to Interwest Consulting Group for the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project. This includes designing a roundabout at Douty Street and Seventh Street with ADA-compliant features, reconfiguring Douty Street from four lanes to two lanes with angled parking, and implementing streetscape improvements on both Douty Street and Seventh Street. Additionally, the project entails removing traffic signals at the intersections of Seventh and Harris, Seventh and Irwin, and Seventh and Douty, and replacing them with bulb- outs, all way stops, and a roundabout.

At the March 19, 2024, Council meeting, directed final design elements on the intersections, mid- block crossings, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting and street furniture within the scope of the Project.

At the August 20, 2024, Council meeting, no action was taken by City Council for award of construction management and inspection services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Of primary importance is that remaining ARPA/SLFRF funds must be obligated by the end of December 31, 2024 or used for alternative City Council approved projects. For this Project, based on City Council direction today, costs will change for additional design services and/or scope changes.

Staff will bring to City Council a separate item for consideration of additional authorizations and/or appropriations needed due to current/future changes. Below is a current estimate of costs associated with this project:

Budget Summary:

Available Funding:

ARPA Grant $ 4,416,000 USDA - Urban Forestry Grant $ 230,000 Storm, Water, and Sewer funds $ 1,507,300 Transportation Funding $ 1,400,000

Total Available Funding: $ 7,553,300

Estimated Project Costs:

Construction (Interwest's Estimate) $ 4,650,000 Utilities (Storm, Sewer, Water) $ 1,400,000 Architect/Engineer (Interwest Consulting) $ 391,945 Construction Manager (Per Submitted Fee) $ 506,853 Surveying (2%) $ 93,000 Construction Contingency (10%) $ 465,000 permits/fees (1%) $ 46,500

Total Estimated Project Costs $ 7,553,298

The construction estimate above is based on 60% level engineering plans. There is a potential that items can be adjusted to help reduce the construction cost. Those items include using enhanced concrete instead of pavers. This and other items will be looked at with City staff and a Construction Manager (if selected) to reduce project costs but maintain high quality. As of the date of this report, approximately $3.9 million remains of the ARPA funding due to design costs of the Project.

Note that the above identified USDA, Utilities, and Transportation funds will require an appropriation

by City Council, but final amounts will be recommended at the time of award when actual costs are known.

City staff recommends implementing a cost allocation strategy for project costs based on the project's water, stormwater, and transportation related components to match appropriate funding sources.

Interwest, the City’s design consultant, has provided preliminary estimates indicating that approximately 10% of the construction costs are stormwater-related, 15% are water-related, and the remaining 75% can be covered by the ARPA grant or Transportation funds. Staff will apply these percentages to the CM contract, ensuring that the costs are proportionately funded by the appropriate sources. This approach ensures that the funding is accurately distributed according to the specific components of the project.

City staff is also reviewing the requirements of the USDA – Urban Forestry Grant and may be able to pull additional funding from this grant to cover more of the landscaping improvements in the project.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

14.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract amendment with Interwest Consulting Group for the Downtown Improvement Project additional scope of work.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract amendment no.1 with Interwest Consulting Group for additional design work to the Downtown Improvement Project in the amount of $93,255.

Recommended Motion:

I move to authorize the City Manager to enter into contract amendment no. 1 with Interwest Consulting Group for additional design work associated with the Downtown Improvement Project in the amount of $93,255.

BACKGROUND:

At the May 5, 2023, meeting, Council approved the design award to Interwest Consulting Group for the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project. The scope of work included designing a roundabout at Douty Street and Seventh Street with ADA-compliant features, reconfiguring Douty Street from four lanes to two lanes with angled parking, and implementing streetscape improvements on both Douty Street and Seventh Street.

Added Scope:

During the design process, staff directed Interwest to expand their scope of work to resolve Downtown flooding issues as well as the aged underlying utility infrastructure within the Project’s footprint area. It was noted that the water lines beneath Douty as well as the lines beneath 7th Avenue to be 40-years old and of frail material. Because of the investment being made to replace sidewalks and pavement, to minimize construction inconvenience, to take advantage of economies of scale, and in the essence of time, Staff directed Interwest to make the storm drain improvements and utility replacements along with the Downtown Project. Storm Drain work will include redirecting storm runoff away from the intersection of 8th and Irwin via new storm drain basins and pipe. Design is also evaluating the installation of a drywell(s) to further reduce storm and nuisance runoff away from the intersection. Estimated Fees for Added Scope: $63,525

Change in Design:

Should Council direct staff to make changes in the design during the previous General Business item at this same meeting, Interwest was requested to provide a proposal to make the necessary changes in design. Fees will necessitate expedited service to keep the project on schedule. Estimated Fees for Change in Design: $30,000.

