Dinuba City Council
March 11, 2025

City of Dinuba
Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element A2-39
HOME
The HOME program was created under Title II of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act enacted on November 28, 1990. For Dinuba, HOME funds are made available on an annual, competitive basis through HCD’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program. Approximately $1,000,000 or more is available to develop and support affordable multifamily rental housing, owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, and home ownership affordability. Dinuba uses HOME funds primarily for first-time homebuyers (down payment assistance), owner-occupied rehabilitation, and rental-rehabilitation. The City has also done some multifamily acquisition/rehabilitation.

CDBG Funding (Locally controlled federal funds)
The City is considered a non-entitlement city, as it has a population of under 50,000, a criterion defined by HUD for agencies seeking assistance with CDBG funds. The City was awarded approximately $1,000,000 from the State administered HUD funds in 2022. Dinuba utilizes CDBG funds for rental and owner housing rehabilitation activities, infrastructure, public facilities and public services. Proceeds from those activities are deposited into a revolving loan fund established from low interest loans for rehabilitation and could be a resource for preservation activities.

Additionally, CDBG funds support public facilities and infrastructure including $250,000 for the South El Monte neighborhood Revitalization Plan in 2021, $3.5 million for the North Dinuba Infrastructure Improvements Project in 2020, and $3.0 million for the Kern Street Storm Drain Project in 2019.

Homebuyer Assistance Program (Local)
The City of Dinuba’s Homebuyer Assistance Program offers affordable secondary mortgage financing to first-time homebuyers. The Program is designed to provide the additional financing needed to keep a first mortgage payment affordable. The program provides a zero percent deferred loan payment, due after the term of the primary loan years, plus an additional 15 years, and requires a minimal one percent down payment. Participation in the program requires completion of a free homebuyer education course and that the household income falls below annual income thresholds.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A2-40
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-1
A3 Housing Constraints Analysis
Constraints to the development of adequate and affordable housing include market, governmental, infrastructure, and environmental factors. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to low- and moderate-income households and may render residential construction economically infeasible for developers. Constraints to housing production significantly impact households with low and moderate incomes and special needs.

According to Government Code Section 65583, local governments are required to analyze governmental and non-governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all income levels and those with special needs and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as part of the housing elements update. Where constraints to housing production are related to the City’s regulations or land use controls, the City must identify appropriate programs to mitigate these constraints, particularly ones that impact the production of affordable housing or housing for special needs populations.

The following chapter outlines non-governmental, governmental, environmental, and infrastructure constraints and was used in the development of specific policies and actions included in the Housing Plan to remove barriers to housing and to incentivize housing production, specifically targeting housing production at all income levels and housing for persons with special needs.

A3.1 Summary of Local Housing Constraints
 The costs of developing housing, including land costs and construction costs, are rising rapidly. There is a lack of federal, state, and local funding, and the funding that is available is increasingly competitive. The time and effort needed to identify, compete for, and incorporate affordable housing funds is a major constraint to development of affordable housing.  Loan denial rates in Tulare County were higher for Hispanic/Latino applicants (18 percent) compared to non-Hispanic/Latino applicants (16 percent). Although discrimination in mortgage lending is prohibited by the federal Fair Housing Act, other factors may contribute to a potential homebuyer’s ability to secure safe financing, such as credit history, savings, and education regarding the homebuying process. The higher denial rate for Hispanic/Latino applicants indicates a financial constraint to purchasing a home which puts higher pressure on the rental markets.  Although Dinuba’s development regulations allow for a variety of densities throughout the city, development standards are not sufficiently flexible. Residential parking requirements, open space requirements for multifamily developments, and zoning code provisions allowing single-family residences by-right in multifamily zones potentially constrain the development of a variety of housing types.
 Use permit regulations for small group homes in certain zoning districts could pose a constraint to housing for individuals with special needs, and use permit regulations for emergency shelters in certain zoning districts constraints housing access for unsheltered individuals.  Dinuba’s development review and impact fees are higher than in other small cities in the region, which may be a constraint to development.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-2
A3.2 Non-Governmental Constraints
The availability of housing is affected by a complex set of interrelated market factors, including but limited to, cost of land, cost of construction, and availability of financing. These factors contribute to determining a new home’s sale price or the rents required to make a project feasible. Nongovernmental constraints include factors outside of direct governmental control that directly impact housing prices. The cost of construction and the availability of financing contribute to the cost of housing and can hinder the production of affordable housing. The following analysis accounts for these non-governmental constraints.

A3.2.1 Land Costs
The cost of land can impede the production of affordable housing. Land costs are influenced by many variables, including land scarcity and developable density (both of which are indirectly controlled through governmental land use regulations), location, site constraints, and the availability of public utilities.

Table A3-1 provides the average price per acre for land listed for sale throughout Dinuba in June 2023.

The average price per acre is significantly higher for smaller lots, most of which are in non-agricultural zones. The average price per acre for all plots is $152,631. The price per acre is less for larger lots, which average $29,492. Most of these larger properties are in agricultural zones.

Table A3-1 Listed Land Prices – Dinuba
Lot Size Average Price per Acre (Listed)
Less than 10 acres $275,769.88
10 or more acres $29,492.54
Average $/acre $152,631.21
Source: Zillow, Inc., 2023.

Table A3-2 provides the average price per acre for land sold in 2022 in Dinuba. The average price per acre for all land sales across Dinuba is $154,520, slightly higher than the average list price. The average sales price per acre for larger lots was $34,585, which is lower than the total average per acre price for all sales, but higher than the average price per acre for currently listed properties. Most of these larger properties are in agricultural zones.

Table A3-2 Sold Land Prices – Dinuba
Lot Size Average Price per Acre (Listed)
Less than 10 acres $274,455.10
10 or more acres $34,585.72
Average $/acre $154,520.41
Source: Zillow, Inc., 2023.

Conclusion
Land costs in Dinuba are consistent with neighboring cities and are not considered a constraint to development.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-3
Recommended Action
None required.

A3.2.2 Construction Costs
Construction costs can be broken down into two primary categories: materials and labor. A major component of the cost of housing is the cost of building materials, including wood and wood-based products, cement, asphalt, roofing materials, and pipe. The availability and demand for such materials affect prices for these goods.

Another major cost component of new housing is labor. The cost of labor in Tulare County is comparatively low because the area’s cost of living is relatively low compared to other areas in California. However, labor for government subsidized housing work is additionally costly for the Central Valley, as wages are rooted in the required State Labor Standards based on higher northern and southern California prevailing wages.

Table A3-3 shows the estimated cost of constructing a basic 2,000 square foot single-family home in Tulare County to be around $337,540. The estimate includes direct and indirect (e.g., insurance, permits, utilities, plans) construction costs, including material, labor, and equipment costs, but does not include the price of land or development impact fees.

Table A3-3 Estimated Construction Cost
Item Cost
Material $204,226
Labor $126,001
Equipment $7,313
Total $337,540
Source: Promatcher.com, 2023.

There is little that municipalities can do to mitigate the impacts of high construction costs except by avoiding local amendments to uniform building codes that unnecessarily increase construction costs without significantly adding to health, safety, or construction quality. Although the cost of construction constrains affordable housing development, construction costs are similar across jurisdictions in Tulare County, illustrating that the constraints are market driven rather than an impact of local policy.

A3.2.3 Availability of Financing
Mortgage interest rates have a large influence over housing affordability. Higher interest rates increase a homebuyer’s monthly payment and decrease the range of housing that a household can afford. Lower interest rates result in lower costs and lower monthly payments for the homebuyer.

When interest rates rise, housing prices typically fall to compensate. Similarly, when interest rates decrease, housing prices begin to rise. There is often a lag in the market, causing housing prices to remain high when interest rates rise until the market catches up. Lower-income households often find it most difficult to purchase a home during this time period.

Where financing is available, construction capital seems to be directed at the transactions – those with large, established, and well-capitalized sponsors. Given recent trends of increasing interest rates, the

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-4
availability of financing is likely to be more of a constraint on new housing construction during this Housing Element planning period than it has been in the recent past.

Market-Rate Development Financing
As discussed in Land Costs and Construction Costs above, market-rate development is generally financed by investors, and the cost to build a residential project must be recovered by revenue from sales or rents. Rent or sales prices of new housing rises as the component costs for developers increase. A market in which housing supply is limited and demand is high can support higher housing prices, but lower-income segments of the community are priced out. Therefore, it is difficult for the private sector, for-profit developers, and market-rate housing supply to meet the housing needs of all community members.

Affordable Housing Financing
A description of available funding sources for affordable development is provided in Chapter A2, Housing Needs Assessment.

Mortgage and Rehabilitation Financing
The availability of financing affects the ability of residents to purchase or improve a home. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. The primary purpose of reviewing the lending activity is to determine whether home financing is available to city residents. The data presented in this section includes the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions for home mortgages, home improvement, and refinance loans.

Lending activity data provides information regarding home financing availability for city residents. The most recent data set available for the County of Tulare from 2022 shows that 18,154 households applied for a home financing loan, which includes loans for home purchase, home improvement, and refinancing. As discussed in Chapter 3, Regional Housing Constraints Analysis, of the total applications received for home purchase, 54 percent of the loans originated while 5.9 percent were denied.

Conventional loans are made by the private sector (banks, mortgage companies, etc.) and are not guaranteed or insured by the U.S. government. Conversely, government-backed loans, such as those issued by the Federal Housing Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Services/Farm Service Agency, are completely or partially insured by the U.S. government. Within the county, 12,849 of the applications received were for conventional loans and 5,305 were for government backed loans. As discussed in Chapter 3, Regional Housing Constraints Analysis, 49 percent of the conventional loans were originated, and 18 percent of the applications were denied. Additionally, 43 percent of the government backed loans originated and 10 percent of the applications were denied.

County data shows that the white racial group had the highest number of loan applications with 5,463 applications. Per racial group, white applicants also had the highest percentage of loans originated out of applications received (56 percent). In terms of ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino applicants comprised 38 percent of the total number of loan applications while non-Hispanic or Latino residents comprised 29 percent. However, of the loan applications made by Hispanic/Latino applicants, only 53 percent of loans originated compared to 56 percent for non-Hispanic/Latino applicants. Hispanic/Latino applicants also had a higher loan denial rate (18 percent) compared to non-Hispanic/Latino applicants (15.5 percent).

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-5
Construction Financing Timing
The timing between project approval and requests for building permits affects project viability. Project delays may result from developers’ inability to secure financing for construction. In Dinuba, the average time between project approval and request for building permit is typically three to nine months but varies by type of project. Some projects take years to pull building permits and secure financing. Singlefamily homes usually experience the least delay (three to nine months). Multifamily housing construction tends to be more complex and usually involves more time between entitlement and building permit issuance (six to nine months).

Conclusion
Although discrimination in mortgage lending is prohibited by the federal Fair Housing Act, other factors may contribute to a potential homebuyer’s ability to secure safe financing, such as credit history, savings, and education regarding the home-buying process. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) HMDA data, by itself, does not provide insight into these other factors. Therefore, it is important that the City supports housing education and opportunities for all residents.

Recommended Action
The City shall implement goals and policies to support homeownership opportunities and home-buying education, particularly for racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in the homebuying market. The City will implement Housing Plan Program 11 to expand awareness of homebuyer education programs.

A3.2.4 Requests for Lower Development Densities
In Dinuba, four recent developments, including Castlerock Subdivision and Montebella 2/3, have developed at densities lower than allowed by the zoning of the site. Three of these developments were subdivisions in the R-1-6 zone, and achieved 63 percent, 58 percent, and 87 percent of allowable density. The other project was a multifamily development in the RM-1.5 zone which achieved 82 percent of allowable density. Both the Castlerock Subdivision and Montebella 2/3 projects were required to dedicate land for park and stormwater ponding basins, which lowered the overall site density. Program 2 requires the City to identify alternative sites if requests for lower development densities would result in a shortfall in RHNA sites,
A3.3 Governmental Constraints
Although local governments have little influence on market factors such as interest rates, local policies and regulations can impact where, how much, and what type of residential development is built. Land use controls, site improvement requirements, fees and exactions, and permit processing procedures, among other policies and regulations, may constrain the maintenance, development, and improvement of housing.

A3.3.1 Land Use Controls
Land use controls provided in the General Plan and the zoning code influence housing production in several ways. The permitted and conditionally permitted uses in each district guide new development and provide both developers and the public with an understanding of how vacant land will develop in the future. This includes the density of development that will occur within a particular zone, the

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-6
compatibility of planned uses in each area, and the range and type of buildings and uses that will be located throughout Dinuba.

A3.3.1.1 General Plan
Dinuba adopted its current General Plan in 2008 to guide development in the city. The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan sets forth the vision, goals, and policies for the city’s urban form and land use patterns, including residential development. The General Plan Land Use Element establishes land use categories that define the allowable uses and building densities/intensities throughout the city.

The various types of housing units allowed in the city include single-family dwellings, multifamily dwellings, townhomes, condominiums, and mobile homes. Residential densities in Dinuba cover a wide spectrum that promotes the development of various housing types.

The Dinuba General Plan contains the following residential land use designations:
 Low Density Residential: 0 to 2.0 units per acre.
 Medium Low Density Residential: 2.1 to 4.5 units per acre.  Medium Density Residential: 4.6 to 7.5 units per acre  Medium High Density Residential: 7.6 to 15.0 units per acre.  High Density Residential: 15.1 to 24 units per acre
In addition, the Community Commercial land use designation allows mixed use development with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in conformance with the Downtown Residential Overlay District, with an allowable maximum density of 24 units per acre.

The City of Dinuba is currently in the process of developing a Focused 2023 General Plan Update to the existing 2008 General Plan. The update is titled “focused” since it is not a comprehensive update of all elements of the General Plan, but rather a focused analysis of a few growth areas and community topics that are discussed in the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. The Focused General Plan Update includes the provision of new residential neighborhoods, the development of policies that encourage mixed-use development in the downtown area and commercial areas, Zoning Code updates to accommodate residential and commercial areas, implementation of road safety measures, and the addition of an Environmental Justice element.

Conclusion
The General Plan includes five residential land use designations with a density range from less than one to 25 dwelling units per acre. The densities ranges are sufficiently high to allow the development of affordable housing for all income levels.

Recommended Action
None required.

A3.3.1.2 Zoning Code
The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development primarily through the Zoning Code, as well as specific plan development codes. A zoning district is assigned to every parcel in the city and the Zoning Code identifies compatible uses. In general, the City’s zoning regulations are designed to balance the goal of providing a mix of residential and commercial land use types while protecting the health and safety of residents and preserving the character of existing neighborhoods.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-7
Additionally, development standards such as setbacks, height limits, lot coverage, open space requirements, and parking identified for each zoning district. Some zoning districts may allow similar uses but have different development standards. Development standards may be considered a constraint to the development of housing units if they are too restrictive or reduce the development potential on a specific parcel.

The City’s Zoning Code allows residential uses in the following districts: Development beyond 24 units per gross acre is permitted by CUP. The City’s Zoning Code provides for the following residential districts.
 Agriculture (AN): The AN district is intended to preserve lands best suited for agriculture from the encroachment of incompatible uses; to protect lands designated for eventual urban development to ensure the orderly and beneficial conversion of these lands to nonagricultural use. The AN district does allow for rural residential development, specifically for single family dwellings. The minimum site area is ten (10) acres for all permitted uses. Each site has no less than five (5) acres for each dwelling unit located on the site, subject to the exception that employee housing may be located on a site with a lesser area for each dwelling unit.
 Residential Acreage (RA): The RA district is intended to provide living areas within the city limited to a very low-density concentration of one-family dwellings. The minimum site area is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for a permitted use. No more than one (1) unit is allowed on each site in the RA district.
 One Family Residential (R): The R district is intended primarily to provide living areas at locations designated by the General Plan for medium low and medium density, involving single-family dwellings. In the R district, no more than one (1) dwelling unit is allowed on each site, except as provided under Sections 17.26.030.
 Multifamily Residential (RM): The multifamily residential districts are intended primarily for the development of multifamily residential structures at densities consistent with policies of the General Plan.
 Downtown Commercial District (C-2): The C-2 zone allows mixed use development, including residential uses, in the Downtown Residential Overlay District with a CUP.

In Dinuba, minimum residential lot sizes are required in some zones. Table A3-4 provides the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standard by zoning district.

Table A3-4 Site Area Per Dwelling Unit (RM)
District Lot Area
RM-3 3,000 square feet (14.54 units/gross acre)
RM-2 2,000 square feet (21.78 units/gross acre)
RM-1.5 1,500 square feet (Conditional Use Permit [CUP] required over 24 units/gross acre) Downtown Residential Overlay 1,875 square feet (24.0 units/gross acre) Source: Dinuba Zoning Code, Adopted September 2022.

Downtown Residential Overlay District
The Downtown Residential Overlay allows residential development as part of a mixed use development throughout the downtown area. Only parcels classified as C-2 within the Downtown Residential Overlay District allow mixed use development subject to approval of a CUP. Mixed use projects allow residential uses on the second and third floor or limited residential use on the ground floor if compatibility is

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-8
determined with the neighborhood or other commercial development. Residential uses must include at least two studio units, two one-bedroom units, and two two-bedroom units.

Conclusion
The City’s Zoning Code provides for a range of densities and is consistent with the General Plan land use designations.

Recommended Action
None required.

A3.3.2 Residential Development Standards
Table A3-5 shows the development standards for residential zones. The minimum parcel area for residential zones ranges from 6,000 square feet to five acres. Maximum site coverage ranges from 35 percent to 60 percent of the lot area.

The front setback requirement is 15 feet for all R and RM districts and 35 feet for AN and RA districts.

The side setback requirement is 15 feet for AN and RA districts, 10 feet for R-1-10, and five feet for the remaining three R districts as well as all RM districts. Rear setback requirement is 15 feet for AN and RA districts, 20 feet for R districts, and 15 feet for RM districts.

Maximum height requirements are 35 feet for AN district, 30 for RA districts, 25 for R districts, and 35 for RM districts. In the RA district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet with a CUP. In RM districts, buildings within 50 feet of the boundary of an RA or R district may not exceed one story and buildings within 100 feet of the boundary of an RA or R district may not exceed two stories. Height requirements for ADUs are 35 feet for AN district, 35 for RA districts, and 15 feet for all other districts.

Maximum density ranges from 0.2 units per acre in the AN district to 24 units per gross acre in the RM1.5 districts. The City’s maximum height requirement for accessory structures requires a CUP for accessory structures over one story in the RA, R, and RM districts. The height requirement of 35 feet in the AN, RA, and RM zones does not constrain the development of three-story buildings in Dinuba. The City is currently processing an application for a three story multi-family project (El Monte Village) within the 35-foot height limit.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-9
Table A3-5 Residential Development Standards
Zoning
District
Minimum
Parcel Area
Minimum Setback (in feet)
Maximum
Height
(feet)
Maximum
Height
(Accessory
Structure)
Maximum
Site
Coverage
(percent
of lot)
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Front
(feet)
Side
(feet)
Rear
(feet)
AN 10 acres 35 15 15 35 35 10 0.2
RA 20,000 sq. ft. 35 15 15 30 (50
with CUP)
35 25 2
R-1-10 10,000 sq. ft. 15 10 20 25 25 40 4
R-1-7.5 7,500 sq. ft. 15 15 20 25 25 40 5.7
R-1-6 6,000 sq. ft. 15 5 20 25 25 40 7.2
RM-3 7,000 sq. ft. 20 5 15 35 35 50 14.54
RM-2 7,000 sq. ft. 20 5 15 35 35 55 21.78
RM-1.5 7,000 sq. ft. 20 5 15 35 35 60 24
Downtown
Residential
Overlay
3,750 sq. Ft. 0 (15 if
abutting
residential
district)
0 (10 to 15
if abutting
residential
district)
0 (10 if
abutting
residential
district)
40 N/A N/A 24.0
Notes:

The sum of the two side yards for the R-1-7.5 zone shall be 15 feet and each lot may have one five-foot minimum side yard.

Source: Dinuba Zoning Code, Adopted September 2022.

The City has recently received requests for reduced setbacks to adapt to site-specific constraints. These requests are currently accommodated through the Planned Unit Development process. The City is reviewing setback requirements as part of the comprehensive Zoning Code update that is currently underway.

Conclusion
Development standards related to parcel area, setbacks, height of primary structures, site coverage, and density do not constrain residential development.

Recommended Action
None required.

A3.3.2.1 Parking
According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, parking can cost $25,000 to $75,000 per space to construct. However, given the age of data and the increased cost of land and construction costs discussed above, the costs per parking space are likely much higher.1 Parking provided in underground or structured parking facilities, or if required to be covered or enclosed, can significantly increase the cost of housing and could affect the feasibility of various housing projects in the city. In addition, requirements for parking space locations and maximum distances from dwelling units may also increase the cost of housing and affect the feasibility of housing projects. Requiring less parking not only reduces the project budget but can allow for more space to build additional housing units.
1 Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, 2016. Available at: http://ternercenter2.berkeley.edu/proforma/

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-10
Table A3-6 provides the residential parking requirements in Dinuba.

Table A3-6 Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Required Parking Spaces
Single-family units 2.0 per unit
Multifamily units Studio 1.5 per unit + 1 guest space/5 units 1 Bedroom 2.0 per unit + 1 guest space/5 units
2 or more Bedrooms 2.0 per unit + 1 guest space/5 units Mixed Use Projects
(residential portion)
Studio 1.0 per unit
1 Bedroom 1.0 per unit
2 Bedrooms 2.0 per unit
Senior residential units 1.0 per unit
Spaces for single family units require a garage or carport.

Multifamily units require one guest parking space per five dwelling units.

Source: Dinuba Zoning Code, Adopted September 2022.

Conclusion
Residential parking requirements for studios (1.5 spaces per unit, plus one guest space per 5 units) and one-bedroom multifamily units (2.0 spaces per unit, plus one guest space per five units) pose a potential constraint due to the requirement of more than one parking space per unit, which can be cost prohibitive to the development of such units.

Recommended Action
Revise parking requirements related to studios and one-bedroom multifamily units to require no more than one space per unit. The City will implement Housing Plan Program 6 to amend the Zoning Code to revise parking requirements for studio and one-bedroom multifamily units to not more than one space per unit.

A3.3.2.2 Open Space and Park Requirements
The Zoning Code establishes open space requirements for the RM districts. In these zones, each building site must provide landscaped and usable recreational and leisure areas equaling at least 350 square feet per dwelling unit. This area should be conveniently located and readily accessible to each dwelling unit.

Of this area, at least 25 percent must be designed as recreation area dedicated to promoting athletics and physical activity and at least another 25 percent must be designed as leisure area. Developments with five or more units are required to provide barbecue/picnic areas and children’s play areas.

Table A3-7 provides requirements for barbecue/picnic areas and children’s play areas.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-11
Table A3-7 Active Recreation Area Requirements
Number of Units Required Play Areas Required Barbecue/Picnic Areas 5 to 50 units 1 1
51 to 99 units 2 2
100 to 149 units 3 3
150 to 199 units 4 4
200 to 249 units 5 5
Source: Dinuba Zoning Code, Adopted September 2022.

Conclusion
The requirement of children’s play areas and barbecue/picnic areas for all developments with five or more units without any consideration of the target population can result in underutilized active recreation areas in some developments. This is an issue when considering children’s play areas due to the greater area requirement for these spaces. Additionally, these spaces are targeted towards a specific age group that may not be present in all multifamily developments.

Recommended Action
Adjust open space requirements for multifamily developments to provide a wider array of acceptable active recreation area types, and reduce the amount of open space required, to provide options for housing developers to meet the needs of their intended users. The City will implement Housing Plan Program 6 to amend the Zoning Code to reduce open space requirements for multifamily developments.

A3.3.2.3 Density Bonus
Chapter 17.84 of the Dinuba Municipal Code establishes the City’s density bonus policy. The city provides a density bonus and other incentives or concessions to applicants for residential projects who agree to provide affordable or senior housing pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 or successor statute. The City provides an additional density bonus or other incentives or concessions to applicants for residential projects who agree to donate land for affordable housing development and/or provide a childcare facility pursuant to the provisions of state law.

Allowed Density Bonuses
The amount of the density bonus granted shall be determined pursuant to state law. The City may choose to grant a density bonus greater than provided in the provisions of Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 or successor statute for a development that exceeds the requirements of state law. The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a General Plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval separate from the discretionary approval otherwise required for the project.

Types of Incentives
Incentives or concessions include any of the following:

1. A modification of development standards pertaining to building height, open space, lot size requirements, street access, off-street parking, landscaping, fencing, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements or off-site improvements. Such reduction or modification

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-12
requirements must exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission in compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq.;

2. Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if such nonresidential uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the housing project will be located;

3. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the City which result in identifiable cost reductions; and

4. Direct financial incentives which include, in order of City priority:
a. Financial contributions or mortgage financing from the redevelopment agency’s twenty percent set aside for low and moderate income housing (as available); b. Modification of dedication requirements;
c. Waiver or reduction of fees (not including connection charges); d. Provision of publicly owned land.

