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.
877
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
878
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
879
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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:
880
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
• 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.
881
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 882
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
883
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
884
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 885
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
886
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 2 887
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
888
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
889
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
890
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 891
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 892
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
893
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
894
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 - 895
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
896
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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. 897
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 898
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 899
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 900
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 901
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
902
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
903
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
904
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
905
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
906
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
907
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
908
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
909
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.)).
910
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
911
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
912
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
913
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
914
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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.
915
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
916
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
917
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
918
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
919
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
920
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
921
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
922
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
923
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
924
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
925
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
926
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
927
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
928
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
929
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
930
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
931
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
932
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Appendix A: Community Resident Survey
933
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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+
934
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
935
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
936
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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
937
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 _____________________
938
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
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 ____________________
939
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
26. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all and 5 being extremely, how satisfied are you with your interactions with fair housing agencies? □ 1 - Not at all
□ 2 - Slightly
□ 3 - Moderately
□ 4 - Very
□ 5 - Extremely
27. If you needed to report a fair housing complaint, which agency or agencies would you contact?
□ Fair Housing Council of Central California
□ State Human Rights Commission
□ Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
□ Central CA Legal Services
□ Other _____________________
28. If you have previously filed a fair housing complaint with an agency, do you feel as if your concerns were adequately addressed?
□ Yes
□ No
29. Have you ever filed a fair housing complaint with the Fair Housing Council of Central California?
□ Yes
□ No
30. If you have previously filed a fair housing complaint with the Fair Housing Council of Central California, do you feel as if your concerns were adequately addressed in a timely fashion?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Not applicable
940
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
31. Please share more about your experiences after filing a fair housing complaint with the Fair Housing Council of Central California.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Discrimination and Housing Challenges
32. Have you experienced housing discrimination?
□ Yes
□ No
33. Which of the following best describes the person or organization that discriminated against you or the person you know when seeking housing? □ Rental property
manager
□ Owner
□ Municipal
employees
□ Loan or mortgage employee
□ Real estate
profession
□ Not applicable
□ Other ____________________
34. What do you believe was the basis for the housing discrimination you or the person you know experienced?
□ Color
□ Disability
□ Family status
□ National origin
□ Religion
□ Sex
□ Source of income
□ Not applicable
□ Other ___________________
35. What would you do, or did you do, if you were discriminated against when seeking housing?
□ Contact a private attorney
□ Complain to the municipal city
□ Contact the Department of
Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)
□ Contact the state attorney
□ Contact local Fair Housing
Council of Central CA
□ Other _____________________
941
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
36. I have been denied a home mortgage loan in the City of Visalia because of my protected class (race, disability, sex, national origin, etc.). A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE.
□ Yes
□ No
37. Please share your experience about being denied a home mortgage loan in the City of Visalia because of your protected class (race, disability, sex, national origin, etc.)? A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE. Skip if not applicable.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
38. I have had difficulty obtaining homeowner’s insurance in the City of Visalia because of my protected class (race, national origin, disability, etc.). A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE. □ Yes
□ No
39. If you have been denied from your application to rent or buy housing, why do you think that is?
□ Lack of stable
housing record
□ Using a voucher
□ Landlord did not allow pets
□ Current
homelessness
□ Income too low
□ Bad credit
□ Eviction history
□ Income type
discrimination
□ Not applicable
□ Other ____________________
40. I believe I observed an organization directing people toward a specific area, neighborhood, or housing complex in the City of Visalia based on factors such as race, national origin, disability, or the presence of a child. □ Yes
□ No
41. I believe I have witnessed illegal discrimination by someone at an organization against a person attempting to purchase a home in the City of Visalia based on his/her protected class (race, national origin, disability, gender, etc.). A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE. □ Yes
□ No
942
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
42. I believe I observed an organization discriminating against someone during their time renting/purchasing a home or treating them differently due to their protected class or subjecting them to harassment based on their protected status. A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE. □ Yes
□ No
43. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being not at all and 5 being extremely, how willing are you to report housing discrimination?
□ 1 - Not at all
□ 2 - Slightly
□ 3 - Moderately
□ 4 - Very
□ 5 - Extremely
44. Do you believe protected classes face more housing issues (like high costs, overcrowding, or poor conditions) compared to other groups? A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE.
□ Yes
□ No
45. What barriers to fair housing are specific to people with disabilities in the City of Visalia?
□ Lack of supportive services
□ Lack of granting reasonable
accommodations
□ Lack of government help
□ Disabled people feeling
accepted in the neighborhood
□ Disproportionate impact of
income level discrimination
□ Need for new accessible home
construction
□ Other ____________________
46. What are some barriers to access for community amenities, facilities, and services?
□ Transportation w/ reliable stops
□ First and last mile connections
□ More welcoming and
understanding neighborhoods
□ Sidewalks
□ Accessible parking
□ ADA accessibility events
□ Accessing paratransit
□ Other ____________________
943
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
47. What disability-related housing improvements or modifications need to be made in rental units based on what you have seen?
□ Grab bars in bathroom
□ Service animal
allowed in home
□ Walk-in shower
□ Reserved
accessible parking
□ Ramps
□ Wider doorways
□ Stair lifts
□ Accessible fire
alarm and doorbell
□ Lower countertops
□ Alarm to notify if
nonverbal child
leaves home
□ Other ___________________
48. What are the most important factors when searching for housing? □ Close to quality public schools
□ Availability
□ Finding a place that would
accept bad credit
□ Close to transportation
□ Somewhere that would accept
vouchers
□ Other ____________________
49. Do you feel your housing choices are geographically limited to certain areas or neighborhoods?
□ Yes
□ No
50. Do you consider certain areas or neighborhoods in Visalia undesirable to live in? □ Yes
□ No
51. Please share what neighborhoods in the City of Visalia you believe are undesirable to live in, and why?
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
944
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
52. On a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), rank what access do you feel you lack in terms of opportunities to get ahead/success in the City of Visalia? _____ Education
_____ Transportation and mobility
_____ Employment
_____ Infrastructure and other services
_____ Other _____________________
53. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being not at all and 5 being extremely, how supportive would your neighbors be of people of another race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation moving into your neighborhood?
□ 1 - Not at all
□ 2 - Slightly
□ 3 - Moderately
□ 4 - Very
□ 5 - Extremely
945
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Appendix B: Community Resident Survey (Spanish)
946
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Análisis de los Impedimentos a la
Vivienda Equitativa
La Ciudad de Visalia para preparar un análisis actualizado sobre los impedimentos a la Vivienda Equitativa y el plan consolidado de la ciudad para los años fiscales 2025-2029 para identificar prioridades de financiamiento para los próximos 5 años.
Baker Tilly encuestará a los ciudadanos de la comunidad en toda la ciudad sobre temas relacionados con posibles impedimentos para la vivienda justa en toda la ciudad. Lo alentamos a participar en nuestra encuesta para brindar comentarios que respalden los esfuerzos de la Ciudad para comprender los posibles impedimentos que afectan la vivienda equitativa en toda la ciudad e identificar soluciones para abordar esos impedimentos.
Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre esta encuesta, comuníquese con DJ Hutcherson (Consultor, Baker Tilly US, LLP) al correo electrónico [email protected].
Demografía
1. ¿Cuál es su edad?
□ Menor de 25 años
□ 25-34
□ 35-44
□ 45-54
□ 55-64
□ Más de 65
2. ¿Cuál es el ingreso total de su hogar?
□ Menos de $26,850
□ $26,851 - $44,749
□ $44,750 - $53,699
□ $53,700 - $71,599
□ $71,600 - $89,499
□ $89,500 - $107,399
□ $107,400 o más
3. ¿Cuál es el tamaño de su hogar?
□ 1
□ 2
□ 3
□ 4
□ 5
□ 6+
947
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
4. ¿Cuál es su raza?
□ Negro/Afroamericano
□ Indio Americano/Nativo de Alaska
□ Asiático Americano
□ Hawaiano/Isleño del Pacífico
□ Multirracial
□ Caucásico
□ Prefiero no responder
□ Otro
5. ¿Cuál es su etnia?
□ Hispano
□ No Hispano
Situación de vivienda
6. ¿En qué vecindario/comunidad dentro de la Ciudad de Visalia vive usted? □ El distrito del consejo 1 - Miembro del Consejo Liz Wynn (https://bit.ly/3QAE3Yj) □ El distrito del consejo 2 - Vicealcalde Brett Taylor (https://bit.ly/3UzGb44) □ El distrito del consejo 3 - Alcalde Brian Poochigian (https://bit.ly/3ygxFzp) □ El distrito del consejo 4 - Miembro del Consejo Emmanuel Soto (https://bit.ly/3WuWDVM) □ El distrito del consejo 5 - Miembro del Consejo Steve Nelsen (https://bit.ly/3WIto1A)
7. ¿Cuál es su situación de vivienda?
□ Es dueño de su casa
□ Renta
□ Vive con otras personas que son dueños o rentan
□ Vive en un refugio o centro de vida de transición
□ Vive en una vivienda asistida u otro alojamiento grupal □ Vive en la calle, en un automóvil o en un campamento para personas sin hogar
8. Si es dueño de su casa, ¿cuánto tiempo hace que es propietario de su casa? □ 1 año o menos
□ 1 -2 años
□ 2-5 años
□ 5-9 años
□ 9 años o más
□ No aplicable
9. Si es dueño de su casa, ¿cuánto tiempo hace que es propietario de su casa? □ 1 año o menos
□ 1 -2 años
□ 2-5 años
□ 5-9 años
□ 9 años o más
□ No aplicable
948
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
10. Si es dueño de su casa, ¿cuánto tiempo hace que es propietario de su casa? □ 1 año o menos
□ 1 -2 años
□ 2-5 años
□ 5-9 años
□ 9 años o más
□ No aplicable
11. Si renta su casa, ¿cuánto tiempo lleva rentando en su ubicación actual? □ 1 año o menos
□ 1 -2 años
□ 2-5 años
□ 5-9 años
□ 9 años o más
□ No aplicable
Educación y empleo
12. ¿Cuál es su nivel de educación?
□ Grados 1 al 11
□ 12o grado-sin certificado
□ Certificado de preparatoria regular
□ GED o credencial alternativa
□ Algún crédito universitario, pero menos de 1 año de universidad □ 1 o más años de crédito universitario, sin título
□ Título técnico
□ Licenciatura
□ Maestría
□ Doctorado (Ph.D.)
13. ¿Usted tiene empleo actualmente?
□ Sí
□ No
949
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
14. Si está empleado, ¿cuál es su nivel de empleo?
□ Tiempo completo para un empleador
□ Medio tiempo para un empleador
□ Tiempo completo (emprendedor/por cuenta propia)
□ Medio tiempo (emprendedor/por cuenta propia)
□ Trabajo en aplicaciones (por ejemplo: Uber, Shipt, Instacart, etc.) □ Jubilado
□ No está empleado
15. ¿Eres un hogar con ingresos de dos personas?
□ Sí
□ No
Discapacidad e idioma
16. ¿Se identifica como una persona con una discapacidad u otra condición crónica? □ Sí
□ No
17. ¿Cuál es el idioma principal que utiliza usted en casa? □ Inglés
□ Español
□ Ruso
□ Chino
□ Árabe
□ Nepalí
□ Japonés
□ Coreano
□ Francés
□ Vietnamita
□ Marshalés
□ Laosiano
□ Hindi
□ Otro _____________________
950
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Conciencia y percepción de Vivienda Equitativa
18. En una escala del 1 al 5, donde 1 es muy bajo y 5 es muy alto, ¿cómo califica su comprensión de las leyes de Vivienda Equitativa?
□ 1 - Muy bajo
□ 2 - Por debajo del promedio
□ 3 - Promedio
□ 4 - Por encima del promedio
□ 5 - Muy alto
19. ¿Cree usted que ocurre discriminación en materia de vivienda en la Ciudad de Visalia? □ Sí
□ No
20. En una escala del 1 al 5, donde 1 es nunca y 5 es siempre, ¿con qué frecuencia cree que ocurre discriminación en materia de vivienda en la Ciudad de Visalia? □ 1 - Nunca
□ 2 - Rara vez
□ 3 - A veces
□ 4 - Muy a menudo
□ 5 - Siempre
21. ¿Por qué cree que ocurre la discriminación en materia de vivienda? □ Racismo
□ Falta de conocimiento
□ Miedo
□ Sesgo
□ Otro __________________
22. Si cree que existe discriminación en materia de vivienda, ¿qué factores cree que son las bases más comunes para dicha discriminación?
□ Antecedentes penales
□ Fuente de ingresos
□ Raza
□ Género
□ Sexualidad
□ Edad
□ Situación familiar
□ Otro _____________________
951
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
23. Si cree que se produce discriminación en la venta de viviendas, ¿sobre qué base cree que se basa con mayor frecuencia la discriminación?
□ Antecedentes penales
□ Fuente de ingresos
□ Raza
□ Género
□ Sexualidad
□ Edad
□ Situación familiar
□ Otro ______________________
24. En una escala del 1 (más bajo) al 9 (más alto), clasifique sus principales preocupaciones con respecto a la vivienda equitativa en la Ciudad de Visalia.
_____ Uso de antecedentes penales para solicitudes de renta _____ Asequibilidad de la renta
_____ Disponibilidad de unidades en renta
_____ Asequibilidad de la compra de vivienda
_____ Aceptación de vales
_____ Habitabilidad de las propiedades
_____ Accesibilidad para discapacitados
_____ Transporte público
_____ Largas listas de espera
25. ¿Está usted familiarizado con los servicios de vivienda equitativa o los servicios sociales proporcionados por organizaciones en la Ciudad de Visalia? □ Sí
□ No
26. ¿Qué idiomas son más necesarios para los materiales educativos sobre vivienda equitativa en la Ciudad de Visalia?
□ Español
□ Ruso
□ Chino
□ Árabe
□ Nepalí
□ Japonés
□ Coreano
□ Francés
□ Vietnamita
□ Marshalés
□ Laosiano
□ Hindi
□ Otro _____________________
27. ¿Qué otros factores sociales tienen un impacto en los problemas de vivienda equitativa? □ Falta de guardería asequible
□ Falta de programas educativos/de
capacitación laboral
□ Falta de comprensión de los
derechos
□ Falta de oportunidades laborales
□ Acceso al transporte
□ Acceso a banda ancha
□ Otro __________________
952
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
28. En una escala del 1 al 5, donde 1 es nada y 5 es extremadamente, ¿qué tan satisfecho está usted con sus interacciones con las agencias de vivienda equitativa? □ 1 - Nada
□ 2 - Poco
□ 3 - Moderadamente
□ 4 - Mucho
□ 5 - Extremadamente
29. Si necesitara reportar una queja de vivienda equitativa, ¿con qué agencia o agencias se comunicaría?
□ Consejo de Vivienda Equitativa de California Central
□ Comisión Estatal de Derechos Humanos
□ Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano (HUD)
□ Servicios Legales de California Central
□ Otro ______________________
30. Si anteriormente presentó una queja de vivienda equitativa ante una agencia, ¿siente que sus inquietudes fueron atendidas adecuadamente?
□ Sí
□ No
31. ¿Alguna vez ha presentado una queja de vivienda equitativa ante el Consejo de Vivienda Justa de California Central?
□ Sí
□ No
32. Si anteriormente presentó una queja de vivienda equitativa ante el Consejo de Vivienda Equitativa de California Central, ¿siente que sus inquietudes se abordaron adecuadamente y de manera oportuna?
