Employee Housing
The Employee Housing Act (California Health & Safety Code, commencing with Section 17000) specifies that any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees should be deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation. The Housing Plan includes a program to address employee housing as part of the Zoning Code update.
Program DP-01, Employee Housing, has been added.
Homeless.
Over the last several decades, the homeless population and its attendant social problems have become issues of national significance. Lack of affordable housing can exacerbate homelessness and its negative impacts and hinders a community's ability to effectively address these challenges. A homeless family or individual as defined by federal regulations is a person or family that lacks a fixed and regular nighttime residence. The homeless population can be divided into two major groups, the sheltered and the unsheltered homeless. Sheltered homeless are those families or individuals whose primary residence is an emergency shelter, transitional housing, a domestic violence shelter, a shelter for runaway children, or people living in a motel/hotel under a voucher arrangement. Unsheltered homeless are those individuals whose primary residence is a place not designated for sleeping. Unsheltered homeless are typically chronically transient homeless persons, usually de-institutionalized mental health patients. They are often alcohol/substance abusers, although mental illness, respiratory infections and malnutrition are common contributors to the general poor health of these individuals. They are predominantly male and usually know how to utilize available charitable and government services.
Families become homeless for different reasons than transient persons do. A certain percentage of homeless families come from other areas seeking employment. Their efforts are hampered, in part, by outdated skills. They are usually able to find employment in minimum wage jobs; however, they rarely make enough money to support their families. In other situations, medical illness has depleted a family's savings and other assets. Commonly, these families are living on the "economic edge." Rent payments for shelter in some of these cases are two thirds of a family's monthly income, leaving insufficient amounts for food and other necessities, such as medical care. If a wage earner in this type of situation loses his/her job, the family cannot pay their rent and are evicted. They resort to living in their cars and depend upon community service programs and churches for food and shelter.
Bakersfield Kern Regional Homeless Collaborative conducted the 2024 Point in Time Count of homeless population in Bakersfield identifying 2,669 individuals experiencing homelessness.
Countywide. Some 1006 persons (38%) experiencing homelessness had shelter, while 1,663 were unsheltered, sleeping in parks, empty buildings, cars and other places not meant for human habitation.
The 2024 study did not identify any unsheltered homeless individuals within the city of 75 Maricopa. However, there was data for the neighboring City of Taft, which is about five miles from the City of Maricopa and it is likely that due to shopping and park facilities in Taft migrant homeless from Maricopa found places in Taft and was probably counted as Taft's homeless population.
The following chart provides a summary of trends from 2022 to 2024, including breakdown of data for protected characteristics such as race, ethnicity etc. among the homeless population within Kern County. Majority of the homeless population (51.5%) were identified as White, followed by Hispanic or Latino consisting of 25.6%.
In 2022 there were 1603 homeless individuals while in 2024, the number was 2669. In other words, homelessness increased by 66.5% in the 3-year period, which is indicative of the urgent need to find solutions to provide shelter and services to the homeless and find ways to reduce homelessness.
In response to address homelessness as a social issue requiring redressal, and to comply with State law, the city of Maricopa has amended the Zoning Code in the Year 2022 to allow emergency shelters in R-A, R-1, and R-3 Zones as a permitted use, by right, as excerpted below.
The City is less than 3-square miles in size, easily walkable for in-city travel, and transit stops are easily available for inter-city travel.
Section 17.4.30, Use Regulations for Residential Districts.
Table 4.A, Uses Permitted within Residential Districts, USE A, RESIDENTIAL USES, is hereby amended by Adding Use A. 11; A. 12; A. 13; and A. 14 to the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
USE R-A R-1 R-2 R-3
A. Residential Uses
11. Employee Housing (Agricultural) 6 or fewer persons P
12. Employee Housing (Agricultural) for more than 6 P
persons
13. Emergency Shelters, Transitional housing and P P P P supportive housing for 6 or fewer persons when
constructed as residential dwellings consistent with
the underlying zone.
14. Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and C C C C Supportive Housing for 6 or more persons when
constructed as residential dwellings consistent with
the underlying zone. Only those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same
zone shall apply to these housing types.
76 Section 17.5.30. COMMERCIAL USE REGULATIONS.
Table 5.A, Uses Permitted within Commercial Districts, USE D, Residential Uses, is hereby amended by Adding item D. 4 to the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
USE GC INC DC
D. Residential Uses
4. Low Barrier Housing Navigation Center P X
Program EP-03 has been added to establish Emergency Shelter development standards and amend definition of emergency shelters consistent with Government Code 65583(a)(4)(C) and parking requirements limited to employees.
77 Kern County 2024 PIT Count Summary
The 2024 Point-in-Time Count was an endeavor taken on by a dedicated group of individuals and volunteers through a community-wide effort to cover Kern County. The count conducted from January 24th through 27th comprised a single night shelter count and a three-day unsheltered count.
2022 - 2024 HOMELESS POPULATION COUNTS 2024 KERN COUNTY SHELTERED / UNSHELTERED POPULATIONS
Total 38% 62%
Adult Adults with Children
Children
167 SHELTERED UNSHELTERED
2022 13611 75 1603
2023 1747 76 125 1948 1006 individuals 1663 individuals 2024 2450 85 134 2669
HOUSEHOLDS COMPOSITION SUB-POPULATIONS
ADULTS WITH NO CHILDREN CHRONICALLY 41% 59%
33% 67% Sheltered Unsheltered
HOMELESS
324 Individuals 457 Individuals
Sheltered Unsheltered
2450 Individuals 47% 53%
ADULTS WITH CHILDREN VETERANS Sheltered Unsheltered
80% 20% 44 Individuals 49 Individuals
Sheltered Unsheltered 41% 59%
85 Individuals YOUTH
Sheltered Unsheltered
CHILDREN ONLY 61 Individuals 86 Individuals
99% 1%
3987 RACE & ETHNICITY
Sheltered Unsheltered AMERICAN INDIAN, ALASKA NATIVE, OR 134 Individuals 2.4%
INDIGENOUS
AGE ASIAN OR ASIAN AMERICAN 0.9%
Under 18 years 6% - 146 Individuals
18-24 6% - 147 Individuals BLACK, AFRICAN AMERICAN, OR AFRICAN 15.8% 25-34 22% - 595 individuals
28% - 744 Individuals HISPANIC/LATINA/E/O 25.6%
35-44
45 - 54 18% - 488 Individuals
MIDDLE EASTERN OR NORTH AFRICAN 0.1%
55-64 15% -406 individuals
65 years and older 5% - 143 Individuals NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER 0.9% -GENDER
CULTURALLY WHITE 51.5%
WOMAN MAN SPECIFIC TRANSGENDER
MULTIPLE RACES 2.8%
33.09% 66.54% 0.11%
NON-BIN DIFFERENT DENTITY •Ust includes rose ond ethnicity only a roce ond ethicky with spanic/Lotina/e/o
0.07%
combinations.
There are no homeless services in the City of Maricopa.
The County provides aid for the homeless. Formed in 1999, the Kern County Homeless Collaborative was formed to combat the problem of homelessness. Under the Collaborative, 78 eight committees contribute to alleviating homelessness. The committees include needs assessment, resource assessment, evaluation, service integration, sustainability and development, advocacy/public relations, rural issues, and continuum of care. The chairs of each committee meet as a steering committee to exchange information and set direction for the collaborative, while the collaborative meets quarterly.
Three types of facilities, defined below, provide shelter for homeless individuals and families: emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent housing. Housing Authority owned facilities are listed in Table 3-52. Facilities available in Kern County for Special Needs persons are listed in Table 3-53.
Emergency Shelter - A facility that provides overnight shelter and fulfills a client's basic needs (i.e. food, clothing, medical care) either on-site or through off-site services. The permitted length of stay can vary from one day at a time to three months. The major providers of emergency shelter in the County are the Bakersfield Homeless Center and the Bakersfield Rescue Mission. The Bakersfield Homeless Center has capacity for 110 beds for men, 9 beds for women, 27 beds for families, and an additional 25 beds for men ot women depending on the need. The Bakersfield Rescue Mission has space for approximately 40 women and children, and 80 men. The Mission has capacity for 138 persons per meal, and serves two meals per day.
• Transitional Housing - A residence that provides housing for up to two years.
Residents of transitional housing usually include supportive services designed to assist the homeless in achieving greater economic independence and a permanent, stable living situation. Services may include mental and physical health care interventions, substance abuse treatment, job training and employment services, individual and group counseling and life skills training. Currently, HACK operates the only transitional housing facility in Kern County. The program includes seven units in the unincorporated area near Bakersfield.
Other services exist throughout the County to assist individuals and families with making the transition from emergency shelter to permanent housing. Bethany Services' Transitional Services Center provides support services for residents of supportive housing and homeless persons not in supportive housing. Recreation Community Project, Inc. (RCPI) provides transitional housing and support services targeted toward adult men and women with dependent children in inner-city neighborhoods. Also, some substance abuse programs offer limited transitional housing services in addition to treatment.
Permanent Housing - Service enriched permanent housing that is linked with on-going supportive services (on-site or off-site) and designed to allow formerly homeless clients to live at the facility on an indefinite basis. Units operated by HACK, as well as the Section 8 program provide some housing. However, the large demand may prevent many residents from gaining access to permanent housing. Other facilities in the County are geared toward homeless populations with special needs. Living Connections, Inc. operates two board and care homes for persons with mental illness, as well as 21-umit and 25-unit 79 apartment complexes.
The Housing Authority of the County of Kern provides quality housing with supportive services to homeless individuals and emancipated foster youth who are at immediate risk of becoming homeless, partnering with local community organizations to provide housing, rental assistance, and supportive services to qualifying individuals. The agency operates a number of residential sites as well as rental assistance programs specially-designed to serve the needs of local residents who are homeless, mentally ill, or disabled.
The Shelter Plus Care (S+C) program provides rental assistance to homeless disabled individuals and families who receive ongoing supportive services and case management from community organizations to help them remain in housing and increase their income.
The Bakersfield Homeless Center, Flood Bakersfield Ministries, Independent Living Center, Clinica Sierra Vista and the California Veteran Assistance Foundation refer homeless persons to the Housing Authority to receive the S+C assistance.
Table3-52 HOUSING AUTHORITY FACILITIES
Facilities Address Service Provided
Green Gardens 2300 South Union 104-unit single room occupancy Avenue, Bakersfield, facility that houses formerly homeless CA 93307 persons with disabilities referred to the
site by the Kern Behavioral Health and
Recovery Services.
Plymouth Rock 100 Plymouth Eight (8) units providing temporary Avenue housing for homeless families returning
Bakersfield, CA from the Bakersfield Homeless Center.
93308
Haven Cottages 68 E. White Lane, 24 one-bedroom affordable rental Bakersfield, CA 93307 homes for homeless individuals with mental illness.
Building Blocks 1807 Belle Terrace, 12-unit Transitional Housing Program Transitional Bakersfield, CA 93307 for emancipated foster youth (ages 18- Program 21) who are homeless or at immediate
risk of becoming homeless.
Source: https://kernha.org/housing-for-homeless/
80 Table 3-53: FACILITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
Facilities Address Service Provided
Bakersfield 1600 E. Truxtun Healthcare, Counseling, Food, Shelter, Homeless Center Avenue Bakersfield, Job placement, emergency services, CA 93305 child care, Home Assistance
Bakersfield Rescue 724 E. 21st Street Case management and referrals to Mission Bakersfield, CA community resources such as Human 93305 Services, Mental Health, Disabled
Services, and Medical Services
Alliance Against 192119th Street Shelter Service, Counseling, Education Family Violence and Bakersfield, CA 93301 Services, Meal Services, Substance Sexual Assault Abuse Counseling
Bethany Services' 1600 East Truxtun Rent, Utilities, Referrals, Food, & Transitional Bakersfield, CA 93305 Shelter for Women, Children & Services Center Families
Source: Kern County Housing Element
81 Employment
Table 3-54 addresses the most recent information available for Maricopa's civilian employed population by industry category.
Table 3-54: Employment by Industry
City of City of Kern Kern California California
Maricopa Maricopa County County
Total: 719 346,787 18,646,894
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting, And Mining 154 21.4% 50,819 14.7% 394,290 2.1% Construction 61 8.5% 24,779 7.1% 1,190,537 6.4%
Manufacturing 63 8.8% 18,663 5.4% 1,676,497 9.0%
Wholesale Trade 57 7.9% 2,194 2.7% 514,234 2.8%
Retail Trade 98 13.6% 36,250 10.5% 1,942,421 10.4%
Transportation and Warehousing,
And Utilities 21 2.9% 21,163 6.1% 1,028,818 5.5%
Information 0 0.0% 3,351 1.0% 542,674 2.9%
Finance and Insurance, And Real
Estate, And Rental and Leasing 11 1.5% 12,571 3.6% 1,118,253 6.0% Professional, Scientific, And
Management, And Administrative,
And Waste Management Services 63 8.8% 27,651 8.0% 2,581,266 13.8% Educational Services, And Health
Care and Social Assistance 91 12.7% 73,883 21.3% 3,960,265 21.2% Arts, Entertainment, And
Recreation, And Accommodation and
Food Services 28 3.9% 29,302 8.4% 1,894,858 10.2%
Other Services, Except Public
Administration 56 7.8% 15,744 4.5% 952,302 5.1%
Public Administration 16 2.2% 23,417 6.8% 850,479 4.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table C24050.
