Agenda packet — Visalia City Council and Visalia Planning Commission, June 13, 2022

Visalia Convention Center
303 E. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
Visalia City Council
Visalia City Council and Visalia
Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda - Final
Mayor Steve Nelsen
Vice Mayor Brian Poochigian
Council Member Greg Collins
Council Member Brett Taylor
Council Member Liz Wynn
Commissioner Mary Beatie
Commissioner Chris Gomez
Commissioner Marvin Hansen
Commissioner Adam Peck
Commissioner Chris Tavarez
Monday, June 13, 2022 6:00 PM Dinner Hour: 5:00 PM
VISALIA CONVENTION CENTER - 303 E. Acequia

CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL JOINT MEETING

PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time for members of the public to comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the meeting body. We ask that you keep your comments brief and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome. In fairness to all who wish to speak, each speaker from the public will be allowed three minutes. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

SPECIAL SESSION ITEMS

1. Discussion, Evaluation, and Potential Direction on the Existing Codified Drive-Thru Performance Standards.
22-0242

2. Overview of the City of Visalia Urban Development Boundaries and discussion on Residential Housing Inventories within Tier I and Tier II.
22-0239

3. Presentation regarding Accessory Dwelling Units in the City of Visalia, including progress on City contracted work for pre-approved building plans and an impact fee nexus study, and future updates to the City’s Municipal Code to comply with state law.
22-0241

ADJOURNMENT

Page 1 of 1 ends

1 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0242 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Discussion, Evaluation, and Potential Direction on the Existing Codified Drive-Thru Performance Standards.

Deadline for Action: 6/13/2022
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner, 713-4443 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Paul Bernal, Community Development Director, 713-4025 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission consider the information provided in the report, evaluate the City’s existing drive-thru performance standards codified in Visalia Municipal Code (VMC) Section 17.32.163, and provide guidance on potential updates.

Discussion on potential changes and/or revisions to the drive-thru performance standards will be used as a basis for additional analysis and future consideration of a Zone Text Amendment to update VMC Section 17.32.163 to address current drive-thru related concerns.

Summary:

Due to the recent proliferation of popular drive-thru restaurant chains in the community and changing consumer shopping behavior resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, staff has observed a considerable increase in requests for the development of drive-thru facilities. Recent development proposals for new shopping centers have devoted a significant number of sites for uses with drivethru lanes. Projects have also been submitted requesting the addition of drive-thru lanes to sites with pre-existing buildings which were not designed in a manner to support such a use. The proliferation of these requests has resulted in increased impacts affecting vehicle on-site circulation within some commercial developments, and vehicle queuing into public rights-of-way. This staff report provides a detailed synopsis of the following:

1. History on the formulation and adoption of drive-thru performance standards.

2. Overview of the City’s existing drive-thru performances standards.

3. Discussion of current trends (i.e., conflicts related to popular restaurant chains and ongoing pandemic).

4. Direction on potential drive-thru performance standard updates.

Visalia City Council Page 1 of 9 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 2
File #: 22-0242 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 1.

History on the Formulation and Adoption of Drive-thru Performance Standards:

Prior to the establishment of performance standards, restaurant uses with a drive-thru component were conditionally permitted in various commercial zones with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), except for the Downtown Mixed-Use zone, in which drive-thru uses are prohibited. At that time, it was believed that the CUP requirement and public hearing process, wherein citizens could voice their concerns, would ensure that potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses would be properly mitigated and conditioned. In practice, staff observed that CUP proceedings for uses involving drive-thru lanes were only sparsely attended by the public. Additionally, staff became aware of specific reoccurring impacts that would present themselves upon the establishment of a new drivethru facility. Based on these reoccurring impacts, standardized conditions began to be applied to each drive-thru CUP.

In observing the reoccurring usage of standardized conditions for drive-thru uses, the Planning Commission raised the question as to whether the establishment of a use with a drive-thru lane should continue to automatically trigger a CUP, especially if standardized conditions mitigated any potential conflicts with surrounding uses. It was noted that codifying standardized conditions, in lieu of requiring a CUP, would have the potential to streamline City review processes. With that reasoning in mind, staff presented potential Zoning Ordinance text amendments to the Planning Commission at a work session conducted at its December 9, 2013, meeting. During the work session, staff received comments from the Planning Commission to consider the rationale of requiring CUPs for a use that, lacking a drive-thru lane, would otherwise be permitted by right. In response, staff drafted performance standards as the basis for permitting drive-thru lanes as a “by right” use, so long as a use with a drive-thru lane were able to demonstrate compliance with the performance standards identified.

A formal Zone Text Amendment application was subsequently created to begin the process to add the performance standards to the Visalia Municipal Code. A stakeholder’s outreach meeting was conducted on February 13, 2014, in which the proposed standards where generally favored by the public. A meeting of the Planning Commission followed on March 10, 2014. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission affirmed that the proposed performance standards were prudent and facilitated streamlining of the permitting process, benefiting both the business community and the City. The Planning Commission forwarded its recommendation to the City Council, which considered and approved the standards at its April 7, 2014, meeting.

Overview of the City’s existing Drive-thru Performances Standards:

The existing drive-thru performances standards can be found in Section 17.32.162 of the VMC. The standards are listed in their entirety below:

Visalia Municipal Code
Chapter 17.32 Special Provisions
Visalia City Council Page 2 of 9 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 3
File #: 22-0242 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Section 17.32.162 Drive-thru lanes performance standards.

A. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this section to specify performance standards applicable to uses that seek to incorporate a drive-thru lane in association with a specified use.

This section does not apply to carwashes and lube and oil changing stations.

B. Performance standards:

1. Separation from residences. The drive-thru lane shall be no less than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the nearest residence or residentially zoned property.

2. Stacking. The drive-thru lane shall contain no less than ten (10) vehicle stacking, measured from pickup window to the designated entrance to the drive-thru lane. There shall be no less than three vehicle spaces distance from the order menu/speaker (or like device) to the designated entrance to the order window.

3. Circulation. No portion of the drive-thru lane shall obstruct any drive aisles or required on-site parking. The drive-thru shall not take ingress or egress from a local residential road.

4. Noise. No component or aspect of the drive-thru lane or its operation shall generate noise levels in excess of 60 dB between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily.

5. Screening. The entire drive-thru lane shall be screened from adjacent street and residential view to a height of three feet. Screening devices shall be a combination of berming, hedge and landscape materials, and solid walls as approved by the City Planner.

6. Menu boards and signage. Shall be oriented or screened to avoid direct visibility from adjacent public streets.

The “Zone Use Matrix” contained in Chapter 17.25 of the Zoning Ordinance permits the establishment of drive-thru lanes in most commercial and office zones (i.e., Neighborhood Commercial, Regional Commercial, Service Commercial, Mixed Use Commercial, Professional/Administrative Office, and Business Research Park). The use table for drive-lane uses is provided in Figure 1 below.

FIGURE 1 Commercial, Mixed Use, Office, and Industrial Zones Use Matrix P = Use is Permitted by Right C = Use Requires
Conditional Use Permit T = Use Requires Temporary Use Permit Blank = Use is Not Allowed
USE Commercial and MixedUse ZonesOffice Zones Industrial Zones
Special
Use
Standar
ds (See
identifie
d
Chapter
or
Section)

C-N C-R C-S C-MU D-MU O-PA O-C BRP I-L I
D8 DriveThru LanesP P P P P P 173216
Visalia City Council Page 3 of 9 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 4
File #: 22-0242 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 1.

C-N C-R C-S C-MU D-MU O-PA O-C BRP I-L I
D8 Drive-Thru Lanes
Meeting All
Standards in Sect.

17.32.162
P P P P P P 17.32.16
2 D9 Drive-Thru Lanes
Not Meeting All
Standards in Sect.

17.32.162
C C C C C P 17.32.16
2 If a drive-thru proposal meets all the above performance standards, it is permitted by right within the permissible zones. If one or more of the performance standards are not met, a drive-thru lane is conditionally permitted, requiring approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission prior to development.

Performance standards listed in Section 17.32.163 were crafted to ensure that drive-thru lane designs adequately mitigated against impacts to onsite circulation and neighboring sites. Stacking and circulation standards limit impacts on driveways and drive aisles allowing traffic to transition smoothly throughout a site. Standards adopted for noise, screening, and menu board/signage placement secure against impacts to quality of life. Lastly, the 250-foot separation trigger from residentially planned or zoned land guarantees that adjacent residential neighborhoods within proximity to a proposed drive-thru lane are notified and given an opportunity to provide public comment.

Current Trends (conflicts related to popular restaurant chains and current pandemic):

The performance standards were crafted to encourage drive-thru lane designs that would limit impacts onto adjacent properties and to reduce processing requirements when a project could demonstrate compliance with all codified standards. In practice, the performance standards have not resulted in the types of changes envisioned by the City and staff. An analysis of the CUP applications submitted from five years before and eight years after the adoption of performance standards, for projects including at least one drive-thru restaurant use, shows that there was no significant reduction in CUP applications received. As noted in Figure 2, between 2009 and 2014 (the year performance standards where adopted) approximately 1.8 drive-thru CUP applications were received annually, with four submitted in 2013. After the performance standards were adopted, the average increased to

2.6 drive-thru CUP applications submitted per year, with 2019 marking the largest point of activity at 7 drive-thru CUPs submitted. In 2022 only one drive-thru CUP application has been submitted at this time.