□ Sí
□ No
□ No aplicable
33. Comparta más sobre sus experiencias después de presentar una queja de vivienda equitativa ante el Consejo de Vivienda Equitativa de California Central.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
953
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Discriminación y desafíos de vivienda
34. ¿Ha experimentado discriminación en materia de vivienda? □ Sí
□ No
35. ¿Cuál de las siguientes opciones describe mejor a la persona u organización que lo discriminó a usted o a una persona que conoce cuando buscaba vivienda? □ Gerente de propiedades en renta
□ Empleados municipales
□ Empleado de préstamo o hipoteca
□ Profesionista inmobiliario
□ No aplicable
□ Propietario
□ Otro ______________________
36. Cuál cree que fue la base de la discriminación en materia de vivienda que usted o la persona que conoce experimentó?
□ Color
□ Discapacidad
□ Situación familiar
□ Origen nacional
□ Religión
□ Sexo
□ Otro ______________________
37. ¿Qué haría, o hizo, si fuera discriminado al buscar vivienda? □ Contactar con un abogado privado
□ Comunicarse con el Departamento
de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano
(HUD)
□ Contactar al fiscal del estado
□ Ponerse en contacto con una feria
local
□ Quejarse ante la oficina municipal
□ Otro ______________________
38. Me han negado un préstamo hipotecario en la Ciudad de Visalia debido a mi clase protegida (raza, discapacidad, sexo, origen nacional, etc.). Puede encontrar una lista de grupos de clases protegidas en https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE.
□ Sí
□ No
39. Por favor, comparta su experiencia sobre cómo se le negó un préstamo hipotecario en la Ciudad de Visalia debido a su clase protegida (raza, discapacidad, sexo, origen nacional, etc.). Puede encontrar una lista de grupos de clases protegidas en https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE.
Omitir si no corresponde.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
954
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
40. He tenido dificultades para obtener un seguro de vivienda en la Ciudad de Visalia debido a mi clase protegida (raza, origen nacional, discapacidad, etc.). Puede encontrar una lista de grupos de clases protegidas en https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE.
□ Sí
□ No
41. Si le han denegado su solicitud para rentar o comprar una vivienda, ¿por qué cree que es así?
□ Falta de registro de vivienda estable
□ Uso de un bono
□ El arrendador no permitía mascotas
□ Por no tener hogar en ese
momento
□ Ingresos demasiado bajos
□ Mal crédito
□ Historial de desalojo
□ Discriminación por tipo de ingresos
□ No aplicable
□ Otro ______________________
42. Creo que observé una organización que dirigía a las personas hacia un área, vecindario o complejo de viviendas específico en la Ciudad de Visalia en función de factores como raza, origen nacional, discapacidad o la presencia de un niño. □ Sí
□ No
43. Creo que he sido testigo de discriminación ilegal por parte de alguien en una organización contra una persona que intenta comprar una casa en la Ciudad de Visalia según su clase protegida (raza, origen nacional, discapacidad, género, etc.). Puede encontrar una lista de grupos de clases protegidas en https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE.
□ Sí
□ No
44. Creo que observé una organización que discriminaba a alguien durante el tiempo que rentaba o compraba una casa o lo trataba de manera diferente debido a su clase protegida o lo sometía a hostigamiento en función de su clase protegida. Puede encontrar una l ista de grupos de clases protegidas en https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE. □ Sí
□ No
45. En una escala del 1 al 5, donde 1 es nada y 5 es extremadamente, ¿qué tan dispuesto está usted a denunciar la discriminación en materia de vivienda? □ 1 - Nada
□ 2 - Poco
□ 3 - Moderadamente
□ 4 - Mucho
□ 5 - Extremadamente
955
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
46. ¿Cree que las clases protegidas enfrentan más problemas de vivienda (como altos costos, hacinamiento o malas condiciones) en comparación con otros grupos? Puede encontrar una lista de grupos de clases protegidas en https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE. □ Sí
□ No
47. ¿Qué barreras a la vivienda equitativa son específicas para las personas con discapacidades en la Ciudad de Visalia?
□ Falta de servicios de apoyo
□ Falta de otorgamiento de
adaptaciones razonables
□ Falta de ayuda gubernamental
□ Que las personas con
discapacidades se sientan
aceptadas en el vecindario
□ Impacto desproporcionado de la
discriminación por nivel de ingresos
□ Necesidad de nueva construcción
de viviendas accesibles
□ Otro ______________________
48. ¿Cuáles son algunas barreras de acceso a las amenidades, instalaciones y servicios de la comunidad?
□ Transporte con paradas confiables
□ Conexiones de primera y última
milla
□ Aceras
□ Estacionamiento accesible
□ Eventos accesibles según la ADA
□ Vecindarios más acogedores y
comprensivos
□ Acceso al paratránsito
□ Otro ______________________
49. ¿Qué mejoras o modificaciones de vivienda relacionadas con discapacidades deben realizarse en las unidades de renta según lo que ha visto? □ Barras de apoyo en el baño
□ Se permitan animales de servicio
en casa
□ Ducha a ras de suelo
□ Estacionamiento accesible
reservado
□ Rampas
□ Puertas más anchas
□ Salvaescaleras
□ Alarma contra incendios y timbre
de puerta accesibles
□ Cubiertas inferiores
□ Alarma para avisar si un niño no
verbal sale de casa
□ Otro ______________________
50. ¿Cuáles son los factores más importantes a la hora de buscar vivienda? □ Cerca de escuelas públicas de
calidad
□ Disponibilidad
□ Cerca del transporte
□ Encontrar un lugar que acepte mal
crédito
□ En algún lugar que acepte vales
□ Otro ______________________
956
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
51. ¿Siente que sus opciones de vivienda están limitadas geográficamente a ciertas áreas o vecindarios?
□ Sí
□ No
52. ¿Considera que ciertas áreas o vecindarios en Visalia no son deseables para vivir? □ Sí
□ No
53. Por favor, mencione qué vecindarios de la Ciudad de Visalia cree usted que no son deseables para vivir y por qué.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
54. En una escala del 1 (más bajo) al 9 (más alto), clasifique qué acceso siente que le falta en términos de oportunidades para avanzar o tener éxito en la Ciudad de Visalia.
_____ Educación
_____ Transporte y movilidad
_____ Empleo
_____ Infraestructura y otros servicios
_____ Otro
55. En una escala del 1 al 5, donde 1 es nada en absoluto y 5 es extremadamente, ¿qué tanto apoyo brindarían sus vecinos para que personas de otra raza, etnia, religión u orientación sexual se mudaran a su vecindario?
□ 1 - Nada
□ 2 - Poco
□ 3 - Moderadamente
□ 4 - Mucho
□ 5 - Extremadamente
957
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Appendix C: Community Organizations Survey
958
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Community Organizations 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 stakeholders 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].
General Information
1. What type of organization/agency do you work for?
□ Fair Housing Advocacy
Organization
□ Civil Rights Organization
□ Legal Aid Services
□ Housing Counseling Agency
□ Community Development
Corporation
□ Government Fair Housing
Agency (e.g. HUD Fair Housing
Initiatives Program)
□ Tenant Rights Association
□ Social Service Organization
□ Realtor
□ Financial Institution/Lender
□ Other
Awareness and Perception
2. In your role, how have you usually encountered, become aware of, or obtained information regarding fair housing laws, initiatives, and related information? □ Flyers
□ Handbook
□ Public service announcements
□ Newsletter
□ Social media
□ Internet
□ Other
959
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Awareness and Perception
3. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being not at all and 5 being extremely, in your professional opinion, how effective are current fair housing laws, programs, and enforcement mechanisms?
□ 1 – Not at all
□ 2 – Slightly
□ 3 – Moderately
□ 4 – Very
□ 5 – Extremely
4. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being not at all and 5 being extremely, in your professional opinion, how serious of an issue is fair housing in the City of Visalia? □ 1 – Not at all
□ 2 – Slightly
□ 3 – Moderately
□ 4 – Very
□ 5 – Extremely
Discrimination and Practices
5. Which part of the housing process do you think housing discrimination may occur/occur more frequently?
□ Home mortgage lending
□ Rental application process
□ Property viewings/inspections
□ During negotiations (i.e. rental terms, etc.)
□ After move in (i.e. experiencing differential treatment or harassment from landlords/tenants/neighbors, etc.)
□ Other
6. I have witnessed lending discrimination by someone in my industry because of a mortgage/rental applicant’s protected class (a list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE).
□ Yes
□ No
960
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
7. If you work for an organization on behalf of tenants or homebuyers, has your organization received housing discrimination complaints from your clients/constituents/members in the City of Visalia?
□ Yes
□ No
□ I do not work for this type of organization
8. Do you perceive certain geographic areas or neighborhoods within the City of Visalia to be undesirable?
□ Yes
□ No
9. Why do you perceive certain geographic areas or neighborhoods within the City of Visalia to be undesirable?
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
Barriers and Factors
10. Rank the following you believe are the contributing factors to the availability of fair housing in the City of Visalia?
_____ Lack of affordable integrated housing for those who need supportive services
_____ Lack of diverse housing types and price points in communities _____ Lack of affordable housing due to urban renewal
_____ Lack of larger housing units for families
_____ Poor condition of affordable housing
_____ Limited housing for refugees/immigrants
_____ Loss of manufactured homes
_____ Influence of outside private equity investment on housing supply
11. What are some barriers to fair housing that are specific to people with disabilities in the City of Visalia?
□ Lack of supportive services
□ Lack of granting reasonable accommodations
□ Lack of government help
□ People with disabilities feelings accepted in the neighborhood □ Disproportionate impact of income level discrimination □ Need for new accessible home construction
□ Other
961
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
12. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being very poor and 5 being very good, what do you believe are community attitudes toward affordable housing?
□ 1 – Very poor
□ 2 – Poor
□ 3 – Fair
□ 4 – Good
□ 5 – Very good
13. What are the barriers to access for community amenities, facilities, and services? □ Transportation with reliable stops
□ First and last mile connections
□ Sidewalks
□ Accessible parking
□ ADA accessible events
□ More welcoming and understanding neighborhoods
□ Accessing paratransit
□ Other
14. Please describe what, if any, housing practices you are aware of in the City of Visalia that are barriers to equal and full access to housing (ex. eligibility criteria, reasonable accommodations, etc.)?
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
Access to Community Assets
15. In your opinion, are there locations within the City of Visalia in which protected class groups experience significant disparities in access to community assets? A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE). □ Yes
□ No
962
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
16. Which protected class groups experience lack of access and in what areas of the city? Please also feel free to describe the areas of the city in the “other” field. □ Age
□ Disability
□ Race
□ Color
□ Religion
□ Sex
□ Familial status
□ Other
17. In what areas of the city do you perceive protected class groups experiencing lack of access?
□ Downtown Visalia
□ Oval
□ Washington
□ North Visalia
□ Other
18. Please describe if you have observed variations in access to community assets between residents of potentially segregated areas and Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) compared to across the City of Visalia as a whole.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
19. Is there a disproportionate need in underserved communities for place- based community or economic development, such as assistance for small businesses and microenterprises, infrastructure, commercial redevelopment, job creation or retention and job training? □ Yes
□ No
20. Please elaborate on the type of disproportionate needs and/or issues identified by program participants or residents.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 963
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
21. What barriers potentially hinder individuals with disabilities access to opportunity and community assets within the City of Visalia? □ Accessible and affordable housing
□ Accessible government facilities and websites
□ Accessible public infrastructure
□ Reliable and accessible transportation
□ Accessible schools and educational programs
□ Employment
□ Community-based supportive services
□ Other
Access to Affordable Housing Opportunities
22. Based on your observations, what affordable housing options exist for families of diverse income levels and protected class groups within the City of Visalia. A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE). ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
23. Please elaborate on the location(s) of affordable housing options available to those of diverse income levels/protected class groups and their proximity to community assets (i.e. grocery stores, schools, etc.) and well-resources areas. A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE). ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
24. Please describe disparities in housing quality (i.e. substandard housing conditions) by protected class group and indicate whether such disparities align with previously identified Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) or non-R/ECAP areas. A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
964
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
25. Which protected class groups within the city disproportionately face housing instability due to rising rents, loss of existing affordable housing, and displacement due to economic pressure, eviction, sources of income discrimination, or code enforcement.
□ Race
□ Religion
□ National origin
□ Age
□ Sex
□ Sexual orientation and identify
gender
□ Disability
□ Pregnancy
□ Marital status
□ Familial status
□ Genetic characteristics
□ Veteran status
□ Color
□ HIV/AIDS status
□ Other
26. What disparities in access to other economic opportunities do protected class groups experience? A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE.
□ Livable-wage jobs
□ Services from reputable mortgage lenders and financial institutions □ Fair and affordable credit
□ Reputable financial counselling services
□ Fair residential real estate appraisals and valuations □ Other
27. Please list the protected classes experiencing the lack of access to economic opportunities. A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
965
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Local and State Policies Impacting Fair Housing
28. How do local laws, policies, ordinances, and other practices impeded or promote the siting or location or affordable housing in well-resourced neighborhoods? ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
29. How do local laws, policies, ordinances, and other practices affect equitable access to homeownership and other asset building and economic opportunities by protected class group?
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
30. How has zoning, land use policies, income source availability, anti-discrimination laws, eviction, policies, and other state and local practices influenced segregation, integration, and the formation of Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)?
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
31. How has zoning, land use policies, source of income, anti-discrimination laws, eviction policies, and other state and local practices affected access to affordable housing in well-resources areas of Visalia for protected class groups? A list of protected class groups can be found at https://bit.ly/3QyZrgE. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
966
Citizen Participation Plan
City of Visalia, CA
Draft Citizen Participation Plan
2025/26 – 2029/30
967
Citizen Participation Plan
Contents
Article I. Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Article II. Amendments Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 5 Article III. Definitions .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Article III. Roles, Responsibilities, and Contact Information ............................................................................. 8 Article IV. Citizen Participation Policies ............................................................................................................. 9 Availability of Draft and Approved Documents ................................................................................. 9 2025 Five Year Consolidated Plan and First Year Annual Action Plan ........................................... 9 Substantial Amendments to Five-Year Consolidated Plan and First Year Annual Action Plan ..... 10 Annual Action Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) ............ 11 Public Hearings .............................................................................................................................. 12 Notice of Hearings and Review Periods......................................................................................... 12 Anti-Displacement Policy ............................................................................................................... 13 Availability of and Access to Records ............................................................................................ 14 Comments/Complaints ................................................................................................................... 14 Technical Assistance...................................................................................................................... 14 2025-2029 ConPlan-Citizen Participation Summary ....................................................................................... 15 PR-15 Citizen Participation ............................................................................................................ 15 Community Needs Survey ............................................................................................................. 15 Council Input and Direction ............................................................................................................ 17 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ....................................................................................... 17 Housing Windshield Survey ........................................................................................................... 17 Citizen Participation Outreach ........................................................................................................ 19 Table 1 – Citizen Participation Outreach........................................................................................ 19 Community Needs Survey Results ................................................................................................................. 23 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Community Organization Survey Results ....................................................................................................... 23 Gaps ............................................................................................................................................... 25 Housing .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Economic Development ................................................................................................................. 28 Community Services ...................................................................................................................... 29 Organizational Collaboration and Partnerships ............................................................................. 30 Funding and Resource Allocation .................................................................................................. 30 Community Residents Survey Results ............................................................................................................ 31 Demographics ................................................................................................................................ 31 Housing .......................................................................................................................................... 32 Community Services ...................................................................................................................... 35 Economic and Community Development ....................................................................................... 36 968
Citizen Participation Plan
Social and Recreational Services .................................................................................................. 37 Farmworker Women’s Conference Survey Results ........................................................................................ 37 Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Survey Results ................................................................................... 40 Community Forum Results ............................................................................................................. 43 Top Housing Needs........................................................................................................................ 43 Top Service Needs ......................................................................................................................... 44 Top Homeless Needs ..................................................................................................................... 44 Community Outreach Public Comment Period for the Consolidated Plan ..................................... 44 Public Hearings/Community Meetings ........................................................................................... 44 Attachments .................................................................................................................................................... 45
969
Citizen Participation Plan
Article I. Summary
The City of Visalia (City) is an entitlement jurisdiction that receives grant funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The federal entitlement grant funds include:
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
The HUD Code of Final Regulations for the Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) (24 CFR Part 91 Sec. 91.105) requires that the City adopt a Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) that sets forth the City’s policies and procedures for citizen participation in the planning, execution, and evaluation of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans (AAP), and Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Reports (CAPER).
