52 • Zones identified as appropriate for emergency shelters should also allow residential or other suitable uses for housing based on their physical attributes and proximity to transit and other services.
• Standards for emergency shelters must be objective.
• Local governments should maintain the capacity to meet the need for shelters throughout the eight-year cycle of the housing element.
Title 17 of the McFarland Municipal Code addresses emergency shelters in multiple sections. Section
17.04.282 - Emergency shelters - of the Code states generally that:
“Emergency shelter (per Health and Safety Code 50801): housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”
Then Chapter 17.134 covers “Development Standards” in general. Close examination of this chapter of the Code reveals the following:
1. Section 17.134.010 on “Purpose and Application” identifies a list of circumstances to which the design standards apply. The list does not expressly include emergency shelters but refers generally to “all multifamily development in the medium density residential (R-2), high density residential (R-3), residential professional (RP), professional office (C-O), neighborhood commercial (C-1), commercial (C-2), limited manufacturing (M-1) light manufacturing (M-2) and general manufacturing (M-3) zone districts, and precise development (P-D) district except as otherwise provided in this chapter.”
2. Section 17.134.042 on “Development Standards—Emergency Shelters” details standards specific to emergency shelters. These conform with SB 2 and AB 2339 in as far as the City’s code addresses issues related to the following:
• Occupancy ~ no more than twenty beds and no more than twenty people per night. • Parking ~ one vehicle parking space for every five beds. • Lighting ~ adequate exterior lighting to assure security, confining direct rays onto the premises and away from adjacent structures, and being of intensity that is compatible with the neighborhood.
• Waiting and Intake Area ~ a minimum of ten square feet per bed and should be screened from the public right-of-way by an opaque wall or fence. • Support Facilities ~ common facilities for the exclusive use of the residents for cooking, dining, recreation, laundry facilities, counseling or referral services • On-site Staff ~ at least one manager during all hours of operation of the facility who does not use the shelter's beds or other services and who resides off-site. • Concentration of Uses ~ no more than one emergency shelter shall be permitted within a radius of three hundred feet from another emergency shelter.
Length of Stay ~ a shelter resident shall stay no more than ninety days (cumulative not consecutive) in a three hundred sixty-five-day period. Extensions up to a total of one hundred eighty days in a three hundred sixty-five-day period may be provided if no alternative housing is available.
Table 4-4 reveals that the City's Zoning Code lists Emergency Shelters as a permitted use by right within the C-2 zone, however supportive housing is allowed by right in all residential zones. “By right” means the shelters would not require conditional use permits. Program 1.6 in the Housing Element requires
53 the City to modify the zoning code to permit emergency shelters in zones where other residential uses are permitted in order to meet SB 2 and AB 2339 requirements.
There are two shelter Listings near McFarland. Both are in Bakersfield, approximately 25 miles to the south. The Shelter Plus Care (S+C) and the Transitional Housing Center provide rental assistance for hard-to-serve homeless persons with disabilities in connection with supportive services or temporary housing to help families stabilize and obtain permanent housing.
4.1.1.3.2 Low-Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC)
A Low-Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) is a temporary, service-enriched shelter that helps homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing with little or no barriers to entry. In that respect it projects a "Housing First," attitude to help persons and families in distress in advance of resolving the mitigating circumstances. There is no designated location for emergency shelter during natural disasters. Close examination of the Municipal Code confirms that McFarland has not faced the need for emergency shelters for individuals in the past given that it has hardly any homeless population.
However, the Code needs to make provisions for such other low-barrier circumstances that might need emergency shelters for victims of spousal abuse, child abuse, and sudden, catastrophic economic situations.
The City’s Municipal Code allows, supports, and encourages a diverse range of housing types. While this analysis did not identify constraints to LBNCs, zoning regulations should define LBCNs as a permitted use in districts that permit housing to comply with AB 101.This housing element adds programs to allow emergency shelters in all zones that permit housing without requirements for design review permits and discretionary actions as the design review decision-making criteria.
4.1.1.3.3 Permanent Supportive Housing: Residential Care Facilities and Group Homes Residential care facilities include any family home, group home, or rehabilitation facility that provides non-medical care to persons in need of such personal services that are essential for daily living as protection, supervision, assistance, guidance, or training. State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 1267.8, 1566.3, and 1568.08) requires local governments to treat licensed group homes and residential care facilities with six or fewer residents the same as single-family uses. Furthermore, local governments must allow licensed residential care facilities in any area zoned for residential use and may not require licensed residential care facilities of six or fewer persons to obtain conditional use permits or variances that are not required of other family dwellings. Supportive housing is permitted in all residential zones by right as well as in C-2 zones.
Although group homes operating as single-family residences that provide licensable services to more than six residents may be subject to conditional use or other discretionary approval processes, the State recommends that local governments provide flexible and efficient reasonable accommodations in these permitting processes. This means that some requests for exceptions to permitting processes should be resolved through reasonable accommodation procedures instead of conditional use procedures. In addition, any substantive requirements for these group homes must still comply with the local government’s obligations to remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, affirmatively support it, and prevent discrimination against it.
The Municipal Code requires group homes of seven or more persons to receive a conditional use permit (CUP) and be treated like “employee housing”. According to Table 4-4, employee housing (including farmworker housing) is permitted in R-4 districts. Thus, housing for group homes of seven or more people in a unit is treated as any other multifamily housing unit in the City. Although group homes
54 operating as single-family residences that provide licensable services to more than six residents may be subject to conditional use or other discretionary approval processes, the State recommends that local governments provide flexible and efficient reasonable accommodations in these permitting processes. This means that some requests for exceptions to permitting processes should be resolved through reasonable accommodation procedures instead of conditional use procedures. In addition, any substantive requirements for these group homes must still comply with the local government’s obligations to remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, affirmatively support it, and prevent discrimination against it. Program 1.2 is modified to address group homes of 7 or more people.
Program 4.7 requires the City to offer reasonable accommodations in its permitting processes for group homes of 7 or more people.
This housing element adds programs (e.g., Prg-4.5) to allow supportive housing in all other zones that permit housing without requirements for design review permits and discretionary actions as the design review decision-making criteria.
4.1.1.3.4 Farmworker and Employee Housing
Similar to the requirement for transitional and supportive housing, the Health and Safety Code (Section 17021.5) requires that local jurisdictions treat employee housing for six persons or fewer the same as other housing types permitted in each zoning district. The City complies with the Employee Housing Act (Government Code Sections 17021.5). While the City’s zoning regulations do not explicitly refer to employee housing, they neither restrict unrelated individuals from sharing a home nor specify occupancy standards that apply specifically to unrelated adults. Section 17.96.020 identifies “housing for agricultural workers” as a permitted use in agricultural zones. Farmworker housing is also allowed by right in all R-4 zones. They may be constructed to the standards of multifamily housing units, singlerate occupancy units, or dormitories as needed in McFarland. Farmworker (or employee) housing for six or fewer employees should be treated as single-family housing and should be allowed by right in all zones. Housing for seven or more employees in a unit should be treated as any other multifamily housing unit in McFarland. The Housing Element includes Programs (e.g., Prg-4.6) to facilitate the development of multi-family housing in McFarland to serve employees working in the agricultural and other sectors.
Also, Section 17021.6 and Section 17021.8 of the Health and Safety Code have statutory requirements for employee housing as follows:
• Section 17021.6 of the Code requires that employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds are permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses (not multifamily) in zones that allow agricultural uses.
• Section 17021.8 of the Code requires that eligible agricultural employee housing development be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process and not be subject to a conditional use permit (CUP).
Program 4.8 requires the City to update its municipal code by 2025 to address and comply with these two additional key statutory requirements in Section 17021.6 and Section 17021.8.
4.1.1.3.5 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations in the form of modifications or exceptions in zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The
55 Building Code adopted by the City of McFarland incorporates accessibility standards contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
Adherence to zoning and development standards in the City's Zoning Code can present a potential constraint on the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. Such standards do not pose a major constraint for new construction or redevelopment on large parcels because there is typically ample design flexibility to include accommodations for persons with disabilities. However, for redevelopment or retrofitting of existing buildings on smaller lots, setback requirements may conflict with the provision of accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Programs in the Housing Element call for modification of zoning standards short of a variance to provide for accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Notwithstanding constraints related to zoning and development standards, the City strives to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities in the enforcement of building codes and issuance of building permits. The City takes special needs into consideration and allows for adjustment of specification if requested. The City may accept changes due to practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in enforcing the Code. In addition, the zoning code (17.158.020 et seq) makes provisions to reasonably accommodate accessibility needs. The code states the following:
“It is the city's policies to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable regulations and procedures to ensure equal access to housing and to facilitate the development of housing for individuals with disabilities.”
And continues to define reasonable accommodation as follows:
"Reasonable accommodation" means any request by, or on behalf of, a disabled person for a reasonable deviation from the city's strict application of its land use or building regulations as set forth in this code, in order for such disabled person to use and enjoy a dwelling.
As part of these provisions, the City provides information to all interested parties regarding accommodations in zoning, permit processes, and application of building codes for persons with disabilities.
Compliance with accessibility standards contained in the Building Code could increase the cost of housing production and can also impact viability in the rehabilitation of older properties that need to be brought up to code. However, these regulations provide minimum standards that require compliance to assure the development of safe and accessible housing. In addition to providing disabled access in new construction projects, McFarland also provides funding for retrofitting existing rental and owner-occupied housing for ADA access under the City's Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program.
4.1.1.3.6 Single Room Occupancy
A single room occupancy facility (SRO) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as “a cluster of seven or more units of weekly or longer tenancy providing sleeping or living facilities, in which sanitary facilities may be provided within the units, and cooking facilities may be shared.” This use requires a conditional use permit in the C-2 zones. It is only subject to those development and managementstandards that apply to residential development within the same zone. The Housing Element includes programs to facilitate the development of single room occupancy units in McFarland.
56 4.1.1.3.7 Mobile and Manufactured Homes
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.3, the location and permit process for manufactured housing should be regulated in the same manner as a conventional or stick-built structure. Specifically, Government Code Section 65852.3(a) requires that except for architectural requirements, a local government should only subject manufactured homes (also called mobile homes) to the same development standards as a conventional single-family residential dwelling on the same lot including, but not limited to, requirements for building setback, side and rear yard, enclosures, access, vehicle parking, aesthetics, and minimum square footage. Mobile and manufactured homes are conditionally permitted uses in all residential zones in McFarland as well as Mobile Home One Family zones (M-H), Mobile Home Subdivision zones (M-S), and Mobile Park zones (M-P). It is noteworthy that individual manufactured homes should be permitted in all residential zone districts, however, groups of new manufactured homes (referred to as mobile home parks) require the same approval and conditional use permits as groups of stick-built homes in a conventional PUD. Additionally, groups of manufactured homes are limited to M-H, M-S, and M-P zones. Program 1.11 requires the City to amend the zoning ordinance to remove constraint on development of manufactured housing.
4.1.1.4 Standard Parking and Street Requirements
4.1.1.4.1 Parking Standards
Excessive parking standards can pose a significant constraint to housing development by increasing development costs and reducing the potential land availability for project amenities or additional units.
Many parking standards do not reflect actual parking demand. Table 4-5 lists the parking standards in the McFarland Zoning Code. These requirements are generally not a development constraint and are comparable to those in jurisdictions throughout the State of California.
Table 4-5: Parking Space & Street Width Standards
Type of Use Requirement
R-S 2
E 2
R-1 2
R-1C 2
R-2 2
R-3 1.5
R-4 1.5
*Parking requirement may be reduced as part of Planned Residential Development Source: City of McFarland, Zoning Ordinance, Title 17; City of McFarland, 2015 Housing Element Update, Table 35 Parking requirements may be reduced in a Planned Residential Development. There are no other formal provisions for parking reductions in areas where extra parking is unnecessary and uneconomical. The Housing Element includes programs to reduce parking requirements for mixed use commercial and residential units downtown and where parking is seen as onerous.
57 4.1.1.4.2 Street Standards
The City also applies street standards that compare to those in jurisdictions throughout the state. These requirements are generally not a development constraint.
4.1.1.4.3 Curbs, Gutters, and Sidewalks
The City’s police power and the California Subdivision Map Act (Section 66410 et seq.) give it authority to require public improvements in tandem with housing development activities. The City of McFarland therefore requires for new subdivisions such improvements as full street rights-of-way (including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks) as well as extension of utilitiesto serve the homes. Depending on circumstances at a site, additional site improvements may include drainage structures to manage storm water, retaining walls, sound walls to reduce noise impacts, or traffic control devices.
Requirements for site improvements fall generally into the two categories termed “on-site” and “offsite” improvements. On-site improvements refer to those within the project site or parcel and may include paving, parking spaces, landscaping, automatic irrigation, etc. Off-site improvements refer to those that occur outside the project site but have direct bearing on site activities and may include sidewalks, curbs and gutters, paved streets, fire hydrants, extensions of utilities, and so on in conformity with the City’s subdivision improvement standards. The City’s ordinance states the following:
“Standards shall be those standards adopted by the city council, and any amendments to those standards as may be adopted from time to time. The city clerk shall make these standards available to the public. Copies of these standards may be obtained at City Hall, 401 Kern Avenue, during normal business hours.” (Ord. 170 §§ 5.00, 5.01, 1978) Specifications for the design and installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks aim at assuring consistency and safety throughout the City. The specifications are generally not development constraints, and compare to those in jurisdictions throughout the State, and typically include the following:
• Construct curbs and gutters separately from sidewalks. • Use Weakened Plane Joints for all joints, except expansion joints shall be placed in curbs, gutters, and sidewalks at BCR and ECR and around utility poles located in sidewalk areas. • Construct Weakened Plane Joints at regular intervals, up to 10 feet for walks and up to 20 feet for gutters.
• Align sidewalk and curb joints.
• Curb and gutter widths are generally 24 inches.
• Sidewalk widths should be 4 to 6 feet.
• Curbs and gutters can be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete or of Asphalt Concrete. • Anchor curbs with dowels or epoxy.
• Measure the grade line at the curb line at top of curb; round all exposed corners on PCC curbs and gutters by half an inch and make gutters integral with the curb unless otherwise specified.
4.1.1.5 Other Potential Governmental Constraints
Policies and programs in the City’s General Plan and Housing Element have maintained the collection of affordable housing development fees for large developments. This Housing Element will continue to retain the pertinent policy and associated programs which require large new housing projects that received an increase in allowable density through a general plan amendment, rezoning, or specific plan
58 to pay a fee as determined by City Council into an affordable housing trust fund. The City Council may waive the fee if it has determined that the project provides enough lower income housing units commensurate with that which the collection of the fee would generate. The applicant seeking a waiver would request this in the development approval process and present the rationale for how the subject project meets the criteria for the waiver. Additionally housing developments of 15 or more units are required to provide 15 percent to 20 percent affordable units. The affordable housing and fee requirements are not expected to present a significant constraint on projects since the economic benefit of increased units would be larger than the cost of complying with the policy. Furthermore, for projects with affordable housing components that would equal or exceed the value of the calculated fee, the City Council could waive the fee.
4.1.1.5.1 Building Codes
For the sake of continuity, McFarland adopts the same building code as used by Kern County Building Department. Both are based on the California Building Code (CBC), which determines the minimum residential construction requirements for all of California. There are no local amendments to the State Building Code. The 2022 CBC promotes safe housing and is not considered a significant constraint to housing production as it is the minimum necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The City’s code (15.04.060) states:
“Ordinance No. G-8670 of the board of supervisors of the county of Kern, state of California which amends Chapters 17.04, 17.06, 17.08, 17.10, 17.12, 17.16, 17.20, 17.24, 17.26, 17.28,
17.32, 17.34, 17.36, 17.40, 17.44, 17.48, and 17.56 of the Ordinance Code of the county of Kern adopting the following uniform codes (or portions of same) is hereby incorporated by this reference into the building code of the City of McFarland: Building Regulations—General, Residential Code, Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, Mechanical Code, Housing Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, Existing Building Code, Grading Code, Fire Code, Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Dangerous Buildings Code, Building Relocation Code, Mobile Home and Accessory Structures, Floodplain Management Code, and Energy Code. All amendments and repealers of the foregoing chapters by the board of supervisors of the County of Kern hereinafter adopted by the board of supervisors shall be automatically incorporated herein without further action of the city council.”
McFarland is like most cities, which largely respond to code enforcement problems after receipt of complaints. The usual process begins with a field investigation following a complaint. The investigator assesses if the complaint is valid. The City responds through letters, phone calls, or site visits to serious violations that have implications for health and safety. The City encourages voluntary compliance. If compliance is not forthcoming, the City may take more aggressive action through the legal process.
The City's philosophy isto mitigate serious health or safety problems, but to allow the property owners reasonable time and flexibility to comply. The City attemptsto balance the need to ensure safe housing against the potential loss of affordable housing that might result from overly strict enforcement. There is no indication that code enforcement actions have unnecessarily restricted the use of older buildings or inhibited rehabilitation.
4.1.1.5.2 Building Heights
Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code states that buildings in R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts are not to exceed two- and one-half stories or 35 feet. Buildings in R-4 zones are not to exceed four stories or 45 feet.
59 The 2040 General Plan recommends mixed-use development near the downtown core and the increase in intensity of development for a more efficient way to develop the City. Consistent with the General Plan, this Housing Element includes Program 6-4 for an amendment to the zoning code to enable development of three-story and four-story structures in areas designated for multi-family housing as an avenue to produce more housing for the available acreage, reduce cost per unit, and make these types of units even more affordable. This is possible under the existing code under conditional use permits, but the amendment can make development of affordable units more attractive to developers especially where lot sizes are limited.
Building heights do vary depending on the design of the building and the use of the space. For residential structures, it is conceivable that a 35-foot height limit would easily allow for a two-story building but could also allow for a three-story building under careful customization. The following illustrations explain:
• Two-story scenario – The height of each story in a building is based on ceiling height, floor thickness, and building materials and averages about 14 feet. Therefore, a 35-foot height limit on buildings in a district would traditionally allow for up to a two-story building plus up to a 7- foot ridge height of its roof structure.
• Three-story scenario – However, the standards from the California Residential Code allow for ceiling heights as low as 7 feet while the California Building Code allows for ceiling heights as low as 7.5 feet. Assuming a floor thickness of 1.5 feet would peg the height of one story at 8.5 to 9 feet plus the height of the roof structure. This is consistent with the rule of thumb that the slab-to-slab height in residential buildings is typically in the range of 8 to 10 feet (or 2.4 to 3 meters). Therefore, a 35-foot height limit on a building could allow for up to a three-story building plus up to a 5-foot ridge height of its roof structure.
This Housing Element includes Program 6.9 for an amendment to the municipal code to drop the “2.5- story” restriction and enable development of three-story structures within the 35-foot height limit in R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts. The height limit is necessary to accommodate the capabilities of the equipment available to the City’s first responders during fire or other safety emergencies.
4.1.1.5.3 Code Enforcement Activities
Prior to 2021, the City did not establish the ability to track code enforcement complaints electronically.
From 2015 through 2018, the City sent a total of 139 paper copies of letters on code enforcement to residents. The Code Enforcement Division was reactive during those years and remained so in 2019 and 2020 due to COVID-19. In 2017, the City employed a full-time code enforcer to make enforcement activities proactive. Electronic records dating from March 2021 through March 2023 indicate a total of 420 enforcement activities within two year, at approximately 210 enforcement activities per calendar year. Table 4-6 is a summary of frequency of code enforcement activities by type.
By far the single most frequent set of complaints related to nuisance. At nearly 60 percent of the cases, the nuisances referred to such property maintenance issues as overgrown trees, shrubs, or lawns, disused vehicles or appliances in alley ways, and weed abatement. It is noteworthy that building code violations were minimal at approximately 1.5 percent of all cases. Similarly, zoning related cases were relatively infrequent, at 10 percent of all cases.
60 All indications are that McFarland’s proactive code enforcement efforts have fostered compliance among the population. And it has resulted in the maintenance and improvements to housing and neighborhoods.
Table 4-6: Summary of Code Enforcement Activities – McFarland City, 2021-2023 Type of Code Enforcement Total Cases Percent of Cases
Animal Regulations 3 0.7%
Business licenses 3 0.7%
Graffiti 49 11.7%
Not Specified 2 0.5%
Property Maintenance - Nuisances 246 58.6%
Public Nuisance 22 5.2%
Signs 3 0.7%
Substandard Housing 7 1.7%
Uniform Building Code Violations 3 0.7%
Water Violations 2 0.5%
Weed Abatement 37 8.8%
Zoning 43 10.2%
Grand Total 420 100.0%
Source: City of McFarland Building Department, 2023
4.1.2 Residential Development Processing and Permit Procedures The time that processing and permit procedures add to the development process can be a constraint to the production and improvement of housing. Multiple levels of reviews and discretionary review requirements as well as costly conditions of approval can create uncertainty in the development process, increase the overall financial risk assumed by the developer, and increase the final cost of housing. In recognition of this potential drawback, the City has streamlined its procedures to simplify the application process and remove obstacles to housing development. For instance, the City has posted most information and moved many service functions on-line to make it easier for applicants to access information, submit applications and plans, track the progress of applications remotely, and receive approvals online.
The time required to review, process, and permit applications and ultimately the level required and cost involved depend on the scope of the project and the type of application. Staff can review and approve small projects without a public hearing. Large projects, like planned unit developments or major multi-family housing developments, would typically require hearings at the design review board and Planning Commission. Recent changes to State law limit the City’s ability to require such hearings as well asthe City’s discretion in denying projects that are consistent with adopted plans and standards.
4.1.2.1 Permit Types
The Municipal Code identifies the procedures, components for review, as well as findings required for approval. The City’s guidelines indicate to applicants the City’s expectations for new projects while providing standards for staff, review boards, and the Planning Commission in evaluating projects. The main permit types are the following:
61 Administrative Design Review permits – These obtain approval from the Community Development Director or designated staff. These permits generally do not require a public hearing, although the Community Development Director may refer an application to the Design Review Board for recommendations if deemed necessary. Typical projects requiring such referrals are single-story new homes on flag lots, conversion of single family residences to duplexes, and additions that include a bedroom or are over 500 square feet in hillside areas.
Minor Design Review permits – These obtain zoning approval following a public hearing. The Community Development Director may refer an application to the Design Review Board following findings from the zoning review. Example projects include large multi-family and second story additions, new two-story homes and duplexes, and additions of over 500 square feet in hillside areas.
Major Design Review permits – These obtain approval from the Planning Commission in a public hearing, typically following a recommendation from the Design Review Board. The applicant can appeal the action of the Commission to the City Council. Hillside development, new residences near ridgelines, and large multi-family structures typically require a Major Design Review.
Applications for design review permits obtain approval upon the determination that the project design meets the following conditions:
• It is consistent with the general plan and zoning code; • It is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located; • It minimizes adverse environmental impacts; and
• It will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4.1.2.2 Permit Process
Planning permits for development generally require the completion of an application form, payment of fees, preparation of a written statement or narrative that describes the project with photographs, a site plan, project data, floor plans, roof plans, landscape plans, and elevations or sections as the case may be. Depending on location and scope, a large project may also require grading plans, boundary surveys, historic resource evaluations, geotechnical and soils reports, arborist reports, and local traffic assessments. Prior to receiving a building permit, projects to build new housing units would typically require an environmental and design review permit.
4.1.2.3 Levels of Review
There are various levels of review and processing of residential development applications, depending on the size and complexity of the development. The Planning Commission is involved in making decisions about all large, discretionary development projects. City staff process small projects that do not include rezoning or general plan amendment, subdivision of land, conditional use permit, or a variance via “over the counter” zoning clearance. The City also has a design review process, which may be required for residential developments, depending on the scope and location of the proposed development.
City staff review all planning permit applications for completeness. Discretionary actions (such as rezoning, tract maps, and conditional use permits) undergo environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Once the application is deemed complete, staff review zoning clearances for conformity with the Zoning Code and General Plan. If the project is in conformity with the Zoning Code and General Plan, staff issues zoning clearance, and the applicant can apply for
62 and obtain a building permit. In practice, most Planning applications undergo concurrent Planning Department review and Building Department plan check, such that the applicant is often able to obtain a building permit with the zoning clearance.
4.1.2.4 Processing Time and Requests for Lesser Densities The time it takes to get through the entitlement and permitting process could pose a potential constraint, but City staff strive to assist applicants during the process. The City's permit processing for both discretionary permits and ministerial permits is efficient with no backlog of cases. Table 4-7 lists typical permit processing times. As noted, a typical single-family residential unit takes on average about 2 business days to process. A typical multi-family residential development requires a building plan review and engineering review as well as CEQA review and has an average processing time of 1 to 2 months. Therefore, development processing procedures in McFarland do not present a significant constraint to housing production. The 2040 General Plan and this Housing Element include programs (e.g., Programs 1.3, 4.5, and 4.6) to streamline the permitting process in order to speed up housing development and delivery.
Overall, the processing and permitting timeline between planning and building departments can vary and sometimes takes days, or weeks, or months depending on the complexity and dimension of the project. A rough compilation of related data revealed that the biggest factor in the total turnaround time was the applicant’s promptness in responding to comments. Recent data revealed the following:
The general processing timeline for a single-family residential project between 2021-2024: On average, the total time from applicant’s submittal to the City notifying the applicant of permit readiness, was 60 days. Of those 60 days, up to 2 days were allotted to the Planning Department to complete a zoning check-off and plan check. 10 of the 60 days was allotted to the Building Department to complete plan check. The majority of time consumed was the turn-around time the applicant took to make corrections.
The discretionary timeline between 2021-2024: On average, the date the application was deemed approved ranged from 90 days to 120 days. This included the time for the Planning Department to perform plan check, Building Department and Engineers (if necessary) to review, and for Planning Commission or City Council to review and approve. A majority of the residential permitting processes are handled in-house and only go through Planning and Building Department for review. Reviews such as rezoning, tract maps, and conditional use permits, require discretionary action, but turn-around time is quite fast as special hearings, if necessary, may be scheduled to ensure that the residential project is not delayed.
During the 5th Cycle, there were no requests from project applicants to develop at densities below those zoned or identified in the sites inventory. Recent development activity reflects the opposite tendency whereby developers (e.g., the Milicic property) in pre-zoning for proposed development areas deliberately request for a combination of single and multi-family units within areas originally designated for low-density.