The above not to exceed fees are based on fees estimated by Interwest to complete the design changes. Billed costs are based on actual hours expended.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This is a multi-funded project using ARPA Federal Funds, USDA Grant Funds, Enterprise Funds (Storm, Sewer, and Water), and State Transportation Funds. The table below shows the budget summary for the project:

Budget Summary:

Available Funding:

ARPA Grant $ 4,416,000
Tree Grant $ 230,000
Storm and Sewer fees $ 1,507,300
TDA/RSTP (Transportation Funding) $ 1,400,000
Total Available Funding: $ 7,553,300

Estimated Project Costs:

Construction (Interwest's Estimate) $ 4,650,000
Utilities (Storm, Sewer, Water - Staff
estimate)
$ 1,400,000
Engineer (Interwest Consulting Grp) $ 391,945
Interwest Amendment No. 1 $ 93,255
Construction Manager (Per Submitted Fee) $ 506,853
Surveying (2%) $ 93,000
Construction Contingency (5%) $ 465,000
permits/fees (1%) $ 46,500
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 7,646,553

The total project costs, including the additional design services and construction contingencies, is estimated to be $7,646,553. The total budgeted for this project is $7,553,300. Although there is a budget deficit in the overall total cost of the project, there are sufficient funds to cover the cost of the added design services. Therefore, no additional appropriation is needed at this time. Staff will be returning to council during the award of the construction contract to appropriate the funds when the actual amount of construction is known.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Interwest Amendment #1

1 Jenner | Suite 160 | Irvine, CA 92618
626.224.2055
September 9 , 2024
Jason Waters
City of Hanford
900 South 10 th Avenue
Hanford , CA 93230

Re: Revised: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project – Amendment #1 to the City of Hanford Professional Services Agreement , dated June 5, 2023 Dear Mr. Waters,
Based off our bi-weekly project update meetings with the City of Hanford, the city is interested in replacing storm drain infrastructure from the intersection of Douty Street and 8 th Street, toward Harris Street with new storm drain improvements based off recommendations from the cities storm drain master plan . The city has also expressed the importance of replacing the water and sewer infrastructure due to it being 40 -50 years old. Lastly, the city has recently asked for a design change at the 90% plan submittal for an enhanced all way stop at the intersection of Douty Street and 7th Street. Our team is requesting additional hours and budget to add the Storm Drain, Water, and Sewer Design Services to the original consulting agreement. Our team is also requesting compensation for the change in design to an enhanced all way stop at the 90% submittal.

The additional scope of services is as follows:

• Conduct additional survey of drainage area requested by City with 1 site visit. Review survey data. • Research and review all available existing and proposed storm drain, street, sewer videos, and topographic plans. Research and review all relevant storm water quality, storm drain master plans and hydrology available. Attend project progress meetings to discuss and incorporate changes. • Research and review all available existing and proposed water and sewer plans , sewer videos, existing material and conditions. Attend project progress meetings to discuss and incorporate changes. • Evaluate drywell options near the intersection of Irvine and 8th street where drainage is compromised. • 30% geometric layout due to design change from roundabout to all way stop at the intersection of Douty Street and 7th Street.
• Reevaluate utilities, quantities, and project layout due to design change. • Recreate 3D conceptual renderings of add alts with all way stop. • Expedite plans, specifications, and cost estimate ready for bid prior to the grant deadline. • Support during construction.

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS . THRIVING COMMUNITIES .

City of Hanford
Revised: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project – Amendment #1

FEE PROPOSAL

THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS . THRIVING COMMUNITIES .

