Maricopa City Council Agenda
Tuesday, August 12, 2025
6:00 p.m.
Location: Gusher Hall, 271 California Street, Maricopa, CA 93252 and is also available through Zoom Video Conferencing;
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 813 5491 7077 Phone: 1(669)900-6833 Passcode: 927607
Any or all City Council Members may be attending the meeting remotely pursuant to California Governor's Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19. If you need help accessing ZOOM or have questions, please call us at City Hall-661-769-8279
1. Pledge of Allegiance, Moment of Silent Meditation, Call to Order II. Roll Call:
Mayor Morse
Mayor Pro Tem Bell City Administrator Eric Ziegler
Council Member Harris City Attorney Alan Peake
Council Member Horn City Treasurer Dorine Horn
Council Member Owens City Clerk Meghan Anderson
III. Community Recognition
IV. Reorder of Agenda
Council Reports/Statements
a. Report by Public Safety/Sherriff Department/Fire Department b. City Clerk Meghan Anderson
c. City Treasurer Horn
d. City Administrator Ziegler
e. City Attorney Alan Peake
f. City Council Members
VI. Public Hearings:
Public Hearing and 30-Day Notice of Availability of the 2023-2031 General Plan Housing Element and Fair Housing Analysis
Request staff to present the Staff Report.
Close the public hearing, discuss the matter, and recommend any changes to the Draft.
By Minute Resolution, authorize staff to submit the 2024-2031 Draft Housing Element and the Fair Housing Analysis to HCD for review and approval VIl. Public Comment
Persons wishing to address the council on items within its jurisdiction, but not on this agenda may do so now. Any items presented to the council at this time will not be acted upon.
Please Note: State law allows the City Council to briefly respond to questions on items raised by the public which are not on the agenda Govt. Code Section 54954.2 (a). Alternately, the Council may choose to direct staff to provide information at the following meeting, any member of the public may comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the city that is not on the agenda. Those wishing to comment should be recognized by the mayor and approach the podium.
Please complete a Speaker's Form and present it to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting to be acknowledged as a speaker.
VIII. Approval of Minutes
Approve Maricopa City Council Regular Agenda Minutes July 22, 2025 IX. Consent Calendar
Approve Warrants July 2025
b. Approve Payment of Payroll July 2025
x. Agendized Items
a. Presentation by PDS re Technical Grant Writing Pilot Project Recommendation:
None
Adopt Resolution Entitled a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Maricopa Adopting a Position Classification and Compensation Plan for Employees of the City of Maricopa.
Recommendation:
noton Adope Read mied elion me Cry Cred or de Cry or Marcopa Adopting a. c. Review/Discuss/Adopt Resolution Adopting Annual Budget for The City of Maricopa for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 And Fiscal Year 2026 - 2027
Recommendation:
Review/Discuss/Adopt Annual Budget of the City of Maricopa for Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 and Fiscal Year 2026-2027;
To adopt, it's appropriate to favorably consider a motion to adopt a resolution entitled A Resolution of The City Council of The City of Maricopa Adopting Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 And Fiscal Year 2026-2027 And Appropriating Funds Therefor d. Authorize Casual Position of On- Call Translator (English - Spanish) Recommendation:
Motion to authorize casual position of on-call Translator (English-Spanish on an on call/as needed basis
Designate Voting Delegate and Alternative Voting Delegate(s) to League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo October 8-10, 2025
Recommendation:
Motion to designate Council Member as City of Maricopa voting delegate and Alternative Voting Delegate(s) to League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo in Sacramento, CA from October 8th through October 10, 2025; or, in the alternative; 2) Do nothing.
Review/Discuss/Provide direction re Request from Kern County Treasurer - Tax Collector to Consent to Sale of Tax Defaulted Property (Located in the City of Maricopa) September 15-17, 2025 Recommendation:
Provide Direction re Sales of Tax Defaulted Property (Located in the City of Maricopa September 15-17, 2025 and if there are no objections to sale of property, Authorize Mayor to Execute Consent Document on Behalf of the City.
XI. New Business
XII. Council/Staff Items
XIII. Closed Session-None
XIV. Adjourn
I certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at Maricopa City Hall, Gusher Hall, and Maricopa Post Office on August 7, 2025.
Meghan Anderson, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM
TITLE: Public Hearing and 30 Day Notice of Availability of the 2023-2031 General Plan Housing Element and Fair Housing Analysis
PROPOSED BY: Eric G. Ziegler
MEETING DATE: August 12, 2025
RECOMMENDATION
1. Request staff to present the Staff Report.
2. Open the public hearing for receiving public comments.
3. Close the public hearing, discuss the matter, and recommend any changes to the Draft.
4. By Minute Resolution, authorize staff to submit the 2024-2031 Draft Housing Element and the Fair Housing Analysis to HCD for review and approval
I. BACKGROUND
The Housing Element is a State mandated element of the City's General Plan containing analysis, policies, and programs with the objective to preserve, improve, and develop housing for all economic segments of the community.
The current update covers the period 2023-2031 (Sixth Cycle).
The attached Draft Housing Element has been prepared in accordance with State Housing Element Law and Guidelines of the State Department of Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). Upon approval of the Draft staff will send the Draft to HCD for review, which review could take up to 90 days. HCD may approve the Draft, or submit comments requiring revisions to the Draft. A review of the revised Draft would take 60 days for review. Upon obtaining the letter of statutory compliance from HCD, the Final Housing Element will be placed before the Planning Commission and the City Council for Adoption. Once adopted, a copy of the Housing Element will be submitted to HCD for Certification.
III. FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
California State Law AB 686 created new requirements for all housing elements revised on or after January 1, 2021 to contain an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis. Under State law, affirmatively further fair housing means "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, to facilitate deliberate actions to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics".
The Housing Element analysis must include a Fair Housing Analysis. The city's consultant has prepared the Housing Element and a Fair Housing Analysis (See attachment).
Ill. HOUSING ELEMENT
2023-2031 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASESSMENT (RHNA) - 6t CYCLE The Housing Element includes an analysis of new Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements under the 6th Cycle as shown in below:
RHNA is a state requirement and the allocation of units are prepared, generally, by Council of Governments and subsequently approved by the State. Regulations for the construction of the housing units should be facilitated by each jurisdiction in each RHNA period. The units may be constructed by the private sector, non- profits, housing authorities, or by the jurisdiction (cities/counties) through grant monies. A certified Housing Element enables the jurisdictions to be eligible to seek various types of grants from the State and Federal governments. Jurisdictions must submit an annual progress report to HCD on the progress of the implementation of the Housing Element.
RHNA ALLOCATIONS BY JURISDICTION
Table 5-1: 2023-2031 RHNA Allocations by Income Category Jurisdiction Total Extremely- Very-Low Low Moderate Above- RHNA Low Income Income Income Income Units Moderate
Allocation Units' Units! Units
Income Units
Maricopa 14 1 1 1 3 8
Note 1: * 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.
Quantified Objectives:
The following Table, based on the RHNA Allocation, shows the quantified objectives including New Construction (to match RHNA allocation), Rehabilitation of existing units, and Conservation/Preservation of existing affordable housing stock, such as mobile homes, throughout the planning period will be prepared.
RENA Total Units
Conservation/
Income Category New Rehabilitation
Preservation
Construction
Extremely Low 1 2 2 5
Very-Low 1 2 2 5
Low 1 2 2 5
Moderate 3 3
Above Moderate 8 8
TOTALS 14 6 6 26
Notes:
• The "New Construction" objective (in the table above) refers to the number of new units that potentially could be constructed using public and/or private sources over the planning period, given the locality's land resources, constraints, and proposed programs. • The "Rehabilitation" objective refers to the number of existing units expected to be rehabilitated during the planning period.
• The "Conservation/Preservation" objective refers to the preservation of the existing affordable housing stock throughout the planning period. To determine the number of units to be conserved, a locality could, for example, quantify the number of existing housing units that will be preserved through the provision of more stable zoning for mobile home parks or other affordable housing types. • 50 percent of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for very low-income households constitute the extremely low requirement. The very low requirement was 1 unit; hence the extremely low requirement of 0.5 has been rounded to 1.
IV. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS:
The new Housing Element has proposed a list of Policies and Programs as part of the Housing Plan (Chapter Eight of Housing Element), augmenting Fair Housing goals of the City. Some of the existing housing programs from the previous Housing Element Cycle are being continued. The list of programs would be revised based on review and recommendations received from HCD. The programs are intended to bring the City's codes and housing approvals consistent with State Law.
V. MONITORING:
The city is required to submit to HCD Annual Progress Reports on implementation of the Housing Element.
VI. ATTACHMENT:
Draft 2023-2031 General Plan Housing Element (includes Fair Housing Analysis).
City Adm.
Approval FISCAL IMPACT:
$
INo L
Eric G. Ziegler Funds Budgeted: Yes Amount Required
Amount Budgeted Appropriation Requested
Account Number Reviewed by Finance
CITY OF MARICOPA
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
& 30-DAY NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE
2023-2031 GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT & FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS Location & Time: 271 California Street, Maricopa, California, at 6:00 P.M.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Maricopa, California, will conduct a Housing Analysis.
Previously, the City Council conducted a public workshop on the matter on April 1, 2025, at 6:00 P.M., at 271 California Street, during which time the housing and fair housing issues were discussed and public comments were received.
The Housing Element, a part of the City's General Plan, is required to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs in order to preserve, improve and develop housing for all economic segments of the community, thereby affirmatively furthering fair housing policies and programs.
The Housing Element Update will cover the City's housing policies, goals, and objectives for the planning period ending in 2031. In addition, the Housing Element also contains a fair housing analysis.
Public Participation in the preparation of the Housing Element is a very important component of the planning process. The 30-day notice of availability of the draft Housing Element and the Fair Housing Analysis provides the participants an opportunity to provide additional comments and participate in the plan-making process. The city (through its consultants) will answer any questions and record the public comments received at the meeting. A Spanish translator will be present at the meeting.
Any person with impairment pursuant to the American Disabilities Act ("ADA") who needs special accommodation for the Public Hearing or needs further information, please call the City Clerk at the number noted above.
Any person unable to attend the workshop may submit written comments in person or by Mail to the City of Maricopa, PO BOX 550, Maricopa, CA 93252 or by email to [email protected] or by fax to (661) 769-8130.
Posted and published: July 10, 2025.
S/Meghan Anderson
Meghan Anderson, City Clerk
City of Maricopa
CITY OF MARICOPA
HOUSING ELEMENT
2023-2030
OF MAT
COP COPA
In Sod Ope
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION..
State Housing Element Law
General Plan Consistency ...
Public Participation and Outreach..
CHAPTER TWO - EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT EVALUATION OF THE 2020-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT ..12
CHAPTER THREE - HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT... .31
Population and Employment. ..31
Population Characteristics 31
Population by Race.. ..33
Age Characteristics ...35
Population of Hispanic Origin ....36
Population by Race and Hispanic Origin Over Time .37
Household Characteristics 38
Housing Stock Characteristics .56
Special Housing Needs .60
Disabled Population .61
CHAPTER FOUR - AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING .85 Segregation and Integration.. .85
Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence 99
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty. 99
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence ,99
Disparities in Income to Opportunity. .99
Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement 109 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity. 120
Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 123 CHAPTER FIVE - SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 129
Overview and Housing Sites 129
Progress Toward Meeting the RHNA 129
Projected Housing Needs - Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). 130 Infrastructure 142
Water.. 142
Sanitary Sewer.. ...144
Water and Sewer Priority... ..144
Public Safety. ..145
Schools ...145
CHAPTER SIX - GOVERNMENTAL AND NON GOVERMENTAL CONTROLS ..146 Land Use Controls 147
Zoning for Lower Income Households ..150
Building and Housing Codes 150
Residential Development Fees., ..150
Processing and Permit Procedures .155
SB-35 Ministerial Approval 156
Persons with Disabilities. 156
Non-Governmental Constraints ..158
Energy Conservation .160
CHAPTER SEVEN - Quantified Objectives. 165
3 CHAPTER EIGHT - GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS (2023-2031). .167 Affordable Housing Supply 167
Conservation and Rehabilitation 171
Preserve Housing 172
Special Needs. 173
The Homeless .174
Conservation of Energy 175
Equal Opportunity. 177
Public Participation ..177
Housing Variety... ..178
Large Lot Development. 179
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) .. 179
CHAPTER NINE - APPENDICES ..181
Notice of Workshop ..181
Notice of Public Hearing & Notice of Availability of Public Review Draft ...182 COMMUNITY SURVEY. ...184
Survey Report: .... ........187
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Kern County Population, 2020.... 32
Table 3-2: Total population in Maricopa compared to the County and the State. .32 Table 3-3: Maricopa Population Over Time 33
Table 3-4: Maricopa Population, Housing, and Household Size Projections, 2000-2023 .33 Table 3-5: Population by Race.. .34
Table 3-6: Total Population by Age Group .. .36
Table 3-7: Population by Race. .37
Table 3-8: Population by Race and Hispanic Origin Over Time (2000-2020). ..38 Table 3-9: Household Size Over Time .... .39
Table 3-10: Households by Size ... ..40
Table 3-11: Average Household Size... .41
Table 3-12: Average Household Size Over Time. ...41
Table 3-13: Households by Type ... ...43
Table 3-14: Tenure by Age of Householder by Occupants Per Room ..44 Table 3-15 Household Income. ...45
Table 3-16 Median Household Income. ..46
Table 3-17: Income Levels for Kern County (2023) .47
Table 3-18: Median Monthly Housing Costs Over Time 49
Table 3-19: Median Monthly Housing Costs by Tenure as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months
Table 3-20: Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin .51 Table 3-21: Overpayment by Tenure. ..52
Table 3-22: Total Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure. .52 Table 3-23: Extremely Low-Income Households Overpaying by Tenure .. .53 Table 3-24: Extremely Low-Income Households Housing Situations by Tenure ...53 Table 3-25: Median Housing Value .54
Table 3-26: Median Housing Values Over Time (Owner-Occupied). ...54 Table 3-27: Median Gross Rent .55
Table 3-28: Median Monthly Housing Costs Over Time .55
Table 3-29: Median Monthly Housing Costs by Tenure as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months.
