Dinuba City Council
March 11, 2025

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-32
Jurisdiction
Extremely Low-Income Households (Income <=30% HAMFI)
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total Households
Total Extremely LowIncome Households
Unincorporated County 2,749 5,687 8,436 40,586
Percent 6.8% 14.0% 20.8% 100.0%
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates), Table 7.

U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B11012.

Table 2-30 shows data for extremely low-income households overpaying by tenure and cost burden. In all areas of the county, households that rent are far more likely to experience housing cost burden.

Countywide, 13.3 percent of extremely low-income renters experience a cost burden, and 49.4 percent experience severe cost burden.

Table 2-30 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure and Cost Burden Jurisdiction
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total
Extremely
LowIncome
Households
No Cost
Burden
<30%
Cost
Burden
>30%
Severe
Cost
Burden
>50%
No Cost
Burden
<30%
Cost
Burden
>30%
Severe
Cost
Burden
>50%
Tulare County 980 865 5,095 1,650 3,080 11,415 23,085
Percent 4.2% 3.7% 22.1% 7.1% 13.3% 49.4% 100.0%
Dinuba 29 25 125 83 184 550 996
Percent 2.9% 2.5% 12.6% 8.3% 18.5% 55.2% 100.0%
Exeter 25 95 95 90 25 280 610
Percent 4.1% 15.6% 15.6% 14.8% 4.1% 45.9% 100.0%
Farmersville 50 25 170 10 119 174 548
Percent 9.1% 4.6% 31.0% 1.8% 21.7% 31.8% 100.0%
Lindsay 89 - 163 24 140 625 1,041
Percent 8.5% 0.0% 15.7% 2.3% 13.4% 60.0% 100.0%
Porterville 99 155 740 265 420 2,080 3,759
Percent 2.6% 4.1% 19.7% 7.0% 11.2% 55.3% 100.0%
Tulare 64 49 435 170 325 1,325 2,368
Percent 2.7% 2.1% 18.4% 7.2% 13.7% 56.0% 100.0%
Visalia 239 140 1,275 295 675 2,285 4,909
Percent 4.9% 2.9% 26.0% 6.0% 13.8% 46.5% 100.0%
Woodlake 20 25 59 85 94 135 418
Percent 4.8% 6.0% 14.1% 20.3% 22.5% 32.3% 100.0%
Unincorporated
County
365 351 2,033 628 1,098 3,961 8,436
Percent 4.3% 4.2% 24.1% 7.4% 13.0% 47.0% 100.0%
California 117,890 92,945 381,175 172,130 216,880 1,038,395 2,019,415 Percent 5.8% 4.6% 18.9% 8.5% 10.7% 51.4% 100.0%
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates), Table 7.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-33
Resources for Extremely Low-Income Households
HATC provides assistance to lower and moderate-income families in need of housing through the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program.5 HATC currently administers approximately 700 public housing units, 3,100 households receiving HCVs, and 860 units of local, non-traditional housing.6

Table 2-31 includes additional resources of benefit to extremely low-income households in Tulare County. United Way of Tulare County’s program, 211 Tulare County, connects members of the community with a broad range of additional resources, services, and opportunities including resources for extremely low-income households.

Table 2-31 Extremely Low-Income Resources
Organization Phone Address
Central California Legal Services 559.733.8770 208 W. Main Street Suit U-1, Visalia, CA City of Visalia Community Development Agency 559.713.4460 315 E. Acequia, Visalia, CA Hands in the Community 559.734.4040 Visalia, CA
Salvation Army Tulare 599.687.2520 314 E. San Juaquin Ave. Tulare, CA St. Anne’s Food Pantry 559.783-8018 271 S. Wallace St., Porterville, CA Central CA Food Bank 599.237.3663 4010 E. Amemdola Dr., Fresno, CA Love INC of Tulare County 559.467-5167 250 S. K St., Tulare, CA Central California Family Crisis Center 599.781.7462 211 N. Main St., Porterville, CA Porterville Pregnancy Resource Center 599.782.1225 303 W. Henderson Ave., Porterville, CA Porterville Area Coordinating Council 599.793.0213 368 E. Date Ave., Porterville, CA City of Porterville Community Development Department 599.782.7460 291 N. Main St., Porterville, CA CSET 599.788.1400 1063 W. Henderson Ave., Porterville, CA CSET 599.216.0525 108 E. Morton Ave., Porterville, CA
CSET - Tulare Family Resource Center & Employment
Connection Affiliate
559.684.1987 304 E. Tulare Avenue, Tulare, CA
Tulare Emergency Aid Council 559.686.3693 424 North ‘N’ Street, Tulare, CA Source: Tulare County CSET, 2023.

2.9.6 Farmworkers
Due to a combination of limited English language skills and very low household incomes, the ability of farmworkers to obtain housing loans for home purchase is extremely limited. For the same reasons, rentals are also difficult to obtain. Housing needs include permanent family housing as well as accommodations for migrant single men, such as dormitory-style housing, especially during peak labor activity in May through October.

A growing number of migrant workers do not leave California during the non-farm season, but instead stay in the area and perform non-farm work such as construction and odd jobs. Housing needs of this migrant but non farmworker population are partially addressed by year-round housing units, but additional migrant units are needed.
5 Tulare County, Housing, Homeless and Rental Assistance, https://covid19.tularecounty.ca.gov/housing-homeless-and-rental-assistance/ accessed June 2023.
6 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Authority of Tulare County, https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/mtw/tulare accessed June 2023.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-34
Migrant and other seasonal farmworkers usually do not have a fixed physical address and work intermittently in various agricultural and non-agricultural occupations during a single year, with only casual employer-employee links. Many workers and/or their families live in rural, often remote areas and are reluctant to voice their housing needs and concerns to local government or housing authorities.

According to California Employment Development Department, the median wage for farmworkers was $14.77/hour in 2020 or approximately $34,560 per year for full-time work, which is considered extremely low-income in California. Many farmworkers are forced to pay market rate for their housing, since most farm owners do not provide housing for their workers, and many publicly-owned or managed housing complexes are restricted to families. Because market rate housing may be more than they can afford, many workers are forced to share a housing unit with several other workers, causing a severely overcrowded living situation. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers face several housing challenges, but primarily substandard housing conditions and overcrowded housing. 7 The nature of agricultural work also affects the specific housing needs of farmworkers. For instance, farmworkers employed on a year-round basis generally live with their families and need permanent affordable housing much like other lower-income households. Migrant farmworkers who follow seasonal harvests generally need temporary housing only for the workers themselves. Migrant and resident farmworkers constitute distinct populations, each with its own special needs. In many instances, migrant workers are experiencing the worst employment, job security, and housing conditions. Many migrants do not have a social support network and must locate both employment and housing on their own. Resident farmworkers, on the other hand, often have support networks in place and are more likely to gain access to off-farm employment, such as in food packing or transportation.8 Table 2-32 provides 2020 census data for farmworkers by jurisdiction in the county. According to the 2020 census, there are 28,627 people employed as farmworkers in the county. Most of the farmworker population is distributed throughout the unincorporated county, making up 54.3 percent of the total farmworker population. Porterville has the second largest population of farmworkers at 11.9 percent.

Table 2-32 Farmworker Population
Jurisdiction Farmworkers Percent of Total Farmworkers
Dinuba 2,022 7.1%
Exeter 285 1.0%
Farmersville 730 2.6%
Lindsay 1,052 3.7%
Porterville 3,419 11.9%
Tulare 2,673 9.3%
Visalia 2,481 8.7%
Woodlake 425 1.5%
Unincorporated County 15,540 54.3%
Total Tulare County 28,627 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table C24050. 7 National Center for Farmworker Health. 2021. Monterey, Kern, and Tulare Cali Rapid Assessment – Survey Report. https://www.ncfh.org/uploads/3/8/6/8/38685499/monterey_kern_tulare_cali_rapid_assessment_-_survey_report_2021.pdf 8 Housing Assistance Council. Farmworker Case Study – Kern County, California. https://ruralhome.org/wpcontent/uploads/storage/documents/farmcase.pdf

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-35
Table 2-33 provides USDA Census of Agriculture data for farmworkers by population over time. While the number of hired farmworkers increased between 2007 and 2012, the most recent 2017 census observes a decrease in the number of farmworkers by 8.0 percent from 25,247 to 23,233 workers. The ongoing transition from agriculture-based industries to metropolitan-oriented employment in the larger jurisdictions, including Visalia, Tulare, and Porterville, is a key factor in the decrease in the population of farmworkers, as evidenced by the decrease in farms with hired labor during the same period from 2,448 to 2,160.

Table 2-33 Farmworker Population Overtime (Tulare County) Type of Farm Labor 2007 2012
Percent Change
'07 - '12 2017
Percent Change
'12 - '17
Hired farm labor (farms) 2,103 2,448 16.4% 2,160 -11.8% Hired farm labor (workers) 24,978 25,247 1.1% 23,233 -8.0% Workers by days worked – 150 days or more 12,549 11,745 -6.4% 11,017 -6.2% Workers by days worked – less than 150 days 12,429 13,502 8.6% 12,216 -9.5% Migrant farm labor on farms with hired labor 350 180 -48.6% 146 -18.9% Migrant farm labor on farms reporting only
contract labor
184 65 -64.7% 60 -7.7%
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture, https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/ accessed June 2023.

Resources for Farmworkers
The Housing Authority of Tulare County offers a farm labor housing program that provides housing to very low, low, and moderate-income families with two to nine members who have current farm labor income. Under this program the Housing Authority rents over 400 units to non-migratory farm workers for very low amounts and offers rental assistance when needed. 9 Housing is provided in Visalia, Poplar, Tulare, Terra Bella, and Woodville. To be accepted, the head of household must be a U.S. citizen or legal resident and must meet a minimum requirement for income from farm labor, or for days worked in farm labor during the past year.

Table 2-34 identifies agencies providing services benefitting farmworkers. United Way of Tulare County’s program, 211 Tulare County, connects members of the community with a broad range of additional resources, services, and opportunities including resources for large households including resources for farmworkers.

Table 2-34 Resources for Farmworkers
Organization Phone Address Description
Proteus Inc. 599. 781-1852 54 N. Main St. #10,
Porterville, CA
Education, workplace training, job placement, and other support services to farm working families and diverse
program participants to empower them to achieve selfsufficiency Housing
Authority of
Tulare County
559. 781-6873 290 N. 4th St.,
Porterville, CA
Provides affordable housing opportunities for lower-income households and farmworkers
9 Housing Authority of Tulare County, https://www.hatc.net/farm-labor.php?nbl=RP accessed June 2023.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-36
Organization Phone Address Description
California
Farmworker
Foundation (CFF)
661.778.0015 1120 Kensington
Street, Delano, CA
Works to offer and create opportunities that would enable Farmworkers that reside in California to develop personal and professional skills through five areas of service: Education, Health & Wellness, Workforce Development, Immigration
Services, and Community Engagement.

United Way of
Tulare County
559.685.1766 1601 E. Prosperity
Avenue, Tulare, CA
Offers $600 cash cards for eligible farm and food workers in California
Source: Proteus Inc. https://www.proteusinc.org/ accessed June 2023.

Housing Authority of Tulare County, https://www.hatc.net/ accessed March 2023.

California Farmworker Foundation, https://californiafarmworkers.org/ accessed June 2023.

United Way of Tulare County, https://www.unitedwaytc.org/ accessed June 2023.

The Tulare County Housing Authority operates six farmworker housing developments providing a total of 418 apartments and townhouses. These farmworker housing units are concentrated in Visalia, providing 206 units, and Porterville with 178 units. Below is an inventory of farmworker housing found throughout Tulare County:
 La Puente. Located in Visalia on North Bridge Street. Provides 15 two- and three-bedroom units.  Linnell Farm Labor Center. Located in Visalia on North Mariposa Avenue near Farmersville. Provides 191 two-, three-, and four-bedroom apartments.
 Poplar Grove Apartments. Located in Poplar along Avenue 145. Provides 50 two-, three-, and fourbedroom units.  Sonora Apartments. Located Tulare on South O Street. Provides 52 townhouses and single-story units.
 Terra Bella Farm Labor Center. Located in Terra Bella along Road 328. Provides 14 two- and threebedroom units.  Villa Siena Apartments. Located at 200 North E Street in Porterville. Provides 70 units one-, two-, and three-bedroom units.
 Woodville Farm Labor Center. Located in Porterville along Road 192. Provides 178 two-, three-, and four-bedroom units.

2.9.7 Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Most families become homeless because they are unable to afford housing in a particular community.

Nationwide, about half of those experiencing homelessness over the course of a year are single adults.

Most enter and exit the system quickly. The remainder live in the homeless assistance system, or in a combination of shelters, hospitals, the streets, jails, and prisons. There are also single homeless people who are not adults, including runaway and “throwaway” youth (children whose parents will not allow them to live at home).

There are various reasons that contribute to one becoming homeless. These may be any combination of factors such as loss of employment, inability to find a job, lack of marketable work skills, or high housing costs. For some the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities, or drug and alcohol addictions, and an inability to access support services and long-term care may result in homelessness. Although each category has different needs, the most urgent need is for emergency shelter and case management (i.e., help with accessing needed services). Emergency shelters have minimal supportive services for homeless persons and are limited to occupancy of six

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-37
months or less. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

For many, supportive housing, transitional housing, long-term rental assistance, and/or greater availability of low-income rental units are also needed. Supportive housing has no limit on length of stay and is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents in retaining housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.

Transitional housing is usually in buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated with State programs that require the unit to be cycled to other eligible program recipients after some pre-determined amount of time. Transitional housing programs provide extended shelter and supportive services for homeless individuals and/or families with the goal of helping them live independently and transition into permanent housing. Some programs require that the individual/family be transitioning from a short-term emergency shelter. Transitional housing may be configured for specialized groups within the homeless population such as people with substance abuse problems, the mentally ill, domestic violence victims, veterans, or people with HIV/AIDS. In many cases transitional housing programs will provide services for up to two years or more. The supportive services may be provided directly by the organization managing the housing or by other public or private agencies in a coordinated effort with the housing provider.

The Kings and Tulare counties have formed a regional Continuum of Care (CoC), a community-based organization that provides information on homeless services and data on the region’s homeless population. Figure 2-2 shows total households experiencing homelessness by living situation between 2005 to 2022. As shown, 2005 had the highest reported number of households (3,793) within the Continuum of Care (CoC), the majority of which were unsheltered. Data for 2022 indicates that 1,082 households were experiencing homelessness, including 773 that were reported as unsheltered.

Figure 2-2 Homelessness by Type Over Time, Households, Kings/Tulare County CoC Source: U.S. HUD, CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2022).

The Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance (KTHA) conducted a Point in Time (PIT) count on the evening of January 22, 2023. Volunteers from local jurisdictions, law enforcement, the faith-based community, nonprofit partners, and community stakeholders conducted brief surveys with people who meet the HUD

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-38
definition of homeless. Volunteers canvassed locations where people experiencing homelessness tend to congregate including encampments, libraries, and food distribution sites. The PIT Report provides a snapshot of the people experiencing homelessness in Kings and Tulare Counties in 2023 and provides data specific to areas within the cities of Porterville, Tulare, and Visalia, and the county of Tulare as a whole.10
Among those counted, there were a total of 1,053 people experiencing homelessness. Approximately 97 percent of this population lives in either Porterville, Tulare, or Visalia, while the remaining three percent (36 residents) live throughout all other jurisdictions, Table 2-35 identifies those counted in 2023.

Table 2-35 Homelessness by Type (2023)
Jurisdiction Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Unsheltered Total Porterville 56 16 227 299
Tulare 21 36 227 284
Visalia 83 57 294 434
Balance of County 5 0 31 36
Sources:

Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance, 2023 Point in Time Report, July 7, 2023.

U.S. HUD, CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2020).

The Kings/Tulare CoC data also considers ethnicity. Among those counted, 45 percent identify as Hispanic/Latino (of any race).

The 2023 PIT Report identified 1,053 people experiencing homelessness in the county, which was a 14 percent increase over 2022 and a 91 percent increase over 2012. Of those counted, 779 were unsheltered, 165 slept in an emergency shelter and 109 in transitional housing. Additionally, 430 reported having a disability and 58 persons were unaccompanied youth. The vast majority of those counted identified as white (70 percent). Data for ethnicity shows that 49 percent identified as Hispanic/Latino (of any race).

Resources for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
KTHA is a broad-based coalition of homeless housing and service providers, advocates, government representatives and consumers working together to shape regional planning and decision making.

KHTA provides a coordinated entry system, Every Door Open. The system is based on national best practices and is consistent with federal guidelines, which ensure that vulnerable populations receive housing resources. Through a partnership with service and housing providers, Every Door Open is structured to deliver a consistent level of services and housing to those that are at-risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness in Kings/Tulare counties. Every Door Open coordinates local investment towards preventing and reducing homelessness.

Every Door Open directs households who are at risk of becoming homeless or are currently experiencing homelessness, to seek assistance through a Housing Navigator, partner agency, or through 2-1-1.

Households are evaluated through the Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT). Assistance is prioritized for households who have been literally homeless for long periods of time and have high service needs.11 Table 2-36 identifies additional resources for residents experiencing or at risk of homelessness. United Way of Tulare County’s program, 211 Tulare County, also connects 10 Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance, 2022 Point in Time Report, June 1, 2022. 11 Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance, Coordinated Entry System, https://www.kthomelessalliance.org/coordinatedentry accessed June 2023.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-39
members of the community with a broad range of additional resources, services, and opportunities including resources for large households including resources for people experiencing homelessness.

Table 2-36 Resources for Persons Experiencing Homelessness Organization Phone Address
Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance 559.738-8733 1900 N Dinuba Blvd Ste G, Visalia, CA 93291 Women’s Center of Hope 559.734.7921 324 N East 1st Avenue Visalia, CA 93291 Men's Shelter 559.740.4178 322 NE 1st Avenue, Visalia, CA 93291 Open Gate Ministries 559.591.1241 511 North K St Dinuba, CA 93618 United Way of Tulare County 559.685.1766 1601 E Prosperity Avenue, Tulare, CA Porterville Navigation Center 599.521.0619 140 South C Street, Porterville, CA 93257 Central California Family Crisis Center 599.781.7462 211 N Main St, Porterville, CA 93257 Source: Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance (KTHA), https://www.kthomelessalliance.org accessed March 2023.

There are five emergency shelter providers throughout Tulare County offering short-term housing and basic amenities to those in need. There are currently 196 emergency shelter units, and an additional 200 beds planned in the city of Tulare in summer 2024, which will bring the total to 396 beds. These beds will provide shelter for approximately 37 percent of all people experiencing homelessness in the county based on the number provided in the 2023 PIT count. Below is an inventory of emergency shelter facilities found throughout Tulare County:
 Visalia Rescue Mission – Men’s Shelter. Located on NE First Avenue in Visalia. Provides 50 beds to men 18 years and older for up to 90 days.
 Visalia Rescue Mission – Shelter of Hope. Located on N Burke Avenue in Visalia. Provides 40 beds to women and children for up to 90 days. The shelter is available to girls 17 years of age and younger and boys 12 years of age and younger.
 The PAAR Center. While not a homeless specific resource, the PAAR Center, with its main office on W. Belleview Avenue in Porterville, provides 57 beds to individuals recovering from substance abuse. The PAAR Center welcomes all guests in need of shelter and provides a bed for up to 90 days and basic amenities including showers.
 Open Gate Ministries. Located on N K Street in Dinuba. Provides 34 beds for anyone in need.  Tulare Cares Temporary Encampment. Located on E Walnut Avenue in Tulare. Temporary emergency encampment currently active and providing tents for up to 178 guests.  Porterville Navigation Center. Located on South C Street in Porterville. Provides 15 low-barrier emergency shelter beds and fifteen bridge housing beds with wrap-around services, including daily meals, case services to help individuals find permanent housing, income, healthcare, and stability.

Provides day services, showers, laundry, breakfast, lunch, and case management services.  Hillman Center Project. Planned homeless shelter in the city of Tulare. Located at the Hillman Health Campus, near E O’Neal Avenue and S O Street. Will provide approximately 200 beds, 75 percent of which will be allocated for residents of the city of Tulare and the remaining beds will be allocated for residents throughout the county. Construction will begin in summer 2024 and operation will commence in 2025.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-40

2.10 Housing Stock Characteristics
A community’s housing stock is defined as the collection of all housing units located within the jurisdiction. The characteristics of the housing stock, including growth, type, age, condition, tenure, vacancy rates, housing costs, and affordability are important in determining the housing needs for the community. The following sections detail the housing stock characteristics of Tulare County to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents.

2.11 Housing Growth
Table 2-37 indicates the growth in the housing stock by providing the total number of units overtime for each Tulare County Jurisdiction. Dinuba, Lindsay, and Porterville have the greatest percent change in total units from 2010 to 2020 indicating the fastest growing housing stocks in the past decade. Exeter had the lowest housing stock growth from 2010 to 2020 with the addition of 20 new units over the 10- year period.

Table 2-37 Total Housing Units Over Time (1980 to 2020) Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Dinuba 3,182 3,836 4,670 5,868 6,552
Percent 20.6% 21.7% 25.7% 11.7%
Exeter 2,060 2,651 3,168 3,600 3,620
Percent 28.7% 19.5% 13.6% 0.6%
Farmersville 1,640 1,732 2,269 2,726 2,921
Percent 5.6% 31.0% 20.1% 7.2%
Lindsay 2,344 2,678 2,865 3,193 3,979
Percent 14.3% 7.0% 11.5% 24.6%
Porterville 6,605 10,073 12,691 16,734 18,654
Percent 52.5% 26.0% 31.9% 11.5%
Tulare 7,774 11,316 14,253 18,863 19,526
Percent 45.6% 26.0% 32.3% 3.5%
Visalia 18,190 27,154 32,654 44,205 46,139
Percent 49.3% 20.3% 35.4% 4.4%
Woodlake 1,279 1,585 1,874 2,067 2,285
Percent 23.9% 18.2% 10.3% 10.6%
Unincorporated County 37,578 43,988 45,195 44,440 46,403 Percent 17.1% 2.7% -1.7% 4.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(STF1:T65), 1990(STF1:H1), 2000(SF1:H1); ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B2001.

2.12 Housing Type and Tenure
Table 2-38 identifies the total housing units by type across each Tulare County jurisdiction. Most of the housing stock across Tulare County are single-family detached homes, making up 75.0 percent of the county’s total housing units. This percentage is notably higher than the statewide average of 57.7 percent. The second most common unit type are mobile homes, with 9,096 units or 6.1 percent of the total housing stock. The third most common unit type are 3- or 4-unit dwellings with 7,936 units or 5.3 percent of the total housing stock.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-41
Table 2-38 Total Housing Units by Type
Jurisdiction Total
1,
Detached
1,
Attached 2 3 or 4 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 or more
Mobile
Home
Boat, RV,
Van, etc.

Tulare County 150,079 112,528 4,416 3,704 7,936 4,077 2,262 2,362 3,535 9,096 163 Percent 75.0% 2.9% 2.5% 5.3% 2.7% 1.5% 1.6% 2.4% 6.1% 0.1% Dinuba 6,552 4,571 152 200 367 589 354 54 80 180 5
Percent 69.8% 2.3% 3.1% 5.6% 9.0% 5.4% 0.8% 1.2% 2.8% 0.1% Exeter 3,620 2,887 156 88 170 109 30 44 35 101 -
Percent 79.8% 4.3% 2.4% 4.7% 3.0% 0.8% 1.2% 1.0% 2.8% 0.0% Farmersville 2,921 2,283 74 52 151 92 129 10 22 108 -
Percent 78.2% 2.5% 1.8% 5.2% 3.2% 4.4% 0.3% 0.8% 3.7% 0.0% Lindsay 3,979 2,845 53 22 183 107 176 208 261 124 -
Percent 71.5% 1.3% 0.6% 4.6% 2.7% 4.4% 5.2% 6.6% 3.1% 0.0% Porterville 18,654 12,744 341 742 1,038 625 504 603 1,067 969 21 Percent 68.3% 1.8% 4.0% 5.6% 3.4% 2.7% 3.2% 5.7% 5.2% 0.1% Tulare 19,526 15,103 662 541 984 653 285 267 499 532 -
Percent 77.4% 3.4% 2.8% 5.0% 3.3% 1.5% 1.4% 2.6% 2.7% 0.0% Visalia 46,139 34,316 1,631 1,535 3,659 1,295 521 858 1,162 1,162 - Percent 74.4% 3.5% 3.3% 7.9% 2.8% 1.1% 1.9% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% Woodlake 2,285 1,632 93 119 216 53 55 15 67 35 -
Percent 71.4% 4.1% 5.2% 9.5% 2.3% 2.4% 0.7% 2.9% 1.5% 0.0% Unincorporated
County
46,403 36,147 1,254 405 1,168 554 208 303 342 5,885 137 Percent 77.9% 2.7% 0.9% 2.5% 1.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 12.7% 0.3% California 14,210,945 8,206,621 1,009,488 339,846 773,994 840,296 721,132 705,450 1,083,247 515,666 15,205 Percent 57.7% 7.1% 2.4% 5.4% 5.9% 5.1% 5.0% 7.6% 3.6% 0.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table C24050.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-42
Table 2-39 indicates housing units by tenure countywide. There are more owner-occupied units than renter units in each jurisdiction. Exeter, Visalia, and Farmersville have the highest percentages of units that are owner-occupied. Lindsay, Porterville, and Woodlake have the largest percentage of units that are renter-occupied.