FIGURE 2 Average Number of CUP Applications Received With A Drive-Thru Restaurant Use Component: 2009 to 2022 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 # of
DriveThru
CUPs
0 0 3 1 4 1 2 0 1 3 7 3 4 1 (Jan.
- May)
Average1.8 CUP applications per year. 2.6 CUP applications per year.

Visalia City Council Page 4 of 9 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 5
File #: 22-0242 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 1.

In addition to the above, staff has observed that the performance standards may not be sufficient to minimize impacts from drive-thru lanes when associated with popular quick serve restaurant chains.

Examples of popular commercial businesses that have recently expanded in Visalia, and which contain drive-thru lanes with vehicle queuing issues, include Starbucks Coffee Company, Dutch Bros Coffee, In-N-Out Burger, Dunkin Donuts, and Raising Canes. The minimum 10-vehicle stacking requirement mandated by existing performance standards has proven to not be sufficient for these businesses given the stacking issues that have occurred. During times of increased usage, vehicles attempting to access drive-thru lanes for the above locations will queue within drive-aisles, impacting access to parking areas and occasionally resulting in overflow onto City rights-of-way. Shopping centers are uniquely impacted by this occurrence, as they often contain multiple drive-thru facilities within a concentrated area, resulting in traffic congestion at multiple locations. This could prove highly detrimental should emergency services be needed at a drive-thru restaurant during a time of heavy use.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated vehicle queuing and traffic congestion issues, as the State’s “Stay Home” orders and prohibitions on indoor dining resulted in increased usage of drive -thru facilities. This resulted in larger than normal vehicles queues, which had the ancillary impact of an increase to prolonged noise production from customers waiting to pick up their orders. Potential impacts increase when factoring in noise and quality of life effects to residential areas near drive-thru facilities.

With the recent removal of quarantine orders, the impact of COVID to drive-thru usage has somewhat lessened. However, usage of drive-thru lanes remains high, likely a permanent by-product of quarantine orders and overall changing consumer preferences.

Direction on potential Drive-thru Performance Standard Updates:

The intent of this joint session staff report is to evaluate the existing drive-thru performance standards and encourage discussion and consideration of potential design solutions, regulations, and/or changes that may be employed to best address current drive-thru lane issues. Although staff does not have extensive knowledge on some of the measures discussed, the information is being provided for Council and Commission consideration as they may be of interest for possible addition to updated performance standards. The measures identified for discussion are as follows:

1. Consider a requirement for users to provide a vehicle queuing analysis and traffic action plan.

In instances where potential uses have been shown to have excessive drive-thru queues, the City could require that applicants submit additional documentation verifying that a proposed drive-thru use will not create increased impacts to the project site and surrounding areas. Studies such as a vehicle queuing analysis and traffic action plan can be required to be submitted during the site plan review or CUP process, providing information on usage rates, average wait times, and “line busting” tactics demonstrating how vehicle stacking impacts will be resolved immediately to limit circulation impacts and prohibit vehicle spillover into the public right-of-way. The information provided can be employed by staff to address specific impacts identified in the documentation, thereby heading off any potential Visalia City Council Page 5 of 9 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 6
File #: 22-0242 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 1.
by staff to address specific impacts identified in the documentation, thereby heading off any potential negative effects. Submittal of documentation also provides staff with additional tools with which to hold applicants accountable. An example of a vehicle queuing analysis is provided in Attachment No.

1. 2. Consider a requirement for users to provide additional drive-thru lane depth to facilitate on-site vehicle stacking.

In instances where potential uses have been shown to have excessive drive-thru queues, either through observation of existing locations or documentation provided (i.e., vehicle queuing analysis), the City could require that vehicle stacking in excess of 10 vehicles be provided. This would have the effect of reducing blockage of parking areas and drive aisles, while also directing users to larger sites with sufficient area to accommodate larger drive-thru lanes and queues.

3. Consider a limitation on the number of drive-thrus permitted within a unified shopping center.

Recent submittals for commercial shopping centers have proposed as many as eight drive-thru facilities within a shopping center area (see Attachment No. 2, the Oaks Marketplace Shopping Center, located on the southeast corner of West Visalia Parkway and South Mooney Boulevard). The inclusion of such a high number of drive-thru uses within one complex increases the potential for onsite circulation impacts to the entire development, especially if a popular and well-attended user where to establish onsite. A limitation on the number of drive-thru uses allowed within an individual shopping center could mitigate circulation impacts, and potentially spur diversified development not as heavily dependent on drive-thru uses. This in turn may result in facilitating improved pedestrian walkability within large commercial shopping center sites through removal of conflicting areas of movement. The limitation could also be applied citywide, requiring new drive-thru establishments to be setback a certain distance from other drive-thru uses.

4. Consider a prohibition on the establishment of drive-thrus within a minimum distance from residential areas.

At present, the performance standards require an applicant to undergo the CUP process if a drivethru use is proposed within 250 feet of a residence or residentially zoned property. However, such a use could still be conceivably approved by the Planning Commission. In fact, such approvals have been granted by the Planning Commission as recently as August 2021, for a Jack in the Box fast food restaurant with a drive-thru lane located at the northwest corner of East Tulare Avenue and South Lovers Lane. Note that in such instances, the Planning Commission can and does apply additional conditions to address specific impacts. For the Jack in the Box, this included conditions for screening walls and limited hours of operation. However, an outright prohibition for the establishment of drive-thru facilities within a certain distance from residential areas could limit the proliferation of drive-thru lanes and further reduce impacts to residential areas. If an outright prohibition is considered too burdensome, consideration can be given to operational limitations, as discussed in Item 6 below.

5. Consider a limitation on hours of operations and/or a prohibition on the operation of drive-thru windows 24-hours a day.

Existing performance standards do not explicitly call out hours of operation for drive-thru facilities.

Any limitations on hours of operation are typically applied by the Planning Commission as a Condition of Approval through the CUP process, depending on conditions onsite and in the project Visalia City Council Page 6 of 9 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 7
File #: 22-0242 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Condition of Approval through the CUP process, depending on conditions onsite and in the project vicinity. As such, there is no set standard on when such a condition is applied, the matter being left as a discretionary question to be ultimately decided upon by the Planning Commission. Performances standards could be revised to include targeted provisions regulating operating hours for uses with drive-thru facilities, or drive-thru windows specifically. Various limitations can be applied depending on proximity of residential areas, and potential allowances of later hours if noise reducing improvements are provided. An outright ban on 24-hour operation of drive-thru windows can also be considered, either Citywide or only in instances where a drive-thru is near a sensitive use.

6. Consider the assessment of additional fees to fund traffic improvements.

Staff has observed that in larger, more densely populated jurisdictions, municipalities have begun to apply additional development fees to new drive-thru facilities. Funds collected are then used to finance traffic improvements. At present, the City does not charge additional fees solely based on the use being proposed. Impact fees are charged based on the impact of a use on the City’s infrastructure, but these do not vary depending on the use being conducted, more so on the size of the facility. A drive-thru lane “impact fee” would represent a significant change to how development fees are applied. However, it would potentially have a significant impact on the proliferation of drivethru uses in the City.

7. Consider the drafting of design guidelines for drive-thru uses.

The City of Long Beach has drafted comprehensive design guidelines to influence the design of drive -thru facilities within its City Limits. The guidelines outline the CUP process and provide best practices with an eye towards limiting impacts to items such as air quality, traffic circulation, noise and light pollution, prohibiting vehicle spillover into the public right-of-way, and parking. Guidance provided includes advice on identifying sites best suited for drive-thru placement, suitable building placement, screening materials and placement, façade details, and drive aisle/parking lot design guidance. Helpful diagrams are also provided, streamlining guidelines into their essential parts for ease of use.

Staff can review elements of drive-thru facilities within or outside the City and identify designs that it wants to see encouraged or discouraged. Guidelines can then be drafted to obtain drive-thru facilities that are in line with the goals of the community.

8. Consider the revocation of CUP approvals for drive-thru facilities with ongoing queuing issues.

The Visalia Municipal Code currently permits the revocation of CUP approvals if it can be determined that a use is failing to comply with conditions of approval (VMC Section 17.38.040, Revocation).

Additional language can be included within the Visalia Municipal Code requiring compliance with performance standards related to vehicle stacking or other impacts, with revocation possible if significant and ongoing impacts are shown to occur. Such a provision would still require review and approval by the Planning Commission. And as it stands, this is already possible with the existing language in the Visalia Municipal Code. Calling out specific impacts from drive-thru facilities would simply serve to reinforce the concerns of the City to developers.

9. Consider keeping the performance standards as originally written.

There is potential that the COVID-19 pandemic caused increased usage of drive-thru facilities due to Local, State, and Federal mandates requiring the public to quarantine to combat the virus. With COVID cases on the decline, it is possible that drive-thru usage will decrease to levels adequately Visalia City Council Page 7 of 9 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 8
File #: 22-0242 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 1.

COVID cases on the decline, it is possible that drive-thru usage will decrease to levels adequately addressed by existing performance standards.

10.Consider further reducing the scope of existing performance standards.

