Attachment G - Draft AI — Visalia City Council, December 3, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

City of Visalia, CA
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
2025/26 – 2029/30

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 2 ends

Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 4 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 6 History of Visalia ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Legal Background ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice .................................................................................... 10 Organization of the Report ...................................................................................................................... 10 Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Review of 2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments ................................................................................ 11 2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments Goals and Progress Update ............................................... 11 Community Data ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Demographic Summary ........................................................................................................................... 22 Household Characteristics....................................................................................................................... 25 Income Profile .......................................................................................................................................... 26 Housing Profile ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Public Housing ......................................................................................................................................... 50 Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................................................. 58 Public Policies and Private Sector Practices .............................................................................................. 67 The Housing Element .............................................................................................................................. 67 Land Use Policies and Practices ............................................................................................................. 68 Real Estate Sales Practices .................................................................................................................... 73 Rental and Property Management .......................................................................................................... 74 Laws Governing Lending ......................................................................................................................... 75 Lending Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 77 Community Engagement ............................................................................................................................. 79 Marketing Efforts ..................................................................................................................................... 79 Organization Focus Groups..................................................................................................................... 80 City Staff Interviews ................................................................................................................................. 80 Community Public Meetings .................................................................................................................... 82 Community Organization and Resident Surveys .................................................................................... 84 Diversity and Access Efforts .................................................................................................................... 91 Annual Community Engagement Plan .................................................................................................... 91 Impediments, Goals, and Actions ............................................................................................................... 92 Impediment Categories ........................................................................................................................... 93

1. Segregation and Integration ........................................................................................................... 93

2. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs), Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Access to Community Assets ...................................................................................... 95

3. Access to Affordable Housing and Homeownership Opportunities ............................................... 98 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 3 ends

4. Public Policies .............................................................................................................................. 103

5. Local Resource Distribution ......................................................................................................... 112

6. Discrimination and Civil Rights Violations .................................................................................... 113 Appendix A: Community Resident Survey ................................................................................................ 115 Appendix B: Community Resident Survey (Spanish) ............................................................................... 128 Appendix C: Community Organizations Survey ........................................................................................ 140

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 4 ends

Executive Summary

Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP (“Baker Tilly”) was contracted by the City of Visalia ( “the City”) to develop, prepare, and submit an updated Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). This analysis highlights meaningful actions that the City will implement to address patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, reduce disparities in opportunities, and foster inclusive communities free from discrimination. The completion of the AI included a comprehensive list of key actions, specifically:

• Reviewing pre-existing documentation (i.e. federal, state, and local policies), historical data, and reports related to fair housing to identify impediments throughout the City and identify potential gaps that may impede fair housing.

• Analyzing prior and ongoing initiatives undertaken by the City to address fair housing impediments since the completion of the FY 2020/21 – FY2024/25 AI to conduct a comparison of historical activities with the City’s current efforts to determine progress and areas needing further attention.

• Engaging key stakeholders (i.e. housing advocates, local government agencies, nonprofits, property managers/owners/landlords, local citizens) via focus groups, public meetings, and surveys to gather qualitative and quantitative data on fair housing perceptions and experiences whil e also gaining insights into challenges and suggestions for improving fair housing choice .

• Assessing most recent housing market conditions to evaluate the availability, rental and homeownership rates, vacancy rates, affordability, and quality of housing within the City.

• Reviewing most recent fair housing complaint data to identify trends, common issues, and specific areas of concern.

• Mapping and analyzing geographic patterns to identify areas of concentrated poverty, segregation, and other observable patterns that lend themselves to housing discrimination.

• Evaluating access to opportunities for essential services, including transportation, education, employment, healthcare, etc.

• Examining lending practices to assess local lending practices and their impact on housing opportunities for members of protected classes.

Findings and Recommendations
Through the completion of the analysis, Baker Tilly identified several key impediments to fair housing choice throughout the City, including:
• Socioeconomic segregation and concentration of low resource areas in central and northeastern parts of Visalia – Concentration of low-income minority areas due to location of affordable housing, land use and zoning laws, resident displacement, and other factors • Lacking place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing – Community development strategies are needed to address lack of investment and employer base, rehabilitation costs, and inadequate public amenities in certain geographic areas
• Lack of affordable housing, residents vulnerable to displacement, and lack of housing opportunities for special needs populations – Limited housing options, rising costs, lack of housing diversity, and other factors have contributed to a lack of needed housing • Fair housing enforcement and outreach – The City has a need for resources to monitor fair housing conditions through testing, outreach, and other public engagement Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 5 ends

• Lack of specific development standards tailored for transitional or supportive housing, relying instead on general zoning regulations applicable to residential uses – Tailoring development standards for transitional and supportive housing, similar to the city’s enhanced requirements for emergency shelters, could enhance the quality, safety, and efficiency of these facilities and help to address resident opposition
• Zoning restrictions impacting the development of emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing – The City’s recent Housing Element identified remaining zoning barriers for these facility types as incremental progress is made via ongoing zoning updates • However, with the passage of Assembly Bill 101 in 2019, a Low Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) shall be a use that is permitted by -right in zones where mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multi -family uses are permitted. A LBNC is defined as a service-enriched shelter providing temporary living facilities, with the low -barrier component allowing persons to be admitted as they are with as few entry restrictions as possible. The City currently has two mixed use zones: Downtown Mixed Use (D -MU) and Commercial Mixed Use (C-MU). The City updated its zoning code in 2022 to allow LBNCs that meet the criteria of California Government Code Sections 65560 – 65668 as a use permitted by -right in both the D -MU and C -MU zones. LBNCs that do not meet State requirements are permitted in mixed use zones by conditional use permit. • Fair housing enforcement and outreach – No City office dedicated to handling Fair Housing complaints currently exists, making the City’s management of these issues more difficult • Income source discrimination – Some landlords in the City are reluctant to rent to individuals using Section 8 vouchers
• Housing loan accessibility and equity – Certain protected classes are underrepresented as home loan applicants relative to their population percentage, or experience higher denial rates Based on these aforementioned impediments, Baker Tilly, alongside the City of Visalia, developed targeted goals to address these barriers, including:
• Goal #1 – Development of Affordable Housing
• Development of Permanent Supportive Housing for Homeless Persons • Development of Affordable Senior Housing
• Development of Farmworker Housing
• Development of Affordable Housing for Veterans
• Goal #2 – Development of 1 Emergency Shelter
• Goal #3 – Tenant Based Rental Assistance
• Goal #4 – Fair Housing Services

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 6 ends

Introduction
History of Visalia
The City of Visalia is located along State Highway 198, east of State Highway 99, in the southern portion of the agricultural San Joaquin Valley. Visalia is the oldest San Joaquin Valley town, and the largest in Tulare County, which has an overall population of 477,544.

Nathanial Vise, one of the original inhabitants of a fort built at Four Creeks – named after the watersheds and creeks which emptied in the area from the Sierra Nevada Mountains – was tasked with surveying the town. He envisioned the area becoming the capi tal seat of Tulare County, and one year later in 1853, Visalia did become the county seat. The City of Visalia takes its name from Visalia, Kentucky, the original home of Nathanial Vise, after whose family the Kentucky city was named.

The City of Visalia is located between Bakersfield and Fresno. The gold rush along the Kern River led to growth in Visalia. Many of its early inhabitants were gold miners who hailed from the South. Many failed miners stopped and remained in Visalia on their journeys home.

On September 15, 1857, John Butterfield, a businessman and financier out of Utica, New York, won a six - year, $600,000-a-year contract to transport U.S. mail twice a week between St. Louis, Missouri, and San Francisco. To deliver the mail year -round, from S t. Louis to San Francisco in 25 days, Butterfield’s route went south through Texas, west through New Mexico Territory, passing Fort Yuma Arizona, and to Visalia before rolling on to San Francisco. Saloons and hotels were built near the stage stop which aid ed commerce.

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Camp Babbit was constructed. The Camp was constructed by the federal government to quell sympathy for the Southern cause due to the number of Southern migrants residing in Visalia at the time. Union soldiers were not taske d with fighting but did keep order in the area. During this period, in 1874, Visalia was incorporated as a city with a common council and an ex -officio Mayor and President, and today is a charter city. The City of Visalia continued to grow at a steady pace due to its livestock, railroads, hydroelectrical power and irrigation water, which makes the area very suitable for agriculture. Today, many of Visalia’s historic downtown buildings comprise the Main Street shopping and dining district. Visalia is also located in close proximity to Sequoia National Park.

According to the 2022 1-Year American Community Survey (ACS), the population of Visalia is 143,965, up

1.8% and 15.7% from the 2020 and 2010 US Census, respectively. The US Census Bureau’s Gazetteer Files show that Visalia has a total land area of 37.91 sq uare miles. The City’s Finance Department – Housing Division, is responsible for carrying out projects and programs with the use of funds received from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The US Census Bureau reported a slight decrease in average household size in Visalia from 3.00 to 2.99 from 2020 to 2022, compared to an average household size of 2.98 persons per household in 2010. These slight changes are likely indicative of household f ormation changes remaining relatively constant between 2010 through 2022. Across the same time period, housing stock has increased by 9.9% in Visalia according to Esri, but slowed substantially between 2020 to 2022, with housing stock increasing only 0.2%, less than the city’s annual average increase of 0.8% between 2010 and 2022.

Single-family homes within the City of Visalia make up 76.6% of all housing stock, while multifamily housing (2 units or more) makes up 19.9% of the housing stock. The remaining 3.5% is allocated to mobile homes (3.4% of housing stock) and boats, RVs, and vans (0.1% of housing stock). As of 202 4, the median price of a home within Visalia is $401,500, up 5.4% from 2023. According to CoStar and apartments.com, rents range from $1,239 for a studio apartment to $2,599 for a 4-bedroom apartment. Lower income households may be able to afford studio units; however, larger units and homeownership would likely not be affordable to lower income households.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 7 ends

Legal Background
Fair housing is a right protected by Federal and State of California laws. Due to these laws, virtually every housing unit in the State of California is subject to fair housing practices.

Federal Laws
The federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, as well as the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S. Code §§ 3601-3619, 3631) are federal fair housing laws that prohibit discrimination in all aspects of housing.

These aspects of housing include the sale, rental, lease, or negotiation for real property. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on the following protected classes:

• Race or color
• Religion
• Sex
• Familial status
• National origin, and
• Disability (mental or physical)

According to the Fair Housing Act, it is specifically unlawful to:

• Refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. • Discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.
• Make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. • Represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.
• For profit, induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

Further, the Fair Housing Amendments Act requires owners of housing facilities to make “reasonable accommodations” to their rules, policies, and operations so that persons with disabilities have equal housing opportunities. For example, residents collecting Social Security Disability Income or Supplemental Security Income can request their rent payments not be subject to late fees if their income is not distributed before their rent payment is due. Additionally, the Fair Housing Act requires landlords to al low residents with disabilities to make reasonable access-related modifications to their private living and common use spaces, at the residents own expense. Finally, the Act requires that new multifamily housing with four or more units be designed and built to allow access for persons with disabilities, including:

• Accessible common use areas
• Doors wide enough for wheelchairs
• Kitchens and bathrooms that permit wheelchair maneuverability, and • Other adaptable features within units, such as lower countertops and cabinets

On September 21, 2016, HUD published a final rule in the Federal Register entitled "Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual's Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs." According to the HUD Exchange website:

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 8 ends

“Through this final rule, HUD ensures equal access to individuals in accordance with their gender identity in programs funded and administered by HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD).

This rule builds upon HUD's February 2012 final rule entitled "Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity" (2012 Equal Access Rule). The 2012 rule aimed to ensure that HUD's housing programs would be open to all eligible individuals and families regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. The updated final rule requires that recipients and subrecipients of CPD funding, as well as owners, operators, and managers of shelters, and other buildings and facilities and providers of services funded in whole or in part by any CPD program to grant equal access to such facilities, and other buildings and facilities, benefits, accommodations and services to individuals in accordance with the individual's gender identity, and in a manner that affor ds equal access to the individual's family.”

A federal law entitled Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or activity that receives financial assistance from any federal agency. This includes programs conducted by federal agencies, including HUD. HUD's regulations for Section 504, which applies to federally assisted programs or activities, may be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 24 C.F.R. part 8. There are additional regulations that govern Section 504 in programs conducted by HUD which may be found at 24 C.F.R. part 9; however, this webpage focuses on Section 504's requirements for federally assisted programs and activities.

California Laws
The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) enforces California laws that provide monetary relief and protection to victims of unlawful housing practices. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Government Code Section 12955 et seq.) prohibits discrimination and harassment in housing practices, including:

• Advertising
• Application and selection process
• Unlawful evictions
• Terms and conditions of tenancy
• Privileges of occupancy
• Mortgage loans and insurance
• Public and private land use practices, and
• Unlawful restrictive covenants

The following categories are additionally protected by the FEHA:

• Race or color
• Ancestry or national origin
• Sex
• Marital status
• Source of income
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity/expression
• Genetic information
• Familial status (households with children under 18)
• Religion
• Mental/physical disability
• Medical condition, and
• Age

The FEHA contains similar reasonable accommodations and accessibility provisions as the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 9 ends

The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and accommodations, due to sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition. While the Unruh Civil Rights Act spe cifically lists these as protected classes, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics.

The Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51.7) forbids acts of violence or threats of violence because of a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute. This can include verbal or written threats, physical assault or attempted assault, graffiti, vandalism, or property damage.

The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) provides another layer of protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing. The Bane Act also includes criminal penalties for hate crimes; however, convictions under the Act are not allowed for speech alone unless that speech itself threatened violence.

Finally, California Civil Code Section 1940.3 prohibits landlords from questioning potential residents about their immigration or citizenship status. This law further forbids local jurisdictions from passing laws that direct landlords to make inquiries about a person’s citizenship or immigration statu s.

In addition to these acts, Government Code Sections 11135, 65008, and 65580 -65589.8 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the State of California and in any land use decisions. Specifically, changes to State law require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including:

• Housing for persons with disabilities
• Housing for homeless persons, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing
• Housing for extremely low-income households, including single-room occupancy (SRO) units, and • Housing for persons with developmental disabilities

Fair Housing
For a person to meet their essential needs and have the ability to pursue personal, educational, and employment goals, equal access to housing is fundamental. In recognition of this right, both the federal government of the United States and the government of the State of California have established fair housing as a right protected by law.

Federal fair housing laws provide protection from housing discrimination in the sale, rental, lease, or negotiation for real property based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability.

The State of California goes even further to build on this foundation to further prevent discrimination based on marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, and “any arbitrary factor”.

According to the HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide (1996) the public and private impediments to fair housing choices are:

“Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or

Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.”

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 10 ends

To mitigate these impediments, a community must not only work to remove these issues but promote equal housing opportunities. The City of Visalia is committed to providing fair housing opportunities to all residents, as well as assuring compliance with app licable laws and conducting its business fairly and impartially.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) is an assessment of how laws, policies, real estate practices, and local conditions may affect the location, availability, accessibility, and affordability of housing.

According to the HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide, analysis includes examining certain impediments and barriers to fair housing choice. An impediment to fair housing choice is any action, omission, or decision that is intended to or has the effect of restricting a person’s choice of housing on t he basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. Such a limitation to fair housing choice constitutes housing discrimination.

The document has three major goals:

• To evaluate current conditions that may impact fair housing choice. • To review the impacts of policies and practices and how they may impact fair housing choice and the provision of housing, specifically affordable housing and housing for special needs households. • To identify impediments to fair housing choice and actions the City will take to remove those impediments or to mitigate the impact those impediments have on fair housing choice.

To fulfill these goals, the following must be completed:

• A review of the demographics, laws, regulations, private market and public sector, and administrative policies, procedures, and practices of the City of Visalia. • An assessment of how those laws affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. • An assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing choice.

An AI also examines the affordability of housing in the jurisdiction with an emphasis on housing affordable to households with annual incomes classified as low -income. Low-income is defined as equal to or less than 80% of the adjusted area median family in come [AMI] as most recently published by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development. For Visalia, the current median family income is $72,000 according to HUD 2024 income guidelines, meaning the incomes that are analyzed within this AI are generally $57,600 or less. Family size may increase the amount of income considered for households at 80% AMI or lower.

This AI defines barriers to housing choice as factors, such as income level and housing supply, that limit a person’s choice of housing. This AI adheres to the recommended scope of analysis and format in the Fair Housing Planning Guide developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1996).

Organization of the Report
This report is divided into seven sections. These sections and the definition of each is as follows:

1. Executive Summary: Identifies purpose of the report, provides a brief description of the process, and summarizes the key findings.

2. Introduction: Explains the history of the City of Visalia, defines “fair housing” based on federal and state laws, reviews the basics of an AI, and lists the data and funding sources for the report.

3. Review of 2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments: Reviews all goals from the City of Visalia’s previous AI, provides a progress update on goal achievement, and identifies any outstanding actions for incorporation into the current AI.

4. Data: Describes housing and population characteristics of the jurisdiction, including income, age, race, ethnicity, familial status, and disability. Housing characteristics include unit type, tenure, housing cost, and overcrowding. Employment characteristics an d the geographic distribution of households by income, race, and ethnicity are also examined.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 11 ends

5. Public Policies and Private Sector Practices: Reviews policies and practices to determine the potential impact on fair housing and the provision of an adequate number and appropriate types of housing. Assesses the general level of fair housing and housing rights awareness within the private sector. Specifically, rental housing, residential real estate sales, and mortgage lending are evaluated. The analysis relies on an array of tools including interviews with stakeholders, published data on mortgage lending, and reports of unfair housing practices.

6. Community Engagement: Provides a description of public outreach to obtain input from the community on possible fair housing impediments.

7. Impediments, Goals, and Actions: Summarizes the findings regarding fair housing impediments in the City, generally organized by the impediment categories defined in HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing proposed rule dated February 9, 2023. Sets goals to address each impediment and defines actions to be taken to achieve these goals.

Data Sources
In preparation of this AI, a variety of data sources were used, including but not limited to the following:

• American Community Survey (ACS) 2022 1 -Year, 2020 5 -Year, and 2010 1 -Year estimates provided by the US Census Bureau.
• 2020 and 2010 US Decennial Census, provided by the US Census Bureau • Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), provided by the US Census Bureau for HUD, which contains information on low - and moderate -income households as well as housing problems.
• US Bureau of Labor Statistics
• ESRI Business Analyst Online (ESRI BAO)
• U.S. Department of Labor
• Community resident and organization surveys
• Focus groups and interviews with local stakeholders and officials • Local chamber of commerce officials
• Local economic development officials
• Local housing authority officials

Review of 2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments

This section will review current progress on goals and actions contained in the City of Visalia’s previous 2020/21-2024-25 Analysis of Impediments.
2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments Goals and Progress Update The 2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments identified four goals:

1. Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities

2. Outreach to Lenders

3. Fair Housing Services (Ongoing)

4. Fair Housing Services (New)
Each goal contained a number of subcategories, under which specific actions were defined.

The table below contains all of the planned actions from the 2020-21-2024-25 AI. The second column lists progress made toward each action, and the third column identifies whether there are remaining needs associated with each action for incorporation into the 2025/26-2029/30 Analysis of Impediments.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 12 ends

Goal 1 : Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities

1.1 HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS ACCOMPLISHMENTS REMAINING NEEDS? Continue to explore the development
and rehabilitation of affordable
housing opportunities with local
partners as well as outside
developers.

Partners include:
• Tulare County Housing
Authority
• Self-Help Enterprises
• Habitat for Humanity
• Christian Church Homes
• Homes of Northern
California
• Community Services and
Employment Training
(CSET)
• RH Community Builders
• UPHoldings

2015: the City partnered with Self Help
Enterprises on the acquisition/rehabilitation
of five (5) single family dwellings, resold to
income qualifying households;

2016: the City partnered with Self Help
Enterprises on the acquisition/rehabilitation
of a five (5) unit multi-family development
(Strawberry);

2017: the City partnered with Tulare County
Housing Authorities- Non-profit Kaweah
Management Co .in the
acquisition/rehabilitation of an eight (8) unit
multi-family development (617-619 Santa
Fe);

2018: the City partnered with Self Help
Enterprises for the acquisition/Rehabilitation
of a six (6) unit multi-family development
(515-527 Encina)

The City continues to work with local non-
profit agencies in identifying affordable
housing opportunities.

All 19 rehabilitated multi-family units became
affordable rental units, rented at 60% AMI or
lower. All units are being maintained by their
respective developer organizations.

During 2019-2023, the City continued to
partner with Self-Help Enterprises on the
rehabilitation of owner-occupied mobile
homes. The City is also partnered with
Habitat for Humanity to provide a minor-
rehab program for owner-occupied single-
family mobile homes. Additionally, the City
partnered with the Tulare County Housing
Authority to rehabilitate four (4) multi-family
rental units at 621 Santa Fe Street.

The City continues these efforts in searching
for funding opportunities with its partners in
providing affordable housing opportunities.

No outstanding needs exist.

The City continues to
proactively make progress
towards its goal through past
and current activities.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 13 ends

1.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
RESOURCES ACCOMPLISHMENTS REMAINING NEEDS?
Maintain a list of nonprofit agencies
and their services on the City’s
website under affordable housing.

Ongoing- The list of non-profit organizations
the city is working with is listed on the
website;

The City website includes the link to “2-1-1”
which has all Tulare county resources.

Resources are updated as new programs are
identified.

No outstanding needs exist.

The City continues to
proactively make progress
towards its goal through past
and current activities.

1.3 HOUSING CHOICE FOR SPECIAL
POPULATIONS ACCOMPLISHMENTS REMAINING NEEDS?
Continue to work with the Housing
Authority and other local nonprofits
to provide priority funding to assist in
the development of new housing
opportunities in non-minority
concentrated areas.

Continue to administer successful
programs that provide funding and
support for affordable housing.

Ongoing - Table 2.1 below shows that
roughly $24.5 million has been provided to
assist in the development of new housing
opportunities since 2019.

No outstanding needs exist.

The City continues to
proactively make progress
towards its goal through past
and current activities.

1.4 Continue to facilitate the construction
of affordable rental housing for very
low- and low-income seniors by
providing regulatory (e.g., density
bonus, expedited permit processing,
deferred fees, or relaxed parking
requirements) and financial
incentives (e.g., RDA set-aside
funds), commercial, and medical
services.

Continue with the Senior Repair and
Handicapped Program (SHARP) and
Senior Home Minor Repair Program,
which assists low-income elderly
homeowners in rehabilitating their
homes to address health and safety
repairs, accessibility needs, and
energy efficiency improvements.

Ongoing- In 2017, the City partnered for the
development of the 36-unit Highland Garden
project which included financial incentives.

Ongoing- The City has contracted with Self
Help Enterprises for the administration of the
CDBG funded Senior Mobile Home Repair
and CalHome Reuse Down Payment
programs.

The City has provided $9 million in grant
funding for rental housing development for
very low and low-income households, also
available to seniors. Eight units have
specifically been rehabilitated for low-income
seniors. Table 2.2 below provides additional
detail.

The City has made surplus land available to
non-profit agencies on a priority basis, which
has resulted in the development of one
housing project containing 80 affordable
rental housing units (Lofts at Fort Visalia).

Six (6) affordable owner-occupied tiny homes
for veterans will be built on City surplus land
to be purchased by low-income veterans.

No outstanding needs exist.

The City continues to
proactively make progress
towards its goal through past
and current activities.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 14 ends

1.5 Promote the construction of
affordable for-sale and/or rental
housing units with three or more-
bedroom units affordable to very
low- and low-income families.

Publicize financial and regulatory
incentive opportunities (e.g.,
expediting permit processing,
deferred fees, density bonuses, or
use of set-aside funds) to developers
for these unit types including
promoting the need for three or more
bedroom units during pre-application
meetings, contacting affordable
housing developers, and creating
informational fliers at the Community
Development Department and in all
general application packets.

The City continues to work with its non-profit
partners in developing housing.

Planning Department created the information
brochure with incentives which is located on
the City’s Planning Department webpage:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_dev
elopment/planning/handouts/default.asp

Housing Element approved and adopted as
of 12/18/2023.

Rancho Colegio, an 80-unit affordable
housing complex currently under
construction, will have 22 3-bedroom units
for low-income families.

In 2021 and 2022, 70 low-income and 4 very
low-income dwelling units have been
constructed with 3+ bedrooms without public
funding assistance.

No financial and regulatory incentives have
been publicized to the developer community
since 2019.

Develop and publicize financial
and regulatory incentive
opportunities to developers.

Goal 2: Outreach to Lenders

2.1 OUTREACH TO LENDERS ACCOMPLISHMENTS REMAINING NEEDS? Work with local lenders to provide
information on financing for low- and
moderate-income residents.

Encourage local lenders to provide
information in English and Spanish.

Ongoing: City’s website provides a link to “2-
1-1” United Way with all resources and links
available.

The City provides all public notices in English
and Spanish to target multiple languages.

Conduct (at minimum) annual
outreach to local lenders to
encourage them to provide
financing information to low-
and moderate-income
residents.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 15 ends

2.2 Work with local lenders to promote
the City’s affordable housing
programs. Provide local lenders
information on the program in
English and Spanish. Invite local
lenders to attend program
workshops.

Ongoing: In 2017-18, the City required
lenders and realtors to be certified to work
with the CalHome Reuse Program;

In 2019, the city contracted with Self Help
Enterprises for the CalHome Reuse
Program.

To support local lenders, the City has
contracted and invited local lenders to attend
program workshops. These include Self-Help
Enterprises, RH Community Builders,
UPHoldings, Kaweah Management
Company/Housing Authority of Tulare
County, and Habitat for Humanity of
Tulare/Kings Counties.

Hold (at minimum) 1 annual
program workshop for local
lenders.

2.3 EDUCATION AND RESOURCES ACCOMPLISHMENTS REMAINING NEEDS? Encourage private lenders and other
local lending institutions to host
workshops in Visalia regarding the
home-buying process and the
resources available to low- and
moderate-income homebuyers.

Ongoing, including non-profit partners.

2018 promoted the CalHome Reuse
Program; educated Lenders/Realtors and
required certification through the program.

Contracted with Self Help Enterprises to
administer the CalHome Reuse Program,
including workshop-education.

In 2020, the City applied for additional
CalHome funds, but was unsuccessful. No
additional CalHome program income has
been received.

In 2022, the City contracted with Self-Help
Enterprises to develop 5 single-family homes
for 5 low-moderate income first-time
homebuyers.

Identify lenders/realtors that
have not been certified; conduct
outreach to this group to
promote certification.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 16 ends

2.4 Continue to provide brochures or
information on homeownership,
rental assistance and rehabilitation
assistance programs in English and
Spanish.