Table 2-39 Housing Units by Tenure
Jurisdiction Total
OwnerOccupied
Percent
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupied
Percent
RenterOccupied
Tulare County 139,044 79,353 57.1% 59,691 42.9%
Dinuba 6,354 3,375 53.1% 2,979 46.9%
Exeter 3,295 2,079 63.1% 1,216 36.9%
Farmersville 2,862 1,888 66.0% 974 34.0%
Lindsay 3,866 1,999 51.7% 1,867 48.3%
Porterville 17,649 8,900 50.4% 8,749 49.6%
Tulare 18,381 10,512 57.2% 7,869 42.8%
Visalia 43,867 25,950 59.2% 17,917 40.8%
Woodlake 2,184 1,122 51.4% 1,062 48.6%
Unincorporated County 40,586 23,528 58.0% 17,058 42.0%
California 13,103,114 7,241,318 55.3% 5,861,796 44.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25042.

2.13 Vacancy Rate
The vacancy rate indicates the match between the demand for and supply of housing. Vacancy rates of

5.0 percent to 6.0 percent for rental housing and 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent for ownership housing are generally considered normal. A higher vacancy rate may indicate an excess supply of units, a softer market, and result in lower housing prices. A lower vacancy rate may indicate a shortage of housing and high competition for available housing, which generally leads to higher housing prices and reduced affordability. Table 2-40 provides data on vacancy status by type for the total vacant units across all county jurisdictions. Units for rent and other vacant units are the most common types of total vacant units. The unincorporated county has the most vacant units, and Woodlake and Dinuba have the highest percentage of vacant units that are available for rent.

Table 2-40 Vacancy Status by Type for Total Vacant Units Jurisdiction Total For Rent
Rented,
not
Occupied
For
Sale
Only
Sold, not
Occupied
For Seasonal,
Recreational, or
Occasional Use
For
Migrant
Workers
Other
Vacant
Tulare County 11,035 1,542 449 901 398 3,004 39 4,702
Percent 14.0% 4.1% 8.2% 3.6% 27.2% 0.4% 42.6%
Dinuba 198 91 - 35 - 11 - 61
Percent 46.0% 0.0% 17.7% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 30.8%
Exeter 325 - 101 12 28 - - 184
Percent 0.0% 31.1% 3.7% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 56.6%

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-43
Jurisdiction Total For Rent
Rented,
not
Occupied
For
Sale
Only
Sold, not
Occupied
For Seasonal,
Recreational, or
Occasional Use
For
Migrant
Workers
Other
Vacant
Farmersville 59 - - 14 - - - 45
Percent 0.0% 0.0% 23.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 76.3%
Lindsay 113 44 - - 23 - - 46
Percent 38.9% 0.0% 0.0% 20.4% 0.0% 0.0% 40.7%
Porterville 1,005 231 - 93 54 60 - 567
Percent 23.0% 0.0% 9.3% 5.4% 6.0% 0.0% 56.4%
Tulare 1,145 163 180 261 26 - - 515
Percent 14.2% 15.7% 22.8% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 45.0%
Visalia 2,272 758 65 194 65 123 - 1,067
Percent 33.4% 2.9% 8.5% 2.9% 5.4% 0.0% 47.0%
Woodlake 101 50 - 20 - - - 31
Percent 49.5% 0.0% 19.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.7%
Unincorporated
County
5,817 205 103 272 202 2,810 39 2,186
Percent 3.5% 1.8% 4.7% 3.5% 48.3% 0.0% 37.6%
California 1,107,831 227,993 54,898 77,702 53,437 378,023 3,326 312,452 Percent 20.6% 5.0% 7.0% 4.8% 34.1% 0.3% 28.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25004.

2.14 Housing Unit Size
Table 2-41 provides housing unit size data for all county jurisdictions. Three-bedroom units are the most common type across the county, followed by two-bedroom and one- bedroom units which mirrors the statewide housing unit size trend; however, there is a larger stock of three-bedroom units countywide (48.3 percent) than in the state (33.7 percent). Except for Farmersville and Lindsay, all jurisdictions in the county have a smaller percentage of housing units that are studio and one-bedroom units than the statewide average. All county jurisdictions have a smaller percentage of five-bedroom units than the statewide average. Conversely, most county jurisdictions have a higher percentage of housing units that are three- and four-bedroom units than the statewide average.

2.15 Age and Condition of Housing Stock
Housing age can be an indicator of the need for housing rehabilitation. Generally, housing older than 30 years (i.e., built before 1990), while still needing rehabilitation, will not require rehabilitation as substantial as what would be required for housing units older than 50 years old (i.e., built before 1970).

Housing units older than 50 years are more likely to require complete rehabilitation of housing systems such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical. Table 2-42 provides data on total occupied housing units by year built. More than 22,770 units were constructed in the county between 2000 and 2009, but production was reduced to 9,725 in the following decade.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-44
Table 2-41 Housing Unit Size
Jurisdiction Total Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5 of More Bedroom Tulare County 139,044 2,322 7,462 33,867 67,094 25,533 2,766 Percent 1.7% 5.4% 24.4% 48.3% 18.4% 2.0%
Dinuba 6,354 122 277 1,399 3,129 1,387 40
Percent 1.9% 4.4% 22.0% 49.2% 21.8% 0.6%
Exeter 3,295 - 177 931 1,459 668 60
Percent 0.0% 5.4% 28.3% 44.3% 20.3% 1.8%
Farmersville 2,862 138 176 483 1,410 650 5
Percent 4.8% 6.2% 16.9% 49.3% 22.7% 0.2%
Lindsay 3,866 35 540 1,265 1,378 576 72
Percent 0.9% 14.0% 32.7% 35.6% 14.9% 1.9%
Porterville 17,649 553 1,169 4,707 8,528 2,506 186
Percent 3.1% 6.6% 26.7% 48.3% 14.2% 1.1%
Tulare 18,381 271 692 3,974 9,677 3,368 399
Percent 1.5% 3.8% 21.6% 52.7% 18.3% 2.2%
Visalia 43,867 750 2,329 10,016 20,671 8,900 1,201
Percent 1.7% 5.3% 22.8% 47.1% 20.3% 2.7%
Woodlake 2,184 11 114 603 1,126 303 27
Percent 0.5% 5.2% 27.6% 51.6% 13.9% 1.2%
Unincorporated County 40,586 442 1,988 10,489 19,716 7,175 776 Percent 1.1% 4.9% 25.8% 48.6% 17.7% 1.9%
California 13,103,114 547,466 1,686,731 3,527,970 4,418,085 2,336,619 586,243 Percent 4.2% 12.8% 26.9% 33.7% 17.8% 4.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25042.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-45
Table 2-42 Total Occupied Housing Units by Year Built
Jurisdiction Total
2014 or
later
2010 to
2013
2000 to
2009
1990 to
1999
1980 to
1989
1970 to
1979
1960 to
1969
1950 to
1959
1940 to
1949
1939 or
earlier
Tulare County 139,044 5,070 4,655 22,770 20,677 20,078 25,486 13,063 12,537 7,205 7,503 Percent 3.6% 3.3% 16.4% 14.9% 14.4% 18.3% 9.4% 9.0% 5.2% 5.4% Dinuba 6,354 316 454 884 885 538 1,289 469 643 470 406
Percent 5.0% 7.1% 13.9% 13.9% 8.5% 20.3% 7.4% 10.1% 7.4% 6.4% Exeter 3,295 27 - 696 472 489 426 286 288 144 467
Percent 0.8% - 21.1% 14.3% 14.8% 12.9% 8.7% 8.7% 4.4% 14.2% Farmersville 2,862 89 97 501 377 265 745 248 354 127 59 Percent 3.1% 3.4% 17.5% 13.2% 9.3% 26.0% 8.7% 12.4% 4.4% 2.1% Lindsay 3,866 95 315 452 282 585 660 146 439 185 707
Percent 2.5% 8.1% 11.7% 7.3% 15.1% 17.1% 3.8% 11.4% 4.8% 18.3% Porterville 17,649 339 394 2,401 3,246 2,630 3,009 1,793 2,064 661 1,112 Percent 1.9% 2.2% 13.6% 18.4% 14.9% 17.0% 10.2% 11.7% 3.7% 6.3% Tulare 18,381 722 814 3,691 3,289 2,583 2,749 1,632 1,125 785 991 Percent 3.9% 4.4% 20.1% 17.9% 14.1% 15.0% 8.9% 6.1% 4.3% 5.4% Visalia 43,867 2,298 1,590 8,985 5,993 7,065 8,689 3,453 3,054 1,609 1,131 Percent 5.2% 3.6% 20.5% 13.7% 16.1% 19.8% 7.9% 7.0% 3.7% 2.6% Woodlake 2,184 143 99 467 274 246 354 213 129 163 96
Percent 6.5% 4.5% 21.4% 12.5% 11.3% 16.2% 9.8% 5.9% 7.5% 4.4% Unincorporated
County
40,586 1,041 892 4,693 5,859 5,677 7,565 4,823 4,441 3,061 2,534 Percent 2.6% 2.2% 11.6% 14.4% 14.0% 18.6% 11.9% 10.9% 7.5% 6.2% California 13,103,114 294,667 234,646 1,432,955 1,448,367 1,967,306 2,290,081 1,740,922 1,767,353 763,029 1,163,788 Percent 2.2% 1.8% 10.9% 11.1% 15.0% 17.5% 13.3% 13.5% 5.8% 8.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25036.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-46
Table 2-43 provides information on substandard housing units across all county jurisdictions. There is a higher percentage of units lacking complete kitchen facilities than units lacking complete plumbing facilities across all jurisdictions except for Farmersville and Woodlake. Porterville, Woodlake and Visalia have the largest percentage of substandard housing, while Lindsay, Tulare, and Woodlake have the lowest percentage of substandard housing units.

Table 2-43 Substandard Housing Units
Jurisdiction Total
Lacking Complete Plumbing
Facilities
Lacking Complete Kitchen
Facilities
Tulare County 139,044 481 971
Percent 0.4% 0.7%
Dinuba 6,354 15 27
Percent 0.2% 0.4%
Exeter 3,295 - 20
Percent 0.0% 0.6%
Farmersville 2,862 30 12
Percent 1.1% 0.4%
Lindsay 3,866 - -
Percent 0.0% 0.0%
Porterville 17,649 69 146
Percent 0.4% 0.8%
Tulare 18,381 17 78
Percent 0.1% 0.4%
Visalia 43,867 235 499
Percent 0.5% 1.1%
Woodlake 2,184 10 -
Percent 0.5% 0.0%
Unincorporated County 40,586 105 189
Percent 0.3% 0.5%
California 13,103,114 54,342 151,660
Percent 0.4% 1.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25049.

2.16 Housing Costs

2.16.1 Median Home Sale Price
Table 2-44 provides information on the median housing value across all county jurisdictions from 1980 to 2020. Prices rose steadily across the county from 1980 to 2000, increasing between 20 and 50 percent. From 2000 to 2010, there were large value increases between 68 and 124 percent. Increases in value have slowed since 2010, with generally five to 17 percent growth between 2010 and 2020 staying.

Median home value decreased in Porterville during this time, while Woodlake had a percent change of

41.7 percent.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-47
Table 2-44 Median Housing Value Over Time (1980 to 2020) Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Dinuba 46,400 67,200 95,700 196,400 210,100
Percent 44.8% 42.4% 105.2% 7.0%
Exeter 44,300 67,900 94,800 211,400 224,000
Percent 53.3% 39.6% 123.0% 6.0%
Farmersville 36,000 49,100 77,600 151,300 173,800
Percent 36.4% 58.0% 95.0% 14.9%
Lindsay 38,600 56,300 78,000 162,100 189,700
Percent 45.9% 38.5% 107.8% 17.0%
Porterville 52,300 70,800 92,200 183,200 182,100
Percent 35.4% 30.2% 98.7% -0.6%
Tulare 45,300 70,100 92,900 208,500 226,500
Percent 54.8% 32.5% 124.4% 8.6%
Visalia 64,000 90,100 112,200 231,900 254,600
Percent 40.8% 24.5% 106.7% 9.8%
Woodlake 35,900 57,000 81,300 136,600 193,500
Percent 58.8% 42.6% 68.0% 41.7%
Unincorporated County 48,900 73,400 96,500 211,200 223,600 Percent 50.1% 31.5% 118.9% 5.9%
Note: Data are not inflation-adjusted to current 2022 dollars.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(ORG STF1), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077.

2.17 Distribution of Owner-Occupied Units
Due to historical practices of segregation, redlining, displacement, and other discriminatory practices, accumulating wealth through homeownership has been difficult for non-white households. Table 2-45 provides data on the number of owner-occupied housing units by race across all county jurisdictions. In terms of race, households with occupants who identified as two or more races, “some other race,” and white have the highest percentage of housing unit ownership in the county, ranging from 55.7 to 82.2 percent of households. Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander and Black/African American households have the lowest rate of housing ownership in Tulare County. Asian American households in the county have a homeownership rate that is far lower than the statewide average. The homeownership rate in the county for households with occupants who identify as Hispanic/Latino (of any race) is double the statewide average.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-48
Table 2-45 Owner Occupied Units by Race
Jurisdiction White
Black/African
American
American Indian
and Alaska Native
Asian
American
Native Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific Islander
Some Other
Race
Two or More
Races
Hispanic/Latino of
any Race
Tulare County 58,375 710 784 2,682 45 10,916 5,841 38,702 Percent 73.6% 0.9% 1.0% 3.4% 0.1% 13.8% 7.4% 48.8%
Dinuba 2,281 8 45 68 4 561 408 2,665
Percent 67.6% 0.2% 1.3% 2.0% 0.1% 16.6% 12.1% 79.0%
Exeter 1,708 - 38 24 - 246 63 506
Percent 82.2% - 1.8% 1.2% - 11.8% 3.0% 24.3%
Farmersville 1,051 9 25 10 4 522 267 1,647
Percent 55.7% 0.5% 1.3% 0.5% 0.2% 27.6% 14.1% 87.2%
Lindsay 1,421 - - 21 - 255 302 1,593
Percent 71.1% - - 1.1% - 12.8% 15.1% 79.7%
Porterville 6,106 56 75 578 - 1,286 799 4,592
Percent 68.6% 0.6% 0.8% 6.5% - 14.4% 9.0% 51.6%
Tulare 7,882 190 73 255 6 1,042 1,064 5,408
Percent 75.0% 1.8% 0.7% 2.4% 0.1% 9.9% 10.1% 51.4%
Visalia 19,441 357 248 958 - 3,328 1,618 10,071
Percent 74.9% 1.4% 1.0% 3.7% - 12.8% 6.2% 38.8%
Woodlake 664 - 14 31 - 308 105 987
Percent 59.2% - 1.2% 2.8% - 27.5% 9.4% 88.0%
Unincorporated County 17,821 90 266 737 31 3,368 1,215 11,233 Percent 75.7% 0.4% 1.1% 3.1% 0.1% 14.3% 5.2% 47.7%
California 4,831,347 286,043 48,100 1,111,582 18,182 576,852 369,212 1,741,159 Percent 66.7% 4.0% 0.7% 15.4% 0.3% 8.0% 5.1% 24.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25003.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-49

2.18 Housing Rents
The U.S. Census Bureau defines contract rent as the monthly rent agreed upon regardless of any furnishings, utilities, or services that may be included. The median contract rent in the county is $833 per month (Figure 2-3). Visalia has the highest median contract rent of $965, followed by Tulare with a median of $919. Farmersville and Woodlake have the lowest median contract rent with a median of $671 and $618, respectively.

Figure 2-3 Median Contract Rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25058.

Table 2-46 below provides an overview of median rent for rental housing by number of bedrooms. The median rent data provided by Zumper shows the estimated rent for June 2022 in Tulare County. Zumper is an online tool that compiles rent price data to identify average rent prices at the local, regional, and national levels. Four-bedroom units in Woodlake have a higher median rent than in comparable cities.

One- or two-bedroom units have a higher median rent in Visalia and Tulare than other areas of the county.

Table 2-46 Median Rent by Number of Bedrooms
Jurisdiction Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Dinuba N/A $795 $1,000 $1,900 $2,200
Exeter N/A $695 $950 $1,695 $1,495
Farmersville N/A N/A N/A $850 N/A
Lindsay N/A $695 $850 $2,100 N/A
Porterville $500 $628 $950 $1,800 $2,450
City of Tulare $660 $900 $1,300 $1,795 $2,095
Visalia $1,300 $1,250 $1,300 $1,900 $2,448
Woodlake N/A $750 N/A N/A $3,447
Unincorporated County N/A $795 $1,000 $1,900 $2,200
Source: Zumper.com, Rental data for June 2022, accessed June 2023. $833 $790 $846
$671 $686
$794
$919 $965
$618
$-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
Median Contract Rent

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-50

2.19 Housing Affordability
Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in the city with housing affordability for different income levels. This information indicates the number of households likely to experience displacement, overcrowding, and overpayment.

Housing affordability levels are determined by HUD, which conducts annual nationwide household income surveys to determine household eligibility for federal housing assistance. Based on survey results, State HCD determined annual income limits for monthly housing costs, including housing payments (rent or mortgage), utilities, and taxes (if housing owner). These income limits are further broken down by household size. Table 2-47 shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without incurring a cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of income on housing costs).

Table 2-47 Housing Affordability Matrix – Tulare County (2021) Annual
Income
Limits
Affordable
Monthly
Housing Costs
Rental Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Taxes, Insurance,
Homeowners
Association Fees
Affordable
Rent
Affordable
Home Price
Extremely Low-Income (0-30% AMI)
1-Person (Studio) $17,700 $443 $181 $155 $262 $66,457
2-Person (1 BR) $20,235 $506 $202 $177 $304 $76,010
3-Person (2 BR) $22,755 $569 $227 $199 $342 $85,507
4-Person (3 BR) $25,290 $632 $263 $221 $369 $93,824
5-Person (4 BR) $32,778 $819 $298 $287 $521 $121,125
Very Low-Income (30%-50% AMI)
1-Person $29,500 $738 $181 $258 $557 $108,987
2-Person $33,725 $843 $202 $295 $641 $124,632
3-Person $37,925 $948 $227 $332 $721 $140,183
4-Person $42,150 $1,054 $263 $369 $791 $155,827
5-Person $45,525 $1,138 $298 $398 $840 $168,324
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI)
1-Person $47,200 $1,180 $181 $413 $999 $174,526
2-Person $53,960 $1,349 $202 $472 $1,147 $195,142
3-Person $60,680 $1,517 $227 $531 $1,290 $219,474
4-Person $67,440 $1,686 $263 $590 $1,423 $243,950
5-Person $72,840 $1,821 $298 $637 $1,523 $263,503
Median-Income (80%-100% AMI)
1-Person $59,000 $1,475 $181 $516 $1,294 $213,391
2-Person $67,450 $1,686 $202 $590 $1,484 $243,987
3-Person $75,850 $1,896 $227 $664 $1,669 $274,402
4-Person $84,300 $2,108 $263 $738 $1,845 $304,998
5-Person $91,050 $2,276 $298 $797 $1,978 $329,438

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-51
Annual
Income
Limits
Affordable
Monthly
Housing Costs
Rental Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Taxes, Insurance,
Homeowners
Association Fees
Affordable
Rent
Affordable
Home Price
Moderate-Income (100%-120% AMI)
1-Person $70,800 $1,770 $181 $620 $1,589 $256,116
2-Person $80,940 $2,024 $202 $708 $1,822 $292,832
3-Person $91,020 $2,276 $227 $796 $2,049 $329,330
4-Person $101,160 $2,529 $263 $885 $2,266 $366,045
5-Person $109,260 $2,732 $298 $956 $2,434 $395,374
Assumptions:

1. Income limits are the 2021 HCD limits for Tulare County.

2. Affordable housing costs are 30 percent of gross household income.

3. Utility costs are based on Tulare County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule for 2022.

4. Taxes, insurance, private mortgage insurance, and homeowners association dues are calculated at 35 percent of monthly affordable cost.

5. Affordable home price assumes a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 3 percent interest rate and 10 percent down payment.

6. Taxes and insurance costs apply to owners only.

Sources: 2022 HCD Income Limits, Tulare County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule, 2022.

Extremely Low-income Households
Extremely low-income households earn 30 percent or less of the county AMI. According to HCD estimates, extremely low-income households have an annual income of $17,700 or below for a oneperson household and $32,778 or below for a five-person household. Extremely low-income households cannot afford market-rate rental or ownership housing in Tulare County.

Very Low-income Households
Very low-income households earn between 31 and 50 percent of the county AMI – up to $29,500 for a one-person household and up to $45,525 for a five-person household in 2022. A very low-income household can generally afford homes offered at prices between $108,987 and $168,324, adjusting for household size. After deductions for utilities, a very low-income household can afford to pay approximately $557 to $840 in monthly rent, depending on household size. Given the cost of housing in Tulare County, very low-income households cannot afford to purchase a home or rent an adequately sized unit.

Low-income Households
Low-income households earn between 51 and 80 percent of the county AMI – up to $47,200 for a oneperson household and up to $72,840 for a five-person household in 2022. A low-income household can generally afford homes offered at prices between $174,526 and $263,503, adjusting for household size.

After deductions for utilities, a low-income household can afford to pay approximately $999 to $1,523 in monthly rent, depending on household size. Finding appropriately sized market-rate rental housing is challenging to households in this income group.

Median-Income Households
Median-income households earn between 80 and 100 percent of the county AMI – up to $59,000 for a one-person household and up to $91,050 for a five-person household in 2022. The affordable home price for a moderate-income household ranges from $213,391 to $329,438 depending on household size. After deductions for utilities, a one-person median-income household could afford to pay up to

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-52
$1,294 in rent per month and a five-person low-income household could afford to pay as much as $1,978. Finding appropriately sized market-rate rental housing is challenging to households in this income group.

Moderate-Income Households
Moderate-income households earn between 100 and 120 percent of the county AMI – up to $70,800 for a one-person household and up to $109,260 for a five-person household in 2022. The maximum affordable home price for a moderate-income household is $256,116 for a one-person household and $395,374 for a five-person family. Moderate-income households in Tulare County could afford to purchase the median priced home; however, finding an affordable adequately sized home can be a challenge for households earning incomes at the lower end of the moderate-income category. The maximum affordable rent payment for moderate-income households is between $1,589 and $2,434 per month. Appropriately sized market-rate rental housing is generally affordable to households in this income group.

2.19.1 Workforce Housing
Federal guidelines define workforce housing as housing that is affordable to households earning incomes within the range of 60 to 120 percent of the AMI (in Tulare County that range is $50,580 to $101,160). A broader definition of workforce housing is housing that is affordable to people who work in the county. A four-person household with an annual income of $84,300 could afford monthly rent of $1,845 for a three-bedroom housing unit and a home purchase price of $304,998 without being burdened by housing costs. The average monthly rental price for a three-bedroom unit is $1,720, just below the affordable rent for a four-person median income household in the county.

As noted in Table 2-5, the median annual salary for the largest number of workers located in the county (educational services, healthcare, and social assistance) is approximately $52,534. With this salary, single-earner households with two or more people would be considered a low-income household.

2.19.2 Cost Burden
Table 2-48 and Table 2-49 identify cost-burdened households by tenure overtime across each jurisdiction in the county. As shown, there has been a steady decrease in the number of owner-occupied cost-burdened households since 2010, except for slight increases in Lindsay and unincorporated county.

However, cost-burdened renter-occupied households have generally increased during the same time except for Farmersville and Woodlake.

Table 2-48 Cost Burdened Owner-Occupied Households Over Time Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Dinuba 211 254 546 974 611
Percent 20.4% 115.0% 78.4% -37.3%
Exeter 76 210 322 671 431
Percent 176.3% 53.3% 108.4% -35.8%
Farmersville 121 162 418 588 502
Percent 33.9% 158.0% 40.7% -14.6%
Lindsay 90 146 399 552 603
Percent 62.2% 173.3% 38.4% 9.2%

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-53
Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Porterville 416 694 1,230 2,745 1,906
Percent 66.8% 77.2% 123.2% -30.6%
Tulare 609 846 1,432 2,802 2,376
Percent 38.9% 69.3% 95.7% -15.2%
Visalia 1,169 1,947 3,249 6,587 5,398
Percent 66.6% 66.9% 102.7% -18.1%
Woodlake 61 92 179 267 204
Percent 50.8% 94.6% 49.2% -23.6%
Unincorporated County 2,130 2,553 3,926 6,076 6,221
Percent 19.9% 53.8% 54.8% 2.4%
Note: Data are not inflation-adjusted to current 2022 dollars.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980 (ORG STF1), 1990 (STF3), 2000 (SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077.

Table 2-49 Cost Burdened Renter-Occupied Households Over Time Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Dinuba 293 563 560 914 1,277
Percent 92.2% -0.5% 63.2% 39.7%
Exeter 255 313 328 475 520
Percent 22.8% 4.8% 44.8% 9.5%
Farmersville 200 314 242 636 368
Percent 57.0% -22.9% 162.8% -42.1%
Lindsay 277 326 435 666 934
Percent 17.7% 33.4% 53.1% 40.2%
Porterville 947 1,626 2,012 2,731 4,190
Percent 71.7% 23.7% 35.7% 53.4%
Tulare 1,066 1,755 1,648 3,011 3,423
Percent 64.6% -6.1% 82.7% 13.7%
Visalia 2,465 4,153 3,950 6,365 6,262
Percent 68.5% -4.9% 61.1% -1.6%
Woodlake 132 253 227 299 394
Percent 91.7% -10.3% 31.7% 31.8%
Unincorporated County 2,519 4,001 4,018 5,569 7,200
Percent 58.8% 0.4% 38.6% 29.3%
Note: Data are not inflation-adjusted to current 2022 dollars.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(ORG STF1), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077.