Processing of Density Bonus and Incentive Request
Within thirty days of receipt of a complete written proposal, the director shall notify the applicant in writing of: the types of incentives which may be recommended to comply with Chapter 17.84; and whether staff may support the granting of a density bonus on the basis of required development standards and findings. The target units must be compatible in floor plan, furnishings, and exterior design to non-designated units. Further, the target units must be reasonably dispersed throughout the development. Each density bonus project shall record an affordable housing agreement and resale and/or rental restrictive covenant, or other equivalent document approved as to form by the City Attorney.

Assembly Bill 1287 Additional Density Bonus for Very Low- to Moderate-Income Units
California Assembly Bill 1287, signed into law on June 21, 2023, requires that a city, county, or city and county grant an additional density bonus. Additional density bonuses are to be administered when housing development conforms to specified requirements and provides 24 percent of the total units to lower income households, conforms to specified requirements and provides 15 percent of the total units to very low households, or conforms to specified requirements and provides 44 percent of the total units to moderate-income units.

The Density Bonus Law prohibits a local government from conditioning the submission, review, or approval of an application pursuant to the Density Bonus Law on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not otherwise required by state law, but provides that this provision does not prohibit a local government from requiring an applicant to provide reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for a requested density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking rations, as specified.

Conclusion
The City of Dinuba is not in compliance with AB 1287 as it does not provide additional density bonuses for compliance with the criteria set forth by the bill.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-13
Recommended Action
Revise the zoning code to provide additional density bonuses under the criteria set forth by AB 1287. The City will implement Housing Plan Programs 6 and 8 to revise the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with state law.

A3.3.2.4 On/Off Site Improvement Standards
The typical improvements required by the City for development of property include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street improvements. Extension of necessary utilities is also generally required as new subdivisions are developed. As stated in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) study of Subdivision Requirements as a Regulatory Barrier, such requirements can reasonably be considered regulatory barriers to affordable housing if the requirements are greater (and hence, more costly) than those necessary to achieve health and safety requirements in the community.2 If a development borders or is traversed by an existing street, the applicant may be required to:

1. Dedicate all necessary rights-of-way to widen a bordering minor or collector street to the extent of one-half the ultimate width established by the City as the standard for such minor or collector street, or the full extent required for a frontage road.

2. Dedicate all necessary rights-of-way to widen a traversing minor or collector street to its ultimate width established as the standard for such minor or collector street.

3. Dedicate all necessary rights-of-way to widen a bordering or traversing arterial street to the standards of width established by the City.

4. Set back all facilities the required distance from ultimate property lines along an arterial or collector street as shown on any master, official, or precise plan of streets and highways, or by the City’s General Plan.

5. Install curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street signs, streetlights, and street trees along one side of a bordering or along both sides of a traversing minor, collector, or arterial street.

6. Install utilities and drainage facilities to the full extent of the service requirements generated by the development.

Improvement Standards
Public improvement standards and approximate values are listed below.  Local Street – 60-foot right-of-way, including 36 feet of pavement with two travel lanes and two parking lanes. Two inches asphalt concrete over 6 inches compacted aggregate. Value: range between $4.00 to $6.00/sf.
 Curb and Gutter – 30 inches from asphalt pavement to back of curb, 7 ½ inches concrete over compacted native soil. Value: $12 to $15 per linear foot, dependent upon method of construction.  Sidewalk – 60 inches from back of curb, 4 inches concrete over compacted native soil. Value: range between $4.50 to $6.00/sf.
 Sewer Lateral – 4-inch PVC (dependent upon depth) with minimum slope of ¼-inch per foot. Value:
range between $3,000 to $4,000/ea.
 1-inch Water Service – 1 inch CTS polyethylene pipe, meter boxes, bronze saddles, straps, and bolts.

Value: range between $2,000 to $4,000/ea.
2 U.S. HUD. 2007. Study of Subdivision Requirements as a Regulatory Barrier. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/commdevl/subdiv_report.html

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-14
Total development costs for a recent 64-unit multifamily development, Sierra Village II, was approximately $21 million. Off-site improvement costs were $429,200, or about $6,700 per unit and approximately 2 percent of the overall development costs. On average, off-site improvement costs for single-family home developments are similar to that of Tulare County, which range from $2,500 to $30,000 per unit for development in an existing service district.3 Conclusion
On/off site improvement standards for the City of Dinuba are typical of small cities and comparable to surrounding jurisdictions. Once the improvements are completed, they are typically granted to the City, which will be responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing the improvements in perpetuity. The City does not consider the requirements to be greater than those necessary to achieve health and safety requirements.

Recommended Action
None required.

A3.3.2.5 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites that are zoned to encourage the development of a variety of housing types available to all economic segments of the population. Persons and households of different ages, types, incomes, and lifestyles have a variety of housing needs and preferences that evolve over time and in response to changing life circumstances.

This includes single-family homes, multifamily housing, accessory dwelling units, mobile homes, agricultural employee housing, homeless shelters, and transitional housing, among others. Table A3-8 summarizes the housing types permitted and conditionally permitted for the City of Dinuba.

Table A3-8 Residential Use Matrix
Residential Use AN RA R RM C-2
Single Family (1 per lot) P P P
Multifamily P
Manufactured Housing P P A
Mobilehome Park U U U U
Farm Employee Housing (6 or fewer) P P P P
Farm Employee Housing (7 or more) P U U U
Emergency Shelters U P
Transitional Housing (6 or fewer) P P P P
Transitional Housing (7 or more) P P P P
Supportive Housing (6 or fewer) P P P P U
Supportive Housing (7 or more) P P P P U
Single Room Occupancy
Residential Care Facility (6 or fewer) P P P P
Residential Care Facility (7 or more)
3 County of Tulare. 2023. Tulare County Housing Element. https://tularecounty.ca.gov/rma/planning-building/tulare-county-housingelement/tulare-county-housing-element-2023-2031-update/

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-15
Residential Use AN RA R RM C-2
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P
Mixed Use
P = permitted; A = Administrative Site Plan is required; U = Use Permit required Source: Dinuba Municipal Code, Adopted September 2022.

Manufactured Housing
Manufactured homes that are built on a permanent foundation must be allowed in the same manner and in the same zones as single-family dwellings. Manufactured housing is permitted by-right in the RA, R-1-10, R-1-7, and R-1-6 zones and can also be used as second units. Manufactured housing development requires an administrative use permit in the RM-3, RM-2, and RM-1.5 zones.

Conclusion
Manufactured housing requirements are a constraint to development of this housing type since manufactured housing development is subject to an administrative use permit in the RM zones but is not required for single-family dwellings.

Recommended Action
Revise the Zoning Code to comply with state law. Through implementation of Program 6, the City will revise the Zoning Code to allow manufactured housing without an administrative use permit in the RM zones.

Accessory Dwelling Units
In recent years, several bills have added requirements for local governments related to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulation. Updates to state law in 2016 and 2017 included changes pertaining to the allowed size of ADUs, permitting ADUs by-right in at least some areas of a jurisdiction, and reduced parking requirements related to ADUs. More recent bills reduce the time to review and approve ADU applications to 60 days and remove lot size and replacement parking space requirements. AB 68 allows an ADU and a junior ADU (JADU) to be built on a single-family lot, if certain conditions are met. The State has also removed owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs, created a tiered permit fee structure for ADUs based on their size and location, and prohibits fees on units of less than 750 square feet. In addition, AB 671 requires the Housing Element to include plans to incentivize and encourage affordable ADU rentals.

In 2022, two laws were passed that affect ADU law and came into effect in 2023. SB 897 increases the existing height limit for attached and detached ADUs that meet certain conditions. AB 2221 clarifies existing ADU law to close procedural and permitting loopholes for approving ADUs, including the requirement for approving or denying applications within 60 days of application submittal and providing a full set of comments and remedies to applicants with denied applications. Additionally, AB 2221 adds front setbacks to the list of local development standards that local governments cannot impose if they would preclude construction of an attached or detached ADU of at least 800 square feet, that is at least 16 feet in height and that has at least four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.

ADUs are permitted by-right in all AN, RA, R, and RM districts subject to development standards and conditions outlined in Section 17.70.024 of the City’s Zoning Code and included below.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-16
A. An accessory dwelling unit shall be either attached to the existing single-family dwelling or be separated from the existing single-family detached residence by not less than ten feet or the separation as allowed by the Uniform Building Code, whichever is less.

B. Height. A conditional use permit shall be required for all accessory dwelling units constructed over one story in all RA, R and RM districts.

C. Number of Units. Only one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on any parcel.

D. Facilities. The accessory dwelling unit shall contain separate living, kitchen, and bathroom facilities.

E. Construction. All accessory dwelling units shall be constructed so as to be compatible with the existing primary residence and existing residences within the neighborhood.

F. Screening. All detached accessory dwelling units shall be appropriately screened so as not to be visible from the front street.

G. Construction within the Rear or Side Yard. Any attached or detached accessory dwelling unit may be constructed within the rear or the side yard of the existing single-family residence.

H. Mobile Homes. Mobile homes shall not be permitted as an accessory dwelling unit.

I. Manufactured Homes. Manufactured homes shall be allowed as a detached accessory dwelling unit provided the manufactured unit complies to standards and conditions of this chapter.

J. Existing Unit. A residential unit shall exist on a parcel before an accessory dwelling unit may be authorized unless approved by the director.

K. Rental. The accessory dwelling unit may be rented as a one-family unit.

L. One Family. The accessory dwelling unit shall provide complete independent sleeping, kitchen and bathroom facilities for one family.

M. Access. The front entrance established for the accessory dwelling unit shall not be located on the same street frontage of the primary residence.

N. Floor Area. Total floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall be not less than one hundred fifty square feet. An accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet of floor area if separated from the existing single-family dwelling. If attached to the existing singlefamily residence, the floor area of the second unit shall not exceed fifty percent of the existing living area of the existing single-family dwelling. A manufactured home shall not be less than eight feet wide by forty feet long and three hundred twenty square feet in floor area. An efficiency unit shall not be less than one hundred square feet in floor area and meet all space and occupancy standards of Chapter 5 of the Uniform Housing Code.

O. Address. Address standards for the accessory dwelling unit shall be the same as established for the existing district; one address per parcel.

P. Mailboxes. Mailboxes for the accessory dwelling unit shall be the same as for the existing residential unit.

Q. Trash Disposal. Trash disposal services for accessory dwelling units shall be the same as for those established in the existing zoning district.

R. Finish Floor Elevation. All accessory dwelling units shall be constructed on a foundation at the same level of the primary residence or compatible to existing standards established within the block and comply with all standards of the Uniform Building Code and flood zone district.

S. Roof Pitch. All accessory dwelling units shall have a roof pitch equal to the primary residence and not less than what is consistent to be compatible within the block.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-17
T. Roof Material. All accessory dwelling units shall have roofing material consisting of shingles or other material customarily used for residential units; compatible with the roof of the primary residence and not less than what is consistent to be compatible within the block.

U. Roof Overhangs. All accessory dwelling units shall have a roof overhang similar and compatible with the primary residence or what is consistent to be compatible within the block.

V. Exterior. All accessory dwelling units shall have exterior materials compatible with the primary residence or what is consistent to be compatible within the block.

W. Design. The accessory dwelling unit shall be clearly subordinate to the principal residential unit on the parcel by size, location and appearance.

X. Utilities. Accessory dwelling units shall be provided with water, sewer and other utilities as determined by the building official.

Y. Fees. All accessory dwelling units shall be subject to all fees required for new construction as adopted by the City.

Z. An application for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be denied solely based on any maximum density requirements or standard.

Conclusion
The City of Dinuba's ADU Ordinance was last updated in 2017 and is not in compliance with state legislation passed since 2017.4
Recommended Action
Revise the Zoning Code to comply with state law. The City will facilitate the development of ADUs through implementation of Housing Plan Program 5, which directs the City to amend the Zoning Code in compliance with state ADU law and implement strategies to streamline the ADU permitting process, such as adopting pre-approved ADU plans.

Multifamily
Multifamily housing is permitted by-right in all zones allowing multifamily uses, including the RM-3, RM2, and RM-1.5 zones. Multifamily development is not permitted in any other zoning district but can be incorporated into a mixed-use development within the Downtown Residential Overlay District subject to approval of a CUP.

Conclusion
Multifamily development requirements are not a constraint to residential development. However, allowing single-family residences by-right in multifamily zones potentially constrains the development of multifamily housing.

Recommended Action
Amend the Zoning Code provisions for RM districts to prohibit single-family uses. The City will implement Housing Plan Program 6 to reflect this change. 4 State laws governing ADUs since 2017: Assembly Bill 494 (2017), Senate Bill 229 (2017), Assembly Bill 68 (2019), Assembly Bill 881 (2019), Assembly Bill 587 (2019), Senate Bill 13 (2019), and Assembly Bill 671 (2019), Assembly Bill 3182 (2020), Assembly Bill 345 (2021), Assembly Bill 2221 (2022), Senate Bill 897 (2022), Assembly Bill 345 (2022).

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-18
Group Homes/Residential Care Facilities
Group homes with six or fewer residents are permitted by-right in all residential districts, which is in accordance with state law. The City currently has no provisions in the Zoning Code to allow the development of group homes with seven or more residents.

State law requires residential care facilities with six or fewer persons to be allowed by-right in all zones that allow residential uses in zones where single-family residential uses are allowed. The City of Dinuba allows residential care facilities by-right in the following zones: AN, RA, R, and RM. In commercial, mixed-use, office and industrial zones, residential care facilities of any size are not permitted.

Residential care facilities with seven or more persons are not permitted in any zoning district, which is considered a constraint to development.

The City requires one covered parking space per every three beds in group care facilities, including residential care facilities. This is reduced from the two parking spaces required for single-family residential and 1.5 spaces for multifamily residential. The parking requirements in place for residential care facilities are similar to, or reduced from, that of other residential uses and do not pose an undue constraint on housing development for persons with disabilities.

Conclusion
Group homes/residential care facility requirements are not a constraint to development of facilities with six or fewer residents. Facilities with seven or more residents should be allowed by-right in all zones that permit residential uses, approved with objectivity and certainty, and subject only to the requirements of residential uses of similar type and form.

Recommended Action
Revise the Zoning Code to regulate residential care facilities in the same manner as similar uses in the same zone, regardless of the number of residents. Revise the Zoning Code to allow care facilities of seven or more residents by-right in all zones that permit residential uses, approved with objectivity and certainty, and subject only to the requirements of residential uses of similar type and form. The City will implement Housing Plan Program 6 to amend the Zoning Code to reflect this change.

Emergency Shelters
The City of Dinuba allows emergency shelters by-right in the C-2 zone with a maximum capacity of six persons and emergency shelters with no capacity limitation are allowed with a CUP in RM zones. The maximum stay for any person is limited to six months. The City’s zoning code dictates that charitable and religious institutions providing sleeping accommodations must provide one space for each employee and one space for each three beds. AB 2339 requires cities to only require sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.

In 2019, AB 101 was passed requiring that a Low Barrier Navigation Center development be a use byright in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. A Low Barrier Navigation Center is a low barrier, temporary, service-enriched shelter that helps homeless individuals and families obtain permanent housing. The City will need to amend its Zoning Code to explicitly allow the development of Low-Barrier Navigation Centers, by-right, in mixed-use zones, as well as nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-19
AB 2339 was passed in 2022 and went into effect January 1, 2023. AB 2339 requires that jurisdictions identify zoning designations where emergency shelters are allowed to include sites that meet at least one of the following:
 Vacant and zoned for residential use;
 Vacant and zoned for nonresidential use and located near amenities and services for homeless individuals;
 Nonvacant and is suitable for use as a shelter in the current planning period.

Zoning designations identified to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use without a discretionary permit must also allow residential uses. The City permits emergency shelters by-right and without discretion in the C-2 zone. The C-2 zone permits mixed use development with residential uses, which satisfies that requirement of AB 2339.

Identified sites with the C-2 zone must also have a minimum area of 200 square feet per unsheltered person to accommodate the number of people experiencing homelessness. Additionally, AB 2339 requires that emergency shelters can only be subject to parking requirements such that the jurisdiction can require sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.

The Kings/Tulare County Point-in-time count estimated that 1,053 people experienced homelessness in Tulare County in 2023, including 299 in Porterville, 284 in Tulare, and 434 in Visalia and 36 in the remainder of the county areas including Dinuba. Pursuant to AB 2339, 7,200 square feet or 0.17 acres of land is required to shelter the 36 unsheltered individuals from the 2023 PIT using 200 square feet per person.

As shown on Table A3-9, the C-2 zone has potential capacity for more than 36 individuals in emergency shelters. Smaller parcels (five acres or less) and vacant parcels are more likely to be developed with a shelter than large or nonvacant parcels; therefore, this table only includes vacant parcels less than five acres. While there is more than 0.17 acres of land available to shelter unsheltered individuals, the limit of six persons per emergency shelter in the C-2 zone could be a constraint due to the need to build up to five emergency shelters to house 36 individuals. The parcels identified in Table A3-9 are within a short walking distance to the Dinuba Transit Center, which provides residents with local bus circulation between Dinuba, Delft Colony, London, and Traver, and the Tulare County Area Transit (TCaT) North County service between Visalia, Yettem, Seville, Cutler, Orosi, East Orosi, Sultana, Dinuba, Justice Complex, and Patterson Tract. These parcels are also within a 10-minute walking distance of Open Gate Ministries, which provides shelter and food distribution to residents experiencing homelessness.

Table A3-9 Emergency Shelter Capacity Analysis
APN Acreage Realistic Capacity (beds) Vacant/Non-Vacant 17182016 0.18 39 Vacant
17173006 0.69 150 Vacant
17171009 0.16 36 Vacant
Total 1.03 90
Source: City of Dinuba and Tulare County, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-20
Conclusion
The limit of six persons per emergency shelter in the C-2 Zone poses a constraint on housing access for unsheltered individuals. Maximum stay requirements pose a constraint to housing access for residents experiencing homelessness. Additionally, the City’s parking requirements for emergency shelters do not align with the requirements of AB 2339 which poses a constraint to the development of emergency shelters.

Recommended Action
Revise the emergency shelter definition in the Zoning Code to remove the limit of six persons for emergency shelters in the C-2 zone and the maximum stay requirements.

Revise the Zoning Code to be consistent with AB 2339, expanding the definition of emergency shelters to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care, ensuring emergency shelters are only subject to objective development standards that apply to residential to commercial development within the same zone, and revise parking standards for emergency shelters in order to comply with AB 2339.

Revise the Zoning Code to explicitly allow the development of Low-Barrier Navigation Centers, by-right, in mixed-use zones, as well as nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, consistent with AB 101.

Housing Plan Program 6 directs the City to amend the Zoning Code to increase capacity limits and maximum stay requirements for emergency shelters, revise the definition of emergency shelter and parking requirements to be consistent with the requirements of AB 2339, and permit Low-Barrier Navigation Centers, by-right, in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
“Transitional housing” is defined as buildings configured as rental housing operating under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance. Transitional housing units are residential uses subject only to those requirements and restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
“Supportive housing” is defined as housing with no limit on length of stay that is occupied by the target population and that is linked to on-site or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining permanent housing, health services, and employment, as needed. Supportive housing units are residential uses subject only to those requirements and restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. AB 2162, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, requires that cities allow supportive housing with up to 50 units by-right in multifamily and mixed-use zones and precludes cities from imposing parking requirements on supportive housing developments located within 0.5-mile of a public transit stop.

The Zoning Code defines supportive housing as “housing with no limit of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked on an on-site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.”
The Zoning Code defines transitional housing as “buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculation

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-21
of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance.” Transitional housing Transitional and supportive housing is allowed as permitted use in the AN, RA, R, and RM zones and by CUP in the C-2 zone.

Conclusion
The City’s Zoning Code is not consistent with the requirements of AB 2126.

Recommended Action
Revise the Zoning Code to comply with AB 2162 to permit by-right permanent supportive housing without discretionary action in zones allowing multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code 65651.

For such supportive housing locating within half-mile from a public transit, no minimum parking can be required. Housing Plan Program 6 directs the City to amend the Zoning Code to reflect this change.

Farmworker Housing/Employee Housing
The Employee Housing Act regulates the use and occupancy of employee housing, which consists of privately-owned housing for five or more employees. Employee housing for six or fewer persons is to be treated as a single-family structure and residential use and shall be considered a use of property by a single household (Health & Safety Code Section 17021.5). No conditional-use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required for this type of employee housing that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. In addition, employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household shall be deemed an agricultural land use (Health & Safety Code Section 17021.6). For the purpose of all local ordinances, employee housing shall not be deemed a use that implies that the employee housing is an activity that differs in any other way from an agricultural use. No CUP, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located.

In Dinuba, farmworker/employee housing for six or fewer residents is permitted by-right in the AN, RA, R, and RM zones in accordance with the Employee Housing Act. Farmworker/employee housing for six or fewer residents requires a CUP in the AR (Agriculture) zone, which does not comply with the Employee Housing Act.

Employee housing for seven or more residents, up to 36 beds in group quarters, or up to 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household, is permitted in the AN zone and allowed by use permit in the RA, R, and RM zones. However, these uses are not allowed in the AR (Agriculture) zone.

Conclusion
The City’s Zoning Code does not comply with state law regarding employee housing for seven or more residents or 36 beds.

Recommended Action
Revise the Zoning Code to ensure compliance with the Employee Housing Act (Health & Safety Code Section 17021.6). Housing Plan Program 6 directs the City to make this amendment to the Zoning Code.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-22
Single Room Occupancy Units (SROs)
SROs are defined as a living or efficiency unit by California Health and Safety Code section 17958.1, intended or designed to be used as a primary residence by not more than two persons for a period of more than 30 consecutive days and having either individual bathrooms and kitchens or shared bathrooms and/or kitchens. Single-room occupancy (SRO) units are not specifically enumerated land use in the Zoning Code.

Conclusion
The Zoning Code does not specifically allow the development of SROs, which constrains the development of these uses.

Recommended Action
Revise the Zoning Code to define SROs and allow the development of SROs in residential zones allowing multifamily uses and/or commercial zones allowing hotel and motel uses. Housing Plan Program 6 directs the City to amend the Zoning Code to reflect this change A3.3.3 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
California Government Code Section 65583 requires local jurisdictions to analyze potential and actual government constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for people with disabilities. This is to ensure that persons with either physical or mental disabilities are provided reasonable accommodation for access to and the enjoyment of all facilities, including housing.

Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) also requires housing elements to provide a program to “…address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for persons with disabilities.” This section analyzes if the zoning policies and permitting procedures in Dinuba impose any constraints on persons with disabilities accessing appropriate and adequate housing in the city.

A3.3.3.1 Definition of Family
Local jurisdictions may restrict access to housing for households that do not meet the jurisdiction’s definition for “family.” A restrictive definition of “family” that limits the number of individuals living together may illegally limit the development and siting of group homes for persons with disabilities, but not for housing families that are similarly sized or situated. The City of Dinuba’s definition of family is as follows:
“Family” or “household” means all those persons, related and unrelated, who occupy a single housing unit.

Conclusion
The City’s definition of “family” is not restrictive.

Recommended Action
None required.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-23
A3.3.3.2 Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
The federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act require that cities and counties provide reasonable accommodation where such accommodation may be necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal housing opportunities. Cities and counties must also consider requests for accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable” based on fair housing laws and the case law interpreting the statutes.

Reasonable accommodation is one of the tools intended to further housing opportunities for people with disabilities. These accommodations require that local jurisdictions make modifications or exceptions in their zoning laws and other land-use regulations when accommodations are necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be a reasonable accommodation to waive a setback requirement so that a paved path of travel can be provided to residents with mobility impairments.

Reasonable accommodation enables developers and providers of housing for people with disabilities a means of requesting from the local government flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some instances, even a waiver of certain restrictions or requirements because it is necessary to achieve equal access to housing.

The City’s Zoning Code requires that the alteration of any building, structure, or land may take place only after review and approval by the Director of Development Services after applying all the necessary permits and licenses. Site plan review is necessary to ensure that all improvements, including, without limitation, structures, parking areas, walks, refuse containers, landscaping, and street improvements, are properly related to the site and surrounding sites and structures.

The following development types shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for review:

1. All new multifamily residences.

2. All additions to existing multifamily residences.

3. All renovations to multifamily residences which involve façade or exterior work.

4. All new or exterior renovations to commercial buildings.

5. All new or exterior renovations to industrial buildings.

Dinuba does not provide a reasonable accommodation procedure; however, it does provide an accelerated approval process for minor modifications to approved plans or building details of an approved CUP. The City is currently preparing a comprehensive update of the Zoning Code that will include a reasonable accommodations ordinance, anticipated summer 2024.

Conclusion
Dinuba’s lack of a reasonable accommodation procedure, and the requirement of a discretionary permit for modifications that facilitate access to a building for persons with physical and non-physical disabilities, limits housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

Recommended Action
Revise the Zoning Code to include a reasonable accommodation procedure that allows for modifications on the basis of access for persons with physical and non-physical disabilities without any discretionary

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-24
application requirements. Housing Plan Program 6 directs the City to amend the Zoning Code to include a reasonable accommodation procedure.