63 Table 4-7: Typical Permit Processing Time Requirements – McFarland City, 2019 Type of Approval or Permit
Single Family
(Subdivision)
Single Family
and MultiFamily (Less
than 5 units -
Infill)
Multi-Family
(5 or more
units) Subdivision
Site Plan Review X X
Building Plan and Review and Approval X X
Engineering Review and Approval X X
Zoning Consistency Approval
CEQA Review and Public Comment X X
Pre-Development Meeting X
Planning Commission Approval
Approval
Planning
Commission
Approval
City Council
Approval
Time Estimate 2 days 2-3 weeks 1-2 months 3-6 months
Source: City of McFarland, 2015 Housing Element Update, Table 33
4.1.2.5 SB 35 Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Procedures SB 35 was signed into law in 2017 and became effective on January 1, 2018. The bill amends Government Code Section 65913.4 to require local entities to streamline the approval of certain housing projects by providing a ministerial approval process, removing the requirement for CEQA analysis, and removing the requirement for discretionary entitlements. It allows qualifying development projects with certain minimum affordable housing guarantees and permanent supportive housing and navigation centers to move quickly through the local government review process and restricts the ability of local governments to reject such proposals.
The bill created a streamlined approval process for infill developments in localities that have failed to meet their regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). SB 35 requires that local jurisdictions that have not met their RHNA goals have a “by right” process for qualifying residential development near major transit stops. Eligible projects must include two or more dwelling units, provide certain levels of affordable housing, and pay prevailing wages for construction. SB 35 applications are also eligible for streamlined processing and are not subject to CEQA review or a public hearing with a review board. To qualify for SB 35 approval, a project must set aside ten percent or more of its units for lower income households.
The City has streamlined its procedures to simplify the application process and remove obstacles to housing development in general. For instance, when processing a request to retrofit homes for accessibility, the procedure is the same as for any home improvement and its handling depends on the scope of the change. The City does not impose special permit procedures or requirements that could impede the retrofitting of homes for accessibility and for meeting ADA requirements. Instead, the City has a reasonable accommodation procedure that allows a disabled person, or a representative of a disabled person to request relief from the strict application of the land use or building regulations as set forth in the Code, in order for such disabled person to use a dwelling. City officials are not aware of any instances in which an applicant experienced delays or rejection of a retrofit proposal for
64 accessibility to persons with disabilities. Program 1.10 of this housing element requires the City to modify the zoning code to expressly address requirements of SB 35.
4.1.2.6 SB 330 The Housing Crisis Act (HCA) Procedures
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (HCA), commonly known as Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) became State law in October 2019 to respond to the California housing crisis. SB 330 is based on the notion that jurisdictions have in place the planning for much of the housing need. However, so much of the housing is not being built and developers assert the lack of housing production is due to growing regulatory requirements, permit processing delays, and excessive impact and service fees.
SB 330 prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting new laws that would effectively (a) reduce the legal limit on new housing within their borders and (b) delay new housing via administrative or other regulatory barriers. Through its expiration in 2030, SB 330 is to achieve the following:
• Prevent local governments from downzoning unless they upzone an equivalent amount elsewhere within their boundaries
• Suspend the enactment of local downzoning and housing construction moratoriums • Require timely processing of housing permits that follow zoning rules • Ensure the demolition of housing does not result in a net loss of units • Postpone requirements for voter approval of zoning and general plan changes • Require resettlement benefits and first right of refusal in new units or compensation for rehousing for renters who may be displaced.
Ultimately therefore, the HCA aims to achieve the following:
1. Increase residential unit development;
2. Protect existing housing inventory; and
3. Expedite permit processing.
The HCA does not apply to housing development projects located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Projects that meet the following criteria are eligible for benefits under SB 330 [Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(2)]:
• Residential projects (excluding hotels, assisted living, or other commercial dwelling units).
Single-family, Accessory and/or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units are excluded from dwelling unit count;
• Mixed-use development consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least twothirds of the square footage of the project designated for residential use (not including hotels, assisted living, or other commercial dwelling units);
• Transitional Housing or Supportive Housing projects.
Program 1.10 of this housing element requires the City to modify the zoning code to expressly address the streamline and other requirements of SB 35 and SB 330.
65 4.1.2.7 Environmental Clearance
The City complies with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for state and local government agencies to inform decision makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects and to reduce those environmental impacts to the extent feasible. Thus CEQA requirements could pose constraints to housing projects under certain circumstances since environmental review can affect the duration of project approval and its cost. When applicable, environmental clearance is required to assess the project’s impact and establish whether public services and facilities are adequate to accommodate increases in demand before any development permit is granted. Staff make the determination early in the process whether the project is exempt from CEQA or requires preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). CEQA determinations are made concurrently with initial processing once an application is deemed complete, so they can be reviewed by the approval authority concurrently with project entitlement. All CEQA determinations and required noticing is done within the timelines required by State law and in a manner consistent with the Permit Streamlining Act.
Many smaller projects are categorically exempt from CEQA, which means no environmental review is necessary. Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) and Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) are most commonly associated with projects on sites that require rezoning or General Plan Amendments, or that are located on hillside sites, in wetland or riparian areas, near important historic and/or archaeological resources, or in areas where natural hazards such as flooding and wildfire are present. CEQA mitigation requirements, such as special requirements for construction to avoid impacts to special status species, may add time and cost to the development process. Fees for the preparation of environmental impact reports also may be substantial, as they cover the City’s costs for contracting out the service.
Since 2015, many infill projects in McFarland fell under the CEQA CLASS 32 exemptions for infill projects. After adoption of the 2040 General Plan together with its program EIR, most project proposals which were not exempt tiered their environmental documentation off the General Plan EIR in the form of Negative Declarations (ND). For example, the Milicic development proposal took approximately three months to approve including a 30-day circulation period for the ND. Therefore, environmental clearance has not historically posed constraints to housing development in the City.
4.1.3 Development Fees
4.1.3.1 Assessment Fees
State law limits the charging of fees to process development permits to a reasonable cost of providing the service. The City and other public agencies charge various fees and assessments to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks, and infrastructure. Assessment of many of the fees depends on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefits to be derived. The three main types of development and permitting fees are:
1) Building fees
2) Planning fees
3) Land development engineering and encroachment permit fees The City updated user and regulatory fees in August 2021. The intent of this revision was to better ensure that the City collects enough funds to cover the staff costs of processing the applications. Many
66 of the City's discretionary permit application fees are actual costs based on deposits collected at time of application submittal. Most ministerial permits are one-time flat fees. Larger development projects may require a tract map or a conditional use permit, and some projects require rezoning or are planned residential developments. Table 4-8 includes the most common planning fees and Appendix D includes the complete schedule of fees. The City’s fees are not excessive and are lower than or equal to those levied in surrounding cities and thus do not present a significant obstacle to production or affordability of housing.
The City also requires development impact fees, which include all County and regional impact fees for infrastructure improvements. Table 4-8 lists possible impact fees for a single family development; larger projects may require additional impact fees.
The actual total fee per unit derives from all fees that are required for the project. Some fees may not be applicable to certain projects. Some fees are based on sliding scale for size of unit or number of units in multi-family projects. Typical fees range from $6,000 and up for a single-family unit to $22,000 for a multi-family project of seven units or more. The total fee depends on how many units are being built and if plan check fees for grading or other activities apply.
4.1.3.2 On-Site and Off-Site Improvements
In order to provide a safe and suitable environment for residential development, the City requires that certain public improvements be made. Each dwelling unit must connect to the City's water and sewer systems and project sites must properly capture and discharge runoff water into detention basins or storm drain systems. The City also requires that curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be placed along the frontage of every lot on which new construction or significant alteration is done. Table 4-8 lists water, sewer, and traffic impact fees. These and other site improvement costs are typical of all cities in California and do not impose a significant constraint on the development of housing in McFarland. The City does not impose any unusual requirements as conditions of approval for new development. City regulations generally intend to facilitate private development and new construction.
Table 4-8: Fees that Affect Housing Production – McFarland City, 2021 Type of Approval or Permit
Minimum fee Initial deposit
Fixed Fee or
Deposit for CostBased Fee
Zoning Clearance - Alterations/Additions
(Residential) $65 - Fixed
Zoning Clearance - New Construction (Single
Family Residential) $130 - Fixed
Zoning Clearance - New Construction (2-4
Residential Units) $195 - Fixed
Zoning Clearance - New Construction (5+
Residential Units) $520 - Fixed
Zoning Clearance - New Construction (NonResidential) $260 - Fixed Zoning Clearance - Alterations/Additions (NonResidential) $130 - Fixed CUP minor - within residential and open space
zones $520 $520 Deposit
CUP major - within all other zones $1,560 $4,680 Deposit
67 Type of Approval or Permit
Minimum fee Initial deposit
Fixed Fee or
Deposit for CostBased Fee
CUP minor - Amendment $520 $520 Deposit
CUP major - Amendment $780 $1,560 Deposit
Pre-Application Review $520 $520 Deposit
New Specific Plan/Master Plan/Development Plan - $9,750 Deposit Amendment Specific Plan/Master
Plan/Development Plan $3,900 $3,900 Deposit
Annexation and Pre-zoning $6,500 $9,750 Deposit
Development Agreement/Amendment/Annual
Review - $3,900 Deposit
Environmental Review - Categorical Exemption $200 - Fixed Environmental Review - Negative
Declaration/Initial Study $1,300 $5,460 Deposit
Environmental Review - Mitigated Negative
Declaration/Initial Study $4,160 $7,410 Deposit
Environmental Review -
EIR/Amendment/Addendum $5,200 $8,775 Deposit
Façade Change Review $195 - Fixed
General Plan Text/Map Amendment $4,500 $5,200 Deposit
Home Occupation Permit $65 - Fixed
Land Use Contracts - Create Preserve/New
Contract $1,040 $2,000 Deposit
Land Use Contracts - Cancellation $1,560 $2,000 Deposit Land Use Contracts - Non-Renewal $250 - Fixed
Tentative Parcel Map $3,120 $3,500 Deposit
Tentative Tract Map $4,160 $4,500 Deposit
Final Parcel Map $2,080 $2,500 Deposit
Final Tract Map $2,600 $3,000 Deposit
Technology Fee 5% - Fixed
Training Fee 5% - Fixed
Second Dwelling Unit Review $390 $390 Deposit
Encroachment Permit $200 Fixed
Plan Review 75% - -
Grading Permit
T&M, plus 15%
admin fee $1,500 Deposit
Development Impact*
Law Enforcement $545 - -
Park Development $2,218 - -
Government $1,706 - -
Sewer
$4398 - $5334
(depending on
location) - -
68 Type of Approval or Permit
Minimum fee Initial deposit
Fixed Fee or
Deposit for CostBased Fee
Water $3,920 - -
Traffic** $8,194 - -
*For single family dwelling
**A traffic study may be prepared for large residential projects Source: City of McFarland, User and Regulatory Fee Schedule, 2021; City of McFarland, 2015 Housing Element Update, Table 37 4.1.4 Regional Constraints
Regional constraints can result from policies of external jurisdictions that affect a community. In McFarland, regional constraints are possible from policies of Kern County or the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) if the City must follow those policies. The Kern LAFCO is a supra-local planning agency that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. McFarland is in the process of expanding City limits to accommodate future growth, a process which requires approval from its LAFCO. The 2040 General Plan accounts for this additional land to accommodate growth to 2040 and beyond. The inability to annex this land would pose a significant regional constraint in the long term. Chapter 3 has additional details on availability of land in McFarland for housing.
4.1.5 Accessory Dwelling Units
The old Section 17.12.090 of the McFarland Municipal Code titled “Secondary Units”, which included regulations on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), is replaced with a new ADU ordinance of February 2024. The language has now been updated to the more modern term, “Accessory Dwelling Units” as utilized in State law (Government Code Section 65852.2). This update is consistent with the 2040 General Plan requiring the adoption of an updated Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance as permitted by State law (Government Code Section 65852.2) which grants local agencies the ability to allow ADUs in single and multi-family zones. The new ordinance expands the zones that allow ADUs from just R-1 previously to all parcels that (a) are zoned to allow single-family residential, multi-family residential, or mixed uses; and (b) include an existing or proposed primary dwelling.
The 2024 update allows accessory dwelling units (ADU) and Junior ADUs (JADU) through ministerial review in all residential districts, subject to certain requirements and standards, which include:
• An attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as a primary dwelling unit. • An ADU may be an efficiency unit (as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code), a manufactured home (as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code Rev: 01-28- 2019), or a multi-room permanent structure.
• The minimum total square footage of the accessory dwelling unit shall be 150 square feet (suitable for an efficiency unit) and the maximum size shall be no more than 1,200 square feet. • “Junior ADU” means a unit which is no more than 500 square feet.
69 • ADU implementation involves such usual requirements for new housing as filing an application with the planning department for ministerial approval, providing site plan, floor plans, elevations, and cross sections that are drawn to scale, and payment of application fees in the City’s most current schedule of fees.
• ADUs are required to pay any applicable growth mitigation fees in effect at the time a zoning clearance and building permit are requested.
• All lots that are zoned for a single-family dwelling (R-1, R-1C, R-S, E) and have one single family dwelling unit or are vacant with approved plans for the construction of a single-family dwelling unit can have one (1) JADU together with either one (1) attached ADU or one (1) detached ADU. • All lots that are zoned for multi-family dwellings (R-2, R-3, R-4) and include existing or proposed plan for multi-family dwellings can have (a) at least one (1) ADU within portions of existing multi-family structures from the conversion of non-livable areas so long as it does not exceed 25 percent of the total number of existing dwelling units; or (b) not more than two (2) detached ADUs from conversion of existing accessory structures and/or new construction. • Besides the required parking for the primary dwelling unit, there should be one parking space per ADU except that tandem parking is allowed for ADUs as stated in Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(I)(D)(x) if the driveway is sufficiently long to accommodate vehicles without any encroachment on a sidewalk or street.
• The code allows rental of ADUs for a minimum of 30 days. • The unit may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit.
Certain provisions of the Code promote affordability thereby reducing governmental constraints and ultimately cost on the implementation of ADUs. These include fees related to utility connections and access as well as reduced parking requirements as follows:
• ADUs are not new residential uses for the purpose of calculating utility connection fees or capacity charges for water and sewer service. ADUs within existing residence e.g., basement) or an existing accessory structure (e.g., converted garage) do not need to install new or separate utility connections or pay related connection fees or capacity charges. • New attached and detached accessory dwelling units, however, may pay connection fees or capacity charges that are proportionate to the burden of the unit on the water or sewer system based on the size of the unit or the number of plumbing fixtures. • Two-story detached ADUs are allowed but must limit the major access to stairs, decks, entry doors, and windows to the interior of the lot or an alley. • Only one (1) curb cut is permitted per parcel and no additional driveways or access points should be created to accommodate the accessory or main dwelling unit. • Access to a first story ADU or ADA accessible ramp may be permitted in the front of the primary dwelling.
ADU parking is not required in instances where the ADU is: (a) located within one-half mile of public transit; (b) located within an architecturally or historically significant district that may be in existence at the time a zoning clearance or building permit for an ADU is requested; (c) part of the existing single
70 family residence, or an existing accessory structure; (d) where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant(s) of the ADU; and (e) where a car share vehicle is available within one (1) block of the ADU.
Recent updates to ADU requirements in the Municipal Code have not posed constraints to ADU production. ADU activity in McFarland during the 5th Cycle was tepid with five completed units. For this reason, ADU production is not included in the projection of housing to meet the City’s RHNA.
However, the anticipation is for the updated ADU ordinance to open up opportunities for its production to serve households of multiple income groups.
4.2 Non-Governmental Constraints
Non-governmental constraints are primarily market-driven and generally outside direct government control. However, local governments can influence and offset negative impacts of non-governmental constraints through responsive programs and policies. Analyzing specific housing cost components including the availability of financing, cost of land, and construction costs assists a local government in developing and implementing housing and land-use programs that respond to prevailing conditions.
Factors that influence the cost of new housing may be beyond a locality's control, yet municipalities can create such essential preconditions as favorable zoning and development standards as well as fasttrack permit processing among others to facilitate development of a variety of housing types at affordable levels. For instance, Ordinance. No. 030-2013, § 1, 4-11-13 17.04.290 expanded the definition of “Family” as follows:
"Family" means an individual, or two or more persons related by blood or marriage or legal adoption living together in a dwelling unit or six or fewer related or unrelated persons living together.”
This has facilitated the qualification of non-family households to obtain affordable and assisted housing. This is particularly helpful when persons with disabilities need to join others who they may not relate to by blood in shared living arrangements. However, this definition still limits the number of unrelated persons living together. To conform with State requirements, a new program 4.9 is added to modify the definition of “family” in the municipal code to “one or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.”
4.2.1 Fiscal Constraints
Many of the constraints to new (and especially affordable) housing production stem from insufficient funding, which is a common problem throughout the State, but particularly in McFarland. Proposition 13 limits the increase of property assessments to two percent per year, unless the property is sold, in which case it is reassessed at its selling price. Property taxes comprise approximately 42 percent of the City's total tax revenue while in other California cities this percentage is as low as 25 percent.
Furthermore, the City reported a decrease in both sales and property tax in the past fiscal year. As a result of this level of dependency on property taxes, the City admits having a difficult time maintaining needed services. This makes the City less able to use direct fiscal means to promote housing production.
4.2.1.1 Availability of Financing
The availability of financing affects a household's ability to purchase a home or improve it. For example, in McFarland, it can be difficult for very low, low, and moderate-income first-time homebuyers to acquire enough savings and income to pay for down payment, closing costs, monthly mortgage, and
71 tax and insurance premiums. It can also be challenging for households in these income groups to rehabilitate their homes. However, City programs to assist first-time homebuyers and homeowners looking to rehabilitate their homes as well as a few private financing and government assistance programs are available to the community as discussed in Chapter 3 on Resources.
4.2.1.2 Cost of Land
The cost of land varies and influences the cost of housing production. Cost factors include location, the market value of land as reflected in its unit price per square foot, the intended use (whether residential or commercial) reflected in its zoning designation, the number of proposed units or density of development permitted on the site, and the size of the parcel. Land that is conveniently located in a desirable area that is zoned for residential or commercial uses will likely tend to be more valuable and thus more expensive than a remote piece of land that is zoned for agricultural uses.
There have not been many recent land sales in the McFarland area so it is hard to determine the cost of vacant land with no entitlements and vacant land with entitlements. Therefore, the City is utilizing land costs in the northwest Bakersfield area. The average cost of vacant land without entitlements in 2015 was $40,091 with a maximum of $55,082 per acre and a minimum of $25,499 per acre. The cost for vacant land with entitlements in 2015 was considerably higher with an average cost of $94,741 per acre with a maximum of $118,256 per acre and a minimum of $69,961 per acre. There was 1 active subdivision in McFarland that had lots priced an average of $30,000 while in the northwest Bakersfield area the average lot price was $32,476 in 2015. Despite price volatility in the real estate market in recent years, it is anticipated that the price of land would remain in the same ballpark when adjusted to 2015 dollars.
4.2.1.3 Site Improvement Costs
Non-governmental site improvement costs may include the cost of providing access to the site, clearing the site, and grading building pad areas. In the case of a subdivision, such costs may also include major improvements like building roads and installing new infrastructure. As with land costs, multiple factors such as site topography and proximity to established roads, sewer lines, and water lines can affect site improvement costs. Site improvement costs typically also include engineering and other technical assistance costs to assure construction of the development according to established codes and standards. Site costs have not been extraordinary in the City compared to its neighbors.
4.2.1.4 Cost of Construction
Construction costs do vary widely depending on the environmental conditions and scale of development. Important determinants of construction costs include the amenities built into the unit, materials used, the prevailing labor rate, and any unusual project site conditions that require special construction measures. The unit construction cost for multiple family residences such as apartments is generally lower than single-family residences. The average construction cost of a good quality multifamily apartment averaged approximately $65 to $75 per square foot in 2015. The 81 units of new affordable apartments at the Sherwood Avenue Family Apartments cost a total of $28,021,180. This converts to averages of $345,940 per unit and $301 per square foot. For a total of 93,094 square feet of development, assuming 50% of the itemized “construction cost” of $20.1 million were the cost of labor, then the cost of labor would be $108 per square foot in 2023. Comparatively, a 1400 squarefoot, 20-year old, single family home on Zillow costs $370,000 or $265 per square foot in McFarland. A new construction is bound to cost more.
72 4.2.1.5 Prevailing Wages
State and federal laws require that when government funds assist affordable housing projects, the units must be constructed using the prevailing wages adopted by the State Department of Industrial Relations or the Federal Department of Labor. Wages typically add 25 to 30 percent to the cost of construction. Given McFarland’s proximity to large population centers, there is no issue with finding the requisite labor at prevailing wages.
4.2.2 Citizen Behavior
Housing preferences have evolved over the past half century. From the inception of track home construction of 900 to 1200 square feet, consumers have opted for predominantly large, detached houses of two to three times the typical sizes of the past. The expectation to live in large homes is not compatible with affordable housing in California and has contributed to the high cost of living in the State. Bias towards single-family residences can become a constraint when neighbors oppose the location of denser, more affordable housing in their neighborhoods.
Auto dependency causes housing expansion to increase road traffic volumes, congestion, and noise.
Community disdain for these types of problems sometimes lead to opposition to all types of development whether residential, commercial, or industrial. Community opposition can delay housing production, increase costs, and impair a city’s ability to meet its housing and economic goals. While the community wants to maintain the small-town feel of McFarland, community opposition to single-family or multi-family development is typically not a factor and therefore does not pose a constraint to housing development in the City.
4.2.3 Environmental Constraints
4.2.3.1 Environmental Factors
The environmental factors that have the potential to constrain residential development include City boundaries and limits, protected agricultural land, floodable areas, and seismic faults. Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 identify the key environmental constraints in and around McFarland. In addition to the Williamson Act lands, habitat areasfall mostly outside City boundaries and thus do not pose constraints to housing development. Much of the eastern half of McFarland falls within the 100 year flood zone.
This would be a constraint to housing development, however the 2040 General Plan has taken flooding into considerations and determined there is sufficient space for housing outside of the 100 year flood zone to meet housing need. There is high habitat suitability for the Swainson's Hawk and the Burrowing Owl, but the Tricolored Blackbird has low habitat suitability in McFarland. Therefore, landscape development within the suitability locations should include vegetation that expands the foraging, breeding, and nesting capabilities of these species.
73 Figure 4-1: Environmental Constraints Map–Prime Agricultural Lands under Williamson Act Contract
74 Figure 4-2: Environmental Constraints Map–Floodable Areas Figure 4-3: Environmental Constraints Map–Swainson’s Hawk (threatened species) Habitat Suitability
75 The City's General Plan policies include measures to protect sensitive areas from development, to protect public safety by avoiding development in hazardous areas and reduce the risk of flooding. While these policies could constrain residential development, they are necessary to promote the public good.
It is important to also note that these environmental factors do not substantially constrain vacant lands identified in Appendix B to accommodate the City's fair share of housing.
4.2.3.2 Boundaries/Limits
City boundaries limit the available land for housing development. Williamson Act contract lands surround the City’s boundaries on all sides and thus limit expansion to those directions as well.
However, McFarland’s 2040 Plan involves expansion of the urban development boundary, which includes swapping some of the agricultural land with previously designated urban lands to accommodate long-term growth.
4.2.3.3 Flood Zones
The eastern portions of McFarland fall within the 100-year and 500-year flood zones which accommodate many homes. Future plans focus residential development in areas outside of the flood zone. The City also adopted a Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2015 which includes flood hazard mitigation policies to reduce the effect of floods on residential areas.
4.2.3.4 Seismic Faults
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code Section 2621, et seq.) restricts development on the surface traces of known active faults that are mapped by the State Geologist. No Alquist-Priolo faults are within the City limits. The closest active fault is the Pond Fault Zone located six miles to the west of McFarland. The City has been working with owners to seismically upgrade buildings where necessary. Seismic faults do not pose a constraint to housing development in the City.
4.2.4 Infrastructure and Public Facilities
The availability of infrastructure and public facilities is important in evaluating the potential of developing additional housing. The following subsections discuss the capacity of such key facilities as water and sewer. Both the City's water and sewage treatment systems are adequate to serve current and future needs.
4.2.4.1 Wastewater System
The City operates a wastewater treatment plant with a sewer capacity of about 1.55 million gallons per day. Increasesin population and changes in land use would increase demand for the City of McFarland’s wastewater treatment facilities and therefore potentially exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. There is a planned expansion of the wastewater treatment plant to increase the capacity to 2.5 million gallons per day which could help with future increases in demand. Table 4-9 shows that sewer capacity without the expansion is likely inadequate beyond the next eight years, the planning horizon of this Housing Element. However, the expansion will increase the capacity to an adequate level, thereby ensuring that wastewater systems are not a constraint on housing development. To assure sufficient sewer capacity beyond the 6th Cycle, program 1.8 proposes the pursuit of funds to implement the proposed expansion of the sewer plant.
76 Table 4-9: Sewer Capacity and Projected Sewer Demand Future Year
Population
Projection
(Persons)
Gallon Per
Person/Day
Total City
Usage
(Gallons)
Capacity
(Gallons)
Percent
of
Capacity
2040 without expansion 23,690 80 1,895,200 1,550,000 122% 2040 with expansion 23,690 80 1,895,200 2,500,000 76%
Source: City of McFarland, 2015 Housing Element Update
4.2.4.2 Water Supply Sources
There are four wells within the City of McFarland. McFarland’s peak source capacity is 7,300 gallons per minute with an approximate annual consumption of 1,825-acre feet. The maximum daily water use is estimated to be 11,028 cubic feet per second and peak demand is estimated at 7.43 million gallons per day. An Urban Water Master Plan Update in 2020 calculated existing and future water demand within the City. The study confirmed that the existing and proposed water infrastructure could adequately serve the City's residents over a 20-year planning period. In addition, the study established a plan for future water improvements to accommodate future growth.
Water quality and supply are limiting factors for growth in cities throughout California; however, McFarland has adequate groundwater allocations to accommodate population increase. The 2040 McFarland General Plan calls for incorporation of water conservation measures through the implementation of the State mandated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and incorporating Executive Order E-37-16 for existing and new developments. This action could offset some of the new water demand. All indications are that water supply poses no immediate constraint to housing development in McFarland.
4.2.5 Short Term Rentals (STRs)
Short Term Rentals refer to the right to use or possess a dwelling unit (or portions of a dwelling unit) for residency or lodging purposes over a period of less than 30 consecutive calendar days. The dedication of many dwelling units for short term rentals can exacerbate housing shortage and affect the rental cost of housing.