City of Hanford
Revised: Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project – Amendment #1

As shown in the Fee Proposal Table, the total updated Not-To-Exceed budget to complete the additional scope of services as outlined in this amendment #1 proposal letter is $ 93,254.48. Our team is confident with the latest addition to the scope of work that we will be able to expedite our design and deliver this project as requested by the city.

In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment #1 letter proposal and look forward to continuing to provide the City of Hanford with excellent service. Please do not hesitate to contact Scott Harrison at 407-739-4805 should you have any questions.

Respectfully Submitted,

Paul Meschino
President - Interwest Consulting Group

14.C.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

Council reconsideraton of the Approval of a contract with 4Creeks Inc., to provide Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project in an amount not exceed $506,853.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council, by motion, authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with 4Creeks Inc, of Hanford, CA, to provide Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project in the not to exceed amount of $506,853.

Recommended Motion: I move to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with 4Creeks Inc, of Hanford, CA for the Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project in the not to exceed amount of $506,853.

BACKGROUND:

City staff presented to the City Council on August 20th, 2024, requesting authorization to enter into a contract with 4-Creeks Inc. for construction management services. However, no motion was carried regarding the contract. The City Council requested further discussion on the project at a future meeting. At the upcoming Council meeting on September 17th, 2024, City staff will provide an update along with additional information and options for moving forward with the project. The potential design scope change will not affect the scope of the construction management contract. Therefore, City staff requests that the CM contract be authorized by motion if the project proceeds. These services are essential for the successful completion of the project. Currently, there is no designated staff member available to provide these services for the project. While we have qualified staff members who could complete these services in-house, doing so would drastically impact other critical projects, causing them to be put on hold or significantly delaying their timelines.

PROJECT SUMMARY:

The City of Hanford is making significant progress on the Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project, now at 60% design completion. The project will improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety, increase parking availability, incorporate traffic-calming features, improve stormwater drainage, upgrade existing water and sewer lines, improve lighting, improve ADA accessibility, replace trees and landscaping, and include several other streetscape enhancements.

As part of the project, the all-way stop at Douty and Seventh Street will be replaced by a new

enhanced intersection (the design of which will be a subject of discussion as a separate agenda item at the September 17, 2024 City Council Meeting), while the intersections at Sixth and Eighth Streets will remain all-way stops. The signal at Seventh and Irwin will be replaced by bulb-outs and all-way stops. Planned improvements also include new sidewalks, curbs, gutters, upgraded street structural sections, drainage enhancements, utility relocations, and other necessary updates. Streetscape enhancements will focus on Douty Street from Sixth to Eighth Streets and Seventh Street from Douty to Irwin, with features such as landscaping, decorative lighting, planters, and historical signs, all designed to improve walkability and safety. Additionally, Douty Street between Sixth and Eighth Streets will be transformed to include diagonal parking,

City Staff is also working with Interwest to upgrade the 40-year-old water lines beneath Douty and 7th Street. The 2017 Water Master Plan showed no deficiencies, but given the lines' age and the cost of repaving, staff recommends replacing the lines with this project. This will improve water system reliability and prevent potential issues or repairs after the new pavement is installed, ensuring a more durable solution for the community. Existing sanitary sewers are also being reviewed for possible rehabilitation or replacement.

City staff has recently advertised for Construction Management services, moving the project closer to the construction phase. The Construction Management firm will be responsible for overseeing construction to ensure it stays on track, within budget, and meets quality standards. The consultant will coordinate with contractors, conduct regular inspections, enforce safety regulations, and address any issues that arise. For this project, it is recommended that 4Creeks provide these services, assist with public outreach efforts, provide inspection services for nighttime work, and offer other construction-related support as needed. 4Creeks has an in-house marketing officer who will manage public outreach components; given the project’s complexity, coordination needs, and phased approach. Constant attention will be required to ensure all construction phases are executed smoothly, and the team will help keep the community informed about the project and its progress.

The project is currently on schedule to advertise and award a construction contract prior to the end of 2024.

SELECTION PROCESS:

Staff published a request for proposals (RFP) for construction management and inspection services beginning July 11, 2024 through August 6, 2024. The City of Hanford received one proposal in response to the advertised Request for Proposals, RFP 2024-24, for the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project. The following single proposal was received:

Company: Location:

1.4Creeks Inc Visalia, Ca

4Creeks was found technically qualified to do the work. Following review of their proposal and reference checks, staff determined4Creeks Inc as a qualified candidate due to their portfolio of construction management projects of similar size and scale, and experience coordinating with the public on projects that impact regular pedestrian traffic.