Commute
Commute distance is an important factor in housing availability and affordability and is also an indicator of jobs/housing balance. Communities with extended commute distances generally have a poor jobs/housing balance, while those with short average commutes tend to have a strong jobs/housing balance. The burden of the additional costs associated with extended commuting disproportionately affects lower-income households who must spend a larger portion of their overall income on fuel. This in turn affects a household's ability to occupy decent housing without being overburdened by cost.
82 Access to Highways 166, 33 and 119 enables workers to live in Maricopa and commute to Taft, Bakersfield or the nearby oil fields. Given the small size of Maricopa and the lack of businesses in the city, the majority of Maricopa's working citizens commute to jobs in these areas. Table 3- 55 shows the mean average one-way commute in Maricopa, California. 28.9% of people travel less than 15 minutes to work; 36% travel 15-29 minutes and 28.4% travel 30 50 59 minutes to work.
Some 74% of the people drove alone. 12.8% carpool with others. Less than 1% took mass transit and 8.9% worked from home (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates, Table B080301).
Table 3-55: Travel Time to Work
City of City of Kern Kern
California California
Maricopa Maricopa County County
Total: 641 324,569 16,710,195
Less than 15 Minutes 185 28.9% 91,977 28.3% 3,557,264 21.3% Less Than 5 Minutes 7 1.1% 7,273 2.2% 303,289 1.8%
5 To 9 Minutes 99 15.4% 32,248 9.9% 1,229,502 7.4%
10 To 14 Minutes 79 12.3% 52,456 16.2% 2,024,473 12.1%
15 to 29 Minutes 231 36.0% 148,145 45.6% 5,816,131 34.8% 15 To 19 Minutes 59 9.2% 68,662 21.2% 2,448,694 14.7%
20 To 24 Minutes 52 8.1% 56,889 17.5% 2,347,020 14.0%
25 To 29 Minutes 120 18.7% 22,594 7.0% 1,020,417 6.1%
30 to 59 Minutes 182 28.4% 63,218 19.5% 5,218,958 31.2% 30 To 34 Minutes 97 15.1% 35,827 11.0% 2,508,520 15.0%
35 To 39 Minutes 0.0% 4,387 1.4% 471,835 2.8%
40 To 44 Minutes 0 0.0% 7,783 2.4% 728,996 4.4%
45 To 59 Minutes 85 13.3% 15,221 4.7% 1,509,607 9.0%
60 or More Minutes 43 6.7% 21,229 6.5% 2,117,842 12.7%
60 To 89 Minutes 7 1.1% 11,501 3.5% 1,404,642 8.4%
90 Or More Minutes 36 5.6% 9,728 3.0%| 713,200 4.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B08303.
Jobs/Housing Ratio
The jobs/housing balance is the ratio of jobs in a city compared to the number of housing units in that city. The jobs/housing balance is a meaningful way to gain a sense of how many people will commute to work and how far they will have to commute. An unbalanced jobs/housing ratio implies employees will be spending more time on roadways that may be better spent with their families, at work, or recreationally. Further examination of the jobs/housing balance would identify what future type industries are needed in a city or town, future trends of employment, the future wage indicators, needed future housing to match the projected incomes of new jobs, etc., and be a study in and of itself, beyond the scope of a Housing Element. If the jobs/housing 83 ratio is greater than one, the city is likely to import workers. If the ratio is less than one, the city is likely to export workers. However, a better indicator of the jobs/housing balance may be the number of persons who work in their city of residence compared to the number of housing units.
A perfect jobs/housing ratio results when the number of employed households working in a city is equal to the number of housing units in that city. However, there is no perfect scenario for a city, and what works in one area may not work in another. Census Bureau did not have recent data on Maricopa, hence, data included in the Housing Element from the previous cycle. Table 3-56 shows the Jobs/Housing Ratio for the City of Maricopa as reported in the 2014 RTP prepared by Kern Council of Governments.
It is important to note that although the city has a reasonable Job/Housing Ratio, the majority of people actually working within the corporate limit of the city is substantially less than statistics indicate and that the vast majority of people working in the Maricopa area are imported and commute from either the Greater Bakersfield area or from nearby Taft.
Table 3-56: Jobs/Housing Ratio
2010 2013 2023 2010-2023 2010-2023
Net Change Pct Change
Jobs 500 500 500 0
Housing Units 466 464 500
Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.07 1.08 1.00 -0.08
Source: 2010 Census, Kern COG Preliminary 2014 RTP
84 CHAPTER FOUR - AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR
HOUSING
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 fiee from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics." California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires local jurisdictions to analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.
This section is organized by fair housing topics. For each topic, the regional and local assessments are addressed. Through discussions with housing service providers, fair housing advocates, and this AFH, the City of Maricopa identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues. These contributing factors are in Table 4-14, Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues, with associated actions to meaningfully affirmatively further fair housing related to these factors. Additional programs to affirmatively further fair housing are contained in Chapter Eight:
Goals, Policies, and Programs.
This section also includes an analysis of the Housing Element's sites inventory and fair housing factors. The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower-income households. AB 686 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the distribution of projected units by income category and access to high resource areas and other fair housing indicators compared to citywide patterns to understand how the projected locations of units will affirmatively further fair housing.
Segregation and Integration
This section analyzes integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics with an emphasis on race, disability, familial status, and income.
Race
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. This understanding also helps in identifying the specific needs and challenges faced by different racial and ethnic communities.
These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices, and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today. Ultimately, a comprehensive understanding of race and ethnicity in relation to housing can help create more equitable and inclusive 85 communities.
As shown in Table 4-1, the majority of Maricopa residents in 2020 identified as White, not Hispanic or Latino (54.9 percent of residents). This is a significant increase from 2010, when only 20.1 percent of residents were within that racial or ethnic category. The percentage of residents in the city that identify as Hispanic or Latino of any race decreased over the same period from 74.0 to 37.6 percent. However, the city's population grew during that time period, which may suggest that the change is more related to city growth than displacement of community members of other racial or ethnic groups. A similar demographic shift can be seen in the city of Taft during the same period.
Regionally, many areas in the southwest and northeast areas of Kern County are predominantly White, not Hispanic or Latino, while areas in the county's northwest are predominantly Hispanic or Latino, as are parts of Bakersfield, Arvin, and California City, along with neighboring unincorporated communities (see Figure 4-1).
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
Maricopa is composed mostly of working-class neighborhoods, comprising of all races of population, with 54.9 percent being white. The working-class economy is reflected in the low yearly median income less than $55,000 a year, and the high poverty levels ranging from 10 to 20 percent in the city. Further, the population employed in professional employment is barely
8.8% and majority work outside the city. Although the whit population has increased during the 2010-2020 decennial period, the change is more related to city growth, as opposed to displacement of other racial or ethnic groups. The share of white population in Maricopa reflects similar statistics in neighboring Taft and many cities in kern County.
Historically, people moved into the area when Maricopa discovered oil in the early 1900s. Many people were emigres from Oklahoma and other places who have worked in the oil fields and Agriculture. Mnay residents today are from that lineage and are proud Maricopans.
There are no areas of High Segregation and Poverty in Maricopa according to the TCAC/HCD analysis. Additionally, there are no R/ECAP or RCAA areas in Maricopa. 86 Table 4-1: Population by Race/Ethnicity
Population by Unincorporated
Maricopa Taft Bakersfield Kern County State
Race/Ethnicity as a Ker County
Percentage of the Total
Population 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 White (Not Hispanic or
Latino) 54.9% 35.9% 56.2% 45.5% 42.4% 45.2% 42.4% 49.2% 33.2% 36.7% 36.5% Hispanic or Latino of Any
37.6% 56.0% 33.1% 37.8% 49.8% 47.8% 49.8% 38.6% 53.9% 41.2% 39.1% Race
Black or African American
0.0% 3.9% 2.0% 7.7% 2.9% 2.6% 2.9% 5.4% 5.1% 5.9% 5.4%
(Not Hispanic or Latino)
Native American (Not
0.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%
Hispanic or Latino)
Asian (Not Hispanic or 0.6%
1.0% 3.4% 5.9% 1.6% 1.3% 1.6% 3.9% 4.7% 12.8% 14.6%
Latino)
Other (Not Hispanic or
0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 0.7%
Latino)
Two or More Races (Not
5.6% 1.6% 5.3% 2.2% 2.3% 1.9% 2.3% 1.9% 2.4% 2.3% 3.4%
Hispanic or Latino)
87 Figure 4-1: Predominant Population, Kern County
269)
FRESNO - 190-
COUNITY TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
43 41 65
178
McFarland
Wasco 1 Weldon
(46 Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale Bakersfield
KERN COUNTY
33 SAN 58 Rosedale Le /395
LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY Ford Cly Tehachapi
I Taft 184 Arvin 4202 Golden Hills Mojave
166
58 Maricopa
Rosamond
SANTA Frazier Park -138
BARBARA
COUNTY
246 c
154 Taft
VENTURA
192 & COUNTY
1011 150- 4126 33
23 1182 Магісора
=166
34 7
107
Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 5M213 COUNT Predominant Population American Indian and Alaska
County Boundary Native alone, not Hispanic or
Latino
White alone, not Hispanic or
Two or more races, not Hispanic
City Boundary Hispanic or Latino or Latino
ick or African American alon Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone, not Hispanic or
Census Designated Place Boundary Latino
Asian alone, not Hispanic or
Latino Some other race alone, not
Hispanic or Latino
88 Disability
People with disabilities may have special housing needs due to physical or developmental capabilities, fixed or limited incomes, and higher health costs associated with disabilities.
Seniors typically experience disabilities at higher rates than the general population. The most common disability type in Maricopa is ambulatory difficulties, with 60.1 percent of residents with disabilities experiencing this type of disability (see Table 2). Regionally, this is typical.
Ambulatory difficulties are also the most common disability type in Bakersfield, unincorporated Kern County, and Kern County. In Taft, the most common disability is cognitive difficulties, which may be related to the presence of a center for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the city. In Maricopa, there has been an increase in the percentage of residents with disabilities who report self-care, independent living, and vision difficulties between 2012 and 2020.
Regionally, Maricopa's rate of residents with disabilities is similar to that of many areas in the southwest and south-central areas of the county, as well as the northeast corner of the county (see Figure 2). In contrast, fewer than 10 percent of residents report a disability in census tracts in the northwest side of the county, including the communities of Wasco, McFarland, Shafter, and many tracts in Bakersfield. Census tracts north of Bakersfield, surrounding California City, and on the north side of the county near the unincorporated community of Weldon have particularly high rates of residents with disabilities, with more than 40 percent of residents in these tracts reporting a disability.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
There are no areas of the city with concentrations of persons with disabilities and there are no concentrations of group homes or residential care facilities. No permits were issued for construction of ramp or other accessibility modifications to homes in the area. No requests for reasonable accommodation been made during the last planning period. The city has no funds to make accessibility improvements although most of the vacant land inventory locations are in need of sidewalk improvements. Typically, as and when a development is proposed, the developer or builder (including individuals applying for a building permit) are required to make improvements compliant with city and state laws.
89 Table 4-2: Population by Disability Type
Disability Type as Maricopa Taft Bakersfield Unincorporated Kern Kern County State
Percentage of Residents County
with a Disability
2012 2020 2012 2020 2012 2020 2012 2020 2012 2020 2012 2020 Total with a Disability 236 358 917 38,181 3,821,53 4,146,95 2,009 40,024 40,714 41,311 96,698 98,426
Hearing Difficulty 17.4% 14.5% 17.9% 28.8% 26.2% 20.7% 28.1% 23.9% 26.5% 22.2% 28.0% 27.7% Vision Difficulty 11.9% 15.4% 17.7% 2.5% 20.3% 17.7% 17.9% 20.7% 19.4% 18.8% 18.5% 18.8% Cognitive Difficulty 38.6% 27.9% 24.2% 51.2% 39.3% 31.9% 39.3% 30.1% 38.2% 31.5% 38.7% 38.2% Ambulatory Difficulty 73.3% 60.1% 70.2% 48.1% 52.1% 50.0% 53.7% 53.3% 53.5% 51.2% 53.3% 51.1% Self-care Difficulty 24.6% 42.2% 25.2% 18.6% 19.4% 19.9% 17.8% 20.7% 18.4% 19.8% 24.0% 23.3% Independent Living 37.3% 38.3% 36.9% 45.2% 33.4% 33.9% 32.1% 37.9% 32.4% 36.3% 40.5% 39.9% Note: Persons can have more than one type of disability; percentages will not add to 100%.
Source: ACS 2008-2012, 2016-2020
90 Figure 4-2: Percentage of Population with a Disability, Kern County 269.
FRESNOR
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
(43)
(Farlandi -178
155
Wasco Weldon
46 Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale Bakersfield
* Creenacies MArKERN COUNTY
(33
SAN (58) Rosedale 1395}
sOrenfield Bear, Valley Springs
LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY Ford City 2235 Lamonk 4- - Tehachapi
184 Arvin/ 6202 Goden His Move 4
(166
58 -Maricopa
* Rosamond
176) Frazier Park -138
SANTA
BARBARA
COUNTY
246 c
154 Taft
VENTURA
192) & COUNTY
150) -6.126
33 Maricopa
- 166
34200
-727
Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 County Boundary Percent of Population with a
Disability
< 10%
City Boundary
10% - 20%
20% - 30%
Census Designated Place Boundary
30% - 40%
> 40%
Familial Status
Patterns of familial status present a potential indicator of fair housing issues, as it relates to availability of appropriately sized or priced housing when certain family types are concentrated.