A3.3.4 Planning and Development Fees
The city charges various fees and assessments to cover the cost of processing permits and providing certain services and utilities.

Dinuba’s fees for a CUP, variance, and zone change are lower than those in nearby, similarly sized cities, such as Farmersville and Lindsay. Fees for other permit and plan review categories fall within the middle range of similar cities in the county. Table A3-10 describes residential development planning fees for both single-family and multifamily development.

Table A3-10 Residential Development Planning Fees
Fee Title Amount
Annexation Process $5,192
Lot Line Adjustment $413 + actual costs
Tentative Subdivision Map Review $1,515 + $29/lot
Final Subdivision Map Review $601 + $30/lot
Tentative Parcel Map $2,838 + actual costs
Final Parcel Map $1,455 + actual costs
Final Tract Map $1,259 + actual costs
Planned/Smart Development $785
Preliminary Plan Review $1,455 + actual costs
Site Plan Review-Major $1,249
General Plan Amendment $2,712
Rezoning Review $1,536
Negative Declaration $769 + County Fees
Categorical Exemption $198 + County Fees
Lighting and Landscape Fee $2,362
Landscape Plan Check/Inspection $225
Conditional Use Permit $1,301
Variance Review $781
Source: Dinuba Zoning Code, Adopted September 2022.

Table A3-11 shows development impact and permit fees for single-family and multifamily prototype developments. The single-family prototype is representative of a single-family detached residential dwelling unit with 1,500 square feet of living area in the R-1-6 zoning district. It assumes a 10-acre parcel subdivided into 60 single-family units occupying 360,000 square feet in area (assumes each lot contains 6,000 square feet in area) with an estimated price of $322,000, based on Zillow’s average home value for single-family homes in Dinuba.
5 Single-family residential development fees range from $37,059 to $38,888 per unit and account for approximately 11 percent of the home price. 5 Zillow. Dinuba Home Values. 2023. https://www.zillow.com/home-values/118558/tokay-dinuba-ca/

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-25
Estimated multifamily fees are based on a 108-unit multifamily development in the RM-2 zoning district.

It assumes a five-acre parcel, 2.2 parking spaces per unit, a single 30-foot-wide travel lane, 350 square feet of open space per unit, and 1,011 square feet per unit. Multifamily residential development fees range from $32,796 to $33,962 per unit, approximately 8 percent of the cost of development.

Table A3-11 Residential Development Fees
Number of Units
Cost Per Unit
Multifamily Single Family
Land System Development Charges
Water $1,317 $3,918
Sewer $1,127 $3,342
Transportation $2,140 $6,366
Storm Drainage Master Plan $148 to $657 $535 to $2,364
Park Master Plan $3 $9.25
Park Land Dedication In-Lieu $1,392 $1,749
Fire Protection Facilities $758 $890
Subtotal $6,885 to $7,542 $16,809 to $19,173
Building System Development Charges
Water $1,171 $1,737
Sewer $1,471 $2,183
Transportation $2,283 $3,387
Subtotal $4,926 $7,307
Building and Other Fees
Building Permit $860 $1,425
Strong Motion Instrument Fee $9 $13
Building Standards $3 $4
Water Meter Service $4 $449
Construction Water Payment $1 $100
General Plan Maintenance $40 $60
Subtotal $916 $2,051
Dinuba Unified School District Fee $7,342 $10,890
Total $32,796 to $33,962 $37,059 to $38,888
Source: Dinuba Zoning Code, Adopted September 2022.

According to a 2019 National Impact Fees Survey of 37 jurisdictions in California, the average impact fees are $37,471 per single family unit and $21,703 per multifamily unit. Dinuba’s fees for a single-family unit are less than the survey average; however, the City’s fees are much higher than the average for multifamily units. The Terner Center for Housing conducted a study of the amount and effects of development and impact fees in six California cities: Los Angeles, Sacramento, Roseville, Oakland, Irvine, and Fremont6
. Fees in Fremont and Irvine were calculated at over $60,000 per multifamily unit while 6 Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkley, 2018. Available at, It https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/it-all-adds-up-the-cost-ofhousing-development-fees-in-seven-california-cities/

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-26
Roseville, Sacramento, and Los Angeles were calculated to be under $20,000 per multifamily unit.

Dinuba’s fees are higher than some of the studied cities but less than others.

Single-family development fees in Dinuba are much higher than for similarly sized cities in the same county. Fees for a single-family unit range from $37,059 to $38,888 in Dinuba but range from $12,009 to $19,269 in the cities of Exeter, Lindsay, Farmersville, and Woodlake. Similarly, fees for a multifamily unit range from $32,796 to $33,962 per multifamily unit in Dinuba and range from $10,495 to $16,400 per unit in other cities. Table A3-12 shows a comparison of development fees in other Tulare County jurisdictions.

Table A3-12 Residential Development Fee Comparison
Jurisdiction
Total Cost Per Unit
Multifamily Single-Family
Dinuba $32,796 to $33,962 $37,059 to $38,888
Exeter $10,495.25 $16,482
Farmersville $16,400.00 $19,269
Lindsay $40,342.88 $12,009
Porterville $12,000 to $14,500 $17,000 to $20,000
Tulare $17,781 $18,677
Woodlake $11,477.88 $14,606.67
Conclusion
Given that planning and development fees are much higher in Dinuba than in other small cities in the region, planning and development fees may be a constraint to development.

Recommended Action
Review the City’s development impact fees and revise to be competitive with other cities in the same county. Program 6 directs the City to review and revise the City’s development impact fees.

A3.3.5 Permit Types
The City of Dinuba provides the full range of services relating to the development of property within its city boundaries and Sphere of Influence. Subdivision maps, parcel maps, CUPs, and building plans are all processed by the City.

The City’s Development Review Committee (DRC) process is intended to ensure that all City departments have an opportunity to review and discuss development proposals, including all subdivision maps. This process involves staff from public works (e.g., sanitary sewer, potable water, storm water drainage, and streets), parks and community services, the police, and fire departments.

Staff meet and discuss any site concerns or issues they may have pertinent to their areas of responsibility. Alta Irrigation District, Dinuba Unified School District, and Pena’s Disposal also participate in the DRC as these agencies may be impacted by development. The City believes this process provides an opportunity to give feedback to a developer prior to submittal of a formal application. The developer is given an opportunity to address any issues or concerns prior to investing in design costs of a subdivision. Thus, when the project is ready for consideration by the Planning Commission, any outstanding design issues should have been addressed and resolved at an informal level.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-27
The initiation of a development proposal begins with the filing of an application and payment of appropriate fees. The application is reviewed by City staff and the environmental review process under CEQA is initiated. The project is evaluated for potentially adverse environmental impacts to determine which level of environmental review is necessary. Depending upon potential effect, City staff determines if a categorical exemption, negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report (EIR) is appropriate. Should the project fit into any of several pre-defined exempt categories, a notice of exemption may be filed which subsequently expedites project clearance of environmental concerns allowing the project to move forward to construction.

Site Plan Review
For projects subject to Site Plan Review, projects may only be denied if the project does not comply with City codes, standards, policies, or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The Site Plan Review process follows objective approval standards and is not considered a constraint to development. New multifamily development, additions to existing multifamily development, and renovations to multifamily residences which involve façade or exterior work require Site Plan Review.

The Planning Director reviews the site plan within 60 days of submission to determine compliance, and makes a decision within 30 days of acceptance of the site plan. The findings for Site Plan Review are as follows:
 The proposed project is consistent with the Dinuba General Plan and the purpose and standards of the site zoning.
 The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare.  The approval of the permit application is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The director’s decision shall be final unless appealed to the Planning Commission. Current City procedure states that when, in the opinion of the director, the site plan submitted is of such consequence, magnitude or involves potential public controversy, the director may refer such to the planning commission for public hearing. The City will remove this provision concurrently with updates to the City’s Zoning Code, as directed by Housing Plan Program 6.

Design Review
The City’s design review process consists of an assessment of conformance with Chapter 17.82, Design Guidelines, of the Zoning Code and consistency with the City’s Residential Design Guidelines. In addition to Chapter 17.82, the City adopted the Residential Design Guidelines in June 2023. Many design requirements include objective measures for compliance; however, some of the guidelines for neighborhood, single-family, and multifamily development are subject may be restrictive to development. For example, the guideline that “the project should be designed to harmonize with surrounding development in terms of scale, setbacks, location of buildings on the parcel, etc.” may limit larger residential developments. This requirement is subjective in that determination of compliance would require judgement on whether or not the project harmonizes with surrounding development.

Chapter 17.82 includes the following subjective design standards:

A. The site should be designed so as to create a development which is pleasant in character, human in scale and facilitates on-site circulation.

1. Existing natural features such as trees, other native vegetation, natural ground forms, water and view shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-28

2. The visual impact and presence of vehicles shall be minimized by generally siting parking areas to the rear or side of the property rather than along street frontages, and screening parking areas from view, both interior and exterior to the site.

3. Where appropriate due to the nature of the project, bicycle parking with access from adjacent streets, driveways or paths shall be provided.

4. Traffic congestion or impairment of traffic visibility shall be avoided.

5. Pedestrian safety and welfare shall be protected.

B. There is no single architectural style and design theme for Dinuba. Good architectural style and design should reflect compatibility with the character of the area. Compatibility includes building style, size, setback, form, color and material considerations.

1. The architectural style and design shall enhance the neighborhood and contribute beneficially to the overall design quality and visual character of the community, and maintain a stable, desirable character.

2. A consistent color scheme should be used throughout a project and the scheme(s) should not contrast negatively with the character of the area.

3. The design of projects containing many buildings should provide variety in building size and massing. A mixture of single and multistory buildings should be used.

4. The architectural scheme (form, materials, color and detailing) of a building should be carried throughout all exterior elevations to achieve design, harmony and continuity.

5. Coordinate roof shape, color and texture with the overall building design.

6. Continue on all elevations the architectural character established for the street facing elevations to the extent possible.

7. Mechanical equipment and utilities, with the exception of solar heating panels, shall be architecturally screened from view. Rooftop mechanical and electrical equipment and appurtenances to be used in the operation and maintenance of a building shall be installed so as not to be visible from any point at or below the roof level of the subject building. This requirement shall apply in construction of new buildings, and in any alteration of mechanical systems of existing buildings that results in significant changes in such rooftop equipment and appurtenances. The features so regulated shall, in all cases, be either enclosed by out building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a manner architecturally compatible with the building. Minor features not exceeding one foot in height shall be exempted from this requirement, except that such minor features shall be of a color that minimizes glare and blends with the building. Ground- or interior-mounted mechanical equipment is strongly recommended.

8. Ensure that the physical proportions of the project and the manner in which the project is designed are appropriate in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and adjacent developments.

9. Buildings with box-like appearances, lacking architectural variation on all elevations, are discouraged. Architectural variation can be achieved through a variety of design techniques, including but not limited to:
a. Off-setting or varying building setbacks;
b. Providing covered porches, balconies and entries;
c. Combining single-story and two-story construction in a single building, with single-story nearest property lines;

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-29
d. Varying roof lines, height and type and building elevations; e. Providing meandering sidewalks.

10. Each project shall contain a sufficient number of trash enclosures to adequately serve the use.

Said enclosures shall be constructed to City standard specifications.

11. Screen exterior trash and storage areas, service yards, loading docks and utility services from view of all nearby streets and adjacent structures in a manner that is compatible with building and site design.

12. All sides of commercial buildings shall be architecturally treated to produce an aesthetically pleasing facade which is of a design compatible with surrounding commercial buildings and the character of the community.

13. Signage should be compatible with the architectural style and design of the building and should contribute beneficially to the overall design quality and visual character of the community.

Chapter 17.71, Special Provisions and Development Standards, includes design standards for landscaping that applies to all projects that require landscaping, including residential development. Some of the landscaping standards are subjective in nature. The City’s Landscape Design Guidelines, last updated in 2021, also contain subjective requirements that apply to residential development. For instance, the requirement that “plant materials should reflect the approved architectural theme” is subjective and would require judgement to determine compliance. Section 17.71.130 of the Zoning Code includes the following subjective landscape design standards:

1. All vegetation shall be maintained free of physical damage or injury from lack of water, excess chemical fertilizer or other toxic chemical, or disease, and any such vegetation which shows signs of such damage or injury shall be replaced by the same or similar vegetation of a size and character which will be comparable at full growth.

2. Landscaping shall be kept free from weeds and undesirable grasses.

Chapter 17.61 of the Zoning Code regulates the Downtown Residential Overlay District and encourages the development of mixed-use development. This Chapter establishes a subjective standard regulating the design of mixed-use development, “The overall exterior appearance of mixed land use projects shall favor a commercial architectural design.”
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviews and provides comments on applicable projects. The DRC is composed of staff from the departments of Planning and Development, City Manager’s Office, Public Works, Police, Parks and Recreation, Fire and other outside agencies. This process is concurrent with the rest of the entitlement review. All residential projects in the city require the same level of design review.

Conditional Use Permits
The CUP review process consists of an analysis to verify consistency of the project with the City’s Zoning Code and General Plan, and requirements of CEQA. A conditional use permit requires a public hearing and approval by the City’s Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may impose reasonable conditions upon a project, subject to appeal to the City Council.

The following findings shall be made by the approving authority prior to the approval of any discretionary permit:

1. General Plan. The use or project proposed is consistent with the General Plan.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-30

2. Zoning Code. The use, activity or improvement(s) proposed is consistent with the provisions of the zoning code.

3. CEQA. The approval of the permit application is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

4. Compatibility. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use will not create conditions or situations that may be incompatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity.

5. General Welfare. The approval of the permit application will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health and safety and the general welfare.

6. Site Characteristics. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate such use and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required by the Municipal Code to adjust such use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.

7. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.

8. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the character of the development in the immediate neighborhood.

9. That the conditions stated in the resolution are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include:
a. Special yards, spaces and buffers;
b. Fences and walls;
c. Surfacing of parking areas subject to specifications; d. Requiring street dedications and improvements (or bonds) subject to the provisions of the site plan review of this title, including service roads or alleys when practical; e. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress; f. Regulation of signs;
g. Requiring landscaping and the maintenance thereof;
h. Requiring the maintenance of the grounds;
i. Regulation of noise, vibration and odors;
j. Regulation of time for certain activities;
k. A bond for the removal of such use within a specified period of time; l. Such other conditions as will make possible development in an orderly and efficient manner; and
m. Authorization for staff to bring back discretionary permits for a planning commission review after a specified period of time.

Requirements related to neighborhood character are subjective.

Variances
An applicant must request a variance when seeking an exception to specific requirements of the Zoning Code, Parking Regulations, and Sign Regulations, if those requirements would result in a hardship due to the physical conditions of a property. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission acts on variance requests. Administrative action on a variance request takes place two to four weeks after the application is deemed complete; additional time is necessary if Planning Commission review is required.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-31
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Projects that are not consistent with the General Plan or Zoning Code may require approval of a General Plan Amendment or a Zone Change. Approval of these types of proposals is discretionary, subject to CEQA, and requires public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Subdivision Map Review
All tentative subdivision maps are reviewed by the Subdivision Review Committee prior to the submission of the map to the Planning Commission. The Subdivision Review Committee review the completeness and accuracy of the tentative map and the suitability of the land for purposes of subdivision, conformity of the overall design of the subdivision to the General Plan and other City plans, the provisions for and adequacy of street improvements and utilities, and provisions for public areas and services. The Subdivision Review Committee may deem it advisable to recommend additional improvements, easements, dedications, etc., to be included, in which case the subdivider is informed of the nature of the recommendations following the Committee meeting. Within 50 days after the tentative map has been filed with the City Planner or at such later date as may be required to concurrently process the appurtenant environmental impact review documents required by CEQA, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the tentative parcel map. The City Council may overrule or modify any ruling or determination of the Planning Commission regarding a tentative map and may make conditional exceptions if special circumstances pertaining to the property involved justify a variance.

Parcel Map
All tentative parcel maps are reviewed by the Subdivision Review Committee prior to the submission of the map to the Planning Commission. The Subdivision Review Committee review the completeness and accuracy of the tentative map and the suitability of the land for purposes of subdivision, conformity of the overall design of the subdivision to the General Plan and other City plans, the provisions for and adequacy of street improvements and utilities, and provisions for public areas and services. The Subdivision Review Committee may deem it advisable to recommend additional improvements, easements, dedications, etc., to be included, in which case the subdivider is informed of the nature of the recommendations following the Committee meeting. Within 30 days after the tentative map has been filed with the City Planner or at such later date as may be required to concurrently process the appurtenant environmental impact review documents required by CEQA, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the tentative parcel map. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Planning Commission, an appeal in writing to the City Council for a hearing can occur within 15 days after the decision of the Commission.

Conclusion
Site Plan Review findings are objective. The Design Guidelines contain guidelines for multifamily housing to “integrate architectural elements and building articulation that is similar to the surrounding neighborhood,” which are restrictive to multifamily development. Additionally, findings for discretionary permits regarding neighborhood character are subjective.

Recommended Action
Revise the City’s Design Guidelines Ordinance, Residential Design Guidelines, and Landscape Design Guidelines to remove the guideline for multifamily development to “integrate architectural elements and building articulation that is similar to the surrounding neighborhood” and revise findings for

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-32
discretionary permits to be objective. Housing Plan Program 6 directs the City to amend the Zoning Code to remove restrictions on design standards and revise findings for discretionary permits to be objective.

A3.3.6 Permit Procedures and Processing Times
The time required to process a project varies greatly from one project to another and is directly related to the size and complexity of the proposal and the number of actions or approvals needed to complete the process. Table A3-13 identifies the typical processing time for various entitlement applications. It should be noted that each project does not necessarily have to complete each step in the process (i.e., small scale projects consistent with General Plan and zoning designations do not generally require EIRs, General Plan Amendments, Rezones, or Variances).

Also, certain review and approval procedures may run concurrently. For example, a ministerial review for a single-family home would be processed concurrently with the design review. Since the majority of CEQA documents (i.e., EIRs and Negative Declarations) are prepared in response to a General Plan Amendment request, they are typically processed simultaneously. The City also encourages the joint processing of related applications for a single project. As an example, a rezone petition may be reviewed in conjunction with the required site plan, a tentative tract map, and any necessary variances.

The average number of days from entitlement to building permit is three to six months, based on a review of projects from the past 18 months.

Table A3-13 Timelines for Permit Procedures
Type of Approval or Permit Typical Processing Time Approval Body Site Plan Review/Design Plan Review 4 - 6 weeks Community Development Dir.

Minor Modifications 1 - 2 weeks City Staff
Conditional Use Permit 4 - 8 weeks PC
Variance 4 - 8 weeks PC
Zone Change 4 - 5 months PC and City Council (CC)
General Plan Amendment 4 - 5 months PC and CC
Development/Design Review 2 - 4 weeks City Staff Dev. Review Comm.

Tentative Subdivision Map 3 - 5 months PC, CC if easements Final Subdivision Map 6-12 weeks CC
Tentative Parcel Map 4 - 8 weeks PC, CC if easements
Final Parcel Map 4 - 6 weeks CC
Negative Declaration 2 months PC and CC
Environmental Impact Report 4 - 6 months PC and CC
Single Family Unit/Bldg. Permit Review 3 - 4 weeks Building Official Source: Dinuba Zoning Code, Adopted September 2022.

Table A3-14 shows the typical processing procedures by project type for Dinuba. As shown, single-family units have the shortest estimated processing times (one week) while planned unit development has the longest (3-4 months). Dinuba’s permit process times are consistent with typical permit processing times for cities in Tulare County.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-33
Table A3-14 Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type One SingleFamily Unit Subdivision Multifamily UnitsPlanned Unit Development
Site Plan Site Plan Review Site Plan Review Site Plan Review Tentative Map Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Environmental
Assessment
Environmental
Assessment
Environmental
Assessment
Final Map
Final Map
Estimated Processing Time 1 week 2 - 3 months 2 months 3 - 4 months Source: Dinuba Zoning Code, Adopted September 2022.

Building Permits
Building permit review timelines for all projects are as follows depending on complexity and scope of work:
 First review: 1 to 20 working days
 Second review: 1 to 15 working days
 Third review: 1 to 15 working days
 Fourth review: 1 to 10 working days
 Fifth review: 1 to 10 working days
State Streamlining (SB 35)
Under the 5th Cycle Housing Element reporting period (2015-2023), the City of Dinuba has made insufficient progress toward its lower-income RHNA and is subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions for projects that include at least 50 percent affordability. SB 35 requires that eligible projects be reviewed for compliance and consistency with the City’s objective standards and are not subject to discretionary processes, such as CEQA environmental review and public hearings. Eligible projects with 150 units or fewer must be approved within 90 days and projects with more than 150 units must be approved within 180 days. In addition, AB 1397 requires that 5th cycle opportunity sites re-used in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower income units (very low-income and low-income) be subject to by-right approval if projects include 20 percent affordable units for lower income households on-site. No SB 35 project applications have been received by the City. The City has not adopted procedures for processing SB 35 applications and has not created a checklist for SB 35 applications.

Conclusion
The lack of permit procedures and resources for SB 35 applicants is a constraint to development.

Recommended Action
Amend the Zoning Code to provide a clear permitting process for SB 35 eligible projects and create an SB 35 application checklist. Housing Plan Program 6 directs the City to amend the Zoning Code to reflect this change.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-34
Permit Streamlining Act
The Permit Streamlining Act sets forth various time limits within which state and local government agencies must either approve or disapprove permits and provides that these time limits may be extended once by agreement between the parties. The City currently meets the timelines below and complies with the Permit Streamlining Act including streamlining determinate with 30-day CEQA determination:
 30 days to deem application complete/incomplete
 30-day period restarts with each resubmittal on an incomplete application.  30 days to make environmental determination after an application is deemed complete  60 days after the environmental determination, including a finding that the project is exempt from CEQA, the City must take action to approve or disapprove the project. Applicants can agree to an additional 90 days to take action.

Conclusion
The City complies with the Permit Streamlining Act.

Recommended Action
None required.

A3.3.7 Short-Term Housing Rentals
Dinuba does not currently have a short-term housing rental program that regulates short-term vacation rentals in the jurisdiction. As of July 2023, there were two active VRBO and Airbnb rentals in the city.

Both listings rented the entire house and located in Northwest Dinuba. 7 Conclusion
The low number of short-term rentals in the city indicates short-term rentals are not a constraint to long-term rental housing supply.

Recommended Action
None Required.

A3.3.8 Code Enforcement
The City of Dinuba implements the California Building Code (CBC), 2016 Edition, which is based on the 2015 International Building Code and is published by the California Building Standards Commission as Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The 2016 California Building Code is set forth to regulate and govern the conditions and maintenance of all property, buildings, and structures within the city by providing the standards for supplied utilities and facilities and other physical things and conditions essential to ensure that structures are safe, sanitary, and fit for occupation and use and providing for the condemnation and demolition of buildings and structures that are unfit for human occupancy and use. Investigation of violations is complaint-based.

The City has included two local amendments to the CBC: (1) no permits shall be issued for the improvement of, or the construction, installation, or placement of any building or structure on any lot or 7 AirDNA. 2023. https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/th/default/bangkok/din-daeng_huai-khwang/overview

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-35
parcel of land resulting from a subdivision of land contrary to the provisions of Ordinance No. 424 of the City of Dinuba; (2) no permit shall be issued in connection with any building or structure erected, constructed, altered, enlarged, converted, move or maintained, or for the use of land in a manner contrary to the provisions of Ordinance No. 376. Ordinance No. 424 consists of Chapter 16.04 of the Zoning Code, adopted pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 376 consists of Title 17, the Zoning Code. Neither ordinance poses a constraint to development.

The City has the power to inspect and declare unsafe any structure or piece of equipment, be it existing or under construction, that does not meet specific Municipal Code standards. These include, but are not limited to, structures with insufficient modes of egress; structures that are unsafe or that have been made structurally unsound due to fire, earthquake, or other natural disaster; buildings that are deemed a public nuisance; and buildings that have been constructed or maintained in violation of local or state law. Once a building has been declared unsafe, the building official may issue notice that the structure be repaired, vacated, or demolished within a reasonable amount of time and with the appropriate permits.

The enforcement of building codes in the city is centered on the inspection of new construction and remodels or renovations requiring building permits. However, for existing structures, City staff prioritizes code enforcement complaints according to the severity of the violation on the community and individuals. Situations that appear to pose a serious risk to health and safety are given top priority; others are pursued in the order in which they are received, as resources are available. In most cases for non-emergency complaints, a warning letter or courtesy notice is sent to the alleged violator to verify the status of the potential compliant and to obtain compliance.

Dinuba’s code enforcement program is complaint based. A summary of the process as provided by the code enforcement officer is as follows:
 Complaint is submitted
 City inspects and attempts to make contact with the occupant/owner and provide a verbal warning with a deadline date for compliance. A written notice is also sent.  If compliance does not occur, then second and third notices are sent. If compliance is still not achieved then the City can levy fines as follows:

1. First administrative citation—one hundred dollars;

2. Second administrative citation—two hundred dollars;

3. Third administrative citation—five hundred dollars.

If it becomes an ongoing issue and the occupant/owner is not responding to administrative citations, the City has the option to cite as a misdemeanor if the City Attorney sees fit.