4Creeks Inc has managed many recent projects in California and across the Central Valley including:

1. The Farmersville Widening Project

2. The City of Visalia’s Akers & 198 Interchange Widening Project

3. The City of Exeter’s Visalia Road Improvement Project, Phase 1

4. Pratt, Mefford & Choice Improvement Project

4Creeks Inc comes highly recommended, receiving praise from their references. These references include Frank Senteno from City of Hanford, Jennifer Gomez formerly from City of Farmersville, and Nick Bartsch from City of Visalia. Their references described them as an amazing partner, an efficient problem solver, easy to work with, quick to respond, and passionate about their work. 4Creeks's references expressed willingness to work with them again in the future. Jennifer Gomes from City of Farmersville said, "Their [4Creeks] knowledge of the construction process was proven quickly in their ability to identify construction issues in the plans and the field and provide cost-effective and innovative solutions to keep the project moving forward."

In addition to 4 Creeks' impressive references, they have demonstrated their expertise through numerous successful projects completed on time and within budget. This can be attributed in part to their team's excellent problem-solving skills, industry experience, and strong collaboration techniques. 4-Creeks has several offices in the Central Valley, including one in Hanford.

PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION:

On May 5, 2015, staff presented an item to City Council for the removal of five midblock crosswalks.

These crosswalk locations were determined to be non-compliant with current ADA requirements and needed excessive improvements to bring them into compliance. At that time, the Council heard comments and voted to remove two of the five crosswalks and to evaluate the others for upgrades to meet ADA compliance.

In September 2018, as directed by the City Council, a Downtown Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety Committee was formed. The purpose of forming that committee was to meet with staff and consultants to discuss the potential for converting some downtown streets to one-way streets, traffic calming at intersections, safety lighting, and traffic controls in the downtown area. The intention was then to meet with the City Council and provide recommendations for a final report and plan for downtown improvements that would benefit pedestrian and vehicular safety. The committee consisted of local downtown business owners and representatives.

At the February 16, 2021, City Council meeting, staff, along with the City’s consultant, Peters Engineering, presented the Council with the results of the Downtown Committee’s recommendations for the Downtown Pedestrian Safety & Traffic Circulation Study. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to move forward with the recommendations of the committee. The recommendations included roundabouts along Douty Street at Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Streets, the removal of five midblock crosswalks on Irwin, Douty, and Sixth Streets, and the construction of pedestrian curb extensions at twenty-eight intersections in the downtown study area.

At the September 7, 2021, City Council Study Session, staff discussed the downtown traffic circulation and related improvements to improve safety and walkability, as well as potential funding opportunities from the Clean California Local Grant Program administered by the California Department of Transportation. Staff presented the committee's project recommendations for the Council's review and direction. The Council further discussed the midblock crosswalks and the project budget. It was the Council's consensus to direct staff to move forward with the recommendations. Additional appropriations would be presented to the Council at a future meeting for review and approval.

At the June 21, 2022, Council meeting Study Session, staff presented the ARPA funding information

to Council and requested approval for allocations. Council approved the recommendation to allocate $4.4 million for Downtown Street Economic Development, including improvements to Sixth Street, Seventh Street, and Eighth Street. Should additional funding become available, or if existing funding is redirected, additional downtown intersections could be improved with curb extensions as identified in the Study.

At the December 6, 2022, City Council meeting, Council requested that staff present the potential development scenarios for the downtown, including the implications of including a roundabout at Seventh and Douty, three roundabouts on Douty, and four-way stops on Douty.

At the December 20, 2022, City Council meeting, as requested by Council, Peters Engineering Group, along with City staff, presented the development scenarios and the implications for traffic, parking, future planning, and budget for each scenario. Council directed staff to circulate a Request for Proposals for the design of pedestrian improvements and a single roundabout at Seventh and Douty.