This Citizens Participation Plan shall be effective until amended or superseded.
This CPP provides guidelines for the City to provide and encourage public participation to residents, community stakeholders, and grant beneficiaries in the process of drafting, implementing, and evaluating the Consolidated Plan and related documents. The citizen participation process includes outreach, public hearings, community forums, and opportunities for comment.
970
Citizen Participation Plan
Article II. Amendments Criteria
Minor Amendment: A minor amendment includes the following:
1. Necessary for substantially preserving all the programs and activities identified in a Plan.
2. Necessitated by insignificant changes in the funding levels between HUD’s initial estimates of funding amounts and HUD’s final allocation notification to the City.
3. That does not meet the thresholds to qualify as a Substantial Amendment.
Substantial Amendment A substantial amendment includes the following:
Increases or decreases the amount allocated to a category of funding within the City’s entitlement grant programs by 75 percent or more.
Significantly changes an activity’s proposed beneficiaries or persons served Allocates funding for a new activity not previously described in the Action Plan
Citizen Participation in the Event of a Substantial Amendment In the event of a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan, the City, depending on the nature of the amendment, will conduct at least one additional public hearing, which could be “virtual”, per HUD recommendations. This hearing will follow a comment period of no less than 30-days, where the proposed substantially amended Consolidated Plan will be made available to interested parties.
Citizens will be informed of the public hearing through daily newspaper notification and the City’s website prior to the hearing.
Changes in Federal Funding Level
Any changes in federal funding level after the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan’s draft comment period has expired and the resulting effect on the distribution of funds will not be considered an amendment or a substantial amendment.
Access to Records
To the extent allowed by law, interested citizens and organizations shall be afforded reasonable and timely access to records covering the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan, project evaluation and selection, HUD's comments on the Plan and annual performance reports. In addition, materials on formula grant programs covered by the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan, including activities undertaken in the previous five years, will be made available on the City’s Housing Department website at www.visalia.city and will be available during normal business hours at City of Visalia Housing Division at 707 W. Acequia Ave., Visalia, CA 93291.
Complaints and Grievances
Citizens, administering agencies, and other interested parties may submit complaints and grievances regarding the programs the City of Visalia Housing Division. Complaints should be in writing, specific in their subject matter, and include facts to support allegations. The following are considered as constituting complaints to which a response is due:
The administering agency has purportedly violated a provision of the Citizen Participation Plan; The administering agency has purportedly violated a provision of federal CDBG or HOME program regulations; and
The administering agency, or any of its contractors, has purportedly engaged in questionable practices resulting in waste, fraud or mismanagement of any program funds.
Residents may also present complaints and grievances orally or in writing at the community meetings and/or public hearing. All public comments, including complaints and grievances, made either orally or in writing within the 30-day public comment period, will be included in the final Consolidated Plan and/or Annual 971
Citizen Participation Plan
Action Plan. Such complaints or grievances about the CDBG or HOME program may be directed to the City of Visalia Housing Division at 707 W. Acequia Ave., Visalia, CA 93291 or via email at [email protected].
Timely Response to Complaints or Grievances
Upon receipt of a written complaint, the designated representative at the City shall respond to the complainant within 10 working days and maintain a copy of all related correspondence, which will be subject to review.
Within 10 working days of receiving the complaint, the designated representative shall discuss the matter with the department manager and respond to the complainant in writing. A copy of the City’s response will be transmitted concurrently to the complainant and to the Finance Director. If, due to unusual circumstances, the designated representative finds that they are unable to meet the prescribed time limit, the limit may be extended by written notice to the complainant. The designated representative’s notice must include the reason for the extension and the date on which a response is expected to be generated, which may be based on the nature and complexity of the complaint. Public review materials and performance reports will include data, as appropriate under confidentiality regulations, on any written complaints received and how each was resolved.
Article III. Definitions
Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice: The program participant must continue to conduct an analysis of impediments (AI) in accordance with existing HUD regulations. Future Plans will occur every five years with the Con Plan unless otherwise required by HUD.
Annual Action Plan (Annual Plan): The Annual Plan summarizes the activities that will be undertaken in the upcoming Fiscal Year (FY) to meet the goals outlined in the Con Plan. The Annual Plan also identifies the federal and non-federal resources that will be used to meet the goals of the approved Con Plan.
Citizen Participation Plan (CPP): The CCP provides guidelines by which the City will promote engagement in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the distribution of federal funds, as outlined in the Con Plan, Annual Plan, and CAPERs.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): HUD’s CDBG program provides communities with resources to address a wide range of housing and community development needs that benefit very low- and low-income persons and areas.
Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER): The CAPER assesses the City’s annual achievements relative to the goals in the Con Plan and proposed activities in the Annual Plan. HUD requires the City to prepare a CAPER at the end of each fiscal year.
Consolidated Plan (Con Plan): HUD requires entitlement jurisdictions to prepare a Con Plan every five years. The Con Plan is a strategic plan that identifies housing, economic, and community development needs and prioritizes funding to address those needs over a five-year period.
Department Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): HUD is the government agency that creates and manages programs pertaining to federal home ownership, affordable housing, fair housing, homelessness, and community and housing development.
Displacement: Displacement refers to the involuntary relocation of individuals from their residences due to housing development and rehabilitation activities paid for by federal funds.
Eligible Activity: Activities that are allowable uses of the three federal funds (CDBG, NSP and HOME) covered by the CPP as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 24 for HUD. 972
Citizen Participation Plan
Entitlement Community: A city with a population of at least 50,000, a central city of a metropolitan area, or a qualified urban county with a population of at least 200,000 that receives grant funding from HUD. HUD awards annual grants to entitlement community grantees on a formula basis to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low-and moderate-income persons. HUD awards grants to carry out a wide range of community development activities directed toward revitalizing neighborhoods, economic development, and providing improved community facilities and services. The City of Visalia is an Entitlement Community jurisdiction.
Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME): HOME is a federal block grant program that is designed to exclusively create affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households.
Low- and Moderate-Income Benefit Area (LMA): CDBG funded activities must principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, aid in preventing or eliminating slums or blight, or meet a community development need having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available to meet that need. The City provides activities under this category, an area benefit activity which is primarily residential and who are at least 51 low- and moderate-income persons. Some activities which may meet the requirements include parks, neighborhoods, facilities, community centers and streets, which serve an identified geographic area, primarily by L/M income person.
Low- and Moderate-Income Limited Clientele (LMC): A Low/Mod income limited clientele activity is an activity which provides benefits to a specific group of persons rather than everyone in an area generally. It may benefit particular persons without regard to the area in which they reside, or it may be an activity which provides benefit on an area basis but only to a specific group of persons who reside in the area. In either case, at least 51% of the beneficiaries of the activity must be low/mod income persons. Statutory limitations preclude certain activities.
Low and Moderate Housing Activities (LMH): The housing category of Low/Mod income, qualifies activities that are undertaken for the purpose of providing or improvement permanent residential structures which, upon completion, will be occupied by Low Income households.
Low and Moderate Income (LMI): As defined annually by HUD LMI is 0-80% of Area Median Income (AMI) for a jurisdiction. This includes those individuals presumed by HUD to be principally LMI (abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons, severely disabled adults, homeless persons, illiterate adults, persons living with AIDS and migrant farm workers). HUD utilizes three income levels to define LMI households:
Extremely low income: Households earning 0-30 percent of the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes) Low income: Households earning 30-50 percent of the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)
Moderate income: Households earning 50-80 percent of the AMI (subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs)
Low and Moderate Job Creation or Retention (LMJ): The job creation and retention Low/Mod income category addresses activities that are designed to create or retain permanent jobs, at least 51% of which (computed on a full-time equivalent basis) will be made available to or held by Low Mod Income persons.
Program Year: the “program year” is July 1st through June 30th.
Public Hearing: Public hearings are designed to provide the public the opportunity to make public testimony and comment. Public hearings related to the Consolidated Plan are to be advertised in local newspapers and made accessible to non-English speakers and individuals with disabilities. 973
Citizen Participation Plan
Article III. Roles, Responsibilities, and Contact
Information
The City is a federal entitlement community jurisdiction and is a recipient of CDBG and HOME funding from the federal government.
Visalia City Council: The Visalia City Council is the elected legislative body governing the City. It is responsible for approving the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, amendments to the Plans, and CAPERs prior to their submission to HUD. City Council meetings are generally held the first and third Monday of each month beginning at 4:00 pm for a Work Session and 7:00 pm for the regular session.
The meetings are held at the City Hall, Council Chambers at 707 W. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA 93291. All City Council meetings are held in facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities.
The City of Visalia, beginning in 2016, moved to district elections. The adopted map sets City Council Districts is available on the City’s website at www.visalia.city.
Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC): The Citizen’s Advisory Committee meets on the first Wednesday of each month at 5:30pm in the City administration building at 220 North Santa Fe Street, Visalia, CA 93291.
The committee acts as a liaison between the general public and the City Council concerning community issues.
City of Visalia General Contact: The General Contact Information for the City of Visalia’s HUD Entitlement Programs is:
City of Visalia
Attention: Housing Division
707 West Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
[email protected]
559-713-4460
974
Citizen Participation Plan
Article IV. Citizen Participation Policies
Availability of Draft and Approved Documents
The draft CPP, 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, 2025 Action Plan, and any draft substantial amendments will be made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days prior to their submission to HUD.
The draft CAPER will be available for public review and comment for a minimum of 15 days prior to its final submission to HUD. Previously approved plans and amendments will be available to residents, public agencies, and other interested stakeholders.
The CPP is designed to facilitate and encourage residents to participate in the Consolidated Plan process.
In particular, the CPP seeks to encourage the involvement of LMI persons. The draft and final versions of the CPP, Consolidated Plan, Annual Plan, CAPER, and all related amendments will be available online at the City’s Finance Department-Housing website at www.visalia.city.
Hard copies of all documents will be available at the City of Visalia, 707 W. Acequia Ave., Visalia, CA 93291.
The City will use the following process to adopt and make any subsequent changes to the documents listed below:
The City will place public notice in the Visalia Times-Delta, on the City’s Web site (www.visalia.city) and at City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave.), City Hall East (315 E. Acequia Ave.), City Hall North (220 North Santa Fe Street), the Visalia Branch Library (200 W. Oak Ave.) and two community centers—Anthony Community Center (345 N. Jacob St.) and Visalia Senior Center (310 N. Locust St.)—in advance of a 30-day public review and comment period. Residents have 30 days to review the Citizen Participation Plan from the date of the notice. During the 30-day public review and comment period, the document will be available for review at City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave.), City Hall North (220 North Santa Fe Street), and copies of the document will be available to the public upon request.
Residents may file comments in writing at City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave.) and/or via email at [email protected] during the 30-day period from the date of the notice. The City Council will adopt the CPP at a public hearing.
Any change in the public participation process as outlined in this document will require an amendment to the CPP.
2025 Five Year Consolidated Plan and First Year Annual Action Plan
The steps outlined below provide opportunities for public involvement in the preparation of the Five-Year 2025 Consolidated Plan and the First Year Annual Action Plan:
The response to the surveys, community outreach and the Census Data collected for the City of Visalia are used to identify and prioritize which barriers to address which helps filter which programs to fund going forward. To solicit community input, which is essential to determining these needs and priorities, the City will:
Consult with local public agencies that assist low- and moderate-income persons and areas, including City staff, state and federal agencies, neighboring local governments, and regional agencies.
Consult with private agencies, including local nonprofit service providers and advocates such as the local public housing agency, health agencies, homeless service providers, nonprofit housing developers and social service agencies (including those focusing on services to children, the elderly, 975
Citizen Participation Plan
persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, persons with substance abuse problems, etc.). Place public notices in the Visalia Times-Delta, the Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance listserv, on the City’s Web site (www.visalia.city) and at City Hall East (315 E. Acequia Ave.), City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave), City Hall North (220 North Santa Fe Street), the Visalia Branch Library (200 W.
Oak Ave.) and two community centers—Anthony Community Center (345 N. Jacob St.) and Visalia Senior Center (310 N. Locust St.)—30 days in advance of a meeting. The notice will include the amount of funds available, the range of activities that could be undertaken and the amount that would benefit LMI persons.
Hold a minimum of two public hearings within the community to solicit input on needs and priorities for the Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan.
Hold a minimum of one public hearing before the City Council to solicit input on needs and priorities for the Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan.
Provide residents with 30 days to review the draft Consolidated Plan and/or the draft Annual Action Plan from the date of the notice.
Provide residents with a 30-day period from the date of notice to file comments at City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave.) and/or via email at [email protected]. Present the Five-Year Consolidated Plan and First Year Annual Action Plan to City Council for adoption.
Consider all comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the review and comment period. The final documents will have a section that includes all comments, along with any explanations as to why any comments were not accepted.
Substantial Amendments to Five-Year Consolidated Plan and First Year Annual Action Plan Amendments to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan are necessary whenever one of the following is proposed:
To make a substantial change in the allocation priorities or a substantial change in the method of distribution of funds. A substantial change increases or decreases the amount allocated to a category of funding within the City’s entitlement grant programs by 75 percent or more. To carry out an activity using funds from any program not covered by the Five-Year Consolidated Plan (including program income) not previously described in the Five-Year Consolidated Plan. To substantially change the purpose, scope, location or beneficiaries of an activity.
The following procedures apply to Substantial amendments:
The City will place public notices in the Visalia Times-Delta post on the City’s Web site (www.visalia.city); the Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance listserv, and at City Hall West (707 W.
Acequia Ave.) City Hall East (315 E. Acequia Ave.), City Hall North (220 N. Santa Fe St.), the Visalia Branch Library (200 W. Oak Ave.) and two community centers—Anthony Community Center (345 N. Jacob St.) and Visalia Senior Center (310 N. Locust St.)—in advance of a 30-day public review and comment period.
Residents have 30 days to review the proposed Substantial amendment from the date of the notice. During the 30-day public review and comment period, the document will be available for review at the City’s Finance Department-Housing office. Copies of the document will be available to the public, upon request.
Residents may file comments at City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave.) and/or via email at [email protected] during the 30-day period from the date of the notice. The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing within the community to solicit input on the Substantial Amendment.