Table 3-30: Total Occupied Housing Units.. .57
Table 3-31: Housing Conditions... 58
Table 3-32: Total Housing Units (1980-2020). .58
Table 3-33: Total Housing Units Over Time 58
Table 3-34: Housing Units by Type...... 58
Table 3-35: Vacancy Status by Type for Total Vacant Units 59 Table 3-36: Total Housing Units by Tenure.. 60
Table 3-37: Residential Building Permits Issued, 2015-2023. .60 Table 3-38: Disability by Type by Age for the Total Population .62 Table 3-39: Population by Number of Disabilities (Total Population) .62 Table 3-40: Disability by Type for the Population with a Disability (Detailed) .63 Table 3-41: People with Developmental Disabilities - Age. .63 Table 3-42: Senior Households by Tenure... ..64
Table 3-43: Senior Households by Tenure Over Time 64
Table 3-44: Developmentally Disabled Residents Served by KRC, by Age . 65 Table 3-45: Tenure by Household Size (Including Large Households) .67 Table 3-46: Tenure by Household Size Over Time. . 68
Table 3-47 Female-Headed Households..... 70
5 Table 3-48 Female-Headed Households - Poverty Status ...70 Table 3-49: KERN COUNTY - FARM LABOR (2017)....
Table 3-50 Privately owned farm worker housing - kern county ..
Table 3-51: Publicly Owned Farm Worker Housing - Kern County Table3-52 HOUSING AUTHORITY FACILITIES.
Table 3-53: FACILITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS .81
Table 3-54: Employment by Industry... 82
Table 3-55: Travel Time to Work. ..83
Table 3-56: Jobs/Housing Ratio. 84
Table 4-1: Population by Race/Ethnicity.
Table 4-2: Population by Disability Type
Table 4-3: Population by Familial Status
Table 4-4: Median Household Income... 96
Table 4-5: Poverty Rate ... .96
Table 4-6: Academic Performance 104
Table 4-7: AllTransit Scores... ..106
Table 4-8: Households by Overpayment. ..110
Table 4-9: Household by Overcrowding 114
Table 4-10: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws.. .121
Table 4-11: Housing Units by Type .124
Table 4-12: Households by Tenure 126
Table 4-13: Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues. 127 Table 4-14: Summary of Goals, Actions, Milestones, and Metrics to Meet Fair Housing ..128 Table 5-2: Site Inventory/Undeveloped Parcels. 133
Table 6-1: Types of Housing Permitted in Different Zones 147 Table 6-2: Zoning Regulations and Setbacks Requirements for Zones Permitting Residences 148
Table No. 6-3: Height Limits and Parking Requirements for Zones Permitting Residences..... 148 Table No. 6-4: Proposed Fee Schedule.
Table 6-5: Fees for Residential Projects (1,500-Square-foot Units).
Table 6-7: Residential Street Pavement Design Criteria
Table No. 6-8: Permit Timeline by Type of Permit
Table 7-1: Quantified Housing Objectives... 165
6 List of Figures
Figure 4-1: Predominant Population, Kern County. .88
Figure 4-2: Percentage of Population with a Disability, Kern County ...91 Figure 4-3: Percentage of Children in Female Headed Households, Kern County .94 Figure 4-4: Median Income, Kern County. .97
Figure 4-5: Rate of Residents Below Poverty Line, Kern County. ..98 Figure 4-6: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Kern County. 102
Figure 4-7: CalEnviroscreen 4.0 Percentile, Kern County 108 Figure 4-8: Owner Households Experiencing Cost Burden, Kern County 111 Figure 4-9: Renter Households Experiencing Cost Burden, Kern County 111 Figure 4-10: Households Experiencing Overcrowding, Kern County 115 Figure 4-11: Risk of Displacement, Kern County. 117
Figure 4-12: Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Kern County 117 Figure 4-13: Flood Hazard Areas, Kern County 119
Figure 5-1: Vacant Parcels with Parcel ID ...139
Figure 5-2: Vacant Parcels and Zoning.... .140
Figure 5-3: Vacant Parcels - Flood Map .. ...141
7 CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION
The Housing Element is one of seven General Plan Elements that is mandated by California state law. It is intended to provide citizens and public officials with an understanding of the housing needs in the community and set forth an integrated set of policies and programs aimed at the attainment of defined goals. More specifically, the Housing Element is intended to:
• Provide comprehensive housing-related information through compilation of data from numerous sources.
• Provide an estimate of present and future housing needs and constraints by examining population characteristics and growth trends, as well as the current condition of the housing stock.
• Act as a tool for coordination between governmental bodies and the local building industry.
• Provide direction for future planning programs to ensure that sufficient consideration is given to housing goals and policies.
Establish and portray community goals and policies relative to housing through the identification of existing stated and implicit goals and the identification of housing needs and problems.
• Establish and identify programs intended to attain and implement the community's goals and policies, taking into consideration the feasibility of those programs; and act as a meaningful guide to decision-makers considering housing related issues.
State Housing Element Law
State law delineating Housing Element requirements is found in California Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589, Chapter 1143, Article 10.6. The law is administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Section 65300.7 of the law provides that a local agency may prepare their General Plans to accommodate local conditions and circumstances, while meeting the law's minimum requirements.
Housing program requirements call for development of a local housing program strategy consisting of two primary components: a statement of goals, policies and priorities, and a plan for implementation. This program must reflect the commitment of the locality to address a range of housing needs, including those for affordable housing.
General Plan Consistency
State law requires that the Housing Element contain a statement of "the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals" (California 8 Government Code, Section 65583[c] [6] [B]). This requires an evaluation of two primary characteristics: (1) an identification of other General Plan goals, policies, and programs that could affect implementation of the Housing Element or that could be affected by the implementation of the Housing Element; and (2) an identification of actions to ensure consistency between the Housing Element and affected parts of other General Plan elements.
The city is currently revising its Land Use and Circulation elements and is adding an Environmental Justice Element. All amendments will be mutually compatible and internally consistent with the new Housing Element. A review of the city's current General Plan shows consistency of this Housing Element with all other General Plan elements and with existing city policies and programs. The city will maintain this consistency in the future by ensuring that General Plan amendments are evaluated for consistency with all this Housing Element.
Public Participation and Outreach
Section 65583(c)(9) of the Government Code requires that the local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all segments of the community in the development of the Housing Program, and the Program shall describe this effort. Meaningful community participation is also required in connection with the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Residents, businesses, and interest groups were provided the opportunity to participate in the Housing Program Update process and were an important component of the overall program.
As part of the 6th Cycle Housing Program Update, a public outreach plan was developed to inform the community of the intent to Update the Housing Program as well as the proposed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis. The Public Outreach Plan included various forms of outreach and notification efforts including publication in Taft Daily Midway Driller, direct emails to county and city governments, non-profit groups, and other stakeholders in the community. In addition, the workshop notice was mailed to all households in the city.
A public workshop was conducted on April 1, 2025, and a public hearing was conducted on August 12, 2025. Notices for the community workshops/meetings/hearings were published in the Arvin Tiller. All workshop notices were posted at City Hall and the library. The city also notified local organizations of the community workshops.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), any resident in need of special assistance to participate in these workshops could contact the Office of the city Clerk by phone or email. Additionally, to involve as many participants as possible at the community workshops, a Spanish interpreter was available for the presentation and public comments.
Known barriers to public participation can be impeded by language barriers, transportation, meeting times and childcare. Spanish interpreters were available at all meetings; transportation was not considered an issue since the entire city is walkable (4.8 square miles).
During the public meetings, staff has informed the participants that the city remains committed 9 to providing a diversity of housing options for all income levels, encouraging development throughout the community to help overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. That the vast majority of the City's Housing Programs will be designed to address fair housing will be implemented on an ongoing basis, with annual progress reports and programs evaluations to ensure they are achieving the City's objectives.
Survey:
13 surveys were returned online and five submitted in person.
Workshop:
Notice of Community Workshop held on April 1, 2025, along with a community survey was published in the local newspaper. The notice and survey were directly mailed to residents, published on the website and distributed through city hall. Respondents were given the choice to access the survey in the city's website, return the forms to city hall by mail or in person.
The workshop was conducted by the City Council. Nine members of the public attended the workshop. Issac George of Realty Planners Group, Inc., representing the City has distributed a PowerPoint printout and explained the requirements of the state housing laws and the topics that will be addressed in the Draft Housing Element.
30-Day Public Review Notice
A 30-day notice of availability of availability of the draft housing element and notice of public hearing was published on July 10, 2025. The public hearing was conducted on August 12, 2025. (Results of the August 12, 2025, public hearing will be added here.
CHAPTER TWO - EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSING
ELEMENT
The City of Maricopa has reviewed and evaluated the previous Housing Element pursuant to pertinent Government Code Sections as follows:
Section 65588 (a) (1): "Appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies" - Based on the above analysis, a determination has been made to keep the program as is, modify, or eliminate the program. A description is given regarding the changes or modifications to the program that are being made in this 2015 Housing Element.
Section 65588 (a) (2): "Effectiveness of the Element" - The City of Maricopa has reviewed the results of the previous element's goals, objectives, policies, and programs. The results are quantified and/or qualified when possible.
Section 65588 (a)(3): "Progress in Implementation" - The City of Maricopa has compared what was projected or planned in the previous element and determined whether the program has been successful, unsuccessful, or neutral in achieving the previous element's stated goals, objectives, and policies.
The following section highlights the various goals for the City of Maricopa's 2020-2023 Housing Element which were intended to provide continuing supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of existing and future Maricopa residents in all income categories. 11 EVALUATION OF THE 2020-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT
Policy/Program Objective Result Evaluation Continue/ Modify/ (quantified/ Delete
qualified)
Goal A: Affordable Housing Supply
AP-01: The city shall annually evaluate the Evaluate Ongoing Given that the city's total Continue. The City will adequacy of services and facilities for adequacy of effort. General Fund budget is continue to evaluate additional residential development. Service services and less than $300,000 (that's adequacy of services and deficiencies and the estimated cost of facilities. an accurate number), facilities on an ongoing basis. correcting such deficiencies will be identified services are clearly However, as a purely and priorities will be set with within the inadequate and will pragmatic matter, city does parameters allowed by the city's financial continue to remain static or not expect improvement in resources. to deteriorate in the services or facilities in the absence of new revenue for absence of a substantial
Responsible Department: City Administrator. both capital and operating increase in revenue.
Timeframe: Annually. have not been forthcoming
Funding: General Fund. in at least 25 years and
Expected Outcome: Annual there is no reason to
review and
priority report. assume it will occur in the
immediate future.
AP-02: The city will continue to comply with Comply with In In compliance. However, Continue to update second California State law allowing: second units in State laws complian given that only two new unit laws, particularly the residential zones; mobile homes and concerning ce. single-family residences ADU laws as the state law is manufactured housing in all residential zones; affordable Second have been permitted and updated from time-to-time. density bonuses for subdivisions that include housing. unit laws built in the past eight (8) However, given Maricopa's an affordable housing component in were years and given the city's circumstance, there is little 12 conformance with state law; and relief from updated static population, generally probability of substantial setback, parking, and other site development and deteriorated housing stock changes occurring in the regulations, where feasible, for projects that adopted and lack of any development environment. include an affordable housing component. on development whatsoever, January this program is essentially
25, 2022. useless in providing
Responsible Department: City Administrator, housing, affordable or Planning Department. otherwise.
Timeframe: Ongoing.
Funding: No cost of implementation
identified
Expected Outcome: Annual progress report
AP-03: The city shall continue to require a Establish a No In the past 25 years, the Continue. The City will 30-rear continued affordability condition in housing trust applicatio city has received absolutely continue this program projects that receive a density bonus that also should one or ns were zero applications for a notwithstanding a total lack utilize government funds should such a more such received. residential housing of results. project be presented. As an additional projects be development of any kind incentive, projects that do not use any presented. including single or multi- government monies may be eligible for
bonuses if the units have at least 20 years of otherwise. In the absence continued affordability. The City will ensure of any building activity, all projects comply with State density bonus there have been zero laws. requests for a density
Responsible Department: City bonus. And in the total
Administrator, Planning Department. absence of residential development or density
Timeframe: Ongoing. bonus, there are zero
Funding: No cost of implementation affordability conditions. identified So, while the program
13 14
projects be presented, a Housing Trust will be
Expected Outcome: Should one or more such
identified.
Funding: No cost of implementation
the City Council
Timeframe: Ongoing and annual report to
Administrator, Planning Department.
Responsible Department: City
of development density bonus laws.
of no value in the absence will ensure all projects comply with State program is active, it is also units for low-income households. The city units. So, while this allow additions to existing rental or ownership rehab or preserve existing used to provide low or no-interest loans to affordable housing or to existing units. These monies collected will be low-income housing, financing costs, or rehabilitate or preserve are no funds to expend on lower income housing, write-down land or anticipated trust fund, there into a trust fund that can be used to construct in the absence of the building permit). Such fees will be deposited there is no trust fund. And building valuation (as determined from the absence of any such fees, presented. plan shall pay a fee equal to two percent of the have been no fees. In the projects be general plan amendment, rezoning or specific years. Therefore, there received. more such through either a public or privately initiated in Maricopa for at least 25 ns were should one or has received an increase in allowable density and AP-04 into one program. developments whatsoever applicatio housing trust projects of at least 10 units in size on land that Continue. Combine AP-03 There have been no No Establish a AP-04: The city requires that new housing result.
no activity and no positive
remains in effects, there is Expected Outcome: Annual progress report. established as noted above.
AP-05: The City shall amend zoning to Amend zoning to Amended In the absence of any Continue to comply with comply with GC section 65915 (State Density comply with GC and residential or commercial evolving state density bonus Bonus Law) density bonus and permit section 65915 adopted development proposals, no laws. transitional and supportive housing as a (State Density on density bonus applications residential use subject only to those Bonus Law) January were received. restrictions that apply to other residential uses density bonus and 25, 2022. of the same type in the same zone. permit
transitional and
supportive
Responsible Department: City housing as a
Administrator, City Attorney residential use
Timeframe: September, 2022 subject only to
Funding: General Fund those restrictions
that apply to
Expected Outcome: Amended Zoning other residential
Ordinance uses of the same
type in the same
zone
AP06: The City will review and amend as Amend codes New Completed. Delete. appropriate its zoning code to comply with Definitio
Health and Safety Code sections 17021.5 and nof
17021.6. «Employ
Responsible Department: City ee
Administrator, City Attorney Housing
Timeframe: September, 2022 Agricultu
Funding: General Fund ral" has
been
Expected Outcome: Amended Zoning adopted,
15 Ordinance January
25, 2022.