Make information on programs
available on the City’s website and
at community events promoting fair
housing choice held by the City.

Ongoing, contracted with Central CA Fair
Housing Council.

The City continues to provide brochures or
information on homeownership, rental
assistance and rehabilitation assistance
programs in English and Spanish.

The City continues to make information on
programs available on the City’s website and
at community events promoting fair housing
choice held by the City.

Reevaluate contract with the
Central CA Fair Housing
Council; conduct a desk
audit/review of program
operations and service delivery
(focus on feedback and City-
observed experiences with lack
of/delay in response to
callers/individuals making
inquiries).

Post brochures on the City
website for resident access (the
Central CA Fair Housing
Council does not have
brochures/marketing materials
posted on its website).

2.5 Consider partnering with agencies to
provide credit and financial
counseling services, including
assisting potential homebuyers in
improving their credit, repairing bad
credit, and providing education on
affordability and financial
responsibilities of homeownership
and predatory lending avoidance.

Ongoing; Self Help Enterprises provides
counseling to eligible homebuyers of City
funded programs.

Self-Help Enterprises provided five home
buyer counseling sessions for City-eligible
home buyers.

No outstanding needs exist.

The City continues to
proactively make progress
towards its goal through past
and current activities.

2.6 As funding permits, work with other
fair housing advocates to conduct
additional fair housing workshops in
Visalia to educate citizens about fair
housing rights.

Contracted with Central CA Fair Housing
Council (CCFHC)

November 2016 Training conducted by
CCFHC.

Virtual workshops have been conducted by
CCFHC during the pandemic, in-person
workshops have resumed.

Host workshops annually (at
minimum).

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 17 ends

2.7 Monitor complaints regarding
unfair/predatory lending and assess
lending patterns using the data
collected under the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA), the
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
and other data sources. As funding
permits, work with non-profit agency
that specializes in fair housing to
provide data.

Included with the update to the Analysis of
Impediments 2020;

Ongoing: Contract with CCFHC tracks
information. The City rarely receives
complaints.

Require CCFHC to provide
quarterly reports to the City on
complaints received.

2.8 Participate with HUD in efforts to
improve access to homeowner’s
insurance and to investigate
predatory lending in the home
purchase, home improvement, and
mortgage refinancing markets.

Affordable housing program (Senior Home
Repair) allows the initial cost of insurance to
be included with the loan/funding.

The City has revised procedures to grant
assistance at or below $5,000 to waive flood
home insurance requirements and make
services more accessible to low-income
owner-occupants.

No outstanding needs exist.

The City continues to
proactively make progress
towards its goal through past
and current activities.

Goal 3: Fair Housing Services (Ongoing)

3.1 APARTMENT
OWNERS/MANAGERS ACCOMPLISHMENTS REMAINING NEEDS?
Work in conjunction with apartment
owner/manager associations to
reach out to owners of small rental
properties regarding fair housing
laws.

Ongoing- Monitoring of affordable housing
funded project; Self Help Enterprises

The City currently monitors for grant
compliance to ensure tenants are income-
eligible and units are properly maintained.

No fair housing discrimination issues were
identified during outreach efforts.

The City now works with the following
associations: Self-Help Enterprises, RH
Community Builders, UPHoldings, Habitat for
Humanity, and the Housing Authority of
Tulare County.

No outstanding needs exist.

The City continues to
proactively make progress
towards its goal through past
and current activities.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 18 ends

3.2 Work with agencies and the property
managers of affordable housing to
ensure that fair housing laws are
abided by in the selection of
residents and that information of
housing availability is appropriately
advertised.

Continue to provide outreach related
to affordable housing opportunities
through advertisements and
literature available in English and
Spanish.

Periodically track income and
demographic data related to
affordable housing participants and
evaluate additional strategies, if
needed, to increase access to and
knowledge of affordable housing
opportunities in the City.

Ongoing; Non-profit developed projects have
ongoing monitoring.

2018 Promoted the CalHome Reuse
Program; Contracted with Self Help
Enterprises to administer and provide
workshop/education.

The City conducted grant compliance
monitoring activities.

The City provides fair housing laws to
agencies and property managers to ensure
fair housing laws are abided by.

Annually (at minimum) track
income and demographic data
of affordable housing
participants to evaluate
additional strategies to increase
affordable housing knowledge.

3.3 FAIR HOUSING & TESTING
RESULTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS REMAINING NEEDS?
Support local non-profit agencies in
applying for federal Fair Housing
Initiative Program (FHIP) grants and
conduct testing and audits as a
means to affirming the nature and
extent of fair housing issues in the
community.

Contracted with CCFHC.

2017 provided letter of firm commitment of
support and Certification of Consistency with
the Consolidated Plan to Fair Housing
Council in relation to grant applications, as
needed.

Require CCFHC to provide
reports to the City biannually (at
minimum) of support provided
to local nonprofits in applying
for FHIP.

3.4 RESONABLE ACCOMODATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS REMAINING NEEDS? Provide information on reasonable
accommodation and on often-utilized
disability adjustments to housing
units.

Ongoing- Planning/Building Departments

The City has maintained a public information
brochure on reasonable accommodations for
disabled persons, which is available on the
City’s website. This brochure includes
information and staff contacts for requesting
assistance in providing housing for persons
with disabilities.

No outstanding needs exist.

The City continues to
proactively make progress
towards its goal through past
and current activities.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 19 ends

Goal 4: Fair Housing Services (New)

4.1 ENTITLEMENT FUNDING
ACTIVITIES ACCOMPLISHMENTS REMAINING NEEDS?
Ensure access to fair housing
services and education to all Visalia
residents by increasing dedicated
eligible entitlement dollars (CDBG
Admin or Public Service/HOME
Admin and Planning) to fair housing
services.

Ongoing- Contracted with Central CA of Fair
Housing Council (CCFHC)

Ongoing contracts with Family Services to
provide public services related to case
management and street outreach.

Reevaluate contract with the
Central CA Fair Housing
Council; conduct a desk
audit/review of program
operations and service delivery.

Require CCFHC to regularly
report to the City on
outcomes/outputs.

4.2 Partner and contract with fair housing
service providers for:
• Outreach
• Education
• Testing
• Enforcement
Ongoing- with CCFHC

Virtual workshops have been conducted
to increase fair housing education and
awareness.

Facilitate bi-annual workshops (at
minimum).

4.3 Partner and contract with credit
counseling and education/housing
counseling service providers to
increase access to financing, down
payment, and closing costs assistance
for underserved and underrepresented
protected classes
Contracted with Self Help Enterprises
for education on housing programs.

The City has also partnered with Self-
Help Enterprises to provide down
payment assistance for underserved
and underrepresented protected
classes.

No outstanding needs exist. The
City continues to proactively make
progress towards its goal through
past and current activities.

4.4 Ensure “Subrecipient Agreement”
includes the requirement that all
entitlement dollar recipients comply
with Fair Housing Act and all other
Federal laws and Executive Orders as
per “Playing by the Rules: A Handbook
for CDBG Subrecipients on
Administrative Systems"
Included and Ongoing No outstanding needs exist. The
City continues to proactively make
progress towards its goal through
past and current activities.

4.5 Prominently display fair housing
information in City-owned and
operated buildings and other public
spaces, such as libraries, recreation
centers, and community centers.

Completed – Fair housing flyers and
brochures are made available at public
bulletin boards at various city and
county-owned and operated buildings
such as City Hall, Tulare County
Library, Visalia Transit, Visalia
Community Centers, and administration
offices.

No outstanding needs exist at this
time.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 20 ends

Table 2.1 - COV Affordable Permanent Housing Developments Between 2019 - 2025 Activity
Minority
Areas
Y/N
Homeless
Units
HOME
Construction
HOME

FTHB HOME HOME-
ARP SAH NSP Homekey General
Fund Total
Sequoia
Village - 50
Units for 30%
AMI and
lower.

No 50 - - $1,500,000 - - - - - $1,500,000
NW 5th Ave. -
5 Single
Family Homes
for 80% AMI
and lower
Yes 0 $1,073,798 $217,126 $1,290,924 - $96,000 $141,604 - $64,000 $1,592,528 The Lofts - 80
units for 60%
AMI and
lower.

Yes 40 - - $2,350,898 - $329,000 - - - $2,680,218
Santa Fe
Fourplex
rehab - 4 units
for 60% AMI
and lower
Yes 0 - - - - $100,000 - - - $100,000
Majestic
Gardens - 42
units for 30%
AMI and
lower.

No 42 - - - $1,800,000 $1,325,000 - $13,835,376 - $16,960,376 Rancho - 80
units for 50%
AMI and
lower.

Yes 0 - - $1,290,000 - - - - - $1,290,000
Total Funds Provided 132 $1,073,798 $217,126 $6,431,822 $1,800,000 $1,850,000 $141,604 $13,835,376 $64,000 $24,123,122

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 21 ends

Table 2.2 - COV Affordable Permanent Rental Housing Developments Between 2019 – 2025 Activity
Minority
Areas
Y/N
Homeless
Units
HOME
Construction
HOME

FTHB HOME
HOME-

ARP SAH NSP

General Fund Total
Sequoia
Village - 50
Units for 30%
AMI and
lower.

No 50 - - $1,500,000 - - - - $1,500,000
The Lofts - 80
units for 60%
AMI and
lower.

Yes 40 - - $2,350,898 - $329,000 - - $2,680,218
Santa Fe
Fourplex
rehab - 4 units
for 60% AMI
and lower
Yes 0 - - - - $100,000 - - $100,000
Majestic
Gardens - 42
units for 30%
AMI and
lower.

No 42 - - - $1,800,000 $1,325,000 - - $3,125,000
Rancho - 80
units for 50%
AMI and
lower.

Yes 0 - - $1,290,000 - - - - $1,290,000
Total Funds Provided 132 $0 $0 $5,140,898 $1,800,000 $1,754,000 $0 $0 $8,695,218 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 22 ends

Community Data
Several conditions can limit fair housing choice or access to opportunities. These conditions include segregation, lack of integration, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, and evidence of discrimination or civil rights violations related to housing.

To address fair housing issues effectively, it is imperative to gather and analyze data on these conditions.

First, understanding the jurisdiction's demographics is essential. This includes examining population growth, age characteristics, and racial and ethnic composition. These demographic factors are instrumental in identifying a community’s housing needs and potential barriers to fair housing choice.

Segregation and lack of integration refer to the physical and social separation of different racial or ethnic groups within a community. These conditions can limit access to quality housing, education, and employment opportunities for marginalized groups, perpetuating cycles of poverty and inequality. By identifying areas where segregation and lack of integration are prevalent, policymakers can develop targeted interventions to promote inclusivity and equal access to resources.

Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty are neighborhoods where high percentages of residents are both minority and low -income. These areas often lack investment and access to essential services, further entrenching residents in disadvantaged circumstances. Recognizing these areas allows for strategic planning to improve infrastructure, education, and employment opportunities, thereby enhancing the overall quality of life for residents.

Disparities in access to opportunity highlight the unequal distribution of resources such as quality education, employment, and healthcare across different communities. These disparities can be driven by systemic discrimination and bias, making it harder for certain groups to achieve economic stability and upward mobility. Addressing these disp arities involves implementing policies that ensure equitable access to opportunities for all residents, regardless of their background.

Disproportionate housing needs refer to the uneven burden of housing costs, overcrowding, and substandard living conditions experienced by certain groups. Low -income families, racial and ethnic minorities, and individuals with disabilities are often disproportionately affected. By identifying these groups and their specific housing challenges, targeted policies can be designed to provide affordable and adequate housing solutions.

Evidence of discrimination or civil rights violations related to housing is a critical factor in assessing fair housing conditions. Discriminatory practices can take many forms, from overt acts of bias to more subtle forms of exclusion. Documenting and add ressing these violations is fundamental to ensuring that all individuals have equal access to housing opportunities.

Demographic Summary
Within the scope of a singular housing market, a multitude of household and individual characteristics can significantly impact the range of housing options available as well as the housing needs within that market.

This chapter of the AI delves into an in-depth examination of the housing and demographic characteristics relevant to the City of Visalia.

Population Characteristics
The type and quantity of housing within a community is primarily influenced by population growth and the demographic attributes of its residents. Factors including age, occupation, and income collectively influence the housing types and affordability within a community. The content of this section draws heavi ly upon Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 23 ends

housing and demographic statistics provided by the California Department of Finance (DOF), utilizing the most up-to-date data accessible.

Between 2000 and 2010, Visalia underwent a significant population surge, increasing by 35%. According to the California Department of Finance's Population and Housing Estimates for 2022, Visalia's populace was estimated at 142,066 individuals. This marked a rise of 14.2%, equivalent to 17,624 persons, from 2010 to 2022 as indicated in Table 1. Visalia's population growth outpaced that of Tulare County, which stood at 7.3% for the same period.

Table 1: Regional Population Growth Trends
Jurisdiction 2000
Population
2010
Population
2022
Population
% Change
2000-2010
% Change
2010-2022
City of Visalia 91,891 124,442 142,066 35% 14.2%
County of Tulare 368,021 442,179 474,507 20% 7.3%
Source: California Department of Finance, Historical Population and Housing Estimates 2000-2010, Population and Housing Estimates 2022

Source: California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates 2022

Population Age
The age range within a community significantly influences its housing needs. Different age groups present unique family structures, types and income levels, all correlating with distinct housing needs.1 Young adults typically gravitate towards apartments, condominiums, and smaller single -family dwellings commensurate with their typically smaller households and limited finances as they only made up 14% of housing purchases in 2022.2 Conversely, adults with children often seek larger single-family residences to accommodate their families. However, as offspring reach adulthood and depart from the parental home, older adults and seniors are staying put in their large single -family resid ences rather than downsizing because of rising mortgage rates.3

In 2022, the most significant age group within Visalia, as depicted in Table 3, comprises individuals aged 25 to 44, constituting 31.4% of the population. The median age demonstrates a marginal rise, now standing at 34.1 years. These findings emphasize the importance of housing needs designed specifically for seniors, while also considering suitable accommodations for young families.

Table 3: Age Characteristics (2000-2022)
Age 2010 2022
Under 5 9,494 10,947
5 to 19 31,238 31,275
20 to 24 8,512 8,029
25 to 44 33,866 45,215
45 to 64 28,048 29,177
65+ 13,708 19,322
Totals 124,866 143,965
Median Age 31.6 34.1
Source: 2010, and 2022 1-Year ACS

1 Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2022). The State of the Nation’s Housing 2022 (M. Fernold, Ed.). 2 Yale, A. (2023). Millennial homebuyers: What the 2023 housing market looks like for gen y and gen Z | real estate | U.S. news.

Millennial Homebuyers: What the 2023 Housing Market Looks Like for Gen Y and Gen Z.

3 Peterson, T. (2023, April 20). For boomers, downsizing isn’t a simple decision. Washington Post.

Table 2: Population Growth of Visalia (2000-2020)
2000 2010 Percent Change 2022 Percent Change
91,891 124,442 35% 142,066 14.2%
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 24 ends

Race and Ethnicity
Acknowledging and understanding the difference between race (which refers to a group of people with common lineage or inheritance) and ethnicity (representing a social group with shared culture, religion, language, or similar traits) is essential. In Visal ia, Hispanic ethnicity makes up a significant portion of the population, accounting for 50% or 71,938 individuals as of 2022 (as shown in Table 4).

Table 4: Racial and Ethnic Composition
2010 2022 Growth Rate 2010-2022
Non-Hispanic White 53,982 53,686 -0.55%
Non-Hispanic Black 2,227 3,954 77.55%
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander 5,535 8,116 46.63%
Hispanic 59,972 71,938 19.95%
Non-Hispanic Other 3,150 6,271 99.08%
Totals 124,866 143,965 15.30%
Source: 2010, and 2022 1-Year ACS

Among Visalia residents aged five and older , 35.47% speak a non-English language at home. The largest group speaks Spanish, accounting for 29.68% of the population. Approximately 16,343 individuals aged 5 and above in Visalia possess limited English proficiency (LEP), accounting for around 31% of the population. These numbers highlight a distinct need within the community – the need to address language barriers. Language barriers have the potential to impede residents' access to essential services, information, and housing, while also influencing educational achievements and employment opportunities.

Executive Order 13166 – Improving Access to Services by Persons with Limited English Proficiency, issued in August 2000, mandates federal agencies to cater to the needs of eligible individuals seeking access to federal programs and activities, especially those with limited English proficiency. This requirement also applies to organizations that receive federal funding. Therefore, collaborative entities must ensu re compliance with this regulation.

Table 5: Language, all persons 5 years and older
Language Persons Percentage
English Language 91,684 68.92%
Other Language 41,334 31.07%
All Persons 133,018 100.0%
Source: 2022 1-Year ACS

Table 6: Other Language Populations 5 years and older that speak English less than "very well" Language Persons
Spanish 14,146
Indo-European 193
Asian and Pacific Islander 1,889
Other Language 115
Total Other Language Persons, 5 years and older 16,343
Source: 2022 1-Year ACS

Limited English Proficiency
Individuals who face limitations in English proficiency often encounter challenges such as cultural or linguistic isolation, lower levels of education, and reduced income. Disseminating information about public services concerning housing, health, and other essential resources to these demographics can prove challenging without effectively integ rating considerations of resources, race, culture, and language. The presence of LEP individuals can also impact the local workforce and economy, as certain employers may mandate English proficiency among their staff.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 25 ends

The dissimilarity index serves as a quantitative measure of the extent to which two demographic groups are distributed evenly across a given geographic area. This index comprises data from 1990, extending up to July 2020 as the most current dataset availab le. It yields values on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores reflecting a greater degree of segregation between the groups under consideration. Index values falling between 0 and 39 typically signify minimal segregation, those between 40 and 54 indicate moderate segregation, and those between 55 and 100 suggest a significant level of segregation. Visalia's jurisdictional dissimilarity index trend has exhibited a decline from 1990-2010, registering as predominantly low in terms of overall segregation. H owever, from 2010-2020 Visalia has seen an increase in the degree of segregation among all groups measured within both their jurisdiction and region. The degree of segregation in the Visalia CDBG Jurisdiction is still defined as minimal, while the broader region is now seeing moderate levels of segregation across racial/ethnic groups. This recent trend highlights underlying issues that may persist in hindering Visalia from becoming a more inclusive and equitable place to live.

Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool (AFFHT) Data Table 3; Decennial Census Household Characteristics
A household is defined as all occupants residing within a single housing unit. As outlined by the U.S. Census Bureau, a household may consist of a family unit, multiple families cohabiting, an individual living alone, or unrelated individuals cohabiting. T he composition, size, and demographic makeup of a household play a pivotal role in determining the appropriate housing type and required services needed to fulfill the occupants’ living needs. For example, a smaller one -floor household with minimal upkeep may be more suitable for an elderly household because of their limited physical capabilities.

Table 8: Household Growth (2010-2022)
Area 2010 2022 Percent Change
City of Visalia 40,709 46,975 15.4%
County of Tulare 129,590 143,129 10.4%
Source: 2010, and 2022 1-Year ACS

Household Type and Size
The average household size has remained consistent from 2010-2022. Notably, the percent of families with children and average family size has decreased from 2010-2022, as can be seen in Table 9. This m ay correspond with the birth rate declining every year since 2015.4 However, it is important to note the increase in the percent of households with elderly persons is increasing by 4.4% since 2010. The Baby Boomers generation (born between 1946-1964) make up the second largest percentage of the U.S. population and as they continue to age many will retire from their careers transitioning into their elderly stages of life .

Furthermore, post-retirement Baby Boomers do not want to be in nursing homes because they would rather remain in a residential setting where their adult children can look after them. 5

4 U.S. Census Bureau. (2022, April 13). Fewer babies born in December and January but number started to rise in March.

Census.gov.
5 Hoyt, J. (2023, October 6). The baby boomer generation.

Table 7: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index
Visalia, CA CDBG Jurisdiction Visalia-Porterville, CA Region Racial/Ethnic
Dissimilarity
Index
1990
Tren
d
2000
Trend
2010
Trend
Curren
t
1990
Trend
2000
Trend
2010
Trend Current
Non-
White/White 37.56 34.52 23.61 29.23 36.51 37.80 34.94 40.58 Black/White 29.37 22.02 16.42 27.25 51.11 40.70 32.32 41.93 Hispanic/White 36.85 35.87 24.29 29.90 38.85 40.16 37.53 42.42 Asian or Pacific
Islander/White 48.94 42.41 30.05 34.23 42.42 39.00 33.43 40.91 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 26 ends

Source: 2010, and 2022 1-Year ACS
Income Profile
Household income is an important determiner of the general affordability of housing and other major life purchases and activities. When housing expenses exceed the industry -standard 30% of a household’s income, households may face constraints in other econ omic endeavors. Economic factors impacting housing choices are not explicitly a fair housing issue; however, given other bias related issues surrounding household income, household type, and other factors, fair housing concerns can be raised.

HUD, in conjunction with data from the United States Census Bureau, releases income limits every year.

Using the median income for a family of four, HUD further breaks down income limits into three categories:

• Extremely Low Income: 30% of the median family income • Very Low Income: 50% of the median family income
• Low Income: 80% of the median family income

HUD further breaks down this data by family size, from one individual to an eight -person household. For the Visalia -Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), the median family income is $72,000.

Additional data by income level and family size can be found below:

Table 10: FY 2024 Income Limits Summary
Visalia-Porterville, CA MSA
Persons in Family
Median
Family
Income
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
$72,000
Extremely
Low
Income
$18,450 $21,100 $25,820 $31,200 $36,580 $41,960 $47,340 $52,720 Very Low
Income $30,800 $35,200 $39,600 $43,950 $47,500 $51,000 $54,500 $58,050 Low
Income $49,250 $56,250 $63,300 $70,300 $75,950 $81,550 $87,200 $92,800 Source: HUD User: FY 2024 Income Limits Documentation System: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/

After HUD releases their income limit data, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) releases revisions to increase a county’s area median income (AMI) to equal California’s non -metropolitan median income, further adjus ting to prevent any decreases. HCD then releases income limits for five income categories for each MSA, which are:

• Acutely Low Income (0% to 15% of AMI)
• Extremely Low Income (15% to 30% of AMI)
• Very Low Income (30% to 50% of AMI)
• Lower Income (50% to 80% of the AMI)
• Moderate Income (80% to 120% of the AMI)

Table 9: Household Type and Size
2010 2022
Average Household Size 3.01 3.02
Percent of Households with Elderly 23.6% 28.0%
Average Family Size 3.58 3.53
Percent of Families with Children 43.9% 39.3%
Percent of Female-Headed Households with Children 10.1% 4.7% Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 27 ends

Median Income
As indicated in the table below, the median household income for Visalia is $81,362 based on the 2022 1- Year American Community Survey (ACS). Between the 2010 US Census and 2022, the median household income has increased 22.3%.

Table 11: City of Visalia-Median Household Income
(2010-2022)
Median Household Income Percent Change 2010 2022
$66,549 $81,362 22.3%
Source: 2010 US Census, 2022 1-Year ACS

Income Distribution of Households
According to HUD’s Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data homepage:

“Each year, [HUD] receives custom tabulations of [ACS] data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Th[is] data, known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low-income households. CHAS data are used by local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds and may also be used by HUD to distribute grant funds.”

This CHAS data covers income categories by race/ethnicity, tenure, household size, household issues, and age of housing. Household issues may include units lacking complete kitchen or bathroom, overcrowded conditions (more than one person per room), housing cost burden (housing costs exceeding 30% of gross income), and severe housing cost burden (housing costs exceeding 50% of gross income).

Table 12: City of Visalia Renter Income Distribution Overview Total Renter
Households
Percent Extremely
Low Income
Percent Low
Income
Percent Moderate
Income
Percent
Middle/Upper Income
17,915 13.7% 18.9% 18.9% 48.5%
City of Visalia Owner Income Distribution Overview
Total Owner
Households
Percent Extremely
Low Income
Percent Low
Income
Percent Moderate
Income
Percent
Middle/Upper Income
25,950 6.6% 8.1% 12.7% 72.6%
City of Visalia Total Households Income Distribution Overview Total
Households
Percent Extremely
Low Income
Percent Low
Income
Percent Moderate
Income
Percent
Middle/Upper Income
43,865 9.5% 12.5% 15.2% 62.8%
Sources: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (“CHAS”) Data, 2022 1-Year ACS

Low to Moderate Target Areas
The map on the following page displays block groups within Visalia where the median household income is less than 80 percent of the median household income.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 28 ends

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 29 ends

Income by Household Characteristics
CHAS data cross-references household attributes with income to show, for example, which income range has the most housing problems. As highlighted below, the lowest income households tend to face the most significant challenges when it comes to housing pro blems, which consist of lacking plumbing facilities, lacking kitchen facilities, having greater than 1.51 people per room, having 1.01 to 1.5 people per room, and housing cost burdens.

Table 13: Housing Problems by Income
Renter Households
0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI >100%
AMI Total
Lacking
Complete
Plumbing or
Kitchen
45 45 95 15 240 445
Overcrowded
(1.01 to 1.50
people per
room)
270 310 280 250 370 1,480
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.51 people
per room)
170 115 95 70 60 505
Housing Cost
Burden >50% of
income
1,665 960 360 55 10 3,050
Housing Cost
Burden >30% of
income
2,140 2,645 1,890 490 335 7,500
Source: CHAS 2016-2020

Table 14: Housing Problems by Income
Owner Households
0-30%
AMI
30-50%
AMI
50-80%
AMI
80-100%
AMI
>100%
AMI Total
Lacking Complete
Plumbing or Kitchen 0 10 55 0 50 115
Overcrowded
(1.01 to 1.50 people
per room)
90 70 65 165 200 585
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.51 people per
room)
0 4 10 75 175 265
Housing Cost
Burden >50% of
income
1,220 990 495 100 135 2,940
Housing Cost
Burden >30% of
income
1,410 1,350 1,925 580 1,245 6,510
Source: CHAS 2016-2020

A further breakdown by the 2022 1-Year ACS was used to provide additional detail as the total number of occupied housing units that have one of the four housing problems.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 30 ends

Table 15: Lacking Plumbing and Kitchen Facilities
Owner and Renter Households
Without Complete Plumbing Facilities Without Complete Kitchen Facilities Owner Occupied 47 103
Renter
Occupied 0 236
Source: 2022 1-Year ACS

Table 16: Over Crowding
Owner and Renter Households

1.01 to 1.50
Occupants per Room

1.51 to 2.00
Occupants per Room

2.01 or more Occupants
per Room
Owner Occupied 623 106 241
Renter Occupied 1,770 66 192
Source: 2022 1-Year ACS

Income by Race and Ethnicity
The following table provides data on previously defined income categories by race and ethnicity. Non - Hispanic White households make up the largest share of total households at 49.0%, followed by Hispanic or Latino at 32.5%. A larger share of one race/ethni city households have lower incomes as compared to the city as a whole. For example, 45.6% of Black or African American households are lower to moderate income households, while 49.4% of households that self -reported as “Other” have lower to moderate incomes. American Indian or Alaska Natives have the highest proportion of middle to upper income households at 66.3%, followed by Non-Hispanic White households at 61.2%.