976
Citizen Participation Plan
The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing before the City Council to solicit input on the Substantial Amendment.
In preparing a final Substantial amendment, careful consideration will be given to all comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the review and comment period. The final amendment will have a section that includes all comments, plus explanations as to why any comments were not accepted.
Annual Action Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) The City must submit an Annual Action Plan and a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) to HUD.
Action Plan
The Annual Action Plan summarizes the activities that will be undertaken in the upcoming FY to meet the goals outlined in the Con Plan. The following steps outline the opportunities for public involvement in the Annual Action Plan:
The City will place public notices in the Visalia Times-Delta, provide notice to the Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance for inclusion in their listserv, post notice on the City’s Web site (www.visalia.city), at City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave.), City Hall East (315 E. Acequia Ave.), City Hall North (220 N. Santa Fe St.), the Visalia Branch Library (200 W. Oak Ave.) and two community centers—Anthony Community Center (345 N. Jacob St.), and Visalia Senior Center (310 N. Locust St.)—in advance of a 30-day public review and comment period.
Residents will have 30 days to review the Annual Action Plan from the date of the notice. During the 30-day public review and comment period, the document will be available for review at the City’s Finance Department-Housing office. Copies of the document will be available to the public upon request.
Residents may file comments at City Hall North (220 N. Santa Fe St.) during the 30-day period from the date of the notice.
The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing within the community to solicit input on needs and priorities for the Annual Action Plan.
The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing before the City Council to solicit input on needs and priorities for the Annual Action Plan.
In preparing the Action Plan, careful consideration will be given to all comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the review and comment period. The final report will have a section that includes all comments, plus explanations as to why any comments were not accepted.
CAPER
The CAPER must describe how funds were actually used and the extent to which these funds were used for activities that benefited low- and moderate-income people. The following steps outline the opportunities for public involvement in the CAPER:
The City will place public notices in the Visalia Times-Delta, on the City’s Web site (www.visalia.city at City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave.), City Hall East (315 E. Acequia Ave.), City Hall North (220 N. Santa Fe St.), the Visalia Branch Library (200 W. Oak Ave.) and two community centers—Anthony Community Center (345 N. Jacob St.), and Visalia Senior Center (310 N. Locust St.)—in advance of a 15-day public review and comment period.
Residents will have 15 days to review the CAPER from the date of the notice. During the 15-day public review and comment period, the document will be available for review at 977
Citizen Participation Plan
the City’s Finance Department-Housing office. Copies of the document will be available to the public upon request.
Residents may file comments at City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave.) and/or via email at [email protected] during the 15-day period from the date of the notice. In preparing the CAPER, careful consideration will be given to all comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the 15-day review and comment period. The final report will have a section that includes all comments, plus explanations as to why any comments were not accepted.
Public Hearings
The City will hold public hearings for the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, CAPER, amendments made to the CPP, or Substantial amendments.
Consolidated Plan hearings will include City staffed community meetings and one City Council Public Hearing for the adoption of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan.
The City Council Public Hearing will be held at City Hall Council Chambers. Listening devices, interpretation services, and other assistance to disabled persons or those with limited English proficiency will be provided upon request, requiring up to five business days prior notification to the City Clerk. Requests for disability- related modifications or accommodations required to facilitate meeting participation, including requests for auxiliary aids, services or interpreters, require different lead times, of up to five business days. Please keep this in mind and provide as much advance notice as possible to ensure availability. Assistive Listening Devices (ALD’s) are available upon request.
Notice of Hearings and Review Periods
To allow the public to provide comments prior to the submission of approved documents to HUD, the City will hold a public review period of at least 30 days for each Con Plan, Annual Action Plan, CPP, and Substantial amendment.
The City will establish a public review period of at least 15 days for each CAPER to allow for public comments prior to the submission of approved documents to HUD.
Completed drafts of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan and First Year Annual Action Plan, CPP, and any Substantial amendments will be available for public review and comment for 30 days.
Completed drafts of the Subsequent Annual Action Plans will be available for public review and comment for 30-days.
Completed drafts of the CAPER will be available for public review and comment for 15 days.
Copies of these draft plans will be available to the public for review, at City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave) and on the City of Visalia website at www.visalia.city.
To ensure that all residents, including minorities, persons with limited English proficiency, persons with disabilities, residents of public housing, and LMI residents can participate in the public review process, the City will provide residents, public agencies and other stakeholders the following:
Notice of opportunity to comment via e-mail, U.S. mail, and/or in person at public hearings on the Consolidated Plan, Annual Plan, CAPER, Substantial amendments, and CPP. Notice of applicable public review period and public hearings using an email distribution list maintained by the City for those parties expressing interest in receiving information and updates related to the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, CAPER, Substantial 978
Citizen Participation Plan
amendments and CPP. To be added to this email distribution list, please submit a request to [email protected] with the subject line: Con Plan distribution list. Notices will be distributed through various methods, including e-mail, websites, and newspaper postings.
Public notices will announce the availability of relevant draft documents for public review and include an introduction of the document, its contents, and purpose. The notices will describe how to obtain a copy of the document for review and clearly list all scheduled hearings with dates, times, and locations. The notices will include information on how to access staff report and related documents online and list locations where hard copies will be available. Notices of the availability of draft documents and the review periods will be distributed, published, and posted on the City of Visalia’s Finance Department-Housing website at www.visalia.city. Notices will be distributed and published at least 15-days for CAPER’s and 30-days for Con Plan, Action Plans, Substantial Amendments, and CPP before the final public hearing and will include information regarding how to request accommodation and services available for persons with disabilities who wish to attend the public hearings.
Newspaper postings of the notices for the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, CAPER, Substantial amendments, and amendments to the CPP will be provided in the Visalia Times-Delta, or other local newspaper, and the Tulare Kings Hispanic Chamber of Commerce’s newsletter.
Consolidated Plan and Action Plan notices will be sent to an e-mail distribution list maintained by the City’s Finance Department-Housing. Members of the public may be added to this distribution list by contacting [email protected]. Although the City will prioritize the use of email to distribute the public notices to residents, it will continue to send hard copies to the public via U.S. Postal Service to residents with no email access, upon request.
The City often combines notices complying with several individual requirements into one document for dissemination and publication. The City is receptive to suggestions for ways to improve its process for notifying the public of upcoming public hearings and the availability of draft documents for public review.
The City will consider comments and views expressed by residents, public agencies, and other stakeholders via email, writing, or orally at public meetings. In each Five-Year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, CAPER, Substantial amendment or CPP submitted to HUD, the City will provide an attachment that includes all written communications received and a summary of each oral comment during the applicable 30-day or 15-day public review period; the City's subsequent action; and the reasons for non-action, if none was taken. This information will also be available to the public as part of the final document.
Anti-Displacement Policy
As part of the CPP, the City must maintain a displacement policy. Displacement refers to the involuntary relocation of individuals from their residence due to housing development and rehabilitation paid for with federal funds. The City will continue to use existing federal and state relocation guidelines, as applicable, to minimize displacement and to alleviate the problems caused by displacement. Both the federal government and the State of California have specific requirements dictating the number of benefits and assistance that must be provided to lower income persons and households relocated from their homes as a result of displacement. Depending on the funding source, displaced persons may be offered one or more of the following:
A rent subsidy for another unit
A cash payment to be used for rent or a down payment on the purchase of a dwelling unit Moving and related expenses
979
Citizen Participation Plan
The City’s rehabilitation programs may also incur relocation issues when they provide minor additions to existing dwellings to address overcrowding. Any temporary relocation costs, if applicable are included in the rehabilitation loan package offered to clients.
Availability of and Access to Records
Information on the City’s Consolidated Plans, CPPs, Annual Action Plans, CAPERs, and program regulations will be posted on the City’s Finance Department-Housing website at www.visalia.city and will be made available for public review during normal working hours at the City of Visalia, 707 W. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA 93291, and upon written request addressed to the City’s Finance Department-Housing Division or via email at [email protected]. If the City is unable to provide immediate access to the documents requested, the City will make every effort to provide the documents and reports within 10 business days from the receipt of the request. These documents are also posted on the City’s Finance Department-Housing website at www.visalia.city.
Comments/Complaints
Comments or complaints from residents, public agencies, and other stakeholders regarding the Consolidated Plan or related amendments and performance reports may be submitted in writing or orally to the City’s Finance Department-Housing Division at City of Visalia, 707 W. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA 93291 or via email at [email protected]. Written comments or complaints will be referred to appropriate City staff for consideration and response. The City will provide substantive, written responses to all comments or complaints within 10 business days.
A summary of public comments or complaints and a summary of any comments or complaints not accepted and the reasons thereto shall be attached to the respective final Consolidated Plan, any amendments to the plan, the Annual Action Plan or the CAPER.
Technical Assistance
The City will, to the extent practicable, respond to requests for technical assistance by groups representing persons of low- and moderate-income developing funding proposals for any program covered by the Consolidated Plan in accordance with grant procedures. This may include, but is not limited to, providing information regarding how to fill out applications, other potential funding sources, and referrals to appropriate agencies within and outside the City. "Technical assistance," as used here, does not include the provision of funds to groups requesting such assistance. Assistance will also be provided by the City’s Finance Department-Housing to interested individuals and resident groups who need further explanation on the background and intent of the Housing and Community Development Act, interpretation of specific HUD regulations, and project eligibility criteria for federal grants.
980
Citizen Participation Plan
2025-2029 ConPlan-Citizen Participation Summary
PR-15 Citizen Participation
Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation. Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal- setting.
Community Needs Survey
To identify the highest priority needs of the City, a Community Needs Survey was designed and distributed to residents, workers, service providers, and businesses in the City. The public was informed that the City was in the process of preparing the 2025/26 - 2029/30 Consolidated Plan and community stakeholders were encouraged to complete the Community Needs Survey to help the City prioritize areas for investment using federal entitlement funds over the next five years.
Beginning in July 2024, the City implemented a comprehensive community engagement strategy to ensure broad and meaningful participation in the planning process. This strategy included:
Surveying residents, local businesses, and community organizations; Holding a Public Hearing during a City Council meeting (September 3, 2024); Presenting at a monthly Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting (September 4, 2024); Facilitating a virtual public meeting (September 9, 2024); and Leading two focus groups for organization consultations (September 25, and October 2, 2024).
Citizen and organization online questionnaires
To initiate its citizen participation process, the City created a 36-question Citizen Questionnaire (English and Spanish) and a 29-question Organization Questionnaire in Microsoft Forms designed to elicit feedback about community needs for housing, supportive service, economic and workforce development, planning and community development, and homelessness.
Both questionnaires were open for responses from July 12, 2024, to August 2, 2024, however the Organization Questionnaire was relaunched twice (August 12-16, 2024, and September 25-October 4, 2024) at the request of several organizations and in an effort to collect additional feedback. Additionally, the Citizen Questionnaire also relaunched between September 6-13, 2024, also to elicit additional resident feedback. Overall, the Organization Questionnaire Survey had 23 respondents, whereas the Citizen Questionnaire had 122 individual respondents. No responses were received for the Spanish Citizen Questionnaire.
The City’s Housing Division created two additional surveys to poll attendees at two events – the 2023 Farmworker Women’s Conference on housing and community development needs and the CAC meeting on September 4, 2024. These surveys asked about supportive service, housing, economic development, infrastructure, and community facility needs.
It is estimated that over 40,000 entities, organizations, or persons were informed of the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. Information on public forums was disseminated through the following methods:
Information on the survey was shared on various social media pages. The survey link was posted to the City’s Facebook page (potential reach of 22K), City Instagram (potential reach of 19K) and Twitter page (potential reach of 6K), and the City’s “Inside City Hall” newsletter. The survey link was emailed to approximately 1,000 entities, organizations, agencies, or individuals with a request to share the survey with their network, via the Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance, the Community Care Coalition, and the Homeless Task Force listservs. The survey link was sent to 800 members of the City’s Chamber of Commerce. 981
Citizen Participation Plan
The survey link was sent to the City’s Community Center and Housing Resource Fair listservs. The survey link was posted to the City’s webpage.
Hard copy surveys and flyers were distributed to residents of the City at various locations, including public housing sites, school districts, health care providers, libraries, and community centers.
Focus groups
To prepare for the execution of the stakeholder focus groups, agencies were invited to register via Microsoft Forms to attend any of the two virtual focus groups being offered to provide their input. Focus groups were scheduled across a one-week timeframe for the following dates and times:
Focus Group 1: Wednesday, September 25, 2024, 9:00 A.M. PST – 11:00 A.M. PST Focus Group 2: Wednesday, October 2, 2024, 9:00 A.M. PST – 11:00 A.M. PST
A total of 46 agencies were invited to participate in the virtual focus group sessions; 14 individuals representing 11 agencies participated in at least one focus group. Agencies invited included, but were not limited to housing providers, health service providers, social service providers, organizations representing protected classes, fair housing, education agencies, and real estate organization. During the focus groups, a variety of open-ended questions were asked to address the following topics while increasing dialogue among the groups:
Populations most in need of assistance
Greatest unmet needs and gaps in services among qualifying populations Potential project ideas that may be eligible under the CDBG and HOME programs
Public Hearing, CAC, and Public Meeting
The City hosted and presented at three public engagement events to gather community input A public hearing was held on September 3, 2024, a CAC meeting was held on September 4, 2024, and a virtual public meeting was held on September 9, 2024. The hearing and meetings were designed to solicit input regarding pressing community and housing needs throughout the City. Events include a public hearing (September 3, 2024), and CAC meeting (September 4, 2024), and a virtual public meeting (September 9, 2024). Designed to solicit feedback from both the general public and City Council members, these meetings were advertised across several platforms (i.e. email blast to 77 community organizations point of contacts, publication in a local newspaper, flyers, the City’s website and social media channels) to ensure broad participation. This comprehensive approach aimed to identify and prioritize the most pressing community and housing needs in Visalia, ensuring that the City's planning efforts were well-informed by diverse perspectives from residents and officials alike.
982
Citizen Participation Plan
Council Input and Direction
Staff identified and presented the need, clearly expressed by Visalia residents, and data analysis (HUD CHAS, Census, etc.). This will allow Council to reach a decision with full knowledge of community needs and provide staff with recommended priorities and activities for the next 5 years.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
The Con Plan includes the AI, which assesses the extent of housing needs among specific income groups, evaluates housing choices, and analyzes conditions in the private and public sector that could impede a person’s access to such housing. The City is contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Central California (FHCCC) for fair housing education and testing. The results will be utilized by MBI in preparing the AI.
Preliminary AI information reflects barriers and goals related to:
Lending practices
Land Use Policies & Practices
Regional Collaboration related to services
Opportunity Indicators; and
Housing Discrimination
As a result of the analysis to date, the City will work with its partners and consultants to provide fair housing education as well as to monitor discrimination. The City is currently working on the update of its Housing Element. The City shall continue to work with surrounding cities and non-profit providers, as well as the Continuum of Care to coordinate new programs and funding opportunities to address homelessness. The City recommends continued efforts in making programs, such as down payment assistance, available citywide to address segregation and concentration barriers, such as populations with lack of access to quality schools. MBI will also be conducting an analysis of Visalia’s market conditions, and a homeless needs assessment, as well as preparing the Strategic Plan and Action Plan, based on high priority needs identified through community outreach and City and Council input.