The City needs to comprehensively define the operating standards and requirements for short term rentals in its Municipal code. The City has a minimal number of STRs. Officially, the City has one registered short-term rental. According to the Airbnb site, one whole dwelling unit was advertised for rental while no other properties advertised a room for rental within the City in mid-June of 2024.
Therefore, STRs have not contributed in any substantial way to the City's low vacancy rate compared to other jurisdictions in the region. Thus, STRs have so far posed no potential constraints to the availability of the existing supply of housing for households. Program 1.12 requires the City to add a comprehensive ordinance on short term rentals.
77 5.0 Energy Conservation Opportunities
State law requires all new construction to comply with energy conservation standards that establish maximum allowable energy use from non-renewable sources (California Administrative Code, Title 24).
These requirements apply to design components such as structural insulation, air infiltration and leakage control, features on thermostats, and water heating system insulation for tanks and pipes.
State law also requires that a tentative tract map provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, including designing the lot sizes and configurations to permit orienting structures to take advantage of a southern exposure, shade or prevailing breezes.
This chapter describes opportunities to conserve energy in residential development, including energy saving design, energy saving materials, and energy efficient systems and features. Areas evaluated include planning and land use and energy efficient building practices and technologies. Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters, in addition to promoting sustainable community design and reduced dependence on vehicles. Such planning and development standards can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Chapter 6 on Housing Action Plan provides the goals, policies, and programs for conserving energy in new housing development and retrofits in McFarland.
5.1 Planning and Land Use
The arrangement and compactness of land uses can conserve energy. Land use patterns that separate uses excessively, spread development on the landscape, and promote auto dependency tend to isolate residential areas from commercial uses like grocery stores causing residents to travel long distances to take care of daily shopping and service needs. Alternatively, keeping a balance between jobs and housing within the same community and locating them near each other can help to reduce travel distances, promote use of alternative forms of transportation, and reduce energy use. Long trips necessitate use of the automobile or other mechanical forms of movement with attendant gasoline consumption. Short distances promote walking and cycling. Changing the land use pattern therefore can change energy use patterns. The intent of energy-efficient land use planning is to reduce the distances of automobile travel, reduce the costs of construction, and increase the potential for residents to complete shopping and other chores without driving or by driving short distances.
The small, compact nature of McFarland and its prevailing land use pattern are inherently energy efficient. The City promotes development of vacant and underutilized lots to assure a compact and contiguous community. According to the Urban Land Institute (ULI), "conserving or developing infill housing within a more urban core has been shown to reduce primary energy consumption an average of 20 percent per household over newer sprawl developments." (ULI, 2008, Growing Cooler). Compact development results in secondary energy savings or “embodied energy,” which isthe term used for the energy spent producing the materials and finished products like sewer pipes, electrical lines, paving materials, etc. Minimizing the length of necessary water, sewer, and electricity lines, consumes less of those products, thereby decreasing the total energy consumption.
The City promotes mixed-use development, particularly in the core areas of the community such as the downtown core and along the Highway 99 corridor. Many residents, however, opt to do grocery and other shopping outside the City because McFarland lacks a large grocery store. There are stores within McFarland that can take care of daily essentials, but many residents drive to Delano and neighboring communities for shopping.
78 The 2040 General Plan continues to promote prevailing patterns of compact growth with enhancements in the form of mixed-use development, increased density areas, a network of biking and walking paths, and extending public transit service by adding two new routes. Implementation of the Plan can promote use of public transit, reduce vehicle trips to neighboring cities, promote biking and walking, and conserve energy use.
5.2 Energy Efficient Practices and Technologies
Energy usage in housing largely depends on indoor heating and cooling. These in turn depend on the energy efficiency of: (a) the home in terms of material quality and insulation; (b) appliances, which include hot water heaters, dishwashers, washers, and dryers; (c) plumbing fixtures; and (d) mechanical systems within the building. To conserve energy in new housing developments and retrofits, the City should promote or require the use of any of the following practices and technologies:
• Passive solar construction techniques that require proper solar orientation, appropriate levels of thermal mass, south facing windows, and moderate insulation levels; • Higher insulation levels in place of thermal mass or energy conserving window orientation; • Active solar water heating in exchange for lower insulation or energy-conserving window treatments;
• Energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting, including fluorescent lighting; • Energy-efficient appliances;
• Drought tolerant landscaping and drip irrigation for landscaping, which reduces the amount of energy needed to pump water;
• Weatherization of windows and doors;
• Individual meters in multi-family units for gas, electricity, and water to promote conservation;
• Photovoltaic systems;
• Deciduous trees to naturally cool buildings, create wind barriers to surrounding areas, and enhance streetscapes to promote walking and bicycling; and • Green building practices, which incorporate materials and construction practices that reduce a building's energy consumption.
Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and Southern California Gas provide a variety of energy conservation services for residents and participate in several other energy assistance programs for lower income households, which help qualified homeowners and renters conserve energy and control electricity costs. These programs include the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) Program and the Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help (REACH) Program.
The California Alternate Rates for Energy Program (CARE) provides a 15 percent monthly discount on gas and electric rates to income-qualified households, certain non-profits, facilities that house agricultural employees, homeless shelters, hospices and other qualified non-profit group-living facilities.
The REACH Program provides one-time energy assistance to customers who have no other way to pay their energy bills. The intent of REACH is to assist low-income customers, particularly the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the working poor, and the unemployed who experience severe hardships and are unable to pay for their necessary energy needs.
In addition, the State Department of Community Services & Development administers a home weatherization program as part of its low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This
79 program provides free energy efficiency upgrades to the dwellings of low-income families to help lower their monthly utility bills.
The City, through the Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program, provides interest-free loans to lowincome home owners to rehabilitate their homes to be more energy efficient. McFarland is also a part of the Home Energy Renovation Opportunity (HERO) Program that provides loans to support homeowners with energy efficient retrofits to their homes.
80 6.0 Housing Action Plan
This chapter provides statements of community goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives as they relate to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing in McFarland. The framework covers the 2023 to 2031 planning horizon.
6.1 Affordable Housing Supply
Goal 1: An adequate supply of affordable housing for all income levels.
Policies:
Pol-1.1. Designate an adequate number of housing sites for both rent and purchase to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs for each income classification.
Pol-1.2. Adopt policies, regulations, and procedures that do not add unnecessarily to the cost of housing while still attaining other important City objectives.
Pol-1.3. Give high priority for permit processing to low-income residential projects, and the highest priority for projects that include housing units for extremely low-income households.
Pol-1.4. Continue to support the efforts of the Housing Authority of the County of Kern (HACK) in McFarland.
Pol-1.5. Apply for funds from the State and Federal governments through the Kern County Housing Authority or in conjunction with nonprofit or for-profit developers to construct housing for the lower income households.
Pol-1.6. Continue to provide Section 8 assistance to eligible households through the Housing Authority of the County of Kern. Continue the First-Time Home Buyer (FTHB) program to assist low-income families who are first-time home buyers or displaced homeowners.
Pol-1.7. Require dispersal of low-income housing throughout new residential projects instead of concentration into single buildings or single portions of the site to the extent practical given the size of the project and other site constraints.
Pol-1.8. Distribute low-income housing produced through government subsidies, incentives, or regulatory programs throughout the City rather than concentrate them in particular areas or neighborhoods.
Pol-1.9. Require low-income housing units in density bonus projects to be available at the same time as the market-rate units in the development.
Pol-1.10. Designate locations where adequate facilities are available near grocery stores, public parks, and schools for the development of multi-family dwellings if such development is consistent with neighborhood character.
Pol-1.11. Allow rehabilitation of legal, non-conforming dwellings that do not meet requirements for lot size, setbacks, and other zoning standards if the non-conformity does not increase and there is no threat to public health or safety.
Pol-1.12. Offer financial incentives, financial assistance, or regulatory concessions for projects that develop housing for extremely low-income households such as single-room occupancy units and nontraditional housing types and options, including co-housing, assisted living facilities, and live-work spaces.
81 Programs:
Prg-1.1. Ensure annually that sufficient sites are maintained throughout the planning period to accommodate the RHNA and to avoid triggering No Net Loss provisions of SB 166. Evaluate annually the adequacy of services and facilities for additional residential development; identify service deficiencies and costs as well as priorities for correcting them. Create and maintain an up-to-date inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels.
Responsibility: City Administrator, Planning Department Timeframe: Ongoing with an annual update report
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Annual progress and priority reports submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in compliance with State law.
Prg-1.2. Enforce the new zoning ordinance that complies with California State law, which allows accessory dwelling units, mobile and manufactured homes, licensed residential care facilities and group homes rental housing, and transitional and supportive housing in all residential zone districts. Amend zoning and permit procedures to permit group homes for six or fewer persons (regardless of licensing) as single family uses and permit group homes for seven or more persons (regardless of licensing) in all zones allowing residential uses only subject to requirements of other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Continue to revise the City’s ADU ordinance in compliance with state law if needed and within six months of modifications to state law. Subject these uses to the development and management standards that apply to residential development within the same zones. Implement the revised Zoning Ordinance that meet all requirements under State ADU Law. Foster ADU development through the pursuit of funding biennially, establishment of prototype plans, and modifications to development standards (e.g., heights, unit size, etc.) beyond ADU Law. Promote annually the use of ADUs through public awareness campaigns and dissemination of informational materials to property owners, builders, and developers.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026. Target 30 ADUs for the planning period (8 for RHNA + 22 for housing mobility).
Prg-1.3. Update the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate development of low- and moderate-income housing and other special needs housing. Increase density and establish and incentivize mixed use development options along major arterials in the downtown area and in the vicinity of activity centers. Revise its zoning to expressly allow housing densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre in mixed-use areas. Refine the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to be more feasible to developers and more effective in producing affordable housing. And streamline processing procedures.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Within two years in conformity with the new RHNA cycle Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years.
Prg-1.4. Team with the Housing Authority of the County of Kern (HACK), Self-Help Enterprises, or other non-profit agencies to secure funds through State and Federal programs for development of new lowPage 145 of 386 82 income infill housing, rehabilitation, and farmworker housing to improve housing affordability among low-income households. Prioritize opportunities for the development of housing for lower-income households to meet the City’s housing allocation in this RHNA cycle. Coordinate with the County and provide letters of support and technical support to nonprofits in seeking new funding. Expedite the processing of density bonus applications which include affordable housing. And provide a report annually to the City Council on progress in this endeavor.
Responsibility: City Administrator
Timeframe: (1) Meet with HACK, the Self-Help Enterprises, and other non-profit agencies at least once a year;
(2) Submit funding applications to these agencies annually; (3) Report to the City Council in December of every year. (4) Expedite processing of density bonus applications continuously.
Funding: Various Housing Development Funds
Expected Outcome: Secured annual funding and support for construction of low-income housing
Prg-1.5. Continue the Housing Code Enforcement Program to preserve the City’s housing stock.
Continue the City’s Home Rehabilitation Program by applying annually for grants such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and providing annual loan programs (based on available funds) to low-income homeowners.
Responsibility: Building Department
Timeframe: Ongoing with annual reports
Funding: Kern County Housing, Community Development Department, and CDBG Expected Outcome: Annual data reports & Development of low-income housing Prg-1.6. As per SB 2 and AB 2339 requirements, amend the definition of emergency shelters, establish appropriate development standards, and revise the zoning code by 2025 to allow emergency shelters in all zones that permit housing without requirements for design review permits and discretionary actions as the design review decision-making criteria. In conformance with AB 139, provide sufficient parking to accommodate staff working at emergency shelters, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. In conformance with AB 101, specifically define low barrier navigation centers (LBNCs) as a permitted use type of emergency shelters and allow emergency shelters in all zones that permit housing including defining LBCNs without requirements for design review permits and discretionary actions as the design review decision-making criteria. In addition, amend the zoning ordinance to permit manufactured single-family homes by right in R-3 zones. Ensure manufactured homes that are built on a permanent foundation are allowed in the same manner and in the same zones as conventional or stick-built structures.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026
83 Prg-1.7. Modify the zoning code by 2025 to establish written procedures to grant priority water and sewer services to developments with units affordable to lower-income households.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026 Prg-1.8. Pursue funding annually to implement the plan to expand the City’s sewer capacity by 2030.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within seven years into new Housing Element Funding: General Fund.
Expected Outcome: Implementation of planned sewer expansion by 2030 Prg-1.9. Further foster the production of affordable housing through an update to the City’s zoning code to implement Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) requirements. Support property owners willing to pursue lot splits and duplexes with accessible web information on the qualifying conditions and an abbreviated approval process.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: Community Development Block Grant, other sources of grant funds, and development impact fees.
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026 Prg-1.10. Unshackle and speed up housing production through updates to the City’s zoning code to implement Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) and Senate Bill 300 (SB 330) requirements. Streamline regulatory requirements, reduce permit processing delays, and reduce or defer impact and service fees that delay production of housing, particularly for already planned projects of residential (non-commercial) units, mixed uses that combine residential and non-residential uses, as well as transitional and supportive housing. And protect existing inventories of housing.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: General fund.
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026 Prg-1.11. Amend the zoning ordinance to permit manufactured single-family homes by right in R-3 zones. Ensure manufactured homes that are built on a permanent foundation are allowed in the same manner and in the same zones as conventional or stick-built structures.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026 Prg-1.12. Add a section to the Municipal code that comprehensively defines the operating standards and requirements for short term rentals and expressly avoids encroachment of such activities on the supply of affordable housing.
84 Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026
6.2 Conservation and Rehabilitation
Goal 2: Conservation and rehabilitation of the City's existing stock of affordable housing.
Policies:
Pol-2.1. Refer all requests for the funding of rehabilitation projects or the construction of new affordable housing projects to review by the Kern County Housing and Community Development Department.
Pol-2.2. Continue to coordinate with the Housing Authority of the County of Kern to maintain Section 8 rent subsidies.
Pol-2.3. Continue the City’s Home Rehabilitation Program by providing loans to low-income homeowners funded by grants such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).
Pol-2.4. Apply for additional funds for the City’s Home Rehabilitation Program Pol-2.5. Require the abatement of unsafe structures, while giving property owners ample time to correct deficiencies. Provide relocation assistance to residents displaced by such abatement.
Pol-2.6. Allow the demolition of existing multi-family housing only when: (a) the structure is found to be substandard and unsuitable for rehabilitation; (b) relocation assistance is available to tenants with reasonable notice; (c) tenants could purchase the replacement property, if for sale.
Programs:
Prg-2.1. Coordinate the City’s efforts with the Housing Authority of the County of Kern to continue receiving Section 8 subsidy funds.
Responsibility: City Administrator
Timeframe: Ongoing with annual tallies
Funding: Planning Department budget
Expected Outcome: Maintenance of existing Section 8 subsidies plus annual tallies
6.3 At-Risk Units
Goal 3: Preservation of at-risk units in McFarland.
Policies:
Pol-3.1. Strive to preserve all at-risk dwelling units in the City.
Pol-3.2. Require at least two years notice to the City, HCD, the Housing Authority of the County of Kern, and residents of at-risk units prior to the conversion of any units for low-income households to market rate under any of the following circumstances:
• The units were constructed with the aid of government funding • The units were required by an inclusionary zoning ordinance • The project was granted a density bonus
• The project received other incentives
85 Programs:
Prg-3.1. Coordinate with the Kern County Housing Authority to maintain a list of all dwellings within the City that are subsidized by government funding or are low-income housing developed through regulations or incentives. At a minimum, the list should include the number of units, type of government program, and the date at which the units could convert to market-rate dwellings.
Responsibility: City Administrator
Timeframe: Ongoing with annual lists
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: List of subsidized or incentivized housing by year Prg-3.2. Add to existing incentive programs, and include in all new incentive or regulatory programs, requirements to give notice prior to conversion to market rate units.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing with annual update reports
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Revised housing incentive and regulatory programs Prg-3.3. Coordinate with the Kern County Housing Authority and non-profit organization of affordable home developers like People’s Self-help and establish specific time parameters around actions to preserve any potential at-risk units to prevent them from conversion to market rate units by reinstating the respective covenants at the end of respective terms and modifying them to become permanent just as other assisted units are in the City.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing with annual update reports
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Addition to the permanently subsidized housing stock
6.4 Special Needs
Goal 4: Adequate housing for special needs groups in McFarland, including farmworkers, people with disabilities, and large families.
Policies:
Pol-4.1. Promote the development of housing for farmworkers and large families.
Pol-4.2. Remove housing restraints for those with disabilities as outlined in Senate Bill 520 (Chapter 671 California Code).
Pol-4.3. Disseminate information about housing opportunities and services in the area to migrant farmworkers.
Pol-4.4. Provide housing opportunities for disabled persons in compliance with Title 24 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Pol-4.5. Integrate special needs housing into developments or neighborhoods of conventional housing.
Programs:
86 Prg-4.1. Amend the zoning ordinance by 2025 to grant density bonuses in conformance with Chapter
16.97 of the State Density Bonus law, or exemption from the in-lieu fee requirement, or both, for projects that include three-and four-bedroom units, or single room occupancy units, as significant components of the projects. Determine the thresholds for the qualifying number of such units and exact size of the density increase or fee exemption in the drafting of the ordinance but based on affordable housing needs. Peg the period of affordability for the qualifying units at 55 years or more.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementation
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning ordinance amendment for special needs housing Prg-4.2. Continue to allow for reasonable accommodations procedures that enable disabled persons to request relief from the strict application of the land use or building regulations as set forth in the code, in order for such disabled persons to use and enjoy a dwelling. Create development standards for non-traditional types of housing development, such as assisted living for seniors. The regulation should address all aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act that relate to home construction, retrofitting, and parking requirements. And address financial incentives for housing developers who address SB 520 issues in new construction and in retrofitting existing homes.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Fall 2025
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning ordinance amendment for special needs housing Prg-4.3. Continue to disseminate information in both English and Spanish about housing opportunities and services for homeless persons and migrant farmworkers through the Police Department and City Hall.
Responsibility: City Administrator, Police Department, and Planning Department Timeframe: Annually
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Continually updated information on special needs housing Prg-4.4. Cooperate biennially with Kern County and other agencies in the development of programs aimed at providing affordable, multi-family housing, including housing for families with special needs.
As part of this cooperation, identify sites biennially that could support affordable multi-family housing development and consult with the site owners or housing partners on the feasibility of developing the sites for affordable housing. Provide regulatory and/or financial incentives to interested developers to facilitate the construction of special needs housing.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Within two years in conformity with the new RHNA cycle Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Coordination and development of affordable, multi-family housing.
87 Prg-4.5. Amend multi-family residential and mixed-use areas as well as non-residential zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted to allow emergency, transitional, low-barrier navigation centers, and supportive housing as residential uses by right, subject only to those regulations that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zones. Establish “by-right” approval provisions in zoning for multi-family districts particularly when accommodating groups with special housing needs. And streamline processing procedures.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: within a year
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. New ordinance on transitional housing Prg-4.6. Streamline and adopt by 2025 priority processing, granting of fee waivers or deferrals, modifying development standards, granting concessions, and offering incentives (beyond State Density Bonus Law) for housing developments that include units affordable to extremely low-income households or farmworkers. Assist and support the pursuit of funding applications, outreach, and coordination with affordable housing developers to biennially identify development opportunities and coordinate with farmworkers, employers, and other related organizations in expanding housing for extremely low-income and farmworker households.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026 Prg-4.7. Amend zoning ordinance by 2025 to address reasonable accommodations for group homes by making amendments to zoning and permit procedures to permit group homes for six or fewer persons (regardless of licensing) as single family uses and permit group homes for seven or more persons (regardless of licensing) in all zones allowing residential uses only subject to requirements of other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Although group homes operating as single-family residences that provide licensable services to more than six residents may be subject to conditional use or other discretionary approval processes, the State recommends that local governments provide flexible and efficient reasonable accommodations in these permitting processes. This means that some requests for exceptions to permitting processes should be resolved through reasonable accommodation procedures instead of conditional use procedures. In addition, any substantive requirements for these group homes must still comply with the local government’s obligations to remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, affirmatively support it, and prevent discrimination against it.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Fall 2025
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning ordinance amendment for reasonable accommodations
88 Prg-4.8. Update the City’s municipal code by 2025 to address and comply with two additional key statutory requirements of the Health and Safety Code: (a) Section 17021.6 of the Code requires that employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds are permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses (not multifamily) in zones that allow agricultural uses. (b) Section 17021.8 of the Code requires that eligible agricultural employee housing development be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process and not be subject to a conditional use permit (CUP).
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Fall 2025
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning ordinance amendment for employee (including agricultural) housing.
Prg-4.9. Update the City’s municipal code by 2025 to replace the definition of “family” as “one or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.” Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Fall 2025
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Removal of constraint on housing for persons with disabilities.
6.5 Energy Conservation
Goal 5: Energy efficient housing units that result in reduced energy costs to McFarland residents.
Policies:
Pol-5.1. Require new dwelling units to meet State requirements for energy efficiency and retrofits to existing units to meet similar standards.
Pol-5.2. Reorganize land use patterns proactively for energy efficiency.
Programs:
Prg-5.1. Continue to implement Title 24 of the California Code on new developments.
Responsibility: Building Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementation
Funding: General Fund with fees for plan reviews and building inspections Expected Outcome: Implementation of Title 24
Prg-5.2. Coordinate with PG&E to involve residents in energy efficiency retrofit programs. Conduct outreach on energy awareness programs in conjunction with PG&E to educate residents about the benefits of various retrofit programs.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementation
Funding: General Fund and PG&E
Expected Outcome: Increased awareness of and participation in energy efficiency programs
89 Prg-5.3. Amend the subdivision ordinance to require orientation of subdivisions for solar access.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementation
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Subdivision Ordinance amendment
Prg-5.4. Apply biennially for and support applications for affordable housing funds from agencies that reward and incentivize good planning. Examplesinclude the HCD's Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee resources which provide competitive advantage for affordable infill housing and affordable housing built close to jobs, transportation, and amenities.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Biennially
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Smart growth of the City
Prg-5.5. Partner with public utility districts and private energy companies to promote free energy audits for low-income owners and renters, rebate programs for installing energy efficient features and appliances and public education about ideas to conserve energy.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementation
Funding: Various sources
Expected Outcome: Reduction in per capita energy use
Prg-5.6. Adopt Sustainable Design Guidelines, which give guidance on sustainable design principles such as sustainable energy usage, water conservation, and utilization of reusable building materials.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Within two years in conformity with the new RHNA cycle Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Sustainable Design Guidelines
6.6 Equal Opportunity Housing
Goal 6: Equal access to sound, affordable housing for all persons regardless of race, creed, age or sex.
Policies:
Pol-6.1. Strive to achieve equal access to sound and affordable housing for all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, family status, source of income, or disability.
Pol-6.2. Enforce the policies of the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission.
Programs:
Prg-6.1. Continue to provide information in English and Spanish from the Housing Authority and Department of Equal Housing and Employment about housing and tenant rights in City Hall.
Responsibility: Planning Department
90 Timeframe: Annually
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Readily available information about equal opportunity to housing Prg-6.2. Cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions and local organizations that sponsor workshops on fair housing laws and how those who are victims of discrimination can address their grievances including referrals of persons experiencing discrimination in housing for legal assistance.
Responsibility: All City Departments
Timeframe: Annually
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Minimization of housing discrimination Prg-6.3. Notify such stakeholders as Self-Help Enterprises, Housing Authority of the County of Kern, California Rural legal Assistance, and churches as well as post notices at public venues prior to public meetings for amendments or updates to the housing element.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Prior to public meetings and in conjunction with other planning efforts Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Awareness of Housing Element updates and increased participation Prg-6.4. Amend the zoning code to permit 3-story and 4-story structures in areas designated for multifamily housing. Notify and collaborate with such stakeholders as People's Self-Help Housing Corporation and the Kern County Housing Authority as well as post notices at public venues prior to public meetings about the amendments and create information materials for dissemination to other developers.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: within a year
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Flexibility and attractiveness of multifamily housing sites for production of affordable units
Prg-6.5. Evaluate the municipal code on the design review permit process and amend to include refinement of design guidelines that establish objective design standards and define required findings on terms like “compatibility” and “harmony” to reduce subjectivity and thereby address potential constraints or impacts on certainty about the City’s expectations on design.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: within a year
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Lower subjectivity of officials and uncertainty to stakeholders about expectations of the City for design review
91 Prg-6.6. Continue the City’s Fair Housing Program with preparation and distribution of a pamphlet on the subject of “Fair Housing and People’s Rights.”
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementation
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Flexibility and attractiveness of multifamily housing sites for production of affordable units
Prg-6.7. Begin record keeping on complaints and enforcement cases related to fair housing. Amend municipal code to establish procedure and assign personnel to address complaints similar to procedures for addressing code violations.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementation
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Records of annual complaints and enforcement cases related to fair housing.
Prg-6.8. Encourage the development of higher-income housing in the downtown as way of fostering mixedincome housing in the downtown area by offering incentives in the form of density bonuses, regulatory concessions, and fast-tracking of development applications to property owners and developers for the development of non-vacant sites downtown. And conduct outreach annually to inform developers of the opportunity.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementation
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Mixed-income housing in the downtown area that fosters Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).
Prg-6.9. Amend the municipal code to drop the “2.5-story” restriction and enable development of three-story structures within the 35-foot height limit in R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts.
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Within two years into the new Housing Element Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Additional flexibility with building height in municipal code.
Prg-6.10 The City shall take the following actions to encourage place-based revitalization and improve access to resources and opportunities Citywide, but with a particular emphasis on neighborhoods with a concentration of lower-income residents who often face additional barriers in accessing resources, such as the Area of High Segregation and Poverty:
• Support infrastructure planning and design for annexations, such as providing developers with technical assistance on grant funding applications, or other methods to assist with off-setting infrastructure costs. Complete at least one project during the planning period to assist with expanding infrastructure capacity.
• Prioritize projects that facilitate place-based revitalization through the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and budget, such as projects that improve public infrastructure in deteriorating or underserved areas. Review funding opportunities that will allow the City to fund projects currently listed in the CIP to ensure community amenities and improvements, such as finalization of additional recreational spaces and street and sidewalk improvements, on
92 an annual basis and apply as they become available. Apply for supplemental funding to support CIP projects at least twice during the planning period. This could include securing funding for projects such as:
o Securing funding for Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion. o Design, site improvements, and construction of new police station. o Design and installation of water treatment at the Browning Rd. well water, located in the Eastern portion of the City.
o Other projects, as they arise throughout the planning period and annual budget process. • Finalize existing projects in the Capital Improvement Plan centered on street and sidewalk improvements, including but not limited to, repaving roads identified as “Poor” or “Failed” and connecting sidewalks identified as “inconsistent”, particularly those identified in the Area of High Segregation and Poverty.