2.20 Assisted Housing Units
Assisted housing units are those that are restricted for use by occupants with limited household incomes. These units are assisted under federal, state, and/or local programs, including HUD programs, State and local bond programs, former redevelopment agency (RDA) programs, density bonus, or direct assistance programs.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-54
At-Risk Housing Units
The California Housing Partnership maintains an affordable housing database to monitor changes in affordable housing and to identify units or housing developments that are at risk of converting to market-rate uses. Assisted units in the preservation data base are classified by the following risk categories:
 Low Risk: affordable housing units that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.  Moderate Risk: affordable housing units that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5- 10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.  High/Very High Risk: affordable housing units that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

2.20.1 Funding Sources for Assisted Housing
HUD Section 8 Program
Under the HUD Section 8 program, The Housing Choice Voucher Program, is the federal government’s major program, administered by HATC for assisting very low-income families, the elderly and people with disabilities afford decent and safe housing. The housing choice voucher program places the choice of housing in the hands of the individual family. When the voucher holder finds a unit that it wishes to occupy and reaches an agreement with the landlord over the lease terms, the public housing authority must inspect the dwelling and determine that the rent requested is reasonable.

The public housing authority calculates the maximum amount of housing assistance allowable. The maximum housing assistance is generally the lesser of the payment standard minus 30 percent of the family's monthly adjusted income or the gross rent for the unit minus 30 percent of monthly adjusted income. The property owners are entitled to receive HUD Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for units with Section 8 contracts.

The Housing Choice Voucher Program is provided to eligible participants, on a first-come, first-served basis. When funding is not available, participants may be placed on a waiting list.

Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Created in 1986 by the Federal government, the LIHTC program offers tax incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing. The LIHTC is jointly administered by the IRS and State Housing Credit Agencies (HCA) and has funded over eight billion annual tax credit units nationwide. California’s HCA is the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).

California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA)
CalHFA uses approved private lenders and purchases loans that meet CalHFA standards to support very low-, low-, and moderate-income assisted units. CalHFA partners with jurisdictions, developers, and other organizations to provide a variety of resources including loan assistance programs for homebuyers and renters aimed at increasing housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-55
Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund
Preservation of At-Risk Units
California housing element law requires all jurisdictions to include a study of low-income housing units which may at some future time be removed from the affordable inventory by the expiration of some type of affordability restrictions. The planning period for this at-risk housing analysis extends from 2023 through 2033. Table 2-50 provides an inventory of public assisted housing in the county.

There are 6,582 affordable housing units countywide. In the next 10 years (2023-2033), 49 units are at very high or high risk of being converted to market rate and 284 units are at moderate risk of being converted to market rate.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-56
Table 2-50 Inventory of Public Assisted Complexes
Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units Active Program(s)
Estimated
Affordability
End Year/Date Risk Level
College Park Apartments 1850 South College Avenue Dinuba 93618 53 54 LIHTC 2052 Low Greene Street Townhomes 1600 S. Green Avenue Dinuba 93618 28 36 LIHTC 2055 Low North Park Apartments 1655 North Crawford
Avenue
Dinuba 93618 79 80 LIHTC, HCD 2058 Low
Parkside Village Apartments 1151 N. Villa Avenue Dinuba 93618 75 76 LIHTC; HUD; USDA 2059 Low North Park Apartments II 1435 North Crawford
Avenue
Dinuba 93618 80 81 LIHTC, HCD 2062 Low
Euclid Village 600 N. Euclid Avenue Dinuba 93618 56 57 LIHTC; USDA 2064 Low Dinuba Senior Apartments 350 N. M Street Dinuba 93618 61 62 LIHTC; HCD 2067 Low Viscaya Gardens 1000 Rosemary Avenue Dinuba 93618 47 48 LIHTC; HCD 2067 Low El Monte West Apartments 999 West El Monte Way Dinuba 93618 39 40 LIHTC; USDA 2069 Low Grace & Laughter Apartments 1051 N. Eaton Avenue Dinuba 93618 39 40 LIHTC; HUD 2072 Low Sierra Village II 1375 N Crawford Ave Dinuba 93618 63 64 LIHTC 2075 Low Garden Estates 1400 South Green Dinuba 93618 43 44 LIHTC; USDA 2076 Low West Northway Apartments 245 W. Northway Dinuba 93618 38 38 USDA 2035** Moderate Dinuba Manor 1333 South Greene Avenue Dinuba 93221 24 24 LIHTC; HCD 2047 Low Dinuba Village 1375 N. Crawford Avenue Dinuba 93618 43 44 LIHTC; HCD 2074 Low Jacob's Square 301 Jacobs Place Exeter 93221 18 45 LIHTC; HCD 2049 Low Belmont Family Apartments 1110 West Palm Ave Exeter 93221 24 25 LIHTC 2069 Low Exeter Elderly 501 N. B Street Exeter 93221 24 24 USDA 2007* High Exeter Senior Villa 655 Vine Street Exeter 93221 44 44 USDA 2008* High Exeter Apartments 855 West Visalia Road Exeter 93221 58 58 USDA 2038 Low Shasta Villa Apartments 232 North Shasta Street Farmersville 93223 19 20 LIHTC 2024 Very High Park Creek Village 398 West Walnut Avenue Farmersville 93223 47 48 LIHTC; HCD 2058 Low Gateway Village 200 N. Stevens Avenue Farmersville 93223 47 48 LIHTC; USDA 2063 Low

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-57
Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units Active Program(s)
Estimated
Affordability
End Year/Date Risk Level
Gateway Village II 200 N. Steven Avenue Farmersville 93223 16 16 LIHTC 2063 Low Village Grove Apartments 675 South Farmersville
Blvd.

Farmersville 93223 47 48 LIHTC; USDA 2064 Low
Palomar Court 823 Farmersville Blvd. Farmersville 93223 39 40 LIHTC, HCD, Local 2065 Low Los Arroyos II Southeast Corner of
Walnut Avenue and
Farmersville Boulevard
Farmersville, CA 93223
Farmersville 93223 53 54 LIHTC 2075 Low
Los Arroyos I Walnut Avenue and
Farmersville Boulevard,
Farmersville CA, 93223
Farmersville 93223 53 54 LIHTC 2076 Low
Lindsay Family Apartments 151 North Westwood
Avenue
Lindsay 93247 60 61 LIHTC 2059 Low
Harvard Court Apartment
Homes
328 S. Harvard Ave. Lindsay 93247 80 81 LIHTC 2062 Low
Liberty Family Apartments 548 East Honolulu Street Lindsay 93247 42 43 LIHTC 2062 Low Harvard Court Apartment
Homes Phase II
328 S. Harvard Avenue Lindsay 93247 40 40 LIHTC 2062 Low Lindsay Apartments 115 S. Locke Street Lindsay 93247 59 60 LIHTC; USDA 2065 Low Lindsay Senior Apartments 187 N. Westwood Ave. Lindsay 93247 72 73 LIHTC; USDA; HCD 2065 Low Sequoia Villas 780 Sequoia Avenue Lindsay 93247 18 18 LIHTC 2066 Low Delta Vista Manor 701 North Ash Avenue Lindsay 93247 39 40 LIHTC; USDA 2070 Low Lindsay Senior Villa 1127 W. Fresno Street Lindsay 93247 41 42 LIHTC; USDA 2075 Low Monte Vista Manor 901 W. Tulare Road Lindsay 93247 43 44 LIHTC; USDA 2075 Low Palm Terrace II 200 N Westwood Ave Lindsay 93618 53 54 LIHTC 2075 Low Mt. Whitney Plaza 181 East Honolulu Street Lindsay 93618 29 29 LIHTC; HCD 2051 Low Lindsay Village 700 Hermosa Street Lindsay 93618 49 50 LIHTC; HCD 2074 Low

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-58
Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units Active Program(s)
Estimated
Affordability
End Year/Date Risk Level
Poplar Grove 18959 Road 190 Poplar 93618 49 50 LIHTC; USDA 2057 Low Porterville Garden
Apartments
1585 W. Putnam Avenue Porterville 93257 63 63 USDA 2040 Low Mountain View 870 N. Plano St Porterville 93257 59 60 LIHTC 2049 Low Porterville Family Apartments 93 East Date Avenue Porterville 93257 77 78 LIHTC 2057 Low Park View Village 550 West Springville
Avenue
Porterville 93257 80 81 LIHTC 2058 Low
Sequoia Village at River's
Edge
424 South E. Street Porterville 93257 63 64 LIHTC, HCD 2061 Low Alder Apartments 45 N. Salisbury St Porterville 93257 244 250 LIHTC; HUD; USDA 2062 Low Villa Robles Apartments 450 W. Springville Drive Porterville 93257 99 100 LIHTC 2067 Low Newcomb Court Apartments 707 N. Newcomb St Porterville 93257 79 80 LIHTC 2068 Low Nupchi Xo'oy (Mulberry
Project)
648 W. Mulberry Ave Porterville 93257 39 40 LIHTC 2073 Low Carolita Apartments 1055 Pioneer Avenue Porterville 93257 67 68 LIHTC 2075 Low Finca Serena 358 South E Street Porterville 93257 78 80 LIHTC 2075 Low La Serena Apartments 290 N. 4th St Porterville 93257 65 65 HUD 2024 Low Santa Fe Plaza 250 N. 3rd St. Porterville 93257 105 105 HUD 2028* Moderate St. James Place Apartments 256 North Main Street Porterville 93257 14 14 HCD 2030* Moderate Villa Siena Apartments 200 North E Street Porterville 93257 69 70 LIHTC; USDA; HCD 2066 Low Tulare Gardens 498 S. Blackstone St Tulare 93274 64 64 USDA 2040 Low Cypress Cove 1501 East Cypress Avenue Tulare 93274 52 52 LIHTC 2047 Low Country Manor 955 North A Street Tulare 93274 39 40 LIHTC 2052 Low Cambridge Court Apartments 400 South Blackstone
Street
Tulare 93274 60 61 LIHTC 2052 Low
Valley Oaks Apartment
Homes
351 N. West Street Tulare 93274 80 81 LIHTC 2062 Low

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-59
Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units Active Program(s)
Estimated
Affordability
End Year/Date Risk Level
West Trail Apartments 1350 W. San Joaquin Ave Tulare 93274 48 49 LIHTC; USDA, HCD 2065 Low Valley Oaks Apartments
Phase II
351 N. West Street Tulare 93274 70 72 LIHTC 2065 Low
Tule Vista 510 W. Elm Ave. Tulare 93274 56 57 LIHTC 2065 Low The Aspens 1500 Aspen Avenue Tulare 93274 46 47 LIHTC 2067 Low Westside Palm Apartments 900 W. Pleasant Avenue Tulare 93247 39 40 LIHTC; USDA 2070 Low Parkwood Manor 414 W. Meadow Drive Tulare 93247 74 75 LIHTC 2071 Low Mission Court Apartments 1150 South Morrison St Tulare 93247 64 65 LIHTC 2072 Low Santa Fe Commons I 537 N West St Tulare 93247 80 81 LIHTC 2075 Low Santa Fe Commons II 537 N. West St Tulare 93247 56 57 LIHTC 2076 Low Madson Gardens 26442 N. Highway 99 Tulare 93247 57 57 HCD 2077 Low Bardsley Gardens 1150 So. Laspina St Tulare 93247 49 49 USDA 2031 Moderate Salvation Army Tulare
Silvercrest
350 N. L St Tulare 93247 59 60 HUD 2046 Low
Sonora Apartments 210 S. Sacramento Street Tulare 93247 52 52 USDA; HCD 2066 Low Westwood Manor 211 South Ash Street Unincorporated
Tulare County
93219 40 40 USDA 2032 Moderate
Earlimart Senior Apartments 1094 East Washington
Avenue
Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 35 35 LIHTC; USDA 2041 Low
Pixley Apts. 735 East Terra Bella
Avenue
Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 40 40 USDA 2042 Low
Nueva Sierra Vista
Apartments
20939 Guerrero Ave Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 34 35 LIHTC; HCD 2049 Low
Villa De Guadalupe 12554 Avenue 408 Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 59 60 LIHTC; HCD 2055 Low
Goshen Village 30490 Road 72 Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 63 64 LIHTC; HCD 2057 Low

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-60
Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units Active Program(s)
Estimated
Affordability
End Year/Date Risk Level
Rosewood Villas Apartment
Homes
40606 Road 128 Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 60 61 LIHTC 2059 Low
Sand Creek 41020 Road 124 Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 59 60 LIHTC; USDA; HCD 2060 Low
Mirage Vista Family
Apartments
875 E. Terra Bella Avenue Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 54 55 LIHTC 2063 Low
Tulare Portfolio (Site A) 41730 Road 128 Unincorporated Tulare County
93618 156 160 LIHTC; USDA 2065 Low
Goshen Village II 31114 Road 72 Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 55 56 LIHTC; HCD 2065 Low
Sequoia Commons II
(Formerly Goshen Village
East)
31161 Florence Avenue Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 59 60 LIHTC 2074 Low
Oakwood Apartments 15753 Avenue 327 Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 42 42 USDA 2036 Low
Strathmore Villa Apartments 19734 Road 231 Unincorporated Tulare County
93618 42 42 LIHTC; USDA 2038 Low
Tipton Terrace c/o CBM 584 N. Thompson Rd Unincorporated Tulare County
93221 34 34 USDA 2040 Low
Sultana Acres 41692 Road 105 Unincorporated
Tulare County
93618 29 36 LIHTC; HCD 2043 Low
Vera Cruz Village c/o Awi
Management
639 Road 210 Unincorporated
Tulare County
93221 49 49 USDA 2045 Low
Oakwood II Apartments 15756 Paradise Avenue Unincorporated Tulare County
93221 54 54 HCD 2047 Low
Washington Plaza 170 North Church Road Unincorporated
Tulare County
93221 43 44 LIHTC; USDA; HCD 2060 Low
Ivanhoe Family Apartments 15999 Avenue 327 Unincorporated Tulare County
93221 71 72 LIHTC; HCD 2068 Low

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-61
Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units Active Program(s)
Estimated
Affordability
End Year/Date Risk Level
Sequoia Commons 31161 Florence St Unincorporated
Tulare County
93221 65 66 LIHTC; HCD 2073 Low
Visalia Garden Villas 4901 West Crenshaw Drive Visalia 93223 60 60 Local 2042 Low Fairview Village 2700 N. Willis St. Visalia 93223 8 8 LIHTC; HCD 2048 Low Willowbrook I (Site A) 1819 Tipton Street Visalia 93223 10 10 LIHTC 2050 Low Kimball Court 303 W. Kimball Avenue Visalia 93223 94 95 LIHTC 2054 Low Court and Paradise
Apartments (Site A)
1526 S. Court St. Visalia 93223 20 20 LIHTC 2065 Low
Visalia Village 2423 N. Highland Street Visalia 93223 35 36 LIHTC 2069 Low Town Meadows 115 W. Murray Avenue Visalia 93223 99 100 LIHTC; HUD 2072 Low The Sequoia 1400 S. Mooney Blvd Visalia 93223 45 50 HCD 2075 Low Lofts at Fort Visalia 300 E Oak Ave Visalia 93247 79 80 LIHTC 2075 Low Myrtle Avenue Senior
Apartments
4316 West Myrtle Avenue Visalia 93247 65 66 LIHTC 2075 Low East Tulare MHSA 653 East Tulare Avenue Visalia 93247 22 22 CalHFA 2040 Low Visalia Senior Housing II 111 W. School Ave Visalia 93247 59 60 HUD 2042 Low Tulare Farm Labor
(Sonora Apts.)
1436 N. Mariposa Avenue Visalia 93247 393 393 USDA; HCD 2045 Low Sierra Meadows 1120 East Tulare Avenue Visalia 93247 42 43 HUD 2051 Low Westport Village 3123 S Avocado St Visalia 93277 25 25 Local 2029 Low The Meadows 3900 W Tulare Ave Visalia 93277 99 99 Local 2054 Low Valencia House 248 Valencia Blvd. Woodlake 46 47 LIHTC 2037 Low Castle Rock Estates c/o
Buckingham Property
Management
455 E. Wutchumna Avenue Woodlake 93286247 40 40 USDA 2046 Low Parkside Court 351 Danielle Way Woodlake 23 24 LIHTC, HCD 2061 Low Woodlake Manor Apartments 200 E. Sierra Avenue Woodlake 93286247 43 44 LIHTC; USDA 2062 Low

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-62
Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units Active Program(s)
Estimated
Affordability
End Year/Date Risk Level
Woodlake Family Apartments 702 W. Sierra Avenue Woodlake 67 68 LIHTC 2062 Low Bravo Village 444 Ropes Avenue Woodlake 93286618 59 60 LIHTC; USDA, HCD 2067 Low Woodlake Terrace 448 Ropes Avenue Woodlake 30 31 LIHTC; CalHFA 2073 Low Woodlake Garden
Apartments
705 West Sequoia Avenue Woodlake 93286618 48 48 USDA 2042 Low Walsburg Apartments 495 Whitney Avenue Woodlake 93286 11 11 HCD 2047 Low Note: All locally assisted or restricted developments may not be included in this list. *Indicates units that are expected to extend their affordability period based on discussion with property owner. **California Housing Partnership records indicate that the affordability end year is 2039. However, the USDA verified that the affordability covenant of the USDA loan for this complex expires in 2035.

Source: California Housing Partnership, 2023.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-63
Acquisition/Rehabilitation
If these units are 100 percent deed restricted affordable housing with an expiring regulatory agreement, transferring ownership of an at-risk project to a non-profit housing provider is one of the least costly ways to ensure that the at-risk units remain affordable for the long term. By transferring property ownership to a non-profit organization, low-income restrictions can be secured, and the project would become potentially eligible for a greater range of governmental subsidies.

Under AB 1521, there are now prescribed steps for owners of deed restricted properties to take prior to the expiration of those affordability requirements. This law requires that the owner consider an offer to purchase the deed-restricted units. A cursory survey of older apartment buildings sold in the cities that are included in this Housing Element was conducted in November 2024, which indicates a price range of $63,545 to $230,835 per unit with an average sales price of $131,229 per unit.12 At this sales price, the cost for the 87 at-risk units would be approximately $11.4 million.

The feasibility of this option depends on funding sources to buy and potentially rehabilitate the properties. Another option to preserve the affordability of this at-risk project is to support a Joint Power Authorities purchase of the property. If this option is exercised, it would require deed restrictions for 100 percent of the residential units but also allows for bond financing that would allow the owner to maintain the project as affordable housing.

There are several organizations that are listed in the HCD Qualified Entities in accordance with Government Code Section 65863.11. Two entities, ROEM Development Corporation and Self-Help Enterprises, are listed as qualified agencies with the potential to assist or lead efforts to preserve affordable housing in Tulare County. HCD also maintains a list of qualified entities for all counties.13 The following qualified entities could also assist or lead efforts to preserve affordable housing:

A. F. Evans Development, Inc. Green Development Company Affirmed Housing Hampstead Development Group, Inc.

Affordable Housing Access Inc Highland Property Development, LLC Ai Development Corporation Horizon ELOM Holdings, LLC
Alliant Strategic JEMCOR Development Partners
Allied Pacific Development, LLC Jonathon Rose Companies American Baptist Homes of the West KDF Communities, LLC American Community Developers, Inc. Linc Housing Corporation AOF/Pacific Lincoln Avenue Capitol, LLC
April Housing, LLC Maximus Properties, LLC
Avanath Capital Management, LLC MBK Management Corporation Bank of America, N.A. Mercy Housing California
Bayside Communities Mercy Housing, Inc.
12 Homes.com. 2024. https://www.homes.com/tulare-county-ca/multi-family-homes-for-sale/ 13 HCD. 2023. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/preserving-existing-affordable-housing

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-64
Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC Mesa Realty Advisors Berkadia National Affordable Housing Trust
BRIDGE Housing Corporation National Community Renaissance BUILD Leadership Development, Inc. Newport Development, LLC Cabouchon Properties, LLC Novin Development Corp. "NDC" Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation Petaluma Ecumenical Properties Inc.

California Coalition for Rural Housing Phoenix Realty Group California Commercial Investment Group Post Real Estate Group, Inc.

California Community Reinvestment Corp. Preservation Partners Development California Housing Finance Agency RAHD Group, LLC
California Housing Partnership Corporation Reiner Communities LLC California Human Development Corporation Reliant Group Management Catalyst Housing Group, LLC Renaissance Housing Communities Chelsea Investment Corporation Resources for Community Development Colrich Multifamily Investments, LLC Richman Group of California, LLC.

Community Housing Assistance Program, Inc. Security Properties Community HousingWorks Sinergia Housing
Community HousingWorks Skyline Real Estate Development & Acquisitions, Inc.

Corporation for Better Housing Solari Enterprises, Inc.

Creative Housing Coalition Squier Properties, LLC
Dawson Holdings, Inc. Standard Property Company, INC. (DBA Standard Communities)
DBR Development LLC The John Stewert Company
Department of Housing and Community
Development
The Michaels Development Company I, L.P.

DeSola Capital Group, LLC The Trinity Housing Foundation DML & Associates Foundation Thomas Safran & Associates Development, Inc.

Domus Development, LLC University River Village
EAH, Inc. USA Properties Fund
East Los Angeles Community Corporation USA Properties Fund Eden Housing, Inc. Valued Housing II, LLC
Fairfied Residential LLC Veritas Urban Properties LLC
Fallbrook Capital Corporation Wakeland Housing & Development Corporation

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2023-2031 Housing Element 2-65
Foothill Affordable Housing Foundation West Bay Housing Corporation Foundation for Affordable Housing, Inc. William G. Ayyad, Inc.

GAL Affordable LP WIP-A, LLC
Goldrich & Kest Industries, LLC WNC Community Preservation Partners, LLC Construction of Replacement Units
The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, size of the units (i.e., square footage and number of bedrooms), location, land costs, and type of construction, as discussed in the Non-Governmental Constraints section of Chapter 3: Regional Housing Constraints Analysis. The typical cost of construction for below market-rate housing in Tulare County in 2022 was $337,540 per unit. Based on this per unit cost, the total cost to replace the 87 high-risk affordable units with new construction would be approximately $29.4 million. The cost of preserving the affordability of the units with subsidies depends on the location of the units, and that analysis is included in each city-specific appendix. Housing elements should identify the cost of construction of new regulated housing intended to replace at-risk units when they are converted to market-rate units to understand the significant effects that result when at risk- units are lost from the supply of affordable housing.

Rental Subsidies
HATC provides rental assistance to very low- and moderate-income families, seniors and people with disabilities throughout the county. HATC offers many different programs, including the conventional public housing program, the housing choice voucher program, the farm labor program for families with farm labor income, senior housing programs, and other housing programs. All programs are handicap accessible. Reasonable accommodation may be requested from HATC staff and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
2-66
This page intentionally left blank.

Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element 3-1
Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
Actual or potential constraints to the provision of housing affect the development of new housing and the maintenance of existing units for all income levels. State housing element law requires cities and counties to review both governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance and production of housing for all income levels. Since local governmental actions can restrict the development and increase the cost of housing, State law requires the housing element to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing” (Government Code Section 65583(c)(3)). The housing element must also analyze potential and actual constraints upon the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities.

Non-governmental constraints are not specific to each community and are described in this section at the regional level. Governmental constraints, which are specific to each local government, are described generally in this section. City-specific assessments of housing constraints for the cities participating in this regional Housing Element, including an in-depth analysis of governmental constraints, are provided in Appendices A through G.

3.1 Non-Governmental Constraints
The availability and cost of housing is strongly influenced by market forces over which local governments have little or no control. Nonetheless, state law requires that the housing element contain a general assessment of these constraints, which can serve as the basis for actions to offset their effects.

The primary non-governmental constraints to the development of new housing are land costs, construction costs, and availability of financing. This section also addresses environmental constraints that might affect housing development.

3.1.1 Land Costs
The cost of land can be a major impediment to 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. For example, land prices in Visalia have an average sale price of $86,000 per acre, nearly four times higher than the county average of $22,799. Sites in major cities tend to be smaller and/or occupied by existing uses that generate revenue for property owners. As shown in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, smaller sites (under 10 acres) in the region have a much higher cost-per-acre in both the cities and unincorporated area.

As shown in Table 3-1, listed land prices in the unincorporated county are lower than in incorporated cities. In the unincorporated county, 16 properties were listed for sale. Listings ranged from one acre priced at $43,000 to 14,672 acres priced at $14,525,933 ($990 per acre). The average list price per acre in the unincorporated area was $32,356.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
3-2
Table 3-1 Listed Land Prices – Tulare County
Lot Size
Average Price per Acre (Listed)
Incorporated Unincorporated
Less than 10 acres $242,383 $53,453
10 or more acres $37,368 $11,259
Average $/acre $139,876 $32,356
Source: Zillow, Inc., February 2023.

In contrast to listed land prices, based on aggregate property sales data from 2022, land sold for less in the incorporated cities than in unincorporated county. Table 3-2 considers land sale prices across the eight major cities and in the unincorporated county. Property sales ranged from 0.1 acres for $215,000 ($2,150,000 per acre) to 126.3 acres for $1,250,000 ($9,897 per acre). The average sale price per acre was $146,449 in incorporated cities and $209,732 in the unincorporated county.