Consideration should also be given to editing of the existing performance standards, to remove provisions that have been found to produce no beneficial effect to the public. Per staff’s observation, the requirement for Menu boards and signage to be oriented to avoid direct visibility from public streets does little to reduce impacts given the proliferation of business signage permitted by the Sign Ordinance (VMC Chapter 17.48). Under existing provisions, and depending on property characteristics, a business can potentially place up to 150 square feet of wall signage on a store front, in addition to 70 square feet of monument signage. On certain City streetscapes, a requirement to screen the small amount of signage placed on a menu board would do little to reduce overall visual impacts. Elimination of the menu board and signage screening requirement from performance standards would remove a possibly unnecessary hurdle for applicants and design consultants.

Other Considerations - Tenant Disclosures
For the Dutch Bros. Coffee facility located at 728 South Mooney Boulevard (on the southeast corner of South Mooney Boulevard and East Myrtle Avenue), a CUP was triggered due to the project’s proximity to residential areas to the east. At that time, the CUP proposed establishment of a threeunit commercial building with a drive-thru lane, and no tenants identified. Though there was significant public input about the potential effects of the use, staff recommended approval of the proposal based on its compliance with the City's drive-thru performance standards, and conditions applied limiting noise and lighting impacts. The item was approved by the Planning Commission, with construction completed in late 2020. It was only revealed during the Building Permit review phase that a Dutch Bros. would occupy the project site. The subsequent establishment of the Dutch Bros.

Coffee, a popular coffee chain, resulted in vehicle stacking in extreme excess of the 10 vehicles required per the performance standards.

Had the original applicant divulged the name of the eventual drive-thru tenant, the City may have been better equipped to address issues resulting from the popularity of the Dutch Bros. use prior to processing of the project. To address this issue, staff proposes enacting an in-house practice to request developers disclose the proposed tenant for any use involving a drive-thru lane. Establishing tenant disclosures as a non-binding request instead of a codified requirement allows drive-thru projects to move through the CUP process unimpeded in instances where an applicant is reticent to identify a tenant. Once a tenant is identified, staff could then request the tenant/business demonstrate compliance with any existing standards and updated codified items implemented at the direction of the City Council.

Next Steps:

City staff will gather comments received from the Joint Work Session. Based on input and potential direction received, staff will analyze all recommendations and present its findings to both the City Council and Planning Commission at a future work session. The analysis provided may result in a future Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) to the Visalia Municipal Code.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the information provided in the report, evaluate the City’s existing drive-thru performance standards, and provide guidance on how to best address Visalia City Council Page 8 of 9 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 9
File #: 22-0242 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 1.
current drive-thru related concerns.

CEQA Review: None required at this time.

Attachments:

1. Vehicle Queuing Analysis Example - Dave’s Hot Chicken, 3301 South Mooney Boulevard

2. Site Plan Exhibit - Oaks Marketplace Shopping Center Visalia City Council Page 9 of 9 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
9 VAN
9 9
9 10 4
6 10
9 7
7 RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENT

RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENT
DN 10
VAN
VAN
8 10
8 8
6 10
8 10 10
6 10
8 6 15
9 6
8 6
8 7
6 MIDVALLEY AVE

PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
7 8 30' 40' 10'9' TYP.18' 30' 40' 66'10' 20' 30' 10' 30' 66' 30' 5' 30' 677' 548' 23' 22' 30' 11' 55' 8 8 8
8 8 8
8 9
6 66
6 6 6
6 6
6 66 88
8 8
8 8 10
8 10
6 8 8 1010 1010
8 8
6 6
66 19 19
9 9
9 8
7 9
5 7
8 8
8 8 8
8 8
9 9
9 9
9 999
7 7
9 8
8 10
8 VISALIA PARKWAY

MOONEY BOULEVARD
9 66 9 1010 4
8 7
9 8
8 8
8 3286'
63'
41'
1267' 1361'
1240' 265' 445' 525' 318' 404' 515' 40' 40' 30' 30' 31' 30' VAN ANCHOR 1 ±15,000 SF

DRIVE-THRU
2,418 SF DRIVE THRU
2,418 SF
LOADING ANCHOR 1 ±14,000 SF ANCHOR 1 ±15,500 SF PAD 1 ±2,700 SF PAD 1 ±2,700 SF PAD 1 ±2,700 SF PAD 1 ±2,700 SF PAD 1 ±2,700 SF PAD 1 ±2,700 SF RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENT RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENT RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENT RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENT PATIO PAD 2
±1,600 SF
PAD 2
±1,600 SF
PAD 2
±1,600 SF
PAD 2
±1,600 SF PAD 2
±1,600 SF PAD 2 ±1,600 SF PAD 2 ±1,600 SF ANCHOR 1 ±15,000 SF ANCHOR 1 ±15,000 SF FUTURE EXPANSION PAD 3 SIT-DOWN RESTAURANT ±10,000 SF DRIVE-THRU 2,800 SF PAD 4 SIT-DOWN RESTAURANT ±8,000 SF ALDI ±20,473 SF UTILITY/DRAINAGE EASEMENT ANCHOR 1 ±15,500 SF ANCHOR 1 ±15,500 SF 25' LOADING 76' PANDA EXPRESS ±3,000 SF FARMER BOYS DRIVE THRU 3,300 SF FRESH FILL ±4,800 SF 5 5
9 110' 10 10
7 5 9 3030303030 28 3838 10
9 8
7 8
8 6 10
6 10
6 9 6 PAD 1 ±2,500 SF PAD 1 ±2,500 SF PAD 1 ±2,500 SF PAD 1 ±2,500 SF

LOADING LOADING LOADING

LOADING LOADING LOADING LOADING

LOADING LOADING

LOADING LOADING LOADING LOADING

LOADING
LOADING 80' 30' 80' 80' 80' 30' 80' 80' 80' 80' 23' 24'80' 30' 75'75' 30' 75'75' 30' 75'75' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 7 PAD 2
±1,600 SF
PAD 2
±1,600 SF
PAD 2
±1,600 SF
4 22' 23' 55' 7' 6' 11' 43' 12' 47' 10' 20' 20
5 CAR WASH ±4,375 SF
9 DRIVE THRU ±3,000 SF
7 9 DRIVE THRU ±3,000 SF
7 10
7 6 1010
6 6
8 6
5 20' 10' 10' 15' 10' 80' 10' PREPARED BY: FAX: 559.802.3215 TEL: 559.802.3052 VISALIA, CA 93292 324 S. SANTA FE ST., STE. A P.O. BOX 7593 SITE DATA: VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION CALDWELL AVE

MOONEY BLVD CAMERON AVE VISALIA PKWY
TULARE COUNTY OAKS MARKETPLACE MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE PLAN A PORTION OF LOT 2 OF SHANNON RANCH CENTRAL SUBDIVISION, RECORDED IN VOL. 40 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 99, TCR, LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, 24 EAST, MDB&M, IN THE CITY OF VISALIA, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APN: 126-080-025, 056 ZONING (EXISTING): C-R REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONING (PROPOSED): C-R REGIONAL COMMERCIAL GENERAL PLAN (EXISTING): REGIONAL COMMERCIAL GENERAL PLAN (PROPOSED): REGIONAL COMMERCIAL UTILITIES SEWER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA WATER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA STORM SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA GAS SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ELEC. SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON REFUSE SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA TELEPHONE: SBC FLOOD ZONE:

X SETBACKS FRONT (MOONEY BLVD): 20' SIDE (VISALIA PKWY & MIDVALLEY AVE): 10' REAR (EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY): 15' BUILDING AND PARKING BUILDING TYPE BUILDING SF PARKING PROPOSED GROCERY STORE 20,473 SF 111 SPACES DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT 19,354 SF 313 SPACES SIT-DOWN RESTAURANT 18,000 SF 93 SPACES CONVENIENCE STORE 4,800 SF 19 SPACES CAR WASH 4,375 SF 14 SPACES ANCHOR 105,500 SF 856 SPACES PAD 42,200 SF 159 SPACES TOTAL 214,702 SF 1,565 SPACES CITY OF VISALIA JULY 15, 2021 100' 100' 21 DRIVE THRU (TYPICAL) 5' 2' 4' 19'-20' 9' 25'-30' 12' VAN 9' CAR NO PARKING 19' VAN
DN 6 9' TYP. 10' 30' 10' 30' 66' 30' 5' 30' 30' 11' 1010 88 66 7 VAN FUTURE EXPANSION ALDI ±20,473 SF 25' LOADING 76'

LOADING
LOADING LOADING LOADING 30' 75' 75'75' 30' 75'30' PREPARED BY: FAX: 559.802.3215 TEL: 559.802.3052 VISALIA, CA 93292 324 S. SANTA FE ST., STE. A P.O. BOX 7593 VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION CALDWELL AVE MOONEY BLVD CAMERON AVE VISALIA PKWY TULARE COUNTY OAKS MARKETPLACE MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DETAILS A PORTION OF LOT 2 OF SHANNON RANCH CENTRAL SUBDIVISION, RECORDED IN VOL. 40 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 99, TCR, LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, 24 EAST, MDB&M, IN THE CITY OF VISALIA, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF VISALIA STREET STANDARD CROSS SECTION DRIVE THRU DETAIL PARKING DETAIL ALDI LOADING DOCK AUTOTURN DETAIL 22 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0239 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Overview of the City of Visalia Urban Development Boundaries and discussion on Residential Housing Inventories within Tier I and Tier II.