• Support growth by increasing community services and amenities. The City shall execute the Capital Improvement Plan by completing at least two projects that promote public safety such as those supporting public safety and emergency response services. • Facilitate place-based revitalization and promote healthy environments for new or newlyconstructed housing by implementing bikeways, trains, sidewalk, and intersection improvements to promote active transportation. Apply for funding from programs such as the Active Transportation Program, Safe Routes to School, Highway Safety Improvement Program, or other similar programs as NOFAs are available, at least once per year. Complete an average of one active transportation or street improvement a year, including at least three in the area of High Segregation and Poverty, during the planning period. • Promote commercial opportunities in the City in conjunction with new development. • Evaluate the effects of emissions from agricultural industries and traffic by December 2026 and implement at least one project during the planning period to mitigate negative environmental effects.
• Work with Kern Transit to increase awareness of available transit options. The City will meet with Kern Transit at least twice during the planning period to strategize how best to reach at least 50 residents with this information.
• Meet with school district representatives by December 2026 to analyze whether housing security poses a barrier to student achievement. As affordable projects are completed, require developers to coordinate with the school district to market households to teachers or other school employees (not including projects that are exclusive to senior residents) with the goal of connecting at least 5 district households with affordable housing opportunity. In addition, work with the school district to assist in securing grant funding for teacher recruitments and other incentives for teachers to facilitate positive learning environments citywide.
Responsibility: Planning Department, Public Works
Timeframe: Several timeframes, listed individually
Funding: General Fund and grant funding
Expected Outcome. Increase place-based strategies throughout the City, focusing on High Segregation and Poverty neighborhood as listed above. Other outcomes listed individually.
93 6.7 Quantified Objectives
Table 6-1 illustrates the City of McFarland’s compliance with the current 2015-2023 housing need allocations. Overall, indications are McFarland would technically meet its total allocation for the 2015- 2023 cycle with the new Milestone Housing project (The Sherwood Avenue Family Apartments) which broke grounds in 2022 with originally scheduled completion in October 2023. Overall, the City produced mainly “lower-income” and “above moderate-income” housing units. The over production is these categories fill the gap in “regular” moderate-income housing (sometimes termed middle-income housing), which seems difficult for many jurisdictions in California to produce. For the future, however, McFarland has tremendous opportunity in the potential for accessory dwelling units to meet additional needs for low-income and moderate-income housing.
Requirements for housing elements include the establishment of quantified objectivesfor the provision of housing by income to include new construction as well as rehabilitation and conservation of existing units. McFarland’s newly adopted 2040 General Plan includes objectives to rehabilitate and conserve housing in addition to new housing construction. The 2019 land use inventory involved visual assessments of the conditions of housing units and other structures in the City. The survey revealed 70 housing units or 2 percent of the housing stock as in need of rehabilitation and conservation. The City has a rehabilitation program which targets and markets to owner-occupied homes. Table 6-2 shows the quantified housing objectives for the upcoming 2023-2031 cycle. The quantified objectives do not represent ceilings on development but rather set target goals for the City to achieve based on needs, resources and constraints.
Table 6-1: Comparison of RHNA Allocations Met and Unmet by Income Groups in McFarland Income Category
2015 - 2023 RHNA
(Dwelling Units)
Completed
in 5th Cycle
Under
Construction
Percent of RHNA
Remaining to be Met
Extremely Low1 40
Very low1 93 13 40 0%
Low2 73 55 25%
Moderate 66 0 100%
Above Moderate 79 245 -210%
Total 311 313 80 -26%
Sources: City of McFarland, Planning Department Data, 2022; 2015 McFarland Housing Element; 2023-2031 Kern COG RHNA Allocations
1 Milestone Housing broke ground in 2022. Expected completion of 80 assisted housing units in 2023; it includes rental apartments of 1- to 3-bedroom units.
2 Kendrea Place (at 1020 Kendrea Pl) was completed in 2020; it includes rentals and privately owned, 3- to 4-bedroom single family homes; occupants are Ag-oriented workers whose rents are based on salaries in the Ag sector; rentals range from $280 monthly and up.
94 Table 6-2: Quantified Housing Need in McFarland for 2023-2031 Cycle Income
Category
2023 - 2031
Regional Housing
Allocation
Housing
Rehabilitation
Objectives
Housing
Conservation
Objectives
New Construction
Objective
Extremely Low 25 7 20
Very low 25 8 20
Low 32 9 30
Moderate 45 13 60
Above Moderate 117 34 310
Total 244 46 24 410
Table 6-3 presents an estimate of the number of units to be constructed by income level during the planning period from 2023 to 2031. The target is 244 total units. Table 6-3 shows the distribution of McFarland’s regional allocation by income groups. There is sufficient residential space designation to accommodate the 2023-2031 cycle. Appendix A has additional details.
Table 6-3: 2023-2031 Housing Need Allocation in Kern County Source: KernCOG, 2023-2031 RHNA
95 6.8 Implementation Actions to Further Fair Housing
Table 6-4 summarizes the City’s implementation actions to further fair housing under the following five themes:
• Fair housing outreach and enforcement
• Tenant protection and anti-displacement
• New opportunities in high resource areas
• Housing mobility through expanded choices in housing types and locations • Place-based strategies for neighborhood improvements
It is noteworthy that some of the fair housing actions in Table 6-4 reflect initiatives that are not explicitly listed among the housing-specific policies of the Housing Element (sections 6.1 through 6.6) but support the goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing. Fair Housing Analysis in Appendix C includes discussions of these supportive initiatives.
The following are also noteworthy about the contents of the AFFH Matrix:
1. Many AFFH programs and commitments are aspirational.
2. Some are legacy programs that would always be necessary.
3. Few (if any) can be specific to any one cycle only.
96 Table 6-4: AFFH Action Matrix for 2023-2031
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
FAIR HOUSING OUTREACH AND ENFORCEMENT
1 2
Information
Dissemination
Prg-1.3
Prg-6.1
Prg-6.3
Prg-6.4
• Organize regular community events on housing
Annually
Citywide
(including library,
recreation
centers, City Hall,
at community
events),
prioritizing areas
with greatest
housing needs
25% increase in inquiries
about fair housing
• Prepare and disseminate handouts in English and Spanish • Post materials in multiple public places and distribute to community-based organizations
Annually Citywide
Public Engagement
Prg-6.2
Prg-6.8
• Hold workshops on Fair Housing
• Conduct outreach to multiple vulnerable groups on Fair Housing
• Revise Notice of Tenant Rights
• Make available materials on “Fundamentals of Housing” • Expand information online about Fair Housing
3 Fair Housing Program
Administration
Prg-1.5
Pol-2.3
Direct CDBG funds to administer a fair housing program that includes counseling, complaint investigation, technical assistance, & enforcement
2024-2025
onwards Citywide
4 Affirmative
Marketing of Housing
Opportunities
• Require development applicants to submit Affirmative Action Marketing Plans 2024-2025
onwards Citywide
For every below-marketrate (BMR) housing
opportunity, at least 30% • Require awardees to provide project demographics and affirmative marketing plans for annual reporting
97 ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic Targeting Metrics
Pol-4.3
Prg-4.3
Prg-4.6
Pol-6.2
Prg-6.8
Identify a contractor with expertise in affirmative marketing to administer the below-market-rate (BMR) rental program
2024-2025
onwards Citywide
of outreach should target
lower income households
TENANT PROTECTION AND ANTI-DISPLACEMENT
5 Just Cause for
Eviction
Pol-2.6
Prg-6.1
Pol-6.2
Meet with tenant advocacy organizations to understand issues and gaps. Maintain an open channel of communication. Annually/ongoing Citywide Adopted and/or revised
tenant protection
strategies Review and revise regulations as needed to ensure that they are achieving desired outcomes
Every three years,
starting in 2024-
2025
Citywide
Work with landlords to provide support for tenants in cases of “no fault” evictions Annually/ongoing
Citywide,
especially in rental
housing
neighborhoods
Eligible tenants receive
required notice and
relocation assistance
• Develop internal process and train staff to implement an Opportunity Zone Relocation Assistance Ordinance
2024-2025
onwards
Low-income
neighborhoods
with large renter
populations
Eligible tenants receive
required notice and
relocation assistance
• Evaluate and regulate buyout practices
• Expand Opportunity Zone Relocation Assistance to other lowincome neighborhoods City establishes
regulations for buyout
agreements between
landlords and tenants
Evaluate relocation assistance policies, including to ensure payment amounts match cost of living Every three years Citywide Eligible tenants receive
required payment
amounts that match cost
of living
6 Tenant Protection
Measures
Pol-2.6
Prg-6.1
Convene stakeholders to provide input, review existing measures, and provide recommendations to the City Council
Begin outreach in
2024 Citywide, with
focus on areas
with
concentrations of
Adopted and/or revised
tenant protection
strategies
Adopt/revise
strategies in 2025
98 ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic Targeting Metrics
affordable housing
units
7 Periodic Housing
Inspection Program
Prg-5.1
Inspect rental units in buildings with 3 units or more within the City at least once every 5 years Every five years Citywide
Regular inspection of
rental units in buildings
with 3 or more units
Increase the frequency of inspections for properties that have more than one reported and verified violation in a year for 10% of units and extended noncompliance
2025 and every 2
years Citywide
All properties with 1+
verified violation and
extended noncompliance
for 10% of units are
inspected at least every 2
years
8 Code Enforcement
Program
Prg-1.5
Prg-6.7
Respond within two business days of receiving a complaint from a landlord or tenant. If necessary, schedule a site visit within two business days.
Starting in 2024 Citywide
• 90% of all
violations not requiring a
permit are corrected
within 30 days
• 90% of all
violations requiring a
permit are corrected
within 6 months
• Maintain staff in the Code Enforcement Division who speak Spanish; continue to support efforts by staff to use Spanish 2024-2025
onwards
Lowincome/affordable
housing
neighborhoods
Increase inquiries/ contact
with lowincome/affordable
housing residents to 20 per
week;
• Post information in English and Spanish in libraries and other public places, especially in the City’s lowest income neighborhoods, about how to reach Code Enforcement and the services they provide 90% of respondents rate
service as good or
excellent
• Pilot weekly walk-in hours in low-income/affordable housing neighborhoods so that tenants can easily access code enforcement officers in-person to inquire about potential violations
99 ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic Targeting Metrics
• Administer real-time satisfaction surveys
9 Funding for
Affordable Housing
Prg-1.2, Prg-1.4
Pol-2.1
Support local application for preservation pilot funding from Housing Finance Agency of area’s council of government 2025
Citywide, with
emphasis on lowincome/affordable
housing
neighborhoods
At least half a dozen units
preserved through
preservation pilot funding
program
10 Preservation of AtRisk Housing
Pol-3.1, Pol-3.2
Prg-3.1, 3.2, 3.3
• Monitor potential affordability expirations and contact nonprofit property owners to address any future loss of funding that may put these units at risk
2024-2025
onwards Citywide
Preserve 100% of at- risk
rental units
• Explore ways to ensure continued affordability for belowmarket-rate units in market-rate developments Preserve 100% of belowmarket-rate rental units
• Monitor the status of mobile home parks. In the event of a sale, alert nonprofit partners who may be interested in purchasing.
Preserve 100% of mobile
home park units
NEW OPPORTUNITIES IN HIGH RESOURCE AREAS
11 Funding for
Affordable Housing
Prg-1.2, Prg-1.4
Pol-2.1
• Pursue funding every two years for affordable housing 2024-2025
onwards Citywide
By 2031, contribute local
funding towards at least 50
units of housing for lower
income households
• Work with community-based organizations, the County,
philanthropy, and other jurisdictions to identify and pursue funds for affordable housing By 2031, secure grants
totaling at least $500,000
for housing- related
12 services
Pro-Housing City
Designation
Pol-2.3
Apply for HCD’s Pro-Housing City designation and associated financial benefits
2024-2025
onwards Citywide
13 Affordable Housing
Requirements for
Residential and
Commercial
Development
Prg-1.8
• Adopt updated commercial linkage fees that align with other jurisdictions in the County
2024-2025
onwards
Citywide
By 2031, produce at least
50 below-market-rate
units (33% of RHNA)
through proactive focus on
affordable units
• Evaluate the success of the policy changes for residential projects and propose adjustments as needed
2025-2026
onwards
100
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
14 Air Rights Ordinance
Prg-1.3
• Prepare an air rights ordinance for the Downtown that prioritizes housing for extremely low income and special needs households, and partner with non-profits and affordable housing developers. 2030
Downtown
Initiate two Air Rights
projects with 20 or more
units to get the ball rolling
• Reach out to the owners of large private parking lots and commercial properties in Downtown who may be interested in joint development.
2030
15 Specific Plan for
downtown
Prg-1.3
Prepare and adopt downtown specific plan, regulatory framework, and environmental document 2027 Downtown
20 new units of housing by
2031, with at least 10
affordable units
16 Monitoring and
Marketing of Housing
Opportunity Sites
Pol-4.3
Prg-4.3
Prg-4.6
• Dynamically present Housing Opportunity Sites online
2025 Citywide
Achieve 50% of the
identified capacity on the
Housing Opportunity Sites.
• Keep information on development opportunities up to date. • Update webpage with current information on status of major planning and development projects.
• Develop fact sheets
• Use housing site list as a marketing and informational tool when meeting with prospective residential developers
17 By Right
Development Along
Commercial Corridors
Prg-4.5
• Identify and publish list of commercial corridors and sites located along commercial corridors that could be prime for by right development under AB 2011 [Assembly Bill 2011 (AB 2011) is the California law that became effective on July 1, 2023, which allows a streamlined ministerial approval process and in some cases increased height limits and relaxed density limits for eligible residential developments in certain commercial zones.]
2025
Commercial
corridors (e.g.
Sherwood Avenue
and Kern Avenue)
By 2031, construct at least
20 units on corridor sites
• Contact property owners to advise them of the opportunity and provide technical assistance to those interested
18 Lot Splits and
Duplexes
Prg-1.9
• Update website with information on SB 9
2024-2025
onwards
Single-family
neighborhoods
Create 5 new units through
SB 9 applications to get the
ball rolling
• Provide expanded FAQs/ how-to guide and fact sheets to explain SB 9 and identify various scenarios for adding housing units • Include fair housing fact sheet in SB 9 applications
19 • Conduct outreach to schools and religious institutions 2025 Citywide
101
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Housing on
Institutional and
Religious Properties
Prg-1.4, 4.6
Pol-4.1
• Provide technical support to those owners who are interested in developing housing
By 2031, develop at least
10 multi-family housing
units on institution-owned
properties
20 Review of
Development Fees
and Waiver/Deferral
Policies
Prg-4.6
Review and update the master fee schedule to reduce fee burdens for affordable housing projects, where possible
2024-2025
onwards Citywide Achieve RHNA targets for
below market rate housing
21 Affordable Housing
Incentives
Prg-4.6, 6.8
Implement State and local density bonus programs, including allowances for additional height and concessions and waivers to development standards for projects with affordable housing 2024-2025
onwards Citywide Achieve RHNA targets for
below market rate housing
22 Incentives for Lot
Consolidation
Prg-1.4, 6.8
Develop tools to facilitate the consolidation of small lots into larger, more developable sites, including a voluntary merger process that allows two parcels to be combined into a single one.
2026-2027
Citywide,
especially in
Downtown
Create 10 units on
consolidated lots
23 Streamlining of
Development
Approval
Prg-4.5, 4.6, 6.8
Implement measures to streamline the development approval process
2024-2025
onwards Citywide
Reduce time required
between project proposal
and project entitlement by
60 to 90 days
24 Water and Sewer
Priority
Prg-1.7
Adopt a policy resolution recommending that housing affordable to low- and very low- income households or possibly all residential projects receive priority for new water and sewer connections in the event of future service limitations
2024-2025
onwards Citywide
Achieve RHNA targets
25 Zoning Text and Map
Revisions
Prg-1.3
Complete recommended zoning changes that facilitate the full range of General Plan densities 2024-2026 Citywide
26 Revisions to Parking
Standards
Prg-1.2, 4.2
Complete an evaluation of residential off-street parking standards to reduce parking as a housing development expense 2024-2025 Citywide,
especially within
one-half mile of
Updated parking standards
102
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
transit stops and
bus corridors
27 Monitoring of
Approved
Development
Projects
Prg-4.6
Contact developers of approved projects at least once every six months between entitlement and issuance of building permit to discuss project status/schedule and any potential constraints that can be addressed.
2024-2031
Citywide,
especially on
pipeline project
sites
Completion of most units
in existing pipeline
development by 2031
HOUSING MOBILITY THROUGH EXPANDED CHOICES IN HOUSING TYPES AND LOCATIONS 28 Extremely LowIncome (ELI) Housing
Resources
Pol-1.3, 1.12
Prg-4.6
Identify sites for additional ELI housing projects and begin exploration for funding sources for ELI housing units
Identify sites in
2025; begin
exploration of
funding sources
in 2026
Citywide
Future new interim
housing units for ELI
households
29 Funding and
Resources to Prevent
and Reduce
Homelessness
Prg-4.3, 4.4
Actively seek funding for strategies that prevent homelessness and help City residents experiencing homelessness in securing a place to live and access to services
2025-2026
onwards
By 2031, seek at least
$500,000 dollars in
funding.
Citywide
30 Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs)
Prg-1.2
• Provide expanded resources on ADUs on the City’s website Citywide,
especially singlefamily
neighborhoods
Create or legalize at least
10 ADUs a year through
2031, or 80 over the
planning period.
• Develop incentives such as fee waivers or tax abatements for owners who agree to rent their ADUs to qualifying lower income households
2024-2025
onwards
• Pursue grant funding to help homeowners add ADUs with a deed restriction that limits occupancy to a lower income tenants 31 Monitoring the Status
of below-market-rate
(BMR) Units
Prg-3.1
• Enter agreement with County Housing Authority for monitoring of BMR ownership units
Citywide
All tenants and
homeowners qualify as
lower or moderateincome households. All
property owners charge
appropriate rents for BMR
units.
• In 2024, identify a service provider to monitor BMR rental units 2024-2025 onwards
• Meet with service providers at least every 6 months for updates on BMR portfolio
32 Housing Resources
for Older Adults
• Amend affordable housing provisions to treat assisted living as a residential use rather than a commercial use so that the City’s affordable housing requirements may be applied
2024-2025
onwards Citywide Increase housing units for
older adults by 20 percent
103
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Prg-3.3
Prg-4.2
• Work with the nonprofit sector to increase the number of permanently affordable senior housing units and affordable assisted living facilities
33 Adaptable and
Accessible Housing
Pol-4.2
Pol-6.1
Prg-4.2
• Adopt a Universal Design Ordinance that increases the number of units that are adaptable or accessible to persons with disabilities 2024-2025
onwards Citywide
Increase accessible units
by 10 percent
• Amend the City’s Affordable Housing Requirements to require affordable housing units to comply with universal design. • Consider requiring that a percentage of units in new development be adaptable for persons with disabilities.
100% of new affordable
housing units comply with
universal design • Implement Reasonable Accommodation
• Achieve 100% compliance with all State laws regarding accessibility
• Eliminate any fee for a reasonable accommodation request 34 Residential Care
Facilities
Prg-1.2
Prg-4.5
• Add to the Municipal Code definitions of licensed and unlicensed group homes that conform to State standards
2024-2025
onwards
Higher-density
zoning districts
Reduction in time required
for approval by 50% for
residential care facilities
• Eliminate Code distinction between care facilities for persons with disabilities and other care facilities
• Adopt objective standards to allow for ministerial review in higher- density zoning districts
35 Affordable Housing
for Large Families
Pol-4.1
Prg-4.1
• Develop thresholds for requiring three-bedroom affordable rental units in new construction for certain types of projects. 2024-2025
onwards Citywide
Develop at least 60 threebedroom apartments that
are affordable to low- and
very low- income
households (roughly 70
percent of the lower
income RHNA)
• When considering proposals for projects that are 100 percent affordable, express preference for a mix of housing units that include units designed for larger families.
PLACE-BASED STRATEGIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
36 Extremely LowIncome Housing
Resources
Pol-4.1
Research best practices and develop a strategy to create interim housing with a strong service component to assist individuals in taking steps towards stable housing.
2024-2025
onwards
Areas with people
experiencing
homelessness,
including but not
limited to:
In Year 1 of operating
interim housing pilot
(2025-26), house 50% of
residents in permanent
supportive housing.
104
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Prg-4.1
Identify sites for interim housing pilot project, to be completed with State grants in partnership with community partners.
Downtown,
highway
underpasses, and
open space areas
as applicable.
In Year 2 of operating
interim housing pilot
(2026-27), house at least
additional 25% of residents
in permanent supportive
housing.
Produce a stock of interim housing units with grants
37 Increasing Equity in
Home Maintenance
with Residential
Rehabilitation Loan
Program
Prg-1.5
Pol-2.3, 2.4
Direct CDBG funds to provide property improvement loans and technical assistance to very low-income homeowners Annually Citywide Assist up to a dozen households by 2031 38 Specific Plan to uplift
east side
neighborhoods
Prg-1.5
Pol-2.3, 2.4
Prepare and adopt plan, regulatory framework, and environmental document 2027
Eastern
neighborhood of
the City
Create housing capacity
for at least 25 additional
units
A
AFFH Action: Mental
Health Liaison
With relatively low occurrence of unhoused persons in the City, a full mental health position would not be necessary. Therefore, the City can rely on the mental health services and personnel of the County. 2024-2025
onwards
Enclaves with high
concentrations of
people
experiencing
homelessness,
including but not
limited to:
Downtown,
highway
underpasses, and
open space areas.
Connect people
experiencing homelessness
to mental health and
housing services, including
the Countywide amenities
B AFFH Action: SAFE
Program
In conjunction with the County Mental Health Department, launch a pilot program consisting of an Alternative Response Team, also known as the SAFE Team (Specialized Assistance For Everyone), a twoperson mobile team comprised of a Crisis Intervention Specialist and an Emergency Medical Technician. They are tied into the emergency response system and will supplement Fire and Police response to calls for service.
Launch threeyear pilot in 2024-
2025 onwards
Citywide
Connect vulnerable
community members,
especially those with
mental health history and
those experiencing
homelessness, to the best
105
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
supportive services
available
C AFFH Action: Small
Business Assistance
Work with the local business association to prevent displacement of small businesses in mixed use projects
2025-2026
onwards Citywide
100% of small businesses
impacted by mixed use
projects are successfully
incorporated or relocated
D
AFFH Action:
Neighborhood
Lighting
Improvements
Improve lighting in the downtown based on community feedback (Public Works)
2025-2026
onwards
Downtown
neighborhood
Assess and address better
lighting conditions at
existing poles that have no
or weak lighting
E AFFH Action: Digital
divide
• Citywide Public Wi-Fi Network; Work with County to address digital equity/divide
2025-2026
onwards Citywide
Establish Wi-Fi access for
residents; apply for grants
from the PUC for a
feasibility study for
broadband infrastructure
in the City; hire community
engagement staff for
Strategic Communications
Plan
• Grant funding for dedicated broadband infrastructure
• City-wide language access; Hybrid communications engagement strategy
F
AFFH Action: Park
Master Plan
Improvements
Develop a City-wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan that incorporates environmental justice and social equity as key elements in the operation and planning of the City’s park and recreation network
2025-2026
onwards Citywide
• Develop guide to further
develop parks and
recreational programs for
all ages, abilities, and
activities. Create and
maintain funding and set
priorities for the φυτυρε
G
AFFH Action:
Sea/Flood Level Rise
and Resilience Study
Conduct feasibility study for nature- based, hybrid, and hard infrastructure protection of the City. Build capacity in communitybased organizations. Engage and educate residents and youth in the study to learn about and give input on the study and choose options to pursue.
2025-2026
onwards Citywide
• Establish a communitybased adaptation planning
team with the City and
County
• Develop at least one
option/project for further
development and to seek
106
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
funding for
implementation
• Codify resident feedback
and choices into the City’s
adaptation, neighborhood, and land use
planning policies and
documents
H
AFFH Action:
Implementation of
Multi-Modal
Transportation Plan
Pedestrian and bicycle crossings of main thoroughfares; traffic calming and bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements; transit bus stop improvements and maintenance; expanded transit service; transportation to schools
2027 Citywide
• Secure funding and
complete feasibility studies
• Implement quick-build
crossing projects and
traffic calming programs
• Implement bus stop
improvements
• Streamline maintenance
process
• Conduct focused
ridership survey on transit
line
• Secure funding and add
additional runs
A, B, . . . H = The City can implement these non-housing strategies to achieve more equitable and just outcomes. They can complement and advance AFFH principles to facilitate fair housing throughout the City.
107
7.0 Appendices
7.1 Appendix A: Evaluation of 2015 Housing Element
Government Code Section 65588(a) requires that jurisdictions evaluate the effectiveness of the existing Housing Element, the appropriateness of goals, objectives, and policies, and the progress in implementing programs for the previous planning period. This appendix contains a review of the goals, policies, and programs of the previous housing element and evaluates the degree to which these programs have been implemented during the previous planning period, 2015 to 2023. The analysis includes an assessment of the appropriateness of goals, objectives, policies, and programs.
7.1.1 Program Evaluation
Table A-1 summarizes the programs contained in the 2015 to 2023` Housing Element along with responsible agencies, accomplishments, and policies or actions to pursue moving forward. The review reveals implementation across the board of the programs in the previous planning period of 2015 to 2023.
7.1.2 Appropriateness of Goals and Policies
Table A-2 evaluates the appropriateness of previous goals and policies and identifies necessary changes considering the City's experience during the ending planning period. The evaluation found programs in the 2015 to 2023 planning period to continue to remain relevant across the board and recommends their continuation. The programs are therefore integrated into the new set of programs in the new housing element.