AP-07: Replacement and Expansion of Sewer Apply for funds Applied The city received a Continue to work with State Facility: Replace existing sewer system and for and Planning Grant from the Regional Water Quality expand system to the remainder of the city. received State Water Resources Control Board.
Responsible Department: City Administrator, funds. Control for the replacement Public Works Department off the balance of the
existing system and to
Timeframe: Publish RFP for procurement by extend services to other December 2021 and Complete project by areas of the city. This work December 2022. has been completed.
Funding: Applied for Grant Funds -
Received funding of a forgivable loan of
approx. $7.3 million. Procurement and
construction will follow.
AP-08: The City will proactively encourage Facilitate The Generally, existing housing Continue. and facilitate the development of affordable development of zoning in the city is affordable; housing for lower income households, affordable code was however, New affordable particularly those with extremely low-income housing substantia multi-family housing (ELI), special needs including large Ily "projects" do not households, seniors, and households with amended materialize due to the city persons who have disabilities or and the isolation far from developmental disabilities, and farm workers revisions employment centers, and by: 1) providing financial incentive to were the lack of demand from developers to the extent that funds are adopted developers. available; 2) reducing, waiving or subsidizing on
development and impact fees imposed by the January
city for affordable housing; 3) extending bi- 25, 2022, annual outreach to nonprofit developers to
16 encourage the development of housing complian
affordable to extremely low-, very low-and ce with
low-income households and assisting in the the
application for State and federal financial Housing
funding. Element
Responsible Department City Administrator laws.
Timeframe Review annually
Funding: General Fund to the extent funds
are available
AP-09 Objective Residential Design Code: To Amend Zoning Adopted Completed. Delete. establish objective design standards for multi- Code adding on family developments (that does not require Objective Design January discretionary actions such as map approvals or criteria. 11, 2022. development agreements) without site plan
and design reviews.
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department
Timeframe: 2022 (under preparation).
Funding: SB2 Grant Funds
AP-10 Infill-Survey: Conduct an infill-survey Conduct in-fill Complete Delete. to identify vacant lands that are feasible for survey. d and residential development to meet future RHNA approved
needs, including vacant sites and sites having - January the potential for rezoning or redevelopment. 11, 2022.
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department
17 Timeframe: 2022 (Under preparation).
Funding: SB2 Grant Funds
AP-11 The City will adopt a Resolution Adopt Resolution Complete Delete. adopting written policy concerning the
provision of water or sewer services to
proposed developments that include housing
units affordable to lower income households.
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department
Timeframe: 2022 (Under preparation).
Funding: SB2 Grant Funds
AP-12 The City will amend its ADU Amend ADU Adopted, ADUS laws have changed Modify ADU laws to meet ordinance to comply with state law and ordinance January since 2022. current standards. establish an incentive program to promote 25, 2022.
affordable housing costs. Examples of Key
incentives include: changes:
• Modification to development standards No
such as heights above state law impact
fee if less
• Fee waivers and reductions in addition to than 750
state law sf in size.
• Annual exploration and pursuit of funding and Units
related to ADUs will pay
50% of
• Development of brochures and other the
marketing materials to inform
impact
homeowners and to be made available at
fees.
the public counter and other public Priority
18 buildings and events processin
• Priority processing and over the counter g for 2nd
technical assistance units.
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department
Timeframe: September 2022
Funding: SB2 Grant Funds
Goal B: Conservation and Rehabilitation
BP-01: If grant application and administration Apply for CDBG insufficient Although the city will Continue. City will continue is available, City shall apply for CDBG funds to staffing continue to pursue this to consider CDBG rehabilitation funds to enable rehabilitation rehabilitate 50 and program, the city has application for housing funds (including room additions as allowed by law) units administrat insufficient resources to if it has the staff resources for low-income households. on apply for CDBG funding and financial resources to do Responsible Department: City Administrator, resources. for housing nor does it So.
Planning Department. have the resources
necessary to administer
Timeframe: Annually. such grants at this time.
Funding: CDBG Grant Funds. Nonetheless, if grants
without a "matching funds"
Expected Outcomes: Periodic CDBG housing requirement become rehabilitation grants. available and if city can
Objective: 50 units rehabilitated. marshal sufficient
resources to apply for and
administer such grants if
awarded, city will pursue
housing grant funding
through HCD and other
sources
19 Goal C: Preserve all at-risk units in
Maricopa
CP-01: The City shall add to existing Notice prior to No There are no existing or Continue. incentive programs, and include in all new conversion of requests anticipated incentive incentive or regulatory programs, market rate units were programs in the City of requirements to give notice prior to received. Maricopa at present nor conversion to market rate units as described in have there ever been any policy C.2. such programs in the past.
Responsible Department: City Administrator, Thus, this program is Planning Department. ineffective in this particular
community.
Timeframe: Ongoing with an annual update
report.
Funding: No cost of implementation
identified
Expected Outcome: Revisions to applicable
housing incentive and regulatory programs.
Goal D: Special Needs
DP-01: The City shall adopt an ordinance that Reasonable Adopted Completed. Delete. requires reasonable accommodations of the accommodations on needs of disabled persons. It shall address all for disabled January aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act persons 25, 2022. in regards to home construction and ordinance
retrofitting restrictions due to City Zoning
Code. The city will also address financial
incentives for home developers who address
SB 520 issues in new construction and
20 retrofitting existing homes.
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department.
Timeframe: 2022
Funding: No cost of implementation identified
Expected Outcome: New ordinance.
Goal E: The Homeless
EP-01: The City shall continue to provide Provide housing Ongoing This is an ongoing program Continue. information about housing opportunities and opportunities services for homeless persons through the information in Kern County Sheriff's Office which provides English/Spanish police services to the city as well as City Hall.
The city provides information in both English
and Spanish.
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Police Department
Funding: General Fund.
Expected Outcome: Continued availability of
housing information.
EP-02: The City shall cooperate with Kern Work with Kern Ongoing This is an ongoing program Continue County and other agencies in the development County on
of programs aimed at providing farm worker Farmworker
housing
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Director.
21 Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: No cost of implementation identified
Expected Outcome: Better coordination and
development of farm worker housing.
EP-03 The City shall amend the zoning Amend Zoning Adopted Completed. Delete. ordinance to permit, ministerially, as a use by Ordinance January right or right-of-zone, the following uses: 25, 2022.
Low Barrier Housing Navigation Centers
(Government Code section 65660) and
permanent supportive housing (Government
Code section 65651).
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department.
Timeframe: September 2022
Funding: General fund
Expected Outcome: Facilitation for
transitional housing.
Goal F: Conservation - Energy
Conservation
FP-01. The City shall continue to implement Implement Title Ongoing This is an ongoing Continue Title 24 of the California Code on all new 24 program. However, there development. has been zero new
Responsible agency/department: City development in Maricopa Administrator, Building Department. for at least the past 20 years so this program has,
Timeframe: Ongoing. as a practical matter, been
22 Funding: Plan check fees. ineffective.
Expected Outcome: Implementation of Title
24. FP-02: The City shall work with area utilities Encourage Ongoing City has, in cooperation Continue: Program will to encourage existing residents to participate energy efficiency with PG&E, sponsored remain in effect and will be in energy efficiency retrofit programs. The retrofit awareness programs in the actively pursued should. city will consider sponsoring an energy past with reasonable funding opportunities awareness program, in conjunction with gas success. Regrettably, become available. and electric utility companies to educate funding for such a program residents about the benefits of various retrofit is no longer available. programs.
Responsible Department: City
Administrator, Planning Department.
Timeframe: Ongoing.
Funding: General Fund/ Gas and Electric
Companies
Expected Outcome: Increased awareness of
energy efficiency programs.
FP-03: The City shall amend its subdivision Amend Adopted Completed. ordinance to implement the subdivision map subdivision solar act related to subdivision orientation for solar ordinance energy access. design
Responsible Department: City guideline
Administrator, Planning Department. s, as part
of zoning
Timeframe: 2022. code
Funding: General Fund amendme
nts,
23 Expected Outcome: Subdivision ordinance January
amendment. 25, 2022.
FP-04: New annexations to the City shall be Promote Ongoing No new annexation Continue contiguous to the existing city to increase contiguous
compact urban form and energy efficiency. annexation
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department.
Timeframe: Ongoing.
Funding: General Fund.
Expected Outcome: Efficient, contiguous city
expansion.
FP-05: The City shall amend its subdivision Transit friendly Ongoing Due to staffing and funding Continue. To be completed ordinance to require that new subdivisions subdivision effort. constraints in the prior by Dec. 2022. include transit opportunities and bicycle and ordinance cycle, the city will pedestrian routes, where feasible and complete this in the 2009- appropriate. 2023 Housing Element
Responsible Department: City Administrator, Cycle.
Planning Department.
Timeframe: 2022.
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Subdivision ordinance
amendment.
Goal G: Equal Opportunity
GP-01: The City will continue to provide Distribute Ongoing The city provides Continue information from the Housing Authority and information on 24 Department of Equal Housing and tenant rights. brochures to the public.
Employment regarding housing and tenant
rights at City Hall.
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department.
Timeframe: Ongoing.
Funding: General Fund.
Expected Outcome: Distribution of
information regarding equal access to housing
GP-02: The City will refer persons Referrals on Ongoing Complaints received, if Continue dousinination. any, are directed to the
County-wide resources.
of complaints merit, the city will work with
Fair Housing agency to co-sponsor workshops
on fair housing laws and how those who are
victims of discrimination can address their
grievances.
Responsible Department: All City
Departments that receive complaints.
Timeframe: Work shop to be scheduled
contingent upon receiving complaints
Funding: General Fund.
Expected Outcome: Distribution of
information.
25 Goal H: Public Participation
HP-01: Prior to any public hearing where the Advertise in Yes All public Continue city is considering amending or updating the newspaper meetings/hearings are housing element, the city will advertise in a advertised. newspaper of general circulation in the
Maricopa area and post public notice at
Maricopa City Hall, Gusher Hall, which
serves as the City Council Chambers and at
the U.S. Post Office in Maricopa. Notice of
Public meetings, information on the
availability of draft documents, and place
(address) and methods (in-person, mail or
emai) te provide public input will be
Responsible Department All City
Departments that receive complaints.
Timeframe: Minimum 30 days before
proposed amendments are considered by City
Council.
Funding: General Fund.
Expected Outcome: Distribution of
information.
Goal I: Housing Variety
IP-01. Amend zoning ordinance to allow Amend Zoning Adopted Completed. transitional and supportive housing as a Ordinance on
residential use, subject only to regulations that January apply to other residential dwellings of the
26 same type in the same zone. 25, 2022.
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department.
Timeframe: 2022.
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance
amendment.
Goal J: Large Lot Development
JP-01. Expedited approval of lot splits, Expedite No Continue. subdivisions creating new parcels and approvals requests expedited processing of development plans of were
infrastructure required to develop the site. received.
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department.
Timeframe: 2022
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Create permit processing
guideline
GoalK:
KP-01: The City shall permit affordable Develop an AFFH Add new programs, as may housing projects in all residential zones AFFH Plan plan is be necessary. proportionately within high-income and low- being
income neighborhoods. The City shall prepared
develop a plan to Affirmatively Further Fair as part of Housing (AFFH). The AFFH Plan shall take the 6'
27 actions to address significant disparities in Cycle
housing needs and in access to opportunity for Housing
all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, Element. marital status, ancestry, national origin, color,
familial status, or disability, and other
characteristics protected by the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
(commencing with Section 12900) of Division
3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other
State and federal fair housing and planning
law. The AFFH Plan shall address each of the
following areas:
• Housing Mobility (e.g., housing
mobility counseling, landlord outreach for
housing choice vouchers, accessibility
programs)
• Place-based Strategies toward
Community Revitalization in
Neighborhoods with Higher
Concentrations of Lower-income
Households (e.g., infrastructure,
rehabilitation and other targeted
community investments)
• New Housing Opportunities in High
Opportunity Areas or throughout the
comes ir ce. invested musing.
income strategies
• Displacement Risk (e.g., replacement
policies, multi-lingual tenant counseling,
28 down payment assistance)
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department.
Timeframe: Create plan by December 2022
and implement at least annually and on an
ongoing basis
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Adoption of the subject
Housing Element, improved and equitable
quality of life throughout the community.
Goal L: Family Definition Amend Zoning Adopted Completed. Delete.
LP-01: In compliance with State Law, the city Code ordinance will amend the Zoning Code with a new on
definition of a Family as follows: "FAMILY. January
One or more persons living together in a 25,2022.
dwelling unit, with common access to, and
common use of all living, kitchen, and eating
areas within the dwelling unit."
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department.
Timeframe: 2021-2022
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Amend Zoning
Ordinance.
Goal M: Dwelling Unit Definition Amend Zoning Adopted Completed. Delete.
Zoning
29 Ordinance Ordinanc
MP-01: In compliance with State and Federal e on
Law (42 U.S.C. § 3602), the city will amend January
the Zoning Code with a new definition of a 25, 2022.
Dwelling Unit as follows: "Dwelling Unit.
Any building, structure or portion thereof
which is occupied as, or designed or intended
for occupancy as, a residence by one or more
families, and any vacant land which is offered
for sale or lease for the construction or
location thereon of any such building,
structure, or portion thereof."
Responsible Department: City Administrator,
Planning Department.
Timeframe: 2021-2022
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Amend Zoning
Ordinance.
30 CHAPTER THREE - HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A successful strategy for improving housing conditions must be preceded by an assessment of the housing needs of the community and the region. This section discusses the components of housing need. The components include the trends between 2000 and 2020 (and other more recent data when available) in Maricopa's population, households, employment base, and the type of housing units available. Comparisons are made to countywide statistical data The analysis that follows is divided into four major subsections:
• Population Characteristics analyzes the City of Maricopa in terms of individual persons and identifies population trends that may affect future housing needs. • Household Characteristics analyzes Maricopa by households, or living groups, to see how past and expected household changes will affect housing needs. • Employment analyzes individual persons in Maricopa by occupation and employment sources.
• Housing Unit Characteristics and Their Relationship to Housing Need analyzes the housing units in Maricopa by availability, affordability, and condition. This information can be used to help identify programs needed to ensure that the existing and future housing stock meets the housing needs of every segment of the city's population.
Analysis in each of these subsections provides data upon which decisions concerning programs and policies for the provision of adequate housing in the City can be made.