Table 3-2 Sold Land Prices – Tulare County
Lot Size
Average Price per Acre (Sold)
Incorporated Unincorporated
Less than 10 acres $242,383 $400,959
10 or more acres $50,515 $18,505
Average $/acre $146,449 $209,732
Source: AcreValue, 2023.

Most incorporated cities in Tulare County have a higher price per acre for listed land for sale than for recently sold land, indicating that land prices have increased (Table 3-3). The cities of Lindsay, Farmersville, Porterville, and Exeter have the highest average price per acre for listed land, while Woodlake and the unincorporated county have the lowest.

Table 3-3 Listed and Sold Land Prices
Jurisdiction Average Price per Acre (Listed) Average Price per Acre (Sold) Dinuba $152,631.21 $154,520.41
Exeter $222,479.67 $140,933.85
Farmersville $360,611.90 $133,237.38
Lindsay $360,611.90 $133,237.38
Porterville $222,535.45 $63,810.51
Tulare $170,643.08 $148,449.58
Woodlake $80,168.92 $42,178.51
Incorporated Tulare County $139,876.00 $146,449.00
Unincorporated Tulare County $53,453.00 $209,732.00
Source: Zillow, Inc., 2023. AcreValue, 2023.

Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element 3-3

3.1.2 Construction Costs
Construction costs can be divided 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.

The cost of labor in Tulare County is comparatively low compared to other areas in California due to the relatively lower cost of living. Labor for government-subsidized housing construction is generally more costly than market-rate housing construction in the Central Valley, as wages are rooted in the required State Labor Standards based on prevailing wages in Northern and Southern California.

Table 3-4 shows the estimated cost of constructing a basic 2,000 square foot single-family home in Tulare County to be approximately $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 3-4 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 related to materials and labor except by avoiding local amendments to uniform building codes that unnecessarily increase construction costs.

3.1.3 Availability of Financing
Financing for affordable housing projects and programs are available through federal, state, and local funding sources. Funding through these programs can help developers, local governments, and nonprofit organizations offset the cost to build new affordable housing units, preserve or rehabilitate existing affordable housing, and fund programs that offer homebuyer assistance to low-income households.

Mortgage interest rates have a large influence on 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 a lower cost and lower monthly payments for the homebuyer. As shown in Figure 3-1, in the past 10 years mortgage rates across the United States remained relatively steady (between 3.5 and 4.8 percent through 2019, then dropped below three percent between 2020 and 2021). During 2022, mortgage rates increased significantly, reaching a high of 7.1 percent for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at the end of 2022. In early 2023, mortgage rates declined slightly but remain high compared to trends over the past 10 years, making it difficult for households to purchase a home.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
3-4
When interest rates rise, housing prices tend to decrease due to the increased cost of financing and decreased demand. Similarly, when interest rates decrease, housing prices typically begin to rise and demand increases. There is often a lag in the market, causing housing prices to remain high when interest rates rise until the market adjusts. Lower-income households often find it difficult to purchase a home during this period.

Figure 3-1 Historical Mortgage Rates in the United States (2013-2023) Source: Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey
Interest rates are determined by national policies and economic conditions and there is little that a local government can do to affect these rates. To extend home buying opportunities to lower-income households, jurisdictions can offer interest rate write-downs. Additionally, government insured loan programs may be available to reduce mortgage down payment requirements.

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

3.1.4 Mortgage and Rehabilitation Financing
The most recent data available for the County of Tulare (2022) shows that 18,154 households applied for a home financing loan, which includes loans for home purchase, home improvement and refinancing.

Table 3-5 shows that of the total applications received for home purchase, 54.1 percent of the loans originated, and 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. Table 3-6 shows that 49 percent of the conventional loans originated, and 17.6 percent of the applications were denied. The table also shows that 43.4 percent of the government backed loans originated and 9.9 percent of the applications were denied.

Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element 3-5
County data in Table 3-7 shows that by race, residents who reported as white had the highest number of loans originated. Residents who reported as white also had the highest percentage of loans originated.

By ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino residents comprised 38 percent of the total applications of loans received while non-Hispanic/Latino comprised 29 percent. As shown in Table 3-8, residents who reported as not Hispanic/Latino had a higher rate of loan origination and lower rate of loan denial compared to residents who reported as Hispanic/Latino. Of Hispanic/Latino residents who applied for loans, 53.3 percent of loans originated, and 18.1 percent were denied. Comparatively, of the non-Hispanic/Latino residents that applied, 56.2 percent of loans originated, and 15.5 percent were denied.

Table 3-5 Race and Loan Action
Loan Action
Home Purchase
(% of total)
Home
Improvement
(% of Total)
Refinancing
(% of Total)
Other
(% of Total)
Total
(% of Total)
Loan Originated 4,453 (54.1%) 470 (39.2%) 988 (42.7%) 2,690 (42%) 8,601 (47.4%) Application Approved
but not Accepted
141 (1.7%) 64 (5.3%) 83 (3.6%) 151 (2.7%) 439 (2.4%)
Application Denied 482 (5.9%) 492 (41.1%) 430 (18.6%) 1,375 (21.5%) 2,779 (15.3%) Application Withdrawn 1,241 (15.1%) 96 (8%) 442 (19.1%) 1,104 (17.2%) 2,883 (15.9%) Purchased Loan 1,777 (21.8%) 19 (1.6%) 133 (5.7%) 535 (8.4%) 2,464 (13.6%) Other 144 (1.8%) 57 (4.8%) 240 (10.4%) 547 (8.5%) 988 (5.4%) Total Loans 8,238 1,198 2,316 6,402 18,154
Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. 2022 Dataset Table 3-6 Loan Action and Loan Type
Loan Type Conventional Loan Government Backed Loan
Loan Originated 6,300 (49%) 2,301 (43.4%)
Application Approved but not Accepted 324 (2.5%) 115 (2.2%) Application Denied 2,255 (17.6%) 524 (9.9%)
Application Withdrawn 1,967 (15.3%) 916 (17.3%)
Other 2,003 (15.6%) 1,449 (27.3%)
Total Loans 12,849 5,305
Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. 2022 Dataset Table 3-7 Race and Loan Action
Racial Group
Loan
Originated
Application
Approved but
Not Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
Purchased
Loan Other Total
Two or More Races 11
(52.4%)
0 6
(28.6%)
2 1 1 21
American Indian or
Alaska Native
90 (44.3%)
9 48
(23.6%)
39 1 16 203
Asian American 348
(49.9%)
21 134
(19.2%)
127 24 44 698
Black/African
American
20 (50.4%)
4 49
(20.6%)
54 3 8 238

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
3-6
Racial Group
Loan
Originated
Application
Approved but
Not Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
Purchased
Loan Other Total
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
13 (39.4%)
0 6
(18.2%)
6 0 8 33
White 5,463
(56.0%)
268 1,457
(14.9%)
1,747 306 522 9,763
Other 2,556
(35.5%)
137 1,079
(15%)
908 2,129 389 7,198
Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. 2022 Dataset Table 3-8 Ethnicity and Loan Action
Ethnicity
Loan
Originated
Application
Approved but
Not Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
Purchased
Loan Other Total
Hispanic/Latino 3,681
(53.3%)
172 1,249
(18.1%)
1,223 182 405 6,912
Not Hispanic/Latino 2,952
(56.2%)
18 816
(15.5%)
994 165 308 5,253
Joint Hispanic/Latino
and not
Hispanic/Latino
373
(57.6%)
18 97
(15.0%)
102 22 36 648
Ethnicity not Available 1,595
(30.6%)
97 617
(11.8%)
564 2,095 239 5,207
Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. 2022 Dataset

3.2 Governmental Constraints
City policies and regulations can impact the feasibility and cost of housing development. Policies and regulatory actions include land use controls, development standards, site improvement requirements, building codes, and development fees. The following section describes these governmental constraints.

3.2.1 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. Land use controls include the density of development that will occur within a particular zone, the compatibility of planned uses in each area, and the range and type of buildings and uses that will be located throughout the city or the county. In appendices A though G, Chapters A3 through G3, the Housing Constraints Analysis for individual jurisdictions, provides a description of each jurisdiction’s land use controls.

General Plan
Each city and county in California must prepare a comprehensive, long-term general plan to guide growth and development. The land use element of the general plan must contain land use designations, which establish the basic allowed land uses and density of development for the different ranges and areas within the jurisdiction. Under state law, zoning districts must be consistent with the general plan

Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element 3-7
land use designations. The general plan land uses must provide suitable locations and densities to accommodate each jurisdiction’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) and implement the policies of the housing element.

Zoning Code
Land use controls provided in the zoning code influence housing production in several ways. The permitted and conditionally permitted uses in each district guide new development. Land use controls establish the allowable density of development that will occur on a particular site, the compatibility of planned uses in a given area, and the range and type of buildings and uses in a jurisdiction.

Local governments regulate the type, location, and scale of residential development primarily through the zoning code. The zoning code implements the general plan by establishing development standards for each zoning district consistent with the land use designations of the general plan.

3.2.2 Residential Development Standards
Each jurisdiction’s zoning code contains development standards for each zoning district. These standards vary by jurisdiction, but typically include density, parking requirements, lot coverage, height limits, lot size requirements, setbacks, and open space requirements. The Housing Element must analyze whether development standards impede the ability to achieve maximum allowable densities.

Parking
Parking requirements do not constrain the development of housing directly. However, parking requirements may reduce the amount of available lot areas for residential development. Most of the participating jurisdictions require two parking spaces per single-family dwelling unit. Several, but not all jurisdictions have reduced parking standards for multifamily and senior housing.

Open Space and Park Requirements
Open space and park space requirements can decrease the affordability of housing by increasing developer fees and/or decreasing the amount of land available on a proposed site for constructing units.

Most jurisdictions require that park space is set aside in new subdivisions or a fee in lieu of providing park space. If such requirements are too onerous or expensive to implement, they can constrain a developer’s ability to develop housing.

Density Bonus
A density bonus allows a parcel to accommodate additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. California density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915) establishes the following minimum affordability requirements to qualify for a density bonus:
 The project is eligible for a 20 percent density bonus if at least five percent of the units are affordable to very low-income households, or 10 percent of the units are affordable to low-income households; and
 The project is eligible to receive a five percent density bonus if 10 percent of for-purchase units are affordable to moderate-income households.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
3-8
A project can receive additional density based on a sliding scale. A developer can receive the maximum density bonus of 50 percent when the project provides either 15 percent very low-income units, 24 percent low-income units, or 44 percent moderate-income units.

Density bonus law also requires cities and counties to grant a certain number of incentives depending on the percentage of affordable units developed. Incentives include reductions in zoning standards, reductions in development standards, reductions in design requirements, and other reductions in costs for developers. Projects that satisfy the minimum affordable criteria for a density bonus are entitled to one incentive from the local government. Depending on the amount of affordable housing provided, the number of incentives can increase to a maximum of three incentives from the local government. If a project uses less than 50 percent of the permitted density bonus, the local government must provide an additional incentive.

Additionally, density bonus law provides density bonuses to projects that donate land for residential use. The donated land must satisfy all the following requirements:
 The land must have general plan designations and zoning districts that allow for the construction of very low-income affordable units as a minimum of 10 percent of the units in the residential development;
 The land must be a minimum of one acre in size or large enough to allow development of at least 40 units; and
 The land must be served by public facilities and infrastructure.

Density bonus law also imposes statewide parking standards that a jurisdiction must grant upon request from a developer of an affordable housing project that qualifies for a density bonus. These parking standards are summarized in Table 3-9. These numbers are the total number of parking spaces including guest parking and handicapped parking. The developer may request these parking standards even if they do not request the density bonus.

Table 3-9 Statewide Density Bonus Parking Standards
Number of Bedrooms Required On-Street Parking
0 to 1 bedroom 1 space
2 to 3 bedrooms 1.5 spaces
4 or more bedrooms 2.5 spaces
Source: Government Code Section 65915
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 and/or 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 lowerincome households, conforms to specified requirements and provides 15 percent of the total units to very low-income households, or conforms to specified requirements and provides 44 percent of the total units to moderate-income units.

State 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

Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element 3-9
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.

Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
State Housing Element law (Government Code Section 65583(c)(1) and 65583.2(c)) requires that local governments analyze the availability of sites that will facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, manufactured housing, mobile homes, housing for farmworkers and employees, emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (SRO) units, group homes and residential care facilities, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Manufactured Housing
Manufactured housing can serve as an alternative form of affordable housing in low-density areas where the development of higher-density multifamily residential units is not allowed or not feasible because of infrastructure constraints. California Government Code Sections 65852.3 and 65852.4 specify that a jurisdiction must allow manufactured homes on a foundation on all “lots zoned for conventional single family residential dwellings.” Permanently sited manufactured homes built to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code are subject to the same rules as site-built homes, except architectural requirements concerning the manufactured home’s roof overhang, roofing materials, and siding materials.

There are two conditions where local jurisdictions are allowed to make to the manufactured home siting provisions: 1) there is more than 10 years difference between the date of manufacture of the manufactured home and the date of the application for the issuance of an installation permit; or 2) if the site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and regulated by a legislative body pursuant to Government Code Section 37361.

Each city-specific analysis provides descriptions of the allowances and restrictions on manufactured homes in each jurisdiction and whether the zoning codes in the jurisdictions comply with State law requirements for manufactured homes.

Accessory Dwelling Units
An ADU is an additional self-contained living unit either attached to or detached from the primary residential unit on a single lot. An ADU must have cooking, eating, sleeping, and full sanitation facilities.

ADUs can be an important source of affordable housing since they can be constructed relatively inexpensively and have no associated land costs. They can also provide supplemental income to the homeowner, which may support moderate- and lower-income homeowners.

To encourage ADUs, state law requires cities and counties to adopt an ordinance authorizing ADUs to be allowed ministerially (by-right) in any zoning district which allows either single family or multifamily residential uses. Local governments are precluded from prohibiting ADUs in residentially zoned areas or zones which allow either single family or multifamily residential uses.

Multifamily Housing
Multifamily housing includes duplexes, apartments, condominiums, or townhomes, and is the primary source of affordable housing. Each city-specific analysis provides descriptions of the restrictions on multifamily housing units in each jurisdiction.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
3-10
Group Homes/Residential Care Facilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Lanterman Act) sets the rights and responsibilities of persons with developmental disabilities. A State-authorized, certified, or licensed family care home, foster home, or a group home serving six or fewer disabled persons or dependent and neglected children on a 24-hour-a day basis must be considered a residential use that is permitted in all residential zones. Each city-specific analysis provides descriptions of the restrictions on group homes in each jurisdiction.

Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters are defined as:
“Housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”
Senate Bill 2 (Government Code Section 65583) was enacted in 2008 to support the needs of the homeless residents by removing barriers to and increasing opportunities for development of emergency shelters. SB 2 requires every jurisdiction in California to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit.

To address this requirement, a local government may amend an existing zoning district, establish a new zoning district, or establish an overlay zone. The zone(s) must provide sufficient opportunities for new emergency shelters to meet the homeless need identified in the analysis and must accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter. SB 2 requires that emergency shelters only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial use within the same zone, except the local government may apply certain objective standards, as follows:
 The maximum number of beds or people permitted to be served nightly by the facility.  Off-street parking based upon demonstrated need, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.  The size and location of exterior and interior on-site waiting and client intake areas.  The provision of on-site management.
 The proximity to other emergency shelters if emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart.
 The length of stay.
 Lighting.
 Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.

In 2019, AB 101 was passed requiring that a Low Barrier Navigation Center development be a use by right 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 residential use and mixed-use zones, as well as nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses.

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:

Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element 3-11
 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.

Each city-specific analysis describes each jurisdiction’s compliance with state law requirements for emergency shelters.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
With the enactment of Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), state law requires cities and counties to treat transitional housing and supportive housing as a residential use and allow transitional and supportive housing in all zones that allow residential uses, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

Transitional housing is a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families to permanent housing. Residents of transitional housing are usually connected to supportive services designed to assist the homeless in achieving greater economic independence and a permanent, stable living situation. Transitional housing can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, single family homes, and multifamily apartments; and typically offers case management and support services to help return people to independent living (often six months to two years). The State defines transitional housing as:
“Transitional housing” means buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating 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.

Supportive housing links the provision of housing and social services for residents experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities, and a variety of other special needs populations. Similar to transitional housing, supportive housing can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, single family homes, and multifamily apartments. The State defines supportive housing as:
“Supportive housing” means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist 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 State defines the target population as:
“Target population” means persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
3-12
AB 2162, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, requires that cities allow supportive housing with up to 50 units by-right in multi-family 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.

Each city-specific analysis describes compliance with state law requirements for transitional and supportive housing in each jurisdiction.

Farmworker Housing/Employee Housing Act
The Employee Housing Act (Health & Safety Code Section 17021.6) requires that any 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. For 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 conditional use permit, 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.

Each city-specific analysis describes whether each jurisdiction complies with the Employee Housing Act.

Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units
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. SRO units can provide affordable private housing for lower-income individuals, seniors, and persons with disabilities. These units can also serve as an entry into the housing market for residents at risk of homelessness. Each city-specific analysis provides descriptions of the allowances and restrictions for SRO units in each jurisdiction.

On/Off Site Improvement Standards
On/off-site improvement standards establish infrastructure or site requirements to support new residential development such as streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, drainage, curbs, and gutters, street signs, park dedications, utility easements, and landscaping. While these improvements are necessary to ensure public health and safety and that new housing meets the local jurisdiction’s development goals, the cost of these requirements can sometimes represent a significant share of the cost of producing new housing.

Each city-specific analysis describes specific site improvement standards for each jurisdiction. Although improvement requirements and development fees increase the cost of housing, jurisdictions have little choice in establishing such requirements due to the limitations on property taxes and other revenue sources needed to fund public improvements.

3.2.3 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
In accordance with Senate Bill 520 (Chapter 671, Statutes of 2001), jurisdictions must analyze the potential and actual governmental constraints on the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Each city-specific analysis contains a detailed review of zoning laws, policies, and practices in each jurisdiction to ensure compliance with fair housing laws.

Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element 3-13
Definition of Family
 There are several State and Federal rules that govern the definition of “family”, including the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the California Fair Housing and Employment Act, the California Supreme Court case City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980), and the California Constitution privacy clauses. The laws surrounding the definition of family have several purposes: to protect people with disabilities, to protect non-traditional families, and to protect privacy. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Mental Housing Advocacy Services, there are three major points to consider when writing a definition of family:

Jurisdictions may not distinguish between related and unrelated individuals.  The definition may not impose a numerical limit on the number of persons in a family; and  Land use restrictions for licensed group homes for six or fewer individuals must be the same as those for single families.

Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
The Federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. It may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standards of the zoning code to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances and must be decided on a case-bycase basis.

California Building Code
The 2022 California Building Code, Title 24 regulations provide for accessibility for persons with disabilities. The Housing Element must identify the version of the Building Code adopted in each jurisdiction and whether a jurisdiction has adopted any amendments to the Building Code that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.

Zoning and Land Use Policies
Restrictive land use policies and zoning provisions can constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. The Housing Element must analyze compliance with fair housing laws, provisions for group homes, and whether jurisdictions have adopted any minimum distance requirements or other zoning procedures or policies that would limit housing for persons with disabilities.

3.2.4 Planning and Development Fees
Jurisdictions collect various fees to cover the costs of processing permits and development impact fees.

These include fees for planning and zoning approvals, subdivision map act approvals, environmental review, building permits, among others. Permitting fees and development impact fees are determined by each jurisdiction and posted in the Master Fee Schedule online. Permitting and development fees are periodically updated and approved by the City Council or County Board of Supervisors.

State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Local governments charge various fees and assessments to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities, such as, parks, and

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
3-14
infrastructure. Almost all these fees are assessed based on the magnitude of a project’s impact or on the extent of the benefit that will be derived. Additional fees and/or time may be necessary for required environmental review, depending on the location and nature of a project. A 2019 National Impact Fees Survey, which surveyed 37 jurisdictions in California, reported an average impact fee of $37,471 per single-family unit and $21,703 per multifamily unit. Each city-specific analysis provides more information on planning and development fees by jurisdiction.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fees
Tulare County is within the regulatory jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The air basin does not meet ambient air quality standards set at the state and federal levels and is within a “non-attainment” area for ozone, PM10 (state), and PM2.5.

Due to these conditions, the SJVAPCD has implemented an Indirect Source Review process to reduce the impacts of growth in emissions from all new land development. An Air Impact Assessment and potential mitigation fees are required for residential projects with 50 or more dwelling units and when discretionary approval is required. Fees are also exacted by the SJVAPCD to offset emissions created by typical operational sources. These fees can add to the cost of development. However, the cost can be reduced with mitigation measures. The SJVAPCD also offers a variety of grants and incentive programs to public agencies, residents, and businesses to help offset fees.

3.2.5 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Implemented by local jurisdictions, inclusionary housing ordinances require developers to reserve a certain percentage of units for very low- and low-income households to ensure new development incorporates affordable housing. Whether rented or sold, affordability requirements are based on the area median income (AMI) with very low-income defined as household earning up to 50 percent of the AMI and low-income households earning between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI. Actual rents cannot exceed 30 percent of the income for the associated income group. Each city-specific analysis provides more information on inclusionary housing ordinances by jurisdiction.

3.2.6 Permit Procedures and Processing Times
The processing of applications and permits for development can increase project time and costs.

Processing times vary widely from a few weeks to several months depending on the type of permit required for development and if any discretionary review is required for approval. The time required to process a project varies greatly between projects and depends on the size and complexity of the proposal and the number of actions or approvals needed to complete the process. Each city-specific analysis describes the permit processing procedures and timing for each jurisdiction.

3.2.7 Short-Term Housing Rentals
Short-term housing rental ordinances regulate the number of residential units that can be converted to short-term vacation rentals in a jurisdiction. Jurisdictions are not required to adopted short-term housing rental ordinances; however, in areas with high demand for vacation rentals, jurisdictions often adopt such policies to ensure that the existing housing stock for sale or long-term rentals is not diminished and that housing options are maintained throughout the community. Each city-specific analysis provides more information on the potential need for monitoring short-term rental housing.

Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2023-2031 Housing Element 3-15

3.2.8 Code Enforcement
Building codes and enforcement can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this manner, building codes and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the supply of housing and its affordability.

The California Building Standards Code, Title 24, serves as the basis for the design and construction of buildings in California. State law prohibits the imposition of additional building standards that are not necessitated by local geographic, climatic, or topographic conditions, and requires that local governments making changes or modifications in building standards must report such changes to the HCD and file an expressed finding that the change is needed. Each city-specific analysis provides more information on building codes and enforcement by jurisdiction.

3.3 Environmental Constraints
Typical environmental constraints to the development of housing in Tulare County include the preservation of scenic landscapes and prime agricultural land, environmental resources management, air quality measures, health and safety measures, and water conservation. In many cases, development of these areas is constrained by State and Federal laws (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] floodplain regulations, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and the State Fish and Wildlife Code and Alquist-Priolo Act). Each city-specific analysis provides an analysis of environmental constraints specific to each jurisdiction.

3.3.1 Floodplains
Official floodplain maps are maintained by FEMA. FEMA determines areas subject to flood hazards and designates these areas by relative risk of flooding on a map for each community, known as the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

Principal flooding problems exist in the western portion of the county, as identified by FEMA. In the north, northern Orosi and central Dinuba are considered river or stream flood hazard areas. Moving south along State Route (SR) 99 and SR 63 are notable flood hazard areas spanning from Dinuba south into Woodlake and Visalia. FEMA has also identified flood hazard areas around the Woodlake Wastewater Treatment Facility spanning southwest to Visalia. Additional flood hazard areas include Allensworth along SR 43, various areas along the Tule River, and along the Kern River located in the eastern portion of the county.

Development within a flood zone typically is required to be protected against flood damage. FEMA requires developers to obtain a flood zone elevation certificate when they apply for their permit. These certificates require elevating the developed area (i.e., house pad) above the known flood level of that flood zone. The sites in the inventory must obtain a flood zone elevation certificate, which may increase the cost of a development but is necessary to protect against flood risks.

3.3.2 Seismic Zones
There are several active and potentially active faults within and adjacent to Tulare County. The Kern Canyon fault zone is located along sections of the Kern River spanning from the river’s headwaters, located at the Kings Kern Divide south through Isabella Lake. Additional major fault zones adjacent to

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
3-16
Tulare County include the San Andreas and Garlock faults. Tulare County is not considered to be under significant threat of a major earthquake despite its proximity to active fault zones.

Although all development must consider earthquake hazards, there is no specific threat or hazard from seismic ground shaking to residential development within the county, and all new construction will comply with current local and state building codes. Due to the minimal historical hazard of earthquakes in the county and the use of the most current building codes and construction techniques, earthquakes do not pose a significant constraint to residential development.

3.3.3 Wildland/Urban Fire Hazards
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CALFIRE) has designated the eastern area of Tulare County near the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains as a fire hazard severity zone ranging from moderate, high, and very high fire hazard risk.
1 The jurisdictions that are closest to these hazard
areas include Woodlake, Exeter, Lindsay, Porterville, and unincorporated Tulare County.