At the May 5, 2023, meeting, Council approved the design award to Interwest Consulting Group for the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement Project. This includes designing a roundabout at Douty Street and Seventh Street with ADA-compliant features, reconfiguring Douty Street from four lanes to two lanes with angled parking, and implementing streetscape improvements on both Douty Street and Seventh Street. Additionally, the project entails removing traffic signals at the intersections of Seventh and Harris, Seventh and Irwin, and Seventh and Douty, and replacing them with bulb- outs, four-way stops, and a roundabout.

At the August 20th, 2024, meeting, City staff provided an update on the project's progress and schedule. Following the update, staff requested approval of the construction management (CM) contract. However, no motion was carried. The City Council requested additional information and discussion on the project at a future council meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Design and construction of this project will be funded using ARPA funds, TDA/RSTP, water funds, sewer, stormwater funds and the USDA – Urban Forestry Grant. This project has a total ARPA allocation of $4.416 million for design, construction management, and project construction and must be obligated by the end of 2024, with all funding spent by the end of 2026.

The construction management fee provided by 4Creeks, Inc. for the Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project is approximately 10% of the estimated construction cost. The not-to-exceed amount from 4Creeks is $506,853, which falls within the allocated budget. This fee is based on a 9- month construction period and has been found to be reasonable in accordance with similar service- based fees. Below is an estimated breakdown of costs associated with this project:

Budget Summary:

Available Funding:

ARPA Grant $ 4,416,000.00 USDA - Urban Forestry Grant $ 230,000.00 Storm, Water, and Sewer funds $ 1,507,300.00 TDA/RSTP (Transportation Funding) $ 1,400,000.00

Total Available Funding: $ 7,553,300.00

Estimated Project Costs:

Construction (Interwest's Estimate) $ 4,650,000.00 Utilities (Storm, Sewer, Water) $ 1,400,000.00 Architect/Engineer (Interwest Consulting Grp) $ 391,944.72 Construction Manager (Per Submitted Fee) $ 506,853.00 Surveying (2%) $ 93,000.00 Construction Contingency (10%) $ 465,000.00 permits/fees (1%) $ 46,500.00

Total Estimated Project Costs $ 7,553,297.72

The construction estimate above is based on 60% level engineering plans and is therefore still in flux. 4Creeks will be working with City staff to complete a value engineering (costs savings) assessment.

In preliminary discussions, there are items that can be adjusted to help reduce the construction cost.

Those items include using an enhanced concrete instead of pavers. This and other items will be looked at with City staff and the Construction Manager to reduce project costs but maintain high quality.

Note that the above identified USDA, Utilities, and Transportation funds will require an appropriation, but final amounts will be recommended at the time of award when actual costs are known.

City staff is implementing a cost allocation strategy for the construction management (CM) contract based on the project's water, stormwater, and transportation related components to match appropriate funding sources. Interwest, the City’s design consultant, has provided preliminary estimates indicating that approximately 10% of the construction costs are stormwater-related, 15% are water-related, and the remaining 75% can be covered by the ARPA grant or Transportation funds. Staff will apply these percentages to the CM contract, ensuring that the costs are proportionately funded by the appropriate sources. This approach ensures that the funding is accurately distributed according to the specific components of the project.

City staff is also reviewing the requirements of the USDA – Urban Forestry Grant and may be able to pull additional funding from this grant to cover more of the landscaping improvements in the project.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

14.D.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

Introduction of Ordinance No. 24-08, Amending Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 12.24 to severely restrict sitting, lying down, and sleeping on public and private properties and the addition of provisions to address camping on private property and prohibiting trespassing on business premises.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council, by motion, waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 24-08 and pass the Ordinance to a second reading.

Recommended Motion: I move to waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 24-08 and pass the Ordinance to a second reading.

BACKGROUND:

Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 12.24 currently contains provisions that limit camping on public property and establishes regulations regarding use of City parks.

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson, in which the Court determined that enforcement of a camping ordinance against homeless persons does not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

Through Executive Order No. N-1-24, Governor Newsom ordered State agencies to adopt policies to address encampments. The Executive Order is not binding on local agencies, although, “Local governments are encouraged to adopt policies consistent with [the] Order and to use all available resources and infrastructure, including resources provided by the State’s historic investments in housing and intervention programs where appropriate and available, to take action with the urgency this crisis demands to humanely remove encampments from public spaces, prioritizing those encampments that most threaten the life, health, and safety of those in and around them.”