Housing Windshield Survey
On September 3-4, 2024, and September 18, 2024, Baker Tilly, in collaboration with City staff, conducted a windshield survey to evaluate housing conditions in real-time across five neighborhoods across Visalia. This survey assessed various housing aspects, including building types, overall neighborhood conditions, and specific elements such as roofs, siding, landscaping, fences, and right-of-way conditions. Baker Tilly and City staff conducted a drive-through survey of the identified neighborhoods, randomly selecting homes to evaluate. This approach ensured impartiality and provided a more accurate reflection of the neighborhood conditions. Neighborhoods (primarily identified by street boundaries) surveyed included:
Oval Park Neighborhood
Mooney to North Ben Maddox Way, bound by: North Mooney Boulevard to the west, West Riggin to the north, North Ben Maddox Way to the east, and West Houston Avenue to the south North Shirk Road (Rd 92) to North Demaree Road, bound by: North Shirk Road to the west, West Goshen Avenue to the north, North Demaree Road to the east, and County Highway 198 to the south South Akers Street to South Mooney Boulevard, bound by: South Akers Street to the west, County Highway 198 to the north, South Mooney Boulevard to the east, West Walnut Avenue to the south 983
Citizen Participation Plan
South Mooney Boulevard to South Ben Maddox Way, bound by: South Mooney Boulevard to the west, County Highway 198 to the north, South Ben Maddox Way to the east, and West Walnut Avenue to the south
Homes located within these boundaries were considered a representative sample of conditions within each identified neighborhood. Using a rubric created jointly by Baker Tilly and City staff, the following variables were identified:
Type of building (single
family/multifamily/mixed use)
Overall neighborhood condition
Roof condition
Siding condition
Landscaping condition
Fence condition
Right of way condition
Average age of housing stock
The survey revealed that most of the analyzed areas (73.3%) were in good condition, with the remainder split between poor (12.4%) and fair (14.3%) conditions. The Oval Park neighborhood emerged as the area most in need of improvements, with 48% of its variables rated as poor. The South Mooney to South Ben Maddox neighborhood followed, with 45% of its variables considered fair.
Regarding building types, mixed-use neighborhoods showed the worst conditions overall, but this was largely due to the poor ratings in the Oval Park area. Multi-family buildings were found to be in the best condition, with 92% of areas predominantly featuring multi-family structures rated as good.
The survey also identified a notable concern regarding potential lead-based paint hazards in housing units throughout the city. While the average housing unit in Visalia was constructed in 1987, a substantial portion of the city's residential structures predates 1980. Specifically, 18,814 housing units, representing 39.9% of the total housing stock, were built before 1980. This is particularly important because lead-based paint was commonly used in residential construction before it was banned in 1978. Consequently, these older homes may pose health risks to occupants, particularly children and pregnant women, due to the potential presence of lead-based paint. This data highlights the importance of lead hazard assessment and mitigation efforts in Visalia's older neighborhoods to ensure safe and healthy living conditions for residents.
Overall, the windshield survey indicated that although Visalia’s neighborhoods are generally in good condition, there is potential for improvement in all areas, as no neighborhood was rated as "well-kept." Upon completion of the survey, Baker Tilly recommended that the City focus on economic development efforts primarily within the Oval Park neighborhood, followed by the South Mooney to South Ben Maddox area, with particular attention to roofing and siding improvements.
984
Citizen Participation Plan
Citizen Participation Outreach
Table 1 – Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Attendance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments Not
Accepted
and Reasons
URL (If
applicable)
Public meeting
Non-English
Speaking – Specify
other language:
Spanish
On November 16, 2023, the City’s
Housing Division survey 107 individuals
attending the 2023 Farmworker Women’s
Conference held at the Visalia
Convention Center on housing and
community development.
See attached. N/A N/A
Internet
Outreach
Non-targeted/broad
community
Community Needs Assessment public
notices and surveys shared on City social
media outlets reaching 22K on Facebook,
19K on Instagram, and 6K on Twitter.
Community Needs Survey and information
also shared on the City website and Inside
City Halll newsletter.
See attached. N/A N/A
Other
Non-targeted/broad
community
Citizen Needs Assessment public notices
and surveys on various email distribution
listservs including the Kings/Tulare
Homeless Alliance to 645 individuals, the
Homeless Task Force to over 200
individuals, and the Community Care
Coalition to over 200 individuals.
See attached. N/A N/A
Other
Non-targeted/broad
community
Citizen Needs Assessment public notices
shared at various locations City Hall West,
City Hall East, City Hall North, Visalia
Transit, Visalia Senior Center, Visalia
Library, and Visalia Parks & Recreation
locations.
See attached. N/A N/A
985
Citizen Participation Plan
Other Non-targeted/broad
community
Citizen community needs survey launched
from 7/12/24 – 8/2/24, and 9/6/24 –
9/13/24, and received 122 individual
respondents.
See attached. N/A N/A
Other Non-targeted/broad
community
Organization community needs survey
launched from 7/12/24 – 8/2/24, 8/12-
8/16/24, and 9/25/24-10/4/24, and
received 23 individual respondents.
See attached. N/A N/A
Newspaper Ad
Non-targeted/broad
community
Community needs assessment public
notice posted in the Visalia Delta-Times
newspaper on 8/27/24.
See attached. N/A N/A
Public Hearing
Non-targeted/broad
community
On September 3, 2024, a City Council
public hearing was held on the development of the ConPlan. See attached. N/A N/A Public Meeting
Non-targeted/broad
community
Other: Citizens
Advisory
Committee
On September 4, 2024, a Community
meeting was held on the development of
the ConPlan, and community needs
assessment. 25 individuals attended.
See attached. N/A N/A
Public Meeting
Non-targeted/broad
community
On September 9, 2024, a virtual
community meeting on the development
of the ConPlan and community needs
assessment. 10 individuals attended.
See attached. N/A N/A
986
Citizen Participation Plan
Public Meeting
Non-targeted/broad
community
Other:
Organizations
On September 25, 2024, a focus group
was held on the development of the
ConPlan, and community needs
assessment. 10 individuals attended from
various organizations.
See attached. N/A N/A
Public Meeting
Non-targeted/broad
community
Other:
Organizations
On October 2, 2024, a focus group was
held on the development of the ConPlan,
and community needs assessment. 12
individuals attended from various
organizations.
See attached. N/A N/A
Public Meeting
Non-targeted/broad
community
On December 3, 2024, a City Council
work session was held to discuss the
development of the 5-year ConPlan.
See attached. N/A N/A
Newspaper Ad
Non-targeted/broad
community
30-day public comment period public
notice was published in the Visalia Times
Delta on 3/21/25 and 4/1/25.
See attached. N/A N/A
Internet
Outreach
Non-targeted/broad
community
Draft 2025-2029 ConPlan and 2025
Action Plan were available on the City's
website from 3/21/24 - 4/21/25.
See attached. N/A N/A
Internet
Outreach
Non-targeted/broad
community
City social media posts on City's website
news page, Facebook, Instagram, and
Twitter pages.
See attached. N/A N/A
Listserv Notice Non-targeted/broad
community
The Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance and
Visalia Chamber of Commerce listserv
notices.
See attached. N/A N/A
987
Citizen Participation Plan
Public Notices Non-targeted/broad
community
Public notices posted at the following city
sites: City Hall, Community Development,
Administrative Office, Recreation, Senior
Center, and Visalia Transit from 3/21/25 -
4/21/25.
See attached. N/A N/A
Public Meeting Non-targeted/broad
community
Citizens Advisory Committee community
meeting to review draft and obtain public
comment held on 4/2/25.
See attached. N/A N/A
Public Hearing Non-targeted/broad
community
Public Hearing to review draft 2025-2029
ConPlan 2025 Action Plan and obtain
public comment held on 4/7/25.
See attached. N/A N/A
Public Hearing Non-targeted/broad
community
Public Hearing to approve the 2025-2029
ConPlan and 2025 Action Plan and
authorize submission of the plan to HUD
held on 4/21/25.
See attached. N/A N/A
988
Citizen Participation Plan
Community Needs Survey Results
A total of 23 organizations and 122 individuals responded to the Community Needs Survey between July 2024 to September 2024. This section provides an overview of the results of the City’s Community Needs Survey responses.
Overview
The Community Organization and Resident Surveys were used to gather feedback and information from organizations and residents within the community for the 2025/26-2029/30 Consolidated Plan. Both surveys were open for responses from July 12-August 2, 2024 (the Community Organization Survey reopened between August 12-16, 2024, and from September 25-October 4, 2024, to collect additional responses from selected organizations and solicit feedback from organizations that attended virtual focus groups; the Community Resident Survey reopened between September 6-13, 2024, in anticipation of a virtual community meeting). The Community Organization Survey had 23 respondents, and 122 individuals responded to the Resident Survey. No responses were logged for the Spanish Resident Survey.
Additionally, the City of Visalia Housing Division surveyed individuals during two other events – the 2023 Farmworker Women’s Conference on housing and community development needs and the Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting on the FY 2025/26 – FY 2029/30 Consolidated Plan. Details and results from both of these surveys are also presented.
Community Organization Survey Results
A variety of organizations responded to the Community Organization Survey, as shown in Table 1. The largest number of responses came from social service organizations (6) and community development corporations (3).
The survey asked about several topics, including gaps in programs and services, housing, economic development, community services, organizational collaboration and partnerships, and funding and resource allocation.
A thorough analysis of survey responses showed that respondents repeatedly emphasized the need for more affordable housing, homeless, mental health, and job training services in the City. Affordable housing and specific housing types to support populations identified as underserved, i.e., individuals with disabilities and the elderly, were called out. Comprehensive homeless support services were cited as another major need. Public infrastructure and community services were generally found to be acceptable, except for public transportation, which was cited as a need related to accessing jobs and employment opportunities. Organizations emphasized the importance of partnerships for furthering their missions and addressing the identified needs.
Table 1: Community Organization Survey Respondents
No. Organization Name Respondent’s Role Type
1 Self-Help Enterprises Vice President
Community
development
corporation
2 Lindsay Healthy Start Family
Resource Center Director Social service
organization
3 Proteus, Inc. Planner Associate
Community
development
corporation
4 RH Community Builders LP Affordable Housing
Development Director
Social service
organization
5 Visalia Rescue Mission Director of Development Social service organization
6 Central CA Legal Services Chief Program Officer Legal aid services 989
Citizen Participation Plan
7 Tulare County Library-Visalia
Branch County Librarian Other public entity
8 Kaweah Health Foundation Director Health agency
9 Tulare County HHSA Deputy Director – Integrated
Services
Regional government
unit
10 Kingsview Case Manager/Housing
Navigator
Housing counseling
agency
11 Tulare County Office of Education
Foster and Homeless Youth
Services
Foster and Homeless Youth
Services Coordinator Other public entity
12 Tulare County Health & Human
Services Agency
Homeless Initiatives Program
Coordinator
Social service
organization
13 The Source LGBT+ Center Executive Director Civil rights organization
14 Visalia Senior Housing CEO
Community
development
corporation
15-16 Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance (2) Executive Directors (2) of Programs and Operations Continuum of Care
17 Community Services Employment
Training Executive Director Social service
organization
18 Housing Authority of the County of
Tulare
Deputy Executive Director –
Housing Management Public housing agency
19 Champions Recovery Alternative
Programs, Inc. Executive Director Social service
organization
20 TC Hope Board Member Other public entity
21-23 Anonymous (3)* --- ---
Total 23
*Three respondents did not include any identifying information.
Of the three, only two provided responses to the questions within the Organization Survey.
990
Citizen Participation Plan
What is the primary population your organization serves? Figure 1 - The organizations primarily serve homeless and low-income populations, followed by the youth and elderly.
Gaps
When asked to choose the most effective existing programs and services in Visalia, respondents overwhelmingly selected affordable housing services (15) and mental health services (12), followed by job training/education/job search services (8) and substance abuse/recovery services (7). The respondents were also able to make suggestions on how existing programs and services can be improved, as shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Organization Comments on Improving Existing Programs/Services Organization Name How can existing programs and services be improved to better serve the City of Visalia?
Self-Help Enterprises
Enhance case management and supportive services programs; recruit new providers to the area; invest a higher ratio of CDBG in housing supports.
Lindsay Healthy Start
Family Resource Center
Create more affordable housing, along with addressing homelessness that doesn’t split up families or require 12-year-old boys not to be with their parents. Re-evaluate rules… and are they poverty-informed? Proteus, Inc. Creating, initiating, and facilitating affordable housing for community members who are single parents with only one income.
RH Community Builders LP
The City of Visalia has been extremely supportive of supportive housing and affordable housing development. Additional funding for rental subsidies is necessary to support the continued development of these projects.
Visalia Rescue Mission There is a need to expand existing services, and to mobilize services into underserved areas.
Central CA Legal Services Increased funding to support legal aid services.
Kaweah Health Designated low barrier areas for homeless to congregate and get services.
Kingsview More funding.
991
Citizen Participation Plan
Tulare County Office of
Education Foster and
Homeless Youth Services
We need a housing navigator that walks someone experiencing homelessness through the steps of accessing the available resources.
The young adults I see experiencing homelessness need to be helped at every step of the way, from applying for programs to finding housing options.
Tulare County Health &
Human Services Agency
Visalia is a beautiful city with challenges faced by communities all across the state. We want to see economic growth and vitality but are constrained by resources. Developing a plethora of housing options (low/mid/high), educational pathways, and job training are all essential but hollow without economic development to help create the jobs these individuals will need to sustain themselves. Offering mental health, substance abuse recovery, and other social support programs helps people who have stumbled or fallen get back up and on a path to stability.
The Source LGBT+ Center General lack of awareness of what exists. Better marketing and outreach. Also how to access, not just what is available.
Visalia Senior Housing
Improved communications between support services, agencies caring for seniors. When reaching out to provide help for residents, they often go unanswered.
Kings Tulare Homeless
Alliance
I think the city needs more affordable housing and more housing choice vouchers. There also needs to be a rent cap. Currently, many renters pay more than 30% of their income toward rent.
Community Services
Employment Training
Continue to work and partner with non-profits to seek solutions that address the safety net needs of marginalized members of our community. Also, support for case management services is important.
Housing Authority of the
County of Tulare Continued collaboration with community partners to work together.
Champions Recovery
Alternative Programs, Inc.
Youth need gang intervention programs. None exist in the city.
Transitional housing options are lacking, making it difficult for people transitioning out of drug treatment, hospital, and institutions to avoid homelessness.
TC Hope
We need a "drop-in" center for those experiencing homelessness. More than a warming center, and more than a cooling center. A place police (the Hope Team) can bring those on the street for shelter.
Perhaps reflecting the nature of the populations served by the responding organizations, most organizations noted a shortage of affordable housing options (20) and insufficient homeless prevention programs (17) as the largest gaps in programs and services, but respondents also called out the limited availability of mental health services (15) as a major gap.
992
Citizen Participation Plan
What gaps do you see in the current programs and services in the City? Figure 2
A similar question regarding missing programs and services in the City indicates a need for mental health, economic development, senior and youth services, and job training/education/job search services.
What types of services or programs are missing in the City that should be developed? Figure 3
993
Citizen Participation Plan
Underserved populations in the City were identified via a ranking scale by organization respondents. Populations identified by respondents as having above average or very high degrees of underservice include socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals/families, the elderly, individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs, and people with limited English proficiency.