Wildfire hazards in the city include vacant/fallow lands that have dry vegetation and/or agricultural debris storage (e.g., limbs, trimmings, etc.). These hazards are more common on non-irrigated lands, during drought years, and in dry seasons. Suburban, urban areas, or rocky barren areas have minimal surface fuels and therefore typically have the lowest fire hazard. All new residential development must meet California Fire Code provisions, which address topography, geology, climate, and development conditions to reduce risk of wildfire hazards.

3.3.4 Soil Contamination
Agricultural uses may contaminate potential residential 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. Each jurisdiction 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. 1 CAL FIRE. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. April 1, 2024. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-1
4 Regional Housing Resources

4.1 Introduction
The following chapter provides an analysis of development trends in Tulare County that is used to inform the Site Inventories for the seven jurisdictions covered under this Housing Element. This chapter also includes an overview of the financial and administrative resources available to support continued development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing in the jurisdictions throughout Tulare County.

An analysis for each jurisdiction’s Site Inventory is in Chapters A4 through G4, Housing Resources.

4.2 Future Housing Needs
According to the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)1
, population growth in the region in the next two
decades is expected to be near the highest in the state (0.71 percent annually from 2021-2046). This increase in population is driven in part by urban residents moving from the state’s larger cities to rural areas like Tulare County due to the relatively lower cost of living and higher birthrates than the state average.

State law requires every jurisdiction to undertake all necessary actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of housing to accommodate regional housing needs.2 A jurisdiction must demonstrate in its Housing Element that its land inventory is adequate to accommodate its share of the region’s projected growth.

4.2.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
This Housing Element covers the planning period of December 2023 through December 2031 (called the 6th Cycle Housing Element update). 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 the objectives of the State of California, including but not limited to:
 Promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection  Ensuring jobs-housing balance
 Affirmatively furthering fair housing
The RHNA process for the Tulare County region was initiated in September 2020 and was completed in August 2022 with the adoption of the Final Regional Housing Needs Plan to allocate the region’s housing needs among the eight cities and the unincorporated county. 3 Each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need is allocated based on recent growth trends, income distribution, and capacity for future growth. The RHNA methodology uses weighted indicators such as opportunity access and job proximity to allocate housing units affordable to households of different income categories. TCAG is required to allocate units across income categories with the goal of reducing socioeconomic disparities based on 1 Tulare Council of Governments (TCAG). 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2 Government Code section 65100 – 65763, Article 10.6. Housing Elements 3 Tulare Council of Governments (TCAG). 2022. Final Regional Housing Needs Plan. https://tularecog.org/sites/tcag/assets/FINAL%20RHNP%20- %20COMBINED.pdf

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-2
household income and other characteristics. The RHNA for each jurisdiction is distributed into four income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI)4 :
 Very low-income (less than 50 percent of AMI)
 Low-income (50-80 percent of AMI)
 Moderate-income (80-120 percent of AMI)
 Above Moderate-income (more than 120 percent of the AMI) As part of the Housing Element, each jurisdiction must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate its assigned share of the region’s housing needs. Tulare County’s combined regional future housing need is 33,214 total units during the eight-year planning period. The number of units is distributed among five income categories within each jurisdiction, as shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Tulare County Regional Housing Needs Determination Allocation Total RHNA
Allocation
Very Low-Income
Allocation
Low-Income
Allocation
Moderate-Income
Allocation
Above ModerateIncome Allocation
Jurisdiction Units Units
Percent of
Total
RHNA Units
Percent of
Total
RHNA Units
Percent of
Total
RHNA Units
Percent of
Total
RHNA
Dinuba 1,588 387 24.4% 238 15.0% 268 16.9% 695 43.8%
Exeter 844 197 23.3% 121 14.3% 146 17.3% 380 45.0%
Farmersville 654 135 20.6% 83 12.7% 121 18.5% 315 48.2% Lindsay 789 93 11.8% 58 7.4% 178 22.6% 460 58.3%
Porterville 4,064 872 21.5% 537 13.2% 739 18.2% 1,916 47.1% Tulare 4,749 1,435 30.2% 884 18.6% 677 14.3% 1,753 36.9% Visalia 10,791 3,741 34.7% 2,306 21.4% 1,321 12.2% 3,423 31.7% Woodlake 492 75 15.2% 47 9.6% 103 20.9% 267 54.3%
Unincorporated
County
9,243 1,563 16.9% 963 10.4% 1,870 20.2% 4,847 52.4%
Total 33,214 8,497 25.6% 5,238 15.8% 5,424 16.3% 14,055 42.3% Source: TCAG, 2022. Final Regional Housing Needs Plan.

4.3 Meeting the RHNA
Each jurisdiction must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate its required RHNA. Jurisdictions can also use planned and approved projects, estimated accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production, and vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the RHNA. In addition, jurisdictions may identify sites to be rezoned to accommodate their RHNA. A full analysis of how each jurisdiction will accommodate its RHNA is provided in Appendices A through G. 4 The Area Median Income of Tulare County is $57,394 for a household of four in 2023.

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-3

4.4 Development Trends
Establishing regional development trends provides an understanding of the type of housing development that is feasible during the planning period and the realistic unit capacity assumptions for sites to accommodate the RHNA for each jurisdiction. To establish these trends, this analysis reviews the characteristics and density achievement of a sample set of 14 recent and planned multifamily residential developments in the region. These projects were selected because they accurately represent the recent residential development activity that has occurred in the region and provide a basis for understanding the types of residential development that are likely to be developed during the planning period. Sites that align with these development trends were included on the Site Inventories for the individual jurisdictions involved in this Housing Element (described in detail in Appendices A through G). The analysis considers following development characteristics:
 The previous uses of developed parcels
 Parcel sizes
 Parcel locations
 The density achieved by the project
The following sections describe the 14 residential projects that represent regional development trends in the county.

Sierra Village Apartments
APN 014-080-091 Group Self-Help Enterprises
Address 1375 N. Crawford Ave., Dinuba, CA Year Built 2018/2023 Current Use Multifamily Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 5.50 ac FAR 0.42
The Sierra Village Apartments development is located on a previously vacant site in northeast Dinuba and consists of 108 affordable units, including nine units for permanent supportive housing. This development was constructed in two phases: the first phase was completed in 2018 and the second phase was completed in 2023. This project is in a multifamily zone with an allowable density of 14.54 units per acre, resulting in a maximum unit capacity on this site of approximately 80 units. Since the

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-4
project was developed with 108 units, this project achieved 135 percent of allowable density. This project was able to achieve a higher percent density due to a density bonus.

Merced Street
APN 017-074-005 Group -
Address 255 E Merced Street, Dinuba, CA Year Built 2018 Current Use Multifamily Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 0.46 ac FAR 0.52
This 10-unit market rate apartment complex located on the corner of E. Merced Street and N. J Street in Downtown Dinuba was constructed in 2018. Previously, this lot was occupied by a single-family home that utilized about 30 percent of the site; the rest of the lot was vacant. In 2016, the site was rezoned from single-family to multifamily residential to allow for the development of this project. The allowable density on this site is 14.54 units per acre, resulting in a maximum unit capacity of approximately seven units. Through a density bonus, this project was developed with 10 units; therefore, it achieved 150 percent of allowable density.

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-5
Orange Avenue
APN 138-121-07 Group -
Address 430 N Orange Ave, Exeter, CA Year Built 2019
Current Use Multifamily Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 0.49 ac FAR 0.29
This development located on Orange Avenue in northwest Exeter consists of two market-rate duplex buildings with a total of four units on site. This site was previously developed with one single-family home. However, the single-family residence was vacated to develop higher density residential use and rezoned from low density to high density in 2016. The project was built in two phases: the duplex on the eastern portion of the site was constructed in 2017 and the second duplex on the western portion of the site was constructed in 2019. This project is in a multifamily zone which allows a maximum density of

14.52 units per acre, resulting in a maximum unit capacity of approximately seven units on the site. The project was developed with four units; therefore, it achieved 56 percent of allowable density.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-6
Los Arroyos
APN 129-010-083 Group Self-Help Enterprises
Address 135 E. Walnut Avenue, Farmersville, CA Year Built 2023 (completion anticipated 2024) Current Use Multifamily Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 5.81 ac FAR -
Construction began on the Los Arroyos apartment project in eastern Farmersville at the corner of W Walnut Avenue and Farmersville Road in April 2022. This project will develop 108 affordable rental units on a previously vacant parcel zoned for multifamily residential. This project is currently in a general commercial zone which was rezoned to multifamily residential (RM-2.5) as part of this project. The site allows a maximum density of 25.62 units per acre and a unit capacity of approximately 149 units. The project proposes 108 units which will achieve 73 percent of maximum allowable density.

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-7
Autumn Hills
APN 199-320-045 thru 199-320-084 Group -
Address Maple Avenue and Maple Valley Way,
Lindsay
Year Built 2018
Current Use Single-Family Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 9.43 ac FAR 0.25
Autumn Hills is a 40-unit single-family neighborhood constructed in 2018 and located in western Lindsay along Maple Avenue and Maple Valley Way. This project site is zoned for single-family residential uses and allows for a density of 6.22 units per acre. Maximum unit capacity on this site is approximately 59 units. With 40 units constructed, the project achieved 68 percent of allowable density.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-8
Palm Terrace
APN 205-040-005 Group Self-Help Enterprises
Address 700 W. Hermosa St., Lindsay, CA Year Built 2018 Current Use Multifamily Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 2.67 ac FAR 0.30
Palm Terrace is a 50-unit affordable rental community in southern Lindsay at the intersection of West Hermosa Street and North Westwood Avenue. Prior to construction, the site was vacant. This project is located in a multifamily zone that allows for a minimum density of 14.52 units per acre. Maximum unit capacity on this site was approximately 39 units. With 50 units constructed, the project achieved 129 percent of allowable density with a density bonus.

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-9
Nupchi Xo' Oy
APN 247-210-049, 247-250-077,
247-250-078
Group Self-Help Enterprises
Address 648 W. Mulberry Ave., Porterville, CA Year Built 2021 Current Use Multifamily Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 4.47 ac FAR 0.35
Nupchi Xo’ Oy is a 40-unit affordable housing complex constructed for the Tule River Tribe and Porterville residents in 2021. The development of this project addresses the existing shortage of available housing, overcrowding, and unsafe housing conditions that Tule River Tribe members have experienced. Located in northeast Porterville north of W. Mulberry Avenue, this project is in a multifamily zone which allows for a maximum density of 15 units per acre. Maximum unit capacity on this site is approximately 67 units. With 40 units constructed, the project achieved 60 percent of maximum allowable density.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-10
Garden Court Villas
APN 259-380-001 thru 259-380-003, 259-
380-036, 259-380-037, and 259-380-
052 thru 259-380-055
Group Woodard Homes, Inc.

Address Varies, Porterville CA Year Built 2018
Current Use Single-Family Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 4.26 ac FAR 0.34
The Garden Court Villas project is located in southwest Porterville at the eastern end of Roby Avenue.

This 40-unit housing development was built in phases, with the completion of the final phase of the project in the east portion of the site in 2018. This project is located in a Planned Development Zone with a General Plan Land Use of Medium Density Residential which allows for a maximum density of 15 units per acre, resulting in a maximum unit capacity of approximately 64 units on the site. With 40 units constructed, the project achieved 63 percent of the maximum allowable density.

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-11
Cambria
APN Varies Group Meritage Homes of California Inc.

Address Varies Year Built 2020
Current Use Single-Family Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 12.75 ac FAR 0.31
The Cambria development was completed in 2020 and consists of 80 market-rate single-family homes in northwest Porterville, located north of Avenue 160 and Redondo Street on formerly vacant farmland.

This project is located in a Planned Development Zone District with a General Plan Land Use of LowMedium Density Residential, which allows for a maximum density of 11.3 units per acre, resulting in a maximum unit capacity of approximately 144 units on the site. With 80 units constructed, the project achieved 56 percent of the maximum allowable density.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-12
Mission Court Apartments
APN 184-190-017 Group Pacific West Communities, Inc.

Address 1150 S Morrison Street, Tulare, CA Year Built 2020 Current Use Multifamily Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 5.1 ac FAR 0.22
Mission Court is a 65-unit affordable apartment complex located in southeast Tulare east of Morrison Street. Developed in 2020, the formerly vacant site is located within a multifamily zone which allows for a maximum density of 21.78 units per acre. Maximum unit capacity on this site is approximately 111 units. With 65 units constructed, the project achieved 59 percent of allowable density.

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-13
H Street
APN 175-192-012 Group -
Address 526 S H Street, Tulare, CA Year Built 2020
Current Use Multifamily Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 0.34 ac FAR 0.53
The H Street project, located on South H Street in southwest Tulare, includes four market-rate townhomes and one market-rate single-family residence on a formerly vacant site. Prior to development, this lot was designated single-family residential with an under-utilized single-family home located on the property. This project is located within a multifamily zone which allows for a maximum density of 14.52 units per acre. Maximum unit capacity on this site is approximately five units. With five units constructed, the project achieved 101 percent of allowable density.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-14
The Riviera
APN 166-230-011 Group -
Address 2311 N Hillman Ave., Tulare, CA Year Built 2019 Current Use Multifamily Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 9.52 ac FAR 0.04
The Riviera is a 168-unit market-rate apartment complex located on a previously vacant site east of N.

Hillman Street in northeast Tulare. Developed in 2019, the project is located within a multifamily zone which allows for a maximum density of 21.78 units per acre. Maximum unit capacity on this site is approximately 207 units. With 168 units developed, the project achieved 81 percent of allowable density.

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-15
Bravo Village Apartments
APN 061-170-077 Group Corporation for Better Housing
Address 220 Oak St., Woodlake, CA Year Built 2020
Current Use Multifamily Residential Previous Use Vacant Parcel Size 1.0 ac FAR 0.46
Bravo Village Apartments is a 60-unit affordable development of 16 one-bedroom units, 24 twobedroom units and 20 three-bedroom units located at the intersection of West Bravo Avenue and South Oak Street in south Woodlake. This project is located in a multifamily zone which allows for a maximum density of 29.04 units per acre. Maximum unit capacity on this site is approximately 29 units. With 60 units constructed, the project achieved 207 percent of allowable density. This project was allowed to achieve such a high density limit due to Woodlake’s Density Bonus, which allows up to an additional 35 percent of the maximum density of a zoning district.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-16
Hillside Estates
APN - Group Yanez Homes
Address W. Tule Ave., Woodlake, CA Year Built 2023/2024 Current Use Single-Family Residential Previous Use Orchard Parcel Size 28.5 ac FAR -
Hillside Estates is a 75-unit single-family market-rate subdivision under construction north of W. Cajon Avenue in north Woodlake. The site was previously an orchard and actively farmed. This project is located in on a site that was annexed into the city as a single-family low-density residential zone which allows a density of 2.2 units per acre, resulting in a maximum unit capacity of approximately 62 units on the site. With 75 units constructed, the project achieved 117 percent of allowable density.

4.4.1 Summary of Development Trends
Development characteristics in the region indicate that most residential projects developed, or will develop, on vacant land or land zoned for agricultural use. Approximately one-third of the development trend projects discussed above include housing affordable to very low- and 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 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.

Table 4-2 summarizes the data for each development trend project and uses the zoning district density to project the number of units allowed. Four developments utilized density bonuses and other incentives to achieve densities over what is allowed in each respective zone.

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-17
Table 4-2 Regional Development Trends
Project Name
Total
Units Acreage Density Zoning District
Zoning District
Density (du/ac)
Number
of Units
Allowed
Percent
Density
Achieved
Sierra Village
(affordable)
108 5.50 19.64 Multifamily 14.54 80.00 135%
Merced Street 10 0.46 21.74 Multifamily 14.54 6.69 150% Orange Avenue 4 0.49 8.16 Multifamily 14.52 7.11 56%
Los Arroyos
(affordable)
108 5.81 18.59 Multifamily 25.62 148.85 73%
Autumn Hills 40 9.43 4.24 Single-Family 6.22 58.65 68%
Palm Terrace
(affordable)
50 2.67 18.73 Multifamily 14.52 38.77 129%
Nupchi Xo' Oy
(affordable)
40 3.34 11.98 Multifamily 15.00 50.10 80%
Garden Court Villas 40 4.26 9.39 Single-Family 15.00 63.90 63% Cambria 80 12.75 6.27 Single-Family 11.30 144.08 56%
Mission Court
Apartments
(affordable)
65 5.1 12.75 Multifamily 21.78 111.08 59%
H Steet 5 0.34 14.71 Multifamily 14.52 4.94 101%
The Riviera 168 9.52 17.65 Multifamily 21.78 207.35 81% Bravo Village
Apartments
(affordable)
60 1.00 60.00 Multifamily 29.04 29.04 207%
Hillside Estates 75 28.5 2.63 Single-Family 2.18 62.07 121% Average 61 16.18 99%

4.4.2 Pipeline Projects by Jurisdiction
In addition to residential projects that are under construction or complete, this analysis also examines development trends for projects that are currently in the development pipeline. Residential developments approved and permitted, but not yet built (also called “pipeline projects”) can be credited towards a jurisdiction’s RHNA for the 6th cycle Housing Element provided it can be demonstrated that the units can be built by the end of the planning period (December 2031). These pipeline projects collectively achieve an average of 72 percent of the maximum density that is allowed in each zoning district where these projects will be developed. The following section reviews active pipeline projects in the region. These pipeline projects are important to the regional trends analysis because they demonstrate the types of projects currently in development and the continuation of previously mentioned development trends.

City of Dinuba
The City of Dinuba has five residential pipeline projects with a total of 316 units. The projects will achieve an average density of 11.01 dwelling units per acre. Four of the projects will be developed on vacant sites and one will be developed on a site which was previously an orchard. The Sierra Village project includes units affordable to very low- and low-income households, and the Castlerock Subdivision and Montebella projects will include units affordable to above moderate-income

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-18
households. The Sequoia Apartment project will include units affordable to moderate- and above moderate-income households. These projects will achieve an average density of 75 percent of the maximum density allowed on the sites. Table 4-3 shows Dinuba’s pipeline projects.

Table 4-3 Dinuba Pipeline Projects
Project Name Total Units Acreage Existing Use
Zoning
District
Density
(du/ac)
Percent of
Maximum
Density Achieved
Income
Affordability
Category
Castlerock Subdivision 71 15.80 Vacant R-1-6 4.49 62% Above Moderate
Montebella 2/3 121 28.80 Orchard R-1-6 4.20 58% Above
Moderate
Vineyard Estates 63 10.00 Vacant R-1-6 6.30 77% Above
moderate
Sequoia Apartments 61 2.10 Vacant RM-1.5 29.05 102% Moderate.

Above
Moderate
Average 79 14.18 11.01 75%
Definitions of acronyms: (du/ac) dwelling units per acre; (R-1-6) One-Family Residential; (RM-1.5) Multi-Family Residential City of Exeter
The City of Exeter has two residential pipeline projects with a total of 80 units. Both projects are located on vacant sites and will achieve an average density of 17.65 units per acre. Ten percent of the units in the Morgan project will be affordable to moderate-income households. All units in the Smee Homes (Yokohl Landing) project will be affordable to above moderate-income households. These projects will achieve an average density of 81 percent of the maximum density allowed on the sites. Table 4-4 shows Exeter’s pipeline projects.

Table 4-4 Exeter Pipeline Projects
Project Name Total Units Acreage Existing Use
Zoning
District
Density
(du/ac)
Percent of
Maximum
Density Achieved
Income
Affordability
Category
Morgan 44 1.38 Vacant RM-1.5 31.88 110% Above Moderate
Smee Homes
(Yokohl Landing)
36 9.85 Agriculture R-1-6 3.65 51% Above Moderate
Average 40 5.62 17.65 81%
Definitions of acronyms: (du/ac) dwelling units per acre; (RM-1.5) Multifamily Residential - 1,500 square feet; (R-1-6) Single Family Residential - 6,000 square feet
City of Farmersville
The City of Farmersville has five residential pipeline projects with a total of 684 units. The projects will achieve an average density of 11.14 dwelling units per acre. Four of the projects will be developed on vacant sites and two will be developed on sites which were previously used for agriculture. The Gardenia Courtyards and Los Arroyos projects include units affordable to low-income households. These projects will achieve an average density of 80 percent of the maximum density allowed on the sites. Table 4-5 shows Farmersville’s pipeline projects.

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-19
Table 4-5 Farmersville Pipeline Projects
Project Name Total Units Acreage Existing Use
Zoning
District
Density
(du/ac)
Percent of
Maximum
Density
Achieved
Income
Affordabilit
y Category
Cameron Creek 151 36.5 Orchard R-1 (PD)
and RM-2.5

4.14 57% Moderate
Eagle Meadows 242 49.0 Agriculture R-1 (PD) 4.94 68% Moderate Camino Castaneda 24 10.89 Vacant RM-4 8.89 83% Above
moderate
Gardenia Courtyards 142 6.50 Vacant RM-2.5 21.85 86% Low Petunia Estates 18 2.23 Vacant R-1 8.07 112% Above
moderate
Los Arroyos 108 5.81 Vacant C-G 18.93 73% Low
Average 114 18.19 16.31 80%
Definitions of acronyms: (du/ac) dwelling units per acre; (R-1(PD) Single Family Residential (Planned Development); (RM-2.5) Multi Family Residential – one unit per 2,500 square feet of lot area; (RM-4) Multi Family Residential – one unit per 4,000 square feet of lot area; (C-G) General Commercial
City of Lindsay
The City of Lindsay has four residential pipeline projects with a total of 322 units. The projects will achieve an average density of 23.86 dwelling units per acre. All of the projects will be developed on vacant sites. The Mission Estates project includes 31 units affordable to moderate-income households, and all other projects will include units affordable to above moderate-income households. These projects will achieve an average density of 71 percent of the maximum density allowed on the sites.

Table 4-6 shows Lindsay’s pipeline projects.

Table 4-6 Lindsay Pipeline Projects
Project Name Total Units Acreage Existing Use
Zoning
District
Density
(du/ac)
Percent of
Maximum
Density
Achieved
Income
Affordability
Category
O'Hara Ranch Residential 145 35 Vacant Mixeduse &
R-1-7

4.14 67% Above Moderate
Hidden Oak Residential 50 8.60 Vacant R-1-7 5.81 94% Above Moderate Mission Estates (R-1-7) 85 30 Vacant R-1-7 2.83 46% Above Moderate Mission Estates (RM-3)* 31 2.50 Vacant RM-3 14.00 97% Moderate Fresno Street Apartments 11 1.50 Vacant RM-3 7.33 52% Above Moderate Average 65.20 15.52 6.82 71%
Definitions of acronyms: (du/ac) dwelling units per acre; (R-1-7) Single Family Residential; (RM-3) Multi-Family Residential *Mission Estates is one project with two zoning districts and has been separated by zoning district for the purpose of this analysis.

City of Porterville
The City of Porterville has 13 residential pipeline projects with a total of 694 units. Ten of the project sites are currently vacant, and two sites are occupied by orchards. The average density of all projects is

11.28 units per acre. All but one of these projects is affordable to above moderate-income households.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-20
These projects achieve an average density of 81 percent of the maximum density allowed on the sites.

Table 4-7 shows Porterville’s pipeline projects.

Table 4-7 Porterville Pipeline Projects
Project Name
Total
Units Acreage
Existing
Use
Zoning
District
Density
(du/ac)
Percent of
Maximum
Density Achieved
Income
Affordability
Category
Brookside Subdivision 229 38.35 Orchard RS-2 5.97 100% Above Moderate Mahal 16 0.89 Vacant RM-3 17.98 75% Above Moderate
River View Villas 78 7.90 Vacant RM-2 9.87 82% Above Moderate Villas at Sierra Meadows 80 12.31 Orchard RS-2 6.50 108% Above Moderate Aguilo 19 4.98 Vacant RM-3 3.82 16% Above Moderate
Mission Communities 120 4.65 Vacant RM-3 25.81 108% Above Moderate Link Domingo 6 0.52 Vacant RM-3 11.54 48% Above Moderate Westwood Townhomes 8 0.38 Vacant RM-3 21.05 88% Above Moderate Westfield Residential
Development
28 2.86 Vacant RM-2 9.79 82% Above Moderate
Evergreen Apartments 12 1.03 Vacant RM-2 11.65 97% Above Moderate Bareng Subdivision 6 1.89 Vacant RS-2 3.17 53% Above Moderate Terraza 46 3.07 Vacant PD 14.98 125% Above Moderate
Crestview Park 46 10.08 Vacant RS-2 4.56 76% Above Moderate Average 53 6.58 11.28 81%
Definitions of acronyms: (du/ac) dwelling units per acre; (RS-2) Low Density Residential; (RM-2) Medium Density Residential; (RM-3) High Density Residential; (PD) Planned Development
City of Tulare
The City of Tulare has one residential pipeline project with a total of 84 units. This project is located on a vacant site and will achieve a density of 21.82 units per acre. All units are affordable only to above moderate-income households. These projects will achieve an average density of 75 percent of the maximum density allowed on the site. Table 4-8 shows Tulare’s pipeline project.

Table 4-8 Tulare Pipeline Projects
Project Name Total Units Acreage Existing Use
Zoning
District
Density
(du/ac)
Percent of
Maximum Density
Achieved
Income Affordability
Category
East Bardsley
Apartments
84 3.85 Vacant RM4 21.82 75% Above Moderate
Average 84 3.85 21.82 75%
Definitions of acronyms: (du/ac) dwelling units per acre; (RM4) Multiple Family – 1,500 SF/unit City of Woodlake
The City of Woodlake has 10 residential pipeline projects with a total of 626 units. All projects are located on vacant sites or orchards and will achieve an average density of 7.80 units per acre. All units are affordable to all income category households. These projects will achieve an average density of 45 percent of the maximum density allowed on the sites. Table 4-9 shows Woodlake’s pipeline projects.