As a protected characteristic, concentrations of family types may also occur as a result of discrimination by housing providers, such as discrimination against families with children oi unmarried partners. Furthermore, single-parent, female-headed households are considered to have a greater risk of experiencing poverty than single-parent, male-headed households due to factors including the gender wage gap and potential difficulty in securing higher-wage jobs. As shown in Table 3, the rate of family households in Maricopa slightly decreased between 2010 and 2020, as is true to a greater degree in the neighboring community of Taft. In both Maricopa and Taft, the percentage of households that are female-headed households has also decreased during the same period. Rates of family households have stayed relatively stable in the county as a whole, as have the percentage of households that are female-headed households with children.
Regionally, the percentage of children living in female-headed households is below 20 percent in most areas of the county (see Figure 3). Between 20 and 40 percent of children in some areas of the north side of the county, as well as in the California City and Mojave area, live in this household type. Small areas in and around Bakersfield as well as part of Lake Isabella and an area in the Lebec and Lake of the Woods area have higher percentages of children living in this household type, with 40 to 60 percent of children living in female-headed households.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
There are no areas within the city with areas or neighborhoods with higher concentrations of families, non-families, or smaller homes. No public child care facilities are available, except home-based small facilities, in the city.
92 Table 4-3: Population by Familial Status
Familial Status by Bakersfield Unincorporated
Maricopa Taft Kern County State
Houschold Type, as a Kern County
Percentage of All
Households 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 Family Households 70.8% 65.7% 73.5% 57.9% 74.4% 74.6% 73.4% 72.5% 74.8% 73.8% 68.6% 68.6% Nonfamily Households 29.2% 34.3% 26.5% 42.1% 25.6% 25.4% 26.6% 27.5% 25.2% 26.2% 31.4% 31.4% Percentage of all
Households that are
Single, Female-Headed 7.8% 5.9% 12.7% 9.5% 11.1% 11.7% 8.7% 10.2% 10.1% 10.9% 7.2% Family Households with
Children
Source: ACS 2016-2020.
93 Figure 4-3: Percentage of Children in Female Headed Households, Kern County 2691
190
FRESNO
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
41 Marland 78
Wasco Weldon
46 Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale Bakersfield
0 KERN COUNTY
SAN 58 Rosedale
LUIS Bear Valley Springs
OBISPO COUNTY Ford City % Tehachapi
- Taft 18a Arvin- 202 Golden: HilisMojave
166
58)
-Maricopa
Rosamond
176 -138
SANTA Frazier: Park
BARBARA
COUNTY
246 ₫
Taft
VENTURA
D COUNTY
150 4126
(33
23 Maricopa
107L 1922
Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 06213 County Boundary Percent of Children in Female
Householder, No Spouse/Partner
Present Households
City Boundary Less than 20%
20% - 40%
Census Designated Place Boundary 40% - 60%
60% - 80%
80% - 100%
Income
Maricopa has a lower median houschold income than the neighboring community of Taft, Bakersfield, and Kern County as a whole (see Table 4-4). This was also true in 2010 Additionally, Maricopa has experienced much slower growth in the median household income than was seen in Kern County. In Maricopa, the median income increased by 1.9 percent between 2010 and 2020, while over the same period, the median household income in all of Kern County increased by 16.5 percent. However, the median household income in the neighboring community of Taft only increased by 1.4 percent, which suggests that areas of the county such as Bakersfield may be disproportionately driving the increase in median household income in the county. The highest-income areas of Kern County were centered around Bakersfield and Shafter, as well as in the Golden Hills area and census tracts near Wasco (see Figure 4-4). Areas of the county with the lowest median household incomes include not only the Maricopa area, but large sections northwest of Wasco and on the east side of the county, including Mojave, California City, and the Weldon area.
As shown in Table 4-5, Maricopa has a lower rate of residents with incomes below the poverty level than Taft (21.3 percent in Maricopa compared to 28.4 percent in Taft), and a comparable level to the whole of Kern County (20.4 percent). The percentage of residents with incomes below the poverty level has also decreased by a greater margin since 2012 than the county overall. Between 2012 and 2020, the percentage of residents with incomes below the poverty level decreased by 10.1 percentage points, while the county experienced a 2.1 percentage point decrease over the same period. In contrast, the rate of residents with incomes below the poverty level increased by 13.0 percentage points over the same period. Though there are a small number of communities in Kern County with lower levels of poverty, including Rosamond, Golden Hills, the community around Edwards Air Force Base, and unincorporated communities around McFarland, the level of poverty in Maricopa is typical of smaller cities and unincorporated communities around Kern County (see Figure 5). Like Maricopa, rates of poverty in the Tehachapi and surrounding unincorporated areas, Taft, and other unincorporated communities such as Ford City and Weldon are between 10 and 20 percent of residents. Areas on the east side of Bakersfield, Greenfield, communities along the Kern River to Lake Isabella, and a small section of California City, have the highest rates of poverty in the county, with poverty rates at 30 percent or higher.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
There are no areas of the community that are considered to be lower-income, high-poverty areas or considered to be higher-income areas. There are households who receive HCV/Section 8 rental assistance, but a geographic concentration is unknown. There are no housing assisted by public financing in the city.
95 Table 4-4: Median Household Income
Median Income
Geography 2020
2010
Maricopa $39,464 $40,208
Taft $46,324 $46,980
Bakersfield $53,997 $65,687
Kern County $47,089 $54,851
State $60,883 $78,672
Table 4-5: Poverty Rate
Poverty Rate
Geography
2012 2020
Maricopa 31.4% 21.3%
Taft 15.4% 28.4%
Bakersfield 19.3% 17.2%
Kern County 22.5% 20.4%
State 17.0% 12.6%
96 Figure 4-4: Median Income, Kern County
2691
FRESNO
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
43)
41 4 99 (65
McFarland
Wasco .! Weldon
• Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale Bakersfield
'KERN COUNTY
33 reenacres
SAN 58 Rosedate (395)
confield Bear Valley Springs
LUIS (119.
OBISPO COUNTY Ford cily ar 2232 Lamon
Teachapi
- Taft 18) Arvinh 7202 Golden His Mojave
4.3 (58
-Maricopa
Rosamond
Frazier Paka -138
SANTA
BARBARA
COUNTY
246 c
Taft
VENTURA
& COUNTY
(50--6іzь 23 (33)
Maricopa
27 Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 18213 County Boundary Median Household Income in past
12 months (inflation-adjusted
dollars to last year of 5-year
City Boundary range)
Less than $55,000
Census Designated Place Boundary $55,000 - $90,100
$90,100 - $120,000
$120,000 - $175,000
Greater than $175,000
Figure 4-5: Rate of Residents Below Poverty Line, Kern County 269)
- 190
FRESNO
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
43 41 L 99 65
McFarland 178
155
Wasco Weldon
46 Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oldale -
Bakersfield
MAY KERN COUNT
(33 benacres
SAN 58 Rosedale ze 1395
Leontied Bear Valley Springs
LUIS 119 p-
OBISPO COUNTY Ford City 2231 mon Tehachapi
5 Taft 184 Arvin; 202 Golden His Mojave
166
-58
-Maricoa
Rosamond
(176 SANTA Frazier, Park 138
BARBARA
COUNTY 4414
216c p
154 Taft
VENTURA
A COUNTY
3192. L 126
33 Maricopa
-166
27 Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 County Boundary Percent of Population whose
income in the past 12 months is
below poverty level
City Boundary < 10%
10% - 20%
Census Designated Place Boundary
20% - 30%
30% - 40%
> 40%
98 Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) or areas of High Segregation and Poverty are areas with both high racial/ethnic concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD defines R/ECAPs as census tracts with a majority non-white population (50 percent or more) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower. HCD defines areas of High Segregation and Poverty as census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole, and at least
30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($30,000 annually for a family of four in 2023). R/ECAPs or areas of High Segregation and Poverty may indicate the presence of disadvantaged households facing housing insecurity and need. They identify areas whose residents may have faced historical discrimination and who continue to experience economic hardship, furthering entrenched inequities in these communities. There are no areas of High Segregation and Poverty in Maricopa according to the TCAC/HCD analysis. Regionally, there are several High Segregation and Poverty areas in central and south Bakersfield, in central Arvin, and in the area surrounding the unincorporated community of Lamont. Additionally, there are no R/ECAP areas in Maricopa.
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are neighborhoods with both high concentrations of Non-Hispanic White households and high household income rates. Based on research from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs, RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 80 percent or more of the population is White, and the median household income is $125,000 or greater (which is slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
HCD further adjusted the RCAA methodology to track more closely with California's higher levels of diversity by setting the White population threshold to 50 percent. Maricopa is not considered an RCAA. Regionally, there are a collection of RCAAs on the west and northeast sides of Bakersfield and in unincorporated communities to the northwest and northeast of Bakersfield. The unincorporated Golden Hills community outside of Tehachapi is also considered an RCAA.
Disparities in Income to Opportunity
Since 2017, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) have developed annual maps of access to resources such as high-paying job opportunities; proficient schools; safe and clean neighborhoods; and other healthy economic, social, and environmental indicators to provide evidence-based research for policy recommendations. This effort has been dubbed opportunity mapping" and is available to all jurisdictions to assess access to opportunities in their 99 community.
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps can help to identify areas in the community that provide strong access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. 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. TCAC/HCD categorized census tracts into high-, moderate-, or low-resource areas based on a composite score of economic, educational, and environmental factors that can perpetuate poverty and segregation, such as school proficiency, median income, and median housing prices. The 2023 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps compares each tract to those in the council of governments (COG) region.
Areas designated as "highest resource" are the top 20.0 percent highest-scoring census tracts in the region. It is expected that residents in these census tracts have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic opportunities, and educational attainment. As shown in Figure 6, in Kern County, areas within Bakersfield and Shafter were designated highest resource areas, as were unincorporated areas such as Lakeside and Golden Hills. Census tracts designated "high resource" score in the 21st to 40th percentile compared to the region. Residents of these census tracts have access to highly positive outcomes for health, economic, and education attainment.
Unincorporated areas around McFarland, parts of Ridgecrest, unincorporated communities south of Arvin and Tehachapi such as Stallion Springs, and the Inyokern community have this designation.
"Moderate-resource areas are in the top 30.0 percent of the remaining census tracts in the region, and those designated as "moderate resource (rapidly changing)" have experienced rapid increases in key indicators of opportunity, such as increasing median income, home values, and an increase in job opportunities. Residents in these census tracts have access to either somewhat positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and education, or positive outcomes in a certain area (e.g., score high for health, education) but not all areas (e.g., may score poorly for economic attainment). Areas in Kern County with this designation include parts of Wasco and unincorporated areas south of the city; parts of Shafter and McFarland; unincorporated communities in the south of the county such as Rosamond, Lebec, and Lake of the Woods; the area north of Teachapi; and the north side of Ridgecrest and adjacent unincorporated areas. "Low-resource" areas score in the bottom 30.0 percent of census tracts and indicate a lack of access to positive outcomes and opportunities. All of the City of Maricopa is considered to be a low-resource area, as is typical for many rural communities in Kern County, such as Taft and Arvin; unincorporated communities such as Ford City, Weldon, and Lake Isabella; and parts of California City.
The final designation are those areas identified as having "high segregation and poverty;" these are census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the region as a 100
whole, and at least 30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($19,720 for a two-person household and $30,000 annually for a family of four in 2023). Parts of California City as well as sections of Greenfield and McFarland were designated as areas of high segregation and poverty.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
There are no areas major differences in neighborhood patterns with no higher concentrations of poverty or higher incomes. The City has no RCCAs.
101
Figure 4-6: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Kern County
2691
FRESNOR
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
199 65
maFarland (178
Wasco .! Weldon
46) Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale * Bakersfield
KERN COUNTY
SAN (58) Rosedale • Greenfield 395
LUIS 119- Bear Valley Springs
OBISPO COUNTY Ford City 522351l Lamont
Tehachapi
Arvin 1202 Golden Hilis Mojave
(184)
Tatt
(58)
-Maricopa
Rosamond
176 Frazier: Park- -138-
SANTA
BARBARA
COUNTY
246
154), Taft
VENTURA
1192. * COUNTY
21011 150126 (33)
23 Maricopa
149-1183
-166
34 27 40,5
7L902
Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 02213 County Boundary Final Category
Highest Resource
City Boundary High Resource
Moderate Resource
Census Designated Place Boundary Low Resource
High Segregation & Poverty
No Data
Education
As shown in Table 6, all public and charter schools that serve Maricopa have standardized test scores in Math and English Language Arts that fall below State standards, with the exception of Peak to Peak Mountain Charter in Pine Mountain Club, which has above-standard scores in English Language Arts. Nearly all of the students in the city's three public schools are considered to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, and more than 15 percent of students at each school are English-language learners. Over one third of students at Maricopa Elementary and Maricopa Middle School are chronically absent, meaning that they are absent for at least 10 percent of days that they are enrolled. Five charter schools serve the community, two of which are online. The two online charter schools also have relatively high percentages of stúdents who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, while the Peak to Peak Mountain Charter, Blue Ridge Academy Charter, and Heartland Charter schools have low to moderate rates of disadvantaged students. Though the school has the lowest percentage of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, Peak to Peak Mountain Charter school has the area's highest rate of chronic absence, at
59.1 percent of students.