Population and Employment
Population Characteristics
This section offers an overview of the population data for cities and towns within Kern County, California, based on the 2020 U.S. Census. It presents both incorporated cities, which have defined local governments, and unincorporated areas, which are governed at the county level (Table 3-1). Bakersfield stands as the largest city in Kern County, with a population of 403,455, representing over 44% of the county's total population, and serves as the primary urban center in the region, driving much of the area's economy and development. Other significant cities include Delano (51,428), Ridgecrest (27,959), and Wasco (27,047), while smaller communities such as Arvin (19,495) and Shafter (19,953) are still important. Maricopa, with a population of just 1,026, illustrates the more rural nature of the region. The total population of all incorporated cities in Kern County is 600,982, while unincorporated areas, managed at the county level, are home to 308,253 people, or about 34% of the total population, emphasizing the rural and expansive character of the county. The overall population of Kern County is 909,235, reflecting a predominantly rural distribution with a significant portion of its population residing in unincorporated areas. While Bakersfield serves as the central urban hub, smaller cities like 31 Maricopa point to the county's dispersed and rural community structure.
Table 3-1 shows 2020 population for Maricopa, Kern County, and other incorporated places within Kern County. The 2020 Census counted 1,026 residents in the city of Maricopa, a decline of 128 people or about 11 percent of the City's population from 2010.
Table 3-1 Kern County Population, 2020
City Population
Arvin 19,495
Bakersfield 403,455
California City 14,973
Delano 51,428
Maricopa 1,026
McFarland 14,161
Ridgecrest 27,959
Shafter 19,953
Taft 8,546
Tehachapi 12,939
Wasco 27,047
Total Incorporated 600,982
Unincorporated 308,253
Kern County Total Population 909,235
Source: 2020 US Census; Redistricting Data, California Department of Finance 2021.
Table 3-2 depicts the total population in Maricopa compared to the County and the State.
Table 3-2: Total population in Maricopa compared to the County and the State.
City % County
City of Kern
of % of California
Maricopa County State
County
Total
(Estimate) 2,157 0.2% 892,458 2.3% 39,346,023
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B01003.
Table 3-3 shows the decennial growth of population in the City from 1908 to 2020. Although the population has grown in the 1980-1990 period, there has been a decrease by 6.87 percent by the year 2000. In 2010, there was a slight increase by 3.87 percent, but between 2010 and 2020 the population decreased by approximately 11 percent.
32 Table 3-3: Maricopa Population Over Time
Total Population Over Time (Decennial Census)
198
1990 2000 2010 2020
0 Total
Population 946 1,193 1,111 1,154 1,026
Percent 26.11 6.87 3.87 11.09
Change %
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010; Social Explorer tables for Census 2020.
Table 3-4 outlines the population, housing, and houschold size projections for Maricopa fiom 2000 to 2023. The data shows a slight decline in the total population, from 1,173 in 2000 to 1,009 in 2023, reflecting a net decrease of 15 individuals or -1.5%. This decrease is consistent across the household population, which mirrors the overall trend. The number of households also saw a slight reduction, dropping from 414 in 2000 to 400 in 2023, marking a -0.5% change. Additionally, the average household size has continued to decline, from
2.83 in 2000 to 2.52 in 2023, indicating a -1.2% decrease. These figures collectively suggest a steady but modest downward trend in both the population and housing metrics for Maricopa over the 23-year period.
Table 3-4: Maricopa Population, Housing, and Household Size Projections, 2000-2023
2013-2023
20 2 2 2
Net %
Chang Chang
Total Population 1, 1, 1, 1. 15 -1.50
Group Quarters
- - - - 0
Population
Household 1, 1, -1.50
Households 41 40 4 2 -0.50
Average 2. 2. 2. 2. 0.03 -1.20
Source: U.S. Census 2020; California Department of finance E-5 Estimates Population by Race
Table 3-5 shows that the population of Maricopa, California, is predominantly White, with 86.2% of residents identifying as White Alone. This is significantly higher than the percentage of White residents in Kern County (67.6%) and in the entire state of California (56.1%). Other racial groups make up a smaller proportion of Maricopa's 33 population. For example, there are no Black or African American residents in Maricopa, while they account for 5.4% of Kern County's population and 5.7% of California's. Additionally, 1.3% of Maricopa's residents identify as American Indian or Alaska Native, which is slightly higher than Kern County's 0.9% but close to California's 0.8%.
Asian populations make up 0.6% of Maricopa's population, a fraction of the 4.9% in Kern County and significantly lower than California's 14.8%. Other smaller racial groups such as Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders and those identifying with some other race are present in Maricopa in very small percentages. Finally, 6.5% of Maricopa's population identifies as being of two or more races, which is slightly lower than Kern County's 8.4% and California's 7.9%. These statistics highlight Maricopa's homogeneity compared to the more diverse racial composition found in the county and state.
Table 3-5: Population by Race
City of Kern Percent California Percent
Percent
Maricopa County
Total: 2,157 892,458 39,346,023
White Alone 1,860 86.2% 603,368 67.6% 22,053,721 56.1%
Black or
African American
Alone 0 0.0% 48,530 5.4% 2,250,962 5.7%
American Indian And
Alaska Native Alone 28 1.3% 8,462 0.9% 311,629 0.8%
Asian Alone 14 0.6% 43,381 4.9% 5,834,312 14.8%
Native
Hawaiian and
other Pacific
Islander Alone 0 0.0% 1,380 0.2% 149,636 0.4%
Some Other
Race Alone 115 5.3% 112,122 12.6% 5,623,747 14.3%
Two Or More
Races: 140 6.5% 75,215 8.4% 3,122,016 7.9%
Two Races
Including Some
Other Race 65 3.0% 48,130 5.4% 1,472,235 3.7%
Two Races
Excluding Some
Other Race, And
Three Or More
Races 75 3.5% 27,085 3.0% 1,649,781 4.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B02001. 34 Age Characteristics
Table 3-6 shows the population distribution by age groups in Maricopa, Kern County, and California. About 49 percent of the Maricopa population is male, compared to 51% females. In the County about 51% are males while about 49% are females, whereas the State population roughly 50% male and 50% female.
Of the total population in Maricopa, individuals under 5 years of age total 145, or 6.7% of the city's population, which is slightly lower than Kern County's 7.7% and marginally higher than California's 6.1%. The 5 to 17 age group in Maricopa represents 21.6% of the population, with 465 individuals, which aligns closely with Kern County's 21.2%, though it is higher than California's 16.7%. For the 18 to 24 age group, Maricopa has 160 individuals, making up 7.4% of its population, which is lower than Kern County's 10.1% and California's 9.5%, suggesting a smaller young adult demographic.
The 25 to 34 age group in Maricopa accounts for 14.7% (317 individuals), which is comparable to the state's 15.3% and slightly lower than Kern County's 15.6%. Individuals aged 35 to 44 years make up 10.9% (236 individuals) of Maricopa's population, a proportion slightly lower than Kern County's 12.8% and California's 13.3%. In the 45 to 54 age group, Maricopa has 273 individuals, or 12.7% of the population, which is slightly higher than Kern County's 11.2% and aligns with California's 12.8%. For individuals aged 55 to 64, Maricopa has 248 individuals, comprising 11.5% of its population, which is higher than Kern County's 10.4% but lower than California's 12.1%.
The 65 to 74 age group in Maricopa represents 10.9% (235 individuals) of the population, a significant increase compared to Kern County's 6.6% and California's 8.3%. The 75 to 84 age group comprises 2.6% (57 individuals) of Maricopa's population, which is slightly lower than Kern County's 3.1% and California's 4.1%. Lastly, individuals aged 85 and over represent 1.0% (21 individuals) of Maricopa's population, which is lower than both Kern County's 1.2% and California's 1.9%.
In summary, Maricopa has a higher proportion of its population in the younger (5-17 years) and older (65-74 years) age groups compared to statewide figures, reflecting a family- oriented and aging demographic. The percentages in the 18-44 age brackets are slightly lower in Maricopa, which may indicate economic or lifestyle factors affecting the younger working-age population. Additionally, the relatively smaller proportions in the 75+ age groups suggest that Maricopa may have fewer senior living facilities or other resources for older residents compared to county and state averages.
35 Table 3-6: Total Population by Age Group
City of City of Kern Kern California California
Maricopa Maricopa County County
Male 1,058 49.0% 457.243 51.2% 19,562,882 49.7%
Female 1,099 51.0% 435,215 48.8% 19,783,141 |50.3%
Total: 2,157 892,458 39,346,023
Under 5 Years 145 6.7% 69,067 7.7% 2,409,082 6.1%
5 to 17 Years 465 21.6% 189,092 21.2% 6,547,559 16.7%
18 to 24 Years 160 7.4% 90,462 10.1% 3,724,239 9.5%
25 to 34 Years 317 14.7% 139,092 15.6% 6,007,913 15.3%
35 to 44 Years 236 10.9% 113,896 12.8% 5,233,903 13.3%
45 to 54 Years 273 12.7% 99,726 11.2% 5,039,155 12.8%
55 to 64 Years 248 11.5% 93,259 10.4% 4,739,675 12.1%
65 to 74 Years 235 10.9% 59,261 6.6% 3,270,380 8.3%
75 to 84 Years 57 2.6% 27,691 3.1% 1,609,373 4.1%
85 Years and Over 21 1.0% 10,912 1.2% 764,744 1.9%
Source: US Census Bureau, ACS16-20 5-Year Estimates, Table B01001.
Population of Hispanic Origin
Table 3-7 presents the distribution of Maricopa's population by race and Hispanic origin, comparing the city to Kern County and California. Maricopa has a population of 2,157, with 62.4% identifying as not Hispanic or Latino and 37.6% as Hispanic or Latino. The largest racial group among non-Hispanic/Latino residents is White Alone (54.9%), followed by Two or More Races (5.6%). Among Hispanic/Latino residents, White Alone makes up 31.3%, and Some Other Race Alone represents 5.3%. These figures provide insight into the diversity of Maricopa compared to Kern County and the state of California, highlighting the city's specific demographic trends.
36 Table 3-7: Population by Race
City of Kern Percent California
Percent Percent
Maricopa County
Total: 2,157 8,92,458 3,93,46,023
Not Hispanic Or Latino 1,347 62.4% 4,11,758 46.1% 2,39,65,094 60.9% White Alone 1,185 54.9% 2,96,505 33.2% 1,43,65,145 36.5% Black or African 0 0.0% 45,312 5.1% 21,42,371 5.4%
American Alone
American Indian And 28 1.3% 4,149 0.5% 1,31,724 0.3%
Alaska Native Alone
Asian Alone 14 0.6% 41,599 4.7% 57,43,983 14.6%
Native Hawaiian And 0 0.0% 1,011 0.1% 1,35,524 0.3%
Other Pacific Islander Alone
Some Other Race Alone 0.0% 2,024 0.2% 1,24,148 0.3%
Two Or More Races: 120 5.6% 21,158 2.4% 13,22,199 3.4%
Two Races Including 45 2.1% 2,337 0.3% 98,006 0.2%
Some Other Race
Two Races Excluding 75 3.5% 18,821 2.1% 12,24,193 3.1%
Some Other Race, And Three
Or More Races
Hispanic Or Latino: 810 37.6% 4,80,700 53.9% 1,53,80,929 39.1% White Alone 675 31.3% 3,06,863 34.4% 76,88,576 19.5%
Black or African 0 0.0% 3,218 0.4% 1,08,591 0.3%
American Alone
American Indian And 0 0.0% 4,313 0.5% 1,79,905 0.5%
Alaska Native Alone
Asian Alone 0 0.0% 1,782 0.2% 90,329 0.2%
Native Hawaiian And 0 0.0% 369 0.0% 14,112 0.0%
Other Pacific Islander Alone
Some Other Race Alone 115 5.3% 1,10,098 12.3% 54,99,599 14.0% Two Or More Races: 20 0.9% 54,057 6.1% 17,99,817 4.6%
Two Races Including 20 0.9% 45,793 5.1% 13,74,229 3.5%
Some Other Race
Two Races Excluding 0 0.0% 8,264 0.9% 4,25,588 1.1%
Some Other Race, And Three
Or More Races
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B03002.
Population by Race and Hispanic Origin Over Time
'able 3-8 illustrates the changes in racial and Hispanic origin composition in Maricopa over tw ecades, spanning from 2000 to 2020. The Hispanic or Latino population of any race has steadil 37 increased from 150 in 2000 to 303 in 2020. In contrast, the White Alone Non-Hispanic population has declined from 914 in 2000 to 626 in 2020. The number of Black or African American Alone Non-Hispanic residents has seen a gradual increase, from 0 in 2000 to 13 in 2020, while American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic numbers remained stable with slight increases. The Asian Alone Non-Hispanic category has fluctuated, with a rise from 5 in 2000 to 16 in 2010, followed by a slight decrease to 6 in 2020. Other races, such as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone, and Two or More Races Non-Hispanic, show modest increases in the same period. These changes reflect the evolving racial and ethnic makeup of Maricopa, demonstrating a gradual diversification over time.
Table 3-8: Population by Race and Hispanic Origin Over Time (2000-2020) 2000 2010 2020
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 150 232 303
White Alone Non-Hispanic 914 854 626
Black or African American Alone - Non-Hispanic 0 1
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic 21 23 27 Asian Alone Non-Hispanic 5 6
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander Alone Non-Hispanic 1 2 Some Other Race Non-Hispanic 0 0
Two or More Races Non-Hispanic 21 27 49
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, 2010; Social Explorer Table for Census 2020.
Household Characteristics
Household Size
Table 3-9 indicates that the number of households, average number of persons per household, and total population in households have all increased in the City of Maricopa between 2000 and 2020.
Trends in household size can indicate the growth pattern of a community. Average household size will increase if there is an influx of larger families or a rise in the local birth rate. Household size will decline where the population is aging, or when there is an influx of single residents outside childbearing age.
Table 3-9 below demonstrates that average household size in Maricopa was 2.75 persons per unit in 2000 and increased to 2.79 persons per unit in 2010. Based on data from Kern COG, Ker County's average household size was substantially higher than Maricopa, increasing from 3.03 to
3.15 from 2000 to 2010.