Deadline for Action: 6/13/2022
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Josh Dan, Associate Planner - (559)713-4003, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Rafael Garcia, Senior Planner - (559)713-4031, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Paul Bernal, Community Development Director - (559)713-4025, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Department Recommendation:

That the City Council and Planning Commission receive the staff report and presentation providing an overview of residential lands, entitlements, permit totals and remaining residential units available for future development inside the Tier I and Tier II urban development boundaries.

Background Discussion:

During the January 16, 2020 Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission, staff provided an overview of Visalia’s Growth Boundaries upon reaching the five-year milestone since the adoption of the General Plan Update in 2014. The overview provided a snapshot of all development thresholds for the various land uses (i.e., commercial, industrial, residential, and regional commercial) in the Tier I Urban Growth Boundary. Staff later returned on March 17, 2021, to detail the current permit tally and provide a forecast of when the City anticipated meeting the threshold requirements for the subsequent growth tiers, particularly the “Residential” permit thresholds. On July 19, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-38 memorializing the exact date Tier II land use thresholds were reached.

At that time, other land use classifications (with the exception of the regional retail land use) had already attained their threshold requirements and the main focus was on the residential land use category. The Tier II Residential land use threshold required 5,850 permits to be issued from April 1, 2010, which was achieved July 1, 2021, with a total of 5,868 residential permits issued. Staff is now providing a subsequent update and additional analysis on the residential development activity in Tiers I and II, including the remaining residential permit capacity within Tier I.

Summary:

Residential development activity in Visalia (post the nationwide economic downturn of mid 2010) has remained consistent. This is evident based on the number of residential permits issued from 2013 through 2018. However, residential activity within the past three years (2019-2021) has significantly increased (see City of Visalia Building Permits Issued 2013 - May 2022 attachment). This has been Visalia City Council Page 1 of 7 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 23
File #: 22-0239 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 2.
increased (see City of Visalia Building Permits Issued 2013 - May 2022 attachment). This has been proven in the permitting records for residential activity staff have tracked since the adoption of the 2014 General Plan Update. The 2014 Genera l Plan Update utilized a simplified methodology for expansion between growth tiers. This was based on issuance of a specified number of permits for new dwelling units or new nonresidential floor area. This methodology was ultimately chosen for its simplicity of using one type of criteria that could be easily tracked and reported on a regular basis so that the City could monitor the pace of growth and prepare for the next growth boundary expansion.

The General Plan Update revised and adopted various changes and policies including General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-21, which established the exact measurement points for expansion between growth boundaries. The policy specifies that building permits are to be counted starting from the census date of April 1, 2010. As such, staff is providing an update of the residential development within Tier I and Tier II since the expansion into Tier II. This report will provide context on the number of subdivision maps and development potential for residential uses within the balance of Tier I and Tier II development areas.

Single Family Residential Lots Remaining in Tier I
The residential threshold (benchmark needed to be met before opening the Tier II Urban Growth Boundary) was set for 5,850 issued residential permits. Per the City Council staff report prepared for the General Plan update in 2014, staff projected that the city would reach 93 percent buildout in Tier I once reaching this threshold (i.e., 5,850 residential permits issued). The city reached this threshold on July 1, 2021. Staff can confirm, through current entitlement activity and available undeveloped land within the city limits, that residential development activity in Tier I areas remains robust.

Achievement of this threshold did not equate to the full buildout of all residential lands in Tier I. In fact, there are still approximately 450-acres of undeveloped single-family residential land in Tier I, (roughly space for 2,000 SFR lots) several of which have entitled residential subdivision projects yet to be fully developed to completion.

The number of entitled or past-entitled single-family residential lots in Tier 1 can be broken into a few categories as described below (data has been updated through May 1, 2022). · Final Maps: Final maps are subdivisions where a phase or the entire subdivision is recorded (i.e., final maps), but have yet to be fully developed to completion. Some of these final maps date back to 2003. The number of recorded final maps that have single-family lots which have yet to be issued a building permit is approximately 733. · Approved Tentative Maps: These types of maps are subdivisions that have been approved but a Final map has not recorded. There are several maps which have been entitled (i.e., tentative maps) which account for an additional 785 single-family residential lots which may be developed in the future.
· Filed Tentative Subdivision Maps: There are also Tentative Subdivision Maps that have been submitted, but not approved through the public hearing process. These projects account for an additional 179 single-family lots which are currently being processed through the entitlement process (i.e., have a pending tentative subdivision map to be reviewed at a future Planning Commission meeting).
· Expired Tentative Subdivision Maps: Lastly, there are an additional 260 single-family Visalia City Council Page 2 of 7 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 24
File #: 22-0239 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 2.
· Expired Tentative Subdivision Maps: Lastly, there are an additional 260 single-family residential lots associated with subdivision maps which were previously entitled since 2010 and are now expired. The approval of a tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date the map was approved or conditionally approved. An extension of the tentative map approval or conditional approval shall not exceed an aggregate of three years.

Overall, based on the information provided above, the subdivision maps that are at various steps in the mapping process, including the expired subdivision maps, accounts for a total of 1,957 singlefamily lots which may still be developed within Tier I boundary. The combined 1,518 lots associated with the approved final and tentative maps represent the lowest number of approved vacant lots since staff began tracking figures in 2006. In 2006-2007 there were over 7,000 combined lots, and that number was reduced to 5,500 lots when the General Plan was going through the adoption process in 2014. Please note, movement from Tier I to Tier II for residential land uses was established and approved per City Council adoption of General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-21, which established the exact measurement points for expansion between growth boundaries. Adoption of this policy acknowledges that all of Tier I land would not be developed but creates the opportunity for Tier II land to become available for development which reduces over-pressurizing residential lands in Tier 1. Table 1 below provides a summary of the number of lots available in Tier I as noted above.

Table 1: Single Family Residential Lots in Tier I (Not Yet Developed) Status Number of Lots
Final Map Lots 733
Tentative Map Lots 785
Going Through Entitlement 179
Expired Map Lots 260
TOTAL- 1,957
In addition, the ±450-acres of undeveloped single-family residential land in Tier I has the development potential to provide additional lots as identified in Table 1-2 below.

Table 1-2: Available Acreage and Development Potential
Land Use Acres Number of Lots /
Units
Single Family Residential 450-ac 2,025 lots*
*The figure provided is an approximation using the development density of 4.5 units/acre at traditional standard street widths.

Multifamily Residential Units Remaining in Tier I
There are currently a total of 13 multifamily residential projects with an approved Conditional Use Permit entitlement at various stages of the development process in Tier 1. The following is an overview of these projects including the unit count and/or permits issued:
· A total of seven multifamily projects have been entitled, but no permits have been applied or issued. The seven projects account for a total of 523 multifamily residential units. The next phase for these projects will be building permit issuance which will allow them to initiate the construction process.
· There are an additional three multifamily residential projects which are currently “active” meaning that the projects have been entitled and some building permits have been issued, but Visalia City Council Page 3 of 7 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 25
File #: 22-0239 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 2.
meaning that the projects have been entitled and some building permits have been issued, but the projects have not been developed to full completion. A total of 433 multifamily residential units have been approved as part of the three projects, however, only 143 of the units have been constructed. This results in a remaining balance of 290 multifamily residential units for which no permits have been issued at this time.
· There are also an additional three projects which account for a total of 50 multifamily residential units which are currently “inactive” and for which no permits have been issued.

In all, a total of 1,006 multifamily units have been approved, with 143 units constructed leaving a total of 863 multifamily residential units that may still be developed within Tier I. These units are in addition to the 360-acres of un-developed multifamily residential in Tier I (potential for about 4,230 units) that have not gone through an entitlement process. Table 2-1 below provides a breakdown of the number of multifamily units still remaining to be developed.

Table 2-1: Multifamily Units in Tier I
Status Number of Units
Entitled/Approved 523
Active Projects 290
Inactive Projects 50
TOTAL- 863
In addition, the are 360-acres of undeveloped multifamily residential land in Tier I that has the development potential to provide additional units as identified in Table 2-2 below.

Table 2-2: Available Acreage and Development Potential
Land Use Acres Number of Units
Multi-Family Residential
Medium Density
Residential (R
-M-2 Zoning)
234-ac 2,340 units**
High Density
Residential (R
-M-3 Zoning)
126-ac 1,890 units**
TOTAL- 360-ac 4,230 Units
**Unit totals provide are a reflection of the minimum density requirement of each land use (10 & 15 units per acre).

Residential Projects in Tier II
Previous analyses and presentations to the City Council and Planning Commission have presented Visalia City Council Page 4 of 7 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 26
File #: 22-0239 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Previous analyses and presentations to the City Council and Planning Commission have presented known acreage of lands within the Tier II Growth Boundary and the anticipated projects which have been proposed through the Site Plan Review process. Table 3-1 below depicts the acreage of the four residential land use districts in Tier II. Currently the City is processing entitlements for seven residential projects within Tier II (see Exhibit E). Some of these projects are located exclusively within Tier II, while others overlap from Tier I. Table 3-2 below lists and describes the seven residential projects being processed in Tier II. While most of the projects have yet to secure required discretionary approvals, they are anticipated to generate a total of 1,666 single-family residential lots and 468 multifamily residential units for a potential combined total of 2,134 residential units. To date, one residential subdivision has been approved by the Planning Commission (Higgins Ranch Subdivision) for a total of 174 single family lots located at the southeast corner of South Lovers Lane and East Cherry Avenue. The project is still in the process of going through the required annexation process in order to be annexed within the City’s jurisdiction.