Conclusion
The City has yet to adopt the most recent (2022) California Building Code.

Recommended Action
Adopt by reference the 2022 edition of the California Building Code. Housing Plan Program 6 directs the City to amend the Zoning Code to adopt the most current edition of the California Building Code. The City will implement Housing Plan Program 10 to advertise available rehabilitation grant programs on the City’s website and ensure that Code Enforcement has the information when addressing enforcement cases.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-36
Transparency in the Development Process
To increase transparency in the development process, the City’s website publishes resources that help developers and homeowners navigate the residential development and home improvement processes.

The City’s Planning and Development Services Department webpage (https://www.dinuba.org/departments/planning-development) provides links to planning and building permit resources, including the City’s zoning and land use maps, permit application forms, a residential plan review checklist, rate and fee schedule, and staff contacts. However, links to the Zoning Code and zoning map connect to PDF versions of the documents that are outdated. The most recent Zoning Code and map, both in dynamic refresh form, can be found on the City’s website as well but are not linked on the Planning and Development Services Department webpage.

Conclusion
While the City’s website provides information on permit processing and zoning, links to these resources are outdated.

Recommended Action
The City should evaluate its compliance with the new transparency requirements per Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1) and make changes as necessary. Update links on the City’s Planning and Development Services Department webpage to connect to the most recent versions of each resource and document. Housing Plan Program 7 directs the City to comply with new transparency requirements and update links to the most recent version of each resource and documents on the Planning and Development Services webpage.

A3.3.8.1 Cumulative Impact of Development Standards
The Housing Element must analyze the cumulative effect of development standards on the development of housing and/or achieving densities after considering how all standards and/or ordinances relate to each other. In Dinuba, overly restrictive parking requirements, and recreation area/open space requirements, together with comparably high development impact fees, may constrain development of multifamily housing. Dinuba will amend its Zoning Code by summer 2024 to reduce and remove constraints to housing development.

A3.4 Environmental Constraints
A community’s environmental setting affects the feasibility and cost of developing housing.

Environmental issues range from the availability of water to the suitability of land for development due to potential exposure to seismic, flooding, wildfire, and other hazards. If not properly recognized and accommodated in residential design, these environmental features could potentially endanger lives and property. This section summarizes environmental constraints to housing development in the city.

A3.4.1 Floodplains
There are multiple floodplains in Dinuba affecting roughly 63 percent of all properties in Dinuba.8 Principal flooding problems exist in the western portion of the city, as identified by FEMA. Parcels in the western half of the city are primarily comprised of R zoning districts, general commercial zones, light industrial zones, and resource conservation in the southwestern portion of the city. Development within 8 Risk Factor, Dinuba, California, https://riskfactor.com/city/dinuba/619318_fsid/flood accessed April 2023.

City of Dinuba
Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A3-37
a flood zone typically is required to be protected against flood damage. FEMA recommends developers to obtain a flood zone elevation certificate when development is to occur on parcels in the flood zone, as it can also be used by the property owner to obtain flood insurance. These certificates require elevating the developed area (i.e., house pad) above the known flood level of that flood zone. Flood zone elevation certificates increase the cost of development by a small amount ($67) but are necessary to ensure protection against flood risks.

The Site Inventory identifies parcel-specific environmental constraints, including whether the site is within the FEMA 100-year flood zone. Several sites in the Site Inventory are located in Zone X (500-year flood zone) and Zone AO (100-year flood zone); however, the flood zone is not a constraint to development.

A3.4.2 Seismic Zones
While Dinuba is in proximity to major California fault lines, there is no specific threat or hazard from seismic ground shaking to residential development within Tulare County and all new construction must comply with current State building code requirements related to seismic retrofitting. Due to the minimal historical hazard of earthquakes in the city and the use of the most current building codes and construction techniques, seismic faults do not pose a constraint to residential development.

A3.4.3 Wildfire
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CALFIRE) has designated the entire city of Dinuba and surrounding area as “Local Responsibility Area Unzoned.” The City of Dinuba Fire Department is responsible for wildfire prevention activities in the city. While there are no fire severity zones within the city boundaries, the City ensures that developments comply with California Fire and Building Code requirements for health and safety though the City’s site plan review process.

A3.4.4 Soil Contamination
Agricultural uses may contaminate sites due to the use of pesticides and other chemicals. Soil contamination may be a concern if a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment determines there is a potential for soil contamination and contamination is substantiated by a Phase Two study. The City ensures that the necessary steps are taken to clean up residual hazardous wastes on any contaminated sites proposed for redevelopment or reuse. Soil evaluations are required as needed to ensure that risks are assessed, and appropriate remediation is provided. Developing housing on these sites can involve costs to remediate contaminated soil or groundwater. The remediation cost would typically be on the developer to address the clean-up and potential site contamination is not considered a constraint.

Conclusion
Environmental conditions in Dinuba are not considered a constraint to development.

Recommended Action
None required.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A3-38
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-1
A4 Dinuba Housing Resources
This section documents the methodology and results of the Site Inventory analysis conducted to demonstrate the City of Dinuba’s ability to meet the 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Infrastructure, services, and financial and administrative resources that are available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in the city of Dinuba are also discussed in this chapter. Background information on regional development trends and analysis are included in Chapter 4, Regional Housing Resources.

The Site Inventory was developed through the analysis of development trends, the identification of vacant land, and community input. Community engagement events included an online, interactive community survey, where residents identified areas for potential future residential development throughout Dinuba, and a virtual community workshop held on May 30, 2023.

A4.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
This Housing Element covers the planning period of December 2023 through December 2031 (also referred to as the 6th housing cycle). The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), as the Metropolitan Planning Agency for the Tulare County region, is responsible for preparing the RHNA for the region based on recent growth trends, income distribution, and capacity for future growth. This methodology must align with state objectives, including but not limited to:
 Promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection  Ensuring jobs-housing balance
 Affirmatively furthering fair housing
Dinuba must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate its RHNA or its assigned share of the region’s housing need. Dinuba’s RHNA is 1,588 units, which is distributed among five income categories, as shown in Table A4-1.

Table A4-1 Dinuba 2023-2031 RHNA
Income Category (Percent of Tulare
County Area Median Income [AMI]) Number of Units Percent of Total Units Extremely Low (< 30% of AMI)* 178 11.2%
Very Low (30 to 50% of AMI) 209 13.2%
Low (51 to 80% of AMI) 238 15.0%
Moderate (81% to 120% of AMI) 268 16.9%
Above Moderate (> 120% of AMI) 695 43.7%
Total 1,588 100.0%
* The RHNA does not project the need for extremely low-income units, but pursuant to state law (Assembly Bill (AB) 2634), the City must project its extremely low-income housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50 percent of the very low-income units required by the RHNA as extremely low-income units. The City’s very low-income requirement is 387 units. The number of extremely lowincome units that the City must plan for shown here was projected using Census data. According to the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), data developed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 37.2 percent of households in the city earned less than 50 percent of the AMI. Among these households, 45.9 percent earned incomes below 30 percent (extremely low-income). Therefore, the City’s RHNA allocation of 387 very low-income units was distributed as 178 extremely low (46 percent of the 387 very low-income units required by the RHNA) and 209 very low-income units. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites for the RHNA allocation, state law does not mandate the separate accounting for the extremely low-income category.

Source: TCAG, 2022. Final Regional Housing Needs Plan.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-2
A4.2 Meeting the RHNA
Each jurisdiction must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to fulfill its required RHNA. Jurisdictions can use planned and/or approved projects, estimated accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production, and vacant and/or underutilized sites to accommodate the RHNA. In some cases, rezoning must occur to ready sites for future residential development.

Once the City demonstrates in the Housing Element that it has the development capacity to accommodate the RHNA, it has two implementation-related obligations during the planning period:

Maintain a “no net loss” policy of its residential development capacity over the housing element planning period, meaning that sites listed in the adopted Housing Element land inventory may not be down-zoned to a lower-density residential zone or rezoned to a nonresidential zone, unless the City up-zones or rezones alternative sites prior to the density reduction or rezone on the inventoried site.

Continue to allocate funding resources to and facilitate the development of affordable housing.

A4.2.1 RHNA Credits
The City may use units in approved and/or permitted residential developments which will be completed within the planning period, and anticipated ADU production, as credit towards fulfillment of its RHNA.

Planned and Approved Projects
Residential developments approved and permitted, but not yet built (also called “pipeline projects”) can be credited towards the City’s RHNA provided it can be demonstrated that the units can be built by the end of the 6th cycle planning period. Similarly, units that have not yet received a building permit as of June 30, 2023, can also be credited towards the RHNA. Affordability (the income category in which the units are counted) is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability of the units within the project. Pipeline projects that can count toward the City’s 6th cycle RHNA are listed in Table A4-2.

Figure A4-1 shows the locations of pipeline projects. For the purposes of this analysis, the city is divided into six neighborhoods: Downtown Dinuba, Northeast Dinuba, Northwest Dinuba, South Dinuba, Southeast Dinuba, and Southwest Dinuba. These pipeline projects are mostly concentrated in Northeast and Northwest Dinuba and consist of single-family and multifamily projects. The average number of days from entitlement to building permit is three to six months, based on a review of projects from the past 18 months. The City typically processes a single-family building permit in one week while the process takes three to four months for a planned unit development. Very few approvals result in expired entitlements, and the City provides extensions for projects to the extent possible. Considering the City’s past trends of project approvals and the current status of these projects, all units are expected to receive Certificates of Occupancy by 2027, well before the end of the 2023-2031 planning period. The City will monitor these projects through Housing Plan Program 2 and identify alternative sites if projects do not appear on track for development.

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-3
Table A4-2 Pipeline Projects
Map
ID Project Name
Assessor’s Parcel
Number (APN)
1 Very LowIncome UnitsLow-Income
Units
ModerateIncome UnitsAbove ModerateIncome UnitsTotal
Units Status
1 Castlerock Subdivision 18180031 0 0 0 71 71 Tentative map and zone change approved.

Construction expected to
being in 2024 and be
completed by October 2026.
2 Montebella 2/3 12272013 0 0 0 121 121 All but final map approved.

Annexation is expected upon
the completion of the project.

Construction is currently
underway and expected to be
completed by November
2025.
3 Vineyard Estates 14013007 0 0 0 63 63 Final map is in process.

Construction is currently
underway and expected to be
completed by April 2026.
4 Sequoia Apartments 14450003 0 0 61 61 Approved
Total 0 0 0 316 316
1 An assessor's parcel number is a series of digits used to identify property. Each parcel is assigned an APN that corresponds to a location on a page in a book of maps maintained by the County Assessor's Office.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-4
Figure A4-1 Pipeline Projects

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-5
Accessory Dwelling Units
The City issued an average of one ADU building permit per year during the last five years. Extrapolated over the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, the City can assume the production of eight ADUs. ADUs permitted in previous years have been reported in the very low and low-income categories without deed restrictions. While it is likely that some ADUs may be affordable to lower- or moderateincome households, due to the relatively small sample size of permitted ADUs, all anticipated ADUs were conservatively assigned to the above moderate-income category.

Table A4-3 shows the recent history of ADU permit issuance.

Table A4-3 Accessory Dwelling Unit Production, City of Dinuba Reporting Year ADU Building Permits Issued
2018 1
2019 0
2020 0
2021 2
2022 3
Total 6
Annual Average 1
A4.3 Summary of RHNA Credits
The City can satisfy 19 percent of its RHNA requirement with planned and approved units and projected ADU development. To achieve the remaining RHNA after accounting for planned and approved projects and ADUs, the City must demonstrate the availability of sites with appropriate zoning and development standards that allow and encourage the development of 1,264 units. The City will implement Housing Plan Program 6 to amend the Zoning Code to remove constraints to housing development, including restricting single-family use development in RM districts and complying with state law for ADU development. This unit count is sorted by household income level. As shown on Table A4-4, Dinuba has a remaining RHNA of 387 units affordable to very low-income households, 238 units affordable to lowincome households, 268 units affordable to moderate-income households, and 371 units affordable to above moderate-income households.

Table A4-4 Remaining Share of RHNA
Affordability Category
(Percent of AMI) RHNA Allocation
Units Pending or Approved
or under Construction Estimated ADUs Remaining RHNA
Very-Low 387 0 0 387
Low 238 0 0 238
Moderate 268 0 0 268
Above Moderate 695 316 8 371
Total 1,588 316 8 1,264

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-6
A4.4 Nonvacant Sites
Nonvacant sites included on the Site Inventory have comparable predevelopment characteristics to developed residential projects in the region. As discussed in Chapter 4, Regional Development Trends, residential development in Tulare County has occurred primarily on vacant sites and sites used for agriculture.

The housing element must analyze the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development. The City’s Site Inventory accommodates approximately 35 percent of its lower-income RHNA, 26 percent of its moderate-income RHNA, and 25 percent of its above moderate-income RHNA on vacant sites. The remaining 65 percent of lower-income RHNA, 74 percent of moderate-income RHNA, and 75 percent of above moderate-income RHNA are proposed on sites currently used for agriculture.

A4.4.1 Redevelopment of Existing Uses
Of the 32 sites included in the City’s Site Inventory, 16 are vacant and 16 are on sites with currently operational agricultural uses (nonvacant sites). Of the 16 nonvacant sites, 13 sites are currently zoned for residential use and three sites are proposed for rezone from light industrial to medium-density residential. Since these sites are not currently zoned for agricultural use, the sites are not subject to the Williamson Act. The City anticipates development of the 13 nonvacant sites zoned for residential use to accommodate medium low- and medium high-density residential uses. The City does not consider existing uses on these sites to impede housing development as these sites are all residentially zoned (R1-6, R-1-7.5, and R-1-10) which permit single-family residences by-right. The three sites that are currently zoned light industrial also currently have agricultural uses. The City will implement Housing Plan Program 2 to complete the rezoning of the three industrial zoned sites to residential use (RM-2) to ensure that they are available for the development of housing. Further discussion on rezone sites is provided in Section A4.6.6.

A4.4.2 Adequacy of Nonvacant Sites
In considering sites, the City identified agricultural land with current or proposed residential zoning to facilitate the development of a variety of housing types. All identified nonvacant sites were selected for high potential for redevelopment with residential uses. Regional trends indicate a high likelihood of redevelopment of sites with agricultural uses to residential development.

Redevelopment Trends on Agriculture Sites
The San Joaquin Valley region has primarily experienced redevelopment of previously vacant sites and on parcels that have required the conversion of agricultural uses to residential development. Examples of these types of projects developed within the previous planning period are listed on Table A4-5. While none of these projects are located in Dinuba, one can assume that future redevelopment in the City will fall in line with regional trends.

Sixteen sites in the Dinuba Site Inventory are currently utilized for active agricultural operations. These sites range in size from less than five acres to over 38 acres, with an average size of approximately 17 acres. The sites have similar predevelopment characteristics that match observed the regional trends of redeveloped sites. The largest site is approximately the same acreage as the recently developed Westbrook development in Los Banos. Five of the sites are under 10 acres, similar to Village at Shannon

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-7
Parkway Apartments in Visalia and Stocking Street in Dos Palos. Many of the sites border existing residential uses.

Table A4-5 Redevelopment Trends on Sites with Operational Agriculture Jurisdiction Project Name Parcel Size (acres) Total Units Achieved Density (du/ac) Tulare County
Woodlake Hillside Estates 28.5 75 2.2
Visalia Village at Shannon Parkway
Apartments

9.24 216 23.38
Merced County
Dos Palos Stocking Street 9.83 44 4.48
Livingston Manzanita 51.33 213 4.15
Livingston Sundance Village 21.63 97 4.48
Los Banos The Villas 58.95 231 3.92
Los Banos Westbrook 37.81 162 4.28
Given the redevelopment trends on sites used for agricultural production, the City does not anticipate that existing operational agricultural uses will impede conversion from agricultural land to residential development on the sites included in the Site Inventory.

A4.5 Development Trends
As discussed in detail in Chapter 4.4, Regional Housing Resources, Development Trends, the development characteristics in the region indicate that most of the recently developed residential projects, or projects that are planned to be developed, are on vacant land or land zoned for agricultural use. Approximately one-third of the development trend projects include housing affordable to very lowand low-income households. The densities of these projects range from 2.63 to 60.00 dwelling units per acre due to the various zoning requirements per jurisdiction and use of state density bonus. The average density of projects is approximately 16 dwelling units per acre, with 99 percent density achieved.

Projects located in low density residential zones averaged 92 percent density achieved, projects located in medium density residential zones averaged 96 percent density achieved, and projects high density residential zones achieved 105 percent of allowable density.

Of the projects discussed in Chapter 4.4, Regional Housing Resources, Development Trends, five of the recently approved residential developments in the region are in Dinuba: Castlerock Subdivision, Montebella (will be annexed to Dinuba), Vineyard Estates, Sequoia Apartments, Sierra Village, and Merced Street. Sierra Village is an affordable multifamily housing complex, and the remaining five projects consist of units rented or sold at market rate. These six projects have an average density of approximately 14 units per acre with an average achieved density of 96 percent of the maximum density allowed by the zoning district, as shown in Table A4-6.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-8
Table A4-6 Dinuba Development Trends
Project Name
Total
Units Acreage Density
Zoning
District
Zoning District
Density (du/ac)
Number of Units
Allowed
Percent Density
Achieved
Castlerock
Subdivision
71 15.44 4.49 R-1-6 7.26 112 63%
Montebella 2/3 121 29.15 4.20 R-1-6 7.26 209 58%
Vineyard Estates 63 10 6.30 R-1-6 7.26 72 87%
Sequoia
Apartments
61 2.56 29.05 RM-1.5 29.04 74 82%
Sierra Village 108 5.50 19.64 RM-2 14.54 80 135%
Merced Street 10 0.46 21.74 RM-2 14.54 6 150%
Dinuba Average 14.24 96%
Regional Average 16.18 99%
A4.5.1 Realistic Development Capacity
Factors such as site-specific conditions, and development standards such as open space or parking requirements, may limit the development capacity of a given site. To account for this, the City assumes that the development capacity on each site will be less than the full development capacity allowed by the parcel's zoning or land use designation. To determine a realistic development capacity on the sites in the inventory, the City reviewed the development achievement of pipeline and recently developed projects in the region. On average, the pipeline projects in Dinuba, as shown in Table A4-2, achieved an average density of 96 percent of the maximum density allowed on the site based on the site’s zoning and development standards. As discussed in Chapter 4.4, Regional Housing Resources, Development Trends, the average density achieved for projects collectively in the region is 99 percent. Based on the local and regional trends, the City conservatively assumes the realistic capacity of each site would be 75 percent of the maximum density allowed under the applicable zoning or general plan designation.

The Site Inventory includes parcels in five residential zoning districts with varying allowable densities and development standards. The City’s Zoning Code classifies each site into the following zones:
 One-Family Residential (R-1-10): This district allows for single-family residential uses with one unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area, equal to a maximum residential density of 4.36 dwelling units per acre.
 One-Family Residential (R-1-7.5): This district allows for single-family residential uses with one unit per 7,500 square feet of lot area, equal to a maximum residential density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre.
 One-Family Residential (R-1-6): This district allows for single-family residential uses with one unit per 6,000 square feet of lot area, equal to a maximum residential density of 7.26 dwelling units per acre.  Multifamily Residential (RM-3): This district allows for a variety of housing types with a maximum residential density of 14.54 units per acre.
 Multifamily Residential (RM-2): This district allows for a variety of housing types with a maximum residential density of 21.78 units per acre.
 Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5): This district allows for a variety of housing types with one unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area, equal to a maximum residential density of 29 dwelling units per acre.

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-9
Recent development trends show that when projects are unlikely to achieve the maximum zoned density allowed on a given parcel, it is likely due to market-driven factors such as preference for additional residential amenities. To address this constraint to developing at maximum density, the City will implement Housing Plan Program 6 to amend the Zoning Code to provide additional density bonuses under the criteria set forth by AB 1287.

Table A4-7 details the realistic capacity of available sites by zoning district.

Table A4-7 Realistic Capacity of Sites by Zoning District Zoning
District
Total
Acreage
Maximum
Density
Realistic
Density
LowerIncome UnitsModerate
Income- Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units Total Units
RM-2 12.94 21.78 16.34 206 3 0 209
RM-3 7.34 14.54 10.91 0 78 0 78
R-1-6 75.74 7.26 5.45 0 0 421 421
R-1-7.5 138.36 5.80 4.35 0 0 599 599
R-1-10 81.93 4.36 3.27 0 0 264 264
Total 316.31 206 81 1,284 1,571
A4.6 Large Sites for Lower-Income Units
The Site Inventory identifies two large sites (defined as sites that are larger than 10 acres) that are assumed to accommodate lower-income units. These large sites are 21.9 and 12.0 acres, respectively, and could accommodate 438 and 240 housing units based on the minimum allowed density of 20 units per acre. Typically, development on large sites supports market-rate development, while the development of affordable units more often occurs on smaller parcels. Based on these trends, the City assumes that only a portion of these sites (10 acres or less) would be developed with units affordable to lower-income households, rather than the entire site. Rent-restricted affordable housing developments that use state and federal funds typically develop with no more than 150 units. Therefore, the City assumes that 150 units affordable to lower-income households would be developed on each of these large sites.

Table A4-8 shows the characteristics of the two large parcels that are suitable for lower-income units.

Both sites would likely need to be subdivided into appropriately sized parcels (e.g., one to 10 acres) to accommodate residential projects that are the size of most subsidized (income-restricted) developments (e.g., 50 to 150 units). The City assumes that both sites will accommodate the development of a variety of housing types to support a mix of lower, moderate, and above moderate affordability levels due to the minimum density requirements (20 units per acre) and market trends.

To encourage housing development on these sites, the City will annually meet with property owners and interested developers, as described in Housing Plan Program 2. The City will also support the production of affordable housing on these sites by providing technical assistance; expedited and streamlined project application review; and potential fee waivers, reductions, or deferrals; as described in Housing Plan Program 8.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-10
Table A4-8 Large Sites with Lower-Income Units
Address APN Zone Acres Existing Use
LowerIncomeModerateIncomeAbove ModerateIncomeTotal
Units
Road 74 &
Avenue 408
017-020-015 RM-1.5 21.90 Agricultural/
open space
150 144 144 438
S Alta Ave &
Avenue 408
017-020-059 RM-1.5 12.00 Agricultural/
open space
150 45 45 240
Development Trends on Large Sites
As discussed in Chapter 4, Regional Housing Resources, Tulare County and the broader San Joaquin Valley region have a strong trend of residential development on large sites. The capacity assumptions for lower-income units for the two large sites listed in Table A4-8 are consistent with, or more conservative than, the actual yield of recent developments on similar-sized sites in the region.

A list of recent developments on large sites in the San Joaquin Valley is shown in Table A4-9. Large sites in Merced County have generally been developed with market-rate units, but there have been deedrestricted projects developed on large sites in Tulare County and Fresno County. For projects included in Table A4-9, the sites range from 12 to 58 acres and the projects average 188 units. Projects with deedrestricted units have been developed on sites that range from 10 to 120 acres and average 291 units (with an average of 109 deed-restricted units).

A comparison of the two sites in Table A4-8 with similarly sized sites in Table A4-9 shows that the capacity assumptions for the two sites are realistic and achievable. The Ben Maddox-K property developed 292 deed-restricted (affordable) units on 10.8 acres (27 units per acre), and the LoversCaldwell property developed 342 lower-income units on 11.4 acres (30 units per acre). These projects are similar to the type of development expected on portions of the identified sites in Dinuba, yet yielded significantly more deed-restricted units and a higher density than what is assumed by the Site Inventory for the two sites in Table A4-8. Additionally, the Parc Grove Commons project in Fresno County, which is on a 24-acre site (similar to the 21.9 acre-acre site in Dinuba), yielded 213 affordable units, more than the assumed 150 units of affordable housing identified in the Site Inventory.

Table A4-9 Recent Developments on Large Sites in San Joaquin Valley Project Acres Deed-Restricted Units Market Rate Units Total Units Merced County
Bell Crossing 40.43 0 188 188
Nebela Drive 28.34 0 127 127
Sandstone Way 30.85 0 122 122
Manzanita 51.33 0 213 213
Sundance Village 21.63 0 97 97
The Villas 58.95 0 231 231
Westbrook 37.81 0 162 162
Stoneridge South 29.75 0 160 160
Average 37.39 0 163 163
Tulare County
The Ben Maddox-K 10.8 292 3 295

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-11
Project Acres Deed-Restricted Units Market Rate Units Total Units Lovers-Caldwell 11.4 342 4 346
Cambria 12.8 0 144 144
Hillside Estates 28.5 0 75 75
Average 15.88 159 57 215
Fresno County
Fancher Creek Town Center 91.0 420 240 660
The Vineyards 38.9 158 0 158
West Creek Village 120.0 120 135 255
Parc Grove Commons 24.0 213 2 215
Campus Pointe 27.5 0 550 550
Avalon Commons 17.8 104 1 105
Average 53.20 169 155 324
Regional Average 35.49 109 125 234
A4.7 Site Inventory
A description of development capacity by neighborhood is provided below. Sites are listed in Table A4-10 and Table A4-11 and shown geographically on Figure A4-2.