Overall, 60.3% of Visalia’s total households have middle to upper incomes, with 5.0% earning an acutely low income, 6.1% earning an extremely low income, 11.8% earning a very low income, and 16.9% earning a moderate income.

Source: 2018-2022 5-Year ACS
*The 2018-2022 5-Year ACS showed 0 Pacific Islander households; therefore, data from 2016-2020 was used.

Table 17: Income by Race and Ethnicity (2018-2022) City of Visalia Total Households Non-Hispanic
White
Hispanic or
Latino
Black or
African
American
Acutely Low 2,815 5.0% 1,519 5.5% 478 2.6% 65 6.1%
Extremely Low 3,477 6.1% 1,943 7.0% 842 4.6% 150 14.1%
Very Low 6,711 11.8% 2,600 9.3% 2,601 14.1% 45 4.2%
Moderate 9,585 16.9% 4,054 14.5% 3,089 16.7% 226 21.2%
Middle/Upper 34,253 60.3% 17,056 61.2% 11,067 60.0% 565 52.9% Total HH 56,841 100% 27,865 100% 18,453 100% 1,067 100% Total
Lower/Moderate
Income
Households
22,588 39.7% 10,116 36.3% 7,009 38.0% 486 45.6%
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 31 ends

Income by Race and Ethnicity (2018-2022) City of Visalia (continued) Asian Am. Indian or
Alaska Nat./ Other
Pacific
Islander*
Other
Acutely Low 86 4.0% 21 4.3% - - 646 8.0%
Extremely Low 146 6.7% 14 2.9% - - 382 4.7%
Very Low 204 9.4% 35 7.1% 5 - 1,222 15.1%
Moderate 376 17.3% 87 17.7% - - 1,754 21.6%
Middle/Upper 1,328 61.1% 324 66.3% - - 3,913 48.3%
Total HH 2,174 100% 489 100% 5 100% 8,108 100%
Total Lower/Moderate
Income Households
811 37.3% 156 32.0% 5 100% 4,004 49.4%
Source: 2018-2022 5-Year ACS
*The 2018-2022 5-Year ACS showed 0 Pacific Islander households; therefore, data from 2016-2020 was used.

Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
To be considered a racially or ethnically concentrated area, the non-white population must be greater than 50%, while neighborhoods of “extreme poverty” are regarded as census tracts with 40% or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Acco rding to the California Department of Public Health, the 2024 Federal Poverty Level is $20,783 for one individual, calculated by multiplying the national federal poverty level by 138%.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 32 ends

Housing Profile
Housing Growth
The total number of housing units within the City of Visalia is 48,441 as of the 2020 US Census. This is a

9.6% increase from the 2010 US Census (44,205 housing units).

Table 18: City of Visalia Housing Unit Growth
(2010-2020)
2010 2020 Percent Growth
44,205 48,441 9.6%
Source: US Census, 2010 and 2020

Housing Unit Type
The housing stock within the City of Visalia is primarily single-family homes (1-unit, attached and detached).

In 2022, 76.6% of the housing stock consisted of single-family homes. Comparatively, in 2010, this figure was slightly higher at 77.8%. This indicates a shift towards more multi -family developments within the city over the past twelve years. Notably, all housing unit types have experienced growth during this period, except for 10-to-19-unit buildings.

Source: 2022 1-Year American Community Survey (ACS)

Condition of Housing Units
A key indicator of the condition of housing units is the year the unit was built. The following tables display how many units were built within certain decades, as well as the percentage built before and after 1979, as many homes built before 1979 may contain lead-based paint.

Table 20: Housing Unit by Year Structure Built
Year Structure Built Number % of Total Units
Built 2020 or later 92 0.2%
Built 2020 to 2019 4,162 8.8%
Built 2000 to 2009 9,703 20.6%
Built 1990 to 1999 6,384 13.5%
Built 1980 to 1989 7,715 16.3%
Built 1970 to 1979 9,224 19.5%
Built 1960 to 1969 3,499 7.4%
Built 1950 to 1959 3,270 6.9%
Built 1940 to 1949 1,794 3.8%
Built 1939 or earlier 1,348 2.9%
Total 47,191 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ASC Housing Summary ESRI Forecasts for 2017-2021.

Table 19: City of Visalia Housing Unit Growth by Type
(2010-2022)
2010 2022
Unit
Type
Number of
Units
Percent of
Total
Number of
Units
Percent of
Total
1-unit, detached 32,460 74.8% 35,913 72.5%
1-unit, attached 1,315 3.0% 2,050 4.1%
2 units 2,410 5.6% 2,727 5.5%
3 or 4 units 2,484 5.7% 3,798 7.7%
5 to 9 units 1,299 3.0% 1,388 2.8%
10 to 19 units 607 1.4% 346 0.7%
20 or more units 1,148 2.6% 1,569 3.2%
Mobile home 1,605 3.7% 1,709 3.4%
Boat, RV, van, etc. 42 0.1% 50 0.1%
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 33 ends

Table 21: Age of Housing Stock
Total Housing Units Percent Built before 1979 Percent Built After 1979 47,191 40.6% 59.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ASC Housing Summary ESRI Forecasts for 2017-2021.

Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Although lead -based paint is hazardous, especially to children under six years old, it presents an opportunity for rehabilitation and mitigation, improving the long -term safety of the community. As can be seen in the table below, 16.8% of owner -occupied ho using units were built before 1980 with children present. Among renter -occupied households, this number increases to 28.8%, indicating there may be children at risk of being exposed to lead-based paint in both owner and renter-occupied housing units.

Table 22: Risk of Lead Based Paint Hazard
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Total Number of Units
Built Before 1980
9,445 100% 8,495 100%
Housing Units Built
Before 1980 with
Children Present
1,585 16.8% 2,445 28.8%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2016-2020

Housing Tenure (Own versus Rent and Vacant Units)
According to the US Census Bureau, 61.4% of households within Visalia own their homes, while 38.6% rent their homes. Homeownership is projected to increase until 2028, when the projected ownership percentage is 66.4%. Additionally, there is an overall vacancy rate of 3.9%, which is projected to decrease to 3.6% in 2028, indicating a further tightening in the market. According to the US Census Bureau, the rental vacancy rate in Visalia is 2.4%, showing that the rental housing market is even tighter than the owner - occupied housing market.

Table 23: City of Visalia Households by Tenure
2020 US Census
Census 2020 2023 2028
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total Housing Units 48,513 100.0% 50,138 100.0% 50,824 100.0% Total Occupied Units 46,631 96.1% 48,166 96.1% 48,996 96.4% Owner-Occupied
HHs/Householder
28,653 61.4% 31,504 65.4% 32,532 66.4%
Renter-Occupied
HHs/Householder
17,978 38.6% 16,662 34.6% 16,464 33.6%
Vacant Units 1,882 3.9% 1,972 3.9% 1,828 3.6%
Source: US Census Bureau, Esri

Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), developed by the Census Bureau for HUD, contains information on low - and moderate -income households and specifically identifies four primary housing problems experienced by households:1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) househ old is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened.

Of the renter occupied households within the City of Visalia, 51.5% fall within the low- to moderate-income bracket, and 55.2% experience one of the four CHAS -identified housing problems. These numbers are substantially higher than that of the owner -occupied housing units, of which 27.4% are earning a low -to moderate-income, and 26.1% are facing at least one of four housing problems.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 34 ends

Table 24: Tenure Profile
Tenure Percent of All
Households
Percent Low and
Moderate Income
Housing Problems
Owner-Occupied 61.4% 27.4% 26.1%
Renter-Occupied 38.6% 51.5% 55.2%
All Households 100.0% 37.2% 37.3%
Source: CHAS 2016-2020, US Census Bureau

According to the 2022 1-Year American Community Survey (ACS), 98.2% of owner-occupied units have two or more bedrooms, while only 86% of renter-occupied units have two or more bedrooms. Additionally, there are a total of 28,743 owner-occupied units compared to 18,232 renter-occupied units.

Table 25: Unit Size by Tenure
Owners Renters
Number Percentage Number Percentage
No Bedroom 291 1.0% 993 5.4%
1 Bedroom 220 0.8% 1,561 8.6%
2 or 3 Bedrooms 19,539 68.0% 13,693 75.1%
4 or more
Bedrooms
8,693 30.2% 1,985 10.9%
Total 28,743 100.0% 18,232 100.0%
Source: 2022 1-Year ACS

Housing Costs
Over the past five years, the median home value in the City of Visalia has increased by 54.1%, with the median gross rent increasing by 53.4%. These increases are substantially greater than the previous five- year increase (2012-2017) of 43.8% and 4.3% for home value and gross rents, respectively.

Table 26: Median Home Value and Gross Rent
(2017-2022)
2012 2017 2022 Percent
Change
(2012-2017)
Percent
Change
(2017-2022)
Median Home
Value
$162,600 $233,900 $360,500 43.8% 54.1%
Median Gross
Rent
$927 $967 $1,483 4.3% 53.4%
Sources: 2012, 2017, and 2022 1-Year ACS

Rents in the City of Visalia are higher than the payment standard allotted by the Housing Authority of Tulare County for one - and four -bedroom units. The rents for all unit sizes exceed the overall rents in Tulare County as a whole. As remote work opportunities across various sectors became more available during the coronavirus pandemic, high earning households took advantage of the opportunity to reloc ate which contributed to a population increase and a surge in housing demand within the City of Visalia. A direct result in the surge in housing demand was a signi ficant increase in housing costs, which has resulted in lower - income Visalia residents no longer being able to afford to reside in their homes.

During the COVID -19 pandemic, remote work opportunities across various sectors expanded. Wealthier households seized this chance to relocate, resulting in a population surge in the City of Visalia. Recent data reflects a correlation between Visalia’s recen t population growth and the City’s substantial rise in housing demand, which, in turn, has resulted in escalated housing costs. As a result, lower-income residents in Visalia have experienced challenges being able to afford current housing prices. Current housing costs are reflected in the table below.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 35 ends

Table 27: Average Rental Housing Prices
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+Bedroom
Housing Authority
Payment Standard
$1,270 $1,286 $1,689 $2,352 $2,478
City of Visalia $1,239 $1,490 $1,641 $2,003 $2,599
County of Tulare $879 $1,311 $1,510 $1,776 $2,421
Sources: Housing Authority County of Tulare (recent as of 4/8/2024); CoStar; Apartments.com (recent as of 4/8/2024)

For extremely low -income, very low -income, and low -income renters and homeowners, what would be defined as affordable (spending 30% of income or less on housing costs) is unachievable in the City of Visalia. With an average studio rental rate of $1,239, no extremely low- or very low-income household could afford a studio apartment in the City of Visalia, even if there were eight people within that household. An eight-person low-income household could not even comfortably afford a three-bedroom unit within the City of Visalia. As costs of homeownership are even greater than costs of renting due to increased utilities, property taxes, and insurance, owning is an even greater challenge for those households making less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). T he following charts show affordable rental rates and mortgage amounts for households making less than 80% of the AMI within the City of Visalia.

Table 28: City of Visalia Housing Affordability
Extremely Low-Income Renter Households (30% AMI)
Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low-Income
Annual Income
$18,450 $21,100 $25,820 $31,200 $36,580 $41,960 $47,340 $52,720 Affordable Gross Rent $461 $528 $646 $780 $915 $1,049 $1,184 $1,318 Utility Allowance $165 $184 $208 $242 $278 $316 $344 $377 Insurance $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16
Affordable Net
Rent
$281 $328 $422 $522 $621 $717 $824 $925
City of Visalia Housing Affordability
Very Low-Income Renter Households (50% AMI)
Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Very Low-Income
Annual Income
$30,800 $35,200 $39,600 $43,950 $47,500 $51,000 $54,500 $58,050 Affordable Gross Rent $770 $880 $990 $1,099 $1,188 $1,275 $1,363 $1,451 Utility Allowance $165 $184 $208 $242 $278 $316 $344 $377 Insurance $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16
Affordable Net
Rent
$589 $680 $766 $841 $894 $943 $1,003 $1,058
City of Visalia Housing Affordability
Low-Income Renter Households (80% AMI)
Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Low Income
Annual Income
$49,250 $56,250 $63,300 $70,300 $75,950 $81,550 $87,200 $92,800 Affordable Gross Rent $1,231 $1,406 $1,583 $1,758 $1,899 $2,039 $2,180 $2,320 Utility Allowance* $165 $184 $208 $242 $278 $316 $344 $377 Insurance $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16
Affordable Net
Rent
$1,051 $1,207 $1,359 $1,500 $1,605 $1,707 $1,820 $1,927 Source: HUD User: Income Limits; Housing Authority of Tulare County; MarketWatch.com: Renter’s Insurance *Utility allowance assumes all utilities are being paid for by resident and was calculated using one bedroom less than person s in household (e.g. studio utilities used for a 1-person household). The average difference in utility allowance between 1 person through 6 person families was taken and added to the 6-person family utility allowance for the 7-person family utility allowance, and the same was done for the 8-person family.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 36 ends

Table 29: City of Visalia Housing Affordability
Extremely Low-Income Owner Households (30% AMI)
Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low
Income
$18,450 $21,100 $25,820 $31,200 $36,580 $41,960 $47,340 $52,720 Affordable Monthly
Home Costs
$461 $528 $646 $780 $915 $1,049 $1,184 $1,318
Utility Allowance $172 $194 $218 $255 $290 $329 $372 $403 Insurance $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117
Taxes $228 $228 $228 $228 $228 $228 $228 $228
Affordable
Mortgage Amount
-$56 -$12 $82 $180 $279 $375 $466 $569
City of Visalia Housing Affordability
Very Low-Income Owner Households (50% AMI)
Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Very Low Income $30,800 $35,200 $39,600 $43,950 $47,500 $51,000 $54,500 $58,050 Affordable Gross
Rent
$770 $880 $990 $1,099 $1,188 $1,275 $1,363 $1,451
Utility Allowance $172 $194 $218 $255 $290 $329 $372 $403 Insurance $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117
Taxes $228 $228 $228 $228 $228 $228 $228 $228
Affordable
Mortgage Amount
$253 $341 $427 $498 $552 $601 $645 $702
City of Visalia Housing Affordability
Low-Income Owner Households (80% AMI)
Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Low Income $49,250 $56,250 $63,300 $70,300 $75,950 $81,550 $87,200 $92,800 Affordable Gross
Rent
$1,231 $1,406 $1,583 $1,758 $1,899 $2,039 $2,180 $2,320 Utility Allowance $172 $194 $218 $255 $290 $329 $372 $403 Insurance $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117 $117
Taxes $228 $228 $228 $228 $228 $228 $228 $228
Affordable
Mortgage Amount
$714 $867 $1,019 $1,157 $1,263 $1,364 $1,463 $1,571
Sources: HUD User: Income Limits; Housing Authority of Tulare County; Smartasset.com; Insurance.com

HUD’s fair market rents for the Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are shown below.

From 2023 to 2024, the fair market rents in the MSA have increased by 16.7%, a substantial one -year increase. Additionally, the fair market rent am ounts provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) within the MSA are substantially lower than the rental rates within the City of Visalia and Tulare County, which highlights rental units within the City of Visalia and Tulare County no t being affordable as defined by HUD.

Table 30: Final FY 2023 and 2024 FMRs by Unit Bedrooms
Visala-Porterville, CA MSA
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
FY 2024 FMR $977 $989 $1,299 $1,809 $2,065
FY 2023 FMR $825 $848 $1,116 $1,552 $1,790
Source: HUD User, 2024

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 37 ends

Housing Problems
HUD assesses housing need within a community according to several criteria:

• The number of households that are paying too much for housing • The number of households living in overcrowded units
• The number of households living in substandard housing conditions.

CHAS data below provides further details on housing cost burden and overcrowding. Both federal and industry standards define housing affordability thresholds as households not paying more than 30% of their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) on housing costs. A household spending more than this amount is considered “cost burdened,” while a household allocating over 50% of their AGI to housing costs is classified as “severely cost burdened.”

Housing affordability is not inherently a fair housing concern. However, as evident from the charts in the preceding section, lower income disproportionately affects the availability of affordable housing options.

Consequently, this situation may lead lower-income households to reside in substandard housing.

Cost Burden
According to CHAS data from the 2016 -2020 ACS, 2,940 (11.3%) owner households are severely cost burdened within the City of Visalia. Of these, 1,710 are considered to be extremely low income (earning <30% of the AMI). In total, there are 3,050 renter house holds who are severely cost burdened, with 2,455 of these households being extremely low income.

Table 31: Total Percentage of Owner and Renter Cost Burden >50% Owner % Owner
Households
Renter % Renter
Households
Cost Burden
<=30%
19,340 74.5% 10,260 57.3%
Cost Burden >30%
to <=50%
3,570 13.8% 4,450 24.8%
Cost Burden >50% 2,940 11.3% 3,050 17.0%
Cost Burden Not
Available
110 0.4% 155 0.9%
Total 25,960 100.0% 17,915 100.0%
Source: CHAS 2016-2020

Table 32: Cost Burdened Renters by Income
Total Number of Renter Households
Household Income <= 30% HAMFI* 2,455
Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI 3,395
Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI 3,385
Household Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI 2,385
Household Income >100% HAMFI 6,300
Total 17,915
Source: CHAS 2016-2020 *HAMFI – HUD Area Median Family Income

Table 33: Cost Burdened Owners by Income
Total Number of Renter Households
Household Income <= 30% HAMFI 1,710
Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI 2,110
Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI 3,290
Household Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI 2,310
Household Income >100% HAMFI 16,535
Total 25,950
Source: CHAS 2016-2020

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 38 ends

Overcrowding
Households with 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room are considered overcrowded, while households with more than 1.51 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. According to the 2022 1 -Year ACS, there are currently 970 total overcrowded owner-occupied units (3.4%) and 2,028 total overcrowded renter- occupied units (11.1%).

Table 34: Over Crowding
Owner and Renter Households

1.01 to 1.50
Occupants
per Room
>1.51
Occupants
per Room
Total
Overcrowded
Total
Occupied
Units
Percent
Overcrowded
Owner-Occupied 623 347 970 28,743 3.4%
Renter-Occupied 1,770 258 2,028 18,232 11.1%
Source: 2022 1-Year ACS

Substandard Housing
As defined by HUD, housing without full plumbing and full kitchen facilities are considered substandard.

Without full plumbing and kitchen facilities is defined as:

• Without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower • Without a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or refrigerator

According to the most recent CHAS data, there are currently 445 renter households that are lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, and 115 owner households lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. It should be noted that 50 of the owner ho useholds with substandard housing make greater than 100% of the AMI, implying these homes may be undergoing renovations or are not full -time homes.

The 2022 1 -Year ACS provides further detail that there are 47 owner occupied homes lacking complete plumbing facilities and 103 owner occupied homes lacking complete kitchen facilities. There are 236 renter occupied homes lacking kitchen facilities and 0 renter occupied homes lacking complete plumbing facilities.

Table 35: Housing Problems by Income
Renter Households
0-30%
AMI
30-50%
AMI
50-80%
AMI
80-100%
AMI
>100%
AMI
Total
Lacking Complete
Plumbing or Kitchen
45 45 95 15 240 445
Housing Problems by Income
Owner Households
0-30%
AMI
30-50%
AMI
50-80%
AMI
80-100%
AMI
>100%
AMI
Total
Lacking Complete
Plumbing or Kitchen
0 10 55 0 50 115
Source: CHAS 2016-2020

Table 36: Lacking Plumbing and Kitchen Facilities
Owner and Renter Households
Without Complete
Plumbing Facilities
Without Complete Kitchen Facilities
Owner-Occupied 47 103
Renter-Occupied 0 236
Source: 2022 1-Year ACS

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 39 ends

Homelessness Statistics
National Homeless Estimates
The “Annual Homeless Assessment Report (“AHAR”) to Congress” prepared by HUD provides the best and most comprehensive insight into the current state of homelessness in the United States. It should be noted that the 2021 national Point-in-Time (“PIT”) counts were considerably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the public health crisis, HUD encouraged communities to determine whether conduct ing an unsheltered PIT count posed a high risk of exacerbating COVID -19 transmissions, given the lack of widespread access to COVID-19 vaccines at the time. As a result, less than half of communities conducted a full sheltered and unsheltered count. While this report includes some data on all people in sheltered locations in 2021, incomplete unsheltered data is not included. Analysis of changes over time are generally limited to those between 2022 and 2020 or earlier. Key changes in the sheltered population between 2021 and 2022 will be included in text boxes at the end of each chapter.

Key findings of the report with respect to the number of Homeless include/indicate:

On a Single Night in January 2023
• 653,100 people – or about 20 of every 10,000 people in the United States – experienced homelessness across the United States.
• Six in 10 people experiencing homelessness stayed in sheltered locations, and four in 10 were unsheltered, that is, staying in a place not meant for human habitation. • More than two-thirds of all people experiencing homelessness were in households with only adults (72%). Households with only adults staying in unsheltered locations comprised the largest single segment of the total population experiencing homelessness (37%), followed by individuals staying in shelters (35%). Twenty -eight percent of people experiencing homelessness did so as part of a family with at least one adult and one child under 18 years of age, and most people in families were sheltered.
• Less than one percent of people experiencing homelessness, 3,240 people, were unaccompanied children, people under 18 without a parent or guardian present.

Changes in Homelessness over Time
In 2022 and into 2023, many pandemic-related restrictions that were in place for emergency shelters during the PIT counts in 2021 expired.
• The number of people experiencing either sheltered or unsheltered homelessness increased substantially between 2022 and 2023, increasing by 70,642 people (or 12%). • Between 2022 and 2023, the number of people counted in unsheltered locations rose by ten percent or 22,778 people. The number of people staying in shelters increased by fourteen percent between 2022 and 2023 (47,864 more people).
• Given the recent increases in both the sheltered and unsheltered population, the number of all people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January is 0.9 percent higher (5,846 more people) than it was in 2007, when this data was first collected. Unsheltered homelessness increased by 0.3 percent (753 more people) over the longer period, despite steady increases over the past three years, with 30,530 more people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in 2023 than in 2020.

Demographic Characteristics of All people Experiencing Homelessness The AHAR has been reporting demographic information on people experiencing homelessness on a single night since 2017. In 2023, the ways in which people identified their gender changed considerably, expanding the gender identity categories to include “quest ioning” and allowing people to select more than one gender. As a result, any comparisons made to prior years should be viewed with caution as they are not exact comparisons.
• The demographic characteristics of people experiencing homelessness vary considerably by household type and shelter status and reflect the large percentage of individuals among the total population experiencing homelessness. Detailed characteristics are shown separately for individuals in Section 2 of this report and for families with children in Section 3.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 40 ends

• More than three-quarters (76%) of all people experiencing homelessness were adults aged 25 or older (494,048 people), 17 percent were children under the age of 18 (111,620 children). Seven percent were young adults aged 18 to 24 (47,436 young adults). • Among people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, nine of every ten people were adults aged 25 or older.
• Children – either in families or on their own – were most often staying in sheltered locations (59%) with 14,180 children counted in unsheltered locations in 2023. • Six of every 10 people experiencing homelessness were men or boys (61% or 395,160 men and boys), 38 percent were women or girls (250,009 women and girls), and one percent were transgender (4,087 people), did not identify as singularly female or male (3,089 people) or were questioning their gender identity (759 people). More than half of all people experiencing unsheltered homelessness who identified as transgender, not singularly female or male, or questioning were more likely to be in unsheltered locations versus sheltered locations (2% vs. 1%). • Nearly 4 of every 10 people experiencing homelessness identified as Black, African American, or African (37% or 243,624 people). A higher percentage of people in shelter identified as Black (45% or 176,325 people) compared to people experiencing homelessness in unsheltered locations (26% or 67,299). Half of all people experiencing homelessness identified as White (50% or 324,854 people). A higher share of the unsheltered population identified as White (57%) than the sheltered population (45%).
• Of the remaining 13 percent, six percent identified as more than one race, four percent identified as American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous, two percent as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and two percent as Asian or Asian American.
• Almost one third of all people experiencing homelessness, 28 percent, were Hispanic or Latin(a)(o)(x) (counting people of all races who identify as Hispanic or Latin(a)(o)(x)). The proportion is slightly higher for people staying in unsheltered versus shel tered locations (28% and 26%).

Changes in Demographic Characteristics of All People Experiencing Homelessness Nationwide • National increases in homelessness were driven by increases in sheltered population among people over the age of 25. Between 2022 and 2023, the number of people aged 25 and older who were experiencing sheltered homelessness increased by 29,071 people. Mean while, the number of unsheltered children (under age 18) increased by 13,112 people and the number of young adults (ages 18 to 24) increased by 5,681 people.
• Between 2022 and 2023, unsheltered homelessness rose by five percent among women and girls (3,380 people) and by two percent among men and boys (3,057 more people). These increases among the unsheltered population were offset by similar decreases in the sh eltered population.

Sheltered homelessness declined by three percent among women and girls between 2020 and 2022 (3,988 fewer people) and one percent among men and boys (2,432 fewer people). • Between 2022 and 2023, the number of people experiencing homelessness who identified as transgender or not singularly female or male increased in both sheltered and unsheltered locations.

The number of people who identified as transgender, not singularly female or male, or questioning their gender who were experiencing sheltered homelessness increased by thirty -one percent (798 more people). Unsheltered homelessness increased by fifteen percent among people who identified as neither female nor male (243 more people) and ten percent among people who identify as transgender (197 people). However, as noted above, these comparisons – as well as those for people identifying as any gender – should be viewed with caution due to the changed data collection methodology.
• Between 2022 and 2023, the number of people experiencing homelessness who identified as Black, African American, or African increased by fourteen percent (21,768 more people). The number of people who identified as more than one race declined by one percent (297 people). • Over the same time period, the number of people experiencing homelessness increased among all other racial groups, including an 18 percent increase among American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous.
• The number people experiencing homelessness who identified as Hispanic or Latin(a)(o)(x) increased by twenty-eight percent between 2022 and 2023. This reflects a considerable increase Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 41 ends

in the number of people who identify as Hispanic and were experiencing sheltered homelessness, which increased by forty-three percent (33,772 people) between 2022 and 2023.