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision and Executive Order No. N-1-24, an amendment to Hanford Municipal Code Ch. 12.24 has been prepared to address the following:

1. Existing camping restrictions include an exemption for homeless individuals. This exemption will be eliminated.

2. Restrictions regarding the storage of personal belongings on public property currently include an exemption for homeless individuals. This exemption will be eliminated.

3. New restrictions and prohibitions will be added to Ch. 12.24:

a. Sitting, lying down, and sleeping on public and private properties will be restricted.

b. Use of vehicles for habitation will be prohibited.

c. Camping regulations will be expanded to address camping on private property.

d. Trespassing on business premises will be prohibited.

4. The following remedies will be added to Ch. 12.24:

a. Violations will constitute a misdemeanor, and conviction may result in confinement for up to one (1) year in county jail and/or a $1,000.00 per-violation fine. The Kings County Superior Court is, however, encouraged to grant diversion or probation with a condition that an offender completes a rehabilitation program, which is consistent with Executive Order N-1-24’s intent that a humane approach be utilized.

b. A citing officer may, in lieu of arrest, elect to take a violator to a facility providing social services related to mental health, housing, and/or substance abuse treatment.

c. In lieu of criminal remedies, the City may pursue civil or administrative remedies (e.g., issuance of administrative citations).

d. The City may issue an exclusion order for park violations if two or more citations are issued to a person during a period of one hundred eighty (180) days or a person is issued one citation for violating any State law.

While violation of Ch. 12.24 may result in the issuance of criminal citations that could result in imprisonment, such remedy will depend on the successful prosecution of an offender by the Kings County District Attorney. In the event of prosecution, the defendant will be allowed to offer a defense. In the Grants Pass case, the Supreme Court recognized that the defense of necessity could be a valid defense for a homeless person who violates a camping ordinance. In other words, a homeless person will not be convicted of violating a camping ordinance if the offender camps on public property out of necessity because they have nowhere else to go.

A redline draft of the revised Ch. 12.24 is attached, which highlights proposed revisions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2024.09.17 Ordinance 24-08

2. 2024.09.17 HMC Ch. 12.24 Additional Rules Governing Public and Private Properties (redline).docx

3. 2024.09.17 HMC CH. 12.24 Additional Rules Governing Public and Private Properties (Final)

ORDINANCE NO. 24-08

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HANFORD
AMENDING HANFORD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 12.24,

REGULATING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTIES
The City Council of Hanford does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Chapter 12.24 of Title 12 of the Hanford Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated herein by reference:

Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published once in the Hanford Sentinel within fifteen (15) days after its passage or a summary of this ordinance shall be published in the Hanford Sentinel in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Government Code.

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this __ day of ____ , 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

TRAVIS PADEN
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
Attest:

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, NATALIE CORRAL, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the ___ day of ________ , 2024.

Date: ---------- City Clerk

EXHIBIT "A"
2

12.24.070 Trespassing on business premises prohibited.

A. Restrictions.

1. No person shall willfully remain on any business premises, whether indoors or outdoors, after being notified by the owner, tenant, or other person in charge thereof to leave.

2. No person, without permission, express or implied, of the owner, tenant, or other person in charge of business premises, shall enter upon such premises after having been notified by the owner, tenant, or other person in charge thereof to keep off or to keep away from the business premises.

3. The notification referred to in Subsection 1. and 2. above may be given orally or in the form of a written notice, posted in any conspicuous place, and, in either case, the notice shall identify the prohibited area and the time period, if limited, during which such prohibition remains in effect.

B. Exceptions. This section shall not apply to any of the following instances:

1. When its application results in, or is coupled with, any act prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act, or any other provision of law relating to prohibited discrimination against any period.

2. When its application results in, or is coupled with, an act prohibited by California Penal Code Section 365 or any other provision oflaw relating to the duties of innkeepers.

3. When public officers or employees are acting within the course and scope of their employment or in the performance of their official duties.

4. When the application would result in an interference with or an inhibition of any exercise of a constitutionally protected right of speech or assembly. 3

Chapter 12.24 ADDITIONAL RULES GOVERNING J>UBLIC AND PRIVATE ............... _ ... -·· { Deleted:CITYPARKSAND OTHER CITY

PROPERTIES

12.24.010 _Purpose and findings.