All Maricopa High School students who graduate with a grade point average of at least 2.5 receive a $1,500 college scholarship from a scholarship fund managed by the school district.
Though Maricopa does not have a community college or any workforce development education opportunities, Taft College is a community college approximately eight miles away in the City of Taft and offers transfer programs as well as associates degrees.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
There are no differences in access to higher-performing education opportunities from neighborhood to neighborhood. Nearby Taft City offers College education through Taft College serving population in Kern County and outside locations. 103
Table 4-6: Academic Performance
ELA Chronic Suspension
Math Score
Score Absence Rate Socioeconomic English
(Points Foster Youth
(Points (Percentage (Percentage Disadvantage Learners
School Name Above or (Percentage
Above or of Students Suspended at (Percentage of (Percentage Below of Students)
Below Chronically Least One Students) of Students)
Standard)
Standard) Absent) Day)
Maricopa Elementary -84.2 -99.1 33.9% 9.2% 100.0% 26.8% 0.0% Maricopa Middle -103.7 -155.1 38.6% 23.1% 100.0% 27.3% 2.6% Maricopa High 15.7 -167.1 7.4% 97.6% 16.7% 0.0%
California Virtual
Academy at Maricopa -41.2 -82.6 - 10.0% 0.0% 75.2% 8.1% 0.3% (Charter - Online)
Insight of CA (Charter 0.3%
-66.6 -173.5 0.0% 72.2% 6.9%
- Online)
Peak to Peak
18.9 -28.3 59.1% 2.9% 19.6% 0.0% 0.0%
Mountain Charter
Blue Ridge Academy -36.8 -78.2 0.3% 0.0% 1.2% 0.1%
42.5%
Charter
Heartland Charter -21.9 -65.3 0.0% 0.0% 43.1% 1.1% 0.1% 104
Economic
According to the California Employment Development Department, Kern County's overall unemployment rate is 7.1 percent as of September 2024, while Maricopa's is 10.5 percent. This is similar to the unemployment rates of other small rural communities such as Wasco (12.3 percent) and Arvin (9.9 percent), but much higher than nearby Taft (5.2 percent). None of the county's top employers are in Maricopa, nor are there any in neighboring Taft. Major employers in Bakersfield include health and social welfare organizations, government agencies, and agricultural or food production companies. As of the 2016-2020 American Community Survey, the largest share of employed Maricopa residents (21.4 percent) worked in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, or mining. An additional 13.6 percent worked in retail, while 12.7 percent worked in educational services, healthcare, or social assistance.
According to the US Census Bureau's online Map tool, as of 2021, 21.3 percent of employed Maricopa residents work in Bakersfield, and an additional 11.7 percent work in Taft. Only 4.3 percent of employed Maricopa residents work in Maricopa, while 3.0 percent work in Shafter and 2.2 percent work in Wasco.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
Major regional employers are school districts and oil companies in the area. Access to job opportunities are limited locally. Historically Maricopa-Taft area provided many opportunities in the oil fields and agriculture. With the growth of Bakersfield, oil company offices were move to Bakersfield
High-speed internet readily available in the area with no signal issues. No known economic development programs or initiatives were planned for the area either by the county or the State government in the last 10 years and none are expected in the next 10.
Transportation
No Kern Transit routes serve the City of Maricopa. Taft Area Transit, the transit service run by the City of Taft, has a route that connects Maricopa to Taft, which runs three times per day on weekdays. The route does not run on the weekends.
There are no bike lanes in Maricopa, and limited sidewalks on sections of California Street and Stanislaus Street. According to the Kern County Active Transportation Plan (ATP) from 2018, there are crosswalks on Maricopa Highway (State Route 33) and Stanislaus Street. Projects in the plan's Tier 1 priority group include Class I bike routes on Elkhorn Street and Stanislaus Street, as well as Class II buffered or unbuffered bike lanes on sections of State Route 33.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
Transportation choices are limited as explained above,
ALLTransit
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 the city, county, and regional levels. AllTransit scores geographic regions (e.g., cities, counties, Metropolitan Statistical Areas) on a scale of 0 to 10, with a score of 10 indicating complete transit connectivity. As discussed, because Maricopa has very limited transit service, the city has an AllTransit score of 0.0 (see Table 7). For comparison, nearby Taft has a relatively low score of 1.1.
Table 4-7: AllTransit Scores
| AllTransit
Jurisdiction
Score
Maricopa 0.0
Taft 1.1
Bakersfield 4.4
Kern County 3.1
State 5.1
Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2019, AllTransit TM, alltransit.cnt.org Environment
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Web-based mapping tool to identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Environmental factors are considered, in combination with education and economic data, and a total of 21 indicators are included in the final score to help identify these communities. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared. An area with a high score is one that experiences more positive environmental outcomes than areas with low scores. Disadvantaged communities are defined by the California Environmental Protection Agency as "a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation." Disadvantaged areas have CalEnviroScreen scores in the 75th percentile or higher. Maricopa is in a census tract with a CalEnviroScreen score in the 77th percentile when compared to other tracts in the state, which makes it a disadvantaged community (see Figure 7). Regionally, many areas of Kern County have similarly high or higher CalEnviroScreen scores, including areas in central and southeast Bakersfield; the City of Taft and unincorporated areas in the west-northwest side of the county; north central areas, including tracts around Delano, McFarland, and Wasco; unincorporated 106
communities near Lake Isabella; and areas around Mojave and parts of California City. Many census tracts in the county are considered disadvantaged communities.
Environmental factors of highest concern in Maricopa are ozone, lead from housing, hazardous waste and solid waste exposure, and groundwater threats. The presence of many agricultural, petroleum extraction, and industrial operations in the region may contribute to high scores in these categories, along with having older housing in the city, concentrations of land or air traffic, landfills or transfer stations, or sites with hazardous materials. Locally, hazardous sites include a now-defunct site two miles outside of Maricopa that, according to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (California Department of Toxic Substances Control. "Resource Inc. - Maricopa Facility 70000045)". EnviroStor.
Renewal Technology,
ttps://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=70000045.) is believed to have previously accepted soil contaminated with hazardous materials.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
Other than the above analysis, it is likely that the Maricopa area have air pollution from oil fields and agricultural operations near the city from pesticide spraying. 107
Figure 4-7: CalEnviroscreen 4.0 Percentile, Kern County 269)
-190
FRESNO
INYO COUNTY
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
43 41 65
(178
McFarland
Wasco Weldon
(46 Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale Bakersfield
MA KERN COUNTY
33 Rosedale 2a Greenacres.
SAN 68 395
Greenfield Bear Valley Springs
LUIS 119, 52232 among
OBISPO COUNTY Ford City Tehachapi
~ Taft Arvin 4202 Golden:Hills Mojave
184
166 -58
(Maricipa
Rosamond
SANTA Frazier Park -
BARBARA
COUNTY
246
Taft
VENTURA
192. * COUNTY
101 150-6126 (33
(23 Maricopa
-166
(27 400
10/L76
Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 SR 213 Composite Score Percentile 51 - 60%
County Boundary
1 - 10% (Lowest Scores) 61 - 70%
11 - 20% 71 - 80%
City Boundary
21 - 30% 81 - 90%
91 - 100% (Highest Scores)
31 - 40%
Census Designated Place Boundary
41 - 50%
108
Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement
A combination of factors can result in increased displacement risk, particularly for lower-income households, including some factors previously discussed. These factors include environmental hazards, overcrowding, housing cost burden, low vacancy rates, availability of a variety of housing options, and increasing housing prices compared to wage increases.
Overpayment
Housing represents a significant percentage of the total cost of living for many households in California. Households spending more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs are considered to be overpaying, or "cost burdened." Overpayment is disproportionately experienced by renters in low-income households and low-resource areas. As shown in Table 8, the rate of both renters and owners experiencing cost burden in Maricopa is lower than the respective rates in Taft, Bakersfield, and Kern County, as well as the state overall. Between 2010 and 2020, the rate of all households in Maricopa experiencing cost burden increased from 18.7 to
25.1 percent. However, this is still lower than the rate of overpayment in Taft, Bakersfield, unincorporated Kern County, and Kern County as a whole, as well as lower than California's statewide rate of cost burden.
The rate of owner households experiencing cost burden in Maricopa slightly increased between 2010 and 2020, from 12.6 to 15.2 percent of households. This is contrary to trends in Taft, Bakersfield, unincorporated Kern County, and the county as a whole, where rates of owner overpayment have decreased in each jurisdiction. However, the rate of owner cost burden in Maricopa is relatively low compared to the rest of the region. Regionally, as shown in Figure 8, areas in Kern County with particularly high rates of owner cost burden are in the Weldon area and nearby unincorporated communities, but rates of owner overpayment tend to be moderate throughout the county.
Among renters, the rate of cost burden in Maricopa decreased by 3 percentage points between 2010 and 2020, which is in line with trends in Taft and Bakersfield, but in contrast to trends in the unincorporated areas of the county as well as the county as a whole, where rates of renter cost burden increased during the same period. As shown in Figure 8, census tracts on the west side of the county tend to have similar rates of overpayment to Maricopa with the exception of the tract south of Maricopa, which includes the Pine Mountain Club community, where rates of renter overpayment are higher. Regionally, other areas of the county with high areas of renter overpayment are to the northeast of Bakersfield, small portions of California City and Wasco, and in some areas on the south side of the City of Bakersfield.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
Increased cost burden over time has been discussed in the Housing Element due to rental increases and cost of housing, as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Housing Element. No specific patterns of foreclosure or any patterns of evictions are nticed in different parts of the city. 109
Table 4-8: Households by Overpayment
Households Kern
Maricopa Taft Bakersfield Unincorporated State
Experiencing Cost Kern County County
Burden (Paying >30% of
Income Toward Housing 2020
2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010
Costs)
Percentage of Owner Households 15.2% 21.6% 21.3% 38.9% 26.6% 32.9% 26.9% 35.5% 26.6% 41.2% 29.3%
12.6%
Experiencing Cost Burden
Percentage of Renter Households 33.0% 30.1% 48.3% 46.2% 50.5% 47.7% 49.0% 49.9% 35.9% 48.7% 50.4% 49.5% Experiencing Cost Burden
Percentage of All Households 25.1% 31.5% 33.0% 43.5% 35.2% 38.7% 36.4% 40.8% 35.7% 45.1% 38.3%
18.7%
Experiencing Cost Burden
Source: CHAS 2006-2010, 2006-20220.
110
Figure 4-8: Owner Households Experiencing Cost Burden, Kern County 269) --190
FRESNO INYO COUNTY
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
43 413 3 99 65 178
McFarland
Wasco Weldon
146 - Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale -Bakersfield
teenacies KERN COUNTY
33 1395
SAN (58 Rosedate 2 Greenfield Bear Valley Springs
LUIS 119
OBISPO COUNTY Ford Gily -223 Lamont * Tehachapi
184 Arvin Funer
5 Taft 2202 Coen His MoRe S
58).
-Maricopa
Rosamond
-176 Frazier Park- 138
SANTA
BARBARA
COUNTY
246 a
Taft
VENTURA
192 B.COUNTY
101 150 - 126 33
23 Maricopa
-166
Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 16132 County Boundary Percent of Owner Households
with Mortgages whose Monthly
Owner Costs are 30.0 Percent or
City Boundary More of Household Income
< 20%
Census Designated Place Boundary 20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
> 80%
111
Figure 4-9: Renter Households Experiencing Cost Burden, Kern County 269) -190g
FRESNO INYO COUNTY
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
43 41 399: 65
McFarland
Wasco Weldon
46) Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale Bakersfield
Er KERN COUNTY
creenacres
SAN 58 Rosedale Die Greenholt Benr Valley Springs
LUIS 119.
OBISPO COUNTY FordiCity
A Tatt 184 Arvin.
58)
LMaricopa
Rosamond,
176 SANTA Frazier Park 138
BARBARA
COUNTY
246 3
Taft
VENTURA
192 → COUNTY
101 150- 6126 33
23 Maricopa
-1183
-166
27 Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 County Boundary Percent of Renter Households for
whom Gross Rent (Contract Rent
City Boundary
1 < 20%
Census Designated Place Boundary
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
> 80%
112
Overcrowding
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms, hallways, and kitchens, and severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 occupants per room. A typical home might have a total of five rooms that qualify for habitation under this definition (three bedrooms, living room, and dining room). If more than five people were living in the home, it would be considered overcrowded. Overcrowding is strongly related to household size, particularly for large households, and the availability of suitably sized housing. A small percentage of overcrowded units is not uncommon, and often includes families with children who share rooms or multigenerational households. However, high rates of overcrowding may indicate a fair housing issue resulting from situations such as two families or households occupying one unit to reduce housing costs (sometimes referred to as "doubling up"). These situations this may indicate a shortage of appropriately sized and affordable housing units because overcrowding is often related to the cost and availability of housing and can occur when demand in a jurisdiction or region is high.