Nationwide Homeless Statistics

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 42 ends

State of California CoC Homeless Estimates
Continuum of Care (“CoC”) Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports provide counts for sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons by household type and subpopulation, available at the national and state level, and for each CoC. The reports are based on Point- in-Time (“PIT”) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January.

The HUD 2023 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations report offers an insight into the number of homeless individuals residing in the State of California. The report indicates that there was an estimated 154,028 homeless households within the State of California as of 11/20/2023. Of these individuals, 110,451 were considered to be “unsheltered” while the remainder (43,577) were considered to be in a shelter of some sort –either an emergency shelter or transitional housing.

Age/Household Type
Across the entire homeless population, 10,096 were between the ages of 18 and 24, while 145,154 were over the age of 24. Homeless households with at least one adult and one child numbered approximately 25,483 and those comprised of only children totaled 66 6. Overall, the study indicated that across all households there were 181,399 homeless persons.

Demographics
Of the 181,399 homeless individuals:
• 66,951 were Hispanic/Latino (36.9%)
• 114,448 were non-Hispanic/non-Latino (63.1%)
• 60,459 were female (33.3%)
• 117,492 were male (64.8%)
• 3,189 were considered transgender or non-conforming (1.8%)

Table 37: State of California Breakdown by Race
Sub-group Number of
Individuals
Percentage of All Homeless
Individuals
Black/African-American 53,369 29.4%
White 96,385 53.1%
Asian 7,012 3.9%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 8,589 4.7%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 3,413 1.9%
Multiple Races 12,631 7.0%

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 43 ends

Other Reporting Information
Several other populations/classifications of homeless individuals were also reported in the HUD 2023 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations report. The number of homeless individuals within these subgroups is represented in this table, as well as the percentage of all homeless individuals that fall into these subgroups. It is important to note that individuals may belong to multiple categories of sub -group (such as an individual who is severely mentally ill a nd is a veteran). The following are further sub-groups of the homeless population:

Table 38: State of California Homeless Sub-Group Populations Sub-group Number of
Individuals
Percentage of All Homeless
Individuals
Severely Mentally Ill 45,222 24.9%
Chronic Substance Abuse 43,047 23.7%
Veterans 10,589 5.8%
HIV/AIDS 3,353 1.8%
Victims of Domestic Abuse 34,445 19.0%
Unaccompanied Youth 10,173 5.6%
Parenting Youth 1,046 0.6%
Children of Parenting Youth 1,173 0.6%

Table 39: State of California CoC Homeless Estimates
(2016-2023)

Year Number
Homeless of
Households
% Change Number
Homeless of
Persons
% Change
2016 99,675 - 118,142 -
2017 114,072 14.4% 134,278 13.7%
2018 109,394 -4.1% 129,792 -3.3%
2019 127,448 16.5% 151,278 16.6%
2020 136,358 7.0% 161,548 6.8%
2021* 42,309 - 57,468 -
2022 145,854 - 171,521 -
2023 154,028 5.6% 181,399 5.8%
Average 126,690 7.9% 149,708 7.9%
*In 2021, HUD gave communities the option to cancel or modify the unsheltered survey portion of their counts based on the potential risk of COVID -19 transmission associated with conducting an in -person survey. As a result, HUD has excluded the unsheltered population sub-totals and all unsheltered sub-population data for this reporting period. The user is cautioned that the total homeless counts reported here are missing data. Users may refer to the CoC -level reports to review the unsheltered PIT count numbers for CoCs that conducted an unsheltered PIT count.

CA-513: Visalia/Kings, Tulare Counties CoC
The HUD 2023 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations report offers an insight into the number of homeless individuals residing in the CA -513:

Visalia/Kings, Tulare Counties CoC. The report indicates that there were 1,284 homeless households within CA-513: Visalia/Kings, Tulare Counties CoC as of 11/19/2023. Of these households, 997 were considered to be “unsheltered” while the remainder (287) were considered to be in a shelter of some sort –either an emergency shelter or transitional housing.

Age/Household Type
Across the entire homeless population, 203 were between the ages of 18 and 24, while 1,267 were over the age of 24. Homeless households with at least one adult and one child numbered approximately 191 and those comprised of only children totaled 0. Overall, the study indicated that across all households there were 1,470 homeless people.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 44 ends

Demographics
Of the 1,470 homeless individuals:
• 728 were Hispanic/Latino (49.5%)
• 742 were non-Hispanic/non-Latino (50.5%)
• 557 were female (37.9%)
• 909 were male (61.8%)
• 4 were considered transgender or non-conforming (less than 1%)

Table 40: Breakdown by Race
Sub-group Number of
Individuals
Percentage of All Homeless
Individuals
Black/African-American 158 10.7%
White 1,114 75.8%
Asian 11 0.7%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 124 8.4%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 12 0.8%
Multiple Races 51 3.5%
Hispanic/Latino 728 49.5%
Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino 742 50.5%

Table 41: Homeless Sub-Group Populations
Sub-group Number of
Individuals
Percentage of All Homeless
Individuals
Severely Mentally Ill 547 37.2%
Chronic Substance Abuse 542 36.9%
Veterans 92 6.3%
HIV/AIDS 16 1.1%
Victims of Domestic Abuse 132 9.0%
Unaccompanied Youth 72 4.9%
Parenting Youth 2 0.1%
Children of Parenting Youth 3 0.2%

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 45 ends

Table 42: CA-513: Visalia/Kings, Tulare Counties CoC
Estimates (2016-2023)

Year Number
Homeless of
Households
% Change Number
Homeless of
Persons
% Change
2016 626 - 792 -
2017 716 14.4% 853 7.7%
2018 801 11.9% 967 13.4%
2019 908 13.4% 1,064 10.0%
2020 1,105 21.7% 1,297 21.9%
2021* 373 - 494 -
2022 1,082 - 1,235 -
2023 1,284 18.7% 1,470 19.0%
Average 932 16.0% 1,097 14.4%
*In 2021, HUD gave communities the option to cancel or modify the unsheltered survey portion of their counts based on the potential risk of COVID-19 transmission associated with conducting an in -person survey. As a result, HUD has excluded the unsheltered population sub-totals and all unsheltered sub-population data for this reporting period. The user is cautioned that the total homeless counts reported here are missing data. Users may refer to the CoC -level reports to review the unsheltered PIT count numbers for CoCs that conducted an unsheltered PIT count.

Visalia, CA Homeless Estimates
The Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance (“KTHA”) conducts a Point in Time count within Kings and Tulare County, and further breaks down the data by city, including the City of Visalia. The following homeless information for the City of Visalia is taken from the KTHA 2023 Point in Time Report.

Table 43: Homeless Populations, City of Visalia
Sub-group Number of
Individuals
Percentage of All Homeless
Individuals
Unsheltered 294 67.7%
Emergency Shelter 83 19.1%
Transitional Housing 57 13.1%
Veterans 37 8.5%
Disabled 161 37.1%
Unaccompanied Youth 25 5.8%

Age/Household Type
Across the entire homeless population, 28 were between the ages of 18 and 24, 27 were under the age of 18, and 379 were over the age of 24. There were 25 homeless unaccompanied youth and overall, the study indicated that across all households there were 434 homeless persons.

Demographics
Of the 434 homeless individuals:
• 203 were Hispanic/Latino (46.8%)
• 222 were non-Hispanic/non-Latino (51.2%)
• 9 were an unknown ethnicity (2.1%)
• 139 were female (67.7%)
• 294 were male (32.0%)
• 1 were considered transgender or non-conforming (less than 1%)

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 46 ends

Table 44: Breakdown by Race
Sub-group Number of Individuals Percentage of All Homeless Individuals
Black/African-American 27 6.2%
White 332 76.5%
Asian 5 1.2%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 35 8.1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 3 0.7%
Multiple Races 12 2.8%
Unknown 20 4.6%

Table 45: City of Visalia Point in Time Trends (2016-2023) Year Number of
Homeless
Individuals
% Change Number of Chronically
Homeless Individuals
% Change
2016 322 - 78 -
2017 410 27.3% 130 66.7%
2018 462 12.7% 115 -11.5%
2019 481 4.1% 111 -3.5%
2020 540 12.3% 167 50.5%
2021* - - - -
2022 469 - 108 -
2023 434 -7.5% 133 23.1%
Average 445 9.8% 120 25.0%
*Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, data was not collected for 2021.

National Veteran Homeless Estimates
“The 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (“AHAR”) to Congress” is produced annually and is the single federal estimate on veteran homelessness.

The 2021 national Point -in-Time (PIT) counts were considerably impacted by the COVID -19 pandemic.

During the public health crisis, HUD encouraged communities to determine whether conducting an unsheltered PIT count posed a high risk of exacerbating COVID -19 transmissions, given the lack of widespread access to COVID-19 vaccines at the time. As a result, less than half of communities conducted a full sheltered and unsheltered count. While this report includes some data on all veterans in sheltered locations in 2021, incomplete unsheltered data is not included. Analysis of changes over time are generally limited to those between 2023 and 2022 or earlier. Key changes in the sheltered population between 2021 and 2022 will be included in text boxes at the end of each chapter. Communities began reporting PIT data on veterans experiencing homelessness in 2009. As such, this report uses 2009 as the baseline measure of veterans experiencing homelessness in the United States.

Key findings of the report with respect to the number of Homeless Veterans include/indicate:

On a Single Night in January 2023
• 35,574 veterans were experiencing homelessness in the U.S., approximately seven percent of all adults experiencing homelessness.
• Of every 10,000 veterans in the United States, 22 were experiencing homelessness. It is somewhat more common for veterans to experience homelessness than for all people in the United States (20 people out of every 10,000).
• Nearly all veterans were experiencing homelessness as individuals, 98 percent. Of those individuals, thirty percent (10,533 veterans) had chronic patterns of homelessness. • About six in 10 veterans experiencing homelessness were staying in sheltered locations (56% or 20,067 veterans). This is higher than the share of all individuals experiencing homelessness who were sheltered, 49 percent.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 47 ends

• Two percent of veterans experiencing homelessness (720 veterans) were in family households with children (representing 694 households). Overall, 38,893 people experiencing homelessness were in households that included a veteran.
• Veterans experiencing homelessness as families with children were sheltered at a higher rate than veterans experiencing homelessness as individuals (77% vs. 56%), but at a lower rate than all families with children experiencing homelessness (91%).

Changes in Veteran Homelessness over Time
Given that more than half of communities did not conduct full unsheltered counts in 2021, changes over time are limited to those between 2023 and 2022 or earlier. • Between 2022 and 2023, the number of veterans experiencing homelessness increased by seven percent (2,445 more people). The increase occurred in both sheltered and unsheltered locations. • HUD began collecting data on veterans experiencing homelessness in 2009. Overall, veteran homelessness decreased by fifty -two percent between 2009 and 2023 (37,793 fewer veterans).

This decrease occurred across sheltered and unsheltered locations, both of which also decreased by fifty-four and forty-eight percent, respectively (23,342 fewer sheltered veterans and 14,451 fewer unsheltered veterans).

Demographic Characteristics of Homeless Veterans
The AHAR has been reporting demographic information on people experiencing homelessness on a single night since 2017. In 2023, the ways in which people identified their gender changed considerably, expanding the gender identity categories to include “quest ioning” and allowing people to select more than one gender. As a result, any comparisons made to prior years should be viewed with caution as they are not exact comparisons.
• Men accounted for almost nine of every ten veterans experiencing homelessness in 2023 (88% or 31,231 veterans), which is close to the 90 percent of all homeless veterans in the U.S. who are men.
• Women veterans experiencing homelessness were much more likely to be in a household with a child under 18 years of age (8%) than their male counterparts (1%). • In contrast to the population of individuals experiencing homelessness, in which women were more likely to be sheltered, women veterans experiencing homelessness were more likely to be found in unsheltered locations than their male counterparts (54% vs. 42%). • The highest percentage of veterans experiencing homelessness were White (57%), followed by veterans who were Black, African American, or African (31%). This pattern is consistent across veterans experiencing sheltered or unsheltered homelessness. • People who identify as Black, African American, or African were considerably overrepresented among veterans experiencing homelessness. Black veterans comprised 36 percent of veterans experiencing sheltered homelessness and 25 percent of veterans experienci ng unsheltered homelessness compared with 12 percent of all U.S. veterans. Conversely, while 57 percent of veterans experiencing homelessness were White, they were underrepresented compared to their share of all U.S. veterans (75%).
• The percentage of veterans experiencing homelessness who identify as Hispanic/Latin(a)(o)(x) was considerably smaller than the percentage of Hispanics among people experiencing homelessness as individuals (13% vs. 24%).

Changes in Demographics over Time
• The only demographic group that did not see an increase between 2022 and 2023 was veterans who identify as gender questioning, which stayed approximately the same (9 fewer veterans). • From 2022 to 2023, the largest percentage increase in veterans experiencing homelessness occurred among those who identify as Asian or Asian American (fifty-one percent increase, or 204 more veterans).
• Both male and female veterans experiencing homelessness increased, with an additional 1,839 male veterans experiencing homelessness between 2022 and 2023.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 48 ends

Nationwide Homeless Statistics

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 49 ends

Based on the research conducted from multiple sources, it is clear that veterans make up a disproportionate share of homeless people and are overrepresented. It is estimated that veterans represent anywhere between 6.6 and 26 percent of the homeless population but only 8.3 percent of the civilian population 18 years and older.
• 6.6 percent of the homeless population are Veterans
• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• “Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness: The 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.“

• 16 percent of the homeless population are Veterans
• Abt Associates Inc. and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans.
• Veteran Homelessness: A Supplemental Report to the 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress”

• 23 percent of the homeless population are Veterans
• U.S. Interagency Council on the Homeless (USICH)
• “The Forgotten Americans-Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve”

• 26 percent of the homeless population are Veterans
• National Alliance to End Homelessness
• “Vital Mission-Ending Homelessness Among Veterans”

Additional homelessness and Veteran data within the State of California, Tulare County, and the City of Visalia is reported by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, Housing Assistance Council, and the United States Census Bureau.
• 40.9 percent of homeless Veterans are unsheltered
• National Alliance to End Homelessness
• “State of Homelessness: 2022 Edition”

• 10,395 (6.1 percent) homeless people were Veterans within the State of California during 2022
• National Alliance to End Homelessness
• “SOH: State and CoC Dashboards”

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 50 ends

• 1,288 (9.4 percent) of Veterans within Tulare County are below the poverty line • United States Census Bureau
• S2101: Veteran Status – 2022 ACS 1-Year Estimates

• 4,858 (35.6 percent) of Veterans within Tulare County have a disability • United States Census Bureau
• S2101: Veteran Status – 2021 ACS 1-Year Estimates

• 469 (8.0 percent) of Veterans within the City of Visalia are below the poverty line • United States Census Bureau
• S2101: Veteran Status – 2022 ACS 1-Year Estimates

• 2,213 (37.8 percent) of Veterans within the City of Visalia have a disability • United States Census Bureau
• S2101: Veteran Status – 2021 ACS 1-Year Estimates

• 1,235 people were homeless within CA-513: Visalia/Kings, Tulare Counties CoC during 2022 • National Alliance to End Homelessness
• “SOH: State and CoC Dashboards”

• 67 (5.4 percent) homeless people were Veterans within CA -513: Visalia/Kings, Tulare Counties CoC during 2022
• National Alliance to End Homelessness
• “SOH: State and CoC Dashboards”

Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk of homelessness because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, dismal living conditions in hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing. It should also be noted that the estimated number of veteran homeless do es not include those who were at risk of homelessness. Based on estimates provided by the National Alliance to End Homelessness’ “Vital Mission -Ending Homelessness Among Veterans” report, an additional 89,553 to 467,877 veterans were potentially at risk of homelessness.

Recent Presidential Administrations’ decisions to drawdown a considerable number of troops from Afghanistan, Iraq and the greater Middle East Region will likely increase the number of veterans throughout the Nation in the next several years. The impact of these decisions on veterans and the time lag between becoming a veteran and potentially experiencing homelessness is not clear. The rate of homelessness among this group could rise as the time since coming home increases. Veterans with personal resources and a strong support network may avoid homelessness for many years or avert it altogether, while others with fewer resources and support may become homeless more quickly.

Public Housing
The Housing Authority of Tulare County (HATC) is the governing body of the Housing Choice voucher program and Public Housing within Tulare County as well as the City of Visalia. These programs work to provide rental assistance to extremely low and very low -income households. Income qualifying residents pay 30 to 40% of their adjusted gross income (AGI) towards rent, while HUD pays the remaining portion of the rent directly to the landlord on behalf of the resident. In total, the HATC provides 1,123 vouchers to residents across the county to help extremely low- and low-income households maintain rental affordability.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 51 ends

Table 46: Program Type
Public
Housing
Section 8 Vouchers
Total Project
Based
Vouchers
Tenant
Based
Vouchers
Special
Purpose -
VASH
Total Units/Vouchers
in Use
166 1,123 63 1,040 20
Resident Characteristics
Average Annual
Income
$36,040 $25,218 $17,189 $25,816 $19,441
Disabled Families 60 499 45 445 9
Families Requesting
Accessibility Features
12 30 1 29 0
Source: Housing Authority of Tulare County, 2024

Public Housing Units In Visalia
HATC has 179 Public Housing units within the City of Visalia . These units are predominantly within the denser parts of the city, which can be seen on the following page. Each red point on the map represents one public housing unit , while the white dots represent multi -unit developments. In total, these developments account for 110 Public Housing units within the City of Visalia.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 52 ends

City of Visalia Public Housing Units

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 53 ends

Housing Choice Vouchers
The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) is a rental subsidy program that helps families and seniors with incomes up to 50% of the AMI. Voucher holders pay 30% of their AGI towards the units contract rent, with the HATC paying the remaining amount through federal funds, up to the payment standards.

The Tenant Based Section 8 HCV Program allows very low -income households to rent units owned by private landlords, so long as the private landlord accepts these vouchers. The average annual income for a Project Based Voucher within the City of Visalia is $ 17,189, while the households with Tenant Based Vouchers have an average income of $25,816. As of April 2024, rents within Visalia range from $1,239 to $2,599 for a studio to four-bedroom unit. These rents range from 86.5% to 181.4% of a household’s income that has a Project Based Voucher, and 57.6% to 120.8% of a household’s income with a Tenant Based Voucher.

Data provided by the HATC indicates they administer 1,123 Section 8 vouchers within the City of Visalia alone. Of these households, 499 (44.4%) are held by disabled families. With nearly half of voucher holders being disabled families, the need for affordable and accessible housing is apparent.

The map on the following page represents units within the City of Visalia with Section 8 Vouchers.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 54 ends

City of Visalia Section 8 Voucher Units

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 55 ends

Waiting Lists
Currently there are 13,844 families on the waiting list for HCVs in the County of Tulare. Of these families, 9,233 (66.7%) were extremely low income and 3,009 (21.7%) were very low income. Additionally, there are 16,132 families on the waiting list for Pub lic Housing within the City of Visalia. Of these families, 11,333 (70.3%) are extremely low income and 3,143 (19.5%) are very low income. A majority of families on the waiting lists are Hispanic with incomes between 0 to 50% AMI.

Table 47: Demographics of HATC Waiting Lists
Housing Choice
Voucher -
County
Public
Housing -
Visalia
Project Based
Rental Assistance
Number of Families on Waiting List 13,844 16,132 320
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) 9,233 11,333 213
Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) 3,009 3,143 72
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 1,135 1,212 27
Families with Children 7,748 8,568 11
Elderly Families 1,063 1,608 265
Families with Disabilities 3,281 3,852 188
Waiting List by Race
White 10,193 12,987 270
Black 2,250 1,856 28
Asian 344 318 11
American Indian/Native Hawaiian 1,057 971 11
Waiting List by Ethnicity
Hispanic 8,255 9,728 127
Non-Hispanic 5,589 6,404 193
Source: Housing Authority of Tulare County, 2024
Assisted Housing
When setting goals to overcome the contributing factors and other related fair housing issues, a balanced approach is recommended. This approach may include place -based solutions to improve areas and pursuing options to increase mobility for protected clas ses. Place-based solutions may include economic development and investments in high poverty neighborhoods, as well as efforts to maintain and preserve the existing affordable rental housing stock. This affordable rental housing stock can include multifamil y and age restricted developments that are funded with additional government assistance to maintain affordability, such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credit ( LIHTC) Section 42 tax credits, funding from HUD, HOME Funds. The table on the following page indicates developments within the City of Visalia that were partially funded by these programs and are therefore targeting lower income groups.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 56 ends

Table 48: Affordable Housing Developments within the City of Visalia Name of
Development
Address Sponsor Funding Sources Year Built/Funds
Provided
# of Units Type/Target
Income Groups
Clark Court 626-630 East
Tulare Avenue
HATC RHCP 1983 24 Supportive
Housing
Visalia Garden
Villas
4901-5075 West
Crenshaw Avenue
HATC LIHTC, RHCP 1987 60 Senior; very low &
low-income
Westport Village 3123 South
Avocado Street
TCHA LIHTC 1989 25 Senior; low &
moderate income
Fairview Village 2700 North Willis
Street
HATC LIHTC,CDBG 1994 8 Very low-income
Willowbrook
Estates
1819 North Tipton
Street
TCHA Visalia RDA,
HOME
1996 10 Low-income
Kimball Court 303 West Kimball
Avenue
HATC Visalia RDA,
LIHTC
1999 95 Senior; very low &
low-income
The Meadows 3900 West Tulare
Avenue
Christian Church
Homes
Visalia RDA 2001 99 Senior; low-
income
Transitional
Mental Health
546 East Tulare
Avenue
TCHA Visalia RDA,
HOME
2003 17 Very low-income
Oak Meadows 111 West School
Avenue
Christian Church
Homes
HUD 2004 60 Senior; low-
income
Mill Creek
Parkway Family
Apartments
3433 Manzanita
Avenue
Buckingham
Property
Management
Visalia RDA 2007 70 Low & Moderate
Income
Robinwood Court 5817-5842 West
Robinwood Court
HATC HOME, Visalia

RDA, LIHTC
2008 10 Very low, low &
moderate-income
TMHSA Housing 653, 657, 701
East Tulare
Avenue
HATC HUD 2009 22 Supportive
Housing
Encina Triplex 301 West Encina Kaweah
Management
HOME, Visalia
RDA
2009 3 Very low-income
Sierra Meadows
Senior
Apartments
1120 East Tulare
Avenue
Christian Church
Homes

HUD, HOME,
LIHTC
2011 43 Senior; low-
income
Paradise & Court
Apartments
1526 South Court
Street
City of Visalia;
VIAAH; Kaweah
Management
HOME, Visalia

RDA, LIHTC
2012 20 Very low-income
Confidential Confidential Confidential Visalia RDA,
HOME
2012 3 Very low-income
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 57 ends

Affordable Housing Developments within the City of Visalia (continued)
Name of
Development
Address Sponsor Funding Sources Year Built/Funds
Provided
# of Units Type/Target
Income Groups
East Kaweah 632-644 East
Kaweah Avenue
TCHA Visalia RDA 2013 8 Very low & low-
income
Highland Gardens 2401 North
Highland Street
Self Help
Enterprises
HOME, LIHTC 2016 36 Very low & low-
income
Santa Fe Triplex 617-619 South
Santa Fe Street
TCHA Visalia RDA 2017 6 Very low &
moderate-income
Encina Self-Help
Enterprises
517-527 North
Encina Street
Self Help
Enterprises
HOME 2018 6 Very low, low &
moderate-income
Town Meadows 115 W. Murray
Avenue
Thomas Safran &
Associates
Development, Inc.

LIHTC, HUD 2018 100 Senior; supportive
housing
Myrtle Avenue
Senior
Apartments
4316 West Myrtle
Avenue
Pacific West
Communities, Inc.

LIHTC 2021 66 Senior; very low &
low-income
Lofts at Fort
Visalia
300 E. Oak Ave Self-Help
Enterprises

LIHTC, HOME,
Visalia RDA
2021 80 Supportive
Housing (40); low-
income
Rancho Colegio North Court Street
and East Glendale
Avenue
Self-Help
Enterprises
LIHTC, HOME 2023 80 Very low-income
Demaree Street
Apartments
North Demaree
Street & Houston
Avenue
Pacific West
Communities, Inc.

LIHTC 2023 222 Very low, low &
moderate-income

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 58 ends

Access to Opportunity
The choice of housing is influenced significantly by its location, not just its affordability. This aspect is crucial because the functionality and well -being of households in the local economy depend on their proximity to essential services like jobs and schools. Ensuring that housing is well-situated relative to these services is vital for economic stability and growth. Additionally, access to reliable public transportation is a fundamental requirement for many individuals and families. For some, the ability to access employment and educational opportunities hinges on the availability of convenient and safe public transportation options, such as bus shelters. This consideration is particularly important for lower -income households or those without private vehicles, highlighting the need for inclusive urban planning that integrates affordable housing with accessible transportation networks.

Public Transit
Visalia Transit (VT) operates twelve (12) bus routes that serve Visalia, Farmersville, Exeter, Goshen, and Tulare. VT connects with Tulare InterModal Express (TIME), Tulare County Area Transit (TCaT), Kings Area Regional Transit and Greyhound. TIME operates seven (7) bus routes that link Tulare and Visalia, facilitating connections with VT and TCaT which operates nine (9) routes connecting to Dinuba, Woodlake, Lindsay, Porterville, Delano, and other locations throughout Tulare County. To accommodate cyclists, all fixed-route buses in Tulare County are equipped with bike racks . The VT fixed route service provides convenient transportation to local schools: Divisadero, Valley Oak, Green Acres, La Joya, Golden West, Mt. Whitney, Redwood, Sequoia, El Diamante, College of the Sequoias, San Joaquin Valley College, Fresno Pacific, Visalia Adult School, and Brandman University . Visalia also provides Paratransit service on the Dial-A-Ride. The Visalia Transit Dial -a-Ride service is a curb -to-curb service designed to provide comparable paratransit service for individuals with disabilities who are not able to use the fixed route service. Coming soon, Visalia Transit is working with the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) to participate in a TCAG -funded countywide 3 -year micro transit pilot p roject to provide more efficient and direct connections within the existing transit system countywide.

In addition, Visalia Transit operates the V-Line which provides shuttle service between Visalia and Fresno six times per day, seven days per week for students, travelers, and commu ters. The V-Line connects to the Visalia Airport, Fresno Yosemite International Airport, Fresno State University, and Fresno’s Courthouse Park with connections to the Fresno Area Express, Fresno’s public transit system. The City of Visalia also provides the Sequoia Shuttle during the summer months (between Memorial Day and Labor Day) with service to the Sequoia National Park, as well as the Sequoia Park internal shuttle which provides transportation throughout to this nearby natural resource.