Housing
Several questions dug deeper into the nature of the housing gap in the City. Similar to responses in the previous section, roughly 80% of respondents rated the availability of affordable housing as below average or low. Specific housing types needed in the community were identified as affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, and shelters, evidencing a need to support the underserved populations identified in the previous section via housing services.
Organizations rated the top housing needs in the City of Visalia. As shown below in Figure 5, the five highest housing priorities in the City were:
1. Affordable rental housing
2. Permanent Supportive Housing
3. Transitional Housing
4. Shelters
5. Senior Housing
What do you believe are the top housing needs in the City of Visalia? Figure 4
On the topic of affordable housing, the biggest barriers to access were largely a limited availability, high rental costs, and homelessness and housing instability, underscoring the affordability and homelessness issues in the community. To address these issues, respondents recommended the strategies of affordable housing development, preservation, and comprehensive homeless prevention and support services.
Economic Development
Respondents were also asked about economic development needs in the City. Specific questions about the quality of public infrastructure (e.g. roads, parks, utilities) and the availability of jobs and employment opportunities showed that respondents generally found these to be at an average level of acceptability, with slightly more respondents finding access to public transportation, health and social services, and jobs and employment opportunities to be poor versus good. Respondents found the quality of public infrastructure like roads, parks, and utilities to be acceptable or good overall.
994
Citizen Participation Plan
However, several economic development issues were identified as pressing, including affordable housing development and workforce development. These results track the gaps previously identified in affordable housing and job training/education/job search services.
Rank the degree to which the economic development issues are pressing needs in the City.
Figure 5
Community Services
Access to health and social services for low-income residents was generally found to be moderate. However, when asked to select the primary barriers to accessing services like education and childcare, respondents noted issues with cost, transportation, limited availability of services, and a lack of flexible hours. A public transportation-specific question underscored a perceived issue with public transportation access, with the majority of respondents identifying access as very poor to acceptable.
995
Citizen Participation Plan
What are the primary barriers to accessing education and childcare services? Figure 6
Organizational Collaboration and Partnerships
Collaboration among community organizations was generally identified as good, with the primary barriers to effective collaboration being competition for funding, resource constraints, organizational silos, and communication.
Respondents felt that regular communications and meetings, as well as resource sharing, would enhance organizational partnerships.
In free-text responses, organizations further highlighted the need for partnerships, including the City working with schools, organizations, churches, and organizations partnering to address homelessness and other issues. One respondent noted they are unaware of planning sessions involving developers, builders, and city planners, and another said they would like to see new participants at the table.
Funding and Resource Allocation
Organizations identified unpredictable grant funding cycles and insufficient funding allocations as their most significant funding challenges, followed by matching fund requirements and complex grant requirements. The types of funding needed were operating grants and program/project-specific grants; organizations generally prioritized partnerships and collaboration as a way to improve the allocation of resources.
996
Citizen Participation Plan
Community Residents Survey Results
The Community Residents Survey gathered feedback from residents across the City to support efforts in understanding residents’ funding priorities. The survey collected information on topics including demographics, housing, supportive services, economic and community development, and social and recreational services.
This survey generally demonstrated less consensus on priorities and needs in the City when compared to the Organization Survey. Respondents were fairly well distributed in age and by area of residence and tended to have relatively high income and education levels. Over 80% of respondents were homeowners. Roughly three-quarters of respondents were employed, and the average household size is 3.23, with most respondents living in two-parent households with children or couples with no children households. About 60% of respondents identified as White, and roughly a third of respondents identified as Hispanic.
Residents were not in agreement as to whether there are areas in the City where housing is affordable. There appeared to be a slight preference for focusing on affordable rental housing, particularly for seniors, as a housing solution, however residents generally favored multiple housing and homeless solutions with few clear priority stand- outs. Respondents identified a need for job creation/retention and job training programs, similar to the Organization Survey results.
For the needs identified in this survey, respondents overwhelmingly called out Oval (95) and North Visalia (65) as the geographic areas with greatest need.
Demographics
Almost 95% of respondents lived in the City limits, with the vast majority of respondents (85%) residing in Northwest Visalia (33), Southeast Visalia (27), Southwest Visalia (23), and Northeast Visalia (12). About 70% of respondents worked in Visalia. Respondents were generally equally distributed across council districts, with slightly more respondents residing in Districts 1 and 2.
What is your age?
Figure 7
Most respondents were between the ages of 35-54 and can generally be described as higher income earners.
About two-thirds of respondents lived in a dual income household. About 65% of respondents have a Bachelor’s degree or higher; the remainder of respondents have between a high school diploma and Associate’s degree, with only one respondent having no high school diploma. Most respondents (about 75%) were currently employed; about 65% of employed respondents work full-time for an employer, while about 10% were self-employed, and the remainder worked part-time for an employer or are retired.
The average household size is 3.23; about 45% of respondents lived in a two-parent household with minor children, while 23% lived as a couple without children, 13% were single-person households, and the remainder were senior households, related adults living together, single-parent households, unrelated adults living together, or homeless. 997
Citizen Participation Plan
The racial makeup of respondents was 60% White, 7% Multiracial, 4% Asian-American, 3% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 2% Black/African-American, and 1% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, with the remainder choosing not to respond or selecting “Other.” About 32% of respondents identified as Hispanic.
What is your total household income?
Figure 8
Homeowners made up 80% of respondents, with an additional 15% being renters. Four respondents lived with someone else, and one respondent lived on the street, in a car, or in a homeless encampment.
Housing
Several questions asked respondents about housing needs in the City. Residents were roughly split on the question of whether there are areas of the City where low- to moderate-income households can afford rent, demonstrating a lack of consensus among residents on the topic of housing affordability in the City. If residents felt there were areas of the City where housing is affordable, about 63% of respondents said they would fear for their safety in those areas.
As evidenced below, there was no clear consensus on priority housing needs among residents, with several needs receiving high priority. The highest priority need appeared to be affordable rental housing for older adults. Similarly, there was a slight preference shown for affordable rental housing and permanent supportive housing for unhoused individuals with behavioral/mental health needs.
Citizens rated the greatest housing needs in the City of Visalia. As shown below in Figure 9, the five highest housing needs in the City are:
1. Senior Housing
2. Emergency Shelter
3. Permanent Supportive Housing
4. Construction of Affordable Housing
5. Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing
998
Citizen Participation Plan
What are the greatest housing needs in the City of Visalia? Figure 9
Citizens rated the level of priority should be give to the follow types of affordable housing development in the next 5-years. As shown below in Figure 10, the five types of affordable housing development solutions in the City are:
1. Senior Housing
2. Affordable Rental
3. Emergency Shelter
4. Affordable for Sale Housing
5. Permanent Supportive Housing
999
Citizen Participation Plan
What priority level should be given to the following types of affordable housing development solutions if implemented during the next 5 years?
Figure 10
Residents appeared to favor down payment assistance, home repair assistance for owners, rental assistance, and energy efficiency improvements. However, residents indicated no clear preference for specific homeless solutions, with multiple types of solutions receiving roughly equal preference; generally, all homeless solutions included in the survey received a moderate to high need ranking.
What priority level should be given to the following types of affordable housing programs if implemented during the next 5 years?
Figure 11
1000
Citizen Participation Plan
Community Services
Resident respondents also demonstrated a lack of consensus on priority support service needs, with potential standouts being mental health services, domestic violence services, and Homeless services.
What priority level should be given to the following services during the next 5 years? Figure 12
Residents generally felt neutral about the availability of public transportation routes connecting all areas of the City. Citizens rated the level of need for community services. The five highest priorities were:
1. Mental Health Services
2. Domestic Violence Services
3. Homeless Services
4. Youth Services
5. Job Training/Placement
1001
Citizen Participation Plan
Economic and Community Development
Respondents were asked about priority economic development initiatives and demonstrated a preference for job creation/retention and job training programs.
What priority level should be given to the following types of economic development initiatives or projects if implemented during the next 5 years?
Figure 13
On the topic of challenges preventing individuals from getting jobs, residents selected lack of childcare, skills gap, educational barriers, lack of stable housing, and criminal background as top barriers.
What priority level should be given to the following types of community development/revitalization initiatives or projects if implemented during the next 5 years? Figure 14
When asked about infrastructure improvements, resident respondents appeared to favor street/road improvements most strongly, followed by parks.
1002
Citizen Participation Plan
What priority level should be given to the following types of public infrastructure improvement initiatives or projects if implemented during the next 5 years?
Figure 15
Social and Recreational Services
There was a wide range of responses on questions regarding the availability of programs like sports leagues and summer camps, and organized group activities and enrichment programs for youth in low- to moderate-income households, as well as the availability of recreational facilities in low- to moderate-income neighborhoods, with respondents skewing toward agreement that these opportunities and amenities are available.
There was generally equal priority given to programs that respondents felt were lacking for low- to moderate-income persons, but the top answers were:
Childcare assistance (69)
Workforce development/job training (56)
Home repair and improvement grants/low interest loans (47) Down payment assistance (43)
Health and wellness (e.g. affordable healthcare, mental, and behavioral health) (43)
Farmworker Women’s Conference Survey Results
On November 16, 2023, the City of Visalia Housing Division surveyed 107 individuals attending the 2023 Farmworker Women’s Conference held at the Visalia Convention Center on housing and community development needs in the City. Nearly 65% of respondents were residents of Visalia, and an additional 28% worked or owned a business in the City. 93% of respondents were low-income households and eligible populations for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and/or HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds. Just over 30% of respondents completed the Spanish language survey, and nearly 85% were Hispanic or Latino. Respondents were equally split between homeowners and renters, with one respondent being homeless.
1003
Citizen Participation Plan
What public services are most needed in the City of Visalia?
Figure 16
On the topic of service needs, respondents prioritized homeless and homeless prevention services as well as youth services. Respondents also indicated a strong preference for homeless housing when asked specifically about types of housing needed in the City but selected affordable rental housing and the most needed housing type.
What housing type is most needed in the City of Visalia? Figure 17
Similar to the Community Organization and Resident surveys, respondents indicated a need for job training/placement as well as job creation.
45889121213131717181919293039
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45LegalTransportationTenant/LandlordCrime AwarenessDomestic ViolenceTransportationHealthPersons With DisabilitiesSubstance AbuseChildcareMental HealthJob Training /PlacementSeniorFair HousingYouthHomeless PreventionHomeless 4891117212343540 10 20 30 40 50 60Rental RehabilitationHomeowner RehabilitationHousing for DisabledAged Out of Foster Youth HousingFarmworker HousingFirst-Time Homebuyer AssistanceSenior HousingHomeless HousingAffordable Rental Housing 1004
Citizen Participation Plan
What Economic Development activity is most needed in the City of Visalia? Figure 18
What infrastructure improvements are most needed in the City of Visalia? Figure 19
Street improvements were identified as the most needed infrastructure improvement. When asked about community facility needs, respondents again identified homeless facilities as a high priority, followed by youth centers, which underscores respondents’ desire for homeless and youth services.
59111538520 10 20 30 40 50 60Commercial Infrastructure DevelopmentCommercial RehabilitationSmall Business AssistanceTechnical assistanceJob CreationJob Training/Placement 151515182527630 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Flood Drainage ImprovementsADA ImprovementsCode Enforcement ServicesWater/Sewer ImprovementsPark ImprovementsSidewalk ImprovementsStreet Improvements 1005
Citizen Participation Plan
What facilities are most needed in the City of Visalia?
Figure 20
Survey results also indicate that senior services and housing are a fairly high need, but respondents appear to view homeless and youth as higher-need populations in the City.
Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Survey Results
On September 4, 2024, the City of Visalia Housing Division surveyed 21 individuals in attendance during the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting, which included the FY 2025/26 – FY 2029/30 Consolidated Plan in-person community meeting held at the City of Visalia Administration at 220 N. Santa Fe Street, Visalia, CA 93292. The meeting covered housing and community development needs in the City. Nearly 76% of respondents were Visalia residents, and the remaining 24% worked or owned a business in the City. Only 10% of respondents were low- income, and most were White or Caucasian (62%) while 20% were Hispanic or Latino. About 75% of respondents were homeowners, with the rest being renters.
What housing type is most needed in the City of Visalia?
Figure 20
Housing needs identified in this survey mirror those from the Farmworker Women’s Conference; respondents 412161920202535420 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45OtherParks/Recreational FacilitiesChildcare CentersNeighborhood FacilitiesHealth FacilitiesFacilities for DisabledSenior CentersYouth CentersHomeless Facilities 11112359130 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Farmworker HousingHousing for DisabledRental RehabilitationFirst-Time Homebuyer AssistanceHomeowner RehabilitationAged Out of Foster Youth HousingSenior HousingHomelessAffordable Rental Housing 1006
Citizen Participation Plan
believe affordable rental housing, homeless housing, and senior housing are top priorities.
What housing type is most needed in the City of Visalia?
Figure 21
Housing needs identified in this survey mirror those from the Farmworker Women’s Conference; respondents believe affordable rental housing, homeless housing, and senior housing are top priorities.
What public services are most needed in the City of Visalia?
Figure 22
The CAC community meeting respondents identified a slightly different mix of service needs than the Farmworker Women’s Conference respondents, identifying mental health services as a top need in addition to homeless services, and substance. However, facility needs identified by the CAC meeting were the same (homeless facilities 11112359130 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Farmworker HousingHousing for DisabledRental RehabilitationFirst-Time Homebuyer AssistanceHomeowner RehabilitationAged Out of Foster Youth HousingSenior HousingHomelessAffordable Rental Housing 111123445568110 2 4 6 8 10 12ChildcareHealthTransportationLegalDisabilityFair HousingHomeless PreventionSeniorYouthJob Training/PlacementSubstance AbuseHomelessMental Health 1007
Citizen Participation Plan
and youth centers).
What facilities are most needed in the City of Visalia? Figure 23
What infrastructure improvements are most needed in the City of Visalia? Figure 24
Street, sidewalk, ADA, and flood drainage improvements were the most needed infrastructure improvements in the City of Visalia identified for the CAC community meeting respondents.
222445890 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Senior CentersNeighborhood FacilitiesParks and RecreationalChildcare CentersDisability FacilitiesHealth FacilitiesYouth CentersHomeless Facilities 23356790 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Water/Sewer ImprovementsPark ImprovementsCode Enforcement ServicesFlood Drainage ImprovementsAmerican Disability Act (ADA)Sidewalk ImprovementsStreet Improvements 1008
Citizen Participation Plan
What is the most needed Economic Development activity in the City of Visalia?
Figure 25
Job training and placement was identified as the most needed Economic Development activity in the City of Visalia, followed by small business assistance, job creation, commercial rehabilitation, and technical assistance in developing businesses for the CAC community meeting respondents.
Community Forum Results
During the development of the Consolidated Plan, the City held one public hearing on September 3, 2024, two community forums on September 4th, and September 9th, 2024. In addition, the City held two focus groups to gather public input regarding community needs that could potentially be addressed by utilizing federal entitlement program funding.
During the breakout groups, forum participants were asked to identify what they viewed as the highest priority community needs. Answers given were both what currently existed and what was needed. All answers were transcribed on flip charts and grouped and categorized. The number of times each item was identified, as a community need was recorded and counted to identify the most frequently stated needs (i.e. “mental health services” was mentioned multiple times throughout all four community forums). Below is a brief summary of the feedback received at the community forums during the dialogue breakout groups.
The needs listed below are findings from both the Community Outreach and the Housing surveys. Each point was cross-referenced with the top-rated needs from both surveys. Following the list of needs identified, is a more detailed list of other findings that scored lower but are important as well because a lower percentage of Visalia’s population experience the highest need.