38 Table 3-9: Household Size Over Time
Population in Average
Year Households Household Size
Households
2000 404 1,111 2.75
2010 414 1,154 2.79
2020 421 1,217 2.89
Source: 2010 US Census
Table 3-10 provides a breakdown of household sizes in Maricopa, California, compared to Kern County and the state of California overall. The total number of households in Maricopa is 749, with 65.7% classified as family households, which is lower than Kern County's 73.8% but higher than the state average of 68.6%. Among the family households in Maricopa, the most common sizes include 2-person households (24.2%), which is similar to the county (23.3%) and state (24.5%); 3-person households (12.1%), which is lower than both Kern County (15.4%) and California (15.7%); and 4-person households (11.2%), which is also lower than Kern County (17.1%) and California (14.8%). Larger family households, such as 5-person households (16.0%) and 6-person households (1.2%), make up a significant portion in Maricopa, compared to smaller percentages in the county and state.
Nonfamily households in Maricopa account for 34.3% of the total, which is higher than Kern County (26.2%) but lower than California (31.4%). A majority of nonfamily households are 1- person households (21.1%), similar to Kern County (20.9%) and California (23.8%). Nonfamily households with 2 persons represent 11.7%, notably higher than both Kern County (4.5%) and California (5.9%). Larger nonfamily households are rare in Maricopa, with no households of four or more people reported in this category.
These trends suggest that Maricopa has a notable proportion of smaller family and nonfamily households compared to larger regions like Kern County and California. This could reflect a preference for smaller family units and individual living arrangements, which may influence housing policies and community planning strategies in Maricopa. 39 Table 3-10: Households by Size
City of Percent
Percent Kern County Percent California
Maricopa
Total: 749 2,73,556 1,31,03,114
Family Households: 492 65.7% 2,01,939 73.8% 89,86,666 68.6% 2-Person Household 181 24.2% 63,848 23.3% 32,09,170 24.5% 3-Person Household 12.1% 42,009 15.4% 20,54,635 15.7%
4-Person Household 84 11.2% 46,904 17.1% 19,45,127 14.8% 5-Person Household 120 16.0% 27,461 10.0% 10,06,126 7.7% 6-Person Household 9 1.2% 12,948 4.7% 4,33,324 3.3%
7-Or-More Person
Household 7 0.9% 8,769 3.2% 3,38,284 2.6%
Nonfamily
Households: 257 34.3% 71,617 26.2% 41,16,448 31.4%
1-Person Household 158 21.1% 57,077 20.9% 31,14,819 23.8% 2-Person Household 88 11.7% 12,251 4.5% 7,74,224 5.9%
3-Person Household 11 1.5% 1,137 0.4% 1,35,683 1.0%
4-Person Household 0 0.0% 674 0.2% 59,938 0.5%
0.0% 341 0.1% 19,730 0.2%
5-Person Household 0
6-Person Household 0 0.0% 24 0.0% 6,805 0.1%
7-Or-More Person
Household 0 0.0% 113 0.0% 5,249 0.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B11016 Average household size
Table 3-11 reveals distinct trends when compared to both Kern County and the state of California. The overall average household size in Maricopa is 2.88, which is slightly smaller than the state average of 2.94 and noticeably smaller than Kern County's average of 3.15.
When examining owner-occupied households, Maricopa has an average size of 2.74, which is again lower than the state's 3.01 and Kern County's 3.13. This indicates that, in Maricopa, owner-occupied homes tend to have fewer residents compared to the broader regions. On the other hand, renter-occupied households in Maricopa have an average size of 3.05. which is higher than both the state average of 2.85 and Kern County's 3.18. This suggests that renters in Maricopa, unlike in owner-occupied households, tend to live in larger households, a trend that could be influenced by factors such as family size, economic conditions, and housing availability in the rental market. 40 Overall, these figures show that Maricopa has a smaller household size in owner-occupied homes but larger households in rental units, which may have implications for local housing and community development strategies.
Table 3-11: Average Household Size
City of Kern County California
Maricopa
Total: 2.88 3.15 2.94
Owner Occupied 2.74 3.13 3.01
Renter Occupied 3.05 3.18 2.85
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25010 Average Household Size Over Time
Table 3-12 showing the average household size over time shows trends for the City of Maricopa, Kern County, and California from 2010 to 2020. In Maricopa, the average household size has decreased from 3.15 in 2010 to 2.88 in 2020, reflecting a decline in household size over the decade. This trend contrasts with Kern County, where the average size remained relatively stable, increasing slightly from 3.14 in 2010 to 3.15 in 2020. In California, the average household size showed a smaller decrease, from 2.89 in 2010 to
2.94 in 2020.
These changes suggest that Maricopa has experienced a more significant reduction in household size compared to both Kern County and California overall. This could reflect shifting local demographics, such as smaller families, changing housing preferences, or economic factors influencing family living arrangements. Meanwhile, Kern County and California's household sizes have remained relatively consistent, with only slight variations over the same period.
Table 3-12: Average Household Size Over Time
2010 2015 2020
City of Maricopa 3.15 3.02 2.88
Kern County 3.14 3.21 3.15
California 2.89 2.96 2.94
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25010 Type of households.
Table 3-13 presents a detailed analysis of household types in Maricopa, California, alongside data for Kern County and the state of California. Maricopa has a total of 749 households, a small fraction of the 273,556 households in Kern County and the 13,103,114 in California. Despite its smaller scale, Maricopa exhibits unique household composition trends.
41 Married-couple households make up 55.3% of all households in Maricopa, surpassing both Kern County (50.5%) and California (49.7%). Of these households, 25.8% have children under 18, which is higher than both Kern County (24.8%) and California (21.2%).
Additionally, 29.5% do not have children under 18, aligning closely with Kern County (25.7%) and California (28.4%). This indicates that Maricopa has a notable proportion of traditional family units.
Cohabiting-couple households account for 9.5% of Maricopa's total, slightly higher than Kern County (8.3%) and significantly higher than California (6.8%). Among these, 0.7% include children under 18, far below Kern County (4.3%) and California (2.5%), while
8.8% of cohabiting couples do not have children, a higher percentage than both Kern County (4.0%) and California (4.3%). This trend suggests that Maricopa has a notable presence of non-traditional households, particularly those without children.
Female-headed households without a spouse or partner represent 19.0% of households in Maricopa, which is lower than both Kern County (24.5%) and California (26.2%). Among these, 10.5% live alone, a figure similar to Kern County (10.4%) but lower than California (13.1%). Only 0.7% have children under 18, far lower than Kern County (6.8%) and California (4.7%), indicating fewer single mothers or child-dependent households in Maricopa. Additionally, 6.4% live with relatives but no children under 18, and 1.3% live with only non-relatives, slightly higher than Kern County and close to the state average.
Male-headed houscholds without a spouse or partner make up 16.3% of Maricopa's total households, closely aligning with Kern County (16.7%) and California (17.3%). Among these, 10.5% live alone, consistent with both Kern County (10.5%) and California (10.6%).
Notably, 0.0% of male-headed households in Maricopa have children under 18, compared to Kern County (1.8%) and California (1.3%). 4.5% live with only non-relatives, significantly higher than both Kern County (1.3%) and California (2.2%).
Maricopa's household composition shows a higher prevalence of married-couple households and fewer single-parent families compared to Kern County and California overall. The city also has a significant number of non-traditional cohabiting and male- headed households with non-relatives, reflecting a more diverse family structure. These patterns could help inform local policy decisions regarding housing, social services, and community development, tailored to Maricopa's unique demographic profile. 42 Table 3-13: Households by Type
City of City of Kern Kern
Household by Type California California
Maricopa Maricopa County County
Total: 749 2,73,556 1,31,03,114
Married-Couple Household 414 55.3% 1,38,061 50.5% 65,10,580 49.7% With Own Children Under 18 Years 193 25.8% 67,710 24.8% 27,84,123 21.2% With No Own Children Under 18 Years 221 29.5% 70,351 25.7% 37,26,457 28.4% Cohabiting Couple Household 71 9.5% 22,789 8.3% 8,96,192 6.8% With Own Children of The Householder Under 18
Years 0.7% 11,762 4.3% 3,27,712 2.5%
With No Own Children of The Householder Under 18
Years 66 8.8% 11,027 4.0% 5,68,480 4.3%
Female Householder, No Spouse or Partner Present 142 19.0% 67,058 24.5% 34,30,426 26.2% Living Alone 79 10.5% 28,466 10.4% 17,22,600 13.1%
0.7% 18,513 6.8% 6,15,734 4.7%
With Relatives, No Own Children Under 18 Years 48 6.4% 17,810 6.5% 8,58,959 6.6% With Only Nonrelatives Present 10 1.3% 2,269 0.8% 2,33,133 1.8% Male Householder, No Spouse or Partner Present 122 16.3% 45,648 16.7% 22,65,916 17.3% Living Alone 79 10.5% 28,611 10.5% 13,92,219 10.6%
With Own Children Under 18 Years 0.0% 4,904 1.8% 1,70,832 1.3% With Relatives, No Own Children Under 18 Years 1.2% 8,603 3.1% 4,14,759 3.2% With Only Nonrelatives Present 34 4.5% 3,530 1.3% 2,88,106 2.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B11012 43 Overcrowding
Overcrowding reflects the inability of households to buy or rent housing which provides reasonable privacy for each member. The definition used in this Housing Element is 1.01 or more persons per room. As shown in Table 3-14, some 48 households of the total occupied housing units in Maricopa are overcrowded, of which 20 units are severely overcrowded. Thus, approximately 6.4 percent of occupied housing units in Maricopa are overcrowded to one degree or another.
Table 3-14: Tenure by Age of Householder by Occupants Per Room (Overcrowded Households)
Owner occupied: 414
1.00 or less occupants per room 375
1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 19
1.51 or more per room 20
Renter occupied: 335
1.00 or less occupants per room 326
1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room
1.51 or more occupants per room
Owner Occupied Overcrowded 1.01 or more 39
Renter occupied Overcrowded 1.01 or more 9
Total overcrowded 1.01 or more 48
Owner Occupied Severely Overcrowded 1.51 or more 20
Renter occupied Severely Overcrowded 1.51 or more
Total severely overcrowded 1.51 or more 20
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, B25015 Household Income
Table 3-15 detailing household income distribution in Maricopa highlights the diversity in income levels within the city. According to the 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, household incomes are spread across various ranges, with the largest portion of households (20.8%) earning between $100,000 and $149,999. This is followed by 16.7% of households earning between $75,000 and $99,999, and 14.6% earning between $50,000 and $74,999.
On the lower end of the spectrum, 5.2% of households earn less than $10,000, while 5.8% earn between $10,000 and $14,999. Notably, 13.5% of households fall within the $15,000 to 44 $24.999 range, indicating a significant portion of the population earns low to moderate incomes. The income brackets from $25,000 to $49,999 cover 31.4% of households. contributing to a balanced distribution of middle-income households.
Higher-income households making $150,000 or more represent 9.4% of Maricopa's total households, with just 3.1% exceeding $200,000. This data underscores the relatively concentrated middle and upper-middle-income households in Maricopa, while also revealing a smaller percentage of higher-income households compared to larger urban areas.
These trends can inform community and economic development initiatives, as well as housing policies in Maricopa, by addressing the needs of lower-income households while acknowledging the significant proportion of middle-to upper-income families.
Table 3-15 Household Income
Number of Percent of Total
Income Range Households Households
Less than $10,000 5.20%
$10,000 to $14,999 28 5.80%
$15,000 to $24,999 65 13.50%
$25,000 to $34,999 50 10.40%
$35,000 to $49,999 55 11.50%
$50,000 to $74,999 70 14.60%
$75,000 to $99,999 80 16.70%
$100,000 to $149,999 100 20.80%
$150,000 to $199,999 30 6.30%
$200,000 or more 15 3.10%
Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Median Household Income Comparison
Table 3-16 detailing median household income reveals a notable difference in income levels between Maricopa, Kern County, and California. As of the most recent data from the U.S.
Census Bureau, the median household income in Maricopa is $40,208. This is significantly lower than the median income in Kern County, which stands at $54.851. Maricopa's income is approximately 73.3% of the county's median, suggesting a disparity in earnings within the region. Compared to California as a whole, Maricopa's median household income is even lower, reaching only 51.1% of the state's median income of $78,672.
This gap reflects economic conditions in Maricopa relative to both the county and the state, indicating that Maricopa households earn less on average than those in larger urban areas, such as cities in California or even neighboring Kern County. These income disparities may 45 inform local policy decisions, especially regarding economic development, housing affordability, and social services tailored to the community's needs.
Table 3-16 Median Household Income
City as
City of Kern City as %
California % of
Maricopa County of County
State
Median Household Income $ $ $
in The Past 12 Months 40,208 54,851 78,672 73.3% 51.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B19013.
The median income in Maricopa is $40,208 which makes much of the community an extremely low, very low- or low-income community. The age of the occupied housing stock is often correlated with income in that older housing tends to be affordable to the poor: Further, the lack of housing development in Maricopa in the last 20 years or more, resulted in many of the community living in older housing stock.
46 Table 3-17: Income Levels for Kern County (2023)
Income
Household Size
Levels
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+
Extremely
Low $16,750 $19,100 $21,450 $23,800 $25,700 $27,550 $29,400 $31,300 (<30%)
Very Low
(31 - $27,900 $31,850 $35,850 $39,800 $43,000 $46,200 $49,400 $52,600 50%)
Low
(51 - $44,600 $51,000 $57,350 $63,700 $68,800 $73,850 $78,900 $83,950 80%)
Moderate
(81 - $66,000 $75,600 $85,200 $94,800 $102,400 $110,000 $117,600 $125,200 120%)
Above
Moderate $66,000+ $75,600+ $85,200+ $94,800+ $102,400+ $110,000+ $117,600+ $125,200+ > 120%
Source: State of California, Housing and Community Development Department Notes - More or less than the County Median Income.
Notes: Extremely Low-Income: Less than 30 percent of the county median; Very Low Income: 31 to 50 percent of the county area median; Low Income: 51 to 80 percent of the county area median; Moderate Income: 81 to 120 percent of the county area median; Above Moderate Income: More than 120 percent of the county area median.
Income Levels for Kern County (2023)
The table 3-17 provides an overview of income thresholds across various categories—Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate based on household size in Kern County for 2023. These categories are defined as percentages of the area median income (AMI, a key metric for assessing financial eligibility for housing and social programs.
For Extremely Low-Income households (≤30% of AMI, the income threshold starts at $16,750 for a single-person household, increasing to $31,300 for households with 8 or more members.