The availability and efficiency of public transit can significantly impact residents' ability to access employment, education, and other essential services. The extensive bus network provided by Visalia Transit, TIME, and TCaT highlights efforts to ensure mobility across the region. However, it is important to assess whether these services are meeting the needs of all residents, especially those from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds. Equipping buses with bike racks indic ates an effort to support mult imodal transportation, promoting greater flexibility and access for individuals who may rely on bicycles for part of their journey. This feature is particularly beneficial in increasing the catchment area for public transit users, thereby enhancing accessibility. Furthermore, the integration of services between different transit providers (TIME, TCaT, and VT) suggests a coordinated approach to regional transportation planning. This coordination is essential for creating a seamless travel experience, reducin g barriers to movement, and ensuring that transit-dependent populations can efficiently reach their destinations.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 59 ends

Source: Visalia Transit System Map, City of Visalia, 2024 Transit Trip Index
The figure below represents the City's Transit Trip Index by Race/Ethnicity, as provided by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This index ranks neighborhoods on a national scale, with percentile values ranging from 0 to 100. Higher values indicate a greater likelihood that residents in those areas use public transit. The index is adjusted for income, meaning that a higher index value typically reflects better access to public transit rather than simply higher income levels. By controlling income, the index focuses on accessibility and reliance on public transit among various racial and ethnic groups, providing a clearer picture of transit usage patterns that are not merely a function of economic status.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 60 ends

Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T), HUD 2020, Transit Trips and Race/Ethnicity

Low Transportation Cost Index
The Low Transportation Cost Index by Race/Ethnicity, as provided by HUD, maps data on transportation costs across various neighborhoods. Higher values on this index indicate lower transportation costs in those areas. The index is based on estimated transpor tation expenses for a three -person, single-parent family earning 50% of the median renter income in the region. The Low Transportation Cost Index serves as a valuable tool for understanding the economic burden of transportation on families, particularly t hose with lower incomes. By highlighting areas where transportation costs are lower, the index helps identify neighborhoods where residents may have better access to affordable transportation options.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 61 ends

Major Employers
Based on information provided by the City of Visalia’s Economic Development Department, there are major employers spread throughout the city. The largest employers within the city are in healthcare, government, education, retail, and distribution, among other industries.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 62 ends

Table 49: Top Employers within Visalia
Employer Number of
Employees
Industry
Kaweah Delta Health Care District 4,550 Healthcare
County of Tulare 4,311 Government
Visalia Unified School District 3,248 Education
Visalia Mall 1,200 Retail
Amazon 1,200 Distribution
VF Outdoor 1,012 Distribution
Walmart 840 Retail
Graphic Packaging 757 Manufacturing
College of the Sequoias 705 Education
City of Visalia 659 Government
UPS 600 Distribution
Family Healthcare Network 515 Healthcare
American Inc. 425 HVAC
California Dairies, Inc. 400 Dairy Manufacturing
Lowe’s Home Improvement 324 Retail
Save Mart 321 Retail
Costco 320 Retail
Pro-Youth Heart 319 Non-Profit
Proteus Inc. 315 Educational Services
Target 300 Retail
Cigna 300 Healthcare
Groppetti Automotive Family 300 Automotive
JoAnn Fabrics 300 Retail
McDonald’s 268 Fast Food
Visalia Medical Clinic 250 Healthcare
Public Schools
The Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) encompasses 26 elementary schools, as illustrated in the figure below, the VUSD boundary map. It also includes a newcomer language center, five middle schools, four comprehensive high schools, a continuation high school, an adult school, a charter independent study school, a K-8 charter home school, and a charter technical early college high school. VUSD serves over 32,000 students, from Pre-Kindergarten through to adult education.

Among the schools within VUSD, 24 are classified as Title I schools. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), enacted in 1965, provides funding for primary and secondary education with a focus on ensuring equal access to education. Tit le I programs allocate funds to schools and districts with high percentages of low-income students. Approximately 40 percent of students in VUSD come from low-income families.

ESEA is designed not only to provide funding but also to establish high standards and accountability within schools. In line with these goals, VUSD has implemented a Parental Involvement Plan (PIP) that complies with the requirements of the Every Student S ucceeds Act (ESSA). The PIP outlines how parents can engage in decision -making activities, the utilization of funds, and capacity building. Parents of Title I students have the right to participate in the development of the PIP.

Being designated as a Title I school brings federal funding, known as Title I dollars, which supplement existing school programs. These funds are used for various purposes including:

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 63 ends

• Instructional support, such as staff development and substitutes • Purchasing supplemental staff, programs, materials, and supplies • Conducting parental involvement meetings, trainings, and activities The amount of Title I funding a school receives is based on the number of students eligible for free and reduced lunch, as determined by the completion of the School Funding Data Collection Form.

Colleges
College of the Sequoias (COS) is a public two -year community college in Visalia, California offering educational and career technical programs. Fresno State South Valley Campus (FSSVC) is a satellite campus located at COS in Visalia. FSSVC is dedicated to strengthening the communities of the South Valley by providing accessible and affordable high -quality education and lifelong learning experiences to its residents. An important goal of the FSSVC is to support highly motivated students who do not have the means or the time to relocate or commute to the main campus to pursue undergraduate and graduate degrees. Established in 2016, the Fresno State South Valley Campus is a partnership between Fresno State and College of the Sequoias.

Freno Pacific University (FPU) is a nationally recognized private Christian university offering both graduate and undergraduate programs. The Fresno Pacific University Visalia campus offers 100+ areas of study and more than 50 study abroad opportunities that prepare students for careers in everything from psychology to teaching to business. FPU is open to all students, with no faith-based requirements to attend.

San Joaquin Valley College (SJVC) is a private junior college that provides career education in 21 specialized programs. The Visalia campus provides a variety of programs including but not limited to medical, dental, business, criminal justice, trades, and industrial programs.

Due to the increased national practice of students earning four-year degrees online, the City does not view a lack of additional physical campuses in the jurisdiction as a detriment to the City.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 64 ends

Source: Visalia Unified School District Boundary Map, visaliausd.maps.arcgis.com

Opportunity Indices
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed the Opportunity Index, a comprehensive tool designed to evaluate residents' access to essential assets in Visalia. The index, which ranges from 0 to 100, is derived from nationally available data sources and provides valuable in sights for assessing various neighborhood conditions.

Low Poverty Index
The low poverty index measures the level of poverty within a neighborhood, with higher scores indicating lower exposure to poverty. Understanding poverty levels is crucial for an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) as it highlights areas where res idents may face economic hardships that limit their housing options. Identifying low-poverty areas can guide policymakers in targeting resources and interventions to uplift economically disadvantaged communities.

School Proficiency Index
This index evaluates the quality of nearby elementary schools based on the performance of fourth -grade students on state exams. Higher scores signify neighborhoods with higher -performing schools. Quality education is a critical component of fair housing, a s it influences a family's decision on where to live. By identifying areas with high or low school proficiency, the AI can address educational disparities and promote equitable access to quality schooling.

Labor Market Engagement Index
This index summarizes labor market activity and human capital in a neighborhood, factoring in employment levels, labor force participation, and educational attainment. Higher scores indicate robust labor market

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 65 ends

engagement. Understanding labor market dynamics helps in crafting housing policies that support employment opportunities, thereby enhancing economic stability and reducing barriers to fair housing.

Transit Trips Index
The transit trips index estimates the likelihood of residents using public transit, based on a hypothetical three-person, single -parent family earning 50% of the median income for renters. Higher scores reflect greater utilization of public transit. Public transit access is essential for fair housing as it impacts residents' ability to reach jobs, schools, and services. Analyzing transit trip data informs transportation planning that supports housing equity.

Low Transportation Cost Index
The low transportation cost index estimates transportation costs for a similar hypothetical family, with higher scores indicating lower costs. Affordable transportation is a key factor in fair housing, as high transportation expenses can strain family budgets and limit housing choices. By highlighti ng areas with lower transportation costs, this index helps in planning for equitable transit solutions.

Jobs Proximity Index
This index assesses the accessibility of employment opportunities based on the distance to job locations, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. Higher scores denote better access to jobs.

Proximity to employment is vital for housing equity, as it affects residents' ability to secure and maintain employment. Identifying areas with high job accessibility aid s in developing housing policies that foster economic opportunities.

Environmental Health Index
The environmental health index measures potential exposure to harmful toxins at the neighborhood level, with higher scores indicating better environmental quality. Environmental health is a significant aspect of fair housing, as exposure to toxins can adversely affect residents' well-being. By identifying neighborhoods with lower environmental health risks, this index supports initiatives to improve living conditions and promote health equity.

Index Findings
Table 40 contains data developed by HUD assessing Visalia residents’ access to key opportunity assets with the values in the table ranging from 0 to 100. Residents of Hispanic ethnicity in the city are most likely to live in areas with higher poverty rates , stressing the need for targeted economic interventions and housing policies to support this vulnerable group. Additionally, Black and Hispanic residents rely on public transit services more than other racial groups. This highlights the importance of maintaining and improving public transit infrastructure to support this demographic. Ensuring accessible and efficient public transit is vital for reducing transportation barriers and enhancing mobility, which directly impacts housing choices and economic opportunities. Access to employment opportunities is generally high across all racial groups, with Black, White, and Native American residents scoring the highest, respectively. However, the environmental health index indicates a high exposure to toxins, suggesting a need for better environmental conditions. This index was higher in the Visalia -Porterville metro area, indicating better environmental health in that region compared to the city overall. Schools in areas with populations below the federal poverty line had lower scores, reflecting lower school system quality. The lowest scores were found among Native American and Hispanic residents. Quality education is a cornerstone of fair housing, as it influences long-term economic mobility and housing stability. Addressing these educational disparities is essential for creating equitable living environments and supporting community development.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 66 ends

Table 50: Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity
(Visalia,

CA CDBG)
Jurisdictio
n
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environ
mental
Health
Index
Total Population
White,
Non-
Hispanic

42.16 38.32 44.93 33.23 18.99 63.50 5.39
Black, Non-
Hispanic 33.38 35.56 38.33 37.24 20.60 61.52 5.25
Hispanic 31.21 34.83 36.90 36.42 19.43 56.77 5.25
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non-
Hispanic

33.15 36.83 39.86 31.43 16.97 54.34 5.35
Native
American,
Non-
Hispanic

36.28 35.30 39.89 35.66 20.53 62.31 5.27
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White,
Non-
Hispanic

29.05 33.66 34.26 38.44 22.67 61.06 5.19
Black, Non-
Hispanic 34.10 36.75 32.48 40.90 20.09 55.45 5.74
Hispanic 20.58 31.17 25.48 46.27 22.74 55.76 4.96
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non-
Hispanic

28.96 46.36 47.19 33.55 14.19 56.56 5.14
Native
American,
Non-
Hispanic

30.91 24.48 26.87 30.75 14.69 41.66 6.46
(Visalia-Porterville, CA) Region
Total Population
White,
Non-
Hispanic

32.75 31.83 32.19 28.25 15.41 50.99 11.72
Black, Non-
Hispanic 25.99 27.87 26.04 34.60 18.42 51.17 9.27
Hispanic 17.95 23.67 19.93 31.21 15.28 44.60 12.77
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non-
Hispanic

25.89 30.71 28.93 28.04 14.95 44.46 10.97
Native
American,
Non-
Hispanic

28.93 34.35 25.88 30.12 13.46 38.17 20.12
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 67 ends

Population below federal poverty line
White,
Non-
Hispanic

22.25 26.39 23.71 31.57 17.10 48.33 12.22
Black, Non-
Hispanic 16.23 20.76 15.49 42.45 19.37 38.21 10.73
Hispanic 12.48 21.20 15.40 34.05 15.70 44.02 14.09
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non-
Hispanic

21.47 33.83 28.76 33.45 14.71 43.77 11.07
Native
American,
Non-
Hispanic

25.00 26.33 21.16 31.11 13.76 37.93 15.25

Public Policies and Private Sector Practices
Public policies can significantly impact housing opportunities, potentially creating barriers. These policies encompass various areas such as tax policy, land use controls, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limits, and other regulations influencing the return on residential investment. Amending local zoning and land use laws or allocating funds for affordable housing through grants can effectively support the development of affordable housing units. Such policy changes address disparities in access to opportunity by implementing plans that revitalize areas with affordable housing. Improvements in services, schools, community assets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure in these areas can substantially enhance the quality of life for residents and ensure equitable access to resources.

In addition to public policies, private sector practices also play a vital role in fair housing choice. Equity in money lending from financial service organizations is a critical component. These organizations include credit unions, banks, credit card companies, and insurance companies, which provide essential loans for purchasing homes, home equity, and home repairs. Access to these financial services is often necessary for securing credit financing for mortgages, underscoring the importance of fair lending practices. Ensuring equal access to information regarding financial services is another important aspect of achieving fair housing choice. Discriminatory practices in lending ca n limit opportunities for certain groups, making it difficult for them to secure the financing needed for homeownership. By addressing inequities in the financial sector, communities can foster a more inclusive environment where all individuals have equal opportunities to achieve homeownership and financial stability.

The Housing Element
State law mandates that each local government creates a general plan to serve as a blueprint for future development, incorporating seven essential elements. Among these the Housing Element holds significant importance and is specifically required by California’s Housing Element Law. The state law recognizes that for the private market to meet the housing needs of state residents, municipalities must implement local general plans and regulatory systems that facilitate housing development without imposing und uly constraints.6 The primary objective of the Housing Element is to conduct a thorough assessment of housing needs across all income levels to understand the housing landscape and identify gaps in the current housing market. By establishing policies to address these needs, the Housing Element provides a clear framework for action, guiding the city’s efforts to improve housing availability and affordability. Identifying suitable sites for low-income housing units is a critical component of this element to ensure that there a re

6 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Elements Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 68 ends

designated areas where affordable housing can be developed, promoting inclusivity and diversity in the community. Additionally, the development of programs to support low - and moderate-income residents is essential for providing comprehensive housing solut ions that go beyond mere construction but also including wraparound support services and financial assistance.

Land Use Policies and Practices
The City of Visalia’s ordinances encompass a diverse array of zoning districts designed to provide various housing opportunities for individuals with special needs, such as those with disabilities and those in need of transitional or supportive housing. This approach addresses a significant segment of the population that often faces housing challenges, promoting social equity and ensuring that vulnerable groups are adequately supported with access to housing. Additionally, the City of Visalia regularly reviews local zoning laws and policies to ensure they do not impede fair housing choices. This periodic evaluation is essential for identifying and rectifying any barriers that may inadvertently arise, ensuring that zoning regulations evolve in response to changing needs and conditions.

Residential Density
The information provided below is sourced from the 2023 Adopted Housing Element. It is important to note that the densities are based on dwelling units per gross acre. The Residential Density Table 43 sets a clear framework for multi-family housing development, permitting densities between 15 to 35 units per acre, with a cap of 80 units per development. This density range is significant because it strikes a balance between encouraging higher-density housing, which can alleviate housing shortages, and mainta ining manageable development scales to avoid overburdening infrastructure and services. The cap of 80 units ensures that developments remain within a size that can be effectively integrated into the community. This limitation helps prevent the negative impacts of overly large developments, such as traffic congestion, overstressed utilities, and community resistance. It encourages more modestly scaled projects that can blend seamlessly with the existing housing landscape, enhancing social cohesion and commun ity acceptance. By setting clear density limits and maintaining a cap on development sizes, the city aims to address housing shortages effectively while ensuring that new developments are sustainable and well-integrated into the community.

Table 51: Residential Density
Land Use Designations Description Residential
Density Range
(units/acre)
Consistent Zoning
Districts
Residential Designations
Very Low Density
Residential
RVLD Large lot residential
development where all
infrastructure may not be
required

0.1 to 2 R-1-20
Low Density
Residential
RLD Single-family detached homes,
accommodating the majority of
the city's residential uses
2 to 10 R-1-5;R-1-12.5
Medium Density
Residential
RMD Accommodates a mix of
housing types including small-
lot homes, zero-lot-line,
duplexes, fourplexes, and
apartments
10 to 15 R-M-2
High Density
Residential
RHD Accommodates a mix of
housing types including zero-
lot-line developments, duplexes,
fourplexes, and apartments
15 to 35 R-M-3
Mixed Use Designations
Commercial
Mixed Use
CMU Allows either vertical or
horizontal mixed-use
development; Floor Area Ratio
between 0.25 and 2.0
Up to 35 C-MU
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 69 ends

Downtown Mixed
Use
DMU High intensity development:

Vertical mixed use strongly
encouraged; Floor Area Ratio
between 1.0 and 5.0
Minimum 20 D-MU
Commercial Designations
Neighborhood
Commercial
RMD Small scale commercial
development and residential
uses. Horizontal or vertical
mixed use encouraged
10 to 15 C-N
Source: City of Visalia General Plan, 2014, and Adopted Housing Element, 2023.

Zoning for Housing
The City’s General Plan is brought to fruition through the Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance outlines specific development standards and permissible uses within each zoning district, which regulate the density, type, and design of various land uses. Density controls help manage population growth and infrastructure capacity, while type and design regulations ensure that buildings meet aesthetic and functional standards.

These regulations aim to protect public health, safety, and welfare, as mandated by Government Code Sections 65800-65863. This legal foundation emphasizes the importance of planning regulations in creating safe, healthy, and livable communities. However, the Zoning Ordinance can also restrict the development of certain types of housing, including high -density housing, emergency shelters, and supportive or transitional housing. These restrictions can ha ve significant social implications in terms of housing affordability and accessibility.

Residential Care Facilities
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) cater to individuals aged 60 and above, offering services such as accommodation, meals, housekeeping, supervision, and personal care assistance with daily activities like hygiene, dressing, eating, and walking. RCFEs address the diverse needs of seniors enabling them to live with dignity and support to enhance their quality of life. The City of Visalia ensures the availability of residential care facilities for persons with disabilities. This ensures that i ndividuals with disabilities have access to necessary support services within the facilities, promoting social equity and integration. The Zoning Ordinance permits adult overnight residential care for up to six individuals, in addition to the residing fami ly, across all residential zones (R -1-20, R-1-12.5, R-1-5, R-M-2, R-M-3) and conditionally in the office (O -PA) zone.7 Permitting such use in various residential zones without needing approvals facilitates the establishment of small -scale care facilities, making it easier to meet the demand for such services. For facilities serving more than six individuals, this use is conditionally permitted in single- family residential zones (R-1-20, R-1-12.5, R-1-5) and the office (O-PA) zone.7 This requirement allows for thorough evaluation and community input, ensuring that the scale and operations of larger facilities are appropriate for their locations. Notably, the city does not have specific development standards for these facilities. Esta blishing clear development standards could provide guidance on the design, size, and operational aspects of these facilities, ensuring consistency and quality. These standards could also address concerns related to safety, accessibility, and neighborhood c ompatibility, improving the overall effectiveness of the care facilities. Currently, Visalia hosts 27 residential care facilities with a total capacity of 552 units.7

Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters offer temporary housing alongside supportive services for homeless individuals and families, typically for durations of six months or less. By limiting occupancy to six months or less, shelters aim to facilitate timely reintegration into stable housing situations, contributing to community welfare and stability. According to Health and Safety Code Section 50801[e], no homeless individual or family can be denied emergency shelter due to financial constraints .8 State law, specifically Government Code Section 65583[c][1], mandates that local jurisdictions must identify suitable locations for housing, including emergency shelters and transitional housing, through appropriate zoning and development standards to

7 City of Visalia Adopted Housing Element 2023, Table 43 8 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Senate Bill 2 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 70 ends

encourage diverse housing options for all income levels .8 Additionally, under State Bill 2 (SB 2), local jurisdictions are required to assess the need for shelters, designate zones where shelters can be established without discretionary review, and apply development standards that align with those used for other types of development in the same zone, with specific exceptions detailed in eight categories:
maximum bed limits, off-street parking, size and location of waiting and client intake areas, provision of on- site management, separation requirements from other shelters, length of stay, lighting, and security measures.8 These laws emphasize the importance of identifying suitable sites for shelters, streamlining approval processes, and ensuring equitable treatment of shelters in zoning and development standards.

Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance permits emergency shelters as a permitted use exclusively in the Light Industrial (I-L) zone, without specifying other zones where such facilities are permitted or conditionally allowed. The lack of provisions for emergency shelters in other zones could limit accessibility and availability of shelter services in different parts of the city, potentially affecting equitable access for homeless populations. Notably, the city lacks specific development standards tailored for emergency shelter facilities.

Developers are required to adhere to general development criteria outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, such as setbacks and parking requirements, while the density of shelters is governed by state regulations. The omission of specific development standards is intentional and reflects the City’s observation that additional development standards may hinder the development of emergency shelters by opening new possibilities for public scrutiny versus permitting their development by right.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
Transitional housing serves as a temporary residence for individuals or families awaiting permanent housing solutions, often referred to as "bridge" or "interim" housing. By providing stability and supportive services, transitional housing helps residents transition towards independent living. According to State law, local jurisdictions are mandated to address provisions for transitional and supportive housing .8 Defined under California Government Code Section 65582(h), transitional housing consists of rental developments operated under program requirements that include the termination of assistance and reassignment of the unit to another eligible recipient after a predetermined period of at least six months .8 By treating these housing types as residential uses and applying standard zoning regulations, Visalia can ensure equitable treatment and streamline approval processes, thereby promoting the timely establishment of much-needed housing solutions.

In contrast, supportive housing has no specified limit on duration and is occupied by individuals with low incomes who have disabilities or chronic health conditions. It is designed to integrate health and social services that support residents in maintain ing their housing, improving health outcomes, and enhancing their ability to live independently and potentially work within the community. The target population includes a diverse range of individuals, such as those with mental illness, HIV/AIDS, substance abuse issues, or developmental disabilities, along with other vulnerable groups.

Under Senate Bill No. 2, transitional and supportive housing are categorized as residential uses, subject to the same standards applied to other residential uses within the same zoning area .8 The City’s Zoning Ordinance defines supportive housing as residences with integrated supportive services, such as group homes or Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing, offering case management, medical or psychological counseling, childcare, transportation, and job training. The integration of supportive services aims to enhance residents' overall well-being, improve health outcomes, and promote community integration.

Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance permits transitional and supportive housing as outlined in California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.2(h) and 53260(c), allowing these facilities as permitted uses across various residential zones (R-1-20, R-1-12.5, R-1-5, R-M-2, R-M-3).8 Notably, the city lacks specific development standards tailored for transitional or supportive housing, relying instead on general zoning regulations applicable to residential uses. While general zoning regulations provide consistency and adherence to basic requirements, specialized standards could enhance the quality, safety, and operational efficiency of these facilities and ensure that supportive services are effe ctively integrated into supportive housing.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 71 ends

Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
Assembly Bill 3093, which revises the State Housing Element law, mandates that local jurisdictions address the need for housing options catering to Extremely Low -income households. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units are compact living spaces consisting of a single room intended for occupancy by one individual.

According to the California Housing and Community Development (HCD), SRO units are recognized as a suitable housing type specifically designed to meet the needs of Extremely Low -income individuals. Their design and affordability make them accessible to individuals with limited financial resources, ensuring they have stable housing options that promote independence and community integration. Unlike studio or efficiency units, SROs must include both a kit chen and a bathroom, although some may have only one of these amenities.

Historically, SRO units have served as essential forms of affordable private housing, particularly for lower - income groups such as seniors and individuals with disabilities. These vulnerable populations require access to suitable housing options, and SRO u nits fulfill this need by providing affordable living arrangements tailored to their circumstances.

In response to the legislative mandate, the City of Visalia has incorporated provisions for Extremely Low - income housing options by zoning for SROs. Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance permits SRO units as a permitted use within multi -family residential zones (R -M-2, R -M-3) and as a conditional use in the Downtown Mixed Use (D -MU) zone. However, Visalia lacks specific development standards tailored specifically for SROs, relying instead on general zoning regulations applicable to residential uses.

Developing specialized standards could enhance the quality, safety, and sustainability of SRO developments, ensuring they meet regulatory requirements and community expectations.

The introduction of SRO units may raise community concerns related to neighborhood aesthetics, traffic, and social dynamics. Effective community engagement and proactive communication strategies are essential in addressing these concerns and fostering comm unity support for housing initiatives. Building consensus and transparency can help mitigate opposition and promote collaborative efforts toward creating inclusive neighborhoods that support all residents, including those in need of affordable housing solu tions.

Employee Housing
The California Employee Housing Act mandates that housing accommodating six or fewer employees be categorized as a standard residential use .9 Additionally, the Act specifies that housing for agricultural workers, comprising either 36 beds or 12 units, is considered an accessory agricultural use within agricultural zones. This housing enables agricultural operations to sustain a local workforce, particularly in rural areas where commuting may not be feasible. This designation subjects such housing to the same permitting process as primary agricultural activities. By categorizing smaller -scale employee housing as regular residential use and larger accommodations as accessory agricultural use, the legislation supports the agricultural industry's need for on -site workforce housing while ensuring compliance with zoning and permitting regulations.

Visalia’s current Zoning Ordinance aligns with these provisions by permitting Employee Housing, defined under California Health and Safety Code Section 17008, as a permitted use specifically within Agricultural (A) and Open Space (OS) zones. 10 Notably, the city lacks specific development standards tailored for this type of housing. Developers are therefore required to adhere to general zoning regulations governing setbacks, parking requirements, and other standard criteria outlined in the Zonin g Ordinance. Adopting specialized standards could enhance the quality of housing for agricultural workers, addressing unique needs such as communal living arrangements and proximity to worksites. Housing density, meanwhile, adheres to state-prescribed limits as per relevant code provisions.

Reasonable Accommodation
Under both State and Federal regulations, local governments are mandated to "reasonably accommodate" housing needs for individuals with disabilities when exercising their planning and zoning authorities. This

9 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Employee Housing 10 California Health and Safety Code Section 17008
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 72 ends

requirement entails granting variances and making zoning changes as necessary to ensure the feasibility of new construction or rehabilitation projects aimed at providing housing accessible to persons with disabilities. By embedding accessibility principles into zoning regulations, the City not only meets legal obligations but also advances broader objectives of equitable housing access and community integration.

In late 2017, the City of Visalia incorporated a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance into its Zoning Ordinance, as part of fulfilling Program 5.3 outlined in the City's prior Housing Element (5th cycle). This ordinance specifically addresses the need to accommodate structures or modifications that facilitate access to buildings for individuals with both physical and non -physical disabilities. Notably, the ordinance streamlines this process by exempting such accommodations from the requirement to file a varia nce application. This streamlined approach not only reduces administrative burdens but also encourages developers to incorporate universal design principles from the outset, enhancing the overall livability and sustainability of housing developments. Detai led provisions of this ordinance can be found in Section

17.42.050.C of the Zoning Ordinance.