Table 3-1: Tier II Residential Land Use Acreage
Land Use Acreage
Residential Very Low Density 100.64
Residential Low Density1,115.51
Residential Medium Density 193.54
Residential High Density 92.22
TOTAL- 1,501.91
Table 3-2: Tier II Residential Projects (see Exhibit “E” for locations) Entitlement TSM # Status Location Tier II SFR
Units
Tier II MFR
Units
Tier II Total
Units
Carlton Acres 5590Open Shirk, Riggin,
Akers, Kibler
388237625
Pratt Family
Ranch
5583Open Pratt,
Mooney,
Riverway
18463247
Iron Ridge I
(10 acres)
Iron Ridge II
(40 acres)
5581
5589
Phase I &
Phase II Open
Shirk, Clancy,
Pershing
2000 200
Higgins Ranch 5585Approved Lovers &
Cherry
1740 174
Crandell /
Belissa
5587Open Demaree &
Riverway
310168478
Barr & Wood 5588Open Whitendale &
Roeben
1360 136
Pearl Woods 5591Open McAuliff &
Cherry
2740 274
TOTAL-1,666 4682,134
Visalia City Council Page 5 of 7 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 27
File #: 22-0239 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 2.
ggpp
Cherry
Crandell /
Belissa
5587Open Demaree &
Riverway
310168478
Barr & Wood 5588Open Whitendale &
Roeben
1360 136
Pearl Woods 5591Open McAuliff &
Cherry
2740 274
TOTAL-1,666 4682,134
6th Cycle Housing Element Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Obligations
State law requires cities and counties in California to update the Housing Element of their General Plans approximately every eight years. Visalia’s next update - the 6th cycle update - is due December 31, 2023. The primary task of a Housing Element is that cities must prove to the State that their General Plans and zoning ordinances and maps can accommodate the number of housing units that they have been assigned through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, including an assigned number of affordable units.

The RHNA process consists of the State projecting the future population (and corresponding number of housing units required to accommodate that population) for a region and assigning to the local council of government the task of dividing that overall number up amongst the region’s jurisdictions (cities and counties). Historically, the City has been very successful demonstrating its capacity to accommodate housing for Moderate- and Above Moderate-income households, primarily resulting from standard single-family residential subdivision zoning and associated developments. The greater challenge has been accommodating housing opportunities for lower income households (i.e., Extremely Low, Very Low). Higher density multifamily residential developments typically satisfy these affordability criteria. In addition, the advancement to Visalia’s next urban development boundary in 2021 has opened up hundreds of acres of additional pre-zoned lands to accommodate multifamily and single-family residential uses. This land will be able to assist with accommodating development in fulfillment of Visalia’s RHNA.

The City’s RHNA housing allocation for the 6th cycle is a total of 10,791 new housing units which has increased by 770 units from the 5th cycle allocation of 10,021 new housing units. Fortunately, Visalia and Tulare County as a whole received a very modest increase in its RHNA allocations compared to its counterparts in more metropolitan areas, some of which have seen a two-fold or larger increase in its RHNA allocation.

Legislation passed in recent years have now made Housing Element Updates an even more complex process. Additional requirements that must be fulfilled include Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing reporting requirements (estimated by consultants to be an additional 50 pages with maps) and an increase of minimum densities to at least 20 dwelling units per acre if intended to meet RHNA allocation for low for very low-income units.

The City is currently soliciting proposals from qualified professional consultants to assist staff with preparation of the 6th Cycle Update, for the planning period from December 31, 2023 to December 31, 2031. State law will also require the City to update its Safety Element and to satisfy requirements for Environmental Justice in tandem with the Housing Element Update - a task which can also be accomplished through consultant work. Visalia has been able to secure funding sources through LEAP and REAP grants - approximately $360,000 to $396,000 - that should be able to cover the running costs for a consultant to prepare an Update, including the Safety and Environmental Justice Element Updates.

Summary:

The city is currently processing several projects which have been submitted since expanding into Tier Visalia City Council Page 6 of 7 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 28
File #: 22-0239 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 2.

The city is currently processing several projects which have been submitted since expanding into Tier II. The City’s adopted growth management plan is implemented and managed through the Growth Boundary Tiers and has served residents and the development community in offering a smart growth pattern, while preventing sprawl and unnecessary burdens on infrastructure and circulation.

Furthermore, there are approximately 810 acres within Tier I still available for potential development.

Approximately 450 acres are zoned single-family residential, and 360 acres are zoned multifamily residential. This results in a total development potential of 6,255 residential units that may still be developed within Tier I. Note that the General Plan will require that permits be issued for an additional 6,950 units within Tiers I and II, following meeting the Tier II threshold in July 2021, prior to expanding into Tier III. Meeting the threshold to move to Tier III is estimated to take approximately 12 years from July 2021 based on the assumption that permit issuance numbers continue to average 600 permits annually.

Available Acreage and Development Potential In Tier I
Land Use Acres Number of Lots /
Units
Single Family Residential 450-ac 2,025 lots*
Multi-Family Residential 360-ac 4,230 units**
Medium Density
Residential
234-ac 2,340 units**
High Density
Residential
126-ac 1,890 units**
TOTAL- 810-ac 6,255 Lots / Units
*The figure provided is an approximation using the development density of 4.5 units/acre at traditional standard street widths. **Unit totals provide are a reflection of the minimum density requirement of each land use (10 & 15 units per acre).

Attachments:

Exhibit “A” - Tier I All Residential Land Uses
Exhibit “B” - Tier II All Residential Land Uses
Exhibit “C” - Tier I Multi-Family Residential Land Uses Exhibit “D” - Tier II & III Multi-Family Residential Land Uses Exhibit “E” - Tier I & II Current Entitlements Residential Subdivision Projects Exhibit “F” - Final Maps, Approved Tentative Maps, Multi-Family Projects Exhibit “G” - Tier I Final Maps, Tentative Maps, and Undeveloped Lands City of Visalia Building Permits Issued 2013 - May 2022 Visalia City Council Page 7 of 7 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 29
Walnut
Dinuba
Riggin
Mooney
Demaree
Court
Linwood
K
Tulare Ben Maddox
Tulare
Riggin
Mineral King
Houston
Main
St Johns
Akers
Walnut
Goshen
Noble
Demaree
Houston
Chinowth
Shirk
Ben Maddox
Noble
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Goshen
Ferguson
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Akers
Murray
Rd 108
Neeley
Houston
Lovers Lane
Shannon
Willis
Woodland
Burke
Acequia
Linwood
Chinowth
Mineral King
Hall
Hurley
Locust
Court
Giddings
American
Whitendale
Ferguson
Cameron
Akers
Mc Auliff
West
County Center
2nd
Pinkham
County Center
Roeben
Burke
Cain
Santa Fe
Roeben
Campus
Center
Hwy 198
Bridge
Conyer
Ferguson
Demaree
Mineral King
Court
Hurley
Mc Auliff
3rd
Jacob
Ferguson
Visalia
Shannon
Riverway
MillCreek
Doe
Rd 132
Ave 280
Plaza
Mill Creek
Caldwell
Hwy 99
Ave 312
Visalia
Shirk
Pratt
St Johns
Walnut
Goshen
Kelsey
Rd 124
Riverway
Visalia
Visalia
Mooney
Riggin
Sunnyview
Noble
Goshen
Clancy
Ave 308
Ivanhoe
Rd 86
Rd 76
Rd 108
Rd 156
Rd 152
Plaza
Ave 312 Riggin
Rd 100
Ave 296
Rd 144
Rd 100
Ave 272
Rd 88
Plaza
Noble
Rd 148
Ave 280
Rd 148
Ave 276
Rd 92
Mooney
¯
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
R-M-3 (1,200 SF Min Site Area)
R-M-2 (3,000 SF Min Site Area)
R-1-5 (5,000 SF Min Site Area)
R-1-12.5 (12,500 SF Min Site Area)
R-1-20 (20,000 SF Min Site Area)
Zoning
City Limits
Tier I Residential Land Uses
30 Akers
Dinuba
Riggin
Mooney
Demaree
Court
Linwood
K
Tulare Ben Maddox
Pinkham
Tulare
Riggin
Houston
Mineral King
Main
Akers
St Johns
Walnut Walnut
Goshen
Noble
Chinowth
Shirk
Houston
Noble
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Goshen
Ferguson
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Murray
Hwy 99
Neeley
Lovers Lane
Burke
Shannon
Willis
Woodland
Burke
Acequia
Ave 304
Linwood
Chinowth
Mineral King
Hall
Demaree
Hurley
Locust
Giddings
American
Whitendale
Cain
Ferguson
Mc Auliff
West
County Center
2nd
County Center
Roeben
Santa Fe
Ben Maddox
Roeben
Campus
Center
Hwy 198
Bridge
Conyer
Ferguson
Mineral King
Court
Hurley
Mc Auliff
Ave 308
3rd
Jacob
MillCreek
Riverway
Doe
Rd 132
Ave 280
Plaza
Mill Creek
Caldwell
Ave 312
Visalia
Cameron
Shirk
Pratt
St Johns
Kelsey
Walnut
Goshen
Rd 124
Riverway
Rd 108
Visalia
Visalia
Riggin
Sunnyview
Noble
Goshen
Clancy
Mooney
Betty
Ave 320
Ivanhoe
Rd 86
Rd 76
Rd 108
Rd 156
Rd 152
Plaza
Kibler
Ave 312 Riggin
Rd 100
Ave 296
Rd 144
Rd 100
Ave 272
Rd 88
Plaza
Noble
Rd 148
Ave 280
Rd 148
Rd 92
Ave 320
Ave 276
Mooney
Tier II Residential Land Uses
City Limits
Residential Very Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential Low Density
Residential High Density
General Plan Land Use
Urban Growth Boundary Tier 1 ¯
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
31 Walnut
Dinuba
Riggin
Mooney
Demaree
Court
Linwood
K
Mc Auliff
Tulare Ben Maddox
Pinkham
Tulare
Riggin
Houston
Mineral King
Main
Akers
St Johns
Walnut
Goshen
Noble
Demaree
Shirk
Chinowth
Houston
Ben Maddox
Noble
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Goshen
Ferguson
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Akers
Murray
Neeley
Houston
Lovers Lane
Burke
Shannon
Willis
Woodland
Burke
Acequia
Linwood
Chinowth
Mineral King
Hall
Hurley
Locust
Court
Hwy 198
Giddings
American
Whitendale
Cain
Ferguson
Cameron
Akers
Mc Auliff
West
County Center
Houston
Chinowth
2nd
County Center
Roeben
Santa Fe
Roeben
Hwy 99
Campus
Center
Bridge
Conyer
Ferguson
Demaree
Mineral King
Court
Hurley
3rd
Jacob
Kelsey
Ferguson
Visalia
Shannon
MillCreek
Riverway
Doe
Rd 132
Ave 280
Plaza
Mill Creek
Ivanhoe
Caldwell
Ave 312
Visalia
Shirk
Pratt
St Johns
Kelsey
Walnut
Goshen
Rd 124
Riverway
Visalia
Visalia
Mooney
Riggin
Sunnyview
Noble
Goshen
Clancy
Ave 308
Rd 86
Rd 108
Rd 76
Rd 108
Plaza
Rd 152
Ave 312 Riggin
Rd 100 Rd 100
Rd 144
Ave 272
Rd 88
Plaza
Noble
Rd 148
Rd 92
Ave 280
Rd 148
Ave 276
Mooney
City Limits
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
General Plan Land Use:
0 0.38 0.75 1.5 Miles
¯
Tier I Multi-Family Residential Land Uses
Urban Development Boundary Tier 1
Urban Growth Development Tiers:
32 Pinkham
Akers
Dinuba
Riggin
Mooney
Court
Linwood
Demaree
K
Tulare Ben Maddox
Tulare
Riggin
Houston
Mineral King
Main
Akers
St Johns
Walnut Walnut
Goshen
Noble
Chinowth
Shirk
Houston
Noble
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Goshen
Ferguson
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Murray
Hwy 99
Neeley
Lovers Lane
Burke
Shannon
Willis
Woodland
Burke
Acequia
Ave 304
Linwood
Chinowth
Mineral King
Hall
Demaree
Hurley
Locust
Giddings
American
Whitendale
Cain
Ferguson
Mc Auliff
West
County Center
2nd
County Center
Roeben
Santa Fe
Ben Maddox
Roeben
Campus
Center
Hwy 198
Bridge
Conyer
Ferguson
Mineral King
Court
Hurley
Mc Auliff
Ave 308
3rd
Jacob
MillCreek
Riverway
Doe
Rd 132
Ave 280
Plaza
Mill Creek
Caldwell
Ave 312
Visalia
Cameron
Shirk
Pratt
St Johns
Kelsey
Walnut
Goshen
Rd 124
Riverway
Rd 108
Visalia
Visalia
Riggin
Sunnyview
Noble
Goshen
Clancy
Mooney
Betty
Ave 320
Ivanhoe
Rd 86
Rd 76
Rd 108
Rd 156
Rd 152
Plaza
Kibler
Ave 312 Riggin
Rd 100
Ave 296
Rd 144
Rd 100
Ave 272
Rd 88
Plaza
Noble
Rd 148
Ave 280
Rd 148
Rd 92
Ave 320
Ave 276
Mooney
0 0.45 0.9 1.8 Miles
¯
Tier II & III Multi-Family Residential Land Uses
Urban Growth Boundary Tier 3
Urban Growth Boundary Tier 2
Urban Growth Boundary Tier 1
City Limits
33 Walnut
Dinuba
Riggin
Mooney
Demaree
Court
Linwood
K
Mc Auliff
Tulare Ben Maddox
Pinkham
Tulare
Riggin
Mineral King
Houston
Main
Akers
St Johns
Walnut
Goshen
Noble
Mooney
Demaree
Chinowth
Shirk
Houston
Ben Maddox
Noble
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Goshen
Ferguson
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Akers
Murray
Neeley
Houston
Lovers Lane
Burke
Shannon
Willis
Woodland
Burke
Acequia
Linwood
Chinowth
Mineral King
Hall
Hurley
Locust
Court
Giddings
American
Whitendale
Cain
Mooney
Ferguson
Cameron
Akers
Mc Auliff
West
County Center
Houston
Chinowth
2nd
County Center
Roeben
Goshen
Santa Fe
Roeben
Campus
Center
Hwy 198
Bridge
Conyer
Ferguson
Demaree
Mineral King
Court
Hurley
3rd
Jacob
Kelsey
Ferguson
Visalia
Shannon
MillCreek
Riverway
Doe
Rd 132
Ave 280
Plaza
Mill Creek
Caldwell
Visalia
Shirk
Pratt
St Johns
Kelsey
Walnut
Rd 124
Riverway
Rd 108
Visalia
Visalia
Riggin
Sunnyview
Noble
Goshen
Clancy
Ave 320
Ivanhoe
Rd 86
Ave 296
Rd 76
Rd 108
Rd 152
Plaza
Kibler
Ave 312 Riggin
Rd 100
Rd 144
Rd 100
Ave 272
Rd 88
Plaza
Noble
Rd 148
Ave 280
Rd 148
Rd 92
Ave 320
Ave 276
Hwy 99
Tier I & II Residential Subdivision Projects
Carlton Acres - 625 Units
(Tier II)
Iron Ridge - 200 Units
(Tier II)
Crandell / Belissa - 478 Units
Pratt Family Ranch - 247 Units
Victory Oaks - 117 Units
Sequoia Bend Estates - 138 Units
Barr & Wood - 136 Units
Higgins Ranch - 174 Units Pearl Woods - 200 Units
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Tier 2 Projects ¯
Tier 1 Projects
Urban Growth Boundary Tier:

Current Tier I & II Residential Subdivision Projects
34 Walnut
Dinuba
Riggin
Mooney
Demaree
Court
Linwood
K
Mc Auliff
Tulare Ben Maddox
Pinkham
Tulare
Mineral King
Houston
Main
Akers
St Johns
Walnut
Goshen
Noble
Mooney
Chinowth
Shirk
Houston
Ben Maddox
Noble
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Goshen
Mooney
Ferguson
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Akers
Murray
Houston
Lovers Lane
Burke
Shannon
Willis
County
C
e
n
t
e
r
Woodland
Burke
Acequia
Linwood
Chinowth
Linwood
Mineral King
Hall
Demaree
Hurley
Locust
Court
Giddings
Whitendale
Cain
Cameron
Akers
Mc Auliff
West
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
Houston
Chinowth
2nd
County Center
Roeben
Santa Fe
Roeben
Divisadero
Campus
Center
Hwy 198
Bridge
Conyer
Mineral King
Court
Rd 108
3rd
Jacob
Kelsey
Ferguson
Visalia
Shannon
Mill Creek
Riverway
Doe
Rd 132
Ave 280
Mill Creek
Caldwell
Visalia
Shirk
Pratt
St Johns
Kelsey
Walnut
Rd 124
Riverway
Visalia
Kibler
Riggin
Hurley
Visalia
Riggin
Sunnyview
Noble
Goshen
Clancy
Ave 320
Ivanhoe
Rd 86
Rd 108
Ave 296
Rd 152
Ave 312 Riggin
Rd 100
Rd 144
Rd 100
Plaza
Ave 272
Rd 88
Noble
Rd 148
Ave 280
Rd 148
Rd 92
Ave 320
Ave 276
Hwy 99
Final Maps, Approved Tentative Maps, and Multi-family Projects 0 0.47 0.95 1.9 Miles
¯
Approved Tentative Maps
Approved Multi-family Projects
Projects with Final Maps
City Limits
35 Walnut
Dinuba
Riggin
Mooney
Court
Linwood
Demaree
K
Tulare Ben Maddox
Pinkham
Tulare
Riggin
Houston
Mineral King
Main
Akers
St Johns
Walnut
Goshen
Noble
Chinowth
Shirk
Houston
Ben Maddox
Noble
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Goshen
Ferguson
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Akers
Murray
Hwy 99 Neeley
Lovers Lane
Burke
Hwy 198
Shannon
Willis
Woodland
Burke
Acequia
Ave 304
Linwood
Chinowth
Mineral King
Hall
Demaree
Hurley
Locust
Court
Giddings
American
Whitendale
Cain
Cameron
Akers
Mc Auliff
West
County Center
2nd
County Center
Roeben
Santa Fe
Roeben
Campus
Center
Bridge
Conyer
Ferguson
Mineral King
Court
Hurley
Mc Auliff
Ave 308
3rd
Jacob
Ferguson
Visalia
MillCreek
Riverway
Doe
Rd 132
Ave 280
Plaza
Mill Creek
Caldwell
Ave 312
Visalia
Shirk
Pratt
St Johns
Kelsey
Walnut
Goshen
Rd 124
Riverway
Rd 108
Visalia
Visalia
Riggin
Sunnyview
Noble
Goshen
Clancy
Mooney
Betty
Ave 320
Ivanhoe
Rd 86
Rd 76
Rd 108
Ave 296
Rd 152
Plaza
Kibler
Ave 312 Riggin
Rd 100
Rd 144
Rd 100
Ave 272
Rd 88
Plaza
Noble
Rd 148
Ave 280
Rd 148
Rd 92
Ave 320
Ave 276
Mooney
Final Maps, Tentative Maps, and Undeveloped Lands
Undeveloped Lands
Approved Tentative Maps
Projects with Final Maps
City Limits
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
¯
36 City of Visalia
Building Permits Issued
2013 - May, 2022
Year
No. New
SFD
Attached
&
Detached Valuation
Avg. Cost
of New
Dwelling
New SFD
Sq. Ft.