The table of sites includes the following items in the column heading order from left to right:
 Map Identification number (a unique reference number assigned by the City to reference the parcel on each map)
 Address or nearest cross street
 APN (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)1))
 Size in acres (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(2))  General Plan land use designation (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(2))  Zoning designation (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(2))  Description of existing uses (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(3))  Minimum allowable density by zone
 Maximum allowable density by zone
 Inventoried income level (units appropriate for lower-, moderate-, above moderate-income households) (Government Code Section 65583.2(c))
 Total number of units realistically assumed on the site  Opportunity category as designated by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)1 1 Resource levels designated by TCAC/HCD denote access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. TCAC has a composite opportunity score for each census tract. Source: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2023/methodology.pdf

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-12
A4.7.1 Downtown Dinuba
Downtown Dinuba is bounded by El Monte Way to the north, Vassar Avenue to the south, College Avenue/Dinuba High School to the east, and Alta Avenue to the west. This area primarily consists of commercial, office, and one-family and multifamily residential zones. Downtown Dinuba is in an Urban Unzoned Fire Hazard2 and in an area of minimal flood hazard3 . This neighborhood can accommodate
three sites with an assumed capacity of 11 lower-income units and two moderate-income units.

Downtown Dinuba is suitable for the development of lower- and moderate-income units due to its proximity to shopping, services, transit, employment, and Felix Delgado Park. All sites identified in this area are currently vacant. All sites are in areas with a TCAC designation of Areas of High Segregation and Poverty.

A4.7.2 Northeast Dinuba
Northeast Dinuba is bounded by city boundaries to the north and east, Alta Avenue to the west, and El Monte Way to the south. This area primarily consists of land designated as a one-family residential zone.

Northeast Dinuba is in an Urban Unzoned and Non-Wildland/Non-Urban Fire Hazard and in an area of minimal flood hazard. Northeast Dinuba can accommodate eight sites with an assumed capacity of 146 lower-income and 792 above moderate-income units. Based on community input, a residentially zoned portion of parcel 013-090-037 (shown as Site 5 in Figure A4-2) in northeast Dinuba has been included in the Site Inventory. All sites identified in this area are currently vacant or agricultural open space. All sites are in areas with a TCAC designation of High Resource.

A4.7.3 Northwest Dinuba
Northwest Dinuba is bounded by city boundaries to the north and west, Alta Avenue to the east, and El Monte Way to the south. This neighborhood primarily consists of one-family residential zone and commercial space. Northwest Dinuba is in an Urban Unzoned and Non-Wildland/Non-Urban Fire Hazard and in an area of minimal flood hazard. Based on community input highlighting the opportunity for housing development between Englehart Avenue and Road 70, residentially zoned portions of parcels 012-282-038, -035, and -036 (shown as Sites 16, 17, and 18 respectively in Figure A4-2) in Northwest Dinuba have been included in the Site Inventory. Northwest Dinuba can accommodate 12 sites with an assumed capacity of 76 moderate-income units and 376 above moderate-income units. All sites identified in this area are currently vacant or agricultural open space. All sites are in areas with a TCAC designation of High Resource.
2 The Urban Unzoned Fire Hazard is defined as an urban area that does not have a severity assigned because it does not have the same degree of risk for wildfire than other zones fire hazard areas. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/ 3 The City has the Flood Hazard designation of “X”. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500‐year flood and protected by levee from 100‐ year flood.

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-13
Figure A4-2 Dinuba Site Inventory

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-14
Table A4-10 Dinuba Site Inventory
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning Current Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
Downtown Dinuba
1 S Alta Ave 17173006 0.69 Residential -
Medium High
RM-2 Vacant 0 21.78 11 0 0 11 High
Segregation &
Poverty
2 S P St & W Ventura St 17171009 0.16 Residential -
Medium High
RM-3 Vacant 0 14.54 0 1 0 1 High
Segregation &
Poverty
3 126 Q St 17182016 0.18 Residential -
Medium High
RM-3 Vacant 0 14.54 0 1 0 1 High
Segregation &
Poverty
Total 11 2 0 13
Northeast Dinuba
4 Alta Ave. & Penny Ln 13030042 8.96 Residential -
Medium High
RM-2 Vacant 0 21.78 146 0 0 146 High Resource
5 1831 El Monte Way 13090037 26.55 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 144 144 High Resource
6 N Crawford Ave 13120001 2.50 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 13 13 High Resource
7 E Nebraska Ave 13050038 21.61 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-7.5 Agriculture 0 5.8 0 0 94 94 High Resource
8 E Nebraska Ave 13050074 24.18 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-7.5 Agriculture 0 5.8 0 0 105 105 High Resource
9 E Nebraska Ave &
N Alta Ave
13050012 35.00 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-7.5 Agriculture 0 5.8 0 0 152 152 High Resource
10 N Alta Ave 13050013 19.68 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-7.5 Agriculture 0 5.8 0 0 85 85 High Resource
11 Ave 424 13050064 38.22 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-10 Agriculture 0 4.36 0 0 124 124 High Resource
12 Ave 424 13050071 23.21 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-10 Agriculture 0 4.36 0 0 75 75 High Resource
Total 146 0 792 938

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-15
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning Current Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
Northwest Dinuba
13 42975 Rd 80 13140001 8.88 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 48 48 High Resource
14 42032 Rd 72 14013008 7.00 Residential -
Medium High
RM-3 Vacant 0 14.54 0 76 0 76 High Resource
15 N Euclid Ave &
W Adelaide Way
14045031 0.89 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 4 4 High Resource
16 W El Monte Way 12282038 2.51 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 13 13 High Resource
17 7116 Ave 416 12282035 6.10 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 33 33 High Resource
18 7076 Ave 416 12282036 11.65 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-6 Agriculture 0 7.26 0 0 63 63 High Resource
19 42032 Rd 72 14013008 5.50 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 29 29 High Resource
20 Ave 426 13020009 19.72 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-7.5 Agriculture 0 5.8 0 0 85 85 High Resource
21 Rosemary Ave 14013003 8.50 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-7.5 Agriculture 0 5.8 0 0 36 36 High Resource
22 Ave 426 13020022 9.00 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-10 Agriculture 0 4.36 0 0 29 29 High Resource
23 Ave 424 14013003 4.50 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-10 Agriculture 0 4.36 0 0 14 14 High Resource
24 Englehart Ave 14013004 7.00 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-10 Agriculture 0 4.36 0 0 22 22 High Resource
Total 0 76 376 452
Southeast Dinuba
25 Alta Ave & Penny Ln 30120097 13.66 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-6 Agriculture 0 7.26 0 0 74 74 High Resource
26 S Short Ave 18052014 0.24 Residential -
Medium High
RM-2 Vacant 0 21.78 0 3 0 3 High
Segregation &
Poverty
27 Vassar Ave & S Greene
Ave
17210017 3.05 Residential -
Medium High
RM-2 Vacant 0 21.78 49 0 0 49 High
Segregation &
Poverty

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-16
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning Current Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
28 Grace Ln 30120089 9.67 Residential -
Medium Low
R-1-7.5 Vacant 0 5.8 0 0 42 42 High Resource
Total 49 3 116 168
South Dinuba
29 S Alta Ave 17020047 9.16 ResidentialMedium High*RM-1.5* Vacant 20 29 150 2 0 152 High Resource 30 S Alta Ave 17320001 9.47 ResidentialMedium High*
RM-1.5* Agriculture 20 29 150 23 0 173 High Resource
31 S Alta Ave & Avenue 40817020059 12.00 ResidentialMedium High*RM-1.5* Agriculture 20 29 150 45 45 240 High Resource 32 Road 74 & Avenue 408 17020015 21.90 ResidentialMedium High*RM-1.5* Agriculture 20 29 150 144 144 438 High Resource Total 600 214 189 1,003
Dinuba Total 806 295 1,473 2,574
* Rezone sites list the proposed land use and zoning designations

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-17
A4.7.4 Southeast Dinuba
Southeast Dinuba is bounded by city boundaries to the south and east, El Monte Way to the north, and Alta Avenue and Downtown Dinuba to the west. This neighborhood primarily consists of resource conservation and one-family residential. Southeast Dinuba is in an Urban Unzoned and NonWildland/Non-Urban Fire Hazard and in an area of minimal flood hazard. Southeast Dinuba can accommodate four sites with an assumed capacity of 49 lower-income units, three moderate-income units, and 116 above moderate-income units. All sites identified in this area are currently vacant or agricultural open space. All sites identified for the development of lower income units are in areas with a TCAC designation of High Resource or Areas of High Segregation and Poverty, but are located near shopping and employment in Downtown, Dinuba High School, and Felix Delgado Park.

Dinuba is preparing a revitalization plan for the entire southeast part of the community, including Downtown and Southeast Dinuba, called the South El Monte Revitalization Plan. This study is intended to guide and inform future initiatives that could enhance community and economic development, as well as accommodate future growth.

Key analyses related to the study encompass community beautification and landscaping, public facilities such as sidewalks, parks, and streets, community lighting, housing rehabilitation, infrastructure, economic development, and crime prevention alongside public safety considerations. The result will be a series of goals and action programs to make meaningful changes in this part of the city and the study will serve to leverage funds to make those changes. The study is planned to be completed by July 2024.

These changes will work to address fair housing issues in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba by implementing revitalization strategies that will increase access to opportunities for residents in these neighborhoods. Housing Plan Program 13 commits the City to complete the South El Monte Revitalization Plan and implement programmed improvements.

A4.7.5 South Dinuba
South Dinuba is bounded by city boundaries to the south, El Monte Way to the north, and Alta Avenue to the east, and Road 72 to the west. This neighborhood primarily consists of industrial and commercial zones. South Dinuba is in a Non-Wildland/Non-Urban Fire Hazard and in an area of minimal flood hazard. South Dinuba can accommodate four sites with an assumed capacity of 600 lower-income units, 214 moderate-income units, and 189 above moderate-income units. All sites identified in this area are to be rezoned from industrial to high density residential; the sites are currently vacant or used for agricultural uses. The properties surrounding the identified sites will also be rezoned to allow future residential development and a new high school. All sites are in areas with a TCAC designation of High Resource.

A4.7.6 Rezone Sites
To accommodate a shortfall of capacity, the City is obligated to rezone land suitable to facilitate the development of the listed rezone sites. The City anticipates beginning the rezone process with outreach and public hearings for all properties identified in the Site Inventory in spring 2024, continuing through fall 2024 with adoption by December 31, 2024.

The Site Inventory includes four sites in South Dinuba that will be rezoned to facilitate additional residential development. The sites will be rezoned from light industrial to high-density residential with a maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre. These sites encompass approximately 52 acres and can accommodate an estimated 600 low-income units, 214 moderate-income units, and 189 above

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-18
moderate-income units. All sites are in South Dinuba, as seen in Figure A4-2. Table A4-11 summarizes the acreage and unit assumptions for sites proposed for rezoning.

Table A4-11 Realistic Capacity of Rezoned Sites
Map ID
Proposed
Zoning
District APN Acres
Maximum
Density
Realistic
Density
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
South Dinuba
29 RM-1.5 17020047 9.16 29 20 150 2 0 152
30 RM-1.5 17320001 9.47 29 20 150 23 0 173
31 RM-1.5 17020059 12.00 29 20 150 45 45 240
32 RM-1.5 17020015 21.90 29 20 150 144 144 438
Total 52.53 600 214 189 1,003
A4.7.7 Sites Used in Previous Planning Periods
In accordance with Government Code Section 65583, vacant parcels from both the 4th and 5th RHNA cycles and non-vacant parcels from the 5th RHNA cycle may be reused in this Housing Element to accommodate lower-income housing, provided they are rezoned to allow projects that have at least 20 percent of the units set aside as affordable for lower-income households, to be allowed by-right (i.e., can be approved administratively without requiring Planning Commission or City Council approval). Two sites identified in the Site Inventory are subject to this by-right requirement, as shown on Table A4-12.

The City will update the Zoning Code to address by-right approval requirements for these sites, as specified in Housing Plan Program 3.

Table A4-12 Sites Used in Previous Planning Periods
Address APN Acres Land Use Zoning Existing Use Total Units Alta Ave. & Penny Ln 13030042 8.96 Residential -
Medium High
RM-2 Vacant 146
Vassar Ave & S Greene Ave 17210017 3.05 Residential -
Medium High
RM-2 Vacant 49
Total 12.01 195
A4.7.8 Adequacy of Residential Site Inventory in Meeting RHNA The Site Inventory identifies 806 lower-income units, 295 moderate-income units, and 1,473 above moderate-income units on 32 sites. In accordance with California Department of Housing and Community Development’s default density and size requirements, no sites smaller than 0.5-acres in size are used to accommodate lower-income housing.

The Site Inventory includes a surplus of 181 lower-income units, giving the City a 29 percent buffer for this income category above the RHNA requirement. The summary of the residential Site Inventory is presented in Table A4-13.

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-19
Table A4-13 Adequacy of Residential Site Inventory
Lower-Income Moderate-Income
Above
Moderate-Income Total
RHNA Allocation 625 268 695 1,588
Planned and Approved Units 0 0 316 316
ADUs Anticipated 0 0 8 8
Remaining RHNA 625 268 371 1,264
Downtown Dinuba 11 2 0 13
Northeast Dinuba 146 0 792 938
Northwest Dinuba 0 76 376 452
Southeast Dinuba 49 3 116 168
Rezone Sites 600 214 189 1,003
Total Units on Sites 806 295 1,473 2,574
Total Unit Surplus 181 27 1,102 1,310
Percent Buffer over RHNA 29% 10% 297% 104%
A4.8 Availability of Infrastructure and Services
The City’s Public Works Department Division ensures the continued maintenance and improvement of the city’s infrastructure. This includes all public utilities such as streets, utilities, transit, sewer, and disposal services. As such, the City will ensure adequate capacity of all infrastructure and utilities to accommodate the housing growth discussed in this housing element. The City Public Works Department has confirmed all sites identified in the inventory have existing and available infrastructure that can support residential development. Within one week of adoption, City will provide a copy of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to the City’s Public Works Department Division, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.7 (Program 11).

A4.8.1 Wastewater System
Dinuba operates a wastewater reclamation facility (WWRF) that received and treated 746 million gallons (MG) of effluent wastewater in 2020. There are eleven active ponds, which have an approximate volume of 22 million gallons, and one emergency pond. Currently, the WWRF has sufficient capacity to meet the City’s needs through 2030. Expansion of treatment capacity of the WWRF through replacement of obsolete equipment with modern equipment is planned to improve wastewater treatment and serve anticipated growth through 2030.

A4.8.2 Potable Water System
The Public Water System is a retail water supplier managed and operated by the City. The primary source of supply for the Public Water System is groundwater from City-owned wells. The City currently operates eight drinking water wells that are located throughout the public water system service area.

The City Engineer has confirmed that the City has sufficient water to accommodate the City’s RHNA for the 6th housing cycle (2023-2031).

Water demands are anticipated to increase in proportion to population growth. Water demands in the Public Water System service area are projected to total approximately 2,427 MG annually in 2040. The City is in the process of performing studies to update its General Plan to accommodate anticipated

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-20
residential, commercial, and industrial growth to the west and southwest of the current urban area. The water demand of these additional areas is anticipated to be met by constructing additional public water supply wells. Well 21, the latest well, is scheduled for construction in 2024.

A4.8.3 Storm Water and Drainage
Dinuba captures stormwater generated within the city and discharges storm flows into City or privately owned and maintained detention or retention basins. Excess storm flows are pumped into irrigation canals. The City maintains a 28-acre dedicated groundwater recharge basin constructed to help reduce flooding as well as promote groundwater recharge. Smaller basins cover an extra 29.5 acres. The city’s stormwater basins serve approximately 1,900 acres of developed land. The stormwater system has sufficient capacity to serve new residential development necessary to fulfill the City’s RHNA.

A4.8.4 Dry Utilities
Dry utilities are defined as electricity, natural gas, cable, and telephone services. In Dinuba, each dry utility has one provider: Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides natural gas and electricity services, and American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) provides telecom services. The City does not anticipate any constraints with connecting utilities to future residential development sites during the planning period.

A4.9 Environmental Considerations
As noted in Chapter A3, Housing Constraints, environmental constraints to housing development in Dinuba include risks associated with earthquakes and flooding. The sites identified in the Site Inventory are all located outside of identified flood zones and compliance with state building codes will reduce potential hazards from earthquakes.

There are no known environmental constraints related to shape, access, contamination, property conditions, easements, conservation easements, overlays and airport or military compatibility that could impact housing development on identified sites in the planning period. Each project will undergo a sitespecific environmental clearance process to ensure that it is built safely and in conformance with the appropriate and applicable building codes.

A4.10 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
The City has promoted energy conservation for residential uses on both educational and regulatory levels. The City has programs to encourage construction of energy efficient housing, water and energy conservation, and energy-reducing efforts, such as weatherization of existing homes. Additionally, other elements of the City’s General Plan include policies to encourage mixed use and infill development, increased density, dedication of open space, alternative transportation including walking and bicycling, use of shade trees and other plantings, placement of structures with respect to solar access, and other means to improve air quality and promote energy savings. The City provides information at the Development and Engineering Services Department and on the City’s website to support programs that promote residential energy conservation for both new construction and existing residences in Dinuba.

The City provides builders interested in construction of affordable housing with a copy of the “Go Solar California: A Tool Kit for Affordable Home Developers,” as provided by the California Energy Commission’s New Solar Homes Partnership. This includes a guide to assist developers in including photovoltaic systems in their developments, and describes incentives, tax credits, funding, and

City of Dinuba
Dinuba Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element A4-21
application processes. The Tool Kit also provides information on calculating utility costs, so that better estimates can be made to determine the final cost of the “housing burden” (rent plus utility costs), that cannot exceed 30 percent of each renter’s income. This allows developers to determine how much can be spent per unit to realize a reasonable rate of return on their investment in energy efficiency and photovoltaic systems.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A4-22
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-1
A5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Analysis
A5.1 Introduction
This section of the Housing Element analyzes issues relating to fair housing for the City of Dinuba. This analysis is based on the directives from State Assembly Bill (AB) 686. Background information on Assembly Bill 686, countywide fair housing services, data sources, and analysis of the regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) issues are included in Chapter5, Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis.

A5.2 Methodology
This local AFFH analysis evaluates fair housing issues on the following topics:
 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty  Disparities in Access to Opportunity
 Disproportionate Housing Needs
 Local Area Knowledge and Stakeholder and Community Input  Other Relevant Factors
 Analysis of Housing Site Inventory using AFFH Indicators This analysis identifies patterns and trends at the local scale. Where appropriate, the analysis refers to the regional AFFH analysis provided in Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis, which analyzes patterns and trends at the county and Tulare County/Kings County/Fresno County tri-county areas.

For the purposes of this analysis, the city is divided into six neighborhoods: Northeast Dinuba, Northwest Dinuba, Downtown Dinuba, South Dinuba, Southeast Dinuba, and Southwest Dinuba (Figure A5-1). These neighborhoods were based on the City’s planning documents, including the General Plan, as well as local knowledge from City staff. Most of the geographic analysis of fair housing issues in Dinuba is based on the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer described in Chapter 5, Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis. The AFFH Data Viewer relies on information provided by the Census and other data sources at the census tract and block group level. The data contained throughout this chapter may differ from the data included in Chapter A2, Housing Needs Assessment, due to the availability of data at the time of drafting.

For reference, South and Southwest Dinuba have relatively limited residential uses compared to other areas of the city. South Dinuba mostly consists of land zoned for light industrial uses with minimal amounts of residential and commercial zoning. Several of the largest employers in Dinuba, such as WalMart, the Best Buy Distribution Center, and Ruiz Foods, Inc., are located in this neighborhood. Currently, a large portion of the area zoned light industrial is used for agricultural purposes. Southwest Dinuba is mostly zoned Resource Conservation with small areas zoned for single-family residential use.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-2
Figure A5-1 Dinuba Neighborhoods

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-3
Land uses in Southwest Dinuba primarily consist of the Ridge Creek Golf Club and agricultural uses. The only residential uses in Southwest Dinuba are the Ridge Creek Estates which are semi-custom, singlefamily homes that were constructed in 2020. In addition, several census tracts overlap with unincorporated parts of the county or encompass portions of multiple neighborhoods within Dinuba.

Therefore, the data shown for these areas may not accurately portray the demographics for residents of those areas.

There are five census tracts that overlap the city, some of which contain large areas within the unincorporated part of the county. However, City staff confirmed that data presented by the HCD AFFH Data Viewer accurately reflects housing trends in Dinuba.

A5.2.1 Summary of AFFH Analysis Findings
Compared to other cities in Tulare County, Dinuba has greater racial/ethnic diversity, higher poverty rates, and a higher percentage of low- and moderate-income residents. Dinuba is similar to nearby cities in southern Fresno County. The entire city of Dinuba is predominantly Hispanic/Latino, with approximately 88 percent of the population identifying as Hispanic/Latino. Cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs) among renters is high throughout the city.

Similar to other cities in Tulare and Fresno County, Dinuba has a high pollution burden, primarily from ozone, particulate matter, and pesticide use.

Below is a summary of AFFH findings by neighborhood in Dinuba.

Northeast/
Northwest Dinuba
•Primarily low density
residential with
limited commercial,
office, and industrial
uses
•High percentage of
non-white residents
and high poverty
rate
•Higher median
household income,
lower percentage of
LMI residents
•High percentage of
overcrowding
(Northeast Dinuba)
•Moderate and high
resource areas
Downtown/
Southeast Dinuba
•Mix of commcercial
and low, medium,
and high density
residential uses
•Older housing units
•Highest percentage
of non-white
residents, LMI
residents, residents
below the poverty
line, and residents
with a disability
•High percentage of
homeowners
experiencing
overpayment and
overcrowding
•Low-income
residents at risk of
displacement
•Areas of high
segregation and
poverty and
moderate resource
areas
South Dinuba
•Mostly industrial and
agricultural uses with
limited residential
and commercial uses
•High percentage of
non-white residents
and LMI populations
• High rates of
overcrowding
•Moderate resource
areas
Southwest Dinuba
•Mostly
agricultural/vacant
land with limited
residential uses
consisting entirely of
newer housing units
•Mostly agricultural
uses and the Ridge
Creek Golf Course
•Lowest percentage
of non-white
residents
•Higher percentage of
LMI residents
•Lower rates of
overcrowding
•High percentage of
renters and
homeowners
experiencing
overpayment
•Moderate resource
areas

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-4
A5.2.2 Data Sources
To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources discussed in Chapter 5, Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis. The analysis includes a discussion of historic land use and segregation patterns and input from sources of local knowledge, including advocates for people with special needs, housing development and advocacy organizations, housing and social services providers, and low-income residents. The data contained throughout this chapter may differ from the data included in Chapter A2, Housing Needs Assessment, based on HCD recommended data sources for AFFH analyses and the availability of data at the time of drafting.

Dinuba City staff were also interviewed on all topics as part of the preparation of this AFFH Analysis in December 2024. Self-Help Enterprises was also consulted on fair housing issues in Dinuba.

A5.2.3 Fair Housing Resources
Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The City of Dinuba partners with the Fair Housing Council of Central California (FHCCC) to provide fair housing information and resources to residents and housing providers. The FHCCC is a nonprofit organization that investigates complaints involving housing discrimination and predatory lending practices to ensure compliance with federal and state housing laws. The City also works with the Housing Authority of Tulare County (HATC) to ensure compliance with fair housing laws and to address complaints.

Compliance with Existing State and Federal Fair Housing Laws The fair housing assessment should include a description of state and local fair housing laws and how the City complies with those laws. These laws include the following:
 Fair Housing Act; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The City complies by ensuring its actions related to housing are not discriminatory through City protocols, decision-making procedures, and adhering to non-discrimination requirements of federal funding programs.  Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See Fair Housing Act; also, the City complies through its accessibility protocols, administered and enforced by the City’s Human Resources Department. See https://www.dinuba.org/departments/human-resources
 American Disabilities Act (ADA). The City complies with the ADA through building permit review and issuance and as described in this Housing Element.
 California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) Regulations. The City complies with FEHA and its regulations through established City protocols decision making, legal counsel, and advisement.  Government Code Section 65008. The City Zoning Code is written to ensure that the City’s actions regarding the development of housing for very low-, low-, moderate-, and middle-income persons and households or emergency shelters for the homeless, are not discriminatory. Programs have been included in this Housing Element to remove constraints and facilitate housing for all households, including protected classes (e.g., programs regarding residential care facilities, emergency shelters, etc.).
 Government Code Section 8899.50. Chapter A5, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis, of this Housing Element documents compliance with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-5
 Government Code Section 11135 et seq. The City complies with anti-discrimination requirements through the City’s Human Resources programs and the City’s procurement protocols.  Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, Section 65915.). The City will update its density bonus ordinance to comply with the new provisions as part of the updates to the Zoning Ordinance (Housing Plan Programs 6 and 8).
 Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, Section 65589.5.). The City has documented compliance with the Housing Accountability Act as described in Chapter A3, Housing Constraints Analysis.  No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code, Section 65863). The City has documented compliance with sufficient capacity for RHNA and will ensure compliance with no-net loss via required annual reporting to HCD.  Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, Section 65913.1). Housing Plan Program 2 ensures that sufficient land is zoned with appropriate standards to accommodate the City’s RHNA.  Excessive subdivision standards (Gov. Code, Section 65913.2.). The City’s subdivision standards are typical or not excessive and in compliance with the Government Code.  Limits on growth controls (Gov. Code, Section 65302.8.). The City complies as the City does not maintain any restrictions on the number or timing of housing development. The City’s General Plan does establish the Urban Development Boundary; however, the boundary extends beyond the city limits and Sphere of Influence and does not limit housing development within the city.  Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, Section 65583, esp. subds. (c)(5), (c)(10).). This Housing Element documents compliance with state Housing Element Law.