7.1.3. Progress in Meeting Quantified Objectives
Tables A-3 (A-3a and A-3b) present the City's progress in meeting the quantified objectives from the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element. Milestone Housing broke ground in 2022 with expected completion of its 80 assisted housing units in 2023. Together with other units constructed during the 2015-2023 planning period, units delivered fall primarily in the very low and above moderate-income categories, but nevertheless would fulfill more than the City’s RHNA allocations for the planning period in those two income categories and in so doing also meet the overall allocation total. The category showing noticeable shortfall is the “moderate-income” category (or middle-income housing) which many jurisdictions in California seem to have a hard time fulfilling. The 2020 General Plan includes policies to enhance production of low-income and moderate-income housing through development of mixed-use areas and accessory dwelling units as Table A-3c illustrates.
Table A-4 presents records of development activity in terms of permits issued annually from 2015 to mid-2022. The period registered steady amounts of permit activity, including permits for new and accessory dwelling units as well as extensions and repairs to existing housing. Among the average of nearly 210 permits per year over the period, the majority were enhancements to existing structures.
Nevertheless, the number of permits for actual construction tracked the City’s RHNA allocation.
Table A-5 presents ranges of monthly housing costs that various income groups could afford and not become housing cost-burdened. The analysis shows how much households could afford to pay for housing assuming 30 percent of income at points that represent definitions of various income ranges.
Estimate of mortgage payments under prevailing market conditions shed light on the household income groups that can afford the price ranges of houses that are available in the open market. Table
108
A-3c shows that lower income households could only comfortably afford housing priced below $200,000 without assistance. Even those in the above moderate-income group could generally afford housing priced below $400,000 based on prevailing incomes in McFarland. Further analysis revealed that accessory dwelling units with rental incomes have the potential to push affordability for home owners from above moderate to the moderate income category while accommodating the second unit occupants from low-income groups.
Table A-1: Evaluation of Programs in 2015 Housing Element - City of McFarland [Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency Time Frame Evaluation & 2015-2022 Accomplishments Future Policies
and Actions
1.1. The City will develop a
rehabilitation program to
provide loans to low-income
homeowners when the City
secures the funding from
CDBG and HOME.
Grants
Department
Developed
during 5th cycle
and remains
ongoing when
funds are
available
Essential element of affordable
housing facilitation and
production.
It contributed to a boost in
permits for residential
alterations, repairs, re-roofs,
miscellaneous updates to
plumbing, electrical, and
mechanical elements, and for
accessory buildings, structures,
and driveways
Table A-4 shows
that from 2015 to
2022, the City
processed an
average of 200
permits per year
covering the main
categories of new
housing, additions
and alterations, as
well as upgrades to
mechanical and
electrical systems.
Therefore,
Continue
program implemen
tation
1.2 The City will provide
informational brochures
about housing maintenance
to emphasize the values of a
well-maintained home and
offer guidance to typical
home maintenance efforts.
The brochure will be
periodically reviewed to
ensure any building or
municipal code changes are
included.
Community
Development
Department
Developed by
2016 and
remains ongoing
Information is available at City
Hall.
It contributed to a boost in
permits for residential
alterations, repairs, re-roofs,
miscellaneous updates to
plumbing, electrical, and
mechanical elements, and for
accessory buildings, structures,
and driveways
Table A-4 shows
that from 2015 to
2022, the City
processed an
average of 177
permits per year
covering additions,
alterations, and
upgrades to
mechanical and
electrical systems.
Therefore, expand
the education
program
1.3. Educate the residents of
McFarland on the City’s
property maintenance
ordinance. Additionally the
Code Enforcement Division
will proactively enforce
codes to maintain and
improve the quality of
housing and neighborhoods.
Community
Development
Department
Introduced in
2017 and
remains ongoing
In 2017, the City employed a
full-time code enforcer to
make enforcement activities
proactive. Electronic records
indicate approximately 210
enforcement activities per
calendar year. The single most
frequent set of complaints
related to nuisance at nearly
three-quarters of the cases.
Electronic records
indicate
approximately 210
enforcement
activities per
calendar year.
Therefore,
continue
program implemen
tation
109
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency Time Frame Evaluation & 2015-2022 Accomplishments Future Policies
and Actions
McFarland’s proactive code
enforcement efforts have
fostered compliance among
the population and resulted in
the maintenance and
improvements to housing in
the neighborhoods.
1.4. Information bulletins
will be distributed in both
English and Spanish to the
general public to promote
clear understanding about
available housing
opportunities in the City.
Planning
Department
Initiated during
5th cycle and
remains ongoing
Information available at City
Hall.
This has helped
tremendously in making
housing in general, but
especially affordable, assisted,
and special needs housing
relatively accessible in
McFarland compared to
neighboring communities.
This is a continuing
need. Therefore,
continue
program implemen
tation
1.5. The City will work with
the citizens, the Police
Department, local civic
organizations and the
franchise waste hauler to
remove the garbage from
the alleys and allow
residents to properly
dispose of household items.
Community
Development
Department and
Public Works
Department
Initiated during
5th cycle and
takes place biannually
Part of outreach program.
This has helped reduce the
incidence of disused items in
yards and public areas. It has
helped in tidying up
neighborhoods engendering
public pride in the community.
This is a continuing
need. Therefore,
continue
program implemen
tation
2.1. The City will annually
contact and proactively
partner with non-profit
developers and developers
of affordable housing to
assist in the development of
housing for lower and
moderate income
households and persons
with specials needs,
farmworkers and persons
with disabilities, including
developmental disabilities.
The City will assist in site
identification and
acquisition, support or assist
funding applications, assist
with entitlements, provide
priority processing, grant
concessions, modify
standards and waive or
defer fees.
Community
Development
Department
Initiated during
5th cycle
Essential element of supplying
and tracking affordable
housing.
This aided the site
identification and application
processing in the development
of the ongoing construction of
the affordable Milestone
housing apartments.
This resulted in the
construction of the
80-unit Milestone
project for the
lowest income
groups.
Therefore,
continue
program implemen
tation
110
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency Time Frame Evaluation & 2015-2022 Accomplishments Future Policies
and Actions
2.2. The City will initiate a
First-Time Home Buyer
(FTHB) Program to assist
low-income families who
are first-time home buyers
or displaced homeowners,
who are able to qualify for a
first mortgage. The program
will apply for funding such as
CDBG, HOME, CalHOME
when Notices of Funding
Availability (NOFA) are
advertised.
Community
Development
Department and
Grants
Department
Initiated during
5th cycle but
faced challenges
in procuring
regular funding
opportunities
Essential element of facilitating
housing ownership affordably.
This has helped a few home
buyers learn about and
navigate the home buying
landscape for more successful
outcomes at home buying and
retention.
The City of
McFarland has
successfully housed
local and
surrounding
residents through
various assistance
programs.
Programs such as
CDBG, USDA, and
CalHomes have
made it possible for
low and very-lowincome families to
able to not only
purchase but retain
their new home
purchases.
CalHomes has given
77 families down
payment assistance
for their home
purchases in the
City of McFarland.
Two large housing
developments
coordinated with
USDA to give first
time home buyers
the freedom and
opportunity to
purchase a home at
a lower interest
rate. In Tract 7393
alone, USDA was
able to assist 71
families purchase
their first home.
Therefore,
continue
program implemen
tation
2.3. Encourage the
development of 5-10 second
units per year. A second unit
is a self-contained living unit
with cooking, eating,
sleeping, and full sanitation
facilities, either attached to
or detached from the
primary residential unit on a
single lot.
Community
Development
Department
Initiated during
5th cycle
Second Unit Ordinance is part
of Zoning Code. Need to
formally amend the ordinance
to refer to ADUs.
This has not yielded target
results but remain a
prospective way of adding to
the stock of affordable
housing.
The City produced 5
ADUs in the
previous three
years. The City
revised the
ordinance and
renamed for “ADU”
in conformance
with State law
111
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency Time Frame Evaluation & 2015-2022 Accomplishments Future Policies
and Actions
Therefore,
continue and
expand program
2.4. The City will adopt
development standards
which facilitate the
provision of non-traditional
housing to meet the unique
needs of residents, assisted
living for seniors, and livework development if
necessary. This involves
revising the Zoning
Ordinance to provide
development standards to
facilitate the development
of non-traditional housing
types.
Community
Development
Department
Adopted during
5th cycle
Ongoing part of the
development review process
This has helped in fasttracking the construction of
such affordable units as the 80-
unit Milestone apartments.
Milestone housing
or 80 affordable
units constructed.
Therefore,
continue
program implemen
tation
2.5. The City will continue to
participate in the Section 8
rental assistance program
administered through the
Housing Authority of the
County of Kern (HACK) and
will encourage rental
property owners to list
available units through the
program.
Planning
Department,
HACK
Continued
during 5th cycle
and remains
ongoing
Essential element of affordable
housing for those in the very
low end of income spectrum
The subsidies have made
housing affordable for large
segments of the City’s
residents
This a recognized
resource for
families in the
lower income
groups. However,
actual data on
levels of patronage
and trends are not
forthcoming from
the Housing
Authority of Kern
County.
Due to its
popularity and
critical role,
continue
program implemen
tation
2.6. The City will amend the
City of McFarland Zoning
Ordinance pursuant to the
requirements of Sections
17021.5 and 17021.6 of the
Health and Safety Code.
Pursuant to Sections
17021.5 and 17021.6 of the
Health and Safety Code of
Planning
Department
Initiated during
5th cycle
Zoning Code updated pursuant
to Sections 17021.5 and
17021.6 of California's Health
and Safety Code.
This has aided a large
segment of the population for
whom English is a second
language and incoming
This is a continuing
need. Therefore,
continue
program implemen
tation
112
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency Time Frame Evaluation & 2015-2022 Accomplishments Future Policies
and Actions
the State of California
employee housing for 6 or
fewer persons the same as a
single family unit in any
residential zone and
employee housing
consisting of 36 or more
beds as an allowable use in
agricultural zones.
migrants to navigate the
housing landscape.
2.7. The City will amend the
City of McFarland Zoning
Ordinance to revise the
definition of a “Family” to be
less restrictive.
Community
Development
Department
In effect during
5th cycle
Definition of “Family”
expanded in Ordinance. No.
030-2013, § 1, 4-11-13
17.04.290 as follows:
"Family" means an individual,
or two or more persons related
by blood or marriage or legal
adoption living together in a
dwelling unit or six or fewer
related or unrelated persons
living together.
This has facilitated the
qualification of non-family
households to obtain
affordable and assisted
housing. This is particularly
helpful when persons with
disabilities need to join others
in living arrangements who
they may not even relate to by
blood.
This is a continuing
need.
However, this
definition still limits
the number of
unrelated persons
living together. To
conform with State
requirements, a
new program 4.9 is
added to modify
the definition of
“family” in the
municipal code to
“one or more
persons living
together as a single
housekeeping unit
in a dwelling unit.”
3.1. The City will redesignate land use for
medium and high-density
residential use and mixed
use.
Community
Development
Department
Upon
annexation of
new land or as
requested by the
property owner
Addressed in the 2020 update
to the General Plan.
Downtown, areas west of
downtown, and areas south of
downtown have designation
for low, medium, and highdensity housing
The 2040 Geral Plan
has designated
more than 18 city
blocks of space in
the downtown area
for residentialcommercial mixeduse.
Therefore,
continue
program implemen
tation
113
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency Time Frame Evaluation & 2015-2022 Accomplishments Future Policies
and Actions
3.2. Current zoning is not
considered a constraint;
however, as part of the
Zoning Ordinance update
the City will amend zoning
to encourage a variety of
housing types for all
incomes and persons with
special needs. This could
include mixed-use zoning
and smaller lot zoning and
design guidelines.
Planning
Department
In effect during
5th cycle
Ongoing part of the
development review process.
An important step is addressing
this in the 2020 update to the
General Plan in which
downtown, areas west of
downtown, and areas south of
downtown have designation
for low, medium, and highdensity housing in addition to mixed-use.
2020 update to the
General Plan
designated
downtown, areas
west of downtown,
and areas south of
downtown for low,
medium, and highdensity housing in
addition to mixeduse
Therefore,
continue
program implemen
tation
4.1. The City will evaluate
various incentive programs
to encourage higher density
developments.
Community
Development
Department
In effect during
5th cycle
Ongoing part of the
development review process,
with support in the 2020
update to the General Plan.
This is a continuing
pressing need.
Therefore,
continue program
implementation
4.2. The City will evaluate
current planning process
and make necessary
changes to simplify the
process on a continuing
basis. The City will also
prioritize projects in great
need of the community,
such as seniors’ housing,
developments affordable to
lower income households,
farm workers and housing
for persons with special
needs, etc.
Community
Development
Department
In effect during
5th cycle
Ongoing part of the
development review process.
This flexibility has helped in
fast-tracking the construction
of such affordable units as the
80-unit Milestone apartments.
This is a continuing
need. Therefore,
continue program
implementation
4.3. The City shall ensure
compliance with SB 1087.
Community
Development
Department
In effect during
5th cycle
Ongoing part of the
development review process.
This program assured
adequacy of services and
facilities enabling actual
housing construction to
outstrip the RHNA allocation by
26 percent.
This is a continuing
need. Therefore,
continue program
implementation
114
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency Time Frame Evaluation & 2015-2022 Accomplishments Future Policies
and Actions
5.1. The City will
disseminate information on
fair housing in both English
and Spanish and refer the
complaints to the district
office of the California
Department of Fair
Employment and Housing.
The City will provide the
public a booklet entitled,
“Fair Housing: It’s Your
Right,” prepared by the
Office of Equal Opportunity,
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
The booklet contains a
Housing discrimination
complaint form for use by
aggrieved parties.
Community
Development
Department
In effect during
5th cycle
Information available at City
Hall as part of outreach
activities.
This has aided a large
segment of the population and
incoming migrants to fight off
discrimination in housing
access.
This is a continuing
need. Therefore,
continue program
implementation
5.2. The City will work with
major homebuilders to
provide options for
universal design features in
new constructions, and to
encourage discussion of
design options with home
purchasers prior to unit
construction.
Community
Development
Department
In effect during
5th cycle
Ongoing part of the
development review process.
This has aided in
customization of homes
without compelling buyers to
purchase homes that are
unaffordable to them
This is a continuing
need. Therefore,
continue program
implementation
5.3. The City will prepare
technical documents such
an ADA Transition Plan and
Non- vehicular Impediment
Study to identify public
facilities that require ADA
upgrades and areas of
missing or sub-standard
infrastructure.
Community
Development
Department
Implemented
Pedestrian
Impediment
Plan in June
2016; and ADA
Transition Plan
in December
2016
Compliance with ADA
requirements is part of the
Building Code.
It has helped make lower
income and assisted housing
developments accessible to
those with disabilities.
This is a continuing
need. Therefore,
continue program
implementation
6.1. The City will establish
Sustainable Design
Guidelines which will be
part of the optional
Community Development
Element of the General Plan
Update.
Community
Development
Department
In effect during
5th cycle
Addressed in the 2020 update
to the General Plan.
This has helped non-profit
and other developers in timely
implementation of housing
projects.
This is a continuing
need. Therefore,
continue program
implementation
6.2. The City will review and
develop a pamphlet of the
variety of programs
available through utility
companies as well as State
resources by 2009. The City
will make the pamphlet
Community
Development
Department
Continued
during 5th cycle
Disseminated collaboratively in
utility bills.
This has helped residents
save on utility bills making
home ownership more
affordable than otherwise.
This is a continuing
need. Therefore,
continue program
implementation
115
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency Time Frame Evaluation & 2015-2022 Accomplishments Future Policies
and Actions
available in a variety of
public locations including
City Hall and widely
distribute it at community
events and other
community wide means
such as mailers.
Table A-2: Appropriateness of 2015 McFarland Housing Element Goals and Policies [Table A-2] Goals & Policies Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments Appropriateness
Goal 1. Maintain and improve the quality
of existing housing and residential
neighborhoods in McFarland.
This has helped in maintaining
the quality housing in the City Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 1.1. Encourage citizen involvement
in addressing the maintenance and
improvement of the housing stock and
neighborhood quality.
This has helped in maintaining
the quality of housing and
fostering neighborhood pride.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 1.2. Encourage homeowners and
property owners to maintain properties in
sound condition through City’s code
enforcement efforts and future
rehabilitation program.
The City has a dedicated staff
person for code enforcement
whose work makes residents
aware and compliant.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 1.3. Continue to support the
provision of rental assistance to lowincome households with the assistance of the Housing Authority of the County of
Kern and other non-profit housing
providers.
This continues to help provide
access to and keep lowincome households in decent
housing
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 1.4. Preserve the existing affordable
housing through City regulations, as well as
other forms of assistance.
This has helped in maintaining
the quality of affordable and
assisted housing in the City
Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal 2. Facilitate the provision of a range
of different housing types to meet the
needs of the community.
This continues to meet a
variety of housing needs in the
City
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 2.1. Provide high quality housing for
current and future residents with a diverse
range of income levels.
The quality of new
construction continues to
increase whether is it
affordable or market rate
housing.
Still Appropriate -
retain
116
[Table A-2] Goals & Policies Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments Appropriateness
Policy 2.2. Continue to promote
homeownership by establishing assistance
programs to low and moderate-income
households to purchase new and existing
housing.
The continues to help open
doors to home ownership for
residents in a wide range of
income groups.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 2.3. Provide regulatory and/or
financial incentives to non-profits, private
housing developers, and public agencies
for the construction of the types of housing
required to meet identified needs.
This continues to help in the
funding and construction of
affordable and assisted
housing units
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 2.4. Support the provision of quality
rental housing with three or more
bedrooms to accommodate large families
and encourage room additions in the
existing housing to address householder
overcrowding issue.
This continues to help provide
access to and keep large
families in lower income
brackets in decent housing
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 2.5. Support a variety of housing
types to address the needs of agricultural
workers.
This has resulted in exemplary
access to housing for
agricultural workers in the
City compared to neighboring
cities.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 2.6. Facilitate the provision of
housing to address McFarland’s growing
senior population, including senior housing
with supportive services, assisted living
facilities, and second units.
This continues to help provide
access to and keep special
needs households in decent
housing
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 2.7. Encourage the provision of
housing available to the physically disabled
through integration of universal design
features in new development, and
compliance with Title 24 of the California
Health and Safety code.
This continues to help provide
access to and keep many
types of households in decent
housing
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 2.8. Facilitate the provision of
second units as a means of providing
affordable rental housing in existing
neighborhoods. Ensure compatibility with
the primary unit and surrounding
neighborhood.
This has picked up slowly but
holds good promise, given the
people’s aspiration for it. Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 2.9. Encourage the production of
housing that meets the needs of all
economic segments, including low,
moderate, and above moderate- income
This continues to help provide
access to and keep many
households in a wide range of
Still Appropriate -
retain
117
[Table A-2] Goals & Policies Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments Appropriateness
households, to achieve a balanced
community.
income brackets in decent
housing
Policy 2.10. Facilitate non-traditional
housing types and options, including cohousing, assisted living facilities, and livework spaces.
This is yet to take off but also
holds promise in a tight
housing market.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 2.11. Annually monitor the City’s
progress in meeting its housing needs for
all income levels.
This has kept the City largely
compliant with meeting its
RHNA allocations
Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal 3. Provide adequate housing sites
through appropriate land use and zoning
designations to accommodate the City’s
share of regional housing needs.
This City accomplished this
with the new General Plan Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 3.1. Create and maintain an up-todate inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels and provide to interested
developers in conjunction with information
on available development incentives.
The new General Plan
identifies vacant parcels and
areas for future residential
growth.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 3.2. Encourage efficient utilization of
the City’s limited land resources by
encouraging development at the upper end
of the permitted Zoning
Ordinance/Comprehensive Plan density.
The new General Plan
proposes intensification of
development in both already
developed downtown and
new residential areas.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 3.3. Utilize specific plan as a planning
tool to facilitate higher density residential
and mixed-use development in certain
area.
The City frequently approves
developments of relatively
large parcels to achieve this
end.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 3.4. Identify opportunities for
housing development that achieves other
community goals such as neighborhood
improvement, recreation opportunities,
and the preservation of neighborhood
character.
Recent approvals for specific
plan areas foster the inclusion
of parks, schools, and
neighborhood commercial
establishments.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal 4. Mitigate or remove any potential
governmental constraints to housing
production and affordability.
The City government seeks to
make development review
and approval seamless and
straight forward for
applicants.
Still Appropriate -
retain
118
[Table A-2] Goals & Policies Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments Appropriateness
Policy 4.1. Provide regulatory and/or
financial incentives, where appropriate, to
offset or reduce the costs of affordable
housing development, including density
bonuses and flexibility in site development
standards.
This is responsible for the
relatively ample supply of
affordable and assisted
housing in the City.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 4.2. Undertake a review of the City’s
residential development project review
procedures and establish modified
procedures as appropriate to streamline
processing times, while maintaining
adequate levels of public review.
The City government
streamlined procedures
seeking to make development
review and approval seamless
and straight forward for
applicants.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal 5. Promote equal opportunity for
residents to reside in the housing of their
choice.
This has resulted in exemplary
access to housing residents in
the City compared to
neighboring cities.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 5.1. Continue to enforce fair housing
laws prohibiting discrimination in the
building, financing, selling or renting of
housing on the basis of race, religion,
family status, national origin, physical or
mental disability, or other such factors.
This has resulted in exemplary
access to housing for
household in a wide variety of
income and disability groups
in the City.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 5.2. Promote housing that meets the
special needs of large families, elderly
persons, agricultural workers, and the
disabled.
This has resulted in exemplary
access to housing for special
needs in the City.
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy 5.3. Enforce notification and
assistance for lower-income persons
displaced due to demolition, reuse, or
rehabilitation as a result of code
enforcement.
This has made the City a
welcoming and
compassionate place for
housing
Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal 6. Develop complete neighborhoods
that provide residential, commercial,
recreational and economic opportunities
to residents of the neighborhood.
Many recent negotiations for
specific plan areas foster the
inclusion of parks, schools,
and neighborhood
commercial establishments.
Still Appropriate -
retain for planned
unit developments
via specific plans and
multiple permitted
uses in mixed-use
zones
Policy 6.1. Facilitate the development of
mixed-use projects in appropriate
commercial areas, including stand-alone
residential developments (horizontal
The new General Plan
promotes this and recent
applications for development
Still Appropriate -
retain for planned
unit developments
via specific plans and
119
[Table A-2] Goals & Policies Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments Appropriateness
mixed-use) and housing above ground floor
commercial uses (vertical mixed-use).
approval incorporate the
mixture of uses.
multiple permitted
uses in mixed-use
zones
Policy 6.2. Implement smart growth
principles through design guidelines and
encourage quality infill projects.
This has made the City a place
that is welcoming and easy to
navigate for individual
property owners and
developers seeking to develop
housing..
Still Appropriate -
retain for planned
unit developments
via specific plans and
multiple permitted
uses in mixed-use
zones
Table A-3a. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (All Incomes) Table A-3a
Quantified
Objective Completed Progress
Income Category
(Allocated
5th Cycle
Dwelling
Units)
Completed in
5th Cycle
Under
Construction
in 5th Cycle
Accomplished
in 5th Cycle
Percent of
RHNA
Met
Very Low1 93 13 80 93 100%
Low2 73 55 55 75%
Moderate 66 0 0 0%
Above Moderate 79 245 245 310%
Total 311 313 80 393 126%
Source: City of McFarland, Planning Department Data, 2022; 2015 McFarland Housing Element 1 Milestone Housing broke ground in 2022. Expected completion of 80 assisted housing units in 2023; 2 Kendrea Place (at 1020 Kendrea Pl) was completed in 2020; it includes rental and privately owned, 3- to 4-bedrooom single family homes; occupants are Ag-oriented workers whose rents are based on salaries in the Ag sector; rental range from $280 monthly up.
120
Table A-3b. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (Lower Incomes) – Under Construction Table A-3b
Tenant Affordability Level Number of Units Mechanism to Achieve Affordability At or below 30% AMI –
Extremely Low 17 Rent set to tenant income
At or below 50% AMI – Very Low 27 Rent set to tenant income At or below 80% AMI – Low 36 Rent set to tenant income
Total (dwelling units in
Milestone Housing) 80
Table A-3c. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (Lower Incomes) – Completed ADUs Year ADUs
Permitted
Cost
Estimate1
Monthly
Payment
Monthly+25%
Maintenance
Income
Group2
2016 3 $50,000 ($267) $334 EL
2017 1 $90,000 ($481) $601 VL
2020 1 $200,000 ($1,069) $1,336 L
1 Cost estimates are hypothetical to illustrate lower income affordability at various price points. 2 EL = Extremely Low, VL = Very Low, L = Low
Table A-4: Residential Permits - City of McFarland, 2015 through 2022 Table A-4 Permits Issued in Year
Residential Permit Types 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Detached Single-family Dwellings 47 23 32 128 7 7 1 8 253 Detached Single-family Dwellings w/ Secondary Dwelling 3 1 1 5 Attached Single-family Dwellings
Attached Single-family Dwelling w/ Secondary Dwelling
Attached or Detached Secondary Dwellings
Multi-family Dwellings 2 2
Residential Additions 7 10 4 10 9 16 12 2 70
Residential Alterations 14 10 7 18 14 34 13 5 115
New Garage/Carports
Residential Repairs
Residential Re-roofs 9 19 14 5 24 24 59 13 167
121
Table A-4 Permits Issued in Year
Residential Permit Types 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Residential Misc. Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical Permit 31 22 44 41 58 38 16 11 261 Residential Accessory Buildings, Structures, Driveways 14 17 23 25 27 31 17 11 165 Residential Pools/ Spas 2 1 1 2 2 4 4 1 17
Residential Grading, Site Work, Stockpiling, Misc.
Residential Demolitions 9 5 1 2 17
Residential Permit Re-issued
Residential Solar 125 80 83 25 54 78 90 63 598
Residential Fire
Total Residential Permits (All Types) 249 194 209 259 195 234 214 116 1670 Average permits per year 209
Table A-5: Residential Affordability Levels by Income Group in McFarland Income Range for Kern County Area Median Income
Income Group Low Mid High
Extremely Low $12,000 $16,203 $20,407
Very Low $20,408 $27,210 $34,012
Low $34,012 $44,215 $54,418
Moderate $54,419 $68,023 $81,628
Above Moderate $81,628 $100,814 $120,000
Affordable Monthly Housing Expenditure @ 30% of Monthly Income 7 $300 $405 $510
Very Low $510 $680 $850
Low $850 $1,105 $1,360
Moderate $1,360 $1,701 $2,041
Above Moderate $2,041 $2,520 $3,000
7.1.4. Effectiveness in Addressing Special Needs Populations Over the period 2015-2023, the City developed a rehabilitation program which provided loans to lowincome homeowners when the City secured funding from CDBG and HOME. Additionally, the City has continued to amend zoning to encourage a variety of housing types for all incomes and persons with special needs through mixed-use zoning and small lot zoning. Above all, the City has continually made changes to simplify the development review and approval processto prioritize projects geared towards the development of such special needs housing as those for seniors, lower income households, farm workers, and persons with disabilities. Table A-3a shows that Kendrea Place (at 1020 Kendrea Pl) was
122
completed in 2020; it includes rental and privately owned, 3- to 4-bedrooom single family homes; occupants are Agriculture-oriented workers whose rents are based on salaries in the Agriculture sector; rental amounts range from $280 monthly upwards. Table A-3a also reveals ongoing and soon to be completed construction of 80 housing units in the Milestone Housing project to fully target special needs households. Table A-3c shows that the 5th cycle period registered the construction of 5 accessory dwelling units within the price range of the lower income households.