This group faces the greatest economic challenges. Very Low-Income households (31-50% of AMI have thresholds ranging from $27,900 for a single-person household to $52,600 for larger households, representing those with slightly greater financial resources than the extremely low group.
The Low-Income category (51-80% of AMI) includes single-person households carning up to $44,600, with a maximum of $83,950 for households with 8+ members, often comprising working-class individuals and families. Moderate-Income households (81-120% of AMI) have 47 thresholds beginning at $66,000 for single-person households and increasing to $125,200 for the largest households. This group generally includes those with stable incomes. Lastly, Above Moderate-Income households (>120% of AMI exceed these thresholds, with single-person households earning more than $66,000 and families of 8 or more exceeding $125,200.
These income thresholds highlight Kern County's diverse economic landscape and are essential for shaping housing policies and social initiatives. The incremental increases in limits by household size acknowledge the higher costs associated with larger families.
Median Monthly Housing Costs Over Time
Table 3-18 provides an analysis of median monthly housing costs over time for the City of Maricopa, Kern County, and California between 2010 and 2020.In the City of Maricopa, median housing costs increased significantly from $471 in 2010 to $628 in 2020, representing a 33.3% rise. This notable percentage change suggests a significant upward trend in housing expenses, albeit starting from a relatively low baseline.
For Kern County, housing costs increased modestly, from $985 in 2010 to $1,096 in 2020, reflecting an 11.3% growth. This indicates a more stable housing market compared to Maricopa.
In California, the median housing costs were consistently higher, rising from $1,409 in 2010 to $1,688 in 2020. This 19.8% increase demonstrates a steady escalation in housing expenses statewide, though less pronounced than Maricopa's percentage change. The data illustrates that while housing costs in Maricopa have seen the most dramatic percentage increase, they remain substantially lower than both Kern County and California averages, reflecting differences in local market dynamics and affordability trends.
48 Table 3-18: Median Monthly Housing Costs Over Time
Percent
Change
2010 2015 2020
(2010 to
2020)
City of Maricopa $471 $632 $628 33.3%
Kern County $985 $988 $1,096 11.3%
California $1,409 $1,419 $1,688 19.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Table B25105 Median Monthly Housing Costs as a Percentage of Income in Maricopa (2010-2020) Table 3-19 highlights change in the affordability of housing in Maricopa between 2010 and 2020, comparing the proportion of household income spent on housing for renters and homeowners.
For renters, the cost burden grew noticeably over the decade. Median gross rent as a percentage of household income rose from 24.0% in 2010 to 30.0% in 2020, reflecting a steady increase in rental costs relative to income.
For homeowners, trends show varying experiences depending on mortgage status:
• Overall owner costs rose to 17.7% in 2015 before decreasing to 12.0% in 2020, suggesting improved affordability for most homeowners by the end of the decade. • Homeowners with mortgages, however, faced rising costs, with their housing expenses increasing from 21.6% in 2010 to 26.8% in 2020, indicating growing financial pressure. • Conversely, homeowners without mortgages saw significant relief, with their costs dropping from 15.1% in 2015 to 9.0% in 2020, making them the group with the least financial strain.
These findings reveal contrasting affordability trends in Maricopa: renters and mortgage holders face increasing challenges, while homeowners without mortgages benefit from reduced costs.
This underscores the importance of targeted policies to address affordability issues for vulnerable groups in the housing market.
49 Table 3-19: Median Monthly Housing Costs by Tenure as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months
2010 2015 2020
Median Gross Rent 24.0% 22.8% 30.0%
Median Selected Monthly Owner
Costs - Total 12.5% 17.7% 12.0%
Median Selected Monthly Owner
Costs - Units with a Mortgage 21.6% 23.5% 26.8%
Median Selected Monthly Owner
Costs - Units without a Mortgage 10.0% 15.1% 9.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Tables B25071, B25092
Table 3-20 presents the median household income by race or Hispanic origin for the City of Maricopa, Kern County, and California, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's ACS 2016-2020 5-year Estimates (Table B19013).
For households identified as White Alone Non-Hispanic, the median income in Maricopa is $42,806, which is substantially lower than the corresponding figures for Kern County ($66,163) and California ($90,496). This indicates that White households in Maricopa earn less on average than their counterparts in both Kern County and California. Data for Black or African American Alone Non-Hispanic households in Maricopa is unavailable, although the median income for this group in Kern County is $39,422, significantly lower than the state average of $54,976.
For American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic households, the median income in Maricopa is $49,412, slightly lower than Kern County's $60,182. Asian Alone Non-Hispanic households in Maricopa report a relatively high median income of $74,021, although this is still below both the county's median of $101,380 and the state's $104,021. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone Non-Hispanic households in Maricopa have a median income of $73,750, which is lower than Kern County's $81,682 but close to the state's median.
Households identifying as Some Other Race Alone Non-Hispanic in Maricopa report a median income of $49,168, which is lower than the median income of $59,287 for both Kern County and California. For households of Two or More Races Non-Hispanic, the median income in Maricopa is $49,484, which is also below Kern County's $76,733.
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race households in Maricopa report the lowest median income at $30,000, which is substantially lower than the county's $47,095 and the state's $62,330.
Maricopa's median household incomes across all racial or ethnic groups are consistently lower than those in both Kern County and California, with the most notable disparities among Hispanic or Latino households. Although Asian households in Maricopa report the highest median income within the city, it still lags behind the figures for both Kern County and California. These income disparities suggest that Maricopa may face economic challenges and fewer opportunities 50 compared to larger regions in Kern County and the state, reflecting local socio-economic conditions and demographic variations.
Table 3-20: Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin City of Kern California
Maricopa County
White Alone Non-Hispanic $42,806 $66,163 $90,496
Black or African American Alone Non-Hispanic $39,422 $54,976 American Indian And Alaska Native Alone Non-
Hispanic $49,412 $60,182
Asian Alone Non-Hispanic $74,021 $1,01,380
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander
Alone Non-Hispanic $73,750 $81,682
Some Other Race Alone Non-Hispanic $49,168 $59,287
Two or More Races Non-Hispanic $49,484 $76,733
Hispanic Or Latino of Any Race $30,000 $47,095 $62,330
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B19013.
Overpayment/ Cost Burden
State and federal standards for housing overpayment are defined as an income-to-housing cost ratio of 30 percent. Households paying more than this percentage of their income for shelter have less money left over for other necessities, such as food, clothing, utilities and health care. It is recognized, however, that moderate- and above moderate-income households are generally capable of paying a larger proportion of their income on housing. Therefore, estimates of housing overpayment generally focus on low-income groups.
As shown in Table 3-21, among the 413 occupied households, 258(62.5%) have a housing cost burden of 30% or less of their income. 70 (16.9%) households spend between 30% and 50% of their income on housing, and another 70 (16.9%) spend over 50%. A small portion, 15 (3.6%) households, have their cost burden information unavailable. Among owner-occupied households,
76.1% have a cost burden of 30% or less, compared to 46.6% of renter-occupied households.
Conversely, 26.2% of renter-occupied households spend over 50% of their income on housing, while only 9% of owner-occupied households do. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), "housing cost burden" typically refers to shelter costs exceeding 30% of household income.
51 Table 3-21: Overpayment by Tenure
Overpayment by Tenure
Owner Owner Renter Renter Total Total
Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied
Cost Burden <= 30% 169 76.1% 89 46.6% 258 62.5%
Cost Burden >30% to
<=50% 33 14.9% 37 19.4% 70 16.9%
Cost Burden ≥50% 20 9.0% 50 26.2% 16.9%
Cost Burden Not Available 0.0% 15 7.9% 3.6%
Total 222 191 413
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2014-18 (5-Year Estimates) Extremely Low-Income Households
Most, if not all, extremely low-income households will require rental housing. The extremely low-income households will likely face housing problems such as overpaying, overcrowding, and/or accessibility issues as a result of their limited incomes. Also, many of the extremely low- income households will fall within a Special Needs category (disabled, seniors, large families, or female-headed households) and require supportive housing services.
Table 3-22: Total Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure Owner Renter Percent Total
Percent
Occupied Occupied
Income <=30% HAMFI 30 28.6% 75 71.4% 105
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2014-18 (5-Year Estimates) Table 3-22 shows that extreme low-income households fall within the category less than 30% HAMFI, of which owner-occupied is 28.6% while renters are 71.4% indicative of higher cost burdens among renters. Table 3-23 shows that out of a total of 105 extremely low-income (ELI) households, 75(71.4%) are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs. 50 out of the 105 ELI households (47.6%) are severely cost-burdened, spending more than 50% of their income on housing.
52 Table 3-23: Extremely Low-Income Households Overpaying by Tenure Owner Renter Percen Tota Percen
Percen
Occupie Оссиріє
t t 1 t
d d
Cost Burden > 30% 25 83.3% 54 72.0% 75 71.4%
Cost Burden >50% 0.0% 50 66.7% 50 47.6%
Total Extremely Low-Income
Households 30 75 105
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2014-18 (5-Year Estimates) Table 3-24 shows that a significant majority of households (76.2%) experience at least one housing problem. While owner-occupied households are less likely to have housing problems than renters, a substantial portion (83.3%) of owners reported at least one housing problem.
Table 3-24: Extremely Low-Income Households Housing Situations by Tenure Owner Renter
Occupie Percent Percent Total Percent
Occupied
d
At least 1 Housing Problem 25 83.3% 55 73.3% 80 76.2%
No Housing Problem 4 13.3% 20 26.7% 24 22.9%
Total 30 75 105
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2014-18 (5-Year Estimates).
Home Values
The median home sale price of an existing home in Maricopa was $77,200 in 2012 (Table 3-25).
While Kern County has seen an increase in housing prices of 25.9 percent in 2012-2013., the price of housing in Maricopa has remained relatively static. Approximately 53.29% of Maricopa homes are owned, compared to 37.42% rented, while 9.3% are vacant. A median-priced home in Maricopa would not be affordable to extremely or very low-income families but would be affordable to other income categories. Overall, there are housing options available to all income categories with a greater supply for those with higher incomes. 53 Table 3-25: Median Housing Value
City of Kern City% of California City % of
Maricopa County County State
Median Value
(Dollars) $69,000 $226,600 30.5% $538,500 12.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077 Table 3-26: Median Housing Values Over Time (Owner-Occupied). | 1980 / 1990 2000 2010 2020
Median Value (Dollars) of Owner-
Occupied Homes $ 30,300 $ 47,500 $41,200 $87,200 $69,000 Percent Change 56.77% -13.26%| 111.65% -20.87%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(ORG STFI), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5- ycar Estimates), Table B25077
Current Housing Market Values
As of June, 2025, there are currently 13 homes for sale on Zillow.com varying in price from 25,000 to 449,000 with an average price of 158,657. Housing prices have increased by 1.9% over the past year, according to Zillow. There are also 2 rentals available in Maricopa, with prices ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 per month.
Housing Costs
Housing cost calculation by U.S. Census include: mortgage payments, rent payments, condominium and other fees, real estate taxes, and premiums for home owners insurance. Also, for mobile homes, installment loan payments, site rent, license and registration fees, and personal property taxes; electricity costs and gas costs; other fuel costs, water and sewer costs. etc.
As provided in Table 3-27, the median gross rent in the City of Maricopa is $854 while the median gross rent in Kern County is $994. This suggests that generally, renting in Maricopa is less expensive than renting in Kern County as a whole. In other words, the median gross rent in Maricopa is 85.9% of the median gross rent in Kern County. While the median gross rent for the entire state of California is $1,586, the median gross rent in Maricopa is only 53.8% of the median gross rent in California which indicates that Maricopa offers significantly lower rental costs compared to the state average, which is influenced by higher rents in major metropolitan areas.
Recent rental opportunities available in Maricopa range from $1,000 to $2,000 per month in rent, compared to data available below for the 2016-2020 period (ACS 5-year estimates). 54 Table 3-27: Median Gross Rent
City % City %
City of Kern California
Percent of of State
Maricopa County County
Median Gross Rent 854 994 85.9% 1,586 53.8%
Source: 2016-2020 American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates, B25064 Although the monthly cost of rental housing is important, most landlords require the first and last month rental payment plus a security deposit prior to moving in. Many landlords require a minimum monthly income of up to three times the monthly rent. There may also be requirements for deposits to connect to services such as water and electricity and possibly extra charges for additional people or pets. Due to these factors, often the actual cost of moving into a rental unit is a greater burden.
Table 3-28 shows the change in median monthly housing costs for the City of Maricopa, Kern County, and the state of California between 2010 and 2020. City of Maricopa experienced the highest percent increase in housing costs during this period, with a 33.3% rise, while Kern County saw a moderate increase in median housing costs rising by 11.3%. California as a whole had the second-highest percentage increase at 19.8%, significantly higher than Kern County but lower than the City of Maricopa.
Table 3-28: Median Monthly Housing Costs Over Time
Percent
Change
2010 2015 2020 (2010 to
2020)
City of Maricopa $471 $632 $628 33.3%
Kern County $985 $988 $1,096 11.3%
California $1,409 $1,419 $1,688 19.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Table B25105 Table 3-29 shows changes in median housing costs as a percentage of household income for renters and homeowners between 2010, 2015, and 2020. The percentages represent the median "cost burden," meaning the proportion of income spent on housing. The median gross rent as a percentage of income decreased slightly between 2010 and 2015 but saw a significant increase between 2015 and 2020, reaching the threshold of 30%. Households spending more than 30% of their income on housing are generally considered "cost-burdened". The median total selected monthly owner costs increased between 2010 and 2015, then decreased in 2020 to slightly below the 2010 level. For units with a mortgage, the data shows a steady increase in median selected monthly owner costs for homeowners with a mortgage across the years, indicating that the cost of homeownership with a mortgage has been rising relative to income. This category likely includes costs like property taxes and insurance. Similar to total owner costs, the costs for 55 homeowners without a mortgage increased between 2010 and 2015, then decreased in 2020.
Table 3-29: Median Monthly Housing Costs by Tenure as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months
2010 2015 2020
Median Gross Rent 24.0% 22.8% 30.0%
Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs - Total 12.5% 17.7% 12.0% Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs - Units with a Mortgage 21.6% 23.5% 26.8% Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs - Units without a Mortgage 10.0% 15.1% 9.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Tables B25071, B25092 Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Units
As per Table 3-30, About 19 percent of the units were built prior to WW II reflecting the age of the housing stock. About 49 percent of the units were built after WW II (1939-1945) up until 1979 (the 49 percent figure is an estimate taking only 4 percent of the 8 percent buildout reported during the period 1940-1949). Approximately 74 percent of all the housing units in the city were built after 1980.