As shown in Table 9, the rate of overcrowding among both renter and owner households in Maricopa has decreased between 2010 and 2020. Rates of renter households experiencing overcrowding are notably lower than in the county as a whole, though slightly higher than in the neighboring city of Taft. As of 2020, there were no renter households experiencing severe overcrowding. A similar percentage of owner households are experiencing overcrowding compared to the percentage of households experiencing severe overcrowding (4.6 percent experiencing overcrowding versus 4.8 percent experiencing severe overcrowding). The rate of owner households experiencing overcrowding in Maricopa is similar to the rate in Kern County overall, while there is a higher rate of owner households experiencing severe overcrowding. It is possible that this is related to multiple households "doubling up" in a home owned by a family member, though this is not known with certainty.
Regionally, Maricopa's relatively low rate of overcrowding is typical for many areas of Kern County, including many cities and unincorporated communities on the north, south, and east sides of the county (see Figure 10). Areas on the east side of Bakersfield; communities southeast of Bakersfield, including Arvin and Wasco; and the northwest side of the county tend to have higher rates of overcrowding.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
Overcrowding is discussed in detail in Chapter 3. There may be areas that are known to have higher rates of household overcrowding, such as "doubling-up" families in one house? The city has no code enforcement officers to avail this information. 113
Table 4-9: Household by Overcrowding
Unincorporate Kern County State
Maricopa Taft Bakersfield
Households Experiencing d Kern County
Overcrowding
2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 Percentage of Owner
Households Experiencing 6.7% 4.6% 3.0% 2.6% 3.5% 4.2% 4.9% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 3.2% 3.1% Overcrowding
Percentage of Owner
4.8% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% 1.3% 0.9% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% Households Experiencing
Severe Overcrowding
Total Number of Owner 63,81 70,47 152,28 161,1 6,903,17 7,241,31 270 414 1,532 1,830 61,228 59,029 13
Households
Percentage of Renter
Households Experiencing 8.0% 2.7% 11.4 1.1% 7.6% 7.5% 10.9% 11.7% 10.4% 9.4% 8.4% 7.8% Overcrowding
Percentage of Renter
Households Experiencing 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 5.3% 4.1% 5.0% 3.6% 4.9% 5.7% 5.4% Severe Overcrowding
Total Number of Renter 41,83 48,09 95,773 112,4 5,503,30 5,861,79 113 335 898 1,627 34,417 41,743 43
Households
Source: ACS 2006-2010, 2016-2020
114
Figure 4-10: Households Experiencing Overcrowding, Kern County 269
FRESNO -190
COUNTY
TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
43 д. 99 65
McFarland
Wasco
46 .-... Weldon
Lake Isabella
Shafter-.
Oilda
Bakersfield
33 KERN COUNTY
eenacre:
SAN (58) 'Rosedale
LUIS /alley Springs 395
TOBISPO COUNTY 223 a Lamont
Ford Ci 54. Tehachapi
Taft 184
K202 Golden Hills?,
- Maricopa 58)
Rosamond
"SANTA
138
BARBARA
COUNTY
(154)
VENTURA Taft
SCOUNTY I
150г: 4126
23 (33)
Maricopa
166
Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 County Boundary Percent of Overcrowded Units
| Less than 5%
City Boundary 5% - 10%
10% - 15%
Census Designated Place Boundary 15% - 20%
More than 20%
115
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
Housing Conditions are discussed in great detail in the Housing Element.
Displacement
The Urban Displacement Project, a joint research and action initiative of the University of California (UC) Berkeley and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the gentrification displacement risk at the census-tract level. The UC Berkeley analysis identifies the following categories of displacement risk:
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
The city has no affordable housing projects, either government sponsored or market rate, and hence there is no risk of unit conversion.
Though the risk of displacement was not determined for Maricopa due to low data quality, the overall risk of displacement in most of Kern County is relatively low (see Figure 11).
Regionally, areas of higher displacement risk are in parts of Bakersfield and surrounding communities, in the Mojave unincorporated community, and in areas on the northwest side of the county, such as the Lost Hills unincorporated community.
Natural disasters also present potential for displacement risk, but there are limited natural disaster risks in Maricopa. As shown in Figure 12, though there are some unincorporated areas around Maricopa that are designated by CalFire as being either moderate or high fire hazard severity zones, there are no areas in Maricopa that have these designations. There are a few areas of the city that are in 1 percent annual chance flood hazard areas (see Figure 13), including along State Route 33 on the south side of the city and on the western edge of the city. However, these areas are not currently developed and are zoned for either open space or planned development districts. Therefore, there is no known risk of displacement in these areas. 116
Figure 4-11: Risk of Displacement, Kern County
269)
-190
FRESNO
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
(43)
41 65
178
McFarland
Wasco! Weldon
46)
Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale •
mr Bakersfield
KERN COUNTY
SAN 58) Rosedat
enile Bear Valley Springs
LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY Ford City t 34, Tehachapi
Arvinh
2 Taft (184) 202 Golden Hils; Mojave
58 -Maricopa
Rosamond
SANTA Frazier. Parl 138
BARBARA
COUNTY
Taft
VENTURA
COUNTY
6126 (33
Maricopa
-(166
Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 9213
County Boundary Overall Displacement Risk
Low Data Quality
City Boundary Lower Displacement Risk
At Risk of Displacement
Census Designated Place Boundary 1 Income Group Displacement 2 Income Groups Displacement
117
Figure 4-12: Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Kern County
2691
FRESNO
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
(13)
65 McFarland
Wasco •i Weldon
46)
Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale ;Bakersfield
KERN COUNTY
SAN (58 steenfield- 395
LUIS (119) *Bear Valley Springs
OBISPO COUNTY Ford Cily 2232 Lamon • Tehachapi
3 Taft
58 •Maricopa
KOSATOE
SANTA Frazier Park 138
BARBARA
COUNTY
Taft
VENTURA
& COUNTY
2126 33)
Maricopa
-166
Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 58: 213 County Boundary Fire Hazard Severity Zones
State Responsibility Areas
City Boundary Moderate
High
Census Designated Place Boundary Very High
C3 Local Responsibility Areas
118
Figure 4-13: Flood Hazard Areas, Kern County
269)
FRESNO -190
COUNTY TULARE COUNTY INYO COUNTY
KINGS COUNTY
(43
Failand
Wasco Weldon
(46
• Lake Isabella
Shafter
Oildale
-Bakersfield
KERN COUNTY
(33 reenacres
SAN (58) Rosedate 1395
LUIS GreenietBear Valley Springs
OBISPO COUNTY Ford City
- Tehachapi
1 Taft 184 Arvinn,
-Maricopa (58)
Rosamond
SANTA Frazier: Park: -- 138
BARBARA
COUNTY
Taft
VENTURA
O COUNTY
(150 4126
(33
Maricopa
-166
Source: ESRI 2022; CA Housing and Community Development 2023 County Boundary Flood Hazard
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
City Boundary 0.2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Census Designated Place Boundary Special Floodway
Future Conditions 1% Annu
Chance Flood Hazar
Lee with Reduced Risk Due to
119
Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
In addition to assessing demographic characteristics as indicators of fair housing, jurisdictions must identify how they currently comply with fair housing laws or identify programs to become in compliance. The City of Maricopa enforces fair housing complies with fair housing laws and regulations through a two-fold process: review of local policies and codes for compliance with State law, and referral of fair housing complaints to appropriate agencies. The following identifies how the City complies with fair housing laws:
Local Outreach and Fair Housing Issues
• The city conducted a workshop, community survey, a public hearing and a 30-day notice of availability for public review of the Draft Housing Element (including Fair Housing) as part of the outreach process, integrated comments received during the survey and the public meetings, as described in this Housing Element.
• Describe any input that relates to fair housing issues such as living conditions, access to opportunities, displacement risks
Fair Housing Enforcement
• City has no staff to to provide code enforcement. The city has not received any fair housing related past lawsuits, settlements, consent decrees or other related legal matters.
Complaints, if received will be referred to County Level Agencies.
Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
• The city has not received any fair housing related past lawsuits, settlements, consent decrees or other related legal matters. Complaints, if received will be referred to County Level Agencies.
120|
Table 4-10: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
Title Statute Description Compliance Efforts
Density Bonus Government The density bonus ordinance Compliant. No Law Code Section allows up to a 50 percent increase comlaints were 65915 in project density depending on received with regards the proportion of units that are to this provision.
dedicated as affordable, and up to
80 percent for projects that are
completely affordable, in
compliance with State law.
No Net Loss Government The City has identified a surplus Compliant. No Law Code Section of sites available to meet the comlaints were 65863 Regional Housing Needs received with regards
Allocation. to this provision.
Housing Government The City does not condition the Compliant. No Accountability Code Section approval of housing development complaints were Act 65589.5 projects for very low-, low-, or received with regards moderate-income households, or to this provision.
emergency shelters unless specific
written findings are made. Further,
the City currently allows
emergency shelters by-right,
without limitations, in at least one
zone that allows residential uses.
Senate Bill 35 Government The City has established a written Compliant. No Code Section policy or procedure, as well as complaints were 65913.4 other guidance as appropriate, to received with regards streamline the approval process to this provision.
and standards for eligible projects.
Senate Bill 330 Government The City relies on regulations set Compliant. No Code Section forth in the law for processing complaints were 65589.5 preliminary applications for received with regards housing development projects, to this provision.
conducting no more than five
hearings for housing projects that
comply with objective General
Plan and development standards,
and making a decision on a
121
Title Statute Description Compliance Efforts
residential project within 90 days
after certification of an
environmental impact report or 60
days after adoption of a mitigated
negative declaration or an
environmental report for an
affordable housing project.
California Fair Government The City provides protection to Compliant. No Employment Code Sections residents through referrals to legal complaints were and Housing 12900 - 12996 assistance organizations. received with regards Act and Federal Title VIII of the to this provision.
Fair Housing Federal Civil
Act Rights Act
Anti- Government The City reviews affordable Compliant. No Discrimination Code Section development projects in the same comlaints were in Zoning and 65008 manner as market-rate received with regards Land Use developments, except in cases to this provision. where affordable housing projects
are eligible for preferential
treatment, including, but not
limited to, residential sites subject
to Assembly Bill 1397.
Assembly Bill Government The City has completed this AFH Compliant. No 686 Code Section analysis and has identified comlaints were 8899.50 programs to address identified fair received with regards housing issues. to this provision.
Equal Access Government The City offers translation Compliant. No Code Section services for all public meetings comlaints were and offers accessibility received with regards
1195 et seq.
accommodations to ensure equal to this provision.
access to all programs and
activities operated, administered,
or funded with financial assistance
from the State, regardless of
membership or perceived
membership in a protected class.
122
Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower-income households.
AB 686 added a new requirement for Housing Elements to analyze the location of lower-income sites in relation to areas of high opportunity. Table 4-11 presents the RHNA capacity by neighborhood in the city, and the existing conditions of each tract as they relate to indicators of fair housing.
Local Patterns Based on Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
Socio-economic characteristics are discussed in the Housing Element. RHNA, identified sites are the best suited for development among many vacant sites available in the city. As a city with mostly low-income population, the community is inclusive. RHNA location/area are scattered across the city as visible in Figure 5-1 and 5-2 of the Housing Element.
Other Relevant Factors
Historically, people moved into the area when Maricopa discovered oil in the early 1900s. Many people were emigres from Oklahoma and other places who have worked in the oil fields and Agriculture. Mnay residents today are from that lineage and are proud Maricopans.
There are no areas of High Segregation and Poverty in Maricopa according to the TCAC/HCD analysis. Additionally, there are no R/ECAP or RCAA areas in Maricopa.
The city has not received any development proposals in last decade or so and lack of housing development and businesses or industries to provide productive employment to residents is one of the main reasons for the city not being to attract new residents. There is not a market for new businesses to establish since most businesses have minimum market area population to set up shop. Lack of physical and social infrastructure and the city's inability to fund such infrastructure on its own leaves the city in a static posture since years.
Housing Units by Type
The most common housing types in Maricopa are single-family detached houses and mobile or manufactured homes, which represent a combined 90.1 percent of housing units in the city as of 2020 (see Table 4-11). The proportion of housing units in the city that are mobile or manufactured homes is significantly higher than in neighboring communities or in the county as a whole. Because manufactured homes tend to be more affordable than single-family detached homes, this may indicate a high demand for low-density affordable housing in the city. Only 7.8 percent of units in the city are in multifamily buildings with two or more units, which is relatively low for the region. For example, in Taft, 17.2 percent of housing units are in multifamily buildings.