Top Housing Needs
1. Senior affordable housing development and senior home repairs
2. Permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness
3. Development of affordable rental housing, including for aged out foster youth.
4. Rehabilitation of single-family homes and apartments
5. Tenant-based rental assistance
1345130 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Technical assistance in developing businessesCommercial RehabilitationJob CreationSmall Business AssistanceJob Training/Placement 1009
Citizen Participation Plan
Top Service Needs
1. Homeless services
2. Mental health services
3. Youth services
4. Job training/placement
5. Domestic violence services
Top Homeless Needs
1. Emergency shelter
2. Permanent supportive housing
3. Case management before and after housing placement
4. Tenant-based rental assistance
5. Mental health services
Community Outreach Public Comment Period for the Consolidated Plan The City of Visalia conducted a 30-day public comment period for review of the draft program year 2025-2029 Consolidated, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Citizen Participation Plan, and 2025 Annual Action Plan. The 30-day public comment period was held from March 21, 2025, through April 21, 2025. The draft plans were available on the City’s website at www.visalia.city for the public to review. English and Spanish public notices were published in the Visalia Times Delta on March 18, 2025, March 21, 2025, and April 1, 2025. English and Spanish public notices were also posted on the City’s website (www.visalia.city) and at City Hall West (707 W. Acequia Ave.), City Hall East (315 E. Acequia Ave.), City Hall North (220 North Santa Fe Street), the Visalia Branch Library (200 W. Oak Ave.) and two community centers—Anthony Community Center (345 N. Jacob St.) and Visalia Senior Center (310 N. Locust St.), and the Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance listserv to over 450 recipients. Public notices were also posted on the City’s social media outlets and newsroom. In addition, public comment was encouraged at the hearings listed below, and could be submitted in writing to the City of Visalia Housing Division, at the City Hall West, 707 W. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA 93291 or via email at [email protected].
Public Hearings/Community Meetings
The following public hearings and meetings were held during the 30-day public comment period:
Community Meeting – April 2, 2025, at 5:30pm at 220 N. Santa Fe St., Visalia, CA 93292 Public Hearing Review – April 7, 2025, at 7:00pm at 707 W. Acequia Ave., Visalia, CA 93291 Public Hearing Adoption – April 21, 2025, at 7:00pm at 707 W. Acequia Ave., Visalia, CA 93291
1010
Citizen Participation Plan
Attachments
Attachment “A”
Summary of comments received.
To be added following the end of 30-day public comment period. 1011
1 FY 2025/26 – FY 2029/30
Consolidated Plan
&
1st Year Annual Action Plan
.
April 7, 2025
1012
2 What is a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan)?
Outlines 5-year goals for housing and community
development using federal CDBG & HOME funds.
Includes an analysis of community needs.
Includes an Annual Action Plan addressing needs
identified in the Con Plan.
Once adopted, Con Plan changes require another
Community Needs Assessment with HUD submittal.
1013
3 Con Plan Main Components
Housing & Homelessness Needs Assessment: Needs of
low-income individuals and families.
Housing Market Analysis: Inventory of shelters/housing
related services, housing units, etc.
Strategic Plan: To address identified needs for 5-years.
Annual Action Plan: Actionable steps by program year.
1014
4 What is an Annual Action Plan?
Translates the Con Plan goals into actionable steps
by program year.
Includes feedback collected from the public.
Annual Action Plan Should not deviate from Con Plan.
1015
5 Community Engagement Review
• Organization & Citizen: July 12 - August 2, 2024
• FW Women’s Conference: November 2023
Surveys Completed
• Public Hearing & Council Meeting: September 3, 2024
• Community Meeting CAC: September 4, 2024
• Community Meeting Virtual: September 9, 2024
Community Meetings
Organization Focus Groups
• Virtual Meeting: September 25, 2024
• Virtual Meeting: October 2, 2024
1016
Low-Income
Homeless
Youth
Elderly
Domestic
Violence Victims
Disabled
Protected Class
Members
Individuals with
HIV/AIDS
Community
Survey Results
Organization and Resident Survey
Completed: 7/12/24 – 8/2/24
• 21 Organizations Completed
• 116 Citizen Survey Completed
Farmer Worker (FW) Women’s
Conference: November 2023
• 107 Surveys Completed
• 34 Spanish Surveys Completed
Populations Served by
Organizations Surveyed
1017
7 Summary of Priority Community Needs
Priority Need Description
Affordable housing Development of affordable rental housing including senior housing, and tenant based rental assistance.
Public services Homeless/prevention, job training, youth services, and fair housing services.
Property
maintenance Single-family and mobile home rehab for low-income senior and/or disabled.
Neighborhood
preservation Code enforcement services in deteriorating low-mod income (LMI) areas.
Emergency shelter Development of an emergency shelter for people experiencing homelessness.
Improve community
and public facilities Infrastructure accessibility and public youth amenities improvements. 1018
8 Top 5 Community Assessment Needs
1) Affordable Housing
2) Homeless/Homeless Prevention Programs
3) Emergency Drop-in Shelter
4) Home Repair Assistance
5) Job Training
1019
9 Council Engagement Review
• Council Meeting: September 3, 2024
• Council Work Session: December 3, 2024
Council Meetings
Council Priorities Expressed
• Affordable Housing
• Senior Housing/Services
• Disabled Housing/Services
• Emergency Shelter
• Park Improvements
• Code Enforcement
• Home Repairs
• Homeless Services
• Homeless Prevention
• Mental Health
• Substance Abuse
• Youth Services
• Job Training
• Childcare
1020
10 CDBG 5-Year Proposed Activities
Resources FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 Total Annual CDBG Allocation $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $6,000,000 Program Income 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Prior Year Resources 450,000 - - 450,000
Total CDBG Resources $1,700,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $6,700,000 Expenditures
Administration (20%) $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 Public Services (15%) 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 900,000 Single-Family Home Repair Program 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Senior Mobile Home Repair Program 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Code Enforcement 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 850,000 Emergency Shelter 900,000 450,000 - - - 1,350,000
Sidewalk ADA Improvements - - 450,000 300,000 450,000 1,200,000 Park Youth Improvements - - - 150,000 - 150,000
Total CDBG Expenditures $1,700,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $6,700,000 1021
11 HOME 5-Year Proposed Activities
Resources FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 Total Annual HOME Allocation $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 Program Income 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Prior Year Resources 40,000 - - - - 40,000
Total HOME Resources $640,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $3,040,000 Expenditures
Administration (10%) $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 Rancho Colegio Project 290,000 - - - - 290,000
Senior Housing Project 300,000 450,000 450,000 - - 1,200,000 Affordable Rental Housing Project - - - 450,000 450,000 900,000 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 Total HOME Expenditures $640,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $3,040,000 1022
12 FY 2025/26 CDBG Action Plan
Project Description Funding
Administration (20%) Administration $250,000
Public Services (15%) Detail on next slide $180,000
Single Family Home
.Repair Program For owner-occupied LMI seniors/disabled $100,000 Senior Mobile Home
.Repair Program For owner occupied LMI seniors/disabled $100,000 Code Enforcement Services in deteriorating LMI areas $170,000 Emergency Shelter* Development of a low-barrier emergency shelter $900,000 Total $1,700,000
*Any increase or decrease of 2025 CDBG funds will be directed to the Emergency Shelter Project. 1023
13 FY 2025/26 CDBG Public Services
Project (Limited to 15%) Funding
Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance – Continuum of Care/Point-in-Time $20,000 Family Services – Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Match $50,000 Kings View – Housing Flex Funds $45,000
Kings View – Eden House Transitional Housing Food Assistance $45,000 CSET – Fair Housing Services $20,000
Total $180,000
1024
14 FY 2025/26 HOME Action Plan
Project Description Funding
Administration (10%) Administration $50,000
HOME-CHDO Project
.Rancho Colegio SHE 80-unit multi-family rental complex. $290,000 Senior Housing* For low-income seniors 62-years and older. $300,000 Total $640,000
*Any increase or decrease of 2025 HOME funds will be directed to the Senior Housing Project. 1025
15 What’s Next in the Con Plan/Action Plan Process?
Citizen Engagement (Underway)
Analyze Data and Public Input
Formulate Strategic Goals and Objectives
Draft Con Plan and Annual Action Plan
30-Day Public Comment Period
Adopt Plan April 21, 2025 – Due to HUD May 15, 2025
We Are Here
Opportunity for
final Council edits
1026
16 FY 2024/25 CDBG Action
Plan Amendment
1027
17 FY 2024/25 CDBG Action Plan Amendment
Activity Approved Adjustments Proposed
ADA Compliance Project
Tree Wells (CP0618) $450,000 ($450,000) $0
Total $450,000 ($450,000) $0
1028
18 CDBG 5-Year Proposed Activities
Resources FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 Total Annual CDBG Allocation $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $6,000,000 Program Income 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Prior Year Resources 450,000 - - 450,000
Total CDBG Resources $1,700,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $6,700,000 Expenditures
Administration (20%) $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 Public Services (15%) 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 900,000 Single-Family Home Repair Program 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Senior Mobile Home Repair Program 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Code Enforcement 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 850,000 Emergency Shelter 900,000 450,000 - - - 1,350,000
Sidewalk ADA Improvements - - 450,000 300,000 450,000 1,200,000 Park Youth Improvements - - - 150,000 - 150,000
Total CDBG Expenditures $1,700,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $6,700,000 1029
19 Questions?
•Contact Information:
•Margie Perez, City of Visalia Housing Specialist
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: (559) 713-4460
•Mary Itz, Baker Tilly Consulting Manager
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: (713) 744-8436
1030
20 Focus Group Needs (Organization Response)
1) Rental subsidies
2) Senior home repairs
3) Affordable housing development and preservation
4) Homeless prevention
5) Senior housing with supportive services
6) ADA housing units
7) Low-barrier emergency shelter
8) Transition-age youth services and housing
1031
21 Top 5 Needs (Organization Response)
1) Shortage of Affordable Housing
2) Homeless Prevention Programs
3) Mental Health Services
4) Substance Abuse Treatment
5) Job Training Programs
1032
22 Top 5 Service 15% Needs (Citizen Response)
1) Mental Health
2) Domestic Violence
3) Job Training
4) Youth
5) Homeless
1033
23 Top 5 Housing Needs (Citizen Response)
1) Senior Housing
2) Development of Affordable Rental Housing
3) Emergency Drop-in Shelter
4 Rehab of Affordable Apartments
5) Rehab of Single-Family Homes
1034
24 Top 5 Infrastructure Improvements Needed
(Citizen Response)
1) Street/Roads
2) Parks
3) Flood Drainage
4) Street Lighting
5) Sidewalks
1035
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 25-0085 Agenda Date: 4/7/2025 Agenda #: 3.
Agenda Item Wording:
Public Hearing to Abandon Public Street Right-of-way - Hold a public hearing to adopt Resolution No. 2025-26 ordering the closure and vacation of a portion of public alleyway and right-of-way on Meadow Avenue and Shady Street, located west of Mooney Boulevard and north of Tulare Avenue; and, further authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents to complete the abandonment.
(Resolution required)
Deadline for Action: 4/7/2025
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number: Click or tap here to enter text.
Adrian Rubalcaba, Sr. Project Manager, (559)713-4507, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Jason Huckleberry, Engineering & Building Dept. Director, (559)713-4495, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Department Recommendation:
Staff recommends adopting Resolution No. 2025-26 ordering the closure and vacation of a portion of public alleyway and right-of-way on Meadow Avenue and Shady Street and further authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents to complete the abandonment.
Background Discussion:
The abandonment of the streets and alleyway is being requested by the College of Sequoias (COS) to facilitate the planned expansion of their campus. The Visalia Campus University Center master plan was submitted through the City’s Site Plan Review process as SPR No. 2024-17, proposing the demolition of existing buildings and construction of new facilities, further expanding the existing campus to the south. The expansion will encompass the majority of the northwest corner of Tulare Avenue and Mooney Boulevard (the site plan, Exhibit “A”, is attached for reference).
The COS expansion will include redesigning the college campus entry and connections to Meadow and Tulare Avenue. On-site features will include new driveway enhancements with roundabouts to improve vehicle circulation and public safety. The expansion requires the abandonment of Shady Street, a portion of Meadow Avenue, and a portion of the connecting alleyway, further delineated in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto. Onsite permitting and construction will be processed through state agency authorities, as COS, a state entity, can exempt themselves from City land use processes. The abandonment of any public streets, alleyways, or easements, and encroachment permitting will be processed locally.
Council previously approved the resolution to initiate proceedings to vacate the public streets and Visalia City Council Printed on 4/4/2025Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
1036
File #: 25-0085 Agenda Date: 4/7/2025 Agenda #: 3.
alleyway during a meeting held on March 17, 2025. This first reading sets forth the required public notifications, postings, and sets the public hearing pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code, “Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law.” A public hearing is required for the final adoption of a resolution ordering the closure and vacation of public streets and alleyways. The public hearing date cannot be set less than 15 days after the initiation of proceedings and was scheduled for the April 7, 2025 Council meeting. The public hearing allows for the opportunity of all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation to express their interest or opposition for the City Council to consider.
Notices were posted along the portions of alleyway and Meadow Avenue and Shady Street to be abandoned and a copy of the resolution was published for two consecutive weeks in the Visalia Times Delta, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Visalia.
The street is classified as a local street under the City of Visalia circulation element, but the proposed project should be considered a minor realignment as it is removing that portion of the public street that is no longer required for public access as all surrounding properties are owned and utilized by COS, vehicular or public pedestrian access is no longer necessary over the area to be abandoned.
Any public utilities affected have been notified of the proposed public streets and alleyway abandonment. Existing easements are to be reserved and may remain or utility infrastructure rerouted and easements re-established as part of the vacate process; to be further determined by their respective utility companies and City of Visalia.
Fiscal Impact:
No additional fiscal impacts are anticipated. The ongoing street and alleyway maintenance for the areas vacated will be omitted.
Prior Council Action: On March 17, 2025 the City Council moved to adopt Resolution No. 2025-16, initiating proceedings to vacate a portion of the public alleyway and right-of-way on Meadow Avenue and Shady street.
Other: N/A
Alternatives: Council may elect to deny request to vacate the public alleyway and street right-of-way after considering interest during this public hearing.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
I move to adopt Resolution No. 2025-26 ordering the closure and vacation of a portion of public alleyway and right-of-way on Meadow Avenue and Shady Street, located west of Mooney Boulevard and north of Tulare Avenue; and, further authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents to complete the abandonment.
Environmental Assessment Status: EIR for Phase 1 of Visalia University Center is underway.
CEQA Review: To be determined.
Attachments: Click or tap here to enter text.
Visalia City Council Printed on 4/4/2025Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
1037
File #: 25-0085 Agenda Date: 4/7/2025 Agenda #: 3.