Permitting Process
Various housing types in Visalia undergo distinct permitting procedures and timelines. Table 49 sourced from the Adopted Housing Element, details these processes specific to the City. For projects exceeding the established development standards within their respective zones, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is mandatory. CUP ensures that developments exceeding standard parameters undergo additional scrutiny to assess their compatibility with neighborhood characteristics and infrastructure capacities. Furthermore, it provides an opportunity for public input, promoting community engagement in shaping local development.

Table 52: Permitting Process
Residential Use Type List of Typical Approval
Requirements
Estimated Total Processing Time
Single Family Residential on
residential lot Permitted by Right Less than 30 days
Single Family Residential on non-
residential lot Site Plan Review CEQA/CUP 2-3 Months
Subdivision Site Plan Review CEQA/CUP 3-4 Months
Duplex on Single Family
Residential Lot Site Plan Review Less than 30 days
Duplex on Multi-Family
Residential Lot Permitted by Right Less than 30 days
Multi-Family Apartment less than
80 units and less than 4 stories
Permitted by Right, Site Plan
Review Less than 30 days
Multi-Family Apartment less than
80 units and more than 4 stories Site Plan Review CEQA/CUP 2-3 Months Condominium, Townhouse or
Apartment Style
Site Plan Review
CEQA/TSM/CUP 2-3 Months
Accessory Dwelling Units Permitted by Right 3-4 Months
Adult Over-night Care Facility (6
people or less) Permitted by Right Less than 30 days
Adult Over-night Care Facility
(more than 6 people) Site Plan Review CEQA/CUP 2-3 Months Nursing and Convalescent
Homes (including or not including
psychiatric, drug abuse and
alcoholism cases)
Site Plan Review CEQA/CUP 2-3 Months
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Permitted by Right Less than 30 days Employee Housing, as defined in
California Health and Safety
Code Section 17008
Permitted by Right Less than 30 days
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 73 ends

Transitional and Supportive
Housing, as defined in California
Health and Safety Code Sections
50675.2(h) and 53260(c)
Permitted by Right Less than 30 days
Emergency Shelters Permitted by Right Less than 30 days Low Barrier Navigation Center Permitted by Right Less than 30 days Emergency / Temporary Housing Site Plan Review 2-3 Months Source: City of Visalia Adopted Housing Element, 2023
Real Estate Sales Practices
In California, the Department of Real Estate (DRE) licenses both real estate brokers and salespersons to conduct real estate sales. The DRE also enforces California's real estate laws. In Visalia, any instance of discrimination or fair housing violation involving a real estate professional should be promptly reported to the local representative association or directly to the DRE.

Assembly Bill 345, signed into law in July 2015 by the Governor, introduced amendments to Section 10170.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, which became effective on January 1, 2016.

These amendments mandate specific continuing education req uirements for broker licensees. Upon their first renewal as a broker, licensees must complete a three-hour course focusing on the management of real estate offices and supervision of real estate activities. Subsequent renewals for salesperson and broker licensees require completion of an eight -hour survey course covering topics such as ethics, agency, trust fund handling, fair housing, risk management, and management and supervision. The amendments introduced by Assembly Bill 345 reflect the state's commitm ent to ensuring that licensed real estate professionals are well -versed in ethical practices, legal compliance, and effective management of real estate transactions. The ongoing education mandated by Assembly Bill 345 helps to ensure that brokers are not only compliant with current laws but also proactive in fostering an inclusive and fair housing market.

This regulatory approach reinforces the broader goals of fair housing policies, contributing to the elimination of discriminatory practices and the advancement of equal housing opportunities for all.

Nearly all California real estate brokers and salespersons are affiliated with a trade association, which provides a structured framework for professional development and ethical conduct. The two predominant associations are the California Association of R ealtors (CAR), affiliated with the National Association of Realtors (NAR), and the California Association of Real Estate Brokers (CAREB), affiliated with the National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB). CAR offers comprehensive online courses as pa rt of its license renewal program, focusing on fair housing laws at both federal and state levels. These courses educate real estate professionals about the history, current laws, and best practices in fair housing, emphasizing non -discriminatory practices and the importance of promoting fair housing principles in California and nationwide. These associations play a pivotal role in regulating member conduct and promoting fair housing practices, including those set forth by the NAR, which has a strict Code o f Ethics prohibiting discrimination based on various protected categories.

The NAR maintains a professional code of conduct explicitly prohibiting unequal treatment in professional services or employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin (Article 10, NAR Code of Ethics) . This code also prevents members from establishing or promoting deed restrictions or covenants based on race and forbids realtors from participating in any agreement or plan that discriminates against individuals based on the protected characteristics. By forbidding unequal treatment in professional services and employment practices, the NAR code plays a vital role in eliminating systemic barriers to fair housing. This is particularly important in addressing historical and ongoing discrimination that affec ts access to housing for marginalized groups. Article 10 not only imposes obligations on realtors but also underscores the association's strong support for equal housing opportunities.

If a realtor suspects discrimination, they are directed to contact their local board of realtors. These local boards or associations are responsible for accepting complaints from home seekers who allege discriminatory treatment in housing availability, pur chase, or rental. Local boards of realtors have the duty Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 74 ends

to enforce the Code of Ethics. They do this through established professional standards, procedures, and corrective actions when a violation of the Code is substantiated. The significance of this Code of Ethics is multifaceted. It ensures that realtors adhere to high ethical standards, fostering a fair and equitable housing market. By explicitly prohibiting discrimination, the Code of Ethics promotes inclusivity and equal opportunity, essential principles in maintaining public trust and confidence in the rea l estate profession.

Additionally, the enforcement mechanisms provided by local boards ensure accountability and uphold the integrity of the profession. This framework not only protects consumers but also reinforces the professional credibility of realtors, distinguishing them as advocates for fair housing practices. The local boards' role in enforcing the Code of Ethics through professional standards and corrective actions ensures that ethical breaches are addressed promptly and effectively.

The City of Visalia is served by the Tulare County Association of Realtors. The Tulare County Association of Realtors holds local real estate members to the professional code of ethics. Beyond the local board, real estate professionals are also held to a s trict code of ethics mandated by the National Association of Realtors. Local boards of realtors, such as the Tulare County Association of Realtors (TCAOR) serving Visalia, enforce these ethical standards and handle complaints related to fair housing and ethics violations.

TCAOR not only provides essential services like Multiple Listing Service (MLS) access and educational programs but also ensures that its members comply with both state laws and the NAR Code of Ethics. The association processes complaints i nternally and, when necessary, reports them to appropriate authorities such as the District Attorney’s office and the California Department of Real Estate.

The National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB) mandates its members to adhere to a rigorous code of ethics that strictly prohibits discrimination. According to Part I, Section 2 of the NAREB Code of Ethics, members are expressly forbidden from dis criminating against individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, familial status, or sexual orientation. This prohibition extends across several areas including the sale or rental of real estate, advertising related to the sale or rental of real estate, financing associated with real estate, and the provision of professional real estate services. Prohibiting discrimination in advertising ensures that marketing practices do not perpetuate stereotypes or exclusionary tactics, which can subtly influence public perceptions and access to housing. This measure is significant in promoting transparency and fairness in how housing opportunities are presented to the public. The clause against discrimination in financing is also important, as access to financial resources is a major determinant of one's ability to purchase or rent property. By mandating nondiscriminatory practices in financing, NAREB aims to dismantle financial barriers that disproportionately affect minority groups, fostering a more inclusive housing market.

Rental and Property Management
The California Apartment Association (CAA), established in 1941, is the largest statewide trade organization in the United States for rental property owners and managers. It advocates for over 1.5 million rental units managed by its members across California. CAA is committed to upholding local, state, and federal fair housing laws, ensuring equal housing opportunities irrespective of race, color, religion, sex, m arital status, disability, age, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin. Members of CAA adhere to a Code for Equal Housing Opportunity, which mandates the following:

• In rental, lease, sale, purchase, or exchange of real estate, owners and their employees must offer housing accommodations to everyone equally.
• Members must establish and enforce fair and reasonable rental housing rules and guidelines, ensuring consistent services throughout a resident's tenancy. • Members must refrain from disclosing information about the racial, creed, or ethnic composition of neighborhoods and must avoid any behavior or actions that could lead to steering. • Members must not print, display, or circulate any statements or advertisements indicating preferences, limitations, or discrimination in housing rental or sales.

The principle of non -discrimination in providing housing accommodations is fundamental to creating inclusive communities. By actively ensuring that housing providers treat all applicants fairly and equally, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or other protected characteristics, we lay the groundwork for diverse Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 75 ends

neighborhoods. Prohibiting the sharing of neighborhood demographic information and preventing the practice of steering are crucial measures for avoiding subtle forms of discrimination and segregation.

Sharing demographic information can reinforce stereotypes and biases, leading to discriminatory practices, even if unintentionally. Additionally, banning discriminatory advertisements is essential to maintaining an unbiased housing market, ensuring that all prospective renters or buyers feel equally welcome.

Advertisements that explicitly or implicitly discourage certain groups from applying for housing reinforce societal biases and create barriers to equal opportunity.

Additionally, CAA provides a Certificate in Residential Management, which includes training on fair housing law. The association's website also offers resources through links to the Fair Housing Institute and Fair Housing Network. This emphasis on educatio n ensures that members are well -informed and equipped to implement fair housing practices effectively.

Laws Governing Lending
Community Reinvestment Act
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), established in 1977, mandates that federal banking regulators, including the Federal Reserve, promote the involvement of financial institutions in meeting the credit needs of their communities, particularly those in low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods. This legislation aims to ensure that banks engage in activities that benefit these underserved areas, such as providing loans for housing, small businesses, and community development projects.

Banking Regulators for the CRA
Three federal banking agencies oversee compliance with the CRA: the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

Each of these agencies is responsible for regulating and examining banks to evaluate their adher ence to CRA requirements. Banks subject to the CRA are evaluated based on their lending, investment, and service activities within the communities they serve.

The CRA fosters economic development and addresses disparities in access to financial services among different socioeconomic groups. By encouraging banks to lend responsibly and invest in community development projects, the CRA helps promote stability and growth in LMI neighborhoods. The dedicated CRA sites maintained by each regulatory agency provide transparency by publishing banks' CRA ratings and Performance Evaluations, allowing stakeholders to assess banks' commitments to community reinvestment.

Overall, the CRA plays a pivotal role in promoting fair and equitable access to credit and financial services, thereby contributing to the economic well-being and vitality of underserved communities across the United States. It underscores the financial sector's responsibility to support inclusive economic growth and mitigate economic disparities through targeted investment and lending practices.

Federal Reserve’s Role
The Federal Reserve oversees state member banks, which are state-chartered banks that have chosen to join the Federal Reserve System, to ensure their compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

This involves conducting regular examinations of the se banks to assess how well they are meeting their obligations under the CRA. The evaluations conducted by the Federal Reserve focus on the banks' efforts to lend to and invest in low - and moderate -income communities, as well as their provision of banking services in these areas. These evaluations influence the Federal Reserve's decisions on various applications submitted by banks, such as requests for mergers, acquisitions, and new branch openings.

The CRA performance of state member banks is considered al ongside other regulatory information to determine the impact of these banking activities on community development and economic growth.

Additionally, the Federal Reserve plays an educational role by sharing effective community development practices with ban kers and the public, aiming to enhance understanding and implementation of CRA requirements across the banking sector.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 76 ends

This oversight by the Federal Reserve is pivotal in ensuring that state member banks fulfill their responsibilities under the CRA, thereby promoting equitable access to financial services and supporting economic development in underserved communities. By i ntegrating CRA evaluations into broader regulatory assessments, the Federal Reserve enhances the transparency and accountability of banking practices. The sharing of community development strategies further encourages banks to adopt proactive approaches to meet the credit needs of diverse communities. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve's supervision under the CRA not only safeguards the integrity of the banking system but also contributes to fostering inclusive economic growth and reducing disparities in finan cial access across regions and demographic groups.

The table below displays the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ratings for 23 banks operating in Visalia.

The CRA employs a four -tiered rating system —Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, and Substantial Noncompliance—to assess banks' performance in meeting the credit needs of the communities they serve, particularly low - and moderate-income areas. In Visalia, all banks evaluated under the CRA framework received a "satisfactory" rating. This rating indicates that these institutions are deemed to be meeting the minimum standards set forth by the CRA in terms of lending, investment, and service provisions to underserved communities.

Analyzing these ratings provides insights into how effectively banks are fulfilling their obligations under the CRA, which is aimed at promoting fair access to financial services and fostering community development.

A "satisfactory" rating implies that whi le banks are meeting the basic requirements, there may still be opportunities for improvement in enhancing their impact on local economic growth and addressing specific community needs. It also signals to stakeholders, including regulators, community organ izations, and the public, about the overall health of banking practices in supporting equitable financial access. Understanding these ratings helps stakeholders advocate for stronger CRA compliance measures or commend banks that exceed expectations in comm unity reinvestment efforts. Therefore, Figure # serves as a benchmark for assessing the local banking sector's contributions to economic inclusivity and social equity in Visalia.

Row # ID Agency Exam Date Bank Name City State CRA Rating Asset Size (x
1,000)
Exam
Method
1 34156 FDIC 1/1/1998 BANK OF

VISALIA
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $38,881 Small bank
2 34156 FDIC 3/1/2003 BANK OF

VISALIA
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $108,676 Small bank
3 22832 OCC 5/9/1996 KAWEAH

NATIONAL
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $25,651 Not Reported
4 22832 OCC 4/6/1998 KAWEAH

NATIONAL
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $38,843 Small bank
5 22832 OCC 7/22/2002 KAWEAH

NATIONAL
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $80,433 Small bank
6 33341 FDIC 5/1/1992 KAWEAH

THRIFT AND
LOAN

COMPANY
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $1,000 Not Reported
7 33341 FDIC 7/1/1994 KAWEAH

THRIFT AND
LOAN

COMPANY
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $22,000 Not Reported
8 17381 OCC 8/19/1991 MINERAL KING

NATIONAL
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $140,358 Not Reported
9 17381 OCC 10/31/1993 MINERAL KING

NATIONAL
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $183,481 Not Reported
10 58728 FDIC 2/1/2011 SUNCREST
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $74,080 Small bank
11 58728 FDIC 8/1/2013 SUNCREST
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $99,942 Small bank
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 77 ends

Row # ID Agency Exam Date Bank Name City State CRA Rating Asset Size (x
1,000)
Exam
Method
12 58728 FDIC 5/1/2019 SUNCREST
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $928,677 Intermediate
Small
Institution
13 34156 FDIC 5/5/2008 VALLEY

BUSINESS
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $280,508 Small bank
14 34156 FDIC 8/1/2011 VALLEY

BUSINESS
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $341,340 Intermediate
Small
Institution
15 34156 FDIC 7/1/2013 VALLEY

BUSINESS
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $359,989 Intermediate
Small
Institution
16 34156 FDIC 1/1/2016 VALLEY

BUSINESS
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $401,993 Intermediate
Small
Institution
17 22496 FDIC 10/1/1991 VISALIA

COMMUNITY
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $92,000 Not Reported
18 22496 FDIC 3/1/1993 VISALIA

COMMUNITY
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $141,000 Not Reported
19 22496 FDIC 1/1/1995 VISALIA

COMMUNITY
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $123,756 Not Reported
20 22496 FDIC 12/1/1995 VISALIA

COMMUNITY
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $127,872 Not Reported
21 22496 FDIC 1/1/1998 VISALIA

COMMUNITY
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $119,141 Small bank
22 22496 FDIC 5/5/2003 VISALIA

COMMUNITY
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $131,097 Small bank
23 22496 FDIC 8/1/2008 VISALIA

COMMUNITY
BANK
VISALIA CA Satisfactory $188,311 Small bank
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Interagency CRA Rating Search for Visalia, 2024 Lending Findings
An analysis of home loan accessibility revealed findings suggesting the potential for discrimination or a lack of awareness among certain populations. Hispanics, who constitute 50.3% of the city's population, only account for 32.7% of loan applicants. Conversely, White residents, who make up 37.3% of the population, represent 60% of loan applicants. In contrast, the percentages of Black and Asian applicants are roughly proportional to their respective shares of the city's population. These findings suggest that the Hispanic community may not be applying for home loans at rates consistent with their population share. The significant underrepresentation of Hispanic applicants compared to their population percentage highlights a possible systemic issue that may be rooted in discriminat ion or a lack of information and resources. The disparity in loan application rates suggests that Hispanic residents might be encountering obstacles in the home loan process, whether through direct discrimination or inadequate access to necessary informati on and support.

In comparison, the overrepresentation of White loan applicants indicates a contrasting ease of access or awareness of the loan application process within this demographic. This disparity further emphasizes the need for targeted interventions to ensure equi table access to housing finance for all racial and ethnic groups. The fact that the loan application rates for Black and Asian residents align more closely with their population percentages suggests that any barriers they face may not be as pronounced or m ight be addressed differently than those faced by the Hispanic population.

Addressing the specific needs and challenges of the Hispanic community, in particular, could involve outreach programs, education about the loan application process, and stricter enforcement of anti - Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 78 ends

discrimination laws within the lending industry. This detailed analysis underscores the importance of examining demographic data to identify and rectify inequities in access to essential services such as home loans, thereby fostering a more inclusive and fair housing environment.

Table 53: Demographics of Loan Applicants vs. Total Population – (2022) Race Percent of
Applicant Loan
Pool
Percent of
Total
Population
Variation (Percentage
Points)
White 60% 37.3% +22.7
Black 1.6% 2.7% -1.1
Hispanic 32.7% 50% -17.3
Asian 4.3% 6% -1.7
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1.2% 1.7% -0.5
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.02% +0.18
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2022, 2022 1-Year ACS

An analysis of loan approvals by ethnicity and income in the city uncovers significant disparities. White and American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants experienced the highest approval rates in every income bracket.

Notably, American Indian/Alaskan Native individuals, who constitute a small segment of the population, had far fewer applicants than their White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian peers. This high approval rate for White and American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants implies a potentially easier lending pr ocess for these groups. However, the small number of American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants limits the generalizability of this finding. Asian and Hispanic applicants followed with the next highest approval rates across all income brackets. This suggests these groups also have relatively better access to loan approvals, though still not at the level of White and American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants. These disparities are critical in understanding barriers to fair housing. The higher approval rates f or White and American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants may reflect more favorable treatment or better access to resources and information, facilitating a smoother loan process. However, the limited applicability of the American Indian/Alaskan Native data indicates the need for a more nuanced analysis that considers population size and application volume. The relatively high approval rates for Asian and Hispanic applicants indicate that while these groups fare better than some other minorities, there remains a disparity when compared to White applicants. This suggests ongoing inequities in the lending process that need to be addressed.

In the middle -income bracket, White, Asian, and Hispanic applicants had the highest approval rates.

Conversely, Black applicants in this bracket faced the lowest approval rate. Furthermore, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan Native applica nts experienced higher denial rates in the middle - income bracket compared to their White counterparts. The higher approval rates for Asian and Hispanic applicants in certain brackets suggest relatively better outcomes for these groups compared to other minorities. However, these outcomes still indicate the need for improvement, particularly regarding equity and access to housing finance. The disparities between these groups and White applicants highlight underlying issues that affect loan accessibility. The low approval rates for Black applicants, especially in the middle-income bracket, emphasize a critical area for further investigation and intervention. This disparity suggests that Black applicants encounter significant obstacles in the lending process, which may be due to systemic discrimination, lack of access to resources, or other barriers.

In the low -income bracket, applicants from all racial and ethnic groups experienced the highest rates of denial. This indicates a systemic issue within the lending process that disproportionately affects lower - income individuals, regardless of their racial or ethnic backgro und. High denial rates in the low -income bracket suggest that economic status plays a significant role in loan approval outcomes. These applicants, who are already financially vulnerable, face additional challenges in securing home loans, exacerbating their housing instability. By focusing on the high denial rates among low-income applicants, we can develop targeted strategies to promote fair housing and ensure that all individuals, regardless of their income or ethnicity, have an equal opportunity to secure home loans.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 79 ends

Table 54: Lending Patterns by Race/Ethnicity and Income – Visalia (2022) Income Approved Denied Withdrawn/Incomplete
White
Low (0-49%AMI) 5.7% 67.4% 26.9%
Moderate (50-79% AMI) 6.2% 47.3% 46.5%
Middle (80-119% AMI) 7.5% 36.7% 55.8%
Upper (>120% AMI) 8.5% 37.5% 54%
Black
Low (0-49%AMI) 14.3% 71.4% 14.3%
Moderate (50-79% AMI) 0% 80% 20%
Middle (80-119% AMI) 3.7% 44.4% 51.9%
Upper (>120% AMI) 3.6% 32.1% 64.3%
Hispanic
Low (0-49%AMI) 4.4% 72.2% 23.4%
Moderate (50-79% AMI) 5.1% 54.2% 40.7%
Middle (80-119% AMI) 6.1% 43.7% 50.2%
Upper (>120% AMI) 7.4% 40.1% 52.5%
Asian
Low (0-49%AMI) 10.3% 75.9% 13.8%
Moderate (50-79% AMI) 7.7% 59% 33.3%
Middle (80-119% AMI) 8% 64% 28%
Upper (>120% AMI) 5.1% 35.7% 59.2%
American Indian/Alaska Native
Low (0-49%AMI) 9.1% 72.7% 18.2%
Moderate (50-79% AMI) 0% 45% 55%
Middle (80-119% AMI) 4.3% 60.9% 34.8%
Upper (>120% AMI) 18.2% 42.4% 39.4%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Low (0-49%AMI) 0% 0% 0%
Moderate (50-79% AMI) 0% 33.3% 66.7%
Middle (80-119% AMI) 0% 33.3% 66.7%
Upper (>120% AMI) 0% 42.9% 57.1%
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 2022

Community Engagement
Marketing Efforts
The City undertook comprehensive efforts to publicize and advertise the public meetings and surveys aimed at gathering information on barriers to fair housing. Several flyers (English and Spanish) and social media posts to promote these public meetings and surveys. Utilizing various media outlets, including the City’s website, Instagram, and Facebook, the City ensured wide dissemination of information about public events.

In addition to online availability, the City ensured accessibility by providing paper surveys for individuals without internet access.

To initiate stakeholder engagement for focus group sessions discussing barriers to fair housing, the City conducted thorough research to identify local community organizations actively involved in addressing housing challenges in Visalia. These organizations were strategically approached through email, providing them with information and inviting their partic ipation in five focus group sessions. This proactive outreach aimed to gather insights from stakeholders deeply embedded in the community, ensuring a holistic understanding of housing barriers and fostering collaborative solutions. By ensuring broad participation and collecting diverse perspectives, the City aimed to identify and address the systemic barriers to fair housing, ultimately fostering a more equitable and inclusive community.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 80 ends

Organization Focus Groups
Stakeholder Focus Groups, April-May 2024
Housing providers, health and social services organizations, fair housing organizations, developers, emergency management organizations, and organizations representing protected classes in the community were invited to attend five virtual organizational st akeholder focus groups between April 26 th – May 3rd. To identify appropriate invitees, Baker Tilly conducted research on local community organizations that provide services related to potential impediments to fair housing in Visalia.

The focus group dates below list stakeholder attendees whose comments were compiled:

Date/Time Organizations
April 26, 2024 (9AM PDT) Augusta Communities
Midvalley LLC Sierra Vista Mobile Manor
Schranks Clubhouse
Workforce Investment Board of Tulare County
April 30, 2024 (10AM PDT) Tulare County Health & Human Services Agency Rancho Robles Mooney Grove Manor
April 30, 2024 (12:30PM PDT) Habitat for Humanity of Tulare/Kings Counties May 3, 2024 (11AM PDT) College of the Sequoias
Community Services Employment Training (CSET)
Family Services of Tulare County
RH Community Builders
Self-Help Enterprises
May 3, 2024 (12:30PM PDT) Anthem
Tulare County Office of Education

During all five focus group sessions, consultants from Baker Tilly delivered an overview presentation on the AI Plan, Consolidated Plan, and community participation opportunities. Following the presentation, attendees engaged in a roundtable discussion on topics related to possible impediments to fair housing throughout the City.

The participants were asked the following questions:

1. What barriers do low-income individuals face when trying to access housing?

2. What healthcare services or resources are lacking for individuals experiencing housing insecurity?

3. Are there disparities in housing development or revitalization efforts across different neighborhoods?

4. Are there disparities in educational opportunities based on housing status within our community?

5. How inclusive are housing services and policies for marginalized residents?

6. What are the unique housing needs of elderly persons and individuals with disabilities in our community? City Staff Interviews
Zoning Laws
During discussions with the Zoning department, staff highlighted that developers are advocating for changes in zoning laws to permit the construction of multi -unit structures in areas currently designated for single-family homes. Such zoning modifications would significantly increase the availability of affordable housing units in these regions. The pressure to revise zoning laws to allow multi -unit buildings in single - family zones reflects a critical issue in urban planning and housing policy. By enabling higher-density developments in these traditionally low -density areas, jurisdictions can address the growing demand for affordable housing. This shift is particularly important in urban and suburban areas where the cost of housing has escalated, making it d ifficult for low - and middle -income families to find suitable accommodations.

The advocacy by developers for zoning changes underscores the potential for public -private partnerships in addressing housing shortages. Developers, motivated by the opportunity to build more units and meet market demand, play a significant role in expandi ng the housing supply. Their interest in changing zoning Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 81 ends

laws indicates a readiness to invest in affordable housing projects, which can lead to increased economic activity and community development.

From the perspective of fair housing, modifying zoning laws to allow multi -unit structures in single -family zones can contribute to greater residential diversity. Single -family zoning has historically been associated with exclusionary practices that limit access for lower-income households and perpetuate segregation. By introducing multi-unit housing options, communities can become more inclusive, offering a range of housing types that cater to different economic segments and fostering socioeconomic integra tion.

Furthermore, increasing the stock of affordable housing through zoning changes aligns with broader policy goals aimed at mitigating homelessness and housing insecurity. As affordable housing becomes more accessible, fewer families are likely to experience housing instability, which has far -reaching impacts on health, education, and overall quality of life. Therefore, such zoning adjustments are essential for creating equitable and resilient communities.

Recent zoning changes have increased the thresholds for new developments without requiring public hearings, permitting up to 200 units on a single site. This change addresses the common issue where residents often attend public hearings to protest the cons truction of multi -unit affordable housing in their neighborhoods. If a local law were enacted to eliminate the requirement for public hearings for developments up to 200 units, there would likely be less opposition to the construction of affordable multi - unit housing.