123
Table 4-11: Housing Units by Type
Housing Unit Type Maricopa Unincorporated
Taft Bakersfield Kern County State
as a Percentage of Kern County
All Housing Units
2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 Single-Family
40.2% 46.9% 74.7% 64.7% 70.8% 71.0% 71.0% 72.5% 71.1% 72.3% 57.7% 58.1% Detached
Single-Family
0.7% 2.2% 4.5% 2.8% 2.8% 3.1% 2.0% 2.2% 2.6% 2.5% 7.1% 7.1% Attached
2-4 Units 4.2% 3.0% 7.8% 5.9% 11.9% 9.9% 7.6% 6.8% 10.0% 8.5% 7.8% 8.2% 5+ Units 0.0% 4.8% 9.5% 11.3% 12.4% 13.4% 4.3% 5.0% 8.2% 9.1% 23.6% 22.6% Mobile or
Manufactured Homes 54.9% 43.2% 3.5% 15.2% 2.1% 2.6% 14.7% 13.2% 7.9% 7.4% 3.6% 3.9% Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Source: ACS 2006-2010, 2016-2020
124
Households by Tenure
The majority of households in Maricopa are homeowner households, with 55.3 percent of households living in homes they own (see Table 4-12). This is comparable with the county as a whole as well as Taft and Bakersfield, which each have rates of owner households between 50 and 59 percent. Between 2010 and 2020, the percentage of renter households has increased both in Maricopa and in the county as a whole, as well as in Taft and Bakersfield. 125
Table 4-12: Households by Tenure
Unincorporated
Maricopa Taft Bakersfield Kern County State
Tenure Kern County
2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 Owner
Households as
70.5% 55.3% 63.0% 52.9% 60.4% 59.4% 64.0% 58.6% 61.4% 58.9% 57.4% 55.3% a Percentage of
Households
Renter
Households as
29.5% 44.7% 37.0% 47.1% 39.6% 40.6% 36.0% 41.4% 38.6% 41.1% 42.6% 44.7% a Percentage of
Households
Total Number
of Households 383 749 2,430 3,457 105,648 118,568 95,645 100,772 248,057 273,556 12,392,852 13,103,114 Sources: ACS 2006-2010, 20016-2020
126
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues
Through discussions with stakeholders, fair housing advocates, and this AFH, the City identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues, as shown in Table 4-13, Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues. While there are several strategies identified to address fair housing issues, the most pressing issues are displacement risk due to substandard conditions and rising housing costs as well as barriers to homeownership. Prioritized contributing factors are bolded in Table 4-14 and associated actions to meaningfully affirmatively further fair housing related to these factors are bolded and italicized.
Table 4-13: Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues Fair Housing
Contributing Factors Priority Meaningful Actions
Issue
Low Incomes Limited availability of High Work with HCD to fund high-paying employment the position of an
opportunities Economic Development
specialist for business
attraction.
Environmental Hazards Past and present industries Medium in the region
High percentage of High Encourage school
students that are socially districts to provide
Low School Performance disadvantaged financial assistance to Challenges with teacher socially disadvantaged
recruitment students.
Limited Transportation Rural character of the city High Work with Kern County Access to provide transportation
services.
127
Goals, Actions, Milestones, and Metrics
Programs to affirmatively further fair housing that are included in Chapter 8, Goals, Policies, and Programs, are summarized in Table 4-14, organized by the action area that the program seeks to address.
Table 4-14: Summary of Goals, Actions, Milestones, and Metrics to Meet Fair Housing Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Metrics
Targeting
Housing mobility counseling,
landlord outreach for housing choice Review
KP-01, AP-06 City-wide
vouchers, accessibility programs, annually
construct ELI Units
Place-Based Working with
Strategies for State Water Retrofit and
Community КP-01, AP-05 Infrastructure Improvements (Sewer) City-wide expand sewer Resources lines.
Revitalization Control Board.
Replacement policies, multi-lingual
KP-01, tenant counseling, down payment City-wide
assistance
Require a 30-
Displacement year continued
At-Risk Prevention - Affordability Continuing affordability Program CO-02 Program. City-wide condition in
Covenants
APRS. projects that
receive a
density bonus.
128
CHAPTER FIVE - SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Overview and Housing Sites
Maricopa is a rural city with relatively low housing costs compared to many areas of California.
Over the past two decades Maricopa has remained essentially static with little growth shown or anticipated. Over the most recent five-year period, Maricopa has issued an average of less than one permit annually for new single-family residential construction and no permits for new multi- family residential construction. Because of a lack of interest by residential builders or developers, Maricopa has been unable to add housing of any kind including, but not limited to, multi-family housing or housing focused on special needs groups including seniors and those with disabilities.
As noted in Chapter 3, as of 2013, a median-priced home in Maricopa would be only marginally affordable to extremely or very low-income families but would be affordable to the low- moderate, and above moderate-income categories, or those making 80 percent or more of area median income. A family of four would need to make approximately $42,840 to afford a $136,500 house, the 2013 median sales price in Maricopa.
To determine whether Maricopa has sufficient land to accommodate its share of regional housing needs for all income groups, the City must identify "adequate sites." Under state law (California Government Code Section 65583[c] [1]), adequate sites within city's boundary are those with appropriate zoning and development standards, with services and facilities, needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing for all income levels. New programs have been added to meet this requirement.
Progress Toward Meeting the RHNA
An important component of the Housing Element is the identification of sites for future housing development and evaluation of the adequacy of these sites in fulfilling Maricopa's share of regional housing needs as determined by Kern COG. As previously noted, Maricopa has issued an average of less than one single family residential building permit during each of the past five years and no multi-family building permits during the same period. The city attributes this to the fact that Maricopa is a comparatively isolated rural community with virtually no amenities and is within a 45-minute commute from Bakersfield and a 10-minute commute from the larger community of Taft. Additionally, the city has a general fund budget of less than $300,000 per year which means that it has no funds available to partner with either private interests or public agencies in any type of low-moderate income housing effort. The following sections describe the somewhat modest city services available to Maricopa residents including sewer service which serves only the core area of the city. Lack of residential development during the past two decades suggests that residential developers are simply not interested in locating in Maricopa notwithstanding favorable developmental policies and comparatively low development cost within the city's jurisdiction.
129
Projected Housing Needs - Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
State law (California Government Code Section 65584) provides for councils of governments to prepare regional housing allocation plans that assign a share of a region's housing need to each city and county. In Kern County, the Kern County Council of Governments (Kern COG) is the council of governments authorized under state law to identify existing and future housing needs for the region. Kern COG adopted a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) on June 19, 2014.
This plan addresses the RHNA for the period from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2023.
Kern COG's methodology is based on the regional numbers supplied by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The numbers produced by HCD are provided to Kern COG in the form of a regional goal number, which is then broken into income categories. Kern COG is mandated to distribute the numbers to Kern County jurisdictions by income categories.
The RHNP allocation is a minimum need number-cities and counties may plan for, and accommodate, a larger number of dwelling units than the allocation. The City must, however, use the numbers allocated under the RHNP to identify measures (policies and programs) that are consistent with these goals. While the City must also show how it will accommodate these units to be built, it is not obligated to build any of the units itself or finance their construction.
Table 5-1 provides a breakdown of Maricopa's share of the regional housing need by the affordability level/income category: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. Extremely low-, very low-, and low-income categories are often referred to as a group as lower-income.
Through this Housing Element, the city is required to demonstrate the availability of adequate sites to accommodate these new units.
Table 5-1: 2023-2031 RHNA Allocations by Income Category Moderate Above-
Income Units Moderate
Total Extremely- Very-Low Low
RHNA Low Income Income Income Income Units
Jurisdiction Allocation Units' Units! Units
Maricopa 14 1 1 3 8
Note I: * Extremely Low Income represents 50% of RHNA's Very Low- Income allocation. Since Very Low-Income requirement was 1, 50% of it has been rounded upwards as 1 Unit, effectively changing the RHNA allocation to 14, instead of the data provided by KCOG as a total requirement of 13 units.
Source: Kern Council of Governments
State law requires jurisdictions to demonstrate that "adequate sites" will be made available over the planning period (2023-2031 for the Kern COG region) to facilitate and encourage sufficient housing sites are available for the RHNA. Jurisdictions must also demonstrate that appropriate zoning and development standards, as well as services and facilities, will be in place to facilitate and encourage housing. To that end, the Housing Element must inventory land suitable for residential development, including vacant and underutilized sites (if appropriate), and analyze the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.
Land Availability
The City of Maricopa follows established standards for the development of housing in the area.
Criteria for assessing the suitability of housing sites are outlined below. The inventory of available residential land is summarized in Tables 5-2 that may be utilized to meet the projected housing need through 2031. The inventory has been updated to reflect the current general plan designations, density, and a realistic density based on average density. No development permit applications were received during the last five years. All of the sites identified in Table 5-2 were available during the Housing Element planning period and are still available currently. The analysis of vacant land is based upon current zoning of the parcels.
The land currently within the city limits that is available for residential use, could generate up to 88 units.
Since the adoption of the 5th Cycle housing Element, some of the prior identified sites parcels were re-subdivided. The new parcel numbers and acreage of each subdivided parcel has been incorporated into the site inventory. Due to the low levels of RHNA requirements for each income group, the subdivision has not impacted the ability of the city to meet the RHNA requirements for the City.
Existing law (AB 1397) requires the housing element to contain, among other things, an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment. Further AB 897 requires a discussion of sites developed at less than identified density, which information is not readily available. It should be mentioned that no development permit applications were received since the last approval of the last housing element. Table 5-2 shows the existing inventory suitable for residential development. Of those, several lots are below 0.5 Acres in size and two sites are above 10 acres in size. The sites above 10 acres were not included in meeting RHNA requirements. Parcel 042-232-08, approximately 1 acre has been selected to provide for seven low-income (including Extremely Low Income, Very Low and Low income) housing units, against the RHNA need for three units.
The city has two large parcels of vacant land within its existing limit that are currently zoned for residential land use. This land is also available for the construction of multi-family residential structures as indicated in Table 5-2. The city's allocation under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment calls for constructing 14 housing units by 2031. Should development occur, the city hopes that a significant portion of such development will 131
be built as high and medium density residential units. Given the past 20-years development history of Maricopa, this is not likely to occur.
132
Table 5-2: Site Inventory/Undeveloped Parcels
Average
Density
5th Cycle SUBDIVIDED 5th 6th 5th Permitted (Realistic Lot Prior PARCEL 5th Cycle - 6th Cycle Cycle Cycle 5th Cycle Cycle Density Number Income Owner- Identifie Infra- On-Site /Env.
ID APN APN Acres ACRE ZONING GP (DU/Acre) of Units) Level ship d Site structure Constraints 042-206-
0600 042-206-06 0.13 '0.27 R-1 LDR 1 to 10 Moderate Private Yes Yes No Sidewalk 042-216-
0600 042-216-13 0.81 '0.14 R-3 HDR 20 to 30 Moderate Private Yes Yes No Sidewalk '042-216-15 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
'042-216-16 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
'042-216-17 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
'042-216-18 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-216-14 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes Yes No Sidewalk
042-224-
0900 '042-224-14 0.42 '0.14 R-1 LDR 1 to 10 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk 042-224-15 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-224-16 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-251-
1100 042-251-32 1.25 '0.1 R-2 MDR 11 to 20 Moderate Private Yes Yes No Sidewalk 042-251-33 '0.1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
'04.2-251-34 '0.1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-251-35 '0.12 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-251-36 '0.1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-251-37 '0.1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-251-38 0.11 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-251-39 0.12 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-251-40 "0.13 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
133
'042-251-41 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-251-42 '0.15 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-242- Sidewalk
0700 042-242-11 0.26 '0.12 DC MU 11 to 30 Moderate Private Yes Yes Repairs Sidewalk
042-242-12 '0.13 Moderate Private Yes Repairs
042-242- Sidewalk
0400 042-242-04 0.18 '0.18 DC MU 11 to 30 Moderate Private Yes Yes Repairs 042-111-
1200 '042-111-24 1.51 '0.13 R-1 LDR 1 to 10 Moderate Private Yes Yes No Sidewalk '042-111-27 '0.13 R-1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-111-28 '0.13 R-1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-111-29 '0.13 R-1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
'042-111-33 '0.13 R-1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
U 042-111-25 '0.13 R-1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk 042-111-34 '0.19 R-1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-111-30 '0.13 R-1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-111-31 '0.13 R-1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-111-32 '0.13 R-1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
'042-111-26 '0.13 R-1 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-064-
I 2000 '042-064-28 0.66 '0.13 R-1 SFR 1 to 10 Moderate Private Yes Yes No Sidewalk I 042-064-29 10.13 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
I 042-064-30 '0.13 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
I 042-064-31 '0.13 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-064-32 '0.13 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-024- Not
0200 042-024-02 0.42 '0.42 GC MU 11 to 30 Counted City Yes Yes No Sidewalk 134
Topography/
1% Annual
Flood -
Sothern
239-520- Not border of
0400 239-520-04 15.5 14.33 R-3 HDR 20 to 30 counted Private Yes Yes parcel only
042-040- Not
0300 '042-040-03 14.37 13.78 R-1 LDR 1 to 10 counted Private Yes Yes No Sidewalk 042-176-
0300 '042-176-21 0.54 '0.14 R-1 LDR 1 to 10 Moderate Private Yes Yes No Sidewalk 042-176-22 '0.14 Moderate Private
Yes No Sidewalk
'042-176-23 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-176-24 '0.14 H Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-226- Abovel
0100 042-226-05 2.24 '0.14 R-1 LDR 1 to 10 Modi Private Yes No Sidewalk Above
042-226-06 '0.14 Modi Private Yes No Sidewalk
Above
042-226-08 '0.14 Mod: Private Yes No Sidewalk
Above
'042-226-10 '0.14 Modi Private Yes No Sidewalk
Above
042-226-11 '0.14 Mod. Private Yes No Sidewalk
Above
'042-226-13 '0.14 Modi Private Yes No Sidewalk
Above
042-226-14 '0.14 Modi Private Yes No Sidewalk
Above
042-226-16 '0.14 Mod. Private Yes No Sidewalk
Above
042-226-17 '0.14 Modi Private Yes No Sidewalk
M '042-226-18 '0.14 Above Private Yes No Sidewalk
135
Mod.