12.24.020 _Definitions.
,.! 2.24.030 Sitting, lying down, ~nd sleeping restricted . ............................ ··············· -······ Deleted: 12.24.030 Camping in parks, recreation areas, and other facilities prohibited.

12.24.040 Use of vehicles for human habitation prohibited.

12.24.050 Camping on public property prohibited.

12.24.060 Camping on private property restricted.

12.24.070 Trespassing on business premises prohibited
,,
.,;:,' ,','

12.24.Q&t?!(_)!~g~~f_p~i:~(_)!!C:lJ.1?~1.(_)~gj!).g~.P.t:(_)hi_~!~~~-............................................. <,;:::<

12.24.09~ .fires prohibited . ............................................................................ /<.

12.24.l.Q{L1=-m~rtJ)._gtJ?~!.S.()~~!.~':1~.t~ ... !1.l!~.~':l!P-.P!~g_p.r.<?hi~!~~~.' ................................... -:::::·

12.24.l.!Jl.J~-~~()~r~~ J?r(_).t~<;!i(_)J:! ......................................................................... _._._. · · ·

12.24.llJl .. t.-.l!!':1.1~1.~ .~'!~ _p~J~ ............................................................................. ·<:: ·· · l 2.24.m Y.i_(_)J~~!9.t:i~ Remedie§r ..................................................................... · --~·· · .. ,, ..... l 2.24.14Q Severability .................................................................................... ._:\~;.::,'

12.24.010 Purpose and findings.
' ,, ' ,, ' ,,
\, \
''
The purpose of this chapter is to protect ,12rivate and p_ub l ic propef!X and ,control activities at _ such ,12ro12erties !~~t .. ':1.1~.Y .1?9.~~. ~ .rt~k .!9 .. ~~~!~~ .. (_)~ .. ~~f~_cy,_ 9.1:. ~hi_<;~--':1.1~.Y. .J!~g~!!Y.~tY. .. aff~~t .. ~~~ ;\-- . -P.i:1j9_y~.'?J).~_ ~f. ~~<;h property by an owner or tenant, if Rrivate l}ropert,x1 or the QUblic1 if public ~\ '•,, property. The city council of the city of Hanford finds: \ \., \\ \ \
Deleted: 7
Deleted: 040
Deleted: 8
Deleted: 12.24.050 Tents and other enclosed temporary
structures prohibited.

Deleted: 1
1 Deleted: 12.24.060
Deleted: 9
Deleted: 070
Deleted: 0
Deleted: 080
Deleted: 1
Deleted: 090
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 100 Severability.

Deleted: 1
1 Deleted: 12.24.110
Deleted: Misdemeanor
Deleted: 3
Deleted: the
Deleted: city of Hanford's (city) parks and other public properties and
A ~ T..l}~.~i.tx.~~~.i.l!Y.<?~!~.4.':1.1Hli.(_)~~.(_)f~(_)J!C:1!~..i~.i.t_s publicfa~iJH!~~- including, without _ \.\ f>=D=e=le=t=ed=:=fa=c=ili=tie=s=============:; limitation, parks, that are designed to be used by the entire population of Hanford. \ ::::,::: ·1 Deleted: , _______»_. The act of sitting, l:x;ing down, sleeping, and the storage of personal proQe!!)'. on \_._:·,·, public property may: ( i) interfere with the public's use of such facilities: (ii) interfere with the operations of such facilities: and/or ( iii) pose a danger to the health and safety of others, and such activities must be limited or prohibited altogether.
'
Deleted: public's
Deleted: facilities
Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted: park
Deleted:

C. The use of vehicles on rights-of-way for habitation poses a danger to the health and safety of vehicle occupants and the public as rights-of-wa y are not designed for such use . .12_ __ ,ptJ. _ p~~k~ _ ~!-~ _ !l_~~~ _ f<?!_ -~ _ _x~ti~~ _ 9_( .P_l!I_P~~~-s_, __ i_l}~J_l!~j~g_ .Q~!?~~!~--~~-<!ry _ _l!~~_ }?y ___ .. ---{~D_e_le_t_ed_: _____________ ~ families with children. Park usage may be limited by the large number of people that use parks and by other aspects of each park, including shape, location, nature of amenities, and competing uses of facilities , The lack of camping accommodations and the uncontrolled placement of __ ----1 Deleted:
camping sites in parks presents a clear danger to persons using, crossin g, or playing in parks. These ,._ __ c_. _______________ ___..j dangers include the potential for health hazards, criminal activity, interference with handicapped accessibility, and physical injury. These hazards are demonstrated through activity that has occurred within the city and in other communities . .City parks are designed to facilitate temporary - Moved (insertion) [21 experiences within set hours of operatiol\ to ensure the ability of city personnel to proper ly _____ _ >'D=e=l-e-te=d=:-, -in=o=rd=e-r----- ~=========; main~ ound . In kee in with thi re uirement ermanent or ovemi ht encam ments would prevent the city from maintaining its parks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deleted: In order to ensure the continued safety of those using city parks and other public facilities within the city, E. p b r f: T f . th. th . tu t d . d t b d . . t d activities and the use of equipment or belongings that may be ='---=--=U-=-=1-""G, ac11 IeS_Wl In _ e CI • .J.are _no _ es1gne _ O_ e_use as_campmg SI es_an -, dangeroustothehealthandsafetyofothersmustbelimited lack the infrastructure necessary to provide a safe and proper camping experience. Public.facilities _ to designated areas or prohibited altogether. lack, to differing degrees, showers, restroom s. lighting electricicy securicy, washing facilities, ',,, ', Deleted: D. The city's parks and other public bum pi ts, tl~t?~~~-t~ r~~-~t? _ ~~r:i!~-i~~~~.1 _p_C>!~~ l_t? _ ~~~~~: k{t_~6~1}: f~~{lfo~~~: ~:~~: ~!~~~ :(~~1 fo{~~: ~~~~~~: ~>, > 1 Deleted: City parks and other public for safe campmg. ·•-._''1 Deleted: bathrooms
E._____T_~~-_1.!!1_<!1:1!h<?~!?'._~~-_l!~~-~f publj~ ro e includin without lil!!tt_<!ti_C>!l_~ ~r_k~ and __ _ rights-of-way, for the storage of unlimited amounts of personal property interferes with the rights \ ---- of other members of the public to use such facilities for their intended purposes and create ~ a public \ health or safety hazard. \.

M T_~~-~t?_X~~J~~~-f9_1}~!!~!~-- ~~--~~~t?~_s_C>~<!l:>J_~ __ i~tt?rt~!~t}~_t? __ \:\'.tt_~ __ t_~~--!l-~t?-J?f public ,. '\ property by the community and are injurious to health and safety, offensive to the senses, create \ -.;._ visual blight, and constitute a public nuisance. \ · \· l I Deleted: camping sites,
Deleted: E. The lack of these accommodations and
the uncontrolled placement of camping sites in city parks and other public facilities presents a clear danger to persons using, crossing or playing in parks and to persons utilizing other public facilities. These dangers include the potential for health hazards, criminal activity, interference with
handicapped accessibility, and physical injury. These
hazards are demonstrated through activity that has occurred within the city and in other communities.1
F.
\. 'm
H. Sleeping. sittin g, lying down . stora ge of personal property, and trespassin g on private property without authorization violate the property rights of the owner and/or tenant of the Deleted: city parks and other
Deleted: facilities
private property and are contra ry to public interest. Moved up [2]: City parks are designed to facilitate temporary experiences within set hours of operation, in order to ensure the ability of city personnel to properly maintain the grounds. In keeping with this requirement, permanent or 12.24.020 Definitions. \
\ overnight encampments would prevent the city from
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be construed as defined in this section:
"Bulky item" means any item that is too large to fit in a sixty ( 60) gallon trash container with the lid closed, including, but not limited to, a tent, mattress, couch, chair 1 or other furniture or appliance. "Bulky item" does not include a portable, collapsible picnic chair or table. "Business" means a commercia l. industria l. professiona l, or other form of enterprise. "Business premises" means real property at which a private party engages in business. \\ maintaining its parks.G
\: Deleted: G.
\\ Deleted: H.
\ Deleted: associated with camping in city parks or other \ public facilities
Deleted: of parks and public facilities