7.1.5. Shortfall of Sites from the 5th Cycle Planning Period Over the 5th Cycle planning period, there was no shortfall of sites due to failure to implement rezoning to adequately accommodate RHNA for lower-income households. Table A-3a indicates that the majority of lower income household housing was on track for delivery by the end of the cycle.
Additionally, Table B-2 shows that 77 acres of vacant residential land remained with the capacity to conservatively accommodate approximately 485 new units.
7.1.6. Availability of Homes for Sale or Rent
7.1.6.1. Housing units for Sale
Consistent with the historically low levels of vacancy in McFarland, a commercial real estate site such as Zillow identified approximately half a dozen homes that were available for sale at a point in time.
Figure A-1a shows a listing for sale in early 2022 while Figure A-1b shows a listing for sale in early 2024.
Home prices ranged from $255,000 to $600,000 with a median price of $350,000. Assuming the buyer has a 20 percent down payment and qualifies for a favorable interest rate, Figure A-1c shows that the monthly payment on a medium-priced home would be $2300 a month excluding the cost of utilities.
According to Table A-5, that amount of mortgage payment is only affordable to those in the “above moderate” income category in McFarland.
7.1.6.2. Housing units for Rent
Similarly, consistent with the historically low levels of vacancy in McFarland, Figure A-2 shows that a commercial real estate site such as Zillow identified three dwelling units that were available for rent in early 2024. The three available units was half as many as the quantity available for sale. Rental prices ranged from $980 per month for a two-bedroom unit to $2300 a month for a 4-bedroom unit.
According to Table A-5, the available rental units are only affordable to those in the low-income, moderate-income, and above moderate income categories in McFarland. The analysis reveals that special housing programs are necessary to make units affordable to those in the very low-income and the extremely low-income categories.
The 80 rental units (plus one manager unit) of the up and coming Sherwood Avenue Family Apartments fills the need for affordable rental housing to those in the two lowest income categories. In 2020, the California Strategic Growth Council awarded more than $16 million to the City of McFarland and Milestone Housing Group for the construction of the Sherwood Avenue Family Apartments. As a beneficiary of federal tax credit financing, the covenant restricts rents, which include utilities, on depending on unit size, to households in three income categories:
(a) 18 units at or below 30% AMI with rents between $392 for one bedroom and $543 for three bedrooms; this is affordable for households in the extremely low to very low income categories. (b) 40 units at or below 50% AMI with rents between $653 for one bedroom and $905 for three bedrooms; this is affordable for households in the very low to low income categories.
123
(c) 22 units at or below 60% AMI with rents between $784 for one bedroom and $1087 for three bedrooms; this is affordable for households in the low to moderate income categories.
7.1.6.3. Housing Affordability with ADUs
One of the housing units for sale was a two-family unit on a single lot (akin to a main house with an accessory unit) as follows:
• The home in the front of 1230 sq. ft. has 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, and 1-car garage • The home in the back of 1103 sq. ft. has 3 bedrooms, 2 baths and 1-car garage with its own alley entrance.
If the owner lives in one unit and rents out the other unit, rental income of $800 to $1000 can offset the potential monthly mortgage payment of $2,340, which Figure A-3 shows. The out-of-pocket reduction to $1440 to $1640 would push affordability for the home owner from above moderate to the moderate income category while offering the second unit for rent that would be affordable to those in the very low-income and the low-income categories. This analysis underscores the potential for ADUs to help in addressing both the shortage and the affordability of housing for both owners and renters.
124
Figure A-1a: Sample Listing of Homes for Sale in McFarland, 10-1-2022 Sample listing of homes for sale in McFarland, 10-1-2022.
125
Figure A-1b: Sample Listing of Homes for Sale in McFarland, 2-29-2024 Sample listing of homes for sale in McFarland, 2-29-2024.
126
Figure A-1c Mortgage Calculation for Medium-Priced Homes for Sale in McFarland, 2-29-2024
127
Figure A-2: Sample Listing of Homes for Rent in McFarland, 2-29-2024 Sample listing of homes for rent in McFarland, 2-29-2024.
Figure A-3: Mortgage Calculation for 2-Family Home (Home + ADU) in McFarland, 2-29-2024 Sample calculation of mortgage terms and payment
128
7.2 Appendix B: Residential Land Inventory
7.2.0 Site Analysis for 6th Cycle RHNA
7.2.0.1 Available Space or Pipeline Projects for 6th Cycle RHNA & Buffer Preparation of the 2040 McFarland General Plan included a complete land use inventory in 2019, which identified specific sites that were suitable for residential development. For the 2023 to 2031 planning horizon, the Kern County Council of Governments approved the Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) and assigned a total of 244 new housing units to McFarland. This analysis compares the City’s regional housing need allocation of 244 units with its available spaces in strategic locations in the central part of the City together with major pipeline projects that are going through the development review and approval process. To accommodate the RHNA, the examination focused initially on the development potential of vacant lots that are infill sites in location-efficient parts of downtown and the major subdivision development proposal of the Milicic family, as well as pipeline projects that received a certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the KCOG projection period. Table B-1 shows the distribution of the City’s allocation by income groups side-by-side with anticipated numbers of units for delivery during the 6th Cycle. It became clear that housing units at the three key development locations would be sufficient to accommodate the City’s allocation in various income categories.
Table B-1: Summary of 2023-2031 RHNA Allocations to McFarland vs. Potential in Cycle Income
Category
2023 -
2031
RHNA1
RHNA
Credit ADUs
Vacant
Infill
Lots2
Vacant
MixedUse
Parcels3
Milicic
Annexation
#194
Subtotal
Vacant
Percent
Above RHNA
(Buffer)
Lower 82 80 4 0 145 0 145 274%
Moderate 45 0 3 20 48 128 196 336%
Above
Moderate 117
0 1
17 30 414 461
294%
Total 244 80 8 37 223 542 802 229%
Notes:
1 Source: Kern COG (2022). 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, 2023-2031 2 Infill lots in central area of the City
3 Two relatively large parcels designated and zoned for mixed-use but are vacant with potential to meet most of the RHNA 4 Six contiguous parcels of 120 acres approved for annexation into the City and planned unit development The following four groups of sites count toward the 6th Cycle RHNA. Together, these three groups of sites reflect the potential for the City to satisfy three times its total RHNA as follows:
• Eighteen vacant infill lots (not identified in previous cycles) can accommodate one or two units each of either moderate or above moderate-income housing. One approximately two-acre lot can accommodate 12 additional units to a total of 37 units as Table B-1 shows. Parcels are listed in Table B-4.
• Two relatively large vacant parcels of approximately 16 acres and 35 acres (not identified in previous cycles) that the General Plan designated for mixed-use development, can accommodate a total of 223 units to serve all income groups as Table B-1 shows. Parcels are listed under Table B-5. Program 1.3 requires the City to incentivize mixed-use development. • The Milicic multi-use development proposal was recently approved to annex six parcels of 120 acres to construct units in the moderate and above moderate income categories. The proposal
129
is for 386 single-family housing units plus multifamily units, totaling 542 units, as Table B-1 shows. Parcels are listed in Table B-7.
• The Sherwood Family Apartments received a certificate of occupancy on January 29, 2024 for the development of 80 units affordable to low- and extremely low-income households. This project was awarded funding from the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program.
• Overall, the identified space allocations can accommodate the full RHNA for the 6th Cycle and indicate the potential for generous amounts of buffers for all income categories. • It is noteworthy that there is no buffer in any income category that is below 50 percent. The buffers of units anticipated in the 6th cycle are higher than the 15%+ buffer that SB 166 (2021) requires. Subsequent sections of this chapter identify surpluses of additional sites.
Figure B-1a shows the locations of vacant infill lots and annexation area. Given that housing distribution across the City historically depicts a mixture of income types (as Figure B-1b shows), the locations of these sites reinforce such a desirable distribution of housing by income.
Figure B-1a: Locations of Vacant Parcels, a Pipeline Project, and Other Opportunities for 6th Cycle
130
Implications for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The locations and distribution of key pipeline projects and available vacant lots that are counting toward the 6th Cycle RHNA have implications for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). It should be noted that the lower-income RHNA is met through approved projects and ADUs, therefore this analysis will focus on sites slated to meet the moderate- and above-moderate income RHNA. There is a potential to look at the future sites alone and wonder initially if there is integration by income since new lower income housing units are to occur in the southeastern section of the built-up area while moderate income housing seems concentrated in the Milicic Annexation area to the northwest. The answer is affirmative in terms of AFFH integration. The City’s built-up area already has mixed income housing which combines lowerincome and moderate-income units. Additionally, the following is notable:
• Pipeline projects counting toward 6th Cycle RHNA include housing across all income groups. • Together with the future units to locate in the southeastern central city, lower-income units that are existing are distributed from north to south across the City (as Figure B1-b shows), interspersed with the moderate-income units that similarly spread across the City. • Furthermore, potential ADU units that would be extra to RHNA will likely also spread through the entire City, intermixed with housing for the full range of income levels. This strategy is especially key given the number of single-family residences East of Highway 99 and the potential to add ADUs to these properties.
Progress in Meeting 6th Cycle RHNA: The large pipeline project in the Milicic Annexation area, which is counting toward the 6th Cycle RHNA is actively moving along in the approval process. The development already has recorded lots therefore the next action is the issuance of building permits for construction of the new homes. Upon completion, the Milicic development is poised to exceed the City’s allocation in terms of total housing units. In addition, the City issued a certificate of occupancy for the Sherwood Family Apartments for 80 units affordable to low- and extremely low-income households.
As seen in Figure B-1a, the location of sites to meet the moderate and above-moderate income RHNA are dispersed throughout the City. While Figure B-1a highlights development in the Western portion of the City, opportunities for residential development (outside of meeting the RHNA) exist in the Eastern portion of the City.
131
Figure B-1b: Existing Lower-Income Housing Facilities and Distribution Across McFarland
7.2.0.2 Additional Site Analysis Above 6th Cycle RHNA
This and subsequent sections of this report identify additional residential development capacity over and above what is required for the 6th Cycle RHNA. Typically, site inventory and analysis are to help in determining whether program actions are necessary to designate sites with appropriate zoning, development standards, and infrastructure capacity to accommodate the RHNA. Using the inventory of available land, the analysis proceeded to determine (a) the suitability of individual parcels and (b) the appropriate development densities. To accommodate future housing potential, the examination focused on the development potential of vacant land that are infill sites for location efficiency and maximum accessibility. The following paragraph describes the methodology applied to determine residential development capacity.
Residential development potential depends on the residential density standards of the City. The analysis evaluated whether site constraints and land use controls enabled the achievement of the permitted densities. First, the acreage of the parcel was multiplied by the allowable density. Fractional components on the number of units allowed under the density standards were discarded. The allowable unit calculation applied base land use densities with no assumptions about density bonuses.
A parcel-by-parcel evaluation of any unusual site characteristics or land use controls revealed where the allowable number of residential units should adjust further downward in areas where additional constraints to development existed. Constraints that resulted in lower residential capacity included road rights-of-way, irregular lot shapes, difficulty in meeting minimum roadway frontage requirements, and existence of wetlands or drainage courses on the parcels. The methodology results in a conservative estimate of residential capacity that takes into consideration special or unusual circumstances.
132
7.2.1 Vacant Land
The California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo conducted a Land Use Inventory in 2019 as part of the update to the General Plan and Land Use Element. As of October 20, 2019, the City had 77 acres of vacant land, which is available and suitable to accommodate 485 housing units. Based on the residential densities in the Zoning Code and Land Use Element as well as further evaluation for site and planning constraints, Table 3-1 (which is replicated in this appendix as Table B-2) indicates that for the June 2023 through December 2031 period there is opportunity for housing to meet the City’s total RHNA. Beyond 2031, the 2040 McFarland General Plan has plenty more space designation for housing development including affordable units for a total of nearly 13,800 units within its proposed expanded city boundaries. With plentiful allocation of land for future residential development in the long term, the analysis narrowed its focus on the residential development potential within the 2020 city limits of McFarland much of which falls within travel analysis zones 2949C, 2949D, 2949E, 2949F, and 2949G as Figure B-2 shows. Table B-3 shows residential development potential of 9,090 units within the 2020 city boundaries.
For the relatively short-term, 6th-Cycle period, the analysis further narrowed its focus on the downtown and immediate vicinities as the most accessible and most location-efficient areas for short-term housing development. This much narrower area falls within zones 2949F and 2949G.
Table B-4 is an inventory showing vacant parcels with residential development opportunities solely in the downtown area. Parcels that are vacant and designated for housing development can accommodate 36 additional moderate and above moderate housing units. These residential infill parcels within downtown are carry-over sites from the 5th Cycle since most new development occurred outside the downtown. Since the carry-over sites in Table B-4 can produce only 36 housing units out of the total potential of 485 units from vacant parcels in the immediate vicinity of downtown, nondevelopment of these carry-over sites do not pose risk to fulfilling the City’s RHNA in the 6th Cycle. Also, the parcels are too small individually and too scattered to efficiently produce housing for lower-income households.
Table B-2: Capacity of Vacant Residential Lands and Other Residential Potential – McFarland City, 2022
Residential Land Use
Vacant
Land
(acres)
Allowable
Density (units
per acre)
Historic Density
(built units per
acre)
Realistic Capacity
(housing units)**
Vacant Land in Central Built-up Area
Single Family 73 8 6
439
Apartment 4 24 12
46 Mobile Home 0 8 5
0 Subtotal in built-up area of
central McFarland 77
485
Vacant Land in General Plan Including Annexation Areas
General Plan Residential:
Low-Density 1072 8 6
4,704
133
Residential Land Use
Vacant
Land
(acres)
Allowable
Density (units
per acre)
Historic Density
(built units per
acre)
Realistic Capacity
(housing units)**
General Plan Residential:
Medium-Density 471 6 8
3,829
General Plan Residential:
High-Density 258 24 12
4,041
General Plan Residential
with ADU Opportunities
1,219
Grand total residential
capacity
13,793
Subtotal Affordable
Potential (high density &
ADU)
5,260
Source: City of McFarland, 2040 General Plan, General Plan Map.** Refer to section 3.02.2 for consideration of constraints and other factors that went into the analysis of “realistic capacity”.
Figure B-2: Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) in McFarland and Sphere of Influence
134
7.2.2 Mixed-Use Development
The 2040 General Plan designates mixed-use development at such strategic locations as the City’s downtown. This offers additional housing opportunities, including those for lower income residents.
The General Plan identified 56 acres of land across 25 parcels to accommodate mixed-use development in the downtown area for conversion to mixed-use (housing and commercial) development for low, very low, and moderate-income housing. As the inventory in Table B-5 shows, it is particularly notable that two of the parcels that are vacant are relatively large and can produce mixed-use, specific plan centers for 223 additional units. Figure B-3 identifies parcels for mixed-use development.
The City recently implemented the Commercial Residential Mixed Use (CRMU) zone which allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses. Projects in this zone cannot be 100% commercial or 100% residential. Currently, this zone has a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .60, however, this can be increased should a project meet certain criteria such as either adding high quality open space or the project having a high potential to revitalize adjacent parcels and either providing increased benefits to the City or being located within a ¼ mile to transit or off-site amenities. It is likely that projects would meet this criteria for increased FAR. Lastly, this zone has a minimum commercial requirement of sixty percent of the total floor area and a maximum requirement of seventy percent. For realistic capacity purposes, the minimum 16 du/ac is multiplied by .3 (minimum residential component) to gather the conservative capacity assumption.
7.2.3 Accessory Dwelling Unit Potential
Residential lots with potential to comfortably develop affordable accessory dwelling units (ADU) have the potential to generate 117 such units in the downtown area. Table B-6 is an inventory of those lots.
Figure B-3 also identifies parcels with ADU potential. However, as discussed in the next paragraph, the City will rely on recent ADU production, instead of ADU potential, for ADU assumptions for the 6th Cycle planning period.
ADU production was sporadic within the 5th cycle. Table A-4 shows a total of 5 permits during the 5th cycle. More recently, the City has permitted one ADU in each 2022 and 2023, as reported in the City’s APR. Per state law, jurisdictions may count the potential for ADU development as credits towards their RHNA. The City foresees a continued trend in ADU development throughout the planning period and actively supports ADU development. Using this trend, the City is projecting one ADU per year towards the RHNA for a total of 8 ADUs during the planning period.
Although McFarland is not located in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, the regional analysis of the affordability levels of ADUs conducted by SCAG served as the basis for the affordability assumptions of ADUs anticipated to be produced during the planning period. The SCAG ADU affordability analysis indicates assumed affordability levels at roughly 55% lower income, 35% moderate income, and 10% above moderate income. Therefore, the element will assume 4 ADUs as affordable to lower income, 3 ADUs affordable to moderate income, and 1 ADU affordable to abovemoderate income.
A new program (1.2) proposes a change to the City’s ordinance to reflect State law and promote ADU production. The City passed the ordinance (ORDINANCE NO. 1-2024 of February 2024) to amend Title 17 on Zoning to conform with the State ADU Law.
135
Table B-3: Summary of Residential Land Use Potential within 2040 McFarland General Plan Travel Analysis Zones in Central McFarland
2949C 2949D 2949E 2949F 2949G
Sub-Total
Central
McFarland
Grand
Total
General
Plan SOI
2040 General Plan Residential Units
Mixed-Use 47 492 - 47
535 1121 2568 KSF
Residential with ADU
246
27 - 481 465
1,219
1,219 DU
Residential: HighDensity
1,826
-
-
-
1,547
3,373
4,131 DU
Residential: LowDensity
1,670
98 946
184
2,083
4,980
6,587 DU
Residential: MediumDensity
1,266
14 463
-
1,064
2,807
4,050 DU
Total Existing & Future
5,008
139
1,409
665
5,157
12,379
15,986 DU
2020 Existing Units
Mixed-Use
35 27
-
-
- 62 62 KSF
Residential with ADU
-
-
-
-
-
-
- DU
Residential: HighDensity
269
21 37
-
32 359
359 DU
Residential: LowDensity
803
378
152
660
927
2,921
2,921 DU
Residential: MediumDensity
-
9 -
-
-
9 9 DU
Total Existing
1,072
408
189
660
960
3,289
3,289 DU
2020 -2040 Additional Residential Units
Mixed-Use
12 465
-
47 535 1059 2506 KSF
Residential with ADU
246
27 -
481
465
1,219
1,219 DU
Residential: HighDensity
1,557
(21)
(37)
-
1,514
3,014
3,772 DU
Residential: LowDensity
868
(281)
794
(477)
1,155
2,059
3,666 DU
Residential: MediumDensity
1,266
5 463
-
1,064
2,798
4,041 DU
Total Additional Units
3,936
(269)
1,220
5 4,198
9,090
12,697 DU
136
Table B-4: Inventory of Vacant Residential Sites in Central McFarland (2022) [Table B-4]
Parcel
Number
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
*
Density
(DU/acre)
Capacity
(DU)
Income Group
Affordability
On-Site
Constraints
Downtown Infill
200-030-021 1.97 Low Density R-1 6 12 Above Moderate; None 200-052-314 0.21 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None 200-052-322 0.20 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None 200-060-135 0.18 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None 200-070-027 0.37 Low Density R-1 6 2 Above Moderate; None 200-070-050 0.69 Low Density R-1 6 4
Above Moderate;
Moerate None
200-070-134 0.45 Low Density R-1 6 3 Above Moderate; None 200-081-040 0.03 Low Density R-1 6 0 Above Moderate; None 200-081-172 0.28 Low Density R-1 6 2 Above Moderate; None 200-081-230 0.26 Low Density R-1 6 2 Above Moderate; None 200-101-152 0.16 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None 200-102-135 0.14 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None 201-161-106 0.16 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None 201-163-144 0.17 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None 201-173-143 0.16 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None 201-182-128 0.16 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None 201-182-144 0.16 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None 201-183-092 0.16 Low Density R-1 6 1 Above Moderate; None Subtotal
infill units 36
* R-1 = single family residential
Table B-5: Inventory of Sites in Central McFarland for Mixed-Use Development (2022) [Table B-5
Parcel
Number1
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
General
Plan
Designation
Permitted
Uses by Land
Use
Designation2
Density
(DU
/acre)*
Capacity
(DU)
Income Group
Affordability of DU
Existing
Land
Use
On-Site
Constraints
Mixed Use (Residential/Commercial)
200-060-218 0.16 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-060-226 0.18 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-070-084 0.26 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-070-092 0.24 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-081-131 0.20 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-081-149 0.21 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-082-105 0.16 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-082-113 0.12 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-082-139 0.25 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-091-015 0.17 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-091-023 0.17 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-091-239 0.17 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-092-021 0.16 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-092-229 0.16 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 200-092-237 0.16 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 201-152-014 0.31 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None
137
[Table B-5
Parcel
Number1
Parcel
Size
(Acres)
General
Plan
Designation
Permitted
Uses by Land
Use
Designation2
Density
(DU
/acre)*
Capacity
(DU)
Income Group
Affordability of DU
Existing
Land
Use
On-Site
Constraints
201-153-111 0.16 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 201-163-193 0.17 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 201-164-217 0.17 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 201-172-012 0.31 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 201-173-119 0.16 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 201-173-127 0.16 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 201-181-112 0.16 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 201-181-120 0.15 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 1 1 Above Moderate C-O None 201-120-
052** 16.37 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 71
25 Moderate; and
46 Above
Moderate
vacant Specific
plan
required
201-120-
169** 34.83 Mixed Use CRMU 16-24 152
53 Moderate; and
99 Above
Moderate
vacant Specific
plan
required
Subtotal
mixed-use
units 247
* For density purposes, the element assumes that the density range for this zone is 16 du/ac multiplied by .3 to account for the minimum residential component required in the CRMU zone. This is described in further detail in Section 7.2.2. ** Only two large parcels listed in Table B-5 count toward 6th Cycle RHNA 1 All parcels listed in Table B-5 are previous commercial parcels downtown that the 2040 General Plan modified to mixed-use lots to accommodate the combination of commercial and residential uses indicated. 2 Zoning Code Definitions
Residential
R-S One-Family Residential District (Rural) [0-2 du per acre] E One-Family Residential District (Estate) [2-4 du per acre] R-1, R-1C One-Family Residential District (Low density) [5-8 du per acre] R-2 Two-Family Dwelling Zone (Medium low density) [9-15 du per acre] R-3 Limited Multi-Family Dwelling Zone (Medium high density) [9-15 du per acre] R-4 Multiple-Family Dwelling Zone (High density) [16-24 du per acre] Commercial (permitting mixed-use with multi-family residential) C-0 Professional Office Zone [16-24 du per acre]
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone [16-24 du per acre]
C-2 Commercial Zone [16-24 du per acre]
CRMU Commercial Residential Mixed-Use [16-24 du per acre]
7.2.4 Small and Large Sites & Suitability of Nonvacant Sites Most of the available parcels in the central area of McFarland are predominantly sites that are smaller than 0.5 acres as Table B-4 (vacant parcels), Table B-5 (parcels with mixed-use potential), and Table B6 (parcels with ADU potential) show. The non-vacant sites for mixed-use and ADU units do not count toward meeting the City’s RHNA. This is because the City has an abundance of vacant space for housing, which enables the Housing Element to not rely on non-vacant space to accommodate the RHNA. Any use of non-vacant space for housing would be over and above capacity of vacant units.
The exception relates to the two large sites (of over 10 acres each in Table B-5) that are vacant and are designated for mixed-use development in the central area of the City. These two parcels are to be developed under specific plans to accommodate housing for moderate-income households.
The City recently approved six large, contiguous parcels known as the Milicic property for a General Plan Amendment and annexation in west McFarland into City limits and conversion of the
138
approximately 120-acre property into a specific plan area with predominantly housing (on nearly 90 percent of the net acreage) supported by a park and a neighborhood-serving commercial area (which together would cover about 12 percent of the net acreage) in addition to a network of internal roads.
Table B-7 includes the list of parcels together with land use and zoning designations. This development on its own offers the capability to meet two times the total RHNA of the City with a focus on the moderate income and above moderate income housing.
Table B-7: List of Parcels with Modified Land Uses and Sizes in Annexation #19 Area (2024) Assessor's
Parcel Number
(APN) 1
Acreage
General Plan Land
Use Designation
General Plan Land
Use Designation PreZoning
Income Group
Affordability
On-Site
Constraints
[Original] [Amended for
Annexation #19]
060-420-148 19.5 Residential: HighDensity
Commercial:
Retail C-2
utility extension
required
Residential: LowDensity & R-1 Above
Moderate
Residential: High
Density R-4 Moderate
060-420-148 19.5 Residential:
Medium-Density
Residential: LowDensity & R-1 Above
Moderate utility extension
Residential: High required
Density R-4 Moderate
060-420-205 20.3 Residential: LowDensity
Residential: LowDensity & R-1-5 Above
Moderate
utility extension
required
Open Space: Park Park
060-420-205 20.3 Residential: LowDensity
Residential: High
Density & R-4 Moderate
utility extension
required
Residential: LowDensity R-1 Above
Moderate
060-420-213 20.3 Residential: LowDensity
Residential: LowDensity R-1-5 Above
Moderate
utility extension
required
060-420-213 20.3 Residential: LowDensity
Residential: High
Density R-4 Moderate
utility extension
required
Residential: LowDensity & R-1 Above
Moderate
Residential: LowDensity E Above
Moderate
Total Gross
Acreage 120 Acreage includes road rights-of-way
1 Parcels count toward 6th Cycle RHNA
7.2.5 Milestone Housing Group
Milestone Housing Group, LLC Housing broke ground in 2022 with expected completion of its 80 assisted housing units in 2023. The units produced fell primarily in lower income categories, which would fulfill more than the City’s RHNA allocations for 5th Cycle in those two income categories and in so doing also meet the overall allocation total. This is an example of qualified and proven entities to acquire and manage affordable housing, which already has a footprint in the City.