No. Multi
Family
Permits
No. Multi
Family
Units
New
MFD Sq.

Ft. Valuation
No. Res.

Additions
& Alt. Valuation
No. New
Comm. Valuation
New COM
Sq. Ft.

No.

Comm.

Additions
& Alt. &
Signs Valuation
Misc.

Permits
Total
Number
of
All Permits
Total
Valuation
of
All Permits
Total
of
New
Sq. Ft
2013 429 106,757,965 $248,853 921,329 0 0 0 $0 1,366 $25,184,011 27 $20,569,925 196,078 315 $25,001,956 1,296 3,433 177,513,857 1,117,4072014 415 106,006,823 $255,438 880,951 10 20 19,752 $2,583,680 1,785 $29,172,873 26 $12,660,286 283,692 351 $30,914,285 1,560 4,147 181,337,948 1,184,3952015 509 134,895,644 $265,021 1,127,142 34 106 103,417 $11,741,497 2,413 $43,204,771 47 $25,530,824 191,573 303 $24,475,786 1,697 5,003 239,848,521 1,422,1322016 575 149,789,622 $260,504 1,252,683 35 130 138,135 $12,643,273 2,289 $39,693,011 55 $52,897,027 721,324 306 $21,409,350 1,720 4,980 276,432,283 2,112,1422017 483 131,519,465 $272,297 1,062,813 23 70 72,631 $8,382,042 2,323 $39,959,531 37 $21,320,625 227,129 344 $31,488,648 1,598 4,808 232,670,311 1,362,5732018 504 123,419,496 $244,880 1,004,933 16 74 79,016 $9,260,479 2,329 $39,331,468 34 $26,044,481 295,960 306 $24,042,174 1,567 4,756 222,098,098 1,379,9092019 638 159,777,978 $250,436 1,299,349 22 61 77,113 $9,137,632 2,501 $50,467,877 53 $74,446,842 1,138,651 290 $43,527,028 2,265 5,769 337,357,357 2,515,1132020 601 156,282,480 $260,037 1,251,873 3 6 8,532 $1,001,141 2,365 $48,017,336 41 $182,318,970 2,429,835 244 $48,191,492 1,785 5,039 435,811,418 3,690,2402021 636 170,769,740 $268,506 1,300,588 58 204 194,014 $22,023,373 2,757 $64,456,812 66 $105,729,256 1,547,680 268 $90,336,003 2,254 6,039 453,315,185 3,042,2822022 346 92,735,173 $268,021 695,425 21 191 200,347 $22,352,429 1,520 $37,357,764 16 $100,620,559 1,128,238 93 $50,492,346 900 2,896 303,558,271 2,024,010 TOTALS 5,136 1,331,954,385 $259,337 10,797,086 222 862 892,957 99,125,546 21,648 416,845,453 402 622,138,795 8,160,160 2,820 389,879,070 16,642 46,870 $2,859,943,249 19,850,203 Misc. permits are not based on valuation.
2022mnth.xlsx 06/01/2022
37 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0241 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Agenda Item Wording:

Presentation regarding Accessory Dwelling Units in the City of Visalia, including progress on City contracted work for pre-approved building plans and an impact fee nexus study, and future updates to the City’s Municipal Code to comply with state law.

Deadline for Action: 6/13/2022
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Brandon Smith, Principal Planner, (559) 713-4636, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Paul Bernal, Community Development Director, (559) 713-4025, [email protected] Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission consider the information provided in the report and provide comments and guidance as directed.

Recommendations provided by the City Council will be used as a basis for a future Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to update the Visalia Municipal Code sections pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units.

Overview of Accessory Dwelling Units:

The City finds that the building of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as second dwelling units or granny flats, is seen as a relatively inexpensive way to increase the City’s housing supply of affordable housing, address the current housing crisis, and assist existing homeowners by providing additional rental income. For several decades, the City’s Zoning Ordinance has allowed ADUs on single-family residential properties as a permitted “by right” use. State law also requires that jurisdictions allow ADUs on all residential-zoned properties as a permitted “by right” use.

Generally, an ADU is defined as an additional dwelling unit on a lot having separate kitchen, sleeping, and sanitation facilities. It can be in the form of the following:
· Conversion of existing space, such as a portion of the existing residence, an attached or detached garage, or an accessory structure.
· Constructed as an addition to an existing dwelling unit. · Constructed as a separate structure to the side or rear of the existing structure.

The State has also established a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit, or JADU, as a separate type of unit allowed on a property in addition to an ADU. A JADU is narrowly defined as a unit - again having separate kitchen, sleeping, and sanitation facilities - created within an existing or proposed singlefamily residence, has a maximum size of 500 square feet, and requires the property owner to live on Visalia City Council Page 1 of 8 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 38
File #: 22-0241 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 3.
family residence, has a maximum size of 500 square feet, and requires the property owner to live on site. A garage conversion of a house with an attached garage can count as a JADU, provided that the unit has its own kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area.

The City’s current regulations for ADUs - Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17 Article 2 - were last updated in 2017. The regulations specify provisions for maximum floor area, owner occupancy restrictions, scale and appearance, and various other factors. Height and lot coverage requirements for ADUs located within the rear yard setback are specified in Section 17.12.100. Many of these standards however have now been superseded by several new state laws that are explained below.

The City’s regulations currently do not address JADUs at all.

Updates to State Law regarding ADUs:

The passage of statutory changes included in a series of bills passed in 2019, followed by changes included in Assembly Bill (AB) 3182 passed in 2020, have made the City’s ADU codes obsolete and inconsistent with State law (Government Code section 65852.2). As a result, the City has allowed for property owners to obtain permits for ADUs and now Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) based on its understanding of State law, despite that the proposed ADU may not follow the standards contained in the City’s own Ordinance (Chapter 17.12 Article 2) or that the JADU is not addressed in the City’s Ordinance. This has also caused difficulty in conveying to the public the regulations pertaining to ADUs and JADUs in a concise and easily understandable format.

The most recent legislation, AB 3182 (Ting), among other changes, provided clarification that a jurisdiction (i.e. the City of Visalia) must allow one ADU and one JADU on a residential lot - not one or the other - by ministerial approval of an application for building permit. As an example, a residential lot with a 1,800 square foot home including a 200 square foot attached garage is permitted one detached ADU, and would also be permitted to convert the 200 square foot garage into a JADU, thereby establishing three units on the residential lot.

In 2019, legislation approved under AB 587 (Friedman), AB 670 (Friedman), and AB 671 (Friedman) impacted various aspects of state ADU law unrelated to zoning or development standards. One notable aspect of AB 587 is that it provides a narrow exemption allowing ADUs to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary dwelling with the involvement of qualified nonprofit housing organizations. Furthermore, AB 671 requires cities to create incentives for homeowners to build ADUs on their properties and streamline the permit approval process.

Also in 2019, legislation approved under AB 68 (Ting), AB 881 (Bloom), and Senate Bill (SB) 13 (Wieckowski) approved several standards pertaining to ADUs and JADUs, many of which directly conflict with the City’s existing development standards. The following table compares some of the primary differences between the existing City standards and state law:

Existing City Regulations Current State Law
Maximum Units One ADU or JADU One ADU and JADU
Owner Occupancy Required and enforced by
covenant recorded against
property
No requirement for ADUs
approved between 2020 and
2024. Required for JADUs.

Location Must be subordinate to the
primary unit by size, location,
None for ADU. JADU must be
within the primary residence.

Visalia City Council Page 2 of 8 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 39
File #: 22-0241 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 3. Existing City Regulations Current State Law Maximum Units One ADU or JADU One ADU and JADU
Owner Occupancy Required and enforced by
covenant recorded against
property
No requirement for ADUs
approved between 2020 and
2024. Required for JADUs.

Location Must be subordinate to the
primary unit by size, location,
and appearance.

None for ADU. JADU must be
within the primary residence.

Minimum lot size 5,000 sq. ft. None.