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-21
Table 4-9 Woodlake Pipeline Projects
Project Name
Total
Units Acreage
Existing
Use
Zoning
District
Density
(du/ac)
Percent of
Maximum
Density Achieved
Income
Affordability
Category
Hillside Estates 37 28.50 Vacant R-L 2.63 26% Above Moderate Kaweah View 25 8.46 Vacant R-L 2.96 30% Low
Mulberry Estates 60 13.90 Orchard R-M 4.32 29% Low
Greenwood Phase II 77 15.00 Vacant R-M 5.13 34% Very Low and Low Lakeview and
Pomegranate
9 1.40 Vacant R-L 6.43 64% Low
Antelope Creek Estates 140 36.00 Orchard R-M 3.89 26% Very Low, Low, and Moderate
Rodeo Estates I 184 42.00 Vacant R-M 4.38 29% Very Low, Low, and Moderate
Rodeo Estates II 52 36.00 Vacant R-L 1.44 14% Above Moderate Little Bravo Village 32 1.12 Vacant R-H 28.57 119% Low
Cuevas - S. Pepper St. 10 0.48 Vacant R-H 20.83 87% Very Low Average 63 14.80 7.80 45%
Definitions of acronyms: (du/ac) dwelling units per acre; (C-N) Neighborhood Commercial

4.5 Site Selection Criteria
In accordance with state law, land suitable for residential development must be appropriate and available for residential use within the planning period. Sites used in the inventory can be a parcel or group of parcels that meet the following criteria:
 Vacant sites zoned for residential use
 Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development  Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density (nonvacant sites, including underutilized sites)
 Sites owned or leased by a local government
 Nonresidential zoned sites that can be rezoned residential use, including a program to rezone the site to permit residential use
Residential development has occurred primarily on vacant sites and sites used for agriculture. As a result, only sites with vacant or agricultural uses were identified as adequate sites to meet RHNA.

Other characteristics to consider when evaluating the appropriateness of sites include physical features (e.g., susceptibility to flooding, slope instability, or erosion) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services, especially for housing appropriate for lower-income households). Public input on potential housing locations in each jurisdiction from the outreach conducted for the Housing Element was also incorporated into the site selection process (a description of the outreach is included in Chapter 1, Introduction and Public Participation).

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-22

4.5.1 Density and Parcel Size
State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate in the Housing Element that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the regional growth. State law has established “default” density standards for the purpose of estimating potential units by income range. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), a density standard of 20 or more units per acre (primarily for higher-density multifamily developments) would facilitate the development of housing in the low- and very low-income category for jurisdictions in Tulare County (excluding the City of Visalia).

In addition to default density standards, HCD established that parcels intended to support the development of units appropriate for lower-income households should be between 0.5 and 10 acres.

Parcels smaller than 0.5 acres, even when zoned for high densities, may not facilitate the scale of development required to access the competitive funding resources that facilitate affordable housing projects. Conversely, affordable housing developers may be unable to finance the scale of project necessitated by parcels greater than 10 acres. Therefore, parcels between 0.5 and 10 acres are prioritized for lower-income housing. Some cities include large parcels (10 acres or more) in their Site Inventories that are assumed to accommodate lower-income units. For these sites, the Cities assume a capacity of lower-income units that is consistent with, or more conservative than, the actual yield of recent developments on similar-sized sites in Tulare County and the broader San Joaquin Valley region.

A list of recent developments on large sites in the San Joaquin Valley is shown in Table 4-10. 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.

Table 4-10 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
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

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-23
Project Acres Deed-Restricted Units Market Rate Units Total Units 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

4.6 Realistic Development Capacity
The Housing Element employs a comprehensive and iterative methodology to estimate dwelling unit capacity on a given parcel. As required by state law, the methodology must include sites that have a high potential to be developed with housing in the cycle and reflect a reasonable estimate of the dwelling unit capacity that is informed by past trends and substantial evidence. Therefore, it is assumed that realistic development capacity of the selected sites is less than the full development capacity allowed by the parcel’s zoning or land use designation. The pipeline projects will have an average density achievement of 72 percent of the allowable density on the sites, and recent projects demonstrated an overall average density achievement of 99 percent. For the Site Inventories in this Housing Element, it is assumed that development would occur at 75 percent of the maximum allowable density. This assumption is more conservative than the development trend to allow for unforeseen circumstances, such as market forces or other factors that may impact development.

The number of units is calculated using the following methodology. Site acreage is multiplied by allowable dwelling units per acre, which is reduced to 75 percent. Per HCD guidelines, any existing residential units on the sites are subtracted from that total. None of the sites in the Site Inventories have existing residential units.

Site Acreage x
Maximum Dwelling
Units per Acre =
Maximum Density
Allowed
Maximum Density
Allowed x 75% =
Realistic Allowable
Density
Units that can count
towards RHNA

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-24

4.7 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The California legislature adopted AB 686 (2018, Santiago) in 2018 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The law requires all jurisdictions to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities (called “affirmatively furthering fair housing” or AFFH). The Sites Inventories prepared for each city included in this housing element were analyzed to determine whether the sites selection would exacerbate conditions of segregation or whether they would promote integration. As recommended by HCD, the analysis reviewed the sites based on income category against geospatial distribution patterns of racial and ethnic segregation, household income levels, percentages of residents with disabilities, environmental health indicators, economic and educational opportunities, and other factors.

As described in the AFFH analyses in Appendices A through G, Site Inventories for each city will not exacerbate regional conditions of economic or racial/ethnic segregation, nor displace existing populations. Conversely, the Site Inventories would accommodate opportunities for distribution of households of low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income levels across the region. Each city will also implement housing programs to increase housing opportunities and promote housing and neighborhood equity, as outlined in the Housing Plans in Appendices A through G.

4.8 Supporting Information

4.8.1 Summary of Interviews with Development Community
On March 21, 2023, a stakeholder meeting was held with members of the market-rate development community in Tulare County. Developers noted that while single-family housing is generally the easiest type of housing to develop due to financing availability and market demand, recent redevelopment projects in the region show promise for the ability for developers to create mixed-use and multifamily projects in downtown areas. For example, in the City of Kingsburg in neighboring Fresno County, a former hotel in the city’s downtown area will be redeveloped into a mixed-use project with ground-floor commercial and up to 10 apartments on the second and third floors. The project is currently under construction. The developers noted that while new standards for older buildings can increase project costs, some of the cost may be offset by the ability to use existing infrastructure. Developers also noted that residential development near highways can increase project costs due to the need to install public safety infrastructure such as pedestrian bridges and elevators. More information on the stakeholder meetings is provided in Chapter 1, Introduction Public Participation.

4.9 Financial Resources for Affordable Housing
This section describes existing and potential resources for the development of affordable housing in the region. Each city administers grant funds received from state and federal sources. On a regional scale, these resources can support housing opportunities.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
PLHA, administered by HCD, provides funding to local governments in California for housing-related projects and programs that assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of their local communities. In

Regional Housing Resources
2023-2031 Housing Element 4-25
August 2022, a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) allocated $969,060 to Tulare County. The five-year estimated PLHA allocation for Tulare County was $3,501,506. 5 Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
The HOME program provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for households with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of area median income.

The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non-profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership by low-income households, including:
 Building acquisition
 New construction and reconstruction
 Moderate or substantial rehabilitation
 Homebuyer assistance
 Rental assistance
 Security deposit assistance
HOME funds have been utilized to provide tenant-based rental assistance to assist those who are homeless or precariously housed, to provide rent subsidies, as well as to construct or acquire and rehabilitate housing units for rental by individuals with disabilities.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The CDBG Program is administered by HUD. Through this program, the federal government provides funding to jurisdictions to undertake community development and housing projects.

Projects proposed by the jurisdictions must meet the objectives and eligibility criteria of CDBG legislation. The primary CDBG objective is the development of viable urban communities, including decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunity, principally for persons of low-and moderate-income. Each activity must meet one of the three following national objectives:
 Benefits low-and moderate-income families;
 Aids in the prevention of elimination of slums or blight; or  Meets other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community.

State Regional Early Action Planning (REAP)
The REAP program is funded by HCD and administered by TCAG. HCD provides funding for programs which accelerate infill and affordable development; support residents through realizing multimodal communities; shift travel behavior through reducing driving; and increase transit ridership, walking, and biking as primary modes of transportation.
5 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/2022-PLHA-Formula-Component-NOFA.pdf

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
4-26
State Local Early Action Planning (LEAP)
The LEAP program is administered by HCD. HCD provides funding for programs that accelerate the development of housing and facilitate compliance to implement the 6th Cycle RHNA.

4.10 Administrative Resources
This section describes administrative resources available to the region. These organizations help jurisdictions achieve the goals and objectives laid out in this Housing Element.

4.10.1 San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Policy Council
TCAG is one of the agencies of the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Policy Council. The Policy Council provides a platform for the Valley to connect on regional issues that impact each agency such as transportation, air quality, and advocacy efforts. The Council works to identify successful action items implemented by regional planning agencies that can result in opportunities for the San Joaquin Valley.

4.10.2 Non-Profit Organizations
Non-profit housing developers and service providers are a critical resource for accomplishing the goals and objectives of this Housing Element. Non-profit organizations that have developed affording housing in the county include the following:
 Housing Authority of Tulare County
 Self-Help Enterprises
 Habitat for Humanity of Tulare/Kings County
 Lighthouse Rescue Mission
 Tulare Bethel Housing Inc.

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-1
5 Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Analysis

5.1 Introduction and Overview
In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the federal Fair Employment and Housing Act. The law requires all state and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities.

AB 686 created new requirements that apply to all housing elements due for revision on or after January 1, 2021.

AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH) to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.” AB 686 added to the Housing Element requirements an assessment of fair housing which includes the following components:
 A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of a jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity
 An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities  An assessment of contributing factors
 An identification of fair housing goals and actions1

5.1.1 Methodology
This AFFH analysis has been prepared consistent with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements which provides guidance on the preparation of housing elements and ensures statutory requirements are satisfied pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(10). HCD’s AFFH Guidance instructs that AFFH analyses to examine local patterns and trends and compare them to the region to provide a broader context for local fair housing issues. Recognizing differences between local areas and the broader region, especially when identifying spatial patterns, is important to identify and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues that affect the locality.

This AFFH analysis is part of the Tulare County Regional Housing Element, a collaborative effort between Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and the cities of Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Porterville, Tulare, and Woodlake. As such, this analysis identifies patterns and trends at the regional scale to be used for comparison for the local scale analyses, located in each jurisdiction’s appendix of this document. The regional analysis mostly focuses on countywide data, but it also includes information on the broader “tri-county” area of Tulare County/Fresno County/Kings County to provide additional context for comparison of fair housing issues. 1 Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-2
The regional and local AFFH analyses evaluates the following fair housing issues:
 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
Each local AFFH analysis also includes the following that is not discussed in this section:
 Local Area Knowledge and Stakeholder and Community Input  Other Relevant Factors, such as a history of preferential investment for certain neighborhoods or types of housing
 Analysis of the Housing Sites Inventory using AFFH indicators The local AFFH analyses also identify and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. Fair housing issues are conditions that restrict fair housing choice or access to opportunity in a geographic context, e.g., restricting housing opportunities to specific neighborhoods based on household income level and other socioeconomic characteristics. Fair housing choice means realistic housing opportunities exist and can be accessed without discrimination towards protected characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, sex, disability, and so forth, and residents are informed with adequate information regarding options. Each local AFFH analysis addresses impediments through AFFH-specific goals and actions based on the contributing factors for each identified fair housing issue.

Regional Population Distribution
Western and eastern Tulare County differ greatly in population density, topography, and environment.

The county is generally divided between east and west by the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which consists of areas above the 600-foot elevation line.2 Western Tulare County contains the valley floor of the county and is relatively flat in elevation. This part of the county includes both urban and rural areas and includes all the incorporated cities in the county. Outside of urban areas, western Tulare County largely consists of agricultural land. Eastern Tulare County is rural and consists of the foothill and mountain areas of the county. There are no incorporated cities in eastern Tulare County. Most of eastern Tulare County is characterized by mountainous terrain within the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

These areas include parts of Sequoia National Park, Kings Canyon National Park, Inyo National Forest, Sequoia National Forest, and other wilderness and forested areas.

Population density is highest in and surrounding the incorporated cities, especially the cities of Dinuba, Porterville, Tulare, and Visalia, where the population density reaches between 5,000 and 10,000 people per square mile. Outside of urban communities, areas are sparsely populated. The population density is less than 50 persons per square mile throughout rural areas of the county and the entirety of eastern Tulare County.

The unequal distribution of the county’s population may skew housing patterns and trends identified throughout this analysis. Eastern Tulare County consists of two large census tracts, while western Tulare 2 Tulare County. 2012. 2030 General Plan.
http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GP/001Adopted%20Tulare%20County%20General%20Plan%20Materials/000General%20Plan%2 02030%20Part%20I%20and%20Part%20II/GENERAL%20PLAN%202012.pdf

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-3
County includes many census tracts of various sizes. This discrepancy was considered when identifying patterns and interpreting spatial data throughout the analysis.

5.2 Data Sources
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires cities and counties to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

Data from a variety of sources were utilized to conduct this analysis, detailed below:

5.2.1 HCD AFFH Data Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer and updated AFFH Data Viewer Version 2.0 are tools developed by HCD that features census block group and tract level data from an expansive collection of sources including United States (U.S.) Census American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), Urban Displacement Project (UDP), and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 3 . The Data Viewer tools serve as
resources for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing. The Data Viewer tools are intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination, and increase access to safe and affordable homes.

5.2.2 Urban Displacement Project
The UDP was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California4
. The UDP measures indicators of gentrification and
displacement at the census tract level based on data from the 2015-2019 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts identified as disadvantaged neighborhoods by UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, non-Hispanic/Latino white population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.

5.2.3 CalEnviroScreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed a screening methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution5 . This tool, called
the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, if a community has a high score for that indicator, it is more likely to have greater degree of pollution burden and a higher rate of residents vulnerable to the effects of that pollution exposure as compared to census tracts statewide. Designated disadvantaged communities are those with CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher, meaning that they scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts for pollution and other social and economic burden indicators across California. 3 HCD AFFH Data Viewer. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60 4 Urban Displacement Project. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/ 5 CalEnviroScreen 4.0. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-4

5.2.4 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps
To assist fair housing analysis, HCD and TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals. 67 The California Fair Housing Task Force created Opportunity Maps to identify resource levels across the state. Opportunity mapping is a way to measure and visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility.2 Opportunity Maps reflect scores in three different domains made up from a set of indicators shown in Table 5-1, as well as a composite score combining all three domains.

Table 5-1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, Adult Education, employment, Job proximity, median home value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020

5.2.5 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data
Each year, HUD receives custom tabulations of ACS data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low-income households.8 CHAS data is estimated by the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of median income). It is also important to consider the prevalence of housing problems among different types of households, such as seniors, persons with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, and different household types.

5.2.6 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS)
The ACS, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, is an ongoing survey that collects information on demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics of the U.S. population.9 ACS uses independent monthly samples, each with a sample size of 250,000 addresses (consisting of housing units and group quarters), surveyed via internet, mail, telephone, and personal visit. ACS data uses one-year and five-year estimates. The one-year data is collected over a period of 12 months and is useful for showing year-to-year fluctuations in data for geographic areas with at least 65,000 people. The five-year estimates represent data collected over a period of 60 months (5 years) and are considered statistically more reliable than the one-year estimates, particularly for less populated areas and small population subgroups.
6 TCAC Opportunity Maps. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen 7 Office of The State Treasurer (STO). 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcac-hcd-methodology.pdf 8 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html 9 U.S. Census American Community Survey. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-5

5.2.7 AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that examines factors related to transit access and produces a performance score that reveals the social and economic impact of transit, such as connectivity and access to jobs.10

5.3 Fair Housing Resources

5.3.1 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity is the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing agencies to provide fair housing and tenants’ rights information to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, resolving issues, and conducting fair housing testing.

There are multiple organizations throughout Tulare County that provide fair housing services to the region. Table 5-2 lists organizations that are HUD-certified fair housing providers in Tulare County.

Table 5-2 HUD Certified Fair Housing Providers Active in the Tulare County Organization URL Phone Number
Community Services Employment Training (CSET) https://www.cset.org/ (559) 732-4194 (855) 275-3246
Fair Housing Council of Central California (FHCCC) https://fhc-cc.org/index.html (559) 244-2950 (415) 928-5910
Self-Help Enterprises (SHE) https://www.selfhelpenterprises.org/ (559) 651-1000 Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 2023. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/find-a-housingcounselor/?zipcode=93257#hud_search_container Community Services Employment Training (CSET), a non-profit organization, is a fair housing service provider that offers housing services to all residents in Tulare County. CSET distributes fair housing information and hosts educational workshops on fair housing throughout the county. In addition, CSET offers supportive housing services, such as foreclosure counseling, first time home buyer education, and water utility bill assistance.

5.4 Ability to Address Complaints
Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing is a technique used to uncover evidence of discrimination in rental housing. Fair housing testing involves one or more individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws. Enforcement actions may be taken when investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination. Testing may be initiated following the filing of a specific housing discrimination complaint or, as is the case when testing for discrimination against a specific class, as part of an overall effort to determine whether the discrimination is happening in a consistent systemic pattern in a city or region. In Tulare County, fair housing testing is used to identify unlawful housing discrimination practices based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender identity or expression, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, and source of income of prospective renters. 10 AllTransit. https://alltransit.cnt.org/

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-6
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) maintains a record of housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. Between January 2006 and June 2020, a total of 92 cases were filed with the DFEH in Tulare County (Table 5-3). Disability-related discrimination comprised the largest proportion of cases (61 percent of cases), followed by race (29 percent of cases). Most of the race-based cases were filed by Black/African American residents (78 percent of race-based cases). Appendices A through G, in Affirmatively Fair Housing Analysis, detail how each jurisdiction addresses fair housing complaints.

Table 5-3 Tulare County Fair Housing Complaints (2006-2020) Basis Number
Disability 56
Race/Color 27
Familial Status 9
Sex 5
National Origin 3
Religion 2
Total 92
Source: Data.gov, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Filed Cases, 2020

5.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends. Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability in a specific geographic area. Segregation generally means the opposite condition, in which there is a high concentration of the characteristics described above in a specific geographic area. To identify socio-economic and demographic spatial trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis utilizes HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, which provides an expansive collection of data from sources including the ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and other regional and federal agencies.

In its AFFH guidance document published in April 2021, HCD describes the importance of segregation and integration analysis in relation to fair housing:

Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race, ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, practices, and procedures—both public and private—that have had enduring and pervasive negative impacts. Overt and covert housing discrimination through land use policy, shifting housing markets, and patterns of investment and disinvestment, have restricted meaningful fair housing choice and equitable access to opportunity, particularly for communities of color. Historic patterns of segregation persist in California despite the long-standing federal mandate, established by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further the purposes of the FHA. Past and present discriminatory policies and practices, including long-term disinvestment, have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock, limited access to opportunity, unsafe environmental conditions, underfunded schools, dilapidated infrastructure, and other disproportionately experienced problems. In addition, governmental policies have subsidized the development of segregated, highresourced suburbs in metropolitan areas by constructing new highway systems—often through

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-7
lower-income communities of color— to ensure access to job opportunities in urban centers. This physical and policy infrastructure supports patterns of discrimination and high levels of segregation that continue to persist in California and across the country. All of these conditions persist despite the over 50-year-old obligation to prohibit discrimination and affirmatively further fair housing.11

5.5.1 Race and Ethnicity
The ethnic and racial composition of a region relates to fair housing concerns such as household size, locational preferences, and economic opportunity. Historic exclusionary governmental policies, biased mortgage lending practices, and other tactics have caused racial and ethnic segregation and spatial inequities.

Approximately 73 percent of the population in Tulare County is non-white, greater than the percent of non-white residents in the tri-county area (58 percent). The western, urbanized area of Tulare County is the most diverse area of the county, containing populations with at least 40 percent non-white residents (Figure 5-1). This area contains the incorporated cities: Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Porterville, Tulare, Visalia, and Woodlake. Comparatively, the eastern area of the county, which is relatively less urbanized and less densely populated and consists of or is located near the Sequoia National Park and Sequoia National Forest, is less diverse and contains a higher percentage of white residents.

Hispanic/Latino residents comprise the largest racial/ethnic group in the county, equaling approximately two-thirds (66 percent) of the total population in 2020.12 In the last decade, the percentage of nonwhite residents in Tulare County increased. The white population of the county comprised approximately one-third of the population in 2010 but decreased to approximately one-quarter in 2020.

The HCD AFFH Data Viewer identifies the predominant racial/ethnic composition for each census tract.

Figure 5-2 shows which race or ethnicity is predominant and degree of predominance. Most of the western portion of the county is predominantly Hispanic/Latino, except for eastern parts of Visalia and northern parts of the cities of Tulare and Exeter which are predominantly white.

5.5.2 Persons with Disabilities
For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing. It also includes housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have fair housing choice if there are insufficient housing units in their area with these accessibility features.13
High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to both physical needs and economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.14 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit.
11 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 12 United States Census Bureau. 2020. Decennial Census. https://data.census.gov/table?q=tulare+county&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1 13 HCD, 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 14 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-8
Figure 5-1 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023.

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-9
Figure 5-2 Predominant Populations (Tulare County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-10
Approximately 53,760 residents, equal to 12 percent of the total population in Tulare County, are living with one or more disabilities. Similarly, 12 percent of the population in the tri-county area is living with a disability. The most common disability in the county is independent living disability, followed by ambulatory difficulty (Figure 5-3). Disabilities are most prevalent among senior residents. Approximately 39 percent of residents aged 65 and over are living with a disability (2017-2021 ACS).

Figure 5-3 Disability by Type (Tulare County)
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.

Throughout most of the county, less than 20 percent of the population has a disability. Some of the rural areas in the western parts of the county have lower concentrations of persons living with a disability, with less than 10 percent of the population with a disability (Figure 5-4). In eastern parts of the county and several areas within and near the cities of Visalia, Lindsay, and Porterville, more than 20 percent of residents have a disability.

Approximately five percent of the total employed population in the county have one or more disabilities. Nine percent of the unemployed population have one or more disabilities (Table 5-4).

Table 5-4 Employment Status by Disability Status (Tulare County) Disability Status
Employed
2017-2021
(Percent of Total Employed)
Unemployed
2017-2021
(Percent of Total Unemployed)
No Disability 168,751
95%
18,343
91%
With a Disability 9,424
5%
1,730
9%
Total 178,175 20,073
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2017- 2021 Estimates.

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-11
Figure 5-4 Percent of Population with a Disability (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare Regional Multi-Jurisdiction Housing Element
5-12

5.5.3 Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 and the marital 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 are potentially discriminatory. Single-parent households are protected by fair housing law. A 2016 HUD study on the effects of housing discrimination based on familial status found that landlords presented households with children fewer housing options, and the units shown were generally larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.15 Additionally, female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

Tulare County had a total of 139,631 households in 2021. Households with children present comprised approximately 39 percent (54,445 households) of the total households in the county. Married-couple families with children comprised the largest share of households with children (62 percent). Most singleparent households are female single-parent households (70 percent). Single-parent, female-headed households are more likely to rent than own, comprising approximately 18 percent of renter-occupied households but only five percent of owner-occupied households (Table 5-5).

Table 5-5 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Tulare County) Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent of Total
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Percent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Married Couple Family, with
Children Present
19,967 24.9% 14,029 23.6%
Single-Parent, Male Householder,
no Spouse Present
2,366 3.0% 3,711 6.2%
Single Parent, Female Householder,
No Spouse Present
3,699 4.6% 10,673 17.9%
Total Households with Children
Present
26,032 32.5% 28,413 47.7%
Total Households 80,125 59,506
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.

Urban areas of the county have higher percentages of children residing in female-headed, single-parent households. Areas located in the western part of the county, such as the cities of Visalia, Dinuba, and Porterville, have higher percentages of children residing in female-headed, single-parent households, with between 40 and 60 percent of children in female-headed, single-parent households in some census tracts. In contrast, most rural parts of the county and all of eastern Tulare County has less than 20 percent of children residing in female-headed, single-parent households (Figure 5-5). 15 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-13
Figure 5-5 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare Regional Multi-Jurisdiction Housing Element
5-5-14

5.5.4 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 an actual 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 are from the HUD Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data based on the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (most recent available data).16
Tulare County has a median household income of $57,394, less than the tri-county median household income of $60,646. Both the county and the tri-county area have a much lower median household income than the state ($90,100), 57 percent lower for the county and 49 percent lower for the tricounty area. Median household income in the county is highest in western and northeastern Visalia and northern Tulare, where median household income is greater than $90,100 (the state median household income in 2021) (Figure 5-6). Throughout the rest of the county, median household income is lower than the 2021 state median income. Census tracts within urban areas of the county and rural areas of northwestern, southern, and eastern parts of the county have the lowest household median incomes in the county (less than $55,000 per year). County lands surrounding the incorporated cities, and County lands in central Tulare County, generally have residents with higher median household incomes and a lower percentage of LMI populations.