Table 3-30: Total Occupied Housing Units
City of Kern
Percent Percent California Percent
Maricopa County
Total: 749 273,556 13,103,114
2014 Or Later 0.0% 8,679 0.0% 294,667 2.2%
2010 To 2013 0.0% 6,244 0.0% 234,646 1.8%
2000 To 2009 10 1.3% 50,348 1.3% 1,432,955 11.0%
1990 To 1999 36 4.8% 40,394 4.8% 1,448,367 11.1%
1980 To 1989 165 22.0% 45,689 22.0% 1,967,306 15.1%
1970 To 1979 205 27.4% 43,060 27.4% 2,290,081 17.5%
1960 To 1969 31 4.1% 27,662 4.1% 1,740,922 13.3%
1950 To 1959 99 13.2% 28,089 13.2% 1,767,353 13.5%
1940 To 1949 8.1% 12,071 8.1% 763,029 5.8%
1939 Or Earlier 142 19.0% 11,320 19.0% 1,163,788 8.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25036 As a part of the development of the 2002 Housing Element, a citywide housing quality survey was conducted, which was completed in January 2002. A representative sample was completed for every census tract of significant residential use. The sample size was based on HCD's sampling requirements contained in HCD's Program Guidelines. The completed tabulation appears in Table 3-35.
The ratings are defined by HCD as:
• Sound - a unit that appears new or well maintained and structurally intact. The foundation should appear structurally undamaged and there should be straight rooflines.
Siding, windows, and doors should be in good repair with good exterior paint condition.
Minor problems such as small areas of peeling paint and/or other maintenance items are allowable under this category. A sound unit will reflect 9 or less points on survey. • Minor Rehabilitation - a unit that shows signs of deferred maintenance, or which needs only one major component such as a roof.
• Moderate Rehabilitation - a unit in need of replacement of one or more major components and other repairs, such as roof replacement, painting, and window repairs. • Substantial Rehabilitation - a unit that requires replacement of several major systems and possible other repairs (e.g., complete foundation work, roof structure replacement and re- roofing, as well as painting and window replacement.)
• Dilapidated - a unit suffering from excessive neglect, where the building appears structurally unsound and maintenance is non-existent, not fit for human habitation in its current condition, may be considered for demolition or at minimum, major rehabilitation will be required.
57 Table 3-31: Housing Conditions
Units Percentage
Sound 204 44.0
Minor Rehabilitation 120 25.9
Moderate Rehabilitation 26 5.30
Substantial Rehabilitation 50 10.8
Dilapidated 66 14.0
Total Housing Units 466 100.0
Table 3-32 identifies the total housing units for Maricopa, Bakersfield and Kern County. The increase in the number of housing units from 2000 to 2010 in Maricopa was less than a single unit per year.
Table 3-32: Total Housing Units (1980-2020)
City of City % County
Kern
Percent of California % of
Maricopa County State
County
Total Units 862 299,179 0.3% 14,210,945 2.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25001 Table 3-33: Total Housing Units Over Time
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Total Units 338 438 460 466 862
Percent Change 29.59% 5.02% 1.30% 84.98%
Table 3-34: Housing Units by Type
City of Kern
Percent Percent California Percent
Maricopa County
Total 862 299,179 14,210,945
1, Detached 404 46.9% 216,329 72.3% 8,206,621 57.7%
1, Attached 19 2.2% 7,605 2.5% 1,009,488 7.1%
2 0.0% 8,083 2.7% 339,846 2.4%
3 or 4 3.0% 17,214 5.8% 773,994 5.4%
5 to 9 3.2% 10,498 3.5% 840,296 5.9%
10 to 19 0 0.0% 5,853 2.0% 721,132 5.1%
20 to 49 0 0.0% 3,363 1.1% 705,450 5.0%
50 or More 1.5% 7,628 2.5% 1,083,247 7.6%
Mobile Home 372 43.2% 22,085 7.4% 515,666 3.6%
Boat, Rv, Van, Etc. 0.0% 521 0.2% 15,205 0.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25024 58 Because land is readily available and comparatively inexpensive in Maricopa single-family dwelling units are the preferred dwelling unit type.
Vacancy Rates
Considering information provided in Table 3-35, the total vacancy rate in 2010 was 11.2 percent for Maricopa. These vacancy rates include dilapidated units, seasonal units, units rented or sold and waiting for occupancy, units held for occasional use, and units held off the market for other reasons.
Table 3-35: Vacancy Status by Type for Total Vacant Units City of Kern Percent California Percent
Percent County
Maricopa
Total: 113 25,623 1,107,831
For Rent 10 8.8% 4,982 19.4% 227,993 20.6%
Rented, Not Occupied 0.0% 918 3.6% 54,898 5.0%
For Sale Only 9 8.0% 2,646 10.3% 77,702 7.0%
Sold, Not Occupied 0.0% 884 3.5% 53,437 4.8%
For Seasonal, Recreational, Or
Occasional Use 0.0% 7,179 28.0% 378,023 34.1%
For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% 147 0.6% 3,326 0.3%
Other Vacant 94 83.2% 8,867 34.6% 312,452 28.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25004 "Note: The U.S. Census provides the following definitions applicable to determination of vacancy status:
- For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use: These are vacant units used or intended for use only in certain seasons or for weekends or other occasional use throughout the year.
Seasonal units include those used for summer or winter sports or recreation, such as beach cottages and hunting cabins. Seasonal units also may include quarters for such workers as herders and loggers. Interval ownership units, sometimes called shared-ownership or timesharing condominiums, also are included here.
- For Migrant Workers: These include vacant units intended for occupancy by migratory workers employed in farm work during the crop season. (Work in a cannery, a freezer plant, or a food-processing plant is not farm work.)
- Other Vacant: If a vacant unit does not fall into any of the categories specified above, it is classified as '''Other vacant.'" For example, this category includes units held for occupancy by a caretaker or janitor, and units held for personal reasons of the owner." Occupied Households
Table 3-36 identifies total occupied households, and owner- and renter-occupied households in the City of Maricopa.
59 Table 3-36: Total Housing Units by Tenure
City of Kern Percent
Percent Percent California
Maricopa County
Total Units 749 273,556 13,103,114
Owner Occupied: 414 55.3% 161,113 58.9% 7,241,318 55.3% Renter Occupied: 335 44.7% 112,443 41.1% 5,861,796 44.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25042 Residential Building Permits
This section presents information on residential building permit activity for the local housing market area. It can be used to identify and analyze market trends and to project future building activity. Between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2015 there were two homes constructed and two mobile homes sited in Maricopa. No further construction activity other than minor home improvements were undertaken in the city since then. More specifically, there were no other residential structures, no commercial structures, no industrial structures built over the seven-year period cited herein.
From 2015 to 2023, no single-family units were demolished.
Table 3-37: Residential Building Permits Issued, 2015-2023 Total New Housing Units 4
Single-Family Permits Issued 2
Multi-Family Permits Issued 0
Mobile Home Permits Issued 2
Demolitions
Ayrage Housing Units Per 0.5
Source: City of Maricopa, 2020
Special Housing Needs
Special Needs Groups include the disabled population, senior households, persons with development disabilities, large households, extremely low-income households, female heads of household, farm workers, homeless, etc.
60 Disabled Population
A "disability" includes, but is not limited to, any physical or mental disability as defined in California Government Code Section 12926. A "mental disability" involves having any mental or psychological disorder or condition, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, or specific learning disabilities that limits a major life activity. A "physical disability" involves having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects body systems including neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.
In addition, a mental or physical disability limits a major life activity by making the achievement of major life activities difficult including physical, mental, and social activities and working.
Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities often prevent a person from working, restrict a person's mobility, or make caring for oneself difficult. Therefore, disabled persons often require special housing needs related to potential limited earning capacity, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and higher health costs associated with disabilities. Additionally, people with disabilities require a wide range of different housing, depending on the type and severity of their disability. Housing needs can range from institutional care facilities to facilities that support partial or full independence (i.e., group care homes). Supportive services such as daily living skills and employment assistance need to be integrated in the housing situation. The disabled person with a mobility limitation requires housing that is physically accessible. Examples of accessibility in housing include widened doorways and hallways, ramps, bathroom modifications (lowered countertops, grab bars, adjustable shower heads, etc.), and special sensory devices including smoke alarms and flashing lights.
Any of the heads of household in this group may need housing assistance. Households containing handicapped persons may also need housing with special features to allow better physical mobility for occupants. Table 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, and 3-41 show disability characteristics of the population in the city and the region.
61 Table 3-38: Disability by Type by Age for the Total Population City of City of Kern Kern California California
Maricopa Maricopa County County
Total: 2,157 864,023 38,838,726
Under 18 Years - Total
Population 610 28.3% 257,756 29.8% 8,942,907 23.0%
Under 18 Years - One Type 3.3% 5,792 2.2% 207,793 2.3%
Under 18 Years - Two or
More Types 0.0% 3,272 1.3% 99,013 1.1%
Under 18 Years - No
Disability 590 96.7% 248,692 96.5% 8,636,101 96.6%
18 to 64 Years - Total
Population 1,234 57.2% 510,141 59.0% 24,347,395 62.7%
18 to 64 Years - One Type 119 9.6% 29,490 5.8% 1,077,809 4.4% 18 to 64 Years - Two or
More Types 5.5% 23,435 4.6% 866,771 3.6%
18 to 64 Years, No Disability 1,047 84.8% 457,216 89.6% 22,402,815 92.0% 65 Years and Older - Total
Population 313 14.5% 96,126 11.1% 5,548,424 14.3%
65 Years and Older - One
Type 90 28.8% 16,593 17.3% 803,463 14.5%
65 Years and Older - Two or
More Types 61 19.5% 19,844 20.6% 1,092,102 19.7%
65 Years and Older - No
Disability 162 51.8% 59,689 62.1% 3,652,859 65.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table C18108 Table 3-39: Population by Number of Disabilities (Total Population) City of Kern Percent California Percent
Percent
Maricopa County
Total: 2,157 864,023 38,838,726
With One Type of
Disability 229 10.6% 51,875 6.0% 2,089,065 5.4%
With Two Or More Types
of Disability 129 6.0% 46,551 5.4% 2,057,886 5.3%
No Disability 1,799 83.4% 765,597 88.6% 34,691,775 89.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table C18108 62 Table 3-40: Disability by Type for the Population with a Disability (Detailed) City of Kern
Percent Percent California Percent
Maricopa County
With One or More Types of
Disability 358 98,426 4,146,951
Hearing Difficulty 52 14.5% 23,470 23.8% 1,147,500 27.7% Vision Difficulty 55 15.4% 19,029 19.3% 778,145 18.8%
Cognitive Difficulty 120 33.5% 36,914 37.5% 1,585,969 38.2% Ambulatory Difficulty 215 60.1% 51,480 52.3% 2,118,765 51.1% Self-Care Difficulty 70 19.6% 21,131 21.5% 964,579 23.3% Independent Living Difficulty 137 38.3% 35,762 36.3% 1,654,210 39.9% Table 3-41: People with Developmental Disabilities - Age City of Kern County State
Maricopa
00-17 yrs. #N/A 5,594 192,384
18+ yrs. #N/A 5,101 185,353
Total Population #N/A 10,695 377,737
Source: DDS Quarterly Consumer Report, December 2021. Data not available for Maricopa.
Senior Households.
There are 194 housing units occupied by householder's age 65 years and older in Maricopa, 84.5 percent of occupied housing units. (See Table 3-32); of the elderly householders, 164 own their housing units which represents 84.5% of the elderly population. Only 30(15.5%) of elderly householders rent.
63 Table 3-42: Senior Households by Tenure
City of City of Kern Kern California California
Maricopa Maricopa County County
Total: 194 58,117 3,198,850
Owner Occupied: 164 84.5% 44,406 76.4% 2,340,689 73.2%
Householder 65 To 74 Years 114 69.5% 26,393 59.4% 1,350,393 57.7% Householder 75 To 84 Years 39 23.8% 13,340 30.0% 688,443 29.4% Householder 85 Years and over 6.7% 4,673 10.5% 301,853 12.9% Renter Occupied: 15.5% 13,711 23.6% 858,161 26.8%
Householder 65 To 74 Years 20 66.7% 8,690 63.4% 484,266 56.4% Householder 75 To 84 Years 0.0% 3,505 25.6% 234,067 27.3% Householder 85 Years and Over 10 33.3% 1,516 11.1% 139,828 16.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25007 Table 3-43: Senior Households by Tenure Over Time
Renter- Owner Renter- Owner Renter- Owner
Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied
2010 2010 2015 2015 2020 2020
City of Maricopa 3.00 81.00 13.00 80 30 164
City of Maricopa 3.6% 96.4% 14.0% 86.0% 15.5% 84.5%
Kern County 9,244.00 34,273.00 11,220.00 36,862 13,711 44,406 Kern County 21.2% 78.8% 23.3% 76.7% 23.6% 76.4%
California 605,590.00 1,764,836.00 737,696.00 2,005,660 858,161 2,340,689 California 25.5% 74.5% 26.9% 73.1% 26.8% 73.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25007 As occupants leave the units occupied by elderly people living alone, those units will re-enter the City of Maricopa's housing market. Senior citizens on fixed incomes that rent apartment units are very vulnerable to rising rents. Most of the senior citizens in Maricopa share their homes with other family members. Elderly parents may be living with their adult children or involved in similar arrangements. These units are often overcrowded; some of these people might prefer to live alone or in a separate unit near the main house ("granny flats") if such units were available and affordable.
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
Senate Bill (SB) 812 requires the city to include the needs of individuals with a developmental disability within the community in the special housing needs analysis. According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, a "developmental disability" means a disability that 64 originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual which includes mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently in a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person's living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.
The California Department of Developmental Services currently provides community-based services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities.
Services for developmentally disabled persons is also available through the Taft Area Retarded Citizens (Taft ARC) in the nearby city of Taft which is six miles east of Maricopa and through the Bakersfield Area Retarded Citizens (BARC) in the city of Bakersfield which is approximately 35 miles east of Maricopa. Maricopa itself has no facilities to assist developmentally disabled persons. The Kern Regional Center is one of 21 regional centers in the State of California that provides point of entry services for people with developmental disabilities. The center is a private, non-profit community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.