Above
'042-226-20 '0.14 Mod. Private
Yes No Sidewalk
Above
M '042-226-07 '0.14 Mod Private
Yes No Sidewalk
Above
= '042-226-09 '0.14
Mod Private Yes No Sidewalk
Above
'042-226-15 '0.14 Miod. Private
Yes No Sidewalk
Above
'042-226-19 '0.14 Viod. Private
Yes No Sidewalk
Abovel
'042-226-12 '0.14 Mod. Private
Yes No Sidewalk
042-214-
0100 '042-214-07 '0.14 R-1 LDR 1 to 10 Moderate Private Yes Yes No Sidewalk
'042-214-08 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes
No Sidewalk
'042-214-13 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
'042-214-15 '0.14 Moderate
Private Yes No Sidewalk
'042-214-16 '0.14 Moderate
Private Yes No Sidewalk
'042-214-17 '0.14 Moderate Private
Yes No Sidewalk
'042-214-20 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
'042-214-22 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-214-09 '0.14 H Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-214-11 10.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
'042-214-19 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
2zzzz 042-214-12 0.14 Moderate Private
Yes No Sidewalk
'042-214-18 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
*042-214-21 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes
'042-214-10 No Sidewalk
'0.14 Moderate Private Yes
No Sidewalk
042-214-14 '0.14 Moderate Private Yes No Sidewalk
042-212- 042-212-12 '0.14 R-1 LDR 1 to 10 Moderate
Private Yes Yes No Sidewalk
136
137
88 Total Units
Moderate
Above
65 Moderate
Low Inc
No Sidewalk Yes Yes Private Moderate 1 to 10 LDR R-1 '0.13 042-104-03 0300 042-104-
No Sidewalk Yes Yes Private Moderate 1 to 10 LDR R-1 '0.13 042-104-02 1040200 042-
No Sidewalk Yes Yes Private Income 1 to 10 LDR R-1 '0.97 042-232-08 0800 Low 042-232-
No Sidewalk Yes Private Moderate '0.14 042-212-19
No Sidewalk Yes Private Moderate '0.14 1042-212-18
No Sidewalk Yes Private Moderate '0.14 042-212-17
No Sidewalk Yes Private Moderate '0.14 042-212-16
0900
Environmental Constraints - Undeveloped lots/parcels identified above do not have any immediate environmental constraints, except parcel 239-520-0400, that is marginally impacted by a 1% Annual Chance of flooding along the southern border of the parcel. This parcel is not considered in the calculations determining city's RHNA requirements. When development applications are received, prior to construction, the city will proceed with an environmental review that itemizes any constraints to the extent it is legally required to do so.
Realistic Capacity - The City of Maricopa has had minimal development over the last two decades and as a result, does not have recent experience to facilitate calculations of capacity.
Instead, the City evaluated site development constraints, zoning, development standards, anticipated site improvements, to conservatively calculate capacity based on minimum densities allowed in each zone based on lot area requirements as provided in Table 4-6, including R-1 zoned sites and higher density sites (e.g., R-2, R-3, DC and GC).
Large parcels over 10 Acres were not considered in the available sites count. Lower income units were assigned to one parcel that is more than ½-Acre, but less than 10 acres in size (See Table 5- 2). Potential units that could be facilitated is assigned in color codes to distinguish between different income groups.
Prior Identified Sites
Table 5-2 "Site Inventory/Undeveloped Parcels" identifies several sites that are identified in previous planning periods that are being utilized toward the lower- income RHNA. If utilizing prior identified sites (two planning periods for vacant sites) toward the lower-income RHNA, the element must include a program committing to permit housing developments with 20 percent affordability for lower-income households by-right (without discretionary action) at appropriate densities (e.g., at least 20 units per acre). See new Program AP-07. 138
Figure 5-1: Vacant Parcels with Parcel ID
Feet
250 500
i City of Maricopai
BITTE CITY BOUNDARIES
Porcels 2024
2022 Housing Element
Vacoat Siles
Kern Council
of Governments Other Porcels 2024
139
Figure 5-2: Vacant Parcels and Zoning
Feet
K
0 250 500
INI
City of Maricopa
04204003
R-1
R
R-1
GC
R-1
-RM
R-1 R-1
R-1
N M
EATH COTYEOURDARIES ZONE
1 Parcel: 2021
23952004
R-3 2022 Rossieg flenest
Vacent Sites
R-3
Giber Percels 2024
SCOTTOR R-3
R-3 R-3 ern Cound
Governmen
140
Figure 5-3: Vacant Parcels - Flood Map
K Feet
0 250 500
City of Maricopa
10717m
Q 04204003
R
POSO ST
N M
23952004
ERIE CITY BOUNDARIES Other Parcels 2024
7 Parcels 2024 USA Flood Hazard
-SCOTTOR 1% Anavol Chante
ern Cound 2022 Housing Element Flood Hazard
Government Vacool Siles
141
Infrastructure
Existing infrastructure and facilities within the City of Arvin would not hinder future residential development capacities to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The city has reviewed and verifies that easements, shape, access to public rights-of-way and any property conditions do not preclude residential development and the sites identified are not impaired or restricted by easements, shape, access to public right of way.
The city is also not impacted by any airports, contaminated sites, or Williamson Act Contracts that hinders housing production.
Water
Potable water service for the City of Maricopa is provided by the West Kern Water District.
West Kern serves residential, commercial, and industrial customers in various communities in western Kern County.
WKWD has contracted with the Kern County Water Agency to receive 31,500 acre-feet-per- year (AFY) of surface water through the State Water Project (SWP). While this represents the maximum amount of water that the District can request, DWR determines the amount that will actually be delivered in a given year. The reliability of the SWP was estimated to be 59% in 2020.
By agreement, WKWD's surface water supply (SWP) is delivered to Buena Vista Water Storage District (BVWSD) and exchanged for previously banked SWP or high-flow Kern River water. Surface water is not currently used as a direct domestic water supply source.
WKWD has historically practiced conjunctive water use, integrating surface and groundwater supplies, to meet current and future demands. WKWD pumps banked ground water to meet potable water demands. In times when excess surface water is available, those excess supplies are banked for use in the future. Currently, the District has about 250,000 AF in storage which represents about 10 years of full annual demands. WK WD's water reliability is stable, largely due to a long history of sustainable water management.
During wet years, up to 10,000 AFY of additional water is available to WKWD. Historically, this high-flow water has been purchased or exchanged by WKWD to increase storage in its water banking program.
Distribution System
The District's water is obtained from thirteen (13) groundwater wells located approximately twenty-three (23) miles northeast of Maricopa. From the well-field, water is pumped to two (2) storage tanks within the City. The tanks have a total capacity of 1.6 million gallons (mg). Due to the rolling topography of the area, a series of zones have been established to regulate the pressure in the system between forty (40) pounds per square inch (psi) and 100 psi. The District maintains a grid of 6, 8 and 12-inch water mains to serve the Maricopa area. 142
A small subdivision on the southwesterly corner of the city is fed water by a booster pump since it is at the same elevation as the storage tanks.
Water Demand
West Kern Water District reported that current water usage is 572 gallons per household for the 372 occupied households (2020 Census). Based on the projected population growth of 0.4 percent per year, the demand for water is expected to grow at 0.4 percent per year, keeping the quantity of water usage per person and family size as a constant.
Water Usage
Note: 1-acre foot equals approximately 326,000 gallons.
West Kern Water District records indicate 237AF of water was distributed for residential and commercial usage within the Maricopa area during the calendar year 2024. Utilizing the Kern Council of Governments "2020 Census Incorporated Cities/Towns, & Census Designated Places (CDP)" the following information was obtained and calculated:
Total Population: 1,026
Total Households: 432
Total Occupied Households: 372
Average Occupied Household Size: 2.75
Average AF per person per year: 0.23
Average gallons per person per year: 74,980
Average gallons per person per day: 205
Average AF per occupied household per year: 0.64
Average gallons per occupied household per year: 208,640 Average gallons per occupied household per day: 572
The District currently charges new industrial, commercial, and residential customers with a service installation and water supply fee. In addition, a capacity purchase surcharge is required to cover proportional costs of existing facilities. The formula for industrial customers is based on the District's pumping capacity and the total value of the District's assets along with customer's daily demand. Residential and commercial customer's formula is based on the District's total assets divided by the length of the District's pipeline system to achieve a value of assets per mile. The user's distance from the source of supply to the point of storage multiplied by value of assets per mile is used to achieve total values of assets serving the user.
The total value of assets serving the user is multiplied by the user's incremental portion of the District's production capacity.
143
Sanitary Sewer
The city operates a wastewater treatment and disposal facility on a 5.77-acre parcel on California Route 166 east of the city. This parcel is leased from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The treatment and disposal facility consist of two disposal ponds of approximately 2.25 acres each. Raw sewage is discharged directly into the disposal ponds through an 8-inch diameter clay pipe trunk line approximately 1.5 +/- miles long. The easterly 1400-feet of this line was replaced with PVC pipe in the mid-1990s.
The City of Maricopa also owns and operates a sewer collection system that serves approximately 275 parcels in the city. The remaining parcels are on septic tanks or are undeveloped. The overall condition of the city's sewer collection system is poor and in need of substantial repairs. This system was built between approximately1930 and 1950 and has experienced significant deterioration since that time. The sewer collection system is comprised of approximately four miles of sewer line. These lines consist of 4, 6, and 8-inch clay pipe with mortar joints. Many of the residential areas are served by 4-inch sewer mains consisting of ABS, Transite and Orangeburg pipe. Orangeburg pipe material dates back to World War II. This material is a substandard pipeline that is recommended to be replaced when discovered. The Orangeburg pipe consists of a rolled section of tarpaper or a wood fiber impregnated cold tar formed into a pipe. Other pipe materials consist of clay pipe with mortar joints that are very deteriorated and when unearthed has been discovered to have completely eroded with only the portions of the pipe remaining.
The city received a Planning Grant from the State Water Resources Control Board to prepare a study on the replacement of the balance of the existing system and to extend services to other areas of the city. Following completion of the study, the city applied for and received a 7.3 million (Approx.) forgivable loan to replace and extend the sewer services; however, the Water Resources Control Board has denied the grant pending review of the scope of the project after a lag of eight years. The city has been asked to limit the scope to improve the oufall line, headworks, fix known troubles spots, before expansion of the sewer project is considered. Given the rate of development in Maricopa over the past 20 years, the city contemplates adequate sewer capacity to meet RHNA projections.
Water and Sewer Priority
Water and Sewer Provider Notification (GC Section 65589.7) requires local governments to provide a copy of the adopted housing element to water and sewer providers. In addition, water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households. The city and the water district have adopted resolutions in 2022 establishing water/sewer priority to affordable housing projects for lower-income households.
144
In the event of a shortage in water supply or sewage capacity, affordable housing will be given priority for allocation pursuant to GC Section 65589.7. Upon adoption of the Housing Element, the City will send a copy of the Housing Element to the City's water service provider.
Public Safety
The City of Maricopa faces significant fiscal constraints to providing adequate police and fire protection to additional residential development. The city abolished the most recent incarnation of its police department in 2012 because of its inability to provide financial resources sufficient to operate a police department. At present, the city provides police service through a contract with the Kern County Sheriff's Department. The contract essentially provides the city with unincorporated level of police service and response to calls. And while the Sheriff's Department provides such services, the city actually contracts for .58 officers which is less than one officer for the entire community.
Fire protection and suppression services are provided under contract by the Kern County Fire Department. The fire department has a local station in Maricopa which is adequately staffed at all times. However, the staffing level is considered minimum required to properly serve the city and surrounding unincorporated areas of Kein County.
The fire department currently utilizes one fire truck. Response times are within three minutes to virtually the entire City due to the City's relatively compact geographic area and the central location of the fire station. Aid Agreements are also in place with other Departments.
Schools
The Maricopa Unified School District estimates an average elementary and middle school student generation rate of .78 to one (1) student per household. New development will be required to pay school impact fees as provided for under AB 2926. Such fees may be used to purchase temporary facilities such as portable classrooms, if required and necessary. 145
CHAPTER SIX - GOVERNMENTAL AND NON GOVERMENTAL CONTROLS Development Constraints
The most important constraint in development is consumer demand. As a totally pragmatic matter, there is little demand for housing in Maricopa. People simply do not want to move to Maricopa.
This arises from several facts. First, Maricopa is an isolated desert community. It has no amenities to speak of to attract residents. It has a total of five businesses including a motel, gas station and a single locally owned restaurant. It has two
Churches and a modest VFW post serving a diminishing membership. There is no social life for any age group, no organized sports for children. In addition, Maricopa is a moderate income at best, the median annual household income being $32,639. Because of these conditions there is simply no demand for non-residents to visit or to relocate to Maricopa. Most traffic in Maricopa is transient on California Highways 166 and 33.