1. Exhibit B
2. Resolution
Visalia City Council Printed on 4/4/2025Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
1038
1039
JOB NUMBER:
DWG DATE:
SUBMITTAL TYPE:
ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS CONNECTED
BAKERSFIELD 1200 DISCOVERY DR. 160 | BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309 | 661.843.8400 T FRESNO 7535 N. PALM AVE. 201 | FRESNO, CA 93711 | 559.437.0887 T VISALIA 125 S. BRIDGE ST. 150 | VISALIA, CA 93291 | 559.625.5246 T MODESTO 1218 K ST. 100 | MODESTO, CA 95354 | 209.577.2288 T SAN LUIS OBISPO 751 MARSH ST. 200 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | 805.439.3353 T
VISALIA CAMPUS UNIVERSITY CENTER
COLLEGE OF THE SEQUIOAS | SEQUIOAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 915 S MOONEY BLVD
VISALIA, CA, 93277
22-12498
PROGRAMMING
SITE PLAN
SURVEY OVERLAY
320.74
HV-1002
321.82
HV-1004
T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ROC
K
ROC
K
ROC
K
ROC
K
ROC
K
ASPH
ASPH
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
CONC
CONC
C
ON
C
CONC
C
ONC
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
CONC
CONC
CONC
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
CONC
CONC
ROC
K
ROC
K
CONC
DENSE
TREES
DEN
SE
TREES
CONC
CONC
CONC
C
ONC
DENSE
TREES
C
ON
C
CONC
DEN
SE
TREES
C
ON
C
CONC
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
CONC
C
ONC
C
ONC
CONC
C
ON
C CONC
C
ONC
C
ON
C
SCATTERED
BRUSH
C
ON
C
ROC
K
C
ON
C
ROC
K
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
CONC
DEN
SE
TREES
C
ONC
TANK
DENSE
TREES C
ONC
DENSE
TREES
C
ON
C
C
ONC
C
ON
C
C
ONC
DEN
SE
TREES
C
ON
C
DENSE
TREES
CONC
CONC
C
ONC
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
DENSE
TREES
DENSE
TREES
DENSE
TREES
CONC
DENSE
TREES
CONC
ROC
K
DENSE
TREES
DENSE
TREES
CONC
CONC
PIPE
LINE
PIPE
LINE
C
ON
C
C
ONC
DENSE
TREES
ROCK
ASPH
CONC
CONC
C
ON
C
SC
ATTERED
B
RUSH
C
ONC
C
ONC
ASPH
ASPH
DENSE
TREES
CONC CONC
DENSE
TREES
DENSE
TREES
DENSE
TREES
PIPE
LINE
PIPE
LINE
C
ONC
C
ONC
C
ONC
DENSE
TREES
CONC
DENSE
TREES
DENSE
TREES
C
ON
C
DENSE
TREES
CONC
DENSE
TREES
C
ONC
C
ONC
C
ONC
C
ONC
C
ONC
DENSE
TREES
C
ON
C
DEN
SE
TREES
C
ONC
C
ONC
C
ONC
DENSE
TREES
C
ONC
C
ONC
C
ONC
DENSE
TREES
ROC
K
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
CONC
ROC
K
ROCK C
ONC
C
ONC
C
ONC
C
ONC
SCATTERED
BRUSH
ASPH
C
ONC
C
ONC
CONC C
ONC
ASPH
C
ONC
SCATTERED
BRUSH
ASPH
PIPE
SCATTERED
BRUSH
ASPH
C
ONC
CONC
ASPH
C
ONC
CONC
ASPH
ASPH
C
ONC
C
ONC
CONC
DENSE
TREES
DENSE
TREES
CONC
DENSE
TREES
DEN
SE
TREES
ASPH
DENSE
TREES
C
ON
C
CONC
C
ON
C
CONC CONC
ASPH ASPH
CONC
DENSE
TREES
DENSE
TREES
DENSE
TREES
SCATTERED
BRUSH
CONC
CONC
DENSE
TREES
C
ONC
ASPH
DENSE
TREES
ASPH
CONC
DIRT
DENSE
TREES
CONC
C
ON
C
CONC
PIPE
CONC
ROC
K
C
ON
C
DEN
SE
TREES
DENSE
TREES
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
C
ON
C
CONC
CONC
C
ONC
ASPH
ASPH
DENSE
TREES
PIPE
C
ON
C
C
ONC
ASPH
C
ONC
C
ON
C
C
ONC
BUS
SHELTER
SIGN
ELECTRICAL
VAULT
ELECTRICAL
BOX
ELECTRICAL
VAULT
COMMUNICATION
VAULT
UTILITY
VAULT
ELECTRICAL
VAULT
WATER
VAULT
ELECTRICAL
VAULT
ELECTRICAL
VAULT
ELECTRICAL
VAULT
ELECTRICAL
VAULT
UTILITY
VAULT
ELECTRICAL
VAULT
ELECTRICAL
BOX
COMMUNICATION
VAULT
WATER
VAULT
SIGN
SIGN
MISC.
VAULT
UNDERGROUND
STORM DRAIN
TANK
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
325
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
8"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6" 6"
6"
6"
12" 12" 12"
8" 8" 8"
2"
2"
2"
3"
3"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
6"
8"
2"
1"
27"
8"
8"
6"
8"
6"
27"
10"
10"
4" 4"
6"
6"
6"
10"
2"
1-
1/4""
1-1/4""
2"
4"
4"
3"
2"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
12"
6"
6"
6"
D S
CH X
CH X
MISC
BCM
D
S
D
S
(GFL32
0.23)
(GFL32
0.03)
N
/T
W
V W
V
W
V
FDC C
O
PB
EPB
(LID320.55)
W
V
D
(LID321.01)
W
V
C
O
PB
TSPB
TSPB
TSPB
W
V
W
V
PB
P
320.59
W
V
W
V
S
(LID320.61) D
(LID320.64)
W
V
(SDG
R319.35)
(SDFL317.77)
PP
PP
(SDGR318.9
3)
W
IC
B
IC
B
W
V
EPB
W
V
S
(LID321.20)
EVA
WW
E
(LID321.29)
C
VA
EPB
ELR
GE
EC
A
ELC
WW
EPB
C
O
W
W
S
(LID320.73)
ELR
GC
O
C
O
EC
A
WW
T
(LID321.09)
E
E
(LID321.04)
ELR
WW
(SDGR320.4
2)
ELR
WWWW
TPB
WWWWWWWW
EVA
WWWW WWWWW WWWWW W WWW
E
C
O
C
G
WW
IVA
IVA
IVA
IC
B
C
O
FDC
W
V
C
O
PB
EG
C
O
EG EG
EG
FDC
C
O
PB
W
V
EVA
ELC
(S
DGR321.2
9)
(SDGR319.9
0)
EVA
EPB
EPB
EPB
LP
E
(LID320.80)
EG
EC
A EVA
PP
S
(LID320.41)
D
(LID320.29)
W
EPB
EG
EG
EG
GV
(S
DGR319.6
3)
W
V
W
V
IVA
S
(LID320.69)
LP
IVA
EC
A
IVA
(SDGR319.9
8)
(SDGR320.1
7)
PP
LP
LP
(SDGR321.6
6)
(SDGR322.0
7)
IC
B
LP
EPB
(S
DGR321.4
1)
IC
B
LP
EPB
(SDGR321.5
4)
LP
LP EPB
IC
B
IC
B
EG W
C
O
LP
G
W
W
GR
EPB
LP
EPB
IC
B EPB
C
O
C
O C
O
C
O C
O
C
O
C
O
ELC
C
O
(S
DGR322.9
5)
IC
B
IC
B
LP
EPB
GR
GV
W
V
W
V
GV W
V
GV GV
GV
W
V
LP H
B
H
B
EPB
EPB
H
B
IC
B
(S
DGR322.4
9)
C
O
C
O
C
O
(SDGR322.5
7)
(SDGR322.5
1)
C
O
W
V
GV
322.26
322.76
322.76
321.79
321.34
322.40
(SDGR320.2
7)
(SDGR320.0
8)
(S
DGR320.6
5)
(S
DGR320.8
3)
(SDGR321.2
2)
(SDGR320.9
8)
SP
IC
B
ELR
ELR
E
(LID321.07)
ELR
C
O
PB
TSPB
S
(LID321.35)
TSPB
TSPB
IRC
B
SLPB
TSPB
TSPB
IC
B C
O
W
V
D
(LID321.15)
IC
B W
V
S
(LID321.23)
LP
C
O
PB
IC
B
IC
B
LP
ELC
X4 ELEC
TRIC
AL
C
O
N
DU
IT
MH
(LID322.55)
LP
W
V
C
O
EPB
LP
LP
EVA
EPB
EPA
G
IC
B
IC
B
IC
B
W
V
GV
LP
EPB
ELC ELC
ELC
ELC
EPB
C
O
PB
LP
LP LP
EPB
W
V
LP
PP
EPB
EPB
LP
LP
IC
B
LP
LP
LP
LP
IC
B
LP
IC
B
IC
B
IC
B
IC
B
GU
Y
PP
LP
LP
EC
PB
IC
B
TSPB
TSPB
W
EPB
SLPB
W
V
W
V
EC
A
LP
LP
LP IC
B ELC
W
TR
H
B TSPB
TSPB
PB
P
TSPB
TSPB
TSPB
GU
Y
EPB
PP
IC
B
IC
B
IC
B
IC
B
IC
B
IC
B
W
LP
M
ISC
B
C
M
S
(LID321.39)
(LID320.59)
322.46
T
(LID322.79)
LP
EPB
LP
LP 3' TALL
24 321.95
321.38
321.84
D
(LID321.70)
(12"(E)FL316.78)
(12"(N
)FL316.23)
(12"(SW
)FL316.15)
(LID319.74)
(8"(SE)FL316.59)
(LID319.48)
(8"(S)FL314.43)
(8"(N
W
)FL314.38)
(LID319.77)
(8"(N
)FL316.32)
D
(LID320.93)
(8"(E)FL315.73)
(LID320.71)
(LID319.45)
(6"(S)FL316.29)
(LID319.89)
(8"(N
)FL316.39)
D
(LID321.00)
(8"(E)FL315.55)
D
(LID319.80)
(8"(N
)FL316.62)
D
(LID320.99)
(8"(W
)FL315.99)
(LID319.66)
(6"(N
)FL316.51)
(6"(S)FL316.50)
(LID320.58)
(6"(S)FL317.46)
320.09
321.80
321.28
321.72
321.79
321.34
323.11
(LID321.88)
(6"(E)FL320.67)
(6"(W
)FL320.52)
(LID322.03)
(6"(E)FL319.98)
(6"(W
)FL319.91)
S
(LID322.67)
(6"(SE)FL317.14)
(10(E-
W
)FL317.06)
(10"(N
)FL317.03)
(SDGR322.9
1)
16"
S
(LID321.57)
S
(LID323.18)
S
(LID322.33)
(4"(N
E)FL320.83)
(10"(S)FL317.65)
(10"(E)FL317.56)
(LID322.24)
(4"(SW
)FL321.23)
(4"(N
)FL320.66)
(LID322.18)
(4"(E)FL321.15)
15" FR
UITLESS
PEA
R
24"
AS
H
24"
AS
H
18"
AS
H
18" PE
PP
ER
TR
EE
8" CHI
NESE P
ISTACHE
8" CHI
NESE P
ISTACHE
8" CHI
NESE P
ISTACHE
8" CHI
NESE P
ISTACHE
15" COA
STAL
REDWOO
D 15" COA
STAL
REDWOO
D
15" COA
STAL
REDWOO
D
12" CHI
NESE
PISTACHE
12" CHI
NESE
PISTACHE
12" CHI
NESE
PISTACHE
12" CHI
NESE
PISTACHE
12" MA
PLE
12" MA
PLE
58" VAL
LEY OAK
18"
OAK
18"
OAK
12" PI
STACHE
15" PI
STACHE
14" PI
STACHE
5" JAP
ANES
E MAPLE
24" COA
STAL
REDWOO
D
24" COA
STAL
REDWOO
D
12" PI
STACHE
16" PI
STACHE
16" PI
STACHE
10" PI
STACHE
12" PI
STACHE
12" PI
STACHE
14" PI
STACHE
9" PISTAC
HE
15" PI
STACHE
15" PI
STACHE
6" JAP
ANES
E MAPLE 5" JAP
ANES
E MAPLE
30" COA
STAL
REDWOO
D
24" COA
STAL
REDWOO
D
28" COA
STAL
REDWOO
D
16" 18" PI
STACHE
10" PI
STACHE
12" CHI
NESE
PISTACHE
UNIVERSITY
CENTER
EDUCATION
SUPPORT
SERVICES
STUDENT
UNION
U N I V E R S I T Y
S Q U A R E U N I O N S Q U A R E
SERVICE
YARD
W
. T U L A R E A V E
EXISTING PARKING
S. C R O W E S T.
W
. M
E A D O W
A V E.
KAW EAH
SEQUOIA
TULE
LODGEPOLE MORO
CP
GIANT
MARKETPLACE
FOSTERS
FREEZE
LIVE OAK
AMPHITHEATER
ALLEY
BLUE OAK
S M O O N E Y B L V D
13 01-14-2024
1040
RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AS PERDOC. NO. 2009-0040579 O.R.T.C. 1041
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA
ORDERING THE CLOSURE AND VACATING A PORTION OF A PUBLIC ALLEYWAY AND
MEADOW AVENUE AND SHADY STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, State of California, did on the 17th day of March 2025, by Resolution No. 2025 -16, declare its intent to vacate a portion of a public alleyway, Meadow Avenue, and Shady Street more particularly described in Exhibit A and B attached hereto, pursuant to the vacation proceedings under Division 9, Change of Grade and Vacation, Part 3, Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law 8300; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did by said resolution fix the 7th day of April 2025, the hour of 7:00pm of said day at the Council chambers in City Hall West located at 707 West Acequia Avenue in the City of Visalia, as the time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed closing and vacating of said right-of-way; and,
WHEREAS, that copies of this notice of intention to vacate were posted in the area to be vacated not more than 300-feet apart, but at least three notices were posted; and
WHEREAS, that a copy of the resolution of intenti on was published at least two (2) successive weeks in the Visalia Times Delta, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Visalia, prior to the date of this public hearing; and
WHEREAS, that the provisions of Government Code section 65402 concerning to administration of the general plan do not apply to this abandonment as it is a project of a minor nature impacting street alignment and public access over the subject area is no longer necessary as it owned on both sides by COS.
WHEREAS, the City Council having heard all evidence concerning said matter, finds that the streets and alleyways as described are unnecessary for present or prospective public use, and further finds that no damage will result to anyone from the closing and vacating of said right-of- way; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED, by the Council of the City of Visalia that said right-of-way as hereinbefore particularly described in this Order, be and the same is hereby closed and vacated.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER ORDERED , by the Council of the City of Visalia that the public easements over and across said right-of-way be and the same are hereby terminated, but the public convenience and necessity require , reserve, and except from the vacation any easement and right necess ary to maintain, operate, replace, remove, or renew public utility facilities and any such reserved public utility easements shall be identified by the public utility company and the City of Visalia for separate recording of the reserved easement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED: LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
1042
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.
CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2025-26 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on April 7, 2025.
Dated: April 7, 2025 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
1043
1044
1045
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 25-0066 Agenda Date: 4/7/2025 Agenda #: 1.
Agenda Item Wording:
Upcoming City Council Meetings
Monday, April 21, 2025 @ 7:00 p.m. at 707 W. Acequia
Monday, May 5, 2025 @ 7:00 p.m. at 707 W. Acequia
Note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change, check posted agenda for correct details. In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in meetings contact 713-4512.
Written materials relating to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda are available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, 220 N. Santa Fe Street, Visalia CA 93292, during normal business hours.
Visalia City Council Printed on 4/4/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
1046