The City of Dinuba ensures compliance with these laws through the City’s daily operations, with any complaints referred to the City Attorney and/or the City Manager for investigation and action, as appropriate. The City has not faced any lawsuits, enforcement actions, or settlements related to fair housing or civil rights. Further analysis of the City’s compliance with fair housing laws is also provided in Chapter A3, Housing Constraints Analysis, of this Housing Element.

A5.2.4 Ability to Address Complaints
The City does not have the capacity to address fair housing complaints internally. The City refers fair housing issues and complaints to FHCCC, the Tulare County Housing Authority, and the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) maintains a record of housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. Fair housing complaints are also reported to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). Based on data provided by HUD, three FHEO inquiries were reported in Dinuba between 2013 and 2021. These inquiries are not considered official cases, and no data is known about them.

The City provides fair housing brochures and posts resources on the City’s website.

A5.2.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Race and Ethnicity
Dinuba is more racially and ethnically diverse than Tulare County and the Tulare County/Fresno County/Kings County tri-county area. The percent of Hispanic/Latino residents is significantly higher in Dinuba (88 percent) than the county (66 percent) and tri-county area (58 percent). Throughout most areas of the city, between 61 and 80 percent of residents identify as non-white (Figure A5-2). Southwest Dinuba has the lowest percentage of non-white residents, approximately 57 percent.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-6
Over the past decade, racial/ethnic diversity increased in Dinuba (Table A5-1). The percent of city residents that identified as white decreased by 14 percent between 2011 and 2021, and Asian American/Pacific Islander decreased by one percent. The percent of Hispanic/Latino residents increased by two percent and those who identified as “other or multiple races” increased by 14 percent. The percent of Black/African American residents and Native American/Alaskan Native residents remained the same, at less than one percent.

Table A5-1 Population by Racial Group (City of Dinuba)
Percent of Population
Race 2011 2021
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 85.8% 88.2%
Not Hispanic/Latino
White 11.5% 9.7%
Native American/Native Alaskan 0.2% 0.5%
Black/African American 0.0% 0.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.9% 0.1%
Other or Multiple Races 0.5% 0.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2007-2011, 2017-2021), Table DP05.

The HCD AFFH Data Viewer identifies the degree to which areas have a predominant racial/ethnic majority. The predominant racial/ethnic group in each census tract is that with the largest population.

The entire city is predominantly Hispanic/Latino. However, Southwest Dinuba has the lowest percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents compared to the rest of the city (Figure A5-3).

According to Othering and Belonging Institute (OBI) racial segregation/integration data, most of Dinuba has a low-medium level of segregation (neither highly segregated nor integrated) (Figure A5-4).

Downtown Dinuba and part of Southeast Dinuba has high people-of-color (POC) segregation (larger POC population than the surrounding areas).

Based on local knowledge, the Dinuba Core area
(Downtown, east, and south areas) are older
neighborhoods with lower quality housing.

These areas also tend to have the lowest
housing costs, for both rental and ownership
housing. North Dinuba households tend to have
higher incomes. This area also tends to have
larger white populations.

Dinuba has a significantly larger non-white
population than Tulare County and the tricounty area. The percentage of residents that identify as Hispanic/Latino are as follows:
 Dinuba: 86%
 Tulare County: 66%
 Tri-County Area: 58%

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-7
Persons with Disabilities
As referenced in Chapter A2, Housing Needs Assessment, approximately eight percent of the total population in Dinuba (equal to 2,009 residents) reported living with one or more disabilities. This is less than the overall percentage of residents living with a disability in Tulare County (12 percent) and tricounty area (12 percent). The most common disability in the city is ambulatory difficulty, defined as having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, followed by independent living difficulty and cognitive difficulty (Figure A5-5). Disabilities are most prevalent among senior residents. Approximately 37 percent of residents aged 65 and over have a disability. In addition, Black/African American and nonHispanic/Latino white residents reported the highest rates of disability by racial/ethnic group, at 23 percent and 18 percent, respectively.

Less than 10 percent of the population has a disability in Northwest Dinuba, Northeast Dinuba, and South Dinuba (Figure A5-7). A slightly higher percentage of residents in Downtown, Southeast, and Southwest Dinuba have a disability (11 to 12 percent).

Adult residential facilities and residential elderly care facilities are shown in Figure A5-6. There are two adult residential facilities and one residential elderly care facility in Dinuba, both in the northern city area. Given the size and population of Dinuba, these facilities are generally considered sufficient to serve Dinuba residents but additional facilities, particularly in the southern neighborhoods, may benefit the community. However, location and type of facility is dependent on land availability and service provider interest.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-8
Figure A5-2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-9
Figure A5-3 Predominant Populations (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-10
Figure A5-4 Racial Segregation and Integration (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-11
Figure A5-5 Disability by Type (City of Dinuba)
Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021), Table S1810.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-12
Figure A5-6 Percent of Population with a Disability and Residential Care Facilities (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2024, and Department of Developmental Services, 2024.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-13
Figure A5-7 Percent of Population with a Disability (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-14
Familial Status
As described in Chapter A2, Housing Needs Assessment, familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 and the martial status of the head of the household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Examples of differential treatment include limiting the number of children in an apartment complex or confining households with children to a specific location. These actions are potentially discriminatory. Singleparent households are protected by fair housing law.

Household composition in Dinuba is similar to that of the county. As of 2021, households with children present comprised approximately 46 percent (2,876 households) of the total households in the city.

Married-couple families with children comprised the largest share of households with children (50 percent), followed by female, single-parent households (41 percent). Male, single-parent households comprised nine percent of all households with children. Single-parent, female-headed households are more likely to rent than own, comprising approximately 29 percent of renter-occupied households but only 10 percent of owner-occupied households (Table A5-2).

Table A5-2 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (City of Dinuba) Household Type
Residing in
OwnerOccupied
Household
Percent of
Total OwnerOccupied
Households
Residing in
RenterOccupied
Household
Percent of
Total RenterOccupied
Households
Percent of
Households
with Children
Married Couple Family, with
Children Present
835 24.0% 611 22.2% 50.3%
Single-Parent, Male
Householder, no Spouse
Present
139 4.0% 119 4.3% 9.0%
Single Parent, Female
Householder, No Spouse
Present
361 10.4% 811 29.4% 40.8%
Total Households with
Children Present
1,335 38.4% 1,541 56.0%
Total Households 3,473 2,754
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type and Presence and Age of own Children, 2017-2021 Estimates.

Downtown and Southeast Dinuba have the highest percentages of children residing in female-headed, single-parent households, at 42 percent (Figure A5-8). Southwest Dinuba has the lowest percentage of children living in female-headed, single parent households, approximately 17 percent. Throughout the rest of the city, between 20 and 40 percent of children live in female-headed, single-parent households.

The percentage of children residing in married-couple households is highest in Southwest Dinuba, where more than 80 percent of children live in married-couple households (Figure A5-9). Throughout the rest of the city, between 40 and 60 percent of children live in married-couple households.

Childcare centers and single-parent female-headed households are shown in Figure A5-10 at the tract level. There are three child care centers in Dinuba, two in Downtown/Southeast Dinuba and one in Northeast Dinuba. There are two child care centers in the tract with the highest concentration of singleparent female-headed households. Childcare centers are accessible to most Dinuba populations.

Further, there are additional family childcare homes in the City, but locations of these facilities are unavailable due to security and privacy reasons.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-15
Figure A5-8 Children in Female-Headed Households, No Spouse/Partner Present (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-16
Figure A5-9 Children in Married-Couple Households (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-17
Figure A5-10 Children in Female-Headed Households, No Spouse/Partner Present and Child Care Centers (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2024, and Department of Developmental Services, 2024.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-18
Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in low-income households must have a choice in housing opportunities—that is, when they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.

This section identifies household income disparities using data based on median household income and low or moderate income (LMI) geographies. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI. The definition of low or moderate income is based on HUD income definitions of up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). Data for this analysis is from the HUD Low and Moderate Income Summary based on the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (most recent available data).1
Households with the lowest household median income are located in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba.

In these two areas household median income is $32,400 per year (Figure A5-11). The rest of the city has slightly higher median household incomes, ranging from $55,068 to $69,414, which is well below the state median household income. The area with the highest median household income is Northwest Dinuba, at $69,414 per year.

LMI populations are prevalent throughout Dinuba, particularly in southern parts of the city. Downtown, Southeast, and Southwest Dinuba have higher percentages of LMI residents compared to other areas of the city, comprising more than 50 percent of the population of those areas. Areas with the highest percentage of LMI populations are located in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba, with more than 75 percent of residents who are LMI (Figure A5-12). While Northeast and Northwest Dinuba have a lower percentage of LMI populations than other areas of the city, the percentage of LMI populations is still high, between 43 and 50 percent.
1 HUD Exchange 2021: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/ As of 2021 (most recent available data), Dinuba had a median household income of $50,186 per year, 13 percent less than the county’s median income of $57,394 and much lower than the state median household income of $87,100.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-19
Figure A5-11 Median Household Income (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-20
Figure A5-12 Low and Moderate Income Population (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-21
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), TCAC includes a poverty concentration and racial segregation filter that aligns with HUD’s R/ECAP methodology. HUD developed thresholds based on racial and ethnic concentration and income level. The threshold for racial and ethnic concentration is a non-white population of 50 percent or more in metropolitan or micropolitan areas. The income threshold is based on areas of “extreme poverty,” where 40 percent or more of households earn incomes at or below the federal poverty line, or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. An area that meets both thresholds for racial or ethnic concentration and “extreme poverty” is considered a R/ECAP.

TCAC categorizes census tracts that have both a poverty rate of over 30 percent and that are designated as being racially segregated (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county) as areas of high segregation and poverty. There is one area of high poverty and segregation in Dinuba located in Downtown/Southeast Dinuba (Figure A5-13). This area is predominantly Hispanic/Latino (Figure A5-3), with 92 percent of residents identifying as Hispanic/Latino, and approximately 47 percent of residents are living below the poverty line (Figure A5-14).

Demographics of the area of high segregation and poverty compared to Dinuba as a whole are shown in Table A5-3. The Downtown/Southeast Dinuba tract identified as an area of high segregation and poverty has a larger percentage of housing structures with two or more units, population below the poverty level, renter households, and non-white population. The median household income in this tract is also lower than the median income citywide. This tract also has a lower TCAC economic score compared to all other Dinuba tracts and is considered a community at risk of displacement. Between 40 and 60 percent of the housing stock in this tract was built prior to 1960, compared to less than 40 percent in all other Dinuba tracts.

There are four subsidized housing projects and several public housing buildings located in the area of high segregation and poverty. Subsidized housing and public housing buildings are presented in Figure A5-16. While subsidized housing units are not restricted to the area of high segregation and poverty alone, all public housing buildings in Dinuba are located in this tract. There is also one emergency shelter in Dinuba, located in the area of high segregation and poverty. These types of housing units likely contribute to the concentration of lower income households in this area. Subsidized housing is further discussed in Section A5.2.10. Land use practices and the history of the city, which contributes to the distribution of lower income households, are further described in Section A5.2.9.

According to the Healthy Places Index (HPI), created by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California, the area of high segregation and poverty in Dinuba has the highest rate of park access compared to other City tracts. All residents (100 percent) in this tract live within a half mile of a park larger than one acre. This tract also has a higher retail density compared to most other Dinuba tracts. According to the HPI, the gross retail, entertainment, services, and education employment density (jobs/acre) on unprotected land for the area of segregation and poverty is 5.05 compared to less than 1.0 for most other city tracts. Similarly, the area of segregation and poverty has the second highest rate of supermarket access compared to other tracts in the city. The designation of this tract as an area of high segregation and poverty is likely mostly due to the types of housing available in this neighborhood rather than the availability of jobs and services.

Based on City staff knowledge, the area of high segregation and poverty is generally more walkable and has more access to services and resources such as parks and retail. The southern areas of the city tend to be older and have aging infrastructure with heightened rehabilitation needs, especially in comparison

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-22
with the northwest area of the city where housing developments are newest. The City has approved or is in the process of developing new subdivision areas in eastern Dinuba.

Table A5-3 Demographics of Area of High Segregation and Poverty Area
Percent of Housing With
Two or More Units Median Income Poverty Rate
Percent Renter
Households
Percent
Non-White
Downtown/
Southeast Dinuba

25.9% $32,400 46.5% 56.0% 94.4%
Dinuba 24.5% $50,186 31.9% 44.2% 90.3%
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 and 2017-2021 ACS.

Poverty and Segregation
Similar to other cities in Tulare County, Dinuba has areas of concentrated poverty. The area with the highest poverty rate is in Downtown/Southeast Dinuba, where 47 percent of residents earn an income below the poverty line (Figure A5-14). Southwest Dinuba has the lowest percentage of residents living below the poverty line (15 percent). Throughout the rest of the city between 22 percent and 29 percent of residents are living below the poverty line.

Concentrated Areas of Affluence
HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer identifies RCAAs as census tracts that have a white population that is 1.25 times higher than the Council of Governments (COG) region (which for Dinuba consists of the entirety of Tulare County) and a household median income 1.5 times higher than the AMI. There are no RCAAs in Dinuba, as most of the city has a low percentage of white residents and a median household income that is lower than the county average. No census tracts within Dinuba have a median household income that is 1.5 times higher than the AMI.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-23
Figure A5-13 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-24
Figure A5-14 Poverty Status (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-25
Figure A5-15 Racial Segregation and Integration (City of Dinuba)2 Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
2 POC (People of Color)

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-26
Figure A5-16 Subsidized Housing and Public Housing Buildings Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2024

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-27
A5.2.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Transit Access and Walkability
Several transit organizations operate throughout the city of Dinuba, offering fixed-route bus services to residents.

Transit Organizations Operating in Dinuba
 The Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA) operates Dinuba Area Regional Transit (DART), a fixed route bus service with four routes throughout the city. DART operates from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm on Fridays, and 9:30 am to 9:00 pm on Saturdays. DART also operates DART Flexroute, a fixed route and dial-a-ride service, which travels through north and south Dinuba, leaving the route to pick up dial-a-ride passengers between route stops.  The City of Dinuba partners with the Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) to provide the Dinuba Connection, a fixed route bus service connecting the cities of Dinuba and Reedley in Fresno County. The Dinuba Connection operates Monday through Friday with longer service hours during the school year.
 TCRTA operates Tulare County Area Transit (TCaT), a fixed route bus service operating throughout the county, with two routes that pass through Dinuba (Routes C10 and C60). These routes connect Dinuba to the city of Visalia and the communities of Delft Colony and London, which are census designated places southwest of Dinuba. These routes operate from approximately 6:00 am to 7:00 pm on weekdays and 9:30 am to 6:00 pm on weekends. TCaT also offers Dial-A-Ride services to rural parts of Dinuba Monday through Friday.
 TRCTA also provides Paratransit & Dial‐A‐Ride Services Paratransit service, a shared‐ride, advanced‐ reservation, origin‐to‐destination service, is provided to locations within the cities of Dinuba, Porterville, and Tulare. Service is available within ¾ mile of each local fixed route. The service is available to ADA‐eligible individuals, as well as seniors (age 65+) and Medicare card holders. ADA‐ eligible passengers must receive certification through an application process. Paratransit provides same‐day service to non‐ADA passengers (seniors and Medicare card holders only) on a space available basis. Paratransit services operate the same hours and days as TCRTA’s local fixed route system; service is provided Monday through Saturday from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, and Sunday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Next day reservations are required and are taken seven days a week.  TCaT also offers its own Dial-A-Ride program that includes anywhere within three-quarters of a mile of TCaT Routes C10-C90.

Dinuba Area
Regional
Transit
(DART)
Tulare
County Area
Transit
(TCaT)
Fresno
County
Rural Transit
Agency
(FCRTA)

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-28
Residents in Dinuba have lower access to transit and lower transit ridership compared to larger cities in the region such as Visalia and Tulare. The city of Dinuba received an average AllTransit performance score of 4.8 which is based on a combination of low number of transit trips per week and low number of jobs accessible by transit.
3 For comparison, the cities of Visalia and Tulare received slightly higher performance scores, 6.5 and 5.4 respectively. According to ACS estimates, 79 percent of commuters commute by driving alone, 16 percent carpool, and less than one percent walk.

Walk Score is a private company that offers a walkability index on its website, that measures the pedestrian friendliness of a given location by analyzing walking routes to nearby amenities and examining population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density.4 Dinuba received a walk score of 56 out of 100, which is considered “somewhat walkable.” Walkability is highest in the center of the center and decreases with increased distance from the city’s center. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a walkability index which ranks block groups according to their relative walkability. According to the National Walkability Index, the most walkable areas in the city are within the center of the city, in Downtown Dinuba and parts of Northeast and Southeast Dinuba (Figure A5-17). Areas on the outer edges of the city are considered the least walkable.

According to the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2022 Regional Active Transportation Plan for the Tulare County Region, priority active transportation improvements in the city of Dinuba emphasize improving pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout the city and creating safe routes to schools. Projects include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements and educational outreach surrounding safe routes to elementary schools and Dinuba High School, as well as sidewalk improvements in Downtown Dinuba, pedestrian path along Ventura Street, and railroad crossing across the San Joaquin Valley Railroad tracks. These planned improvements will increase walkability and access to active transportation throughout the city, particularly in Downtown Dinuba and along Road 88, Alta Avenue, and Avenue 416.

Local knowledge from City staff indicates that the Core area (Downtown, East, and South Dinuba) tends to be more walkable than other areas of the city. As of December 2024, bike lane installations, road widenings, and striped bike lanes are currently underway. The City’s current active transportation network suffers from discontinuous sidewalks and bike lanes, inadequate ADA curb ramps, unsafe crossings, sight distance issues to crosswalks, and an uncomfortable walking and biking environment for residents. The City is implementing an Active Transportation Plan to construct bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including the improvements currently underway. The City has aggressively pursued funding to make transportation improvements, particularly for bike lanes and walking trails in disadvantaged parts of the community (Core area, south, southeast and east).

The City is also preparing a Revitalization Plan for the South El Monte Neighborhood that will support goals in this area related to community beautification and landscaping, public facilities, community lighting, housing rehabilitation, infrastructure, economic development, and crime prevention and public safety. This Plan aims to improve this neighborhood in aspects beyond transportation alone, creating improved economic and environmental opportunities as well. Access to economic and environmental opportunities citywide area outlined in the following subsections.

According to Self-Help, Dinuba could benefit from additional transit, open space, and employment options.
3 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/ 4 Walk Score, 2021. https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-29
Figure A5-17 Walkability Index (City of Dinuba)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-30
Access to Quality Education
TCAC Educational outcomes are measured through the educational opportunity index, which measures the percentage of 4th graders who meet math and literacy proficiency standards, percentage of high schoolers who graduate on time, and percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch.

Scores are generated by comparing each census tract to all other census tracts within the same COG.

Scores range from 0-1, with 1 being the most positive educational outcome, and 0 being the least positive educational outcome.

Dinuba generally has less positive educational outcomes. Southwest Dinuba has the highest educational outcomes in the city (Figure A5-18).

Dinuba is served by the Dinuba Unified School District (DUSD), which manages 11 schools and nine campuses throughout Dinuba. The DUSD operates six elementary schools, one middle school, one traditional high school, one continuing education school, one independent study school, and one adult education school.5 During the 2021-2022 school year, DUSD had a total student enrollment of 6,592 students.

According to Kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, DUSD had a high school graduation rate of 91 percent in 2021. The student population is very diverse. Ninety-four percent of students are Hispanic/Latino, four percent are white, two percent are Asian American/Pacific Islander, and less than one percent are Black/African American, Native American/Alaskan Native, or multiracial. 6 Thirty-three percent of students are English learners, almost all of whom are Spanish speakers. Approximately 86 percent of students are eligible for free and reduced-price meals, indicating they are living in low-income households. In addition, approximately seven percent of students are eligible for the Migrant Education Program, meaning their parent/guardian is a migratory worker in the agricultural, dairy, lumber, or fishing industries and whose family has moved during the past three years.7
Education attainment levels of Dinuba residents are slightly lower than the county and tri-county averages. According to ACS estimates, 88 of the city’s population (25 years of age and older) does not have a college degree (compared to 86 percent of the county and 83 percent of the tri-county area) and 31 percent did not graduate high school (compared to 30 percent of the county and 25 percent of the tri-county area).
5 Dinuba Unified School District. 2023. DUSD At-A-Glance. https://www.dinuba.k12.ca.us/aboutDUSD 6 Kidsdata.org. 2023. Dinuba Unified. https://www.kidsdata.org/region/1551/dinuba-unified/results#cat=18 7 Ed-Data. 2023. Dinuba Unified. http://www.ed-data.org/district/Tulare/Dinuba-Unified

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-31
Figure A5-18 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-32
Economic Outcomes
TCAC economic opportunities measured by census tract, consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes.

Economic outcomes vary in Dinuba but are mostly higher than most other cities in Tulare County.

Northwest and Southwest Dinuba have the most positive economic outcomes in the city while Downtown/Southeast Dinuba has the least positive economic outcome in the city (Figure A5-19). This area is also an area of high segregation and poverty (Figure A5-13), and has a higher percentage of residents with a disability (Figure A5-7) and the lowest median household income (Figure A5-11) compared to the rest of the city.

In 2021, Dinuba had a labor force participation rate of 63 percent for persons 16 years and older, which is similar to the labor force participation rate of the county and tri-county area. The largest industries in Dinuba are educational services, and health care and social assistance (23 percent of employed population), agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining (20 percent of employed population), and retail trade (12 percent). This makeup is similar to other cities in the county.

Largest Employers in Dinuba
Source: City of Dinuba, 2021, 2021 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 8 Most of the land zoned for commercial and industrial uses is in Downtown and South Dinuba. Most of Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and Southwest Dinuba is not zoned for uses that provide employment opportunities. These areas are primarily zoned for residential and resource conservation uses. Ruiz Foods Products Inc., Walmart, and the Best Buy Distribution Center, three of the city’s largest employers, are located in South Dinuba. The majority of working residents commute outside the city for work (76 percent) and 48 percent commute outside of Tulare County. Of the 52 percent of residents who work in Tulare county, 24 percent of employed Dinuba residents work in Dinuba, 10 percent work in Visalia, four percent work in, and four percent work in Tulare. Approximately 30 percent of working residents work in Fresno County, including seven percent who work in Reedley and five percent who work in Fresno).
9 The remaining 20 percent work in a county other than Tulare or Fresno.

The City has implemented several economic development strategies to incentivize economic development including reduced/waived fees for new development. As discussed above, the City has had success in bringing in industrial uses such as a Best Buy distribution center, Ruiz Foods, and dental equipment manufacturing uses.
8 City of Dinuba. 2021. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. https://www.dinuba.org/images/docs/forms/dinuba_acfr.pdf 9 U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. OnTheMap Work Destination Analysis. https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ 44%
of total jobs in
Dinuba
19%
of total jobs in
Dinuba
13%
of total jobs in
Dinuba
12%
of total jobs in
Dinuba

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-33
Figure A5-19 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-34
Healthy and Safe Housing Environment
Like the rest of western Tulare County and the
western tri-county area, pollution burden is high
throughout the city of Dinuba. The
CalEnviroScreen map for the city of Dinuba
identifies the degree to which communities are
considered burdened by pollution by comparing
the scores of each census tract to every other
census tract in the state. CalEnviroScreen
identified pollution burden is high throughout
most of the city (Figure A5-20). Pollution burden
is highest in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba
(96th percentile) and lowest in Northeast Dinuba
(75th percentile). Pollution burden associated
with ozone and particulate matter is high
throughout the entire city. Pollution burden
associated with pesticide use, cleanup sites, and
groundwater threats is highest in southern parts
of the city. Downtown and Southeast Dinuba also have a high pollution burden from lead risk from housing and proximity to cleanup sites.

The TCAC environmental opportunity map also identifies pollution burden, using CalEnviroScreen scores.

However, unlike CalEnviroScreen, the TCAC map compares census tracts to other census tracts within the same COG to show differences in pollution burden within the region. According to the TCAC opportunity map, environmental outcome scores vary throughout the city but are generally more positive (Figure A5-21). Environmental outcomes are lowest in Southwest Dinuba and are also low in Downtown and part of Southeast Dinuba. Throughout the rest of the city, environmental outcomes are positive.