The adjustment of zoning laws to increase development thresholds without public hearings represents a significant shift in urban planning and housing policy. This change streamlines the approval process for multi-unit affordable housing projects. The prese nce of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) sentiments was evident during public hearings, as noted by staff. However, staff also emphasized that such opposition from citizen groups did not significantly influence the City Council's decisions regarding development projects. If a developer presents a well-structured and robust plan, the Council is likely to approve the project despite negative public opinions. By removing the requirement for public hearings for projects up to 200 units, the process becomes more efficient and less susceptible to local opposition.

Residents frequently express concerns at public hearings about potential impacts on property values, traffic congestion, and community character. While these concerns are valid, they can overshadow the pressing need for affordable housing. The elimination of public hearings for smaller-scale developments addresses this issue by reducing the opportunities for opposition based on these concerns. This approach balances the need for community input with the urgency of addressing housing shortages.

Implementing such a zoning change could significantly increase the availability of affordable housing. By reducing bureaucratic hurdles, developers can more quickly and efficiently bring affordable housing projects to fruition. This is particularly importa nt for low -income individuals and families who are often the most affected by housing shortages and high costs. Increasing the stock of affordable housing helps to stabilize communities, reduce homelessness, and promote economic mobility.

Fair Housing Complaints
The City currently lacks an office dedicated to handling Fair Housing complaints, which constitutes a significant impediment. Although there is a non -city organization that addresses Fair Housing issues, it holds limited authority and the City has no control over its activities, including workshops and awareness programs. Establishing a city agency or department focused on Fair Housing would significantly enhance the promotion of fair housing initiatives citywide. Such an office could also p lay a substantia l role in the housing development approval process by ensuring that developers are at least aware of Fair Housing laws. The absence of a city department to handle Fair Housing complaints represents a critical gap in the City's ability to address discrimination and promote equitable housing practices. Without a dedicated office, residents facing discrimination lack a clear, authoritative channel for lodging complaints and seeking redress. This not only undermines individual rights but also weakens the overal l enforcement of Fair Housing laws, perpetuating systemic inequalities. Creating a city department dedicated to Fair Housing would address these shortcomings by centralizing authority and responsibility within the municipal framework. Such a department cou ld spearhead educational campaigns, conduct rigorous testing and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 82 ends

monitoring, and provide a clear avenue for residents to file complaints. This would not only enhance the enforcement of Fair Housing laws but also foster a culture of awareness and compliance.

Additionally, incorporating Fair Housing oversight into the housing development approval process would ensure that developers are educated about and compliant with Fair Housing regulations from the outset.

This proactive approach would help prevent discrim inatory practices before they occur and promote the development of inclusive communities.

Community Public Meetings
Community Residents Public Meetings, May 2024
From May 6 th – May 9 th, Visalia community residents were invited to participate in three virtual public meetings. These meetings were advertised through flyers and social media with detailed information on how to join the public meetings. Baker Tilly delivered an overview prese ntation covering the AI Plan, Consolidated Plan, and opportunities for community participation. After the presentation, residents engaged in roundtable discussions to share their experiences and insights regarding potential impediment s to fair housing throughout the city.

The participants were asked the following questions:

1. What barriers do low-income individuals face when trying to access housing?

2. Have you experienced barriers to accessing housing?

3. What’s working well with housing in Visalia? What’s not working well?

4. What housing issues are most pressing for you, your family, and your community?

Focus Group and Public Meeting Analysis
Baker Tilly compiled responses and data from the roundtable discussions held in both the organizational stakeholder focus groups and community residents’ public meetings. The following analysis identifies impediments to fair housing and evaluates the curre nt state of housing in the city based off the data collected from the outreach initiatives.

Barriers & Perceptions
Focus groups identified the stigma and misconceptions surrounding low -income and multifamily housing as an impediment. Many community members perceive these housing types as undesirable, fearing they will negatively impact neighborhood property values, whi ch creates resistance to their development. This is compounded by economic barriers and the high cost of living, which make it challenging for low -income individuals to afford housing. Insufficient wages leave many young adults either living with their par ents or struggling to transition out of foster care into stable housing. Poor rental and credit histories, combined with credit and financial literacy issues, further restrict access to housing for low -income residents, even for those who meet income thresholds or hold housing vouchers. Additionally, language barriers contribute to the difficulty of accessing housing, as individuals struggle to discuss and understand housing and financial matters in their preferred language.

Focus groups identified geographical disparities within Visalia affecting housing access, with certain areas like the southeast of downtown and the vicinity of the Oval neighborhood having higher concentrations of minority populations. Consequently, Black and Hispanic communities face higher rates of evictions and homelessness compared to their white counterparts. Health issues also coincide with homelessness, as those struggling with medical problems often prioritize their health over securing stable housing.

Housing Affordability & Housing Inventory
Responses indicated the lack of affordable housing units severely limits options for low-income individuals, even those with Section 8 vouchers. This shortage is compounded by landlords' reluctance to rent to voucher holders or low-income individuals, further narrowing the availability of suitable housing. Many low- income residents are forced into substandard living conditions due to financial constraints attributed to inflated housing prices, skyrocketing rents, and associated costs such as high taxes and insurance. This economic disparity not only affects individuals' ability to secure housing but also leads to displacement and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 83 ends

the loss of affordable housing options. Additionally, inadequate wages prevent many from affording housing, leaving young adults and former foster care youths struggling to transition into stable housing.

Support Services & Organization Outreach and Advocacy
Our interviews indicated existing efforts by community organizations to provide support to marginalized populations in the city’s housing crisis often fall short, necessitating more robust and targeted interventions.

The necessity for wraparound services, including social support, education, and advocacy, is emphasized to help marginalized residents achieve stability and independence. Effective outreach and advocacy is needed through leveraging grassroots campaigns, social media, and community -based organizations to engage marginalized groups and address their specific needs. Access to healthcare services is also a significant concern, with frequent relocations complicating continuity of care. The lack of basic hygiene services poses a barrier to health and housing security. Voluntary street medicine programs, like those provided by Kaweah Health, play a role but may not consistently reach all in need. Vulnerable populations, such as foster youth and individuals with developmental disabilities, require extra support in life skills, rental processes, and addressing underlying issues like substance abuse and mental health concerns.

Elderly & Disabled Populations
Focus groups expressed how financial barriers significantly impede elderly and disabled populations' ability to access and maintain housing. Elderly individuals and those with disabilities often face poor credit scores, limited financial histories, and low incomes. This financial instability underscores the need for specialized support services tailored to their unique circumstances encompassing financial management, assistance with medical expenses, and ongoing housing support to mitigate the economic challenges they face. There is a pronounced need for more comprehensive and targeted support to ensure that elderly and disabled residents can maintain secure housing through preserving and maintaining the existing housing stock to keep it safe and habitable for low-income individuals. Securing funding and financial resources is critical to assist in maintaining and repairing housing, allowing elderly residents to remain in their homes that they have lived in for generations.

Our focus groups identified a clear need for dedicated senior housing units to address the specific needs of elderly people. Notably, there is a lack of prioritization and funding support from the State of California for senior housing initiatives. This la ck of support makes it difficult to compete for resources and develop suitable housing options for seniors. The issue of displacement and homeownership challenges also emerged as significant concerns. Elderly individuals, especially those who have lost a s pouse, may face displacement due to financial strains including obtaining homeowners insurance or funding necessary repairs, contributing to housing instability among the elderly population.

Policies, Regulations & Discriminatory Practices
Respondents indicated that discriminatory practices in housing appraisals are particularly pronounced, with Black and Hispanic residents experiencing bias resulting in significantly lower property valuations. This not only affects their ability to build wealth but also perpetuates systemic inequalities by limiting their access to fair housing opportunities. Discriminatory practices and landlord preferences also contribute to housing instability for marginalized individuals. Landlords often refuse to rent to individuals with housing vouchers, eviction histories, bad credit, or low income, perpetuating cycles of poverty and homelessness. Additionally, discriminatory practices faced by renters, particularly single mothers, and families with children, contribute to housing instability, further limiting access to affordable housing options. Racial profiling and gentrification further compound housing inequities within the city. Respondents describe experiences of racial profiling in rental processes and the impact s of gentrification on historically marginalized communities, leading to displacement and increased housing costs for low -income residents and communities of color.

Furthermore, there is a noticeable lack of representation and inclusivity in planning processes and public services, leading to the underrepresentation of marginalized groups in key roles such as police officers and teachers. This lack of inclusivity reinforces the perception that these communities of color are not prioritized in housing policies and services.

Our interviews stated that the complexity and length of the permit process present significant bureaucratic and regulatory challenges, particularly for those who are not construction professionals. Navigating these intricate regulations adds layers of diff iculty in building and securing housing, further hindering access to Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 84 ends

affordable options. Moreover, strict regulations and development requirements in California, such as mandates for solar panels and sprinklers, pose additional barriers to building affordable housing.

Respondents also expressed challenges in communication w ith lawmakers, calling for increased engagement and responsiveness from elected officials to address housing affordability and regulatory burdens effectively.

Education
Focus groups indicated that the under -resourcing of school districts is seen as a systemic problem perpetuating inequities. The lack of resources in schools directly impacts educational opportunities for students, further widening the gap between those with access to quality education and those without. This interconnectedness of housing and education emphasizes the need for comprehensive solutions to address community needs.

Respondents expressed concerns about the limited higher education opportunities available within the county, particularly the absence of a four-year public university and limited options for specialized technical programs. This lack of access to higher education can hinder individuals' ability to pursue advanced degrees or acquire specialized skills, limiting their opportunities for economic and social advancement. As a result, the impact on economic and social mobility within the community becomes evident. Without access to higher education, individuals may face barriers to obtaining higher -paying jobs and advancing in their careers, further entrenching socioeconomic disparities. The ramifications of these educational disparities extend beyond individual outcomes and have broader implications for the community. A well -educated workforce is essential for driving economic growth and fostering a thriving community. However, the limited availability of higher education opportunities hampers the city's ability to attract and retain skilled workers, potentially hindering its long-term economic development.

Community Organization and Resident Surveys
The Community Organizations Survey was used to gather feedback and information from organizations within the community for the 2025/26 -2029/30 Analysis of Impediments and Consolidated Plan. Similar to the Community Residents Survey, the Community Organizations Survey was open for responses from May 10, 2024, to May 24, 2024. Twenty organizations responded to the survey, and overall, respondents answered roughly 75% of the questions.

Community Organization Survey Results
A variety of different organizations representing various industries and sectors participated in the survey.

They are categorized as shown in the table below. These respondents received fair housing information through a wide variety of sources, including the Internet, flyers, public service announcements, newsletters, social media, and HUD information.

Table 55: Community Organizations Survey Respondents
Type Number of
Respondents
Organization Names
(if provided)
Social Service Organization 3 Safety-net provider (unspecified); WestCare Foundation
Education 2 Organization name not provided
by respondent
County Government 1 County of Tulare
Fair Housing Maintenance 1 Organization name not provided by respondent
Fair Housing Advocacy Organization 2 Organization name not provided by respondent
Realtor 2 Organization name not provided
by respondent
Health Care 1 Organization name not provided
by respondent
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 85 ends

Professional Service Business 1 Organization name not provided by respondent
Affordable Housing Developer 1 Organization name not provided by respondent
Human Resources 1 Organization name not provided
by respondent
Tenant Rights Association 1 HOA President at Senior Living Community
Resident* 4
Total 20
*NOTE: While this survey was designed for completion by community organizations, several residents mistakenly completed the incorrect survey as opposed to the citizen survey.

The analysis presented in this section excludes the resident responses, which will be presented in the following section.

Overall, respondents had mixed opinions on the effectiveness of housing-related laws and programs in the city, with most respondents reporting that fair housing is an issue in the city. Respondents generally perceived low levels of discrimination and demon strated relatively broad agreement on barriers to fair housing. Commonly identified issues were blight, lack of property maintenance, crime, and homelessness concentrated in undesirable areas where affordable housing options exist. As expressed within the survey results, there appears to be challenges related to zoning/resident sentiment that may contribute to the concentration of affordable housing in undesirable areas, perhaps resulting in a heavy reliance on the housing authority for new affordable units as opposed to private development of affordable housing options.

Lack of supportive services and income barriers were identified as significant issues for individuals with disabilities which impact housing access. Disability, age, and race were commonly i dentified as the protected classes in the city facing the largest challenges, with a need for affordable senior housing in South Visalia. A lack of reliable public transportation was a common theme around barriers to accessing community assets.

Fair Housing
Organization respondents largely report that current fair housing laws, programs, and enforcement mechanisms in the city are moderately effective or ineffective, as shown below. Similarly, roughly two-thirds of respondents believe fair housing is a moderately serious to extremely serious issue in the city.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 86 ends

How effective are current fair housing laws, programs, and enforcement mechanisms?

How serious of an issue is fair housing in the City of Visalia?

Housing Discrimination
Respondents generally reported low levels of housing discrimination. One organization stated that it had witnessed lending discrimination because of the mortgage or rental applicant’s protected class; however, the majority of respondents had not witnessed such discrimination. Two of seven respondents who work for an organization on behalf of tenants or homebuyers had received housing discrimination complaints from clients/constituents/members in the City of Vis alia. Discrimination that does occur tended to be perceived during the housing search process, as shown in the table below.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 87 ends

In which part of the housing process do you think housing discrimination may occur or occur more frequently?

Process Stage Number of Responses
Home mortgage lending 3
Rental application process 8
Property viewings/inspections 6
During negotiations (i.e., rental terms, etc.) 3
After move in (i.e., experiencing differential treatment or harassment from landlords/tenants/neighbors, etc.)
6 Other 4

Desirability
All but two respondents perceived the City of Visalia to have undesirable areas, commonly citing homelessness, crime and drug use, and blight/lack of property upkeep on both private and public property as reasons for this perception. Additionally, two resp ondents representing fair housing advocacy and education organizations noted access to services, walkability, overpopulation, neglected infrastructure, lack of apartment management accountability and lack of equitable housing in undesirable areas.

Housing Availability
Top reasons cited as contributing factors to the availability of fair housing in the city included poor conditions of affordable housing, lack of affordable housing due to urban renewal, and the influence of outside private equity investment on the housing supply. Barriers to equal and full access noted ranged from eligibility criteria to income inequality (including challenges for seniors living on fixed incomes) to personal responsibility.

Zoning, NIMBY -ism, and a difficult new construction approval process were some examples cited by respondents for how local laws, policies, ordinances, and other practices impede or promote the siting of affordable housing in well-resourced neighborhoods. Other respondents said laws and policies work well.

One respondent noted that rent control policies from 2020 make it difficult to evict bad tenants, resulting in landlords being more reluctant to accept individuals who are on the borderline of qualification.

Individuals with Disabilities
Top barriers to fair housing specific to people with disabilities were lack of supportive services and disproportionate impact of income level discrimination, followed by lack of government help, lack of granting reasonable accommodations, and the need for new accessible home construction. Accessible and affordable housing was the most commonly cited barrier for individuals with disabilities to access opportunity and community assets within the city.

Respondents’ perceptions of community attitudes toward affordable housing were relatively split.

Access to Community Assets
Top barriers to access for community amenities, facilities, and services revolved around transportation, including transportation with reliable stops and sidewalks, followed by accessible parking and more welcoming/understanding neighbors. Respondents were evenly split on whether they felt there are locations in the city where protected class groups experience significant disparities in access to community assets. Those who did perceive disparities listed Oval, North Visalia, Washington, and Downtown Visali a as areas where this occurs, with disability being the most commonly noted affected class followed by race and color. Removal of bus routes in North Visalia and lack of affordable housing in South Visalia were cited, with others saying they had not notice d variations in access to community assets between residents of potentially segregated areas and R/ECAPs.

All but three respondents said there is not a disproportionate need in underserved communities for place - based community or economic development.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 88 ends

Protected Class Groups
Respondents were split on disparities in housing quality by protected class groups, with one respondent saying that low- to middle-income households have the hardest road to housing due to a lack of programs targeting this group.

Respondents generally noted that the local housing authority carries the weight of providing affordable housing for residents of diverse income and protected class groups, with others noting the availability of only substandard units and a reluctance to re nt to Section 8 -eligible individuals in the community. In contrast, other respondents cited no lack of affordable housing options in the city. Others cited pockets of affordable homes in Central North Visalia as well as affordable mortgage access, with a n eed for more affordable homes for seniors and other low-income individuals in South Visalia.

Race, disability status, and age were the top protected class groups identified as having disproportionate housing instability due to rising rents, loss of existing affordable housing, and displacement. Disparities in access to economic opportunities for t hese groups were most often identified by respondents as livable wage jobs and fair and affordable credit, and respondents most often identified seniors and disabled individuals as the groups experiencing this lack of access. When evaluating the impact of local laws, policies, ordinances, and other practices on equitable access to homeownership and other economic opportunities by protected class group, respondents said public hearings are often a forum for opposition to new projects and that local building policies restrict affordable housing production due to requirements for certain amenities in projects. Other respondents said laws and policies do not negatively affect economic opportunities.

Zoning and poor planning/resident engagement were cited as reasons for segregation, with one respondent saying that certain types of businesses are mostly allowed in low-income areas.

Resident Responses to the Organization Survey
At least four respondents to the community organization survey were able to be identified as individual residents. These responses were separated from the analysis of the organization survey results presented above. In general, trends among this group broadly reflect those of the organization respo ndents.

One of these individual resident respondents is retired, and another is disabled. All four commonly receive information about fair housing primarily via social media or the Internet.

These residents generally felt that current fair housing laws, programs, and enforcement mechanisms were slightly or not at all effective and identified fair housing as a moderate to extreme issue in the city. Half of these respondents have witnessed lending discrimination because of protected class, and most believe certain geographic areas in the city are undesirable, identifying Birdland and Downtown Visalia and citing frequent police calls to older apartment complexes.

Poor condition of affordable housing was the top reason cited for lack of fair housing availability, followed by lack of diverse housing types/price points, lack of affordable integrated housing with supportive services, limited housing for refugees and immigrants, and influence of private equity investment on the housing supply. Top barriers identified for people with disabilities were lack of reasonable accommodations and lack of government help/supportive services. Housing affordability, electricity rates, and insurance were listed as barriers to full and equal housing access.

These individuals perceived community attitudes toward affordable housing as being fair to poor. This group was split on whether there are locations in the city where protected class groups experience disparities in access to community assets. Those indivi duals who did perceive disparities noted disability, color, race, and familial status as impacted protected class groups, with Oval, North Visalia, and Downtown Visalia experiencing the greatest lack of access. Transportation and accessibility were the top barriers to accessing community assets, including first and last mile connections and transportation with reliable stops.

Accessible events and parking for individuals with disabilities were also identified, as well as more welcoming and understanding neighborhoods.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 89 ends

Three of the four respondents said there is not a disproportionate need in underserved communities for place-based community or economic development.

Similar to the organization respondents, some individuals placed an importance on personal responsibility as the cause for affordable housing access and disparities.

Community Residents Survey Results
The Community Residents Survey gathered feedback from residents across the city to support the city’s efforts in understanding potential impediments to fair housing and identifying solutions. The survey, open from May 10, 2024, to May 24, 2024, was adverti sed through flyers and social media, with detailed instructions on how to access it. A total of 65 respondents completed the survey anonymously. The survey included six sections of questions. The first four sections collected demographic information such a s housing situation, education and employment, disability and language, age, race, and income. The last two sections focused on fair housing awareness and perception, as well as discrimination and housing challenges, and form the basis of the following analysis to identify potential impediments within the city.

Fair Housing Awareness and Perception
The majority of respondents believe that housing discrimination occurs very often in the city, indicating a deep-seated issue affecting numerous residents, creating an environment where discriminatory practices seem commonplace. Furthermore, most responden ts identified source of income and race as the most common bases for housing discrimination, suggesting that individuals of lower economic status and racial minorities are disproportionately impacted This reality underscores the systemic nature of housing inequality in the city. In the table below, respondents ranked their main fair housing concerns including rental affordability, housing purchase affordability and rental unit availability as the most prevalent issues, reflecting the economic challenges faced by many residents to secure stable housing. Due to low inventory and skyrocketing prices, low-income residents are severely limited in their affordable housing options.

What’s your main worry regarding fair housing in the City of Visalia? Rank them in order.

Most respondents indicated a lack of familiarity with fair housing organizations and laws within the city, highlighting a considerable need for better information dissemination and a gap in public awareness.

Additionally, most respondents expressed dissatisfaction with their interactions with fair housing agencies, reporting that their complaints were not adequately addressed, as shown below. Despite recognizing the Fair Housing Council of Central California as the primary entity for reporting fair housing complaints, most respondents have never filed a complaint with this council. These findings suggest a need for enhanced outreach, education, and responsiveness from fair housing agencies to better serve the community and address their concerns effectively.

Main Concerns Priority
Rental affordability 1
Housing purchase affordability 2
Rental unit availability 3
Habitability of properties 4
Long waiting lists 5
Acceptance of vouchers 6
Use of criminal records for rental applications 7
Disability accessibility 8
Public transportation 9
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 90 ends

On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being not at all and 5 being extremely, how satisfied are you with your interactions with fair housing agencies?

Discrimination and Housing Challenges
The majority of respondents reported experiencing or witnessing housing discrimination from rental property managers, owners, and loan officers as shown in the table below, indicating widespread discriminatory practices within the housing sector. Furthermore, most respondents identified sources of income and familial status as the primary bases for the discrimination they encountered. This suggests that individuals and families with non-traditional income sources or those with children face substantial barriers when seeking housing. These findings highlight the urgent need for stronger enforcement of fair housing laws and more robust support systems to protect vulnerable populations from discriminatory practices.

What do you believe was the basis for the housing discrimination you or the person you know experienced?
Most respondents feel that their housing choices are geographically limited to certain neighborhoods, suggesting that discriminatory practices and economic constraints are influencing where individuals and families can live. This geographical limitation restricts residents’ housing options and insinuates segregation and inequality within the city. We also had respondents list their most important factors when searching for housing and housing availability, proximity to quality public schools, and finding a place that would accept bad credit were the top three factors as shown in the table below. The importance of proximity to quality public schools’ underscores residents’ desire for better educational opportunities for their children. The need for places that accept bad credit indicates that financial struggles and credit history are significant barriers to secure housing for residents. Additionally, respondents expressed certain areas of the city to be undesirable to live in. North Visalia was frequently men tioned as an undesirable area to live in. This perception likely stems from a combination of factors, including lower -quality housing, fewer amenities, higher crime rates, and potentially poorer school performance. The negative perception of North Visalia Protected Classes Number of Responses
Source of income 15
Familial status 9
Color 6
Other 5
Sex 4
National origin 3
Religion 2
Disability 0
18 16
16 2 3
1 - Not at all
2 - Slightly
3 - Moderately
4 - Very
5 - Extremely
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 91 ends

highlights the socio-economic and infrastructural disparities within the city that contribute to unequal living conditions.

What are the most important factors when searching for housing?

Diversity and Access Efforts
Acknowledging the significance of engaging underrepresented groups in identifying impediments to fair housing, the stakeholder organizations that participated in our focus group sessions played a pivotal role by distributing surveys through their own channels and notifying their networks a nd constituents about the initiative. Additionally, to accommodate linguistic diversity and improve accessibility, surveys were made available in both English and Spanish. This bilingual approach encouraged broader participation and gathered comprehensive insights into housing barriers across diverse community segments. Moreover, the decision to provide paper surveys alongside online options underscored our commitment to accessibility, acknowledging the digital divide and ensuring equitable participation.

Every aspect of our outreach strategy was designed to enhance engagement and inclusivity. By utilizing multiple communication channels, we aimed to ensure that our efforts reached as many residents as possible. The collaboration with community organization s was instrumental in reaching marginalized populations who may not typically participate in such initiatives, thereby ensuring their perspectives were included. The decision to offer surveys in multiple languages underscored our commitment to inclusivity and our recognition of the diverse linguistic needs within our community. This approach not only enriched the quality of our data but also strengthened our ability to develop targeted strategies that address the specific challenges faced by different groups within Visalia.

Annual Community Engagement Plan
The city intends to execute an Annual Community Engagement Plan outlining a structured approach for actively involving community members, stakeholders, and organizations in local governance, planning, and decision-making processes. This plan aims to gather input, insights, and feedback from diverse community voices informing them of the development and implementation of programs and policies aimed at addressing barriers to fair housing. By outlining clear goals, objectives, and methods for engagement, the plan enhances transparency in the housing planning process giving stakeholders insight into how their input contributes to decision-making related to fair housing. An annual approach allows for ongoing assessment and adaptation of engagement strategies based on feedback and outcomes from previous cycles to ensure that community engagement efforts remain responsive to evolving community needs and changing housing dynamics.

Most Important Factors Number of Responses
Availability 42
Close to quality public schools 34
Finding a place that would accept bad credit 22
Close to transportation 14
Somewhere that would accept vouchers 10
Other 5
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 92 ends

Impediments, Goals, and Actions

This section sets short- and long-term goals for each impediment category and identifies funding and other contingencies necessary to implement each goal, timeframes for achievement, and metrics and milestones.

Each impediment identified notes the specific conditions that have created the impediment as well as the protected class groups affected by the impediment. Goals are organized by impediment, and each impediment category includes a description of how the associated goals alone or in combination with other goals will address the impediment. Tangible, meaningful actions to achieve each goal are also identified.

Ongoing goals and actions for the previous 2020/21-2024/25 Analysis of Impediments were reevaluated as part of this AI/Equity Plan effort and are included here as appropriate. Addition ally, several impediments have been incorporated from the 2023-2031 City of Visalia Housing Element (HE), required by the California Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65580 (et seq.)).

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 93 ends

Impediment Categories

1. Segregation and Integration

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing
Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline
Funding and
Other
Contingencies
1a. Socio-
economic
segregation and
concentration of
low resource
areas in central
and
northeastern
parts of Visalia
• Location, type,
and supply of
affordable
housing
• Land use and
zoning laws
• Displacement of
residents due to
economic
pressures
• Lack of public
investments in
specific
neighborhoods,
including
services or
amenities
• Discriminatory
lending
practices
• Discriminatory
advertising for
housing and
rentals
• High pollution
burden
• Ensure equal housing
opportunities to
secure, safe, and
affordable housing for
all Visalia residents.

• Conduct landlord
education and
outreach on source
of income
discrimination and
voucher programs
with the goal of
increasing landlord
participation in the
voucher program.
(HE Program 3.6)
In coordination with the
Kings/Tulare Homeless
Alliance facilitate at least
one workshop and/or
education campaign for
property owners and
managers per year,
potentially partnering with
nonprofit organizations and
real estate professionals
and organizations to reduce
income discrimination.