LMI populations are prevalent throughout Tulare County, especially in western parts of the county (Figure 5-7). Census tracts in the western part of the county, including the cities of Dinuba, Visalia, Tulare, and Porterville, contain the highest percentage of LMI populations in the county. Central areas of the county and areas west and south of the city of Visalia have the lowest percentage of LMI populations. Geographically, LMI populations overlap with census tracts with greater racial diversity (Figure 5-1) and census tracts that are predominantly Hispanic/Latino (Figure 5-2). 16 HUD Exchange 2021: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-15
Figure 5-6 Median Household Income (Tulare County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-16
Figure 5-7 Percent of Low- to Moderate-Income (LMI) Population (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-17

5.5.5 Poverty and Segregation
Poverty rates are high in both rural and more urban areas of Tulare County but are most prevalent in urban as well as rural areas in northwestern and southern parts of the county (Figure 5-8). More than 40 percent of the population in households with incomes below the poverty line in areas northeast and east of Dinuba; southeast of the unincorporated community of Earlimart; and within the cities of Dinuba, Visalia, Lindsay, Woodlake, and Porterville. Areas scattered throughout the western parts of the county have more than 30 percent of the population in households with incomes below the poverty line.

Areas of the county with the lowest poverty rates are located within the cities of Visalia and Tulare, and east of the city of Exeter, with less than 10 percent of the population in households with incomes below the poverty line. Areas in the county with a high percentage of residents in households with incomes below the poverty line overlaps with areas that with a predominantly Hispanic/Latino population (Figure 5-2).

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. Areas of high segregation and poverty in Tulare County are concentrated in the western half of the county. This includes rural areas in the northwestern and southwestern part of the county as well as census tracts within the cities of Dinuba, Visalia, Woodlake, Farmersville, Lindsay, Tulare, and Porterville (Figure 5-9). These areas overlap with census tracts with a predominantly Hispanic/Latino population (Figure 5-2).

The Othering & Belonging Institute at the University of California, Berkeley works to identify and eliminate the barriers to an inclusive, just, and sustainable society. The Institute’s Roots of Structural Racism Project studies the harmful effects of racial residential segregation across the United States, observing a consistent and strong correlation between the degree of racial residential segregation and key life outcomes, such as poverty rates, home values and rents, educational achievement, life expectancy, economic mobility, and more. The Roots of Structural Racism Project developed an interactive mapping tool that illustrates the level of residential segregation by census tract. According to the Othering & Belonging Institute, census tracts in Tulare County range from racially integrated to high levels of segregation (Figure 5-10). Compared to the rest of the tri-county area, Tulare County has fewer areas with a high level of segregation of non-white residents and fewer areas with a high level of segregation of white residents. Areas with high segregation of non-white residents are located in and near the city of Dinuba, while racially integrated areas are concentrated near Farmersville, Exeter, and in the cities of Tulare, Visalia, and Porterville. There is a small area with a high level of segregation of white residents in western Visalia.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-18
Figure 5-8 Poverty Status (Tulare County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-19
Figure 5-9 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-20
Figure 5-10 Racial Segregation and Integration (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-21

5.5.6 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are defined as affluent, white communities.17 According to a policy paper published by HUD, white residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States typically more affluent than majority non-white communities. In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to LMI areas.

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 and a household median income 1.5 times higher than the AMI. In the tri-county area, RCAAs are primarily located near the outer edges of the cities of Fresno, Hanford, Visalia, and Tulare. In Tulare County, RCAAs are located in the northern part of the county as well as areas within and outside the city of Visalia and east of the city of Tulare ( Figure 5-11). The RCAA located in northern Tulare County is sparsely populated, with a population density of less than 50 people per square mile. RCAAs in Tulare County are predominantly white, except for the RCAA east of the city of Tulare which is predominantly Hispanic/Latino (Figure 5-2) and households primarily have median incomes much greater than the county average of $52,534 (Figure 5-6).

5.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Land use policies and urban planning impact the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far-reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.18 This section analyzes the following place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators: quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment. The primary objective is to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.

5.6.1 Transit Access and Walkability
Reliable public transit access and active transportation options such as walking, and biking are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities. Lack of transportation options can impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for low-income communities in accessing housing and employment opportunities. 17 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, 2019. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf 18 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-22
Figure 5-11 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-23
The following transit organizations operate throughout Tulare County:
 Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA)
 Tulare County Area Transit (TCaT) fixed route service and Dial-A-Ride − Tulare Intermodal Express (TIME)
− Dinuba Area Regional Transit (DART)
− City of Porterville Dial-A-COLT
− Porterville Transit
− City of Woodlake Dial-A-Ride
 Microtransit Service
 Visalia Transit fixed route service and Dial-A-Ride
 V-LINE
 Sequoia Shuttle between Visalia and Sequioa National Park (seasonal July through September) There are two public transit providers in Tulare County: Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA) which operates TCaT, and Visalia Transit managed by the City of Visalia. Both providers offer fixed route bus service and curb-to-curb Dial-a-Ride service for seniors and residents with disabilities. TCRTA was created in 2020 through a Joint Powers Agreement with eight member agencies: the County of Tulare and the cities of Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Porterville, Tulare, and Woodlake. Local transit providers providing fixed route bus services, such as Dinuba Area Regional Transit (DART), Tulare Intermodal Express (TIME), and Porterville Transit, currently operate under TCRTA. TCRTA also offers ondemand curb-to-curb microtransit services in select communities. Microtransit is a shuttle service that operates similar to Uber and Lyft and uses the Uber app. Communities in Tulare County with access to microtransit service consist of Porterville, Lindsay, Farmersville, Exeter, Tulare, Dinuba, Cutler, Orosi, and Woodlake. Porterville will no longer be a partnership with TCRTA in the next fiscal year.

TRCTA 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. The cities of Exeter and Farmersville currently receive paratransit service from the City of Visalia (Visalia Transit). 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 operates throughout every city in the county as well as many communities in unincorporated county areas. TCAG provides free and discounted transit fare for Tulare County residents, including members of the military, veterans, and students attending the College of the Sequoias. TCaT provides a fixed route bus service with nine lines between communities in western Tulare County, including the cities of Dinuba, Woodlake, Lindsay, Visalia, Exeter, Porterville, and Tulare. TCaT also offers Dial-A-Ride services to all areas within 0.75 miles of Routes C10 through C90, including to rural locations in Allensworth, Alpaugh, Cutler, Delft Colony, Dinuba, Earlimart, East Orosi, Lindsay, London, Monson, North Patterson Tract, Orosi, Pixley, Richgrove, Seville, Sultana, Teviston, Tipton, Tonyville, Tooleville, Traver, Waukena, and Yettem.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-24
Visalia Transit operates 13 fixed bus routes with connections to the cities of Farmersville, Exeter, and Tulare and the community of Goshen and Dial-A-Ride services throughout Visalia. The V-LINE provides shuttle services between Visalia and Fresno six times per day, seven days a week. The Sequoia Shuttle provides round-trip shuttle service from Sequoia National Park and Visalia. Transit options in eastern and rural areas of the county are very limited.

Regional transit services are provided by DART with a fixed route service connecting Dinuba and Reedley in Fresno County, Kings Area Regional Transit, connecting Visalia and Hansford in Kings County, Greyhound, connecting Visalia and Tulare to Bakersfield in Kern County and Fresno in Fresno County.

TCAG is also a member of the California Vanpool Authority, a service that provides vanpooling vehicles for people who work in places that lack public transit. In Tulare County, there are 95 vans with a total capacity of 624 passengers, that primarily run out of Visalia. The primary employment destinations are correctional facilities in Corcoran and Delano, including California State Prison (Corcoran) and Kern Valley State Prison. Other employment destinations include state, medical, and agricultural employers.19 Commuting patterns within the county are characterized by substantial intercity and intercounty travel.

Visalia contains a high percentage of the county’s jobs and population, and therefore is a major destination and point of origin for commuters. There are more residents commuting outside of Tulare County for work than there are workers commuting into the county. Approximately 61,953 residents commute to outside the county and 55,122 workers commute into the county. The average commute time in Tulare County is 22.5 minutes, which is less than the state average of 29.5 minutes (2017-2021 ACS). According to TCAG’s Long Range Transit Plan, travel time by transit between cities is more than double travel time by automobile. The average travel times between cities within Tulare County by automobile is 36 minutes while the average transit travel time is 107 minutes.20 Tulare County received an average AllTransit performance score of 4.1 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit.21 Less than one percent of commuters use transit. Tulare County has a higher AllTransit performance score than the tri-county area overall (score of 3.4.). Urban areas in the western part of the county have the greatest access to transit, particularly central areas within the cities of Visalia, Tulare, and Porterville. Smaller cities, such as Exeter, Lindsay, and Woodlake, have less access to transit compared to larger cities in the county. Although Dial-A-Ride services are provided in some rural areas of the county, these areas have the lowest access to transit and the fewest number of transit options.

TCAG also partners with neighboring King County and Fresno County to increase transit access and mobility to residents within the region. TCAG’s Cross Valley Corridor (CVC) Plan, approved by the TCAG Board of Directors in 2018, provides a regional strategy to enhance transit connectivity throughout all three counties with a focus on disadvantaged communities that have historically lacked transit access.

The CVC targets alternative modes of transportation and reducing reliance on personal vehicles through establishment of regional passenger rail service and expanding regional bus systems. The plan for the rail service is to convert an existing underutilized freight railroad to a passenger railroad between the cities of Porterville and Huron. The CVC Plan also includes actions to improve regional bus systems by creating new transit centers in the center of communities near the railroad. The CVC Plan connects transit in the county to the proposed Hanford station of the future California High Speed Rail system, establishing transit access to other areas of the state. 19 TCAG. 2017. Tulare County Long Range Transit Plan Final Report. https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/transit-planning/transit-plans/transitdevelopment-plans-short-and-long-range-transit-plans/tulare-county-regional-long-range-transit-plan/ 20 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 21 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-25
TCAG’s ongoing and planned transit infrastructure programs designed to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety include road stabilization projects, establishing sidewalks to provide safe routes to school, creating safer highway interchanges, and adding roundabouts to street intersections. TCAG also implements extensive community outreach efforts to educate the community on transportation safety.

Through grant funded outreach, TCAG held 66 community events related to transportation safety throughout the county from October 2021 through the end of 2022.

The TCAG 2022 Regional Active Transportation Plan for the Tulare County Region facilitates the county’s long-range plan for transportation and contains a list of projects and programs to update and expand the regional active transportation system. The Regional Active Transportation Plan identifies 92 projects to expand bicycle and pedestrian networks throughout the county, most of which are concentrated along state routes, including State Route (SR) 63 and SR 65. Projects include sidewalk installation projects, on-street bike lanes, off-street pedestrian and bicycle trails, street, creek, and railroadcrossings, and safe routes to school. One project consists of a countywide non-infrastructure program to promote local safe routes to school. The plan also includes 31 projects in unincorporated parts of the county, 11 projects in Dinuba, four projects in Exeter, eight projects in Farmersville, four projects in Lindsay, seven projects in Porterville, three projects in the city of Tulare, one project in the Tule River Tribe Reservation, 16 projects in Visalia, and six projects in Woodlake.22

5.6.2 Access to Quality Education
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.23 Therefore, educational attainment is directly linked to income and therefore housing opportunities. To assess educational opportunities by geography, this analysis uses TCAC education domain scores, which incorporate a variety of indicators including math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates at the census tract level.

Educational outcomes vary across the tri-county area and Tulare County. Higher educational outcome scores are generally located in proximity to urban areas. Many of the rural parts of the tri-county area have lower educational outcomes. Areas in the northern and northwestern parts of Tulare County and areas east and south of the city of Porterville have more positive education outcomes compared to the rest of the county (Figure 5-12). Areas within the cities of Visalia, Tulare, and Porterville have the least positive education outcomes.

According to Kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, Tulare County high school graduation rates are highest among Filipino students (100 percent), Asian American students (95 percent), Hispanic/Latino students (88 percent), and white students (88 percent). Comparatively, Black/African American students (82 percent) and American Indian/Alaska Native students (83 percent) have lower graduation rates. 22 TCAG. 2022. 2022 Regional Active Transportation Plan for the Tulare County Region. https://tularecog.org/sites/tcag/assets/File/TCAG%202022%20RATP_.pdf 23 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare Regional Multi-Jurisdiction Housing Element
5-26
Figure 5-12 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-27

5.6.3 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC opportunity maps, employment participation data from the ACS, and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index. The TCAC economic opportunity maps evaluate several indicators and score each census tract, a higher economic index score reflecting more positive economic outcomes. Scores are based on the following indicators:
 Poverty (the percent of the population with an income above 200 percent of the federal poverty line)
 Adult education (the percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above)  Employment (the percent of adults between age 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or armed forces)
 Job proximity (the number of jobs filled with less than a bachelor’s degree that fall within a determined radius)
 Median home values (the value of owner-occupied units) The HUD Jobs Proximity Index measures the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract and compared to other census tracts within the same COG. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes.24 The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

Economic outcomes vary across Tulare County and the tri-county area. More positive economic outcomes in the tri-county area mostly located near urban areas, however less positive economic outcomes are located in both urban and rural areas. In Tulare County, areas with more positive economic outcome scores are located in the northern parts of northwestern areas of the county (Figure 5-13). In comparison, areas within southwestern and parts of northwestern Tulare County, including in the cities of Tulare, Lindsay, Dinuba, and Porterville have less positive economic outcome scores.

Tulare County has a labor force participation rate of 61 percent for persons 16 years and over, comparable to the tri-county area (60 percent). Estimates from the California Employment Development Department show that the average salary in Tulare County in 2021 was $52,126. Occupations with the highest average salaries in Tulare County are management occupations, healthcare practitioners and technical occupations, and legal occupations, all with an average salary of over $100,000 (Table 5-6).

Occupations with the lowest salaries include healthcare support occupations, food preparation and serving related occupations, and farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, all with average salaries under $36,000. A large portion of the workforce in the county are employed in industries with lower average salaries. Approximately 14 percent of the employed population work in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, 11 percent work in transportation and material moving occupations, 10 percent work in office and administrative support occupations, 9 percent work in sales and related occupations, 7 percent work in food preparation and serving related occupations, and 6 percent work in healthcare 24 MTC, 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-28
support occupations. All of these occupations have salaries less than the average annual wage of $52,126.

Table 5-6 Mean Salary by Occupation (Tulare County)
Occupation Average Salary
Management Occupations $110,075
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $102,687 Legal Occupations $100,698
Architecture and Engineering Occupations $87,583
Computer and Mathematical Occupations $84,174
Business and Financial Operations Occupations $74,485
Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $70,468 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $70,251
Protective Service Occupations $64,358
Community and Social Service Occupations $58,927
Construction and Extraction Occupations $58,381
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $55,920 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $53,913 Office and Administrative Support Occupations $45,393
Production Occupations $43,019
Sales and Related Occupations $42,030
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $41,182
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $39,092 Personal Care and Service Occupations $37,824
Healthcare Support Occupations $35,947
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $34,572 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $32,451
All Occupations $52,126
Source: California Employment Development Department, Occupational Wage data, 2022 Access to employment opportunities has a significant impact on the type and size of housing a household can afford. HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index utilizes origin-destination employment statistics to examine the distance from a given neighborhood to all job locations in the region and assess the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. Because the size of employment centers and the supply of labor differ across the region, the distance from any single job location is positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location.25 Major employers in Tulare County include Kaweah Delta Health Care, Sierra View District Hospital, Walmart Distribution Center, and College of the Sequoias, which are all located in the cities of Visalia and Porterville.
25HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-29
Figure 5-13 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-30

5.6.4 Healthy and Safe Housing Environment
Healthy Environment in AFFH addresses disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups. An assessment of environmentally healthy neighborhoods can include air and water quality, safety, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws (Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, Senate Bill (SB) 535 and SB 1000) emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental Justice, according to HUD, means ensuring that people have equal access to safe and healthy housing. HUD requires all entitlement jurisdictions to conduct reviews under the National Environmental Protection Act to determine if a proposed project creates adverse impacts due to environmental conditions. It furthers the requirement that human health deserves equal protection for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income.

Under Executive Order 12898, Federally assisted projects may also target funding to communities that have disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts on minority and low-income populations due to environmental conditions.26
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool that uses spatial data collected by various regulatory agencies (e.g., air quality indicators from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, monitored chemical releases into the air or water table from Environmental Protection Agency, HUD socio-economic indicators, etc.).The dataset uses a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by exposures to pollution, environmental effects of existing pollutants in communities, among other indicators of sensitive populations or socioeconomic factors. Residents in census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores as compared to other California census tracts (shown as percentiles) are disproportionately burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects.

CalEnviroScreen identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. In the tri-county area, the eastern portion of Fresno County has a lesser pollution burden, while the western portion of Fresno and Tulare Counties and all of Kings County, including most urban areas, have greater pollution burden. CalEnviroScreen identified higher pollution burden in western Tulare County and lower pollution burden in northern and eastern Tulare County (Figure 5-14). Pollution burden in western Tulare County is high due to ozone, particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, pesticide use, and groundwater threats. Pollution burden caused by drinking water contaminants and solid waste sites is high throughout the county. Similar to the CalEnviroScreen map, the TCAC opportunity map indicates environmental outcomes in the western portion of the county are generally less positive and the environmental outcomes in the eastern portion of the county are the most positive (Figure 5-15).

Like the majority of the western part of the tri-county area, most of western Tulare County is considered a disadvantaged community under SB 535. Disadvantaged communities are low-income areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards (Figure 5-16). Disadvantaged communities include census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen.

SB 535 disadvantaged communities in Tulare County include both rural and urban areas. All cities in western Tulare County contain SB 535 disadvantaged communities. There are no SB 535 disadvantaged communities in eastern Tulare County.
26 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-31
Figure 5-14 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-32
Figure 5-15 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Environmental (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-33
Figure 5-16 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (Tulare County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-34

5.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs, this section reviews data on housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions. Information for this section relies on the HUD CHAS data.

5.7.1 Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered “cost burdened,” and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered “severely cost burdened.” The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems.

Cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs) among homeowners and renters is a widespread issue across most of the tri-county area, especially throughout Tulare County, southwest Kings County, southeast Fresno County, and in and near the city of Fresno.

Approximately 29 percent of owner households in Tulare County are cost burdened, and 50 percent of renter households are cost burdened (2015-2019 CHAS). Cost burden by homeowners in Tulare County is lowest in and surrounding the cities of Visalia, Porterville, Tulare, and Lindsay where less than 20 percent of homeowner households are cost burdened (Figure 5-17). Areas south of the cities of Dinuba and southeast of the community of Earlimart have the highest rates of cost burden among homeowners, greater than 80 percent. For renter households, between 40 and 60 percent of households are cost burdened throughout most of the county (Figure 5-18). Some of the highest rates of overpayment by renters occur in more urban areas, including the cities of Visalia, Porterville, and Tulare, where more than 80 percent of renters are cost burdened. In areas north and south of Porterville, in and west of Dinuba, in Lindsay, and south of the community of Terra Bella between 60 and 80 percent of renter households are cost burdened as well.

5.7.2 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding is a measure to understand the needs of large families where there are five or more people per household. Generally, large households have special housing needs due to lower per capita income and the need for housing with three or more bedrooms.

Some large households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept housing with too few rooms. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding reflects various living situations, including housing units that are inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs; the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families that share a single housing unit.

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-35
Figure 5-17 Overpayment by Home Owners (Tulare County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-36
Figure 5-18 Overpayment by Renters (Tulare County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-37
Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain electrical systems in older housing that have not been updated or contribute to a perceived shortage of parking.

As a result, some property owners/managers may be more hesitant to rent to large households, thus making access to adequately sized housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with different preferences for housing size and/or ability to pay according to the household size standards identified.

Tulare County has 30,158 large households (households with five or more people), approximately 22 percent of total households (2017-2021 ACS). A higher percentage of renter households (24 percent) were considered large households compared to owner households (20 percent). The percentage of large households is slightly higher in Tulare County than the tri-county area (19 percent).

Approximately 10 percent of the population in Tulare County and the tri-county area lives in overcrowded housing and 2 percent of the population lives in severely overcrowded housing in Tulare County and 4 percent in the tri-county area. Overcrowded housing is concentrated in the western half of Tulare County, closer to urban areas such as the cities of Visalia, Tulare, and Porterville and in northwestern and southwestern parts of the county (Figure 5-19). In the northwestern and southwestern parts of the county and parts of Visalia, Tulare, and Porterville over 20 percent of households were experiencing overcrowding. In the eastern half of the county, approximately one to two percent of households experienced overcrowding.

5.7.3 Housing Problems
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they are in compliance with local building codes.

Many federal and State programs use the age of housing as a factor to determine a community’s housing rehabilitation needs. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include replacing plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Housing units built before 1978 may have health risks such as lead-based paint and asbestos. Housing issues prompted by disrepair such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma.

According to federal law, “housing problems” refers to any of four housing issues: cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions. Substandard housing is defined as a housing unit lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities.

Housing problems are prevalent among households in Tulare County and the tri-county area. In both the county and tri-county area, approximately 44 percent of total households are experiencing housing problems and 26 percent of households are experiencing severe housing problems. Tulare County has approximately 1,399 substandard housing units which comprise approximately 1 percent of the total occupied units in the county. Of the 1,399 substandard units, approximately 29 percent lack complete plumbing facilities and 71 percent lack complete kitchen facilities.

More than half of Tulare County’s housing stock (61 percent) was constructed prior to 1990 and is more than 30 years old. These units are potentially in need of repair and modernization improvements.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare Regional Multi-Jurisdiction Housing Element
5-38
Figure 5-19 Overcrowded Households (Tulare County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-39

5.7.4 Persons Experiencing Homelessness
According to the Kings and Tulare County 2023 point-in-time (PIT) count, 1,470 persons experiencing homelessness were recorded in the two counties, representing a 16 percent increase since 2022. 27 In
Tulare County alone, 1,053 persons experiencing homelessness were recorded in 2023, an increase from 922 persons recorded in 2022. Factors contributing to the increase in homelessness include new PIT methodology, potential increase in the number of persons experiencing homelessness who were living in their vehicles which is more difficult to count, and large efforts by some jurisdictions to disperse homeless encampments which makes accurate PIT count challenging.

State law (Section 65583(a)(7)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes the condition of an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
 Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and  Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
 A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
 An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
 A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

The majority of homeless individuals identified in Tulare County (74 percent of homeless individuals, 779 persons) were unsheltered. Approximately 41 percent of persons experiencing homelessness in Tulare County were located in the city of Visalia, 28 percent were located in the city of Porterville, and 27 percent were located in the city of Tulare. This is an overrepresentation of the percentage of homeless residents, as Visalia is home to 30 percent of the county’s population, Porterville has 13 percent, and Tulare has 15 percent.

The 2023 PIT found that 41 percent of the persons experiencing homelessness in Tulare County had a disability. In comparison, only 12 percent of the county’s total population are living with a disability.

Most persons experiencing homelessness identified as white (70 percent), seven percent identified as Black/African American, and nine percent identified Native American/Alaskan Native. Approximately 49 percent of persons identified experiencing homelessness in Tulare County were Hispanic/Latino. Of the homeless residents surveyed in Tulare County, 42 percent identified mental disability as a barrier to housing, 40 percent identified substance use as a barrier to housing, and one percent identified HIV/AIDS as a barrier to housing.

The Tulare County Task Force on Homelessness advises and assists the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency to address homelessness throughout the community. The Task Force coordinates existing local services and programs and is comprised of members of various cities and agencies throughout the region.
27 Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance. 2023. Point in Time. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/579939fd197aea7457647213/t/64a857428433be7864d92c61/1688754006079/FINAL_2023+PIT+Repor t.pdf

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-40
The Task Force contracted Home Base to develop a plan to address homelessness in Tulare County, named “Pathway Home: Responding to Homelessness in Tulare County.” The plan was unveiled to the public in December of 2019. Pathway Home presents five overriding goals to address homelessness:

Increase access to permanent housing
Increase access to services to support exits from homelessness Expand services for subpopulations with special needs
Preventing homelessness for those at risk
Strengthening public engagement and community partnerships Pathway Home includes measurable metrics for each goal and outlines specific strategies to reach these metrics. Altogether, the strategies in the report work toward establishing 400 new permanent supportive housing opportunities, 115 new low-barrier shelter beds, reduce chromic homelessness by 10 percent, and reduce first time homelessness by 25 percent by 2025. Pathway Home works to centralize the countywide homelessness response strategy to avoid duplation of efforts and effectively utilize resources.

5.7.5 Farmworkers
As discussed in Chapter 2, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, more than half of the farmworker population resides in unincorporated Tulare County, with the remainder distributed throughout the cities. Farmworker wages tend to be low, approximately $34,560 per year for full-time work.