Kern Regional Center (KRC), caring for people with developmental disabilities in Kern County provided the following data
Table 3-44: Developmentally Disabled Residents Served by KRC, by Age Age Group No. of persons served
0-3 2
4 - 22 8
23 and Above 8
Total served 18
ource: Marian Constantino, Housing S ,KRC, July 2025
A number of housing types are appropriate for people living with a development disability: rent- subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing, Section 8 vouchers, and special programs for home purchase. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this 65 special need group. Incorporating "barrier-free" design in all new multi-family housing (as required by California and federal fair housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.
Large Households
Large households are defined as households with five or more persons. Large households may also have lower incomes, frequently resulting in the overcrowding of smaller dwelling units, and sometimes two or more persons per room. Large families may also have difficulty finding rental units that qualify for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program, because larger units often exceed maximum rent limits, and there are fewer large units to choose from. The majority of apartments for rent are either one-bedroom or two-bedroom units. In addition, some landlords are reluctant to rent to large families. The housing needs of large households can be addressed through the expansion of existing smaller units and the provision of new, affordably priced larger units.
As shown in Table 3-45, of the total 749 households in Maricopa, 136(18.2%) consisted of five or more-person households (18.2 percent).
66 Table 3-45: Tenure by Household Size (Including Large Households) City of City of Kern Kern
California California
Maricopa Maricopa County County
Total Occupied Housing Units 749 273,556 13,103,114
Total Large Households (5 or
More Persons 136 18.2% 49,656 18.2% 1,809,518 13.7%
120 16.0% 27,802 10.2% 1,025,856 7.8%
5-Person Household
9 1.2% 12,972 4.7% 440,129 3.3%
6-Person Household
7-or-More Person Household 7 0.9% 8,882 3.2% 343,533 2.6% 414 55.3% 161,113 58.9% 7,241,318 55.3%
Owner-Occupied
1-Person Household 72 9.6% 30,653 11.2% 1,416,913 10.8% 2-Person Household 182 24.3% 50,008 18.3% 2,403,865 18.3% 3-Person Household 49 6.5% 24,316 8.9% 1,235,833 9.4%
4-Person Household 60 8.0% 27,976 10.2% 1,182,987 9.0%
5-Person Household 44 5.9% 16,370 6.0% 567,528 4.3%
6-Person Household 0 0.0% 7,118 2.6% 238,866 1.8%
7-or-More Person Household 7 0.9% 4,672 1.7% 195,326 1.5% Renter-Occupied 335 44.7% 112,443 41.1% 5,861,796 44.7% 1-Person Household 86 11.5% 26,424 9.7% 1,697,906 13.0% 2-Person Household 87 11.6% 26,091 9.5% 1,579,529 12.1% 3-Person Household 53 7.1% 18,830 6.9% 954,485 7.3%
4-Person Household 24 3.2% 19,602 7.2% 822,078 6.3%
76 10.1% 11,432 4.2% 458,328 3.5%
5-Person Household
6-Person Household 9 1.2% 5,854 2.1% 201,263 1.5%
7-or-More Person Household 0 0.0% 4,210 1.5% 148,207 1.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2016-2020 (5-Year Estimates) Table B25009.
Table 3-46 shows that of the 383 occupied households in Maricopa, 129 (17.2%) consisted of five or more persons households. Owner occupied households consisted of 55.3% while renter occupied households were 55.3%.
67 Table 3-46: Tenure by Household Size Over Time
2010 2010 2015 2015 2020 2020
Total Occupied Housing
Units 383 404 749
1-Person Household 91 23.8% 94 23.3% 158 21.1%
2-Person Household 122 31.9% 131 32.4% 269 35.9%
3-Person Household 45 11.7% 41 10.1% 102 13.6%
4-Person Household 56 14.6% 84 20.8% 84 11.2%
5-Person Household 29 7.6% 21 5.2% 120 16.0%
6-Person Household 3 0.8% 5.2% 9 1.2%
7-or-More Person
Household 37 9.7% 12 3.0% 7 0.9%
Owner-Occupied 270 70.5% 212 52.5% 414 55.3%
1-Person Household 79 20.6% 8 14.9% 72 9.6%
2-Person Household 85 22.2% 24.0% 182 24.3%
3-Person Household 31 8.1% 23 5.7% 49 6.5%
4-Person Household 27 7.0% 21 5.2% 60 8.0%
5-Person Household 4.4% 7 1.7% 44 5.9%
6-Person Household 3 0.8% 4 1.0% 0.0%
7-or-More Person
Household 28 7.3% 0.0% 7 0.9%
Renter-Occupied 113 29.5% 192 47.5% 335 44.7%
1-Person Household 12 3.1% 34 8.4% 86 11.5%
2-Person Household 37 9.7% 34 8.4% 87 11.6%
3-Person Household 3.7% 18 4.5% 53 7.1%
4-Person Household 29 7.6% 63 15.6% 3.2%
5-Person Household 3.1% 14 3.5% 76 10.1%
6-Person Household 0 0.0% 17 4.2% 9 1.2%
7-or-More Person
Household 2.3% 12 3.0% 0.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009 68 Female headed households
Table 3-47 provides insights into the composition of female-headed households in Maricopa, California, in comparison to Kern County and the state of California. In Maricopa, there are 142 female-headed households, representing a significant segment of the city's overall household structure. Of these, 79 households (or 55.6%) consist of females living alone, which is higher than both Kern County (42.4%) and California (50.2%), indicating that women in Maricopa are more likely to live independently.
Among female-headed households in Maricopa, 5 households (or 3.5%) have children under 18 years old, which is notably lower than Kern County (27.6%) and California (17.9%). This suggests that fewer single mothers in Maricopa are raising children compared to the broader regions.
Furthermore, 48 female-headed households (or 33.8%) in Maricopa live with relatives but without their own children under 18, which is higher than both Kern County (26.6%) and California (25.0%), highlighting a trend of multi-generational living. Additionally, 10 households (or 7.0%) consist of women living with only non-relatives, which is higher than Kern County (3.4%) but lower than California (6.8%).
These figures reflect Maricopa's unique household composition, with a relatively high proportion of women living alone and a greater tendency for multi-generational households. The low percentage of female-headed households with children under 18 may indicate different family dynamics compared to the larger regions of Kern County and California. This information is crucial for understanding the social structure in Maricopa and could inform local policy decisions related to family services, housing, and community. development.
69 Table 3-47 Female-Headed Households
City of City of Kern Kern California California
Maricopa Maricopa County County
Female Householder, No
Spouse or Partner Present 142 67,058 34,30,426
Living Alone 79 55.6% 28,466 42.4% 17,22,600 50.2%
With Own Children Under
18 Years 5 3.5% 18,513 27.6% 6,15,734 17.9%
With Relatives, No Own
Children Under 18 Years 48 33.8% 17,810 26.6% 8,58,959 25.0% With Only Nonrelatives
Present 10 7.0% 2,269 3.4% 2,33,133 6.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B11012 Table 3-48 provides the poverty status of female-headed households with children, but no spouse present. 70% of those in the city live below the poverty line while those in the County and the state are 38 percent and 21.5%, respectively, which demonstrates intense poverty levels in this group.
Table 3-48 Female-Headed Households - Poverty Status
Female-Headed Households with Children, No Spouse Present, by Poverty Status City of Percent California Percent
Percent Kern County
Maricopa
Below Poverty
Line 70.7% 16,700 38.0% 364,236 21.5%
Above Poverty
Line 17 29.3% 27,263 62.0% 1,329,038 78.5%
Total 58 43,963 1,693,274
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B17010 Note: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.
Farm Workers
Agriculture is a key economic industry in Kern County, and particularly in Arvin. Agriculture plays a major role in the lives of Arvin's residents. Classified in terms of industry, 3,565 individuals were employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining positions, representing 47.5 percent of the total civilian employed population ages 16 and older of 7,511. In comparison, the Kern County average for these economic sectors was 14.7 percent. Almost all of those Arvin residents employed in this sector were in agriculture.
According to a study conducted by ruralhome.org, ethnically, almost all farmworkers in Kern 70 County are Hispanic, although not all Hispanics are farmworkers. Farmworkers and those in the food processing industry almost entirely live in Arvin, and Lamont in Kern County. Some farm laborers migrate into the food processing industry due to higher wages and availability of transportation to work and home.
Farmworkers are defined as persons whose primary source of income is derived from seasonal agricultural labor. Farmworkers are typically categorized into three groups: 1) permanent, 2) seasonal and 3) migrant. Permanent farmworkers are typically employed year-round by the same employer. A seasonal farmworker works on average less than 150 days per year and earns at least half of their earned income from farm work. Migrant farm workers are seasonal farm workers who have to travel to do the farm work. They are unable to return to their permanent residence within the same day.
There were 1,731 farms located in Kein County according to the USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture. Some 22 percent of the farms employed only a single farm worker; some 46 percent employed between two and nine workers, and some 32 percent were larger farms employing ten or more workers. Table 3-49 also indicates that migrant workers totaled 6,062, representing approximately 30 percent of total farm workers. Farmworkers are generally considered to have special housing needs because of their limited income and their seasonal and migratory nature of their work.
According to a 2022 study conducted by the Community and Labor Center at the University of California Merced, California farm workers generally experience substandard housing (e.g., older homes, apartments, mobile homes, motels, garages, or other similar spaces), often requiring repairs such as new roofs, plumbing, heating and cooling systems, and termite clean- up. Poor ventilation and crowded spaces put farm workers at increased risk for respiratory illnesses such as asthma and infectious diseases like tuberculosis and COVID-19. Farm workers tend to live in large, overcrowded households with low incomes and several household problems, arrangements associated with decreased mental health. Farm workers' households were larger than the California average (3.0 persons per household), with a median household size of four persons per household. Farm workers in the University of California Merced study were differentiated based on employment status which consisted of an H2-A visa. For example, H2-A workers are required to live on premises paid for by an employer, farm workers without an H2-A visa in their study were most likely to be renters (92 percent), to live in single-family homes (55 percent), and very few renters relied on employers to pay any or all their rent (2 percent).
Farmworker Housing Resources: Housing options that are currently available to farmworkers include privately- and publicly- owned farm worker housing, which are described below. 71 Table 3-49: KERN COUNTY - FARM LABOR (2017).
Category Farms Percent Workers Percent
Farms with 1 worker 186 22.01 186 0.91
Farms with 2 workers 130 15.38 260 1.27
Farms with 3-4 workers 125 14.79 429 2.10
Farms with 5-9 workers 135 15.98 860 4.20
Farms with 10 or more 269 31.84 18734 91.52
Total farms and workers 845 100 20469 100
Migrant workers/ hired 84 85.71 5779 95.33
Migrant 14 14.29 283 4.67
workers/contract
Total migrant workers 98 100 6062 100
Source: USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture
zhttps://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/California/ Privately-Owned Farm Workers Housing. Table 3-50 identifies 18 camps, 12 of which are year-round camps and six of which are seasonal, and provide housing for 474 farm workers. The County of Environmental Health Services Department indicates that the demand for lettuce, and that most agricultural workers in the County are full-time residents or seasonal workers. 72 Table 3-50 Privately owned farm worker housing - kern county Number of Farm Months of
Name Workers Occupation/Year
Bonanza Farms 12
Wheeler Highway 99 9 12
Wheeler Adobe 7
Paramount 27 5
Paramount Belridge 28
Opal Frye 15 12
Westfarmers 8
Cauzza 7 12
Jimmie Icardo 12
Spring Farms 6 12
Belridge Drilling 8 12
San Emigdio 5 12
GVC 37 72 7-10
GVC 23B 120 7-10
GVC 10A = 7-10
GVC 10B 90 7-10
Kovacevich Clark 15 6-8
Kovacevich Hildebrand 45 6-8
Total 474
Source: Kern County Regional Housing Allocation
Plan, May 2001
Publicly-Owned Year-Round Farmworker Housing. Public housing for farmworkers has been subsidized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural Development (USDA-RD) and was developed to provide housing for persons with a minimum annual income of $5,753 from farm labor. As shown in Table 30, HACK owns and/or manages eight year-round developments of this type, located in Delano, Shafter, Arvin, Bakersfield, Wasco and Lamont/Weedpatch.
As presented in Table 3-51 there are 10(ten) year-round farmworker housing developments with 729 units and two seasonal housing developments with 172 units. 73 Table 3-51: Publicly Owned Farm Worker Housing - Kern County Name Location Number of
Units
Year-Round Housing
Almond Village Lost Hills 81
Sun Garden Village Arvin 48
International Village Delano 50
Shafter Shafter 99
Beckes Street Apartments Wasco 57
Lamont H.R. Olson Homes Lamont 50
Ruben J. Blunt Village Lamont/Weedpatc 50
h
Casa del Valle Delano 35
Greenfield Homes Bakersfield
Rosaleda Wasco 224
Migrant Seasonal Housing
North Shafter Farm Labor Center Shafter 84
#5
Arvin Farm Labor Center #26 Lamont/Weedpatch 88
Source: https://kernha.org/farm-worker-housing-locations/ Migrant Seasonal Farm Worker Housing (Labor Centers).
Under contract with HCD, HACK operates a total of 172 seasonal farm labor units in two migrant housing centers. The centers are open for approximately six months each year, from April to October. Residents must be seasonal farm laborers whose permanent residence is at least 50 miles away from the centers. The North Shafter Farm Labor Center #5 is located in the City of Shafter and includes 84 units. The Arvin Farm Labor Center #26 is located approximately five miles west of Arvin and has 88 units available for migrant farm workers.
There is no agriculture within the City of Maricopa at present. However, there is extensive farming activity east of Maricopa on an area known as Maricopa Flats as well as 20 miles west of the city in the unincorporated communities of Cuyama and New Cuyama. Because of this activity, farmworkers constitute part of the area's population. Table 3-54 indicates that 154 persons (21.4 percent) of Maricopa's residents are employed in the "agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, and mining" industries in the Maricopa area.
At present, there are no obvious barriers to farmworker housing in Maricopa. However, it is uncertain as to whether the city's zoning code is consistent with California law regarding farmworker housing. This being the case, the city will review its zoning code to assure compliance and to initiate amendments if necessary. See Program AP-05. 74