Senate Bill (SB) 535 tasks the California Environmental Protection Agency with identifying disadvantaged communities. Disadvantaged communities are low-income areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards. Under SB 35, a minimum of 25 percent of funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, funded by revenue from the State’s cap-and-trade emissions program, goes to projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. All of Dinuba is considered a disadvantaged community under SB 535 (Figure A5-22).

In recent years the City has channeled the majority of such investments into the central, east and southeast part of the community, recognizing these neighborhoods tend to be lower income with higher rates of minority residents.

Based on local knowledge from staff, the City generally tries to keep industrial uses away from current or planned residential uses. There are no groundwater contamination issues in Dinuba. Parks are accessible to all areas of the City, including lower income areas.

Flooding in Dinuba has been reported to have occurred in 1937, 1950, 1955, 1966, 1969, and 1993.

Flooding in the City has been the result of intensive localized rainfall combined with snowmelt runoff which has resulted in overflows of the East Branch of the Alta Canal. Portions of Dinuba are within the 100-year floodplain as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on their Flood Pollution burden is high throughout
Dinuba, particularly pollution associated
with ozone and particulate matter.

Characteristics associated with
vulnerability to impacts from pollution
in Dinuba include high rates of asthma
and cardiovascular disease, low
education attainment, and high rates of
poverty and unemployment.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-35
Insurance Rate Map. Much of the flood area in Dinuba roughly follows the course of sloughs or creeks that originally flowed through the area, but were diverted into irrigation ditches as the area was settled.

Access to grocery stores citywide has recently improved. There are two new grocery stores on the east side within the last tear (2024), the City revitalized an old shopping center called Mercantile Row.

According to the HPI, more than 94 percent of residents live within a mile of a supermarket or large grocery store.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-36
Figure A5-20 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-37
Figure A5-21 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Environmental (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-38
Figure A5-22 SB 35 Disadvantaged Communities (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-39
A5.2.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing Problems
Similar to other cities in the county, almost half of all households in Dinuba are experiencing housing problems. Housing problems, as defined by HUD, include overcrowding, cost burden, lack of kitchen facilities, and lack of plumbing facilities. Approximately 49 percent of households in Dinuba are experiencing housing problems and 29 percent of households are experiencing severe housing problems. The percent of households experiencing housing problems and severe housing problems in Dinuba is slightly higher than the county and tri-county area, where 44 percent of are experiencing housing problems and 26 percent of households are experiencing severe housing problems in both the county and tri-county area.

Substandard Housing
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they comply with local building codes, whereas housing units are considered “substandard” if they lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities.

According to ACS estimates Dinuba has approximately 42 substandard housing units, which comprises approximately 0.6 percent of the total occupied units in the city. Of the 42 substandard units, most lack complete kitchen facilities (27 housing units). The percentage of substandard housing units in Dinuba is similar to Tulare County and other jurisdictions in the region.

Approximately 61 percent of the city’s housing stock was constructed prior to 1990 and is more than 30 years old. Housing units older than 30 years have a higher likelihood of needing repair and modernization improvements. The areas of Dinuba with older housing or housing that is more likely in need of repair are Downtown and Southeast Dinuba. According to ACS estimates, housing units in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba are older than other areas of the city. Approximately 67 percent of housing units in Downtown Dinuba are over 30 years old, 70 percent of which are over 50 years old.

As mentioned previously, the Dinuba Core area (Downtown, east, and south areas) tend to be older neighborhoods with lower quality housing. These areas also tend to have the lowest housing costs, for both rental and ownership housing. Northwest Dinuba is the newest development area. There are currently new subdivisions approved/in process in
eastern Dinuba. Aging neighborhoods in the Core area
tend to have a higher need for rehabilitation efforts.

Housing Cost Burden
The rate of cost burden (spending more than 30
percent of household income on housing costs) among
Dinuba residents is higher than the county and tricounty area averages. Approximately 38 percent of all households are cost burdened, compared to 38
percent and 18 percent of the county and tri-county
areas, respectively. Housing cost burden is much
higher among renters than homeowners.

Twenty-three percent of homeowners in Dinuba experience cost burden. Cost burden among homeowners is highest in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba, where 53 percent of households are cost burdened, and Southwest Dinuba, where 51 percent of homeowner households are cost burdened Housing cost burden is
significantly higher among
renters than homeowners in
Dinuba. Approximately 52
percent of renters and 23
percent of homeowners are
cost burdened in Dinuba.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-40
(Figure A5-23). Northeast Dinuba has the lowest percent of homeowner households that are cost burdened (18 percent).

In Dinuba, renters experience cost burden at more than double the rate of homeowners. Fifty-two percent of renters experience cost burden in Dinuba. South and Southwest Dinuba have the highest percentage of renters experiencing cost burden (65 percent). Northeast Dinuba has the lowest percentage of renters experiencing cost burden (39 percent) (Figure A5-24).

As household income increases, the likelihood of experiencing cost burden decreases (Table A5-4).

Extremely low-income households have the highest percentage of cost burden, 86 percent of homeowners and 84 percent of renters. Among low-income households, 35 percent of homeowners are cost burdened and 31 percent of renters are cost burdened. Moderate- and above moderatehouseholds have the lowest rates of cost burden among the different income levels. Less than one percent of moderate- and above moderate-homeowners and three percent of moderate- and above moderate-renters are cost burdened.

Table A5-4 Assistance Needs of Lower-Income Households, 2015-2019 (City of Dinuba) Household by Tenure, Income, and
Housing Problem
Renters Owners Total Households
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Extremely low-income (0-30% AMI) 865 175 1,040
With any housing problem 740 86% 170 97% 910 88%
With cost burden >30% 725 84% 150 86% 875 84%
With cost burden >50% 545 63% 125 71% 670 64%
Very low-income (31-50% AMI) 735 490 1,225
With any housing problem 650 88% 335 68% 985 80%
With cost burden >30% 580 79% 320 65% 900 73%
With cost burden >50% 145 20% 150 31% 295 24%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 655 745 1,400
With any housing problem 405 62% 400 54% 805 58%
With cost burden >30% 205 31% 260 35% 465 33%
With cost burden >50% 30 5% 10 1% 40 3%
Moderate & Above Income (>80% AMI) 675 1,830 2,505
With any housing problem 60 9% 240 13% 300 12%
With cost burden >30% 19 3% 95 5% 24 1%
With cost burden >50% 15 2% 0 0% 15 1%
Total Households 2,930 3,240 6,170
With any housing problem 1,855 63% 1,145 35% 3,000 49%
With cost burden >30% 1,529 52% 825 25% 2,354 38%
With cost burden >50% 735 25% 285 9% 1,020 17%
Note: Housing Problems: There are four housing problems in the CHAS data: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened. A household is said to have a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems.

Cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 30% of monthly income.

Severe cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-41
Overcrowding
As discussed in Chapter A2, Housing Needs Assessment, Dinuba has 2,032 large households (households with five or more people), comprising approximately 33 percent of all households in the city, which is 11 percent higher than the county (22 percent) and 54 percent higher than the tri-county average (19 percent). A higher percentage of owner households (24 percent) are large households compared to renter households (18 percent).

Approximately 17 percent of households in Dinuba are overcrowded and four percent are severely overcrowded. The percentage of overcrowded households in the city is much higher than in the county (10 percent) and tri-county area (10 percent). The percentage of overcrowded housing is higher than the State average (8.3 percent) throughout the entire city. Overcrowded housing is highest in Northeast Dinuba, where 17 percent of households are overcrowded (Figure A5-25). Overcrowded housing is also high in Downtown, Southeast, and South Dinuba, where between 10 and 15 percent of households are overcrowded.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
The 2023 Kings and Tulare County Point-In-Time (PIT) Count did not record the number of persons experiencing homelessness in Dinuba. In Tulare County, 1,053 persons experiencing homelessness were recorded in 2023. Based on the total number of homeless individuals recorded across the county, and Dinuba’s share of the county’s total population (five percent), the number of people experiencing homelessness in Dinuba is expected to be approximately 46. The cities of Porterville, Tulare, and Visalia have a disproportionately high percentage of the county’s homeless population compared to their share of the total population. A total of 1,017 homeless residents were recorded in these three cities, with the remaining 36 individuals located throughout the rest of the county. Therefore, Dinuba has low percentage of the county’s homeless population in comparison to the share of the county’s population.

The number of homeless residents in the city has remained consistent over the last several years. In 2022, the City housed nine homeless individuals in the recently constructed Sierra Village project, which provides 44 units of affordable housing.

Unsheltered residents tend to reside in parks throughout the city, including Surabian Drive Linear Park, Rose Ann Vuich Park, and the Recreation Center baseball diamond area. As discussed previously, the following transportation services operate in Dinuba and the City is considered “somewhat walkable.”  The Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA) operates Dinuba Area Regional Transit (DART)  The City of Dinuba partners with the Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) to provide the Dinuba Connection
 TCRTA operates Tulare County Area Transit (TCaT)
 TRCTA also provides Paratransit & Dial‐A‐Ride Services Paratransit service  TCaT also offers its own Dial-A-Ride program that includes anywhere within three-quarters of a mile of TCaT Routes C10-C90.

Rose Ann Vuich Park is located along Avenue 416 across the street from the DART transportation center and adjacent to the El Monte Way and Palm Drive and Dinuba Senior Center bus stations. A Family HealthCare Network facility is also located a block away from Rose Ann Vuich Park. The Dinuba Recreation Center is located approximately three blocks away from Rose Ann Vuich Park and has access to the same facilities.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-42
In 2017, the City of Dinuba formed the internal Homeless Outreach Partnership Effort (H.O.P.E.) to address homelessness in the community. The H.O.P.E. team is primarily focused on engaging the homeless, building rapport and trust, and referring them to needed services. The H.O.P.E team's primary goals are to manage homelessness issues, connect homeless persons to resources, and reduce or eliminate homelessness. While working directly with the homeless, the team has learned that there is "no silver bullet" and combatting homelessness is a long-term commitment, which requires consistent engagement. Since its inception, the H.O.P.E. team has worked closely with other agencies and organizations such as Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance, Tulare County, Dinuba Unified School District, United Health Centers, CSET, and others to provide critical assistance to needy homeless individuals and families. Through these efforts, the team has successfully housed ten homeless individuals/families. In working with the homeless, the H.O.P.E. team has identified a set of challenges that create difficulties in addressing homelessness. These challenges include:
 Lack of low barrier shelters
 Lack of adequate mental health services
 Lack of local rapid-rehousing units
 Lack of local permanent supportive housing units
 Homeless need to be ready and willing to get help
The H.O.P.E. team remains dedicated in the face of these challenges and is committed to "helping people help themselves." Looking ahead, the team is focused on the following strategies in their efforts to addressing homelessness in the community:
 Continue to track homeless
 Continue to work with local landlords/property managers  Partnership with Self Help to provide 5 permanent supportive housing units (Sierra Village II)  Establish accessory dwelling unit (ADU) program
 Encourage new, affordable multi-family units
 Exploring Homeless Work Program
 Exploring rental assistance program
Additional services available to unhoused individuals include:
 2-1-1 Tulare County: Connects communities with resources, services, and opportunities, through the non-emergency 2-1-1 phone number, a comprehensive website, via 2-way texting, and a mobile application.
 United Heath Center (Dinuba): A Fully Qualified Health Clinic which offers health services to patients without insurance on a Sliding Fee Scale according to the patient’s income and number of household members.
 CSET (Community Services Employment Training): Offers a variety of assistance in areas such as employment training, housing, financial assistance, family resources, and home weatherization to those in need.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-43
Due to limited services for unhoused populations in Dinuba, many persons in need of homeless services tend to go to the nearby Cities of Visalia or Fresno.Displacement
Communities are designated sensitive to displacement pressure if the share of very low-income residents is greater than 20 percent and have any of the two following characteristics10:
 The share of renters is above 40 percent
 The share of people of color is above 50 percent
 The share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median
 The percent change in rent is above the county median for rent increases According to the Urban Displacement Project (UDP), residents living in Downtown and part of Southeast Dinuba are at risk of displacement (Figure A5-26).
10 AFFH Data Viewer. 2023. Estimated Displacement Risk Overall Urban Displacement Project 2022. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=93242c4310254705abe4daf04ae25ce0

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-44
Figure A5-23 Overpayment by Home Owners (City of Dinuba) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-45
Figure A5-24 Overpayment by Renters (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-46
Figure A5-25 Overcrowded Households (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-47
Figure A5-26 Displacement Risk (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer 2.0, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-48
A5.2.8 Local Area Knowledge
Dinuba was established by a group of farmers following a land dispute with the Southern Pacific Railroad during the late 1800s. During the end of the Civil War, southern farmers who were struggling amid a recession immigrated to California and eventually settled in Tulare County. The Southern Pacific Railroad was granted federal land patents for land within 10 miles of the railroad right-of-way, which included land that had been settled and developed by the southern farmers.11 In 1888, two major landholders, James Sibley and W. D. Truxbury, deeded 240 acres to the Southern Pacific Railroad to develop a railroad depot and town site in the area that is now Dinuba.12 During the first decade of the 1900s, thousands of Korean immigrants arrived in Hawaii and California.

Many of these immigrants came to towns like Dinuba and worked as tenant farmers and truck farmers.

Dinuba, along with Reedley, Sacramento, and Delano, attracted approximately 83 percent of the Korean population in the United States during the early 1900s.13 The town’s economy was built on agriculture and related industries, generally consisting of small farmers. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, an extensive irrigation canal system was built in Dinuba and the surrounding area by diverting water from the Kings River. The reliable source of water and success of the Thompson seedless grape made raisins the popular crop for local farmers. During the late 1900s and early 2000s, Tulare County lost a substantial amount of farmland due to land idling (when agricultural land is not cultivated), residential development, and ecological restoration. With this loss in farmland, Dinuba’s economy began to shift from primarily agriculture to include expanded and new commercial and industrial operations, particularly related to food processing and warehousing. City annexation of additional land during the early 2000s enable the designation of over 600 acres of land as an industrial park. Tenants of the industrial park include Ruiz Foods, currently the city’s largest employer, the Best Buy West Coast Distribution Center, and Patterson Logistics. 14 To address place-based concerns and enhance community development, the City has focused on infrastructure improvements in recent years. The Griggs neighborhood in Northeast Dinuba (a disadvantaged community) was recently improved with street reconstruction, utility improvements, and a neighborhood park.

Stakeholder and Community Input
The City held a community workshop on May 22, 2023 to discuss the Housing Element and introduce new Housing Element goals and requirements to the community. Two community members participated in the workshop. During the workshop, participants expressed the need for more affordable housing in the city, particularly accessible affordable housing. It was noted that a new high school is currently being constructed in the southern part of the city, which provides an opportunity for housing development in the surrounding neighborhood. During workshops held in each jurisdiction as part of the Tulare County Regional Housing Element planning effort, participants identified the most significant housing barriers, including rent affordability and rent increases, lack of housing with supportive services, and difficulty buying a home.
11 Ron Dial. 2016.Dinuba (Images of America) 12 City of Dinuba. 2006. General Plan Updated Background Report. https://www.dinuba.org/images/docs/Planning/Dinuba-General-PlanBackground-Report.pdf 13 Erika Lee. Immigration, Exclusion, and Resistance, 1800s-1940s. https://www.nps.gov/articles/upload/04-Essay-4-immigration.pdf 14 City of Dinuba. 2020. Dinuba Parks & Recreation Master Plan. https://www.dinuba.org/images/2022/Dinuba_PRMP.pdf

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-49
An online survey was available in both English and Spanish on the TCAG Housing Element website from February 6 to March 16, 2023. The survey asked participants about housing issues and the types and location of housing development they would like to see in their city. Respondents in Dinuba identified the need for homeless shelters or day services for homeless residents, “higher-end homes,” and affordable options for home ownership. In addition, respondents reported a lack of upkeep of housing units by landlords. According to respondents in Dinuba, the largest barrier to affording desirable housing in the city is the cost and low supply of housing and the most urgent housing issues selected were the availability of desired housing and overcrowded housing. Housing needs identified by respondents in Dinuba include mobile home preservation and assistance, supportive housing programs for individuals experiencing homelessness, median-income housing, “higher end” housing, and non-low-income housing, and higher density zoning. When asked about their preferences for the location of future housing development, respondents primarily selected areas in Southeast Dinuba as well as Northwest Dinuba.

The City also participated in a series of stakeholder interviews with service providers, community organizations, and affordable and market-rate housing developers held between May 21 and April 4, 2023. Community organizations identified the need for housing near grocery stores, medical facilities, and public transportation. Additional housing needs include transitional and supportive housing, farmworker housing, and safe parking for homeless individuals living in their vehicle. Compared to larger cities in the region, smaller, rural areas have vastly fewer amenities and housing resources. According to market-rate housing developers, barriers to developing housing include high construction costs, parking requirements, State housing requirements, and the cost and time demanded by the environmental review process. Affordable housing developers described the need for more affordable housing and supportive housing for previously homeless residents and discrimination based on HCV use. It was noted that the PIT Count likely underestimates the number of homeless individuals as it does not consider the many residents living on couches or in trailers. According to affordable housing developers, cities can address housing needs by fostering strong relationships with affordable housing providers and maintaining knowledgeable staff to pursue grant opportunities for affordable housing.

A5.2.9 Other Relevant Factors
Other factors to fair housing issues in Dinuba that have not been previously discussed in this analysis include land use and zoning patterns, widespread social vulnerability of residents, and lack of farmworker housing.

Social Vulnerability Index
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry created the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to identify communities that exhibit social conditions that would make them more vulnerable to hazardous events such as natural disasters. The SVI can also serve as an identifier of vulnerable communities that are underprivileged and underserved and are more susceptible to experiencing housing issues and lack of housing opportunities. The SVI ranks census tracts based on 16 social factors grouped into four categories: socioeconomic status, household characteristics, racial and ethnic minority status, and housing type and transportation.15 The SVI identifies the entire city of Dinuba as having higher vulnerability than most of the state, based on a high level of vulnerability for each of the four categories. Dinuba scored particularly high for all four categories: socioeconomic status (social factors such as poverty and unemployment) household 15 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2023. CDC SVI Documentation 2020. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/documentation/SVI_documentation_2020.html

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-50
characteristics (social factors such as the percentage of children/senior residents and disabilities) racial and ethnic minority status (factors such as percent minority residents and percent of residents that speak English less than “very well”), and housing type/transportation (factors such as percent of the housing stock consisting of multi-unit structures and mobile homes and the percent of residents without a vehicle).

Land Use and Zoning Patterns
Most of Dinuba’s housing stock consists of single, detached structures (71 percent), which is a reflection of land use and zoning patterns throughout the city. Only 25 percent of housing units are multifamily units. Most of the land zoned for residential uses comprises of low-density residential zones. Select parcels are zoned medium and high density residential, most of which are located in Downtown Dinuba and a small area located south of Gerald Avenue in Northeast Dinuba.

The City has identified General Plan Focus Areas under the draft Land Use Element Update. Focus Area 1 consists of approximately 925 acres southwest of nearby Downtown Dinuba, currently with primarily agricultural uses along with several interspersed single-family residences. The area is generally bounded (clockwise from the northern boundary) by Sierra Way, Alta Avenue (Road 80), Avenue 400, a northsouth boundary 0.5-mile west of Alta Avenue (no existing roadway), Kamm Avenue, and a north-south boundary 0.5-mile west of Road 70. An existing residential subdivision at the corner of Sierra Way and Alta Avenue is excluded from the Focus Area. This Focus Area was previously designated for industrial development. However, with the development of the new high school, land use in this area will be reoriented to provide residential uses. The proposed new Dinuba High School is at the heart of the Focus Area and consists of an approximately 76-acre site at the southwest corner of Kamm Avenue and Alta Avenue. This Focus Area will be the city’s largest new residential growth area comprising about 500 acres of the approximately 925 total acres in residential land use categories. Other non-industrial uses planned for this area include light industrial and commercial uses.

Focus Area 2 consists of approximately 180.7 acres located on both the north and south sides of the eastern portion of El Monte Way. Some of the eastern portions of the area are located outside of the existing city limits, though all areas are within the City Sphere of Influence. The area is generally bounded (clockwise from the north) by a line parallel to and 0.25-mile north of El Monte Way, Road 92 (including a line extending south from its current dead end), Sierra Way/Avenue 412, Randle Road, Franzen Way, and Crawford Avenue. Focus Area 2 is primarily agricultural and commercial uses currently. The East El Monte Way Focus Area is envisioned to be a walkable mixed-use neighborhood with a variety of housing types and densities, and convenient multimodal connections to communityserving commercial and service amenities.

The new Focus Areas aim to serve the needs of future and existing communities, especially related to commercial and walkable spaces.

Farmworker Housing Needs
Dinuba’s economy is primarily based on agriculture, and the dominant land use surrounding the city is agricultural.16 Approximately 20 percent of Dinuba’s population works in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining (1,827 people). Dinuba is located near the border of Tulare County, Fresno County, and Kings County, all of which contain expansive agricultural operations. Farmworkers employed by nearby agricultural businesses may seek housing in Dinuba. However, the migratory and 16 City of Dinuba. 2006. General Plan Update Background Report. https://www.dinuba.org/images/docs/Planning/Dinuba-General-PlanBackground-Report.pdf

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-51
sometimes seasonal nature of farm work often makes it difficult for farmworkers to find affordable housing options. There is currently no public or subsidized housing for farmworkers in Dinuba. HATC operates multiple properties for farmworkers throughout the county, but none in Dinuba’s city limits.

Home Loan Applications
As discussed in Chapter A3, Housing Constraints Analysis, there is a disparity in mortgage application approvals between racial/ethnic groups in Tulare County. Non-white mortgage loan applicants have lower rates of loan origination and higher rates of loan denial compared white-applicants. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, indicates white home loan applicants had the highest rate of approval compared to other racial/ethnic groups, and “other” races and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander applicants had the lowest. These patterns indicate there may be racial/ethnic discrimination in mortgage lending. While there is no Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data for Dinuba, it is likely that the city experiences similar patterns as Tulare County. Table A5-5 shows the loan actions taken by race/ethnicity percentage in Tulare County.

Table A5-5 Mortgage Loans (County of Tulare)
Race/Ethnicity
Loan Action
Loan
Originated
Application
Approved But
Not Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
Purchased
Loan Other
White 56.0% 2.7% 14.9% 17.9% 3.1% 5.3%
Hispanic/Latino 53.3% 2.5% 18.1% 17.7% 2.6% 5.9%
Black/African American 50.4% 1.7% 20.6% 22.7% 1.3% 3.4% Native American/Alaska
Native

44.3% 4.4% 23.6% 19.2% 0.5% 7.9%
Asian American 49.9% 3.0% 19.2% 18.2% 3.4% 6.3%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander

39.4% 0.0% 18.2% 18.2% 0.0% 24.2%
Other Race 35.5% 1.9% 15.0% 12.6% 29.6% 5.4%
Two or More Races 52.4% 0.0% 28.6% 9.5% 4.8% 4.8%
Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. 2020 Dataset. https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/data-browser/data/2022?category=states .Accessed July 11, 2023
A5.2.10 Subsidized Housing
Subsidized housing consists of affordable rental units that are subsidized by federal and State agencies but are owned by private owners. Subsidies including HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the California Housing Finance Agency, HCD, and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program administered by TCAC. According to the AFFH Data Viewer, there are 788 subsidized housing units in Dinuba.

Subsidized housing units are scattered throughout Northwest, Northeast, Downtown, and Southeast Dinuba (Figure A5-27).

Public housing includes affordable rental units that are owned and operated by the government. The HATC manages public housing units in Dinuba which are available to low-income households, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. According to HUD’s Public Housing Program, there are a total of 80 public housing units in Dinuba. Public housing developments in Dinuba are located in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba (Figure A5-28). These housing units consist primarily of single-family homes. The HATC

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-52
owns and operates the Euclid Village Apartments, located in Northwest Dinuba, which consists of 56 two-, three-, and four-bedroom apartments, five of which are accessible to residents with disabilities.

The HATC administers housing choice vouchers (HCVs) in the city of Dinuba. While the HATC administers the HCV program in Dinuba, housing units themselves are owned by private landlords that accept HCVs on behalf of renters. According to the HATC, as of 2023, there are 122 households receiving rental assistance through HCVs in the city. The use of HCVs is more common in Northeast, South, and parts of Northwest and Southeast Dinuba, where between five and nine percent of households use HCVs (Figure A5-29). Downtown, South, and part of Northwest and Southeast Dinuba have fewer HCV recipients.

According to Self-Help Enterprises, there is a lack of decent housing that is affordable to low-income households to rent or purchase. Families are overcrowded, encountering substandard housing conditions, and often dramatically overpaying for their housing. Self-Help Enterprises operates rental housing projects in Dinuba and has noted that these projects often have long waiting times. There are also homeless residents in Dinuba with few or no options for permanent supportive housing.