Farmworkers’ health and livelihood are susceptible to environmental conditions including floods, drought, pesticide exposure, and limited medical and housing services. 28 According to the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, 52 percent of farms in Tulare County hire farm labor, and 91 percent are family farms. Farmworkers tend to be male, be between 35 and 64 years of age, and work on farms that grow forage, corn, oranges, grapes, or almonds, or raise livestock.29 Farm labor in Tulare County is divided between seasonal and permanent labor, due to the type of crops raised and the high percentage of dairy farming. It is likely that many farmworker households are comprised of both farmworkers and non-farmworkers who may be employed in other types of work. While no survey of farmworker housing is available for Tulare County, farmworker households are typically limited in housing options due to limited income, limited supply near job locations, overcrowding, and poor housing conditions. According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (2019-20), 30 percent of farmworkers live in crowded dwellings, migrant workers live in crowded dwellings with greater frequency than settled workers, and unauthorized workers were nearly twice as likely as authorized workers to live in crowded dwellings.30
The Housing Authority of Tulare County (HATC) offers a farm labor housing program that provides housing to very low, low, and moderate-income families with two to nine members who have current 28 Visalia Times Delta. 2022. In rural California, farmworkers fend for themselves for health care: ‘We have a right to survive’. https://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/local/california/2022/12/08/rural-california-san-joaquin-valley-central-valley-farmworkersfend-for-themselves-health-care/69713358007/ 29 USDA Census of Agriculture. 2017. Tulare County profile. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/California/cp06107.pdf 30 National Agricultural Workers Survey. 2022. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2019-2020: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers. Research Report No. 16. January 2022. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/naws/pdfs/NAWS%20Research%20Report%2016.pdf

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-41
farm labor income. Under this program, HATC rents over 400 units to non-migratory farm workers for very low amounts and offers rental assistance when needed. 31

5.7.6 Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons atrisk or experiencing homelessness.32 One measure of displacement risk is whether a community is deemed “sensitive.” The UDP designates communities as sensitive if the share of very low-income residents is greater than 20 percent and have any of the two following characteristics: 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.

The UDP has identified several census tracts in western Tulare County that are considered at risk of displacement, including in the cities of Dinuba, Visalia, Tulare, Lindsay, Farmersville, and Porterville (Figure 5-20). These census tracts are predominantly Hispanic/Latino (Figure 5-2) with a higher percentage of LMI residents (Figure 5-7). Two census tracts, one in the city of Visalia and the other in the town of Cutler, have an elevated risk of displacement for very low-income households.

5.8 Local Area Knowledge

5.8.1 Historic Patterns of Segregation
Patterns of racial segregation are the byproduct of local and federal policies, private housing discrimination, and community prejudice. To understand present challenges to fair housing, it is necessary to review the history of actions that have led to regional patterns of segregation.

The first inhabitants in the San Joaquin Valley and Tulare County were the Yokut-speaking tribes, composed of approximately 50 groups who spoke various dialects. Mexican ranches and American settlers gain prominence in the 1800s and raised animals. After the U.S. annexed California in 1848, the federal government sold vast tracts of land to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company as well as largescale timber, ranching, and farming interests, ignoring and overriding the property rights of Mexican and indigenous landholders. Many Native American tribes were forced to give up their land and live on reservations.33 When gold was discovered in 1848, thousands of prospectors came to the San Joaquin Valley and with them, they brought diseases that quickly decimated the Native American population.34 31 Housing Authority of Tulare County, https://www.hatc.net/farm-labor.php?nbl=RP accessed June 2023. 32 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 33 PolicyLink. Facing History, Uprooting Inequality: A Path to Housing Justice in California. https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/pl_report_calif-housing_101420a.pdf 34 Tule River Indian Tribe of California. 2018. Tule River History. https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/history/

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-42
Figure 5-20 Displacement Risk (Tulare County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2.0, 2023

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-43
Chinese and Japanese immigrants, originally brought to California by the Gold Rush and later to work on the Southern Pacific Railroad, began to work as farm laborers throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

However, resentment towards Chinese and Japanese immigrants, especially by jobless white residents, led to farms recruiting Black/African Americans from the southern U.S. to replace them as farm laborers.

Many Black/African Americans began by working in the fields and vineyards and eventually transitioned from farm labor to living in the cities and towns.35 Racist sentiment from white residents permeated all aspects of life in the region. In the mid-1920s, Tulare County was a major bastion of the racist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan, which terrorized and subverted the political and civic rights of non-white residents.36
In the 1930s, nearly half a million people migrated to Southern California from across the United States during what was known as the “Dust Bowl.” Many of these people moved to California in hopes of working in the agricultural industry, but were forced to take temporary and transient work, leaving them with little choice but to form makeshift camps near roadsides and ditches, without access to housing, clean water, and sanitation. These conditions reinforced existing desires by the white population, generally, for economic and racial segregation, leaving migrant farmworkers without access to medical treatment and education. When World War II created a need for manufacturing labor, many of the white “Dust Bowl” workers relocated to other cities in California, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, leaving a gap in farm labor.37 Japanese, Punjabi, and Filipino people, as well as Black/African Americans from cotton regions, filled the void. Japanese residents, however, were forcibly relocated to internment camps from 1942 to 1946.38
In 1942, the federal government initiated the Bracero program, which enabled growers to replenish their labor supply with workers imported from Mexico. While the Bracero program ended in 1964, growers continue to rely on Mexican nationals to work California’s lucrative “factories in the fields.” Migrants today confront multiple social, environmental, and access issues, including affordable, safe, and sanitary housing.39
Increasingly after the first World War, to circumvent the US Supreme Court ban on outright racial zoning, local governments implemented other forms of exclusionary zoning that avoided direct mention of race but kept low-income people of color out by marshalling land use regulations against them.

Through residential zoning that mandates larger parcel sizes for single-family homes, typically unaffordable to people of color, wealthier households established and maintained mostly white neighborhoods throughout California. The federal government subsidized white homeownership and wealth-building and excluded people of color.

Throughout the state, but particularly concentrated in inland areas, cities have used their annexation power to reinforce patterns of racial exclusion and segregation. Since the 1960s, as cities expanded and selectively annexed land, they deliberately bypassed and grew around communities of color in unincorporated neighborhoods, the very places people of color were relegated to by restrictive covenants. This selective annexation process has left hundreds of disadvantaged unincorporated places, 35 Michael Eissinger. 2009. The Transplantation Of African Americans And Cotton Culture To California’s Rural San Joaquin Valley During The Nineteenth And Twentieth Centuries.
https://meissinger.com/uploads/3/4/9/1/34919185/transplantation_of_african_americans_and_cotton_culture_to_californias_rural_san_joaq uin_valley.pdf
36 Newell G. Bringhurst. 2000. The Ku Klux Klan in a Central California Community: Tulare County During the 1920s and 1930s. Southern California Quarterly Vol. 82, No. 4 (Winter 2000), pp. 365-396 (32 pages) 37 Christy Gavin, California State University, Bakersfield. California Odyssey: Dust bowl migration archives. https://www.csub.edu/library/_files/DB_files/OkieHealth.pdf 38 History.com. Japanese Internment. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation 39 Christy Gavin, California State University, Bakersfield. California Odyssey: Dust bowl migration archives. https://www.csub.edu/library/_files/DB_files/OkieHealth.pdf

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-44
disproportionately of color, without the most basic elements of a healthy, safe community, such as utilities, sanitation, safe drinking water, and other critical community services. Restrictive covenants, exclusion, and racial violence pushed Black/African American and low-income people of color to settle outside of towns. In places throughout the San Joaquin Valley and on the edges of cities such as Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, Tulare, and Modesto, such communities of color were left unincorporated and without access to incorporated areas’ tax revenues or infrastructure.40 Exclusionary post-war development started moving further from city centers, and within time, these communities often created their own civic and utility districts, which redistributed investment away from cities, in a movement known as “White Flight.”
Across the United States, redlined and marginalized communities faced a higher propensity for environmental hazards that affects current populations. Residents of historically redlined neighborhoods located in cities with oil and gas production have disproportionately high exposure to oil and gas wells, compared to higher graded neighborhoods. Exposure disparities have implications for community environmental health, as the presence of active and abandoned (i.e., postproduction) wells have been shown to contribute to ongoing air pollution.

State Route (SR) 99, which was constructed in phases in the 1920s and runs through the Central Valley, continues to provide the transportation route for residents between cities in the area as well as economic transportation linkages to other parts of the state. Large warehouse distribution centers have been built in the southern end of the valley and northern part of the valley because of quick access to SR 99 and Interstate 5 (I-5) and the availability of a large and relatively low-wage employment base. Truck and vehicle traffic has contributed to high rates of air pollution. Intensive agriculture and dairy farming in the region have also contributed to pollution due to pesticide use and fertilizer runoff.

The agricultural industry continues to play a large role in the economy and development patterns of Tulare County. Small, predominantly Hispanic/Latino communities were once home to thousands of Black/African American farm workers, and today remain isolated from other areas of the county. Areas such as these have high rates of poverty and experience disproportionately high pollution burden.41 Incorporation and annexation has continued to be a disparity issue in the county, where incorporated municipalities tend to have more control over land use, decision-making, infrastructure budgeting, and the ability to address environmental concerns.

5.8.2 Community and Stakeholder Input
A series of stakeholder interviews was conducted with service providers, community organizations, and affordable and market-rate housing developers held between May 21 and April 4, 2023. Information on community outreach is provided in Chapter 1, Introduction and Community Engagement. In these interviews, 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, less populated 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 40 PolicyLink. Facing History, Uprooting Inequality: A Path to Housing Justice in California. https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/pl_report_calif-housing_101420a.pdf 41 Jose Del Real. 2019. How Racism Ripples Through Rural California’s Pipes. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/water-racismcalifornia.html

Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis 2023-2031 Housing Element 5-45
housing and supportive housing for previously homeless residents and discrimination based on HCV use.

It was noted that the regional 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, one way that cities can address housing needs is by fostering strong relationships with affordable housing providers and maintaining knowledgeable staff to pursue grant opportunities for affordable housing.

Tulare County Association of Governments
Tulare County Regional Housing Element
5-46
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council Staff Report
Department: PLANNING March 11, 2025
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Schoettler Karl, City Planner
By:

Subject: Public Hearing for the Introduction of Ordinance No. 2025-01 adopting a Comprehensive Update of the Dinuba Zoning Ordinance (KSch) RECOMMENDATION:

Council to take the following action in one motion:

1. Introduce and conduct the first reading, waive reading in full, of Ordinance No. 2025-01 for the adoption of a comprehensive update of the Dinuba Zoning Ordinance and additional amendments to Sections 5.04.130 and 9.36 of Title 17 of the Dinuba Municipal Code; and,

2. Schedule the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2025-01 for March 25, 2025.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On January 14, 2025, staff conducted a workshop and presented several proposed amendments to the Dinuba Zoning Ordinance. The goal of the comprehensive update is to streamline the Zoning Ordinance and make it more user-friendly for staff and the public. Following input from the City Council, staff is presenting the Comprehensive Update of the Zoning Ordinance for introduction and first reading of Ordinance No. 2025-01. The second reading and adoption of the Comprehensive Update to the Zoning Ordinance is scheduled for March 25, 2025.

OUTSTANDING ISSUES:

None.

DISCUSSION:

Zoning ordinances are established by state law. Zoning laws define how land can be used and developed, including residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Zoning

laws also regulate building height, lot size, and setbacks. The goal is to create orderly development consistent with each use. In general, the Zoning Ordinance does the following:
• Divides the City into zones, based primarily on uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, public and agriculture. The intent is to establish a harmonious community by separating and buffering incompatible land uses to the degree practical.
• Establishes which uses are permitted in each zone.
• Establishes standards regulating the size, height and bulk of buildings. • Establishes standards relating to the size of building setbacks and yards. • Establishes standards for the number of parking spaces required for various uses, and the design of parking facilities.
• Establishes standards for landscaping, fencing and screening. • Establishes regulations for signs, to ensure businesses can identify themselves (while avoiding visual clutter and blight that can result from numerous and large signs).
• Establishes regulations for special uses (such as businesses that sell adultoriented material) • Establishes procedures for various types of zoning permits The City requested its planning consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance and provide recommended updates and amendments to maintain compliance with changes in state law, simplify and clarify language, use of graphics, and modernize the ordinance. The City's Zoning Ordinance is found in Title 17 of the Dinuba Municipal Code. The existing ordinance has been updated at various times in the past; the oldest portions appear to be from 1993, with more recent updates in 2008.

Most recently, the City Council adopted new regulations for permitted uses in commercial zones.

Given the age of the ordinance, there are a number of standards and practices that have been reviewed, updated and modernized. The ordinance update was intended to achieve a number of goals, as reflected in Exhibit 2, including:
• Ensuring the ordinance is legally sound and consistent with State housing and zoning laws including laws on Accessory Dwelling Unit requirements; • Simplify and clarify complicated planning permit processes; • Implement policies of the Dinuba General Plan, including promoting walkable neighborhoods by incorporating smart-growth and form-based zoning standards and mechanisms;
• Revising, updating and clarifying permitted use lists in each zone district; • Updating definitions and terminology;
• Adding new zones where desired.

• Eliminating unused zone districts;
• Updating standards pertaining to specific issues like fencing, parking, accessory uses and structures, etc.;
• Making the Ordinance more user-friendly through the addition of tables and graphic illustrations of complex zoning standards;
• Eliminating unneeded and repetitious sections of the Zoning Ordinance; • Correcting other problem issues identified by staff, Commission, etc. • Removing language in Section 5.04.130 related to funding for the Chamber of Commerce
• Amending Section 9.36 exempting city-approved events from the prohibition of alcohol in city parks
Planning Commission hearing
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update on March 4, 2025 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the update. It should be noted the Commission does not take action on the other miscellaneous code amendments detailed above.

As the consultant prepared individual chapters, they were reviewed by the Planning Commission, who offered questions and feedback. The draft Ordinance has also been reviewed by the City Attorney, who provided edits. Most recently, the ordinance was reviewed by the City Council on an informational basis.

A copy of the full Draft Zoning Ordinance Update is attached herein as 'Attachment B.' Staff recommends City Council receive information on the Comprehensive Dinuba Zoning Ordinance update (and other code amendments) and provide input and directions to staff. Upon receiving input from the Council, a public hearing will be scheduled for March 25, 2025 for the second reading and adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

PUBLIC HEARING:

A public hearing notice was posted and also published in the Midvalley Times at least ten days before the City Council hearing.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. A. CC Ord ZOU and amends 3-11-25

2. B. Summary

1 ATTACHMENT “A”

DINUBA CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-01

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

DINUBA ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE
DINUBA ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 17 OF THE DINUBA

MUNICIPAL CODE) AND ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO
SECTION SECTIONS 5.04.130 AND 9.36 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DINUBA HEREBY DOES
ORDAIN:

SECTION 1: FINDINGS,
(a) The City of Dinuba administers a zoning ordinance that is intended to promote the harmonious development of various types of land uses in the City. (b) Specific regulations include the establishment of individual land use zones (residential, commercial, industrial and public), lists of permitted uses by zones, regulations for structures including setbacks, building height and lot coverage, parking, landscaping, signage, fencing and permit procedures, among others
(c) The Dinuba Planning Commission has conducted numerous workshops to educate themselves on zoning, planning and design issues and has reviewed individual chapters of the new Zoning Ordinance.
(d) Several additional “cleanup” amendments to Sections 5.04.130 and 9.36 of the Dinuba Municipal Code are included for adoption, to improve functionality and reduce redundancy of those sections of the code.
(e) Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City has determined the Zoning Ordinance Update is exempt from review for environmental impacts (as a Categorical Exemption No. 15061 (b) (3) “General Exemption”) SECTION 2. Title 17 (Zoning) of the Dinuba Municipal Code is rescinded and replaced in its entirety with the Zoning Ordinance Update (Title 17) as shown in Exhibit 1. Further, Section

5.04.130 of the Dinuba Municipal Code and Section 9.36 of the Dinuba Municipal are amended as shown in Exhibit 2.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.

Each of the provisions of these ordinances are severable from all other provisions. If any article, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.

Dinuba City Council
Ordinance 2025-01
2 SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a summary of this Ordinance to be published by one insertion in a newspaper of general circulation in the community at least five (5) days prior to adoption and again fifteen (15) days after its adoption. If a summary of the ordinance is published, then the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance to be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the Council meeting at which the ordinance is adopted and again after the meeting at which the ordinance is adopted.

The summary shall be approved by the City Attorney.

This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.

SECTION 5. The foregoing Ordinance amendments were introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dinuba on the 11th day of March, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
Rachel Nerio-Guerrero,
Mayor of the City of Dinuba
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Maria Alaniz, City Clerk

EXHIBIT 1

COMPREHENSIVE DINUBA ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
(Attachment to City Council Ordinance No. 2025-01)

DRAFT
Dinuba Zoning
Ordinance
City of Dinuba

DRAFT Dinuba Zoning Ordinance
Prepared for
City of Dinuba
Prepared by

Table of Contents

1. The Zoning Ordinance .......................................................................1-1

3. Administration ...................................................................................3-1

5. Public Hearings..................................................................................5-1 9 Zoning Districts .................................................................................9-1 11 RCO Zone (Resource Conservation) .................................................11-1 13 AN Zone (Agriculture) ......................................................................13-1 15 RA Zone (Residential Acreage).........................................................15-1 17 R-1 Zones (Single Family Residential)..............................................17-1 19 RM Zones (Multi-Family Residential) ..............................................19-1 21 Permitted Uses in Residential Zones .................................................21-1 23 PO Zone (Professional Office)...........................................................23-1 25 C-1 Zone (Neighborhood Commercial).............................................25-1 27 C-2 Zone (Downtown Commercial)..................................................27-1 29 C-3 Zone (Community Commercial).................................................29-1 31 C-4 Zone (General Commercial) .......................................................31-1

33. Permitted Uses in Commercial Zones................................................33-1 35 M-1 and M-2 (Industrial Zones) ........................................................35-1 39 Permitted Uses in Industrial Zones....................................................39-1 41 PUD Zone (Planned Unit Development overlay)..............................41-1 45 Special Uses and Standards ...............................................................45-1

47 Landscaping and Irrigation ................................................................47-1 49 Parking and Loading..........................................................................49-1 51 Signs and Advertising........................................................................51-1 53 Zoning Ordinance Amendments........................................................53-1 55 Site Plan Review................................................................................55-1 57 Conditional Use Permits....................................................................57-1 59 Variances, Minor Deviations and Reasonable Accommodations......59-1 61 Non-Conforming Uses.......................................................................61-1 63 Appeals ..............................................................................................63-1 65 Enforcement.......................................................................................65-1 67 Definitions..........................................................................................67-1

1-1
The Zoning Ordinance
Sections

17.01.010 Adoption

17.01.020 Purpose and Objectives

17.01.030 Short title.

17.01.040 Components of the zoning ordinance.

17.01.050 Severability.

17.01.060 Compliance required.

17.01.070 Interpretation.

17.01.080 Application

17.01.010 Adoption
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65000 et. seq., a zoning ordinance is hereby adopted by the City of Dinuba. The Zoning Ordinance, hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”, is a document that regulates the use of land in the city limits of Dinuba.

17.01.020 Purpose and Objectives
The Ordinance is enacted to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to facilitate the planning of the City of Dinuba in a precise and orderly manner consistent with the Dinuba General Plan. In support of this purpose, the Ordinance is adopted in order to implement the following objectives:
• Provide standards for the orderly development of Dinuba; • Conserve natural resources;
• Maintain and protect the value of property;
• Ensure the provision of adequate open space for light, air, and recreation; C H A P T E R 17.01

Dinuba Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 1: The Zoning Ordinance
1-2
• Promote the economic stability of existing land uses that conform to the General Plan and protect them from intrusions by inharmonious or harmful land uses; • Permit the development of residential, office, commercial and industrial land uses in accordance with the general plan in order to strengthen Dinuba’s economic base;
• Protect the character of Dinuba’s downtown and its residential neighborhoods; • Provide the private sector with a document upon which it can base investment decisions;
• Inform the public where certain types of development will occur in the community as well as the development standards to which they will develop; • Coordinate with the County of Tulare with regards to the use of land within Dinuba’s General Plan planning area, and the standards to which development will conform if it occurs outside the city limits.

17.01.030 Short title.

The ordinance codified in this title shall be known as the “Zoning Ordinance.” The words “ordinance” and “code” as used herein shall have the same meaning.

17.01.040 Components of the zoning ordinance.

The zoning title shall consist of a zone plan designating certain districts and a set of regulations controlling the uses of land; the density of population; the uses and locations of structures; the height and bulk of structures; the open spaces around structures, the appearance of certain uses and structures; the areas and dimensions of sites; the location, size and illumination of signs; location and height of fencing; and requiring the provision of off-street parking and off-street loading facilities.

17.01.050 Severability.

If any provisions, or the application to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of this title (and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances) shall not be affected.

Dinuba Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 1: The Zoning Ordinance
1-3

17.01.060 Compliance required.

No building or structure shall be constructed or reconstructed, moved, altered, converted or located nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose other than as permitted by (and in conformance with) this title, and all other applicable statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, maps, plans and other requirements and documents referred to herein.

17.01.070 Interpretation.

A. In the interpretation and application, the provisions of this title are held to be minimum requirements except where they are expressly stated to be otherwise.

No provision of this title is intended to interfere with any existing ordinance of the City of Dinuba, except as specifically repealed herein, or deed restriction, covenant, easement or other agreement between parties; provided, that where this title imposes greater restrictions or regulations than are imposed by an existing ordinance, deed restriction, covenant, easement or agreement between parties, this title shall control.

B. In event of need for clarification or interpretation, the Planning Commission shall ascertain all pertinent facts and by resolution shall set forth its findings.

Said resolution shall be transmitted to the City Council and, if approved by the Council, said clarification or interpretation shall govern until modified by resolution adopted in like manner or by appropriate amendment of this title. The foregoing shall apply in the following cases:

1. If ambiguity arises concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use within the meaning and intent of this title;

2. If ambiguity exists with reference to matters of height, yard, area and other requirements;

3. If uncertainty exists with reference to a zone boundary;

4. If unforeseen conditions arise or technological changes have been introduced;

5. If ambiguity or uncertainty arises as to the meaning of any word or provision contained in this title.

Dinuba Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 1: The Zoning Ordinance
1-4

17.01.080 Application
This Ordinance shall apply to all property inside the Dinuba city limits whether owned by private persons or by public entities, including the federal government, the State of California or any of its agencies or political subdivisions; by school districts or special districts, by any city or county, or by any authority or district organized under the laws of the State. Lands that are exempt from these regulations include: public streets and alleys, and railroad rights-of-way.

3-1
Administration
Sections

17.03.01 Authority

17.03.02 City Council

17.03.03 Planning Commission

17.03.04 Planning Director

17.03.05 Head Building Official

17.03.06 City Engineer

17.03.01 Authority
This Ordinance is the primary tool for implementing the goals, policies and action programs of the Dinuba General Plan, the Dinuba Subdivision Ordinance and any planned unit developments, specific plans or master plans. The authority to execute this Ordinance shall be vested with the City Council, Planning Commission and other named city officials and public bodies.

17.03.02 City Council
The Dinuba City Council shall be the final authority on zoning ordinance amendments, appeals, general plan and specific plans and their amendments, development agreements, and other permit procedures that may be included in or added to this Ordinance.

The City Council shall also be responsible for appointing persons to the Planning Commission and other decision-making bodies that may be named in this Ordinance.

C H A P T E R 17.03

Dinuba Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 3: Administration
3-2

17.03.03 Planning Commission
The Dinuba Planning Commission shall be the final authority on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Classification of Uses, and other permits that may be included in or added to this Ordinance. In addition, the Commission shall provide recommendations to the City Council by means of a resolution that details findings on zoning ordinance amendments, general and specific plans and amendments thereto, development agreements and other permit procedures that may be added to the Ordinance.

17.03.04 Planning Director
The Planning Director, or assigned representative, shall be the authority on the interpretation, administration and enforcement of the Ordinance. Further, the Planning Director shall be the final authority on Site Plan Reviews, minor deviations and administrative planning permits. Other duties of the Director shall include preparation of reports, resolutions and ordinances that come before the Planning Commission and City Council.

17.03.05 Chief Building Official
The Chief Building Official, or assigned representative, shall be the authority on the interpretation, administration and enforcement of the Uniform Building Code. Other duties of the Building Official shall include enforcement of specified provisions of this Ordinance, securing Ordinance clearance prior to issuing a building permit, notification of persons who are in violation of specified provisions of this Ordinance and other responsibilities that may be included in or added to this Ordinance.

17.03.06 City Engineer
The City Engineer, or assigned representative, shall be the authority on the interpretation, administration and enforcement of the Subdivision Ordinance, the City of Dinuba Improvement Standards Manual, and other responsibilities that may be included in or added to this Ordinance. Other duties of the City Engineer shall include preparation of reports and recommendations on all engineering matters that come before the Planning Commission and City Council, and notification of persons who are in violation of specified provisions of this Ordinance.

5-1
Public Hearings
Sections

17.05.010 Notice Requirements

17.05.020 Contents

17.05.030 Failure to Receive Notice

17.05.040 Continuation

17.05.010 Notice Requirements
Where this Ordinance requires a public hearing notice, notice shall be given in all of the following ways:
a. A public hearing notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation not less than 10 days prior to said hearing. If there is no such paper of general circulation, the public hearing notice shall be posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing in at least three public places within the City of Dinuba. b. A notice shall be mailed or delivered not less than 10 days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject property or the owner’s authorized agent, the project applicant, and to owners of properties within 300 feet of the subject property (as shown on the latest equalized tax assessment role) and all occupants within 100 feet of the site. If the number of properties exceeds 1,000, the City of Dinuba, in lieu of a notice that is mailed or delivered, may provide a notice by placing a display notice of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days prior to the meeting.
c. A public hearing notice shall be posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing in at least three public places within the City of Dinuba.

C H A P T E R 17.05