CDBG - public
services,
HOME
• Minimize the impact
of potential
government
constraints on the
development of
affordable housing.
• Expand and
prioritize affordable
housing
development in
high and highest
resource areas and
near public transit.
(HE Program 7.2)
Review the General Plan,
applicable Specific Plans,
and Zoning Code and
Zoning Map to evaluate
opportunities for removing
barriers to housing
production, adding housing
capacity, and
accommodating a greater
mix of dwelling types and
sizes households (e.g.,
duplexes, triplexes,
fourplexes, townhouses,
courtyard buildings) in high
and highest resource
areas. Review General
Plan, Specific Plans, and
Zoning Code and Zoning
Map by January 2026 and
implement any changes by
January 2027.

General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 94 ends

1. Segregation and Integration

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing
Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline
Funding and
Other
Contingencies
• Preserve and
enhance the quality
and livability of
existing housing and
residential
neighborhoods.
• Prioritize capital
improvement
projects, including
renovation of parks
and amenities, in
low-resource areas
(central and
northeastern parts
of Visalia).
• Budget for and
implement plans
and strategies for
communities,
prioritizing
neighborhoods
designated for low-
income and mixed-
income housing
opportunities in the
sites inventory. (HE
Program 7.2)
Hold at least three
workshops during the
planning period in census
tracts 10.04, 11, 12, and

20.08 to develop
infrastructure and
programming plans that
support mixed-income
housing development by
January 2031
General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
• Review fee structure
every three years,
with a goal of
supporting the
development of
ADU’s.
• Promote ADU
information and
incentives through
city outlets twice per
year.
• Promote the
development of
ADUs, prioritizing
the high and
highest resource
areas of the city.
(HE Program 3.15)
Conduct eight educational
workshops, campaigns, or
outreach events to inform
and promote ADU
development in the city to
residents, with at least five
targeted to residents and
developers in high and
highest resources areas by
the end of the planning
period
General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 95 ends

2. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs), Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Access to Community Assets

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing
Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline
Funding and
Other
Contingencies
2a. Improving
place-based
strategies to
encourage
community
conservation
and
revitalization,
including
preservation of
existing
affordable
housing.
• Availability,
type,
frequency,
and
reliability of
public
transportati
on
• Lack of
public and
private
investment
in specific
neighborho
ods
• Location of
employers
• Cost of
repairs or
rehabilitatio
n
• Concentrati
on of
commercial
and
industrial
zoning in
northwest,
downtown,
and
southern
parts of the
city
• Improve
community
development,
and
revitalization for
lower/resource
areas.

• Implement small-
scale placemaking
projects/events in
central and
northeastern parts
of Visalia. (HE
Program 7.3)
Implement two projects and four
events in lower resource areas during
the planning period. Develop a
comprehensive, long-term community
development strategy and/or program
priority strategy for lower resource
areas by January 2028.

General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
• Improve
preservation of
existing
affordable
housing in
lower income
areas.
• Work with local
nonprofit
organizations,
including Self-Help
Enterprises and
Habitat for
Humanity of Tulare
County, to expand
and spread
awareness on
home and
accessibility
rehabilitation
programs. (HE
Program 7.3)
Conduct four educational workshops,
campaigns, or outreach events
dedicated to expanding awareness of
home and accessibility rehabilitation
programs by the end of the planning
period

CDBG/HOME
• Identify and
mitigate unmet
needs of low-
moderate
income
populations.
• Collaborate with
TCAG to prepare a
study on transit
needs for Visalia
residents and
identify actions to
address those
needs, focusing on
connecting
residents to job
centers. Work with
Prepare a transit needs study by
2027 and identify potential actions by
2028.

Annually participate in the TCAG
unmet transit needs process
reviewed by Social Services
Transportation Advisory Council
(SSTAC).

Participate in TGAC funded 3-year
Micro Transit Pilot, to begin FY
2024/2025.

TCAG
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 96 ends

2. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs), Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Access to Community Assets

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing
Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline
Funding and
Other
Contingencies
• Location of
proficient
schools
and school
assignment
policies
• High
pollution
burden
TCAG to expand
transit services that
connect Visalia to
other cities in the
County. (HE
Program 7.3)
• Develop long-
term
development
strategy in
meeting the
needs of
underserved
communities.

• Coordinate with the
Public Works
Department to
review the City’s
Capital
Improvement
Projects (CIP) to
ensure public
facilities and
infrastructure are
supportive of the
needs of
underserved
communities.

As part of the annual CIP program
update, establish a minimum
spending target (15 percent) and
report the percent of CIP budget
(including federal, state, and regional
grant funds, including CDBG)
committed to the northeastern part of
the city. (HE Program 7.3)
General
Fund/HOME
• Develop an
environmental
pollution
reduction plan
and reduce
lead-based
paint exposure.
• Implement plans
and strategies to
decrease pollution
burden in northern
and central parts of
Visalia. Strategies
should include
improving air,
reducing lead risk
from housing, as
well as addressing
Work with a consultant to regularly
assess and monitor pollution burden
in each census tract, using tools such
as CalEnviroScreen and identify
major sources of pollution. Develop a
pollution burden reduction strategy
for northern and central areas of
Visalia by 2027 with metrics and
timelines. (HE Program 7.3)
General
Fund/CDBG
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 97 ends

2. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs), Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Access to Community Assets

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing
Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline
Funding and
Other
Contingencies
proper remediation
plans for cleanup
sites and hazardous
waste sites.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 98 ends

3. Access to Affordable Housing and Homeownership Opportunities

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
3a. Lack of
affordable
housing,
residents
vulnerable to
displacement,
lack of housing
opportunities
for special
needs
populations
(residents
living with
disabilities,
seniors, large
households,
residents
experiencing
homelessness)
• Limited housing
options for large
households
• Rising cost of rent
and rising home
values
• High levels of cost
burden among
renter households
• Lack of diversity in
the types of
available affordable
housing
• Land use and
zoning laws
• Displacement of
residents due to
economic
pressures
• Lack of short-
term/transitionary
housing
opportunities for
residents
experiencing/at risk
of homelessness
• Housing
discrimination
towards residents
experiencing
homelessness
• Development
of affordable
housing for
vulnerable
populations
including
seniors,
persons with
disabilities,
and people
experiencing
homelessness
.
• Facilitate the
development of
housing for
persons with
disabilities
(including
developmental
disabilities)
through incentives
for affordable
housing
development with
services,
resources, and
assistance. (HE
Program 5.9)
Prepare a report on potential
strategies to encourage
development of affordable,
accessible housing units,
including but not limited to cost
incentive programs, permit
streamlining, and permit and
developer fee waivers and
maintain a list of possible
sources of funding to support
incentive programs. Prepare
report by January 2026 and
present to City Council for
adoption of a pilot program by
August 2026. If adopted,
implement pilot program by
January 2027. Prepare the list
of funding sources by January
2026 and update annually.

Implement programs to
eliminate constraints to
development of affordable
housing for persons with
disabilities including those
identified in the General Plan,
Specific Plans, and Zoning
Code as analyzed in the
Housing Element Update.

Implement any changes by
January 2027. After adoption of
changes, track at least 10 low-
or moderate-income units for
persons with disabilities, for a
total of 80 units constructed by
the end of the planning period.

HOME
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 99 ends

3. Access to Affordable Housing and Homeownership Opportunities

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
• Partner with
qualified housing
developers to
identify affordable
housing
development
opportunities with
emphasis on
promoting housing
choices that serve
the needs of
special needs
populations,
including seniors,
homeless, female-
headed
households, large
families, low-
income, and/or
persons with
disabilities in
RCAA’s. (HE
Program 5.9)
Subject to availability of
Inclusionary Housing funds,
issue NOFA or RFP at least
once during compliance period
and establish an affordable
housing development pipeline
of at least three affordable
housing projects. Hold an
annual meeting with developers
to inquire about upcoming
projects and identify affordable
housing developments that may
need local funding or loan/grant
preparation assistance.

Additionally, NOFA’s or RFP’s
will be issued once sufficient
funding is available fund at
least one project (HE Program

5.9 actions)

• Promote
awareness of
resources
available to
vulnerable
populations.
• Work with the
local nonprofit
organizations to
implement an
outreach program
informing
residents of the
housing and
services available
for persons with
disabilities. The
City shall make
Conduct eight educational
workshops, campaigns, or
outreach events to expand
awareness of services and
programs for persons with
disabilities by the end of the
planning period. Update the
City’s website by January 2025.

TBD
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 100 ends

3. Access to Affordable Housing and Homeownership Opportunities

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
information
available on the
City website. (HE
Program 5.9)
• Development
of housing
affordable
housing for
farmworker
households.
• Monitor and
support the
development of
housing for
farmworkers
through
coordination non-
profit
organizations. (HE
Program 5.9)
Provide technical assistance
and/or financial support for the
development or rehabilitation of
24 affordable housing units for
farmworkers by December
2031. The City is currently
partnering with Self-Help
Enterprises to develop a 24-unit
farmworker multifamily
affordable housing complex.

HOME
• Develop
community
development
revitalization
plan for low-
income target
areas.
• Prioritize public
health, education,
economic, and
safety programs in
lower-resource
areas as defined
by TCAC in
coordination with
area public health
entities (e.g.,
Kaweah Health),
Visalia Transit, the
City’s Community
Development
Department, local
school districts,
workforce
development
groups, and the
City’s Police
As part of the Consolidated
Plan update process, develop a
comprehensive, long-term
community development
strategy and/or program priority
strategy for lower resource
areas by January 2028.

General Fund/

CDBG/ HOME
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 101 ends

3. Access to Affordable Housing and Homeownership Opportunities

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
Department. (HE
Program 7.3)
• Identify addresses
and compile a
mailing list with
email addresses
to focus outreach
to neighborhoods
in lower resource
areas of the city to
prioritize services
in these areas.
(HE Program 7.3)
• Minimize
constraints for
development
of larger rental
units.
• Encourage the
development of
both large rental
units (for large
family needs) and
small units. In
consultation with
developers,
identify and
provide incentives
for developers to
include three and
four-bedroom
apartments in
affordable, multi-
family, and/or
mixed-use
projects to expand
rental
opportunities for
large households,
and incentives for
Develop incentives and
mitigations to constraints by the
end of 2024. Hold an annual
workshop with developers and
provide education about
technical assistance and
incentives for larger rental units,
with a goal of supporting the
development of 10 large family
units and 25 small units by
December 2031
General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 102 ends

3. Access to Affordable Housing and Homeownership Opportunities

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
developers to
construct or
rehabilitate
housing for single-
use occupancy or
micro-units.
• Minimize the
impact of
potential
government
constraints on
the
development
of affordable
housing.
• Support the
development of
missing middle
housing by
identifying and
eliminating
development
constraints and
amending the
Zoning Code to be
consistent with SB

9. Evaluate the R-1 single-family
residential zones (R-1- 5, R-1-

12.5, and R-1-20) and identify
development standards that
create barriers for small-scale
development, including
minimum lot size, setbacks,
floor area ratio, parking and
open space requirements by
January 2025. Amend the
Zoning Code by January 2026
to eliminate any identified
constraints.

General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
• Promote
developer
incentive to
encourage
affordable
housing
development
opportunities.
• Develop and
publicize financial
and regulatory
incentive
opportunities to
developers.

Annually review and update the
City’s Affordable Housing
Incentives brochure. Continue
to make available on the City’s
Planning Department website.

General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 103 ends

4. Public Policies

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
4a. Fair housing
enforcement
and outreach
• Lack of resources
for fair housing
agencies to
conduct more
rigorous testing and
audits, outreach,
training, and public
education
campaigns
• Lack of public
(local, State,
federal) fair
housing
enforcement
including funding
for staffing and
training of public
interest law firms
• Limited distribution
of information on
fair housing rights
and services
• Promote fair
housing
services,
enforcement,
and outreach
to equal
opportunity of
affordable
housing to all
Visalia
residents.
• Provide
informational
seminars to area
residential real
estate agents and
brokers on fair
housing laws and
regulations
• Provide
informational
workshops for
residents to
provide education
and awareness to
tenants, of fair
housing federal
and State fair
housing laws and
support
prospective and
existing tenants
who are
experiencing
discrimination
• Provide trainings
for property
owners/managers
on the
requirements of
federal and State
fair housing laws
to prevent
discrimination (HE
Program 7.1)
Working with Fair Housing
Council of Central California,
provide one annual training with
a goal of reaching at least 30
real estate agents and brokers
each year. Cover a variety of
topics/best practices to address
fair housing.

Working with Fair Housing
Council of Central California,
provide one training annually
with a goal of reaching at least
50 property owners and
managers each year.

CDBG
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 104 ends

4. Public Policies

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
• Hold (at minimum)
annual program
workshops for
local lenders to
promote
affordable housing
programs.
• Identify
lenders/realtors
that have not been
certified through
the CalHome
Reuse Program;
conduct outreach
to this group to
promote
certification.
• Promote
affordable
rental housing
awareness.
• Continue and if
feasible expand
funding for
information and
referral services
that direct families
and individuals
with financial
resources for
housing rental or
purchase, locating
suitable housing,
and obtaining
housing with
special needs
facilities such as
disabled-
Hold at least eight informational
events during the planning
period to disseminate
informational materials or
provide trainings to residents,
prioritizing communities
sensitive to displacement.

Annually, Housing Authority of
Tulare County (HATC) provides
affordable rental housing
counseling services to the
public during community
events.

General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 105 ends

4. Public Policies

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
accessible units.
(HE Program 7.1)
• Post brochures on
the City website
for resident
access.
• Partner and
contract with fair
housing service
providers for
outreach,
education, testing,
and enforcement.

Facilitate bi-
annual workshops
(at minimum).
• Promote fair
housing
awareness.
• Expand
awareness of
predatory lending
practices, fair
housing
requirements,
regulations, and
services by
distributing
educational
materials to
property owners,
realtors,
apartment
managers, and
tenants. (HE
Program 7.1)
Distribute materials to at least
2,000 property owners,
apartment managers, and
tenants during the planning
period, with at least half
distributed in communities with
majority non-White residents,
particularly lower resource
areas of Visalia.

CDBG
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 106 ends

4. Public Policies

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
• Promote
homeowner
education to
low-and-
moderate-
income
households.
• Increase
participation in
homeownership
education and
assistance
programs for
historically
underrepresented
residents in the
homeownership
market by
identifying sources
of funding to
support
homeownership
assistance
programs and
establish non-
profit partnerships
to for outreach
campaigns to
spread awareness
of available
assistance
programs. (HE
Program 4.1)
Partner with non-profit
organizations to increase
participation in homeownership
education and outreach
programs by minority and/or
low and moderate-income
residents by 25 percent. Self-
Help Enterprises is a provider
of homeownership education
and will report on the number of
Visalia residents that receive
homeownership education.

Visalia has an existing
relationship with Self-Help
Enterprises that will be
continued.

HOME
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 107 ends

4. Public Policies

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
• Promote
citizen
participation
and
awareness.
• Annually, review
the City’s outreach
methods, using
feedback from
resident surveys
and focused
discussions with
community
organizations to
inform online,
mail, and in-
person outreach
methods.
• Increase
participation of
historically
underrepresented
residents in all
City housing
programs and
community
planning activities.
• Collaborate with
stakeholders from
all sectors and
geographic areas
to engage in the
public participation
process. (HE
Program 1.4)
• Host fair housing
workshops
annually (at
minimum) in
partnership with
Conduct at least one citywide
resident survey every three
years to obtain feedback about
City outreach methods,
prioritizing feedback from
underrepresented residents
General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 108 ends

4. Public Policies

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
fair housing
advocates to
educate citizens
about fair housing
rights.
• Annually (at
minimum) track
income and
demographic data
of affordable
housing
participants to
evaluate additional
strategies to
increase
affordable housing
knowledge.
• Reduce
community
opposition to
affordable
housing
development.
• Develop an
outreach strategy
to reduce
community
opposition to
affordable housing
development in
Visalia. The
strategy should
include
partnerships with
local community
organizations to
identify and
implement
methods for
spreading
awareness on the
Prepare a report on potential
outreach strategies for reducing
community opposition to the
development of affordable
housing by December 2027
General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 109 ends

4. Public Policies

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
need for
affordable housing
and the positive
impact it has on
individuals,
families, and the
community. (HE
Program 1.4)
• Identify an
adequate fair
housing
contractor.
• Reevaluate
contract with
CCFHC; conduct
a desk
audit/review of
program
operations and
service delivery
(focus on
feedback and City-
observed
experiences with
lack of/delay in
response to
callers/individuals
making inquiries).
• Prepare a risk analysis
assessment and research
past performance of the
next fair housing service
provider.

CDBG
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 110 ends

4. Public Policies

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
• Promote
virtual fair
housing
resources.
• Expand existing
online resources
by developing a
web-based
Housing
Development
Toolkit that
outlines a step-by-
step process for
residential
development,
including
identifying steps in
the entitlement
and building
permit process,
detailed
information on
development
incentives, and
funding programs
and resources for
affordable housing
development. (HE
Program 3.2)
Housing Development Toolkit
published on City’s website by
December 2025.

General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 111 ends

4. Public Policies

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and
Other
Contingencies
4d. Zoning
restrictions
impacting the
development of
emergency
shelters and
transitional and
supportive
housing
• Removal of
significant zoning
barriers following
SB 2 amendments
to State Housing
Element Law and
the State Housing
Accountability Act,
with remaining
barriers around
size and by-right
development
allowances
• Eliminate
zoning
restrictions
impacting the
development
of emergency
shelters,
transitional,
and supportive
housing
• In response to
current constraints
identified by
stakeholders
related to multi-
family
development on
large lots, the City
shall amend the
zoning code to
establish objective
design standards
and increase the
maximum unit
threshold for by-
right processing
from 80 units to
200 units.

Transitional and
supportive
housing is allowed
by-right in multi-
family
residential.(HE
Program 1.3)

• The City shall amend the
municipal code to:
o Allow Transitional and
supportive housing by-right
in the O-C zone.
o Reduce development
standards for emergency
shelters related to proximity
to other emergency shelters
to 300 feet and remove
additional setback and
perimeter wall requirements
for emergency shelters.
(HE Program 5.8)
General Fund
or SB 2
Planning Grant
Program
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 112 ends

5. Local Resource Distribution

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and Other
Contingencies
5a. Fair housing
enforcement
and outreach
• Lack of a City office
dedicated to
handling Fair
Housing complaints
• Enhance City
fair housing
services.
• Monitor
complaints
regarding
unfair/predatory
lending and
assess lending
patterns by
working with non-
profit agencies
that specialize in
fair housing to
provide data.

Require the
Central CA Fair
Housing Council
(CCFHC) to
provide quarterly
reports to the City
on complaints
received.
• Release a Request for
proposals for a 5-year
contract for enhanced fair
housing services.

CDBG
• Improve fair
housing
services, and
outcomes for
Visalia
residents.
• Require CCFHC
to provide reports
to the City
biannually (at
minimum) of
support provided
to local nonprofits
in applying for
FHIP.
• Require CCFHC
to regularly report
to the City on
outcomes/outputs.
• Collect quarterly reports,
and annual reports from the
fair housing service
provider.

CDBG

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 113 ends

6. Discrimination and Civil Rights Violations

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and Other
Contingencies
6a. Income
source
discrimination
• Reluctance of
landlords in the City
to rent to individuals
utilizing Section 8
housing vouchers
• Reduce
landlord
opposition to
rent to Section
8 tenants.
• Promote landlord
mitigation
program that
provides financial
benefits to
landlords of
housing units to
mitigate damages
caused by
Section 8
tenants.
• Set aside annual HUD or
State funding to provide
landlord mitigation funds to
encourage landlords to rent
to Section 8 tenants.

HHAP
6b. Housing
loan
accessibility
and equity
• Significant
underrepresentation
of Hispanic loan
applicants
compared to their
population
percentage
• Black, Asian,
Hispanic, and
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native applicants
experiencing higher
denial rates in the
middle-income
bracket compared
to their White
counterparts
• Higher approval
rates for Asian and
Hispanic applicants
in certain brackets
• Develop an
affirmative
marketing plan
to increase
underrepresent
ed populations.
• Conduct (at
minimum) annual
outreach to local
lenders to
encourage them
to provide
financing
information to
low- and
moderate-income
residents.
• Expand annual
affirmative marketing
plan to reach
underrepresented
populations in lower-
income target areas.
• Conduct outreach at
community events
directed to
underrepresented
populations and
minorities.

CDBG/HOME
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 114 ends

6. Discrimination and Civil Rights Violations

Identified Fair
Housing
Impediment
Contributing Factors Goals Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Funding and Other
Contingencies
• Low approval rates
for Black applicants,
especially in the
middle-income
bracket
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 115 ends

Appendix A: Community Resident Survey
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 116 ends

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Community Residents Survey

The City of Visalia (“the City”) is preparing an updated Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and FY2025 – FY2029 Consolidated Plan to identify funding priorities for the city for the next five years.

Baker Tilly US, LLP (“Baker Tilly”), on behalf of the city, will be surveying community citizens throughout the city on topics related to possible impediments to fair housing.

We encourage you to participate in our survey to provide feedback that will support the City's efforts in understanding potential impediments impacting fair housing across the city and identifying solutions to address those impediments.

If you have any questions about this survey, please reach out to DJ Hutcherson (Consultant, Baker Tilly US) at [email protected].

Demographics

1. What is your age?
□ Under 25
□ 25-34
□ 35-44
□ 45-54
□ 55-64
□ 65+

2. What is your total household income?
□ Less than $26,850
□ $26,851 - $44,749
□ $44,750 - $53,699
□ $53,700 - $71,599
□ $71,600 - $89,499
□ $89,500 - $107,399
□ $107,400 or more

3. What is your household size?
□ 1
□ 2
□ 3
□ 4
□ 5
□ 6+

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 117 ends

4. What is your race?
□ Black/African American
□ American Indian/Alaskan Native
□ Asian-American
□ Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
□ Multi-racial
□ White
□ Choose not to respond
□ Other

5. What is your ethnicity?
□ Hispanic
□ Non-Hispanic
Housing Situation

6. Which Council District within the City of Visalia do you live? □ District 1 – Council Member Liz Wynn (https://bit.ly/3QAE3Yj) □ District 2 – Vice Mayor Brett Taylor (https://bit.ly/3UzGb44) □ District 3 – Mayor Brian Poochigian (https://bit.ly/3ygxFzp) □ District 4 – Council Member Emmanuel Soto (https://bit.ly/3WuWDVM) □ District 5 – Council Member Steve Nelson (https://bit.ly/3WIto1A) □ None of the above.

7. What is your housing situation?
□ Own your home
□ Rent
□ Live w/ others who own or rent
□ Live in a shelter or transitional living center
□ Live in assisted living or other group quarters
□ Live on the street, in a car, or in a homeless encampment

8. If you own your home, how long have you owned it?
□ 1 year or less
□ 1-2 years
□ 2-5 years
□ 5-9 years
□ 9 years or more
□ Not applicable
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 118 ends

9. If you rent your home, how long have you rented in your current location? □ 1 year or less
□ 1-2 years
□ 2-5 years
□ 5-9 years
□ 9 years or more
□ Not applicable
Education and Employment

10. What is your level of education?

□ Grades 1 through 11
□ 12th grade (no diploma)
□ High school diploma
□ GED or alternative credential
□ Some college credit, but less than 1 year of college
□ 1 or more years of college credit (no degree)
□ Associate degree
□ Bachelor’s degree
□ Master’s degree
□ Doctorate (Ph.D.)

11. Are you currently employed?
□ Yes
□ No

12. If you are employed, what is your level of employment? □ Full-time for an employer
□ Part-time for an employer
□ Full-time (entrepreneur/self-employed)
□ Part-time (entrepreneur/self-employed)
□ Gig job (ex. Uber, Shipt, Instacart etc.)
□ Retired
□ Not employed
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 119 ends

13. Are you a two-person income household?
□ Yes
□ No
Disability and Language

14. Do you identify as a person with a disability or other chronic condition? □ Yes
□ No

15. What is the main language(s) you use at home?
□ Spanish
□ Russian
□ Chinese
□ Arabic
□ Nepali
□ Japanese
□ Korean
□ French
□ Vietnamese
□ Marshallese
□ Laotian
□ Hindi
□ Other _____________________

Fair Housing Awareness and Perception

16. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being very low and 5 being very high, how do you rate your understanding of fair housing laws?
□ 1 - Very low
□ 2 - Below average
□ 3 - Average
□ 4 - Above average
□ 5 - Very high

17. Do you think housing discrimination occurs in the City of Visalia? □ Yes
□ No

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 120 ends

18. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being never and 5 being always, how often do you think housing discrimination occurs in the City of Visalia?
□ 1 - Never
□ 2 - Rarely
□ 3 - Sometimes
□ 4 - Very often
□ 5 - Always

19. Why do you think housing discrimination occurs?
□ Racism
□ Lack of knowledge
□ Fear
□ Bias
□ Other _____________________

20. If you think that housing discrimination exists, what factors do you believe are the most common bases for such discrimination?
□ Criminal history
□ Source of income
□ Race
□ Gender
□ Sexuality
□ Age
□ Familial status
□ Marital status/Single parent
□ Other _____________________

21. If you believe that discrimination occurs in the sale of housing, on what basis do you believe that discrimination is most often based on? □ Criminal history
□ Source of income
□ Race
□ Gender
□ Sexuality
□ Age
□ Familial status
□ Marital status/Single parent
□ Other _____________________

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 121 ends

22. On a scale of 1 (lowest) to 9 (highest), rank your main worries regarding fair housing in the City of Visalia?

_____ Use of criminal records for rental applications
_____ Rental affordability
_____ Rental unit availability
_____ Housing purchase affordability
_____ Acceptance of vouchers
_____ Habitability of properties
_____ Disability accessibility
_____ Public transportation
_____ Long waiting lists

23. Are you familiar with the fair housing services or social services provided by organizations in the City of Visalia?
□ Yes
□ No

24. What languages are most needed for fair housing education materials in the City of Visalia?
□ Spanish
□ Russian
□ Chinese
□ Arabic
□ Nepali
□ Japanese
□ Korean
□ French
□ Vietnamese
□ Marshallese
□ Laotian
□ Hindi
□ Other ____________________

25. What other societal factors impact fair housing problems? □ Lack of affordable day care
□ Lack of educational/ job training
programs
□ Lack of understanding of rights
□ Lack of job opportunities
□ Transportation access
□ Broadband access
□ Other ____________________

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Page 122 ends

Visalia City CouncilDecember 3, 2024

Visalia City Council
December 3, 2024