Common complaints from Self-Help Enterprises clientele include high rental prices, a reluctance of landlords to rent to Housing Choice Voucher holders, and a shortage of municipal resources to make proactive attempts to seek resources to build new housing.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-53
Figure A5-27 Subsidized Housing (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-54
Figure A5-28 Public Housing (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-55
Figure A5-29 Housing Choice Vouchers (City of Dinuba)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-56
A5.2.11 Housing Site Inventory Analysis
This portion of the AFFH analyzes the relation between the housing opportunity sites and AFFH-related issues. Government Code Section 65583(c)(10) requires the housing opportunity sites to be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that sites designated for low-income households are dispersed equitably throughout the city rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low-resource areas that have historically been underserved, and conversely, that sites designated for above moderate-income households are not concentrated in areas of high resources. By comparing the sites inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the sites included in the Site Inventory improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity.

Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Area
For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels designated by TCAC/HCD denote access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. TCAC has a composite opportunity score for each census tract. Dinuba has a mix of resource areas with most areas consisting of moderate-resource areas. Downtown Dinuba and portions of Southeast Dinuba are areas of high segregation and poverty, while Northwest and the northern portion of Northeast Dinuba are high-resource areas. The rest of the city consists of moderate-resource areas.

The City’s Site Inventory can accommodate 2,574 housing units on 32 sites. Figure A5-30, Figure A5-31, Figure A5-32, and Figure A5-33 show the housing opportunity sites by TCAC designated resource area.

The housing opportunity sites are designated by income category – whether the sites could accommodate housing appropriate for low-, moderate-, or above moderate-income households. The “appropriateness” of sites for various affordability levels is dictated by state housing element law and HCD guidance and includes allowable density, size of site, realistic capacity, existing use(s), and other factors. More information about the sites and income designations is available in Chapter A4, Housing Resources.

Most of the housing opportunity sites are in high resource areas (50 percent of the proposed housing units) and moderate-resource areas (48 percent of proposed housing units), primarily in Northeast, Northwest, and South Dinuba, in part due to the availability of large vacant and underutilized parcels in these neighborhoods.

A small portion of the City’s RHNA will be satisfied by planned and approved projects (316 of the total required 1,588 housing units). To understand the overall picture of housing development during the eight-year planning period, this analysis considers those units. Of the four planned and approved projects, three projects are located in moderate resource areas (235 housing units) and one project is located in a high resources area (63 housing units). None of the planned and approved projects are located in low resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty.

Total Units by Resource Area
There are 65 units planned in areas of high segregation and poverty and low resource: 92 percent of those units (60 units) will be lower-income units and 8 percent (5 units) will be moderate-income units.

In contrast, 2,509 units are planned in areas designated moderate- and high/highest-resource: 30 percent of those units (746 units) will be lower-income units, 12 percent (290 units) will be moderateincome units, and 59 percent (1,473 units) will be above moderate-income units.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-57
Table A5-6 shows the number of proposed housing units by income level in each resource area.

Table A5-6 Proposed Housing Units by Resource Area (Housing Opportunity Sties) Income Level Lower-Income Moderate-Income Above-Moderate Income Total Units Areas of High Segregation
and Poverty
60 units
(7% of lower-income
units)
5 units
(2% of moderateincome units)
0 units
(0% of above moderateincome units)
65 units
(3% of total
units)
Low-Resource Areas 0 units
(0% of lowerincome units)
0 units
(0% of moderateincome units)
0 units
(0% of above moderateincome units)
0 units
(0% of total
units)
Moderate-Resource Areas 600 units
(74% of lowerincome units)
214 units
(73% of moderateincome units)
414 units
(28% of above moderateincome units)
1,228 units
(48% of
total units)
High-/Highest-Resource
Areas
146 units
(18% of lowerincome units)
76 units
(26% of moderateincome units)
1,059 units
(72% of above moderateincome units)
1,281 units
(50% of
total units)
The planned and approved projects, together with the housing opportunity sites, will add a higher percentage of lower-income units in moderate- resource areas (74 percent of total lower-income units) and high-resource areas (18 percent of total lower-income units) than in areas of high segregation and poverty (7 percent of total lower-income units). A total of 65 housing units (three percent of total housing units from approved and planned and housing opportunity sites) are proposed in areas of high segregation and poverty. The remaining housing units (97 percent) are proposed in moderate- and highresource areas. Therefore, overall housing development during the planning period will not increase patterns of segregation and will increase integration by household income in terms of access to opportunity.

Furthermore, efforts are underway to revitalize a portion of Southeast Dinuba, which is designated by TCAC as moderate resource. The Land Use Strategic Plan for the East El Monte Way Economic Vitality Community Sustainability Plan was adopted in 2018, which includes land use, circulation, economic development, and other strategies to revitalize the Mercantile Row Shopping Center within an approximately 170-acre area along the East El Monte Commercial Corridor.17 Since adoption, two subdivisions have been approved. There is also land designated for high-density residential development in the area, and the City is seeking developers for those sites. The plan includes strategies to add vibrancy and resources in a low- and moderate-resource neighborhood. As a result, the sites that surround this area of the city will have access to improved commercial and community facilities.

With implementation of Housing Plan Program 13, the City will continue to foster economic growth and access to opportunities in low-resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty by dedicating Capital Improvement Project funds, growing business and employment opportunities, increasing transit access, and reducing pollution burden in these areas.
17 City of Dinuba, Land Use Strategic Plan For The East El Monte Economic Vitality And Community Sustainability Plan, available at:
https://www.dinuba.org/images/2018/Land-Use-Strategic-Plan-E-El-Monte-Way-FInal-Accepted-Plan.pdf.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-58
Figure A5-30 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area, Northeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-59
Figure A5-31 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area, Northwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-60
Figure A5-32 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area, South and Southwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-61
Figure A5-33 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area, Downtown and Southeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-62
Sites by Income Population
Census tracts with more than 50 percent low- and moderate-income (LMI) households are located in every neighborhood in Dinuba and almost all opportunity sites are located in census tracts with more than 50 percent LMI households. Figure A5-34, Figure A5-35, Figure A5-36, and Figure A5-37 show the housing opportunity sites by percentage of LMI populations. Approximately 96 percent of the total housing units included in the opportunity sites are located in census tracts with more than 50 percent LMI households due to the availability of underutilized sites in these areas and the potential for mixeduse, transit-oriented development. All of the low-income units (806 housing units), all of the moderateincome units (295 housing units), and 93 percent of the above moderate-income units (2,465 housing units) are located in these areas. Of the opportunity sites in these areas, approximately 55 percent of proposed units are appropriate for above moderate-income households, 12 percent appropriate for moderate-income households, and 33 percent for low-income households. These areas of Dinuba will benefit from the mix of households of differing income levels. The Site Inventory will improve the mixture of housing opportunities by income level in the city and will not exacerbate segregation by income between neighborhoods.

Sites by Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is highest in parts of Northeast Dinuba, Downtown, Southeast, and South Dinuba, where approximately 13 percent of housing is overcrowded. However, none of the opportunity sites in Northeast Dinuba are in areas with a high rate of overcrowding. Downtown, Southeast, and South Dinuba have a mixture of low-, medium-, and high-density residential development, alongside commercial and light industrial land uses. The Site Inventory assumes that sites in Downtown, Southeast, and South Dinuba could accommodate 1,184 housing units, of which 660 would be lowerincome, equal to approximately 26 percent of the total housing units included in the Site Inventory and 82 percent of the total lower-income sites. The remaining 1,390 housing units could be accommodated in Northeast and Northwest Dinuba, which have lower levels of overcrowding. The Site Inventory will not exacerbate overcrowding conditions but will add new housing opportunities in areas that need them.

Sites by Overpayment by Renters
The percentage of overpayment by renters is high throughout Dinuba, and highest in South, Southeast, and Southwest Dinuba, where approximately 65 percent of renters are experiencing overpayment.

There are no opportunity sites in Southwest Dinuba. Figure A5-42, Figure A5-43, Figure A5-44, and Figure A5-45 show the housing opportunity sites by overpayment by renters. The housing opportunity sites will provide housing opportunities for a mix of income levels in South and Southeast Dinuba, including 649 units appropriate for lower-income households, 217 units appropriate for moderateincome households, and 305 units appropriate for above moderate-income households. Most of these housing units will likely be rental units, based on trends in planning entitlements and developer interest.

According to the UDP, new market-rate construction in gentrifying areas neither worsens nor eases rates of people moving out of the area. It increases rates of people moving to an area across all socioeconomic groups, particularly high-socio-economic residents. The UDP recommends subsidized housing construction and housing preservation to help existing residents stay in their neighborhood. The mix of lower, moderate, and above moderate-income housing units in South and Southeast Dinuba will provide affordable housing options for existing lower-income residents as well as encourage higher-income households to move into the area. The Site Inventory will not exacerbate overpayment by renters but will add new housing opportunities in areas that need them.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-63
Figure A5-34 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Population, Northeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-64
Figure A5-35 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Population, Northwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-65
Figure A5-36 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Population, South and Southwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-66
Figure A5-37 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Population, Downtown and Southeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-67
Figure A5-38 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowding, Northeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-68
Figure A5-39 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowding, Northwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-69
Figure A5-40 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowding, South and Southwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-70
Figure A5-41 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowding, Downtown and Southeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-71
Figure A5-42 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters, Northeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-72
Figure A5-43 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters, Northwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-73
Figure A5-44 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters, South and Southwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-74
Figure A5-45 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters, Downtown and Southeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-75
Sites by Areas of Integration and Segregation
Downtown and part of Southeast Dinuba is an area of high segregation and poverty. This census tract, along with the rest of Southeast, Northeast, Northwest, and South Dinuba are predominantly Hispanic/Latino and have a high percentage of non-white residents (between 70 and 80 percent).

Housing opportunity sites in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba accommodate a mix of income levels in areas that already have a diverse mix of ethnic and racial groups. Figure A5-46, Figure A5-47, Figure A5-48, and Figure A5-49 show the housing opportunity sites by percent non-white residents. The Site Inventory will not contribute to segregation based on race/ethnicity or income level.

As discussed in Chapter A2, Housing Needs Assessment, approximately eight percent of the population has one or more disabilities. For persons with disabilities who live independently or with other family members, independent living can be supported with special housing features, financial support, and inhome supportive services. The location of housing is also an important factor for people with mobility restrictions who rely on public transportation for travel. Areas with a higher percentage of residents with a disability are in Downtown and Southeast, and Southwest Dinuba. Housing opportunity sites in these areas would add a total of 60 units appropriate for lower-income households, 5 units appropriate for moderate-income households, and 116 units appropriate for above moderate-income households in areas with greater walkability and in proximity to transit stops. This will allow more residents to live near transit and create housing opportunities for residents who are unable to drive.

Sites by Communities Vulnerable to Displacement
Downtown and part of Southeast Dinuba are areas generally considered to be vulnerable to displacement by the UDP and are considered sensitive communities. However, most opportunity sites in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba are in areas that are not considered to be vulnerable to displacement.

Only 49 housing units (three percent of the total proposed housing units and 36 percent of proposed housing units in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba). All lower-income and moderate-income housing units proposed in these neighborhoods are in areas considered vulnerable to displacement. Figure A5- 50, Figure A5-51, Figure A5-52, and Figure A5-53 show the housing opportunity sites in relation to the location of sensitive communities The Site Inventory includes capacity for 60 units appropriate for lower-income households in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba, approximately seven percent of the total number of the proposed lower-income units accommodated by the opportunity sites. These lowerincome units will provide affordable housing options for existing very low and low-income residents at risk of displacement.

Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score
All of Dinuba has high CalEnviroScreen scores, above the 75th percentile. Northeast Dinuba has the lowest CalEnviroScreen score, 75th percentile, while Downtown and a portion of Southeast Dinuba have the highest CalEnviroScreen score, 96th percentile. All housing units proposed by the Site Inventory are located in census tracts with a CalEnviroScreen score greater than 50 and 174 housing units (approximately seven percent of total proposed housing units) are located in census tracts with a CalEnviroScreen score greater than 80. Figure A5-54, Figure A5-55, Figure A5-56, and Figure A5-57 show the housing opportunity sites by CalEnviroScreen score. Housing opportunity sites in census tracts with CalEnviroScreen scores greater than 80 are located in Downtown, Northwest, and Southeast Dinuba and would accommodate 60 lower-income housing units, five moderate-income housing units, and 109 above moderate-income housing units. The Site Inventory would not concentrate lower-income units in areas of higher pollution burden.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-76
Figure A5-46 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population, Northeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-77
Figure A5-47 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population, Northwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-78
Figure A5-48 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population, South and Southwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-79
Figure A5-49 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population, Downtown and Southeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-80
Figure A5-50 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk, Northeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-81
Figure A5-51 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk, Northwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-82
Figure A5-52 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk, South and Southwest Dinuba

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-83
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-84
Figure A5-53 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk, Downtown and Southeast Dinuba

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-85
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-86
Figure A5-54 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score, Northeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-87
Figure A5-55 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score, Northwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-88
Figure A5-56 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score, South and Southwest Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-89
Figure A5-57 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score, Downtown and Southeast Dinuba Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-90
Sites Analysis Summary Data
Table A5-7 summarizes the Site Inventory by development priority area, sites, number of units by income level, and census tract characteristics.

A5.2.12 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions
AB 686 requires an identification and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues based on all the previously required analysis (outreach, fair housing assessment, site inventory). This section lists contributing factors that create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues that were identified in the AI, community outreach, and the analysis in this document.

Contributing factors were prioritized based on their impact on fair housing issues as well as the City’s ability to address the contributing factors. A summary of the identified fair housing issues, contributing factors to these issues, and meaningful actions the City will undertake to affirmatively further fair housing for special needs, racial/ethnic minority, and low-income residents is included in Chapter A7, Housing Plan.

Enforcement and Outreach
The City’s website has limited information on fair housing and no information on fair housing rights and responsibilities for tenants and landlords. In addition, housing information on the City’s website is limited to English.

Contributing factors to insufficient enforcement and outreach in Dinuba include:
 Lack of language access (Priority Level – Medium): The City’s website and fair housing informational materials are not provided in multiple languages.
 Limited distribution of fair housing information (High): The City’s website has limited information on fair housing and there are very few community outreach events dedicated to fair housing.  Lack of accessible forums (Medium): Outreach and information on fair housing is limited to a few forms of media.
 Lack of regular analysis and reporting of data on fair housing complaints and lending practices (Medium): Analysis and data on fair housing complains and lending practices is not regularly performed and is not made available to the public, other than in the Housing Element itself.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Dinuba is a racially/ethnically diverse city with a high percentage of low- and moderate-income residents and low median household incomes. In particular, Downtown and portions of Southeast Dinuba have a disproportionately high percentage of residents with a disability, female single-parent households, low- and moderate-income residents, and residents living below the poverty line.

Multifamily residential zones are concentrated in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba. According to the UDP, Hispanic/Latino residents are segregated in South, Downtown, and Southeast Dinuba.

Contributing factors to segregation and integration patterns and trends in Dinuba include:
 Land use and zoning laws (High): Most of Dinuba is zoned for single-family residential uses with medium- and high-density residential zoning concentrated in Downtown Dinuba.  Displacement of residents due to economic pressures (Low): High rates of cost burden and rising housing costs are placing low-income residents at risk of displacement.  Location and type of affordable housing (High): Affordable housing units are concentrated in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-91
Table A5-7 Site Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics Priority
Development
Area
Census Tract
Number
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
Low-Income
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Percent NonWhite Percent LMI
Households
Median
Household Income
TCAC
Opportunity Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households Displacement Sensitivity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
Northeast
06107000401 1,749 146 0 792 88% 51% $69,414 High Resource 47% 6% Lower Displacement Risk 69% Northwest
06107000401 1,749 0 76 267 88% 51% $69,414 High Resource 47% 6% Lower Displacement Risk 69% 06107000303 1,260 0 0 109 64% 38% $57,685 Moderate Resource 65% 2% Lower Displacement Risk 94% Downtown
06107000501 1,806 11 2 0 96% 68% $32,400 High Segregation & Poverty 53% 13% At Risk of Displacement 83% South
06107000502 978 600 214 189 91% 54% $55,068 Moderate Resource 65% 14% Lower Displacement Risk 75% Southeast
06107000501 1,806 49 3 0 96% 68% $32,400 High Segregation & Poverty 53% 13% At Risk of Displacement 83% 06107000502 978 0 30 116 91% 54% $55,068 Moderate Resource 65% 14% Lower Displacement Risk 75% Total 806 295 1,473
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2023); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021)

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-92
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Dinuba
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element A5-93
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
There is one R/ECAP in the city of Dinuba, located in Downtown/Southeast Dinuba. Ninety-three percent of residents living in this area are Hispanic/Latino and 61 percent are low-income. This census tract also has the highest percentage of residents living with a disability, the lowest median household income, and the highest poverty rate in the city.

Contributing factors to racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in Dinuba include:
 Displacement of residents due to economic pressures: High rates of cost burden and rising housing costs are placing low-income residents at risk of displacement.  Land use and zoning laws: Most of Dinuba is zoned for single-family residential uses with mediumand high-density residential zoning concentrated in Downtown Dinuba.  Location and type of affordable housing: Affordable housing units are concentrated in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost burden among renters is high throughout most of the city. Cost burden among homeowners is highest in Downtown and Southwest Dinuba. Dinuba has a high percentage of large households, approximately 33 percent of all households in the city. Overcrowding is highest in South, Downtown, and portions of Southeast Dinuba. In addition to high percentages of overcrowding and cost burden, Downtown and portions of Southeast Dinuba have an older housing stock than other areas of the city.

Approximately 67 percent of housing units in Downtown Dinuba are over 30 years old and 47 percent are over 50 years old. However, these areas have the lowest household median incomes and highest percentage of low- and moderate-income residents, indicating that homeowners may not be able afford to afford to pay for repair and maintenance on their homes.

Contributing factors to disproportionate housing needs in Dinuba include:
 Rising home values and rent: The median home sale price in Dinuba has increased significantly over the past couple decades, more than doubling between 2000 and 2020, from $95,700 to $210,100.

Rent costs have almost doubled in that time as well, increasing from $488 in 2000 to $963 in 2020.  Lack of affordable housing in a range of sizes: Most affordable housing in Dinuba consists of singlefamily homes.  Lack of sufficient affordable housing: Based on community feedback, community members and stakeholders identified the lack of enough affordable housing in the city.  Lack of housing for large households: Approximately 17 percent of households are overcrowded in Dinuba, much higher than in the county overall (10 percent). In addition, based on community feedback, overcrowding is one of the highest priority housing issues to community members.  Housing in need of maintenance and repairs: According to community feedback, many housing units are in need of maintenance and repair, especially rental units.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Most of Dinuba is considered high resource, however, Downtown and part of Southeast Dinuba is an area of high segregation and poverty. This area has the highest pollution burden and lowest education and economic opportunity scores in the city.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A5-94
Contributing factors to disparities in access to opportunities in Dinuba include:
 Lack of access to high paying jobs: The largest employment industries in Dinuba (educational services, and health care and social assistance; agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining; and retail trade) consist of lower paying jobs.
 Lack of walkability: Most of Dinuba has below average walkability and lacks Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant sidewalks.
 Limited access to transit and regional connection: According to AllTransit, residents in Dinuba have lower access to transit opportunities than other larger cities in the region, such as Visalia and Tulare.  High pollution burden and location of environmental hazards: Pollution burden is high throughout the city, but highest in Downtown and part of Southeast Dinuba, where pollution burden due to lead risk from housing and contaminated sites is highest.
 Lack of community revitalization strategies: As identified throughout this analysis and through community outreach, low-income and non-white households are concentrated in Downtown and Southeast Dinuba where affordable housing is concentrated. However, there are no programs to counteract these patterns, add additional services or amenities, or encourage place making specifically for these neighborhoods.

A5.2.12.1 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues The findings of this analysis were used to develop meaningful actions, metrics and milestones that promote inclusive communities, increase housing opportunities, and address racial/ethnic and economic disparities in the city. The contributing factors were prioritized to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to further fair housing. Meaningful actions to address fair housing issues are included in the housing programs located in Chapter A7, Housing Plan.

City of Dinuba
Review of Past Accomplishments
2023-2031 Housing Element A6-1
A6 Review of Past Accomplishments
To develop appropriate programs to address the housing issues identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, the City of Dinuba reviewed the housing programs adopted in the 2015-2023 Housing Element and evaluated the effectiveness of these programs in delivering housing services and assistance.

Table A6-1 and Table A6-2 summarizes the City’s construction, rehabilitation, and preservation goals and accomplishments during the 5th cycle planning period and Table A6-3 provides a detailed program-level assessment of housing accomplishments over the last planning period.

A6.1 Overview of Accomplishments
During the 5th cycle Housing Element, the City implemented programs to support infill development, market-rate and affordable housing production, home repair, ADU development, and preservation of existing housing stock. Through the implementation of these programs, the City supported the housing needs of low-income households, renters, and special needs populations. Most notably, the City implemented the following:
 2.1.2. Infill Development Program. The City has adopted an Infill Development program whereas permit and impact fees can be reduced for infill development projects. One house relocation was assisted by this program in 2020. The City approved a multifamily housing project with a density bonus and impact fee reductions for the Trevino Apartments project at Merced and J Streets. This project was completed in 2018 and provides two units reserved for low-income households.  1.2.2. Affordable Housing Program. The City collaborated with Self-Help Enterprises to provide affordable housing units to the community. Sierra Village Apartments, approved in 2018, will provide 44 affordable housing units in phase 1 and 64 units in phase 2 including one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments with nine units reserved for farmworkers. This project utilized funds from the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities fund from the Strategic Growth Council and HOME funds. The second phase was completed in 2023.  2.2.2. Home Repair Program. In 2021, the City used a CDBG grant to fund the installation of water and sewer lines to the Alta/Griggs neighborhood in Northwest and Northeast Dinuba.  1.2.2. Zoning Code. The City began a comprehensive Zoning Code update to review and update standards, as needed. Completion is expected in mid-2024.  6.1.1. Energy-Efficiency Program. The City works with developers to increase energy efficiency in new developments. The City provides brochures and flyers with information on energy efficiency at the Building Department and on the City's website.

A6.2 Effectiveness in Addressing Special Needs
Special needs communities are demographic or occupational groups that call for specific program responses to address unique housing needs. State law specifically requires analysis of the special housing needs of people who are elderly or disabled (including developmental disabilities), femaleheaded households, large families, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness. These specialneeds groups often spend a disproportionate amount of their income to secure safe and decent housing and are sometimes subject to discrimination based on their specific needs or circumstances.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
A6-2
The City supported housing development that benefited special housing needs groups as a result of the implementation of 5th Cycle Housing Element programs. During the 5th cycle, the City took the following actions to address special needs housing:
 In 2017, the City provided concessions for the 10-unit Trevino apartments project in the form of System Development Charges (SDC) exemptions and a Density Bonus (and associated relaxing of certain zoning standards) to increase the affordability of the project. Two units in this project are reserved for low-income households.
 The City continued to support the Housing Authority’s implementation of the conventional Public Housing Rental Program and Housing Choice Voucher Program, which provide rent subsidies directly to participant’s landlords, and will support that Authority’s attempts to secure additional funding for expanded programs, particularly for extremely low-income households.  In 2015, the City adopted amendments to the Zoning Code to define “supportive housing” and permit supportive housing and transitional housing within residential zone districts. In addition, the City permitted the use of emergency shelters in the RM zone without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit with a slate of objective standards for emergency shelters. These objective standards include a maximum number of beds/persons, off-street parking based on demonstrated need, size of onsite waiting and intake areas, provision of onsite management, proximity to emergency shelters, length of stay for users of the facility, lighting, and security during emergency shelter operation.
 In 2022, the City partnered with Self-Help Enterprises to develop Sierra Village II, an affordable multifamily housing development with 64 units, including nine permanent supportive housing units.

Cumulatively, the City’s 5th cycle Housing Element programs were generally effective in addressing the housing needs for some special needs groups, but additional actions can be taken to support the housing needs of the community, including low- and extremely low-income households, persons experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, and farmworkers. During the 6th cycle, the City will conduct additional actions to respond to the needs of the community by implementing more specific and targeted actions and objectives for these special needs housing groups.

As discussed in Chapter A2, Housing Needs Assessment, 60 percent of senior renter households in the city are experiencing housing cost burden. Evaluating the resources for senior-headed households reveals that there is a 20-unit deficiency of available rental units for lower-income senior households. In the 5th cycle Housing Element, housing programs for seniors included Program 6.2.4 to encourage nonprofit developers to seek US Department of Housing and Urban Development funds, expedite processing of applications proposing senior housing, and consider allocating funds to offset infrastructure improvements. To better facilitate housing development for seniors, the City has added concrete objectives and actions to Housing Plan programs 8 and 11 to better support the development of affordable housing and housing for special needs groups, including seniors.

There are 1,641 residents over 18 years old with a disability in the city. Chapter A2, Housing Needs Assessment, identifies 46 rental units designated to serve residents with disabilities. The City implemented 5th cycle program 6.2.10 to reduce constraints on housing for persons with disabilities by adopting reasonable accommodation procedures, and supported the development of affordable housing. To increase support for housing for persons with disabilities during the 6th cycle, the City will implement program 6 and will amend the Zoning Code to remove constraints to the development of multifamily and special needs housing, with the objective of completing 20 units for special needs groups. Additionally, the City will implement program 8, which aims to facilitate housing production for