Many of the constraints to new housing production discussed above stem from the common problem of insufficient funding which is particularly acute in Maricopa. Proposition 13 limits the increase of property assessments to two percent per year, unless the property is sold, in which case it is reassessed at its selling price. The property turnover rate in Maricopa is quite low. This, coupled with low property values in the city causes the assessed value of property to remain relatively low or to decline. Low assessments yield low revenues from property taxes, estimated at approximately $82,000 per year which is approximately 28 percent of the City's total anticipated $291,000 General Fund revenue in 2016. Thus, the city struggles valiantly to provide residents with meager municipal services.
The price of a home is based on five basic costs: land, materials, labor, the interest rate for borrowing money, and government actions. The cost of the first three items (land, materials, and labor) are determined by the market economy (although government actions can clearly affect land cost), while the fourth item, lending rate, is largely set by the federal government.
These items are discussed in the section on non-governmental constraints. This section focuses on the last item, the existing practices local governments can most easily influence to reduce the cost of housing.
Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints include local land use controls, on- and off-site development standards, building and housing codes, permit processing times, permit processing fees, residential development fees, and delays in permit processing that can cause increases in financing cost. A new program has been added to prepare an Objective Residential Design Code to permit multi-family developments (that does not require discretionary actions such as map approvals or development agreements) without site plan and design reviews. 146
Land Use Controls
The minimum parcel size, allowed density, setback requirements, height limits and parking requirements for residential uses, as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, are listed in Table 6- 2; Table 6-3; and Table 6-4. The required lot sizes are small and encourages compact development. Setbacks are not a constraint to the development of affordable housing. The height and parking requirements in Maricopa are not restrictive and do not impose a constraint to the development of affordable housing.
Types of Housing Permitted
Table 6-1: Types of Housing Permitted in Different Zones Housing Types Permitted RI R2 R3 GC
Single Family Attached P C C
Single Family Detached P
Duplexes to Fourplexes C
Multifamilv
Mobile Homes C
Manufactured Homes P
Second Units p*
Emergency Shelters P
Single Room Occupancy P
Transitional Housing P* P* P*
Permanent Supportive Housing P
Notes: P = Permitted Use C= Conditional Use Permit
* Zoning Code is proposed to be will be amended.
147
Table 6-2: Zoning Regulations and Setbacks Requirements for Zones Permitting Residences
Zoning Designations Min Lot Average Density Setback Requirements (feet) Size (Units per acre
Sq. Ft.
Front Rear Side Corner Lot
Single-Family Residential (R-1) 6,000 5-10 20 15 10
(Low Density)
Single-Family Residential (R-I) 3,500 (per 7 10 5
Mobile Home space)
Multiple Dwelling 6,000 11-20 5 10
Medium Density (R-2)
6,000 21-30 20 15 5 10
Multiple Dwelling
High Density (R-3)
General Commercial (units located None Not specified None None None None above other permitted uses)
Source: City of Maricopa Zoning Code and Land Use Element.
Table No. 6-3: Height Limits and Parking Requirements for Zones Permitting Residences
Zoning Designations Height Limit Parking Requirements
Single-Family Residential 1 space 800 square feet of
2 stories, maximum of 35 feet dwelling but not more than 2 (R-1) above finished grade.
spaces required.
Single-Family Residential 2 stories, maximum of 35 feet 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Medium Density (R-1-M) above finished grade.
Multiple Dwelling above is nad man of 3 tect 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Medium Density (R-2)
Multiple Dwelling High 2 stories, maximum of 35 feet 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
Density (R-3) above finished grade.
General Commercial Varies with type of use.
50 feet above finished grade. Can
(units located above other be higher with conditional use permitted uses) permit approval.
Source: City of Maricopa
148
Density Bonus
Section 17.10.80 of the City's Zoning Ordinance provides for Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing and Qualifying Residents Projects consistent with applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Code and the Civil Code.
149
Zoning for Lower Income Households
State housing element law utilizes a density to correlate affordability and income groups (RHNA) with zoning and residential capacity (sites inventory). To demonstrate densities to encourage the development of housing affordable to lower income households, the statute has always provided the ability to analyze the appropriate density. Amendments to the statute added a default density standard as an option to streamline the analysis requirements where the Department of Housing and Community Development must accept specific density standards.
For jurisdictions located within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with a population of less than 2 million unless a city has a population of greater than 100,000 in which case it would be considered metropolitan, the default density is at least 20 dwellings units per acre. Maricopa is located within a MSA with a population of less than 2 million. Thus, per State law, Maricopa's default density is 20 dwelling units per acre.
Building and Housing Codes
The Maricopa Building Code is based on the California Building Code (CBC) which determines the minimum residential construction requirements for all of California. New building codes will be followed on all applications for new construction. The CBC ensures that requirements for safe housing does not negatively impact housing production.
No local amendments were made to the Building Code.
Like most cities, Maricopa responds to code enforcement problems largely on a complaint basis.
The usual process is to conduct a field investigation after a complaint has been submitted. If the complaint is found to be valid, the seriousness of the problem is assessed. The more serious the violation, the more urgent will be the City's action. The city encourages voluntary compliance through letters and phone calls and/or site visits. If compliance cannot be attained in this manner, the City may take more aggressive action through the legal process. Such actions are, however, limited by the city's financial ability to pursue litigation of deficiencies if necessary.
The City's approach has been to mitigate serious health or safety problems, but to allow the property owners reasonable time and flexibility to comply. The city seeks to balance the need to ensure safe housing against the potential loss of affordable housing that might result from overly strict enforcement. Absent life/safety issues, there is no indication that code enforcement actions have unnecessarily restricted the use of older buildings or inhibited rehabilitation.
Due to lack of financial and staff resources, the city seldom initiates code enforcement activity, the exception being code enforcement activities that address immediate correction of life safety deficiencies.
Residential Development Fees
The residential development fees in Maricopa are not excessive and do not present an obstacle to the production of affordable housing. Development and processing fees are significantly lower 150
in Maricopa than in other areas. Residents can apply for permits at City Hall. Table 4-5 illustrates sample permit fees for single-family and multi-family units. Table 4-12 shows the proposed general fee schedule.
In compliance with AB 1483, the City will post on its website zoning and other fee requirements and regulations.
151
Application Fees
Table No. 6-4: Proposed Fee Schedule
(Fees not Reviewed or Approved by City Council at this Time) Type of Fee Cost (Minimum) + Time and Materials. Additional Deposit/Retainer required.
Zoning Compliance Letter Fee $100.00
Home occupation permit $71.00
Environmental Review Categorical Exemption = 100
Negative Declaration = $543.00 + Time and Material
EIR Preparation = 20% of EIR Contract + Time and
Material.
CEQA filing and mitigation fees to County/State = Prevailing rates to be paid by applicant.
Site Plan Review $572
Conditional Use Permit $572
CUP Time Extension $57
Amendment To CUP $329
Variance $572
Specific Plan/Development Agreements (DA). $2,858 deposit + Time and Material Building Demolition/Moving Fee $100
Appeal $136 + Noticing fee
Rezoning (Map and Text). Separate fees apply. $772
Tentative Tract Map $786 + $7 per lot
Tentative Parcel Map $786 + $7 per lot
Final Tract Map $800 + $29 per lot + City Engineering Plan Check Final Parcel map $824 + $29 per lot + City Engineering Plan Check Public Improvement Plan Checking 5% of Construction Costs estimates Public Works Inspections SO-$500,000 = 10% of construction costs $500,000-$1,000,000 = 5% costs
$1,000,000 + = 3% costs
Encroachment Permit $50
Lot Line Adjustment/Lot Merger $186. + City Engineering Plan Check + City Planner Certificate of Compliance $ 186. + City Engineering Plan Check + City Planner General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment/DA Amendment $1,208 Annexation - property owner initiated $1,572
Public Facility and Traffic Impact Fees Annexation =$800 per acre /Subdivision = $ 300 per lot Grading Permit Fee required by the 1997 U. B. C.
Water (West Kern Water District) $1,549 for single family residence Sewer $2,324 for single family residence
Fee not mentioned above As determined by staff + Time and Materials. 152
Fees, Single Family
Table 6-5: Fees for Residential Projects (1,500-Square-foot Units).
Fees Single- Multi-family (fee
family per unit for a 12-
unit building).
1 County Plan Check fee (S76 x 20 Hours) 1,520
2 County Plan Check fee (76 x 60 Hours/12 Units) 380
3 Building Permit Fee - City 1,895 1,895
4 Impact Fees - City 3,967
5 Impact Fees - School District 0
6 Sewer - City - Reconstruction of existing residence 0 Sewer - City - New Construction 2,324 552
8 Gas (PG&E) - Reconstruction of existing residence
Gas (PG&E) New Construction 1,000 1,000
10 Electric (PG&E) - Reconstruction of existing residence 0 0 11 Electric (PG&E) - New Construction 1,000 1,000
12 Water - WKWD - Reconstruction of existing residence 0 0 13 Water (WKW.D) - New Construction Fee (per meter) 2888 3970 14 Water Supply Fee (WKWD) - New Construction 6000 6,000 15 Water Meter Installation fee (WKWD). 476 (1") 663 (2") TOTAL ($) 17,105 19,427
Source: City of Maricopa; PG&E (fees are higher if easements, trenching, or other infrastructure work is required); West Kern Water District (WKWD); School District.
The following are parameters of a theoretical 1500 square foot single family home in Maricopa assuming that the unit is entitled by right, i.e., that it's consistent with the city's General Plan, that the site is properly zoned and that no CUP is required.
Assuming $200 per square foot construction cost. 1500 x $200 equals $300,000. Further assuming that the unit is built on an infill lot having water, gas and sanitary sewer services, there are no connection fees to be addressed.
There are no other fees assessed by the city other than plan check fees which are contracted to Kern County. Kern County charges the city a flat hourly fee of $76 for these services. Assuming three iterations of plan check totaling 20 hours of time $76 x 20 equals $1520. The building permit fee for such a structure is 1,895. There are no impact fees levied by the City of Maricopa or by the Maricopa Unified School District on single-family projects. 153
Fees, Multi-Family
The following are parameters of a theoretical multi-family project in Maricopa assuming that the project is entitled by right, i.c., that it's consistent with the city's General Plan, that it is properly zoned for the project, that no CUP is required.
Assuming $200 per square foot construction cost. 11,880 x $200 equals $2,376,000. Assuming units are built on existing lot.
On-Off-site Improvements
Street Standards
The City Council has adopted Engineering and Design Standards for Public Works in the City of Maricopa. These standards include a residential street width of 52; collector street width of 56 feet; and a local arterial street width between 72 and 84 feet, location dependent. Standards for streets destined for inclusion in the city's-maintained street system include curbs, gutter and sidewalks as noted below. The city's Engineering and Design Standards for Public Works are consistent with those of Kern County.
Table 6-7: Residential Street Pavement Design Criteria
Classification Minimum Minimum Structural Sections
Design Crushed AGG. CLAES CI ASPH CLAE CI AC DEEP
TI Base CONC LIFT
Residential 4 6" 2" 5"
Collector 5 6" 2" 5 1/2"
Local Arterial 7 8" 3" 7"
Principal 8" 3"
Arterial
Curb and Sidewalks
Weakened Plane Joints shall be used for all joints, except expansion joints shall be placed in curb, gutter, and sidewalk at BCR and ECR and around utility poles located in sidewalk areas.
Curbs and gutters shall be constructed separately from sidewalk. Weakened Plane Joints shall be constructed at regular intervals, not exceeding 10 feet in walks or 20 feet in gutters. Sidewalk and curb joints shall be aligned. Curb and gutter widths are generally 24". Curbs and gutters shall be constructed of Portland cement. Grade line shall be measured at curb line at top of curb. All Exposed corners on PCC curbs and gutters to be rounded with a ½" radius.
Concrete shall be integral with curb unless otherwise specified. 154
Sidewalk widths are to be from 4' to 6'.
Standard Sewer 4" connection with a 45-degree angle from property line to branch.
General Utility Concerns
Public utility lines are engineered to meet the needs of the project. Drainage Standards are developed to hold historic flows and additional flows from new development.
Like all California Cities, Maricopa has faced the reduction in State Subventions and a raiding of funds that have traditionally funded City responsibilities. Alternative funding has to be sought and an increase in development fees and Impact fees may have to be addressed in the very near future. Draft Potential City Facility Impact fees are listed in Table 4-12.
Processing and Permit Procedures
Permit processing times in Maricopa are remarkably fast. There is currently no backlog of permits waiting for approval. No development permit applications were received during the last five years. Residential development projects requiring environmental review and discretionary planning approval take about nine months to process. The City provides pre- application meetings with potential project developers to help speed up the process by making the earlier stages of the process less confusing and to expedite the work in a more effective manner.
Table No. 6-8: Permit Timeline by Type of Permit
Type of Approval or Permit Typical Processing Time
Conditional Use Permit 1-3 Months
Zone Change 3-6 Months
General Plan Amendment 6-9 Months
Site Plan Review 3 Months
Architectural Review 1-3 Months
Tract Maps 6 Months
Parcels Maps 3-6 Months
Initial Environmental Study 1-3 Months
Environmental Impact Report 9-12 Months
Other Varies
Source: City of Maricopa
155