139
7.2.6 Opportunities for Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters do not require conditional use permits in the zones where they are permitted.
McFarland permits emergency shelters in C-2 zones by right, which means there are no requirements for discretionary action. Program 1.6 asks the City to modify permit procedures to allow emergency shelters in all zones that permit housing without requirements for design review permits and discretionary actions. There is a concentration of C-2 zones in the downtown area, which is already close to public transit and shopping. This creates a tremendous opportunity to establish emergency shelters in the downtown area with its location efficiency and accessibility to many amenities. The acreage of vacant land is enough to satisfy the City’s need for emergency shelters and other supportive housing.
7.2.7 Conclusions on Inventory of Residential Opportunities Figure B-3 is a map of the various opportunity sites in the downtown area. It also shows additional adjoining areas that are designated for future housing. Altogether, infill parcels in the downtown could produce 36 units while adjoining vacant parcels have sufficient space and designation to generate 450 housing units across the various affordability groups.
The 2040 General Plan has determined that McFarland already has enough land within its planning area to accommodate growth to 2040 and beyond. The 2040 General Plan and this 2023-2031 Housing Element therefore identified enough land for the construction of housing to suit households in all income groups and fulfill the City’s share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
Opportunities for housing development include vacant sites close to the central city and expansion areas to the west and south of the City. Other options exist in the built-up area for accessory (or secondary) dwelling units (also termed granny units), small infill sites downtown, and commercial parcels with mixed-use potential. While McFarland's housing allocation can be met without exercising all these options, they present multiple opportunities for affordable and market rate housing within the City as Table B-8 shows. The City has potential with vacant lands to accommodate three times the 6th Cycle RHNA. It is noteworthy that there is additional potential for ADUs and JADUs that Table B-8 does not include.
Table B-8: Summary of Potential for Housing Development in McFarland Including 6th Cycle Source of Space
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
RHNA 82 45 117 244
Tab B4: Vacant Infill Lots 0 0 36 36
Tab B-5: Vacant Mixed Use Parcels 0 78 169 247
Projected ADUs 4 3 1 8
Tab B-7: Vacant Annexation 19 Proposal 0 128 414 542
Pipeline Project (Sherwood Family
Apartments) 80 0 0 80
Total 84 209 620 913
140
Figure B-3: Opportunities for Housing in Central McFarland
141
7.3 Appendix C: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
7.3.0 Legislative Basis for Fair Housing
Assembly Bill 686 passed in 2017 requiring Housing Elements to include an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity and commitmentsfrom local governments to specific meaningful actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) that are consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Act. AB 686 mandates that local governments identify meaningful goals to address the impacts of systemic issues such as residential segregation, housing cost burden, and unequal educational or employment opportunities in as far as these issues create or perpetuate discrimination against protected classes.
Therefore, AB 686 seeks the following:
• Requires the State, cities, counties, and public housing authorities to administer programs and activities related to housing and community development in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing;
• Prohibits the State, cities, counties, and public housing authorities from taking actions that are materially inconsistent with the AFFH obligation;
• Requires that the interpretation of the AFFH obligation be consistent with HUD’s 2015 regulation, irrespective of federal actions on the regulation; • Adds an AFFH analysis to the mandated, short-term, Housing Element that are due from the beginning of 2021; and
• Requires that the AFFH analysis in the Housing Element includes an examination of issues such as segregation and resident displacement, as well as the required identification of fair housing goals.
Effective January 1 2021, Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(10)(A) requires Housing Elements to include an assessment of fair housing. The discussion is to cover regional and local trends in specified topical areas. The checklist of topics for discussion includes the following five parts:
1. Part 1 Outreach and Fair Housing Enforcement
2. Part 2 Assessment of Fair Housing (in four thematic areas)
3. Part 3 Sites Inventory
4. Part 4 Identification of Contributing Factors
5. Part 5 Goals and Actions
The Assessment of Fair Housing in Part 2 is to include discussion of these four thematic areas:
a) Integration and segregation patterns and trends
b) Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty c) Disparities in access to opportunity
d) Disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk.
The sections that follow describe and analyze these topical areas for McFarland.
7.3.1 Fair Housing Outreach & Enforcement
7.3.1.1 Fair Housing Outreach
This housing element is a product of broad community participation by stakeholders of McFarland, including residents, City Staff, the School District, Planning Commission, and City Council jointly with the preparation of the General Plan. Input from all segments of the community was to help assure efficient and effective evaluation, development, and implementation of appropriate housing
142
strategies. During preparation of the update to the Housing Element, citizen and stakeholder participation was actively sought in four outreach meetings. Section 1.2 provides additional information on each meeting.
A broad cross-section of residents in terms of ethnicity, income level, and occupation attended the meetings for which there were Spanish translations and versions of materials. Discussions at these workshops and meetings indicate that housing for families and farmworkers is a concern and both single-family and single-room occupancy units are desired to accommodate the need. Residents of McFarland also support infill development that is affordable by design in the downtown core of the City. This update of the Housing Element captures these community aspirations for housing.
7.3.1.2 Fair Housing Enforcement
Enforcement refers to activities directed at addressing compliance with fair housing laws. Such actions may include investigation of complaints, putting remedies in place, and disseminating information related to fair housing to assure community members are well aware of fair housing laws and people’s rights. There are two key laws to foster fair housing in the State of California. They are the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. These laws cover the same protected classes of persons as federal law and also prohibit discrimination based on marital status, sexual orientation, source of income, ancestry, immigration status, citizenship, primary language, and such arbitrary factors as age or occupation.
Using the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity data in the AFFH Data Viewer 2.0, for the reporting period between 2013 – 2021, there were no inquiries in the City of McFarland. In addition, there are no known fair housing lawsuits, findings, settlements, judgments, or complaints within City limits. Residents in McFarland can access the County’s Fair Housing Counseling for information on fair housing, while local organizations such as the Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance is available to aid residents with pursuing housing discriminations and lawsuits. While the City has not had any enforcement complaints within the City, Program 6.7 commits the City to establishing a method to formally track cases as well as providing a dedicated City employee to assist with any case-specific needs.
Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
Reasonable Accommodation: The City’s reasonable accommodation procedures are compliant with state and federal requirements. Program 4.2 commits the City to affirmatively marketing its reasonable accommodation procedures at all times during the 6th cycle housing element planning period and Program 4.7 commits to amending the zoning ordinance to provide flexible permitting processes for large group homes.
Government Code Section 65008 covers actions of a city, county, city and county, or other local government agency, and makes those actions null and void if the action denies an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or other land use in the state because of membership in a protected class, the method of financing, and/or the intended occupancy.
The City encourages housing development of all types regardless of size, prospective tenant, or financing source, and supports by-right development in residential zones and mixed-use zones.
143
Government Code Section 8899.50 requires all public agencies to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and avoid any action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
Programs 6.1 to 6.9 commit the City to implement strategies that make progress towards addressing the identified fair housing issues.
Government Code Section 11135 et seq. requires full and equal access to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the state, regardless of one’s membership or perceived membership in a protected class. The City adheres to these mandatory requirements when applying for and administering state programs.
Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.). Program 4.1 commits the City to completing a comprehensive update of its density bonus implementing procedures for compliance with State density bonus law (SDBL). Post-adoption, Program 1.1 commits to annual review of its density bonus regulations to ensure ongoing consistency with SDBL. Programs 4.6 and 6.8 commit the City to prepare information for property owners and housing developments about density bonus and publishing this content on its website and providing density bonuses and development incentives to qualifying housing developments.
Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5.). The City Planning staff is familiar with recent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act, and actively monitors, no less than annually, online resources for legislative updates. McFarland is a member of the California League of Cities and receives legislative updates distributed by the League, which includes amendments to the Housing Accountability Act amongst others.
No Net Loss Law (Government Code Section 65863). This housing element meets No Net Loss (NNL) requirements by providing capacity sufficient to meet the RHNA plus a buffer of additional capacity in all income categories. As compliance with NNL requires transactional review of development applications, both ministerial and discretionary, Program 1.1 memorializes and commits the City to conducting this review on a project-by-project basis, and to take the actions as required by State law should an inventory deficit occur as defined in NNL law.
Least Cost Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65913.1). As shown in the Inventory of Sites, Sites for Emergency Shelters, and Lands Available for Residential Development, the City has designated and zoned sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to accommodate all income categories identified by the RHNA.
Excessive subdivision standards (Government Code Section 65913.2.). The City complies. The City has no policies, ordinances, or recent practices that impose design controls or public improvement standards for the purpose of rendering development infeasible. Further, the City considers the effect of ordinances adopted and actions taken on the housing needs of the region.
Limits on growth controls (Government Code 65302.8.). The City does not currently impose growth controls or growth management practices.
Regional Trends and Comparisons of Fair Housing Enforcement The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development - HUD’s - Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) works toward eliminating housing discrimination, promoting economic
144
opportunity, and achieving diverse, inclusive communities. FHEO maintains a dataset of all the Title VIII fair housing cases filed by FHEO from 01/01/2006 to 06/30/2020. Like other key data on Fair Housing, FHEO data is accessible online through the State of California’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer.
For the purposes of this analysis, the “McFarland Region” extends from the City of Fresno in the north to the City of Bakersfield in the south. It encompasses cities and smaller communities that are within the Central Valley of California and cut acrossthe three contiguous counties of Kern, Tulare, and Fresno.
Table C-1 shows the number of cases in 2010 and 2020 in the counties within the McFarland Region.
Results indicate that Kern County has the highest frequency of total cases in its region with disability bias and familial bias as the main reasons for enforcement. What may be promising is the reduction by nearly half in cases in Kern County between 2010 and 2020, which is similar to the rate in many of the other counties in the region. It is worth noting, however, that the reduction could simply be due to a half-year of data in 2020 which, if true, would mean little to no change in enforcement cases between the two years.
Table C-1: Number of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Counties near McFarland, 2010 and 2020 2010 2020
County Total
Cases1
Disability
Bias
Familial
Bias
Racial
Bias
Total
Cases1
Disability
Bias
Familial
Bias
Racial
Bias
Percent
Change
(2010-2020)
McFarland Region
Fresno 14 3 6 4 6 0 5 0 -57%
Kern 17 9 6 3 9 4 2 0 -47%
Kings 3 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 -33%
Tulare 4 1 3 0 2 1 1 0 -50%
Region Total 38 13 15 10 19 5 10 0 -50%
Other Neighboring Counties
Los Angeles 291 80 106 58 130 27 86 9 -55%
San Luis Obispo 4 1 3 0 4 1 3 0 0%
Ventura 16 2 7 3 5 0 4 0 -69%
Table Total 311 83 116 61 139 28 93 9 -55%
Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022)
1Note: Cases may involve more than one bias category and other reasons may not be in the dataset.
Figure C-1 and Figure C-2 compares trends in the distribution of the number of FHEO cases in 2010 and 2020 respectively against State averages. The data, which is aggregated at the county level, reveals the following:
• Kern County depicted close to an average level of frequency within the State similar to such neighbors as Fresno and Ventura counties.
• Kern County depicted a slightly higher frequency compared to such other neighbors as Madera and Tulare Counties.
145
• The pattern was similar between 2010 and 2020.
Local Trends and Analysis
Complaints and Enforcement – The data on fair housing enforcement complaints is available at the county level. And the City of McFarland does not keep a record of such complaints. Therefore, it was not possible to analyze local trends on fair housing enforcement cases based on HCD’s AFFH data resources. City staff did not recall incidents of complaints in recent memory about fair housing issues in the City specifically that would necessitate enforcement action of local cases by officials.
A new Program 6.7 is added for the City to begin record keeping on complaints and enforcement cases related to fair housing.
Needs of Large Households – Section 2.5.2 discusses Large Households. Its Table 2-25 shows the distribution of occupied housing units by number of persons and tenure for 2019. It provides further insight into the potential for overcrowding. Households with five or more persons occupied just over 40 percent of renter units and nearly 40 percent of owner units. While the share of large renter units was sufficient for the share of large households, the share of large owner units far outweighs the share of large households suggesting affordability issues with owner units for large families. The data does not suggest issues with fairness in the availability of large units. However, to address overcrowding and adequately supply large households with suitable housing, the City can offer incentives to facilitate the development of large housing units with four or more bedrooms. A shortage of large units can be alleviated through inclusionary zoning and community partnerships with entities such as Self-Help Enterprises, Habitat for Humanity, and other affordable housing developers that offer opportunities for affordable housing ownership.
Place-Based Strategies & Targeted Investments – The City has historically distributed affordable renter units of multi-family buildings in similar neighborhoods as single-family housing, which tend for the most part to be market rate. East of State Highway 99, affordable housing includes both single-family and multi-family units. The 2040 General Plan and the Housing Element also plan for the conversion of downtown to mixed-use not only for mixture of lower-income and moderateincome housing, but also to enable location efficiency and ease of access to the basic necessities of life for residents. Planned new developments, such as the Milicic Development, that are proposed for the western end of the City also include a mixture of single-family and multi-family units. These place-based strategies in the distribution of housing help to preserve and revitalize housing affordability, choice, and availability, thereby fostering geographic mobility, minimizing displacement, and furthering fair housing. Table 6.4 includes programs on place-based strategies.
Investments & Disinvestments – The place-based strategies identified in the previous paragraph reflect investment in housing to suit a wide range of income groups across the City in a bid to foster investment in resource areas and to prevent disinvestment in older areas, such as downtown, which offer opportunities for location efficiency and fair housing. Location efficiency can be cost effective for residents in terms of accessibility while it makes housing affordable for them and prevent abandonment or deterioration of older areas with potential for convenient living.
146
Figure C-1: Distribution of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in McFarland & Region, 2010 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
147
Figure C-2: Distribution of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in McFarland & Region, 2020 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
148
7.3.2 Assessment of Fair Housing
McFarland is a predominantly Hispanic community. In 2019, for instance, nearly all of City residents or 95 percent claimed Hispanic origin. The assessment of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) discusses patterns and trends in socio-economic characteristics within the City and between the City and its region. The following subsections elaborate.
7.3.2.1 Integration and segregation patterns and trends Integration refers to the situation when groups of varied demographic or socioeconomic characteristics mix in a geographic area resulting in even or proportional distribution of the groups within the area. Segregation is the separation of groups of varied demographic or socioeconomic characteristics into different geographic areas, resulting in uneven or disproportional distribution of the groups across geographic locations. This subsection discusses integration and segregation in the study area in terms of race and ethnic composition, populations with disabilities, household types, income groups, and trends in housing choice vouchers.
7.3.2.1-a Race and ethnic composition
The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. Therefore, racial and ethnic composition of areas become useful considerations in analyzing housing demand, opportunity, acceptance, and other issues that relate to fairness in obtaining or keeping housing.
Regional Trends and Comparisons
Table C-2 reveals that the City of McFarland depicted slightly lower racial diversity than Kern County and neighboring counties in 2021. McFarland’s dominant racial groups were white (making up two thirds of the population) and two or more races (making up a fifth of the population). The shares of the white population were similar among the counties in the region but were lower than McFarland.
Consequently, there were clear differences in the composition of other races between the City and the counties in the region. Table C-3 shows similar data for 2010 and confirms the persistence of the same trends over the decade.
Tables C-2 and C-3 also reveal that McFarland is a predominantly Hispanic community. This stems from its high dependence on an agriculture related economic base. The difference between McFarland and the region is most noticeable in Hispanic origin. While 50 percent to 65 percent of residents in the counties within the region claimed Hispanic origin, most of the City residents or approximately 90 percent claimed Hispanic origin in 2010 and 2020. Since persons of Hispanic origin are generally considered “minorities”, one can also conclude that the City of McFarland is a predominantly minority community. Therefore, McFarland appears less integrated and more segregated in racial and ethnic composition in comparison to its region.
Table C-2: Population by Race/Ethnicity - McFarland City & Region, 2021 McFarland city,
California
Kern County,
California
Tulare County,
California
Fresno County,
California
Race and Ethnicity Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Racial Distribution
White 9,261 65.80% 564,183 62.30% 279,500 59.30% 544,633 54.30%
149
McFarland city,
California
Kern County,
California
Tulare County,
California
Fresno County,
California
Race and Ethnicity Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Black or
African American 133 0.90% 48,741 5.40% 7,835 1.70% 45,282 4.50% American
Indian and Alaska
Native 100 0.70% 8,842 1.00% 5,675 1.20% 12,048 1.20%
Asian 108 0.80% 43,812 4.80% 17,195 3.70% 106,953 10.70% Native
Hawaiian and
Other Pacific
Islander 0 0.00% 1,214 0.10% 745 0.20% 1,687 0.20%
Some other
race 1,298 9.20% 124,568 13.80% 95,442 20.30% 159,057 15.90% Two or
more races 3,185 22.60% 114,284 12.60% 64,607 13.70% 133,490 13.30% Total
Population 14,085 100.00% 905,644 100.00% 470,999 100.10% 1,003,150 100.10% Hispanic Origin
Hispanic or
Latino (of any
race) 12,762 90.60% 495,742 54.70% 309,737 65.80% 541,344 54.00% Not
Hispanic or Latino 1,323 9.40% 409,902 45.30% 161,262 34.20% 461,806 46.00% All Origins 14,085 100.00% 905,644 100.00% 470,999 100.00% 1,003,150 100.00% Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 Table C-3: Population by Race/Ethnicity - McFarland City & Region, 2010 McFarland city,
California
Kern County,
California
Tulare County,
California
Fresno County,
California
Race and Ethnicity Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Racial Distribution
White 9,329 75.80% 537,410 65.90% 332,169 77.40% 556,526 61.20% Black or
African American 147 1.20% 45,273 5.60% 6,294 1.50% 45,704 5.00% American
Indian and Alaska
Native 192 1.60% 8,367 1.00% 5,062 1.20% 9,276 1.00%
Asian 106 0.90% 32,097 3.90% 14,669 3.40% 85,253 9.40%
Native
Hawaiian and
Other Pacific
Islander 22 0.20% 947 0.10% 354 0.10% 1,156 0.10%
150
McFarland city,
California
Kern County,
California
Tulare County,
California
Fresno County,
California
Race and Ethnicity Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Some other
race 2,019 16.40% 159,750 19.60% 58,352 13.60% 175,412 19.30% Two or
more races 487 4.00% 31,849 3.90% 12,504 2.90% 35,503 3.90% Total
Population 12,302 100.10% 815,693 100.00% 429,404 100.10% 908,830 99.90% Hispanic Origin
Hispanic or
Latino (of any
race) 10,978 89.20% 388,756 47.70% 253,058 58.90% 446,727 49.20% Not
Hispanic or Latino 1,324 10.80% 426,937 52.30% 176,346 41.10% 462,103 50.80% All Origins 12,302 100.00% 815,693 100.00% 429,404 100.00% 908,830 100.00% Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 Local Trends and Analysis
Within City comparisons are between neighborhoods as defined by residents and local officials by housing type, income, and other socioeconomic characteristics. Figure C-4 identifies fifteen neighborhoods within the City. Households and families of mixed-income groups occur in the neighborhoods within the built-up areas east and west of State Highway 99. Similarly, multifamily housing and assisted housing facilities occur in neighborhoods on both sides of the Highway.
As seen in Figure C-3, the City of McFarland is predominantly Hispanic or Latino. All the neighborhoods within the City show Hispanic or Latino as the predominant population, with most areas a deeper shade of green indicating Hispanic or Latino as the principal racial demographic across the City. While the Northern most portion and the island to the West of the City are not shaded in the same manner, this is due to there being no households in these areas. With this information, the City does not believe there to be an overconcentration of any one racial or ethnic group in the City.
151
Figure C-3: Predominant Population within the City of McFarland
152
Figure C-4: 2020 Neighborhood Designations within the City of McFarland Source: City of McFarland local government personnel
Figures C-3 and C-4 show the concentrations of persons of Hispanic ethnicity in McFarland and its immediate region for 2010 and 2020, respectively. It is noteworthy that the concentration is more pronounced in McFarland than in its two neighboring cities.
Within McFarland, differences in ethnic composition vary only slightly by neighborhood. East of SR 99, the composition is uniformly high between 80 percent and 100 percent of the population. West of SR 99 shows pockets of slightly lower composition of Hispanics between 60 percent and 80 percent.
153
Trends and Patterns
It is discernible from Figures C-3 and C-4 that trends in Hispanic residency have persisted and intensified across the region. In McFarland, just as it is for Delano and Wasco, the concentration of Hispanic residents increased between 2010 and 2020.
Other Relevant Factors
The typical pattern in the composition of labor pools by race and ethnicity indicates a more than proportionate concentration of persons of Hispanic origin in the agricultural sector, especially in California. As a geographical epicenter of agricultural production in the State, the Central Valley of California has a high concentration of agricultural workers. Since McFarland is located in the Central Valley and its economic base is predominantly agricultural, it follows reason that most of its residents are Hispanic. It is also notable that incomes are much lower in the agricultural sector than in many other sectors of the economy. The issue of affordability of housing would gain prominence in such a community. Conventional knowledge indicates that Hispanics tend to have larger families than other races in the US. The average household size in McFarland was 4.14 persons and the average family size was 4.47 persons in 2019 compared to 3.17 and 3.69 persons respectively in Kern County. This would mean the need for large housing units even as the units are affordable.
Conclusion
Segregation and integration are not key issues in McFarland. Population data indicates steady growth which would suggest the need for a steady supply of housing. The comparatively low incomes, the youthful population, and relatively larger than average family sizes could indicate the need for affordable housing to suit large families among other special needs groups.
154
Figure C-5: 2010 Concentrations of Hispanic Population by Census Block in McFarland and its Region
155
Figure C-6: 2020 Concentrations of Hispanic Population by Census Block in McFarland and its Region
156
7.3.2.1-b Populations with disabilities
The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of disability. The US Census Bureau identifies persons with any one of six impairments as having a disability. The impairments may relate to hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living. Persons with disabilities may have special housing needs because of the higher health costs associated with the disability or inaccessibility and unaffordability of housing. Additionally, many persons with disability could depend on fixed incomes which could further limit housing options for them. Also, the disability status and the types of accommodations associated with them sometimes can make them victims of housing discrimination.
Regional Trends and Comparisons
Table C-4 shows the incidence of disability among the county populations in the McFarland region in 2015 and 2021. Overall, the percentages of persons with disabilities were close and remained consistent among counties in the region in both years but they varied widely by race, age, and type of disability. A notable observation between the two years is the higher incidence of disability with advancement in age, its prevalence among senior populations, and the consistency of its prevalence among the counties in the region.
Figures C-5 and C-6 show the concentrations of persons with disability by census tract in McFarland and its region for 2014 and 2019, respectively. The concentration measured as percent of population varied widely across the region and within Kern County. The two maps reveal that the levels of concentration in the region reduced between 2014 and 2019 compared to the respective statewide averages.
Local Trends and Analysis
Table C-4 also shows the incidence of disability in McFarland. Overall, it is historically half as much in the City as in the counties in the region. It reduced between 2015 and 2021 overall but it became more noticeably prevalent among the City’s senior population (above 75 years old) in 2021.
With tract-level data, one could not distinguish the concentrations in populations with disability among neighborhoods within McFarland. Citywide, while the concentration was close to the state average in 2014, it fell well below the state average in 2019.
This information is further reflected in Figure C-9, showing that all areas of the City have less than 10% of the population with a disability, with some areas showing as little as 2.2% of the City’s population with a disability. Furthermore, there are no concentrations of individuals with a disability in any of the neighborhoods in the City, or any concentrated areas of need. Therefore, it can be assumed that housing specific to persons with a disability can be incorporated into the general special housing needs program and can apply Citywide.
157
Table C-4: Incidence of Disability in the McFarland Region, 2019 C-4: 2015
Fresno
County
Kern
County
Tulare
County
McFarland
City
Total civilian noninstitutionalized
population 12.4% 11.1% 11.6% 5.6%
BY RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN
White alone 13.0% 11.2% 11.2% 5.3%
Black or African American alone 17.7% 14.1% 21.8% 100.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 15.6% 17.3% 18.8% 0.0% Asian alone 11.0% 8.8% 13.4% -
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander alone 18.3% 6.3% 3.1% 100.0%
Some other race alone 9.6% 9.3% 11.3% 6.8%
Two or more races 12.6% 12.1% 11.3% 6.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 9.6% 7.3% 8.6% 5.3%
BY AGE
Under 5 years 0.6% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0%
5 to 17 years 5.0% 4.0% 4.5% 3.4%
18 to 34 years 6.2% 6.0% 5.7% 4.8%
35 to 64 years 15.2% 14.0% 14.2% 7.0%
65 to 74 years 30.7% 29.2% 32.8% 25.1%
75 years and over 57.0% 54.7% 57.4% 39.5%
BY TYPE OF DISABILITY
Hearing difficulty 3.6% 2.9% 3.1% 1.0%
Vision difficulty 2.7% 2.3% 2.5% 2.0%
Cognitive difficulty 5.3% 4.6% 4.7% 2.0%
Ambulatory difficulty 7.3% 6.6% 6.9% 2.8%
Self-care difficulty 2.9% 2.4% 2.6% 1.1%
Independent living difficulty 6.7% 5.4% 6.0% 2.8%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810
158
C-4: 2021
Fresno
County
Kern
County
Tulare
County
McFarland
City
Total civilian noninstitutionalized population 13.1% 11.2% 11.4% 3.8%
BY RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN
White alone 14% 12% 12% 3%
Black or African American alone 20% 16% 13% 29%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 16% 17% 16% 4%
Asian alone 11% 8% 12% 0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
alone 14% 12% 11%
Some other race alone 11% 11% 8% 6%
Two or more races 12% 9% 11% 4%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 11% 8% 9% 3%
BY AGE
Under 5 years 1% 1% 1% 0%
5 to 17 years 6% 5% 5% 2%
18 to 34 years 7% 6% 6% 1%
35 to 64 years 15% 13% 12% 6%
65 to 74 years 31% 29% 29% 15%
75 years and over 57% 50% 55% 66%
BY TYPE OF DISABILITY
Hearing difficulty 4% 3% 3% 1%
Vision difficulty 3% 2% 3% 1%
Cognitive difficulty 6% 5% 4% 1%
Ambulatory difficulty 7% 6% 6% 2%
Self-care difficulty 3% 3% 2% 1%
Independent living difficulty 7% 6% 6% 2%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810
159
Figure C-7: 2014 Concentrations of Disability Populations in McFarland and its Region Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
160
Figure C-8: 2019 Concentrations of Disability Populations in McFarland and its Region Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
161
Figure C-9: Concentration of Persons with Disability in McFarland (ACS 2017-2021)
7.3.2.1-c Household type or family status
The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of family status or household type.
Family status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant women, or persons in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child whether by adoption or foster parenting.
Household type refers to such characteristics as family or non-family groups, marriage, male or female heads, or single parenting.
Regional Trends and Comparisons
Tables C-5 and C-6 show the distribution of households and family types in the McFarland region in 2010 and 2020, respectively. In 2010, family households dominated across the region ranging from 89 percent in Fresno County to 92 percent in Tulare County and 97 percent in McFarland. By 2020, family households remained dominant but reduced in shares across the board ranging from 72 percent in Fresno County to 78 percent in Tulare County and 85 percent in McFarland.
162
Local Trends and Analysis
Similarly, Tables C-5 and C-6 show county-level and city-level data but revealed that McFarland maintained the highest share of family households in the region. Figure C-10 shows, however, that an area of the City has a higher rate of children in female-headed households than other areas of the City.
While there is no single determinant of the higher rate of children in a female-headed households, the City will look to target County programs to assist female-headed and single-parent households to this neighborhood.
Table C-5: Distribution of Household/Family Types in the McFarland Region, 2010 2010 Household/Family Type Fresno
County
Kern
County
Tulare
County
McFarland
City
Total Households 912,927 802,874 437,407 11,486
Family households 89% 90% 92% 97%
Married couple family 61% 63% 64% 71%
Other family 28% 27% 28% 26%
Male householder, no spouse present 9% 9% 9% 9%
Female householder, no spouse present 20% 18% 18% 17%
Nonfamily households 11% 10% 8% 3%
Households with a male householder 6% 6% 4% 2%
1-person household 3% 3% 2% 1%
2-or-more-person household 3% 3% 2% 1%
Households with a female householder 5% 5% 4% 1%
1-person household 4% 3% 3% 1%
2-or-more-person household 2% 1% 1% 0%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P30 Table C-6: Distribution of Household/Family Types in the McFarland Region, 2020 2020 Household/Family Type Fresno
County
Kern
County
Tulare
County
McFarland
City
Total Households 310,097 273,556 139,044 2,933
Family households 72% 74% 78% 85%
Married couple family 47% 50% 53% 59%
Other family 25% 23% 25% 26%
Male householder, no spouse present 8% 7% 8% 4%
Female householder, no spouse present 17% 16% 17% 22%
Nonfamily households 28% 26% 22% 15%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP02
163
Figure C-10: Concentration of Children in Female-Headed Households in McFarland (ACS 2017- 2021)
7.3.2.1-d Income groups
Household and family income levels are key to housing affordability. The concentration of populations of various income levels in geographic areas affect perception of wealth of residents and have implications for integration and segregation of populations. The income profiles of areas have direct relationship to issues about fair housing especially for those in lower income brackets. Ultimately, the share of income spent on housing reflects affordability for respective income groups no matter how high or low the income or whether the household owns or rents housing. Housing that requires 30 percent or more of household income is unaffordable.
Regional Trends and Comparisons
Table C-7 compares median incomes in 2010 and 2020 across the McFarland region. In both years, median incomes were reasonably close among the counties in the region and increased noticeably by
164
2020. The table also reveals that levels of poverty were comparable among counties in the region. Over the decade, median incomes grew between 16 percent in Kern County and 23 percent in Fresno County. The percentage of residents below the poverty level only changed slightly in the counties over the decade.
Figures C-7 and C-8 show the percentages of home owners by census tract who paid 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing in 2014 and 2019, respectively. In 2014, tract-level data indicate that 20 percent to 60 percent of owners paid more than 30 percent of incomes on housing. Effectively, one can conclude that home ownership was generally unaffordable across the region. In 2019, the situation improved slightly for owners across the region. One would assume that home prices fell, or incomes went up, or more wealthy persons took over much of the housing. or multiple income earners shared in the housing cost per unit.
Figures C-9 and C-10 show the percentages of renters by census tract who paid 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing in 2014 and 2019, respectively. Similarly in 2014, tract-level data indicate that 40 percent to 80 percent of renters paid more than 30 percent of incomes on housing. Effectively, one can conclude that rental housing was noticeably unaffordable in communities across the region. In 2019, the situation shifted around but remained essentially the same for renters across the region. One would assume that home prices fell, or incomes went up, or more wealthy persons took over much of the housing. or multiple income earners shared in the rental housing cost per unit.
Table C-7: 2010 and 2020 Median Incomes and Poverty Levels in the McFarland Region Income and Poverty Fresno
County
Kern
County
Tulare
County McFarland City
2010 Percent of Kern
County
Median income $46,430 $47,089 $43,851 $35,656 76%
Below poverty level 19% 18% 19% 31%
2020
Median income $57,109 $54,851 $52,534 $36,586 67%
Below poverty level 19% 19% 19% 26%
Percent change 2010 to
2020
Median income 23% 16% 20% 3%
Below poverty level -2% 7% 0% -16%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 & 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2201
165
Local Trends and Analysis
Data was not detailed enough to make comparisons by neighborhoods. Table C-7 revealed that McFarland historically depicted lower median incomes than Kern and the other counties in the region.
It also depicted a higher percentage of persons living below the poverty line than the counties in the region. Over the decade, while McFarland’s median income increased by 3 percent, the percentage of residents living below the poverty level decreased by 16 percent.
Using Figures C-7, C-8, C-9, and C-10, the census tract within which McFarland falls depicted similar trends as the region. For home owners, McFarland was in the 40 percent to 60 percent range in 2014 and the situation remained the same in 2019 for owners who had unaffordable housing costs. For renters, the situation was worse in 2014 when 40 percent to 80 percent of renters had to pay unaffordable costs for housing and the situation remained the same in 2019. The maps showed a more severe situation for renters residing west of State Route (SR) 99 than those residing east of SR 99 within the City. However, as seen in Figure C-11, the local median income for McFarland does not differ across the neighborhoods.
Figure C-11: Local Median Income (ACS 2017 – 2021)
166
Figure C-12: Percent of Home Owners Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, McFarland Region, 2014 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
167
Figure C-13: Percent of Home Owners Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, McFarland Region, 2019 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
168
Figure C-14: Percent of Renters Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, McFarland Region, 2014 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
169
Figure C-15: Percent of Renters Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, McFarland Region, 2019 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
170
Figure C-16: Children in Female-Headed Household (ACS 2017-2021)
7.3.2.1-e Trends in housing choice vouchers
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) explains the housing choice voucher (HCV) program as “the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments.” (https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8) Public housing agencies (PHAs) receive federal funds from HUD to administer the voucher program.
Notably, participants are free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and are not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. The PHA pays a housing subsidy directly to the landlord on behalf of the participant. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent and the amount the program subsidizes. With authorization from the PHA, a participant may use the voucher to purchase a modest home under certain circumstances.
A key objective of the program is to help participants get out of poverty. Therefore, if the use of HCV concentrates participants in areas of high poverty because of low rents in those areas, then segregation into enclaves of poverty can occur and it defeats integration.
171
Regional Trends and Comparisons
Figure C-11 shows the locations of subsidized housing projects in the McFarland region in 2021. They do appear in all urbanized areas across the region and are more frequent in larger urban areas. The map reveals that subsidized housing units tended to distribute through the respective cities and smaller communities in the region.
Local Trends and Analysis
Figure C-12 zooms onto the locations of subsidized housing projects within the City of McFarland in 2021. The map reveals that subsidized housing units are distributed across the City instead of clustering into any particular enclave. This is consistent with the integration objective of the housing choice voucher program.
172
Figure C-17: Locations of Subsidized Housing Projects in the McFarland Region, 2021 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
173
Figure C-18: Locations of Subsidized Housing Projects within McFarland and Vicinity, 2021 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
174
7.3.2.2 Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty HUD has developed a definition of racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs). The definition combines thresholds for racial/ethnic concentration and poverty. Census tracts with extreme poverty that satisfy the racial/ethnic concentration thresholds are deemed R/ECAPs as follows:
• The threshold for racial/ethnic concentration flags R/ECAPs with concentrations of non-white populations:
o In relatively large, urbanized areas for up to Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs), which are urban centers of at least 10,000 people plus adjacent counties that are tied to the urban centers socioeconomically by commuting, census blocks with 50 percent or more of non-white populations qualify as R/ECAPS.
o In smaller areas outside of CBSAs and larger geographies which are unlikely to have racial or ethnic concentrations as high as 50 percent, the racial/ethnic concentration threshold is set at 20 percent.
• The threshold for extreme poverty typically defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements the typical with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood meets the poverty qualification for R/ECAP based on the lower of two poverty thresholds:
o If it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent.
o If it is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for its metropolitan or micropolitan area.
Similarly, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened a group of independent organizations and research centers in February 2017 that became the California Fair Housing Task Force. TCAC and HCD charged the Task Force with the creation of an opportunity map to identify areas in every region of the State where research supports the need for positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for lowincome families and especially in the long-term outcomes for children.
Regional Trends and Comparisons
Figure C-13, Figure C-14, Figure C-15, and Figure C-16 depict trends in the incidence of race and ethnic concentrations of poverty within McFarland and its region in 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2020, respectively.
The maps depict that such concentrations are more common in larger cities within the region. Hence the noticeably large racial and ethnic concentrations of poverty in Fresno and Bakersfield with lower incidences in Visalia and Delano and no such concentration in McFarland in 2000. But the condition worsened by 2010 and continued to increase rapidly with noticeable expansion of pockets of poverty in big cities across the region and the beginning of such concentrations in smaller cities like McFarland.
175
Figure C-19: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in McFarland & Region, 2000 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. Decennial census (2000)
176
Figure C-20: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in McFarland & Region, 2010 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. Decennial census (2010)
177
Figure C-21: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in McFarland & Region, 2013 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. American Community Survey (ACS), 2009-2013
178
Figure C-22: Composite Opportunity Areas in McFarland & Region, 2020 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. Original data sourced from:
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020.asp
179
Local Trends and Analysis
Although McFarland had no such areas of poverty in 2000, it gained a few in the neighborhoods east of SR 99 by 2010. Locally, the area east of SR 99 is acknowledged as a lower income area. Given that most of the population in McFarland is Hispanic, neighborhoods of noticeably low income become ethnically concentrated areas of poverty.
It is noteworthy that the City as a whole falls predominantly in the lower income categories.
McFarland’s median household earned $35,069 in 2017, which was 69% of Kern County’s median household income and 52% of California’s median household income. Because McFarland’s median household income fell below 80% of the area median income, it qualifies as a Disadvantaged Community. Notably, McFarland’s median family income was lower than its median household income.
Typically, family income was higher than household income in Kern County and California. McFarland’s percentage of residents earning less than the poverty level was over 1.5 times as large as Kern County’s and more than double California’s. Many of the residents below the poverty level were children. Over 50% of children under the age of 5 were below the poverty level. Almost 50% of children aged 5 to 17 were below the poverty level. The percentage below the poverty level decreased rapidly with age.
As noted above, incomes in the City are relatively the same across neighborhoods, with areas East of Highway 99 only slightly lower than neighborhoods West of Highway 99. For example, the area noted as “High Segregation and Poverty” had a median household income of roughly $33,000, while other neighborhoods in the City had a median income of $37,625 and $41,700, confirming there is some, but not a great deal of, difference between neighborhoods in the City. With racial demographics being relatively homogeneous across neighborhoods in the City, the slightly lower incomes East of Highway 99 trigger these areas being considered “High Segregation and Poverty” within the City. While Table 6- 4 highlights AFFH actions and programs that are targeted to these areas, it should be noted that previous investments in the City have been proportional when considering a West/East split. For instance, the City used Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) funding to support infrastructure planning to increase housing opportunities in the City by over 10,000 units.
Lastly, information from City officials suggests that differences between neighborhoods in the City is fairly minimal. The housing stock in the “High Segregation and Poverty” area is older than other areas of the City, but do not show any signs of higher concentrations of units lacking plumbing or a complete kitchen. Furthermore, the largest park in the City is located within the “High Segregation and Poverty” neighborhood, although services like grocery stores, laundromats, and gas stations are lacking in this portion of the City. Street improvements, as shown in Figure C-24, show the City made improvements to all areas of the City.
As noted in other sections of the housing element, the most recent development in the City has occurred west of Highway 99, particularly in the northwestern portion of the City. As a result, streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure in these areas tend to be newer than in the portion designated as High Segregation and Poverty. However, this does not indicate that High Segregation and Poverty areas are lacking adequate infrastructure, but rather that the existing infrastructure has been maintained to a good condition.
Sidewalks in the City generally are in fair condition, with a few exceptions. According to a windshield survey conducted by City staff, in the area of High Segregation and Poverty, portions of San Juan and San Pedro Streets have “inconsistent” sidewalks, which include a combination of paved and unpaved sidewalks. In the Western portion of the City, portions of Davis Avenue, 5th Street, and Frontage Road exhibit “inconsistent” sidewalks. Improvements to these areas are incorporated into the City’s Capital
180
Improvement Program, programmed in conjunction with other improvements, including handicap, accessibility ramps, storm drain, culverts, and street paving.
Additionally, as noted in Figure C-24 below, recent street improvements have been made in all areas of the City, including the High Poverty and Segregation neighborhood. The City’s Street Conditions Report is the best source for existing street conditions within the City. Within the last 18 months, the City has completely renovated or restored 6 of the 8 major North/South streets in the East side of the City, which were reported as “Poor” or “Failed” Streets Conditions Report. In the Western portion of the City, 4 streets have been renovated within the last 18 months, which similarly reported “Poor” conditions in the Street Conditions Report. An additional 3 streets are slated for repair, which will be phased after school improvement projects are completed.
While this neighborhood in the City has an older housing stock and code enforcement data was not broken down to this level of detail, using City staff knowledge, staff does not note any difference in the quality of homes, indicative of homeowners keeping up with maintenance associated with homeownership.
Schools in McFarland are predominantly located west of Highway 99 with the exception of Browning Road Steam Academy. However, in 2014 the City was awarded Safe Routes to Schools funding to install sidewalks, ADA curb ramps, and curb and gutter improvements at various locations around the Browning Road facility.
Additionally, the City completed Phase I of the McFarland Community Garden and Trail during the 5th Cycle planning period, also located in the area of High Segregation and Poverty. This project, in which the City partnered with agencies such as the California Department of Transportation, turned formerly unoccupied land into an interactive and sustainable green space. The project enhanced citywide connectivity by adding a multi-use trail which connects to a bridge over Highway 99 for access to the western portion of the City, as well as adding fitness stations, a community garden, a basketball court, and electric vehicle charging stations.
Access to community facilities in the Area of High Segregation and Poverty include the City’s two largest parks, Blanco Park and Browning Road Park. The facilities within these parks are well-maintained (bathrooms, walkways, waste collection, etc.) are similar to parks located in the Western portion of the City. In addition to these parks, and the McFarland Community Garden and Trail project, the City is in the process of adding two additional community facilities in the form of a pickleball court and a dog park. A mobile food truck park is also located in the Eastern portion of the City, adjacent to the Community Garden.
The City’s next planned growth area is located in the Eastern portion of the City. This includes 14 acres of planned or under construction as well as 1,200 acres of industrially-zoned land. This project includes annexing land into the City and will balance out the predominantly-residential nature of the City with much needed commercial amenities and job-producing industries in the City. The next phase of this project is the adoption of a Specific Plan for this area, slated by the end of 2025, at which point specific policies and actions to support full use of this annexation.
181
Figure C-23: High Segregation and Poverty, 2023
182
Figure C-24: McFarland Street Slurry Map. September 2024 Trends and Patterns
Figures C-13 and C-15 show that trends in concentrations of poverty persisted and intensified across the region from 2000 to 2010 and beyond. In McFarland, just as it was for Delano and Wasco, the concentration of poverty increased over the decade. Figure C-23 shows the current area noted as an area of “High Segregation and Poverty”.
Other Relevant Factors
The interplay of low incomes and higher housing costs in California than other parts of the nation mean high burdens of housing cost among households.
Conclusion
Relatively low incomes vis-à-vis relatively large families and households with relatively high unemployment can lead to poverty. That is the situation in McFarland. This would place many family units in the City within those income categories in need of affordable housing. The relatively
183
homogeneous ethnic composition in McFarland all but eliminates the issue of poverty concentrations by racial enclaves but the City’s Hispanic dominance creates ethnic concentrations of poverty.
7.3.2.3 Disparities in access to opportunity
Research shows that places have independent and inter-related effects on such critical life outcomes as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility. Different places present different levels of opportunity to achieve these critical life outcomes as well as housing choice.
Mapping is a way to measure and visualize place-based characteristics linked to opportunity. Results of the analyses can inform how to target investments and policies to achieve beneficial economic, educational, health, and housing outcomes. It is noteworthy, however, that opportunity mapping has limitations since the accuracy of maps depends on the accuracy of the data which may derive from selfreported surveys of subsets of an area’s population, and sometimes may not be recorded or be reliable in some areas.
HUD compiled data and analytic procedures on criteria that measure disparities in access to opportunity. The data and mapping tool to aid preparation of the AFFH is useful in determining segregation and disparities in access to opportunity. The definitions of various opportunity indices are as follows:
• School Proficiency: This index applies school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on State exams to describe neighborhoods in the proximity of high-performing and lowperforming elementary schools. The higher the value of the index, the higher is the quality of the school system serving the neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement: This index summarizes the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood based on the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment within the applicable census tract. The higher the value of the index, the higher is the labor force participation and human capital in the neighborhood. • Transit Access: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a single-parent family with three persons and income at 50 percent of the median income for renters in the region, which is defined as the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the value of the index, the more likely it is that residents in that neighborhood would use public transit. • Transportation Cost: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a single-parent family with three persons and income at 50 percent of the median income for renters in the region, which is defined as the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the value of the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. • Proximity to Jobs: Thisindex estimatesthe accessibility of a residential neighborhood as an inverse function of its distancesto all job locations within a region (CBSA) and a direct function of the sizes of the employment centers. The higher the value of the index, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in the neighborhood. • Environmental Health: This index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at the neighborhood level. The higher the value of the index, the lower the exposure to toxins that are harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of the neighborhood, which is defined as a census block-group.
184
Regional Trends and Comparisons
Figure C-17 depicts the levels of resource availability in McFarland and its region in 2020. Larger cities to the north and south of McFarland within the region feature varying levels of opportunity measured in levels of resource availability which range from low to high. The low areas of opportunity occur most frequently in central cities of the larger cities. McFarland falls to the lower end of the range. Its surroundings are low-resourced while the City limits shows up as an area of high segregation and poverty. Given that the City of Wasco, which is McFarland’s nearest neighbor to the south depicts the full range of resources and thus range of opportunities, it is possible for McFarland to achieve the same.
Educational attainment and level of training affect job opportunities a person qualifies to hold. And the number and type of new future jobs affect future housing needs. Table C-8 shows projected job growth by occupation for the Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (Bakersfield MSA) over the decade from 2018 to 2028. Total employment is projected to grow by 10 percent during this period for an increase of 38,000 new jobs. This would bring the employment of Bakersfield MSA to approximately 432,700 by 2028 (California Employment Development Department, 2022). Close examination reveals that economic sectors with the most growth are largely made up of typically well-paying occupations such as Private Educational Services and Health Care, Transportation, Construction, and Professional and Business Services. Table C-8 shows, however, that the fastest growing sector is predicted to be Private Household Workers, which is a typically lower paying occupation. This would not bode well in terms of housing affordability for residents in the area (including McFarland) who are concentrated in this lowpaying job sector, as without multiple income-earning persons in households, difficulties with housing affordability would remain. However, there is opportunity to move into higher paying sectors as jobs in the higher-paying sectors continue to increase and McFarland residents get the opportunity for skill development to qualify for such jobs.
185
Figure C-25: Levels of Resource Availability in McFarland & Region, 2020 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022.
186
Table C-8: Projected Job Growth by Occupation from 2018 to 2028 - Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area
Occupation Title
Annual Average
Employment
Employment
Change
2018 2028 Jobs Percent
Educational Services (Private), Health Care, and
Social Assistance 38,100 46,000 7,900 21%
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 53,300 59,200 5,900 11% Total Farm 62,400 66,700 4,300 7%
Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities 13,200 17,200 4,000 30% Government 66,100 69,300 3,200 5%
Professional and Business Services 27,200 30,300 3,100 11% Construction 15,900 18,600 2,700 17%
Leisure and Hospitality 26,700 29,300 2,600 10%
Self-Employment 19,500 20,700 1,200 6%
Retail Trade 31,800 32,900 1,100 3%
Manufacturing 13,200 13,900 700 5%
Wholesale Trade 8,300 9,000 700 8%
Financial Activities 7,600 8,000 400 5%
Private Household Workers 100 300 200 200%
Information 2,000 2,100 100 5%
Mining and Logging 9,300 9,200 -100 -1%
Total Employment 394,700 432,700 38,000 10%
Source: California Employment Development Department, 2022 Local Trends and Analysis
Different types of employment opportunities determine household incomes which in turn determine the types and sizes of housing that households could afford. According to the American Community Survey, both McFarland and Kern County depicted similar levels of employment with approximately three out of five of those residents in the labor force employed in 2019. Approximately 10 percent of those in the labor force were unemployed. This is higher than both the state and national trends, which were around 6 percent unemployment. Table 2-4 is reproduced here as Table C-9. The next paragraph further explores the distribution of incomes by employment type and households respectively and implications for housing affordability.
187
Table C-9: Labor Force and Employment Rates - McFarland City vs. Kern County, 2019 McFarland City Kern County
Persons Percent Persons Percent
In Labor Force* 5,754 56% 382,691 58%
Employed 4,983 87% 345,187 90%
Unemployed 771 13% 37,504 10%
Not in Labor Force 4,467 44% 273,725 42%
All ages 16 and over 10,221
656,416
*Ages 16 and over in labor force
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2301 Table C-10 shows the distribution of employment by occupation and median income. In 2019, the largest employment sector for McFarland residents was agriculture with two out of every five employed residents. With a median income of just over $17,000, agriculture provided nearly $5,000 more in annual salary than the lowest-paying sector (Food Preparation and Serving), but it provided $70,000 lower annual salary than the highest-paying sector (Management). Close examination of the distribution suggests that working residents of McFarland fall predominantly into occupations that pay low to mid-level salaries that are below $43,000 a year. Housing affordability would depend on the number of income earners in households and families.
Education and job training are ways to evolve toward opportunities for higher earning ability. However, populations in Kern County and McFarland, particularly, lagged behind in educational attainment. In 2021, for instance, 36 percent of the population in California attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. In comparison, approximately half (18.6 percent) of the population in Kern County attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. Notably in McFarland, 4 percent of its population attained that level of education.
This realization is the impetus behind the push by a non-profit community development organization like Self-Help Enterprises to provide resources and educational classes to low-income families in McFarland.
Transit options are limited within the City. The City does not have any “High Quality Transit Stops” or “High Quality Transit Areas within ½ mile”, and only has one bus route (Route 110) that runs through the City. This line has terminus points in Delano and Bakersfield, stops at the McFarland Community Center, and runs 5 buses Southbound and 6 buses Northbound. Though the system has a wide reaching service area (as North as Delano and South as Santa Clarita) the frequency of bus routes makes it more suitable for local travel to and from Bakersfield.
Using CalEnviroScreen 4.0 data, the City currently ranks as having the most negative environmental factors. Multiple factors contribute to the poor environmental quality, such as the Valley’s topography trapping air pollutants, heavy truck traffic on I-5 and Highway 99, and agricultural activities, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore, this is not a condition unique only to the City, rather, it affects the Valley as a whole.
According to metrics from Great Schools, McFarland Unified School District students tend to test slightly below the state average, however, have higher than average graduation rates compared to the state average. Most schools in the district have a summary rating between 4-5, indicating schools are between “below average" and “average”.
188
Figure C-26: Economic Score (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map, 2023) Trends and Patterns
Unemployment in McFarland was higher than in Kern County and California. McFarland’s 2017 unemployment rate was 14.2% compared to Kern County’s rate of 10.7% and California’s rate of 7.0%.
The level of disparity has remained similar for several years. It is discernible from data that trends in unemployment have persisted across the region. In McFarland, just as it is for Delano and Wasco, the rate of unemployment remained relatively high over the previous decade if compared to Kern County and the State of California.
Other Relevant Factors
Lower than typical educational attainment, minimal opportunities to improve skills through education and training, and higher than typical unemployment rates spell confinement to lower income jobs. This situation would more often than not lead to lower ability to earn higher incomes and the perpetuation of the need for affordable housing for the lower-income groups. And this is the prevalent scenario in McFarland.
Conclusion
Low opportunities to improve earning power coupled with relatively high unemployment can lead to poverty. That is the situation in McFarland. This would place many households in the City within those income categories in need of affordable housing. The relatively homogeneous ethnic composition in McFarland all but eliminates the issue of disparities in opportunities by racial enclaves but emphasizes
189
such a phenomenon in terms of ethnicity. Limitations on opportunity for higher housing affordability is by and large similar across a large segment of the population.
Table C-10: Distribution of Employment by Occupation and Median Income – McFarland City, 2019 Industry Persons Percent Median Salary
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 2,121 43% 17,209 Office and administrative support occupations 565 11% 31,533 Sales and related occupations 339 7% 20,054
Production occupations 250 5% 26,475
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 231 5% 29,226 Material moving occupations 228 5% 19,231
Construction and extraction occupations 217 4% 68,224
Community and social service occupations 151 3% 50,547
Food preparation and serving related occupations 149 3% 12,318 Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 133 3% 14,472 Healthcare support occupations 133 3% 16,503
Transportation occupations 131 3% 40,026
Educational instruction, and library occupations 97 2% 16,392 Personal care and service occupations 96 2% 13,750
Management occupations 42 1% 86,538
Business and financial operations occupations 38 1% -
Legal occupations 33 1% -
Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 31 1% 43,897 Architecture and engineering occupations 0 0% -
Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 0 0% - Computer and mathematical occupations 0 0% -
Life, physical, and social science occupations 0 0%
Protective service occupations 0 0% -
All Employed 4,985 100% 20,080
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2401; U.S Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B24011