Parking Exempt if any of five findings
are met. (Most lots within
Visalia can comply with one
or more findings)
Same as City regulation, except
parking cannot be required for
ADUs created by garage
conversion.

Maximum Size 1200 sq. ft. or 50% of the
existing primary dwelling.

Same as City regulation, except
no maximum size for conversions
of existing detached structures.

Maximum Height 12 feet in rear yard setback;
35 feet in buildable area.

Local agencies may impose a
height limit no less than 16 feet.

Minimum Setbacks 3 feet if located within the
required rear yard setback. 5
feet if located outside of the
required rear yard setback.
4 feet from side and rear lot lines.

Maximum Lot
Coverage
City regulations, including
20% maximum coverage of
required rear yard if ADU is
an accessory structure.

No lot coverage restrictions for
ADUs up to 800 sq. ft. in floor
area.

Impact Fees Required for all ADUs. Exempt if less than 750 sq. ft.

Otherwise, shall be charged
proportionately to size of primary
unit.

In response to this state legislation, the City will need to update its current ADU regulations found in the Zoning Ordinance to comply, at minimum, with standards contained in state law. The City’s ADU ordinance will also need to define and add standards for JADUs based on state law. In addition, the City may want to establish additional regulations and objective standards that are in keeping with the City’s own objectives for allowing ADUs and maintaining flexibility in accommodating ADUs. An update effort would also result in an ordinance, together with separate informational materials and guides with graphics, that provides better clarity on development standards and the options of ADU types available to the public.

While Visalia’s current ADU ordinance is out of compliance or nonconforming to state law, there is no specific timeframe for local agencies like Visalia to update its ordinance. However, HCD is authorized to notify any local agency if it comes to their attention that the agency’s ADU ordinance is not in compliance with state law. Any local agency seeking to adopt or update its ADU ordinance must submit the Ordinance to the state, which will determine the ordinance’s compliance with state Visalia City Council Page 3 of 8 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 40
File #: 22-0241 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 3.
law. The agency must then respond to HCD’s findings within 30 days.

ADU Ordinance Update to be funded by LEAP Grant:

In February 2021, the City entered into a Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant agreement with HCD to support various City efforts that would assist in streamlining housing approvals and accelerate housing production. The preparation of an Update to the City’s ADU through the hiring of a consultant was one of the actions funded in the grant application and PRD standards, with the other actions being a consultant-led update to the City’s Planned Development Ordinance and preparation of the City’s 6th cycle Housing Element Update. Under the LEAP grant, a maximum of $25,000 is budgeted for consultant work pertaining to ADU Ordinance Update.

At a minimum, the update of the ordinances will address the topics addressed in the above table comparing Visalia’s and the state’s regulations, along with any other aspect of the ADU Ordinance to ensure compliance with state law.

Staff further desires that the hired consultant will assist in preparing informational materials and guides with graphics to be developed for use by the public, primarily on the City’s website, to provide the City’s regulations in a more easily understandable and user-friendly how-to format.

With the two programs pertaining to the ADU Nexis Fee Study and Permit-Ready Plans now wrapping up, staff is directing its efforts towards projects outlined in the LEAP grant. A draft Request For Proposal for the hiring of a consultant to prepare both the ADU Ordinance Update and the Planned Development Ordinance Update was prepared by staff in May 2022 and is excepted to be published by Summer 2022.

Housing Element Update Programs fulfilled by SB 2 Grant Money:

The city’s Housing Element Update adopted in 2019 includes the creation of multiple programs to encourage homeowners to build accessory dwelling units on their properties. Two of these programs - the preparation of permit-ready plans for public use and the preparation of a nexus fee study - were undertaken in late 2021 / early 2022 and are explained below. Both programs are being funded with grant money awarded by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to the City of Visalia through the Senate Bill (SB) 2 Planning Grants Program.

On December 3, 2019, the City Council approved the Visalia 2020-2023 Housing Element (i.e. midcycle update of the 5th Cycle Housing Element). Accessory Dwelling Units was one major topic of discussion that surfaced at the technical advisory committee meetings. This topic, together with a shortcoming of available affordable housing in California and the recent passage of state legislation aimed to streamline the production of ADUs - formed the basis for two new Housing Element Programs:
· Program No. 3.12. Directs the City to review its fee structure and study the feasibility of reducing development and building permit fees on ADUs.
· Program No. 3.23. Directs the City to develop one or more standardized floor plan and elevation templates for ADUs that are pre-approved by the Community Development Department and permit-ready for residential property owners.

In March 2020, the City entered into a Senate Bill 2 Planning Grant Program agreement with HCD to support various City efforts that would assist in streamlining housing approvals and accelerate housing production. The two programs (along with a program for the study of the City’s Agricultural Mitigation Program requirement) were requested for funding in the grant application on the basis that Visalia City Council Page 4 of 8 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 41
File #: 22-0241 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Mitigation Program requirement) were requested for funding in the grant application on the basis that the State is seeking to encourage the development of ADUs as a means to accelerate housing production. All funds for the grant shall be spent no later than June 30, 2022.

ADU Nexus Fee Study:

On July 16, 2021, the City entered into a contract with consultant NBS to assist with reviewing its fee structure to ensure that impact fees imposed upon ADUs are consistent with the requirements of State law.

The ADU nexus fee study is intended to review and update the City’s development impact fees with respect to ADUs, justifying the elimination, reduction, or modification of fees as based on the results of the study that justifies change in fees without showing any adverse impacts to the public services funded by those fees. Up until now, the City has been assessing impact fees to ADUs by attempting to match the ADU with a land use category that appeared to have the closest match of impact, usually among the least expensive fee, of an ADU upon that service. This was done despite not actually studying what the real impact of an ADU would be upon that service. Under this approach, the development impact fees for an ADU assessed by the City have averaged approximately $6,000.

The study accomplishes two tasks that are in fact both required under law. First, the study calculates impact fees for ADUs based on the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600) that require identifying the purpose and use of a fee and determining a reasonable relationship. The impact analysis identified population and vehicle trip generated as the demand units for most fees as these were used as the basis for many of the City’s other existing impact fees. Second, the study addresses the requirement that ADU impact fees must be charged proportionally in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The above requirements apply to any ADU of 750 square feet or more since, according to state law, local agencies cannot impose any impact fees upon on an ADU that is less than 750 square feet. VUSD School Facility Fees, however, must still be assessed on any ADU of 500 square feet or greater.

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Study.

The Final Report of the ADU impact Fee Study (“Study”), published and received by staff on May 13, 2022 (included as Attachment 4), concludes and recommends that the City calculate impact fees on a case-by-case using proportionality formulas derived from state law (page S-4 of the Final Report of the ADU impact Fee Study).

For example, on a property containing an 1,800 square foot residence that proposes an 800 square foot ADU, the size of the ADU is equal to 800/1800, or 44% the size of the existing residence.

Therefore, the new ADU would be charged 44% of the impact fees applicable to an 1,800 square foot primary residence built on the site.

Staff is in agreement with the recommendation of using proportionality as described in the Final Report, but further contends that where a fixed impact fee proposed by the consultant is lower than a fee derived by the proportionality formula, that the lower fee shall be used. Thus, there are three possible scenarios that are described here and illustrated in the matrix included as Attachment 5. · When the size of an ADU is less than 61.5% of the size of the primary unit, the proportionality Visalia City Council Page 5 of 8 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 42
File #: 22-0241 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 3.
· When the size of an ADU is less than 61.5% of the size of the primary unit, the proportionality rule should be used to assess all impact fees of the ADU, which would result in lower impact fees than by using the fees intended to meet the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (i.e. the proposed fees listed in Table ES.2 of the Study).
· When the size of an ADU is between 61.5% and 64.5% of the size of primary unit, the fixed ADU Transportation Impact Fee calculated by the consultant (see Table ES.2 in Study) would apply since it is less expensive than the impact fee calculated through the proportionality formula and since it still covers the real impact of the ADU upon the service. For all other impact fees, the proportionality rule should be used to assess those impact fees of the ADU. · When the size of an ADU is more than 64.5% of the size of the primary unit, the fixed ADU impact fees calculated by the consultant (see Table ES.2 in Study) would apply since they would be less expensive than the proportional rate and still cover the real impact of the ADU upon the services provided.

In all cases of determining impact fees for sewer main or treatment plant connection, proportionality must be used since no basis could be determined of an ADU’s impact on these services.

Additionally, the City may continue in the practice of charging no impact fees to ADUs for police or fire facilities, since these fees are charged on a per-acre basis with the initial development according to its land use type (e.g. single-family residential). However, the Study still identifies a Police Facilities fee calculated at $264.74 per ADU should the Council direct the City to charge that fee.

To provide a further example of how the proportionality formula results in lower impact fees, suppose that a property containing an 1,800 square foot primary residence is assessed approximately $13,000 in impact fees. An 800 sq. ft. ADU built on the site would incur approximately $6,400 in impact fees using the proportionality formula, with no police or fire facility impact fees incurred. This would contrast to approximately $7,500 in impact fees if the Study’s proposed impact fees (as identified in Table ES.2) were assessed instead.

It should be noted that the proposed impact fees by the Study total more (19% more according to Study page S-3) than the fees that the City has been assessing on ADUs up until now. Additionally, impact fees derived from the proportionality formula would usually be higher, but to a lesser degree, than what the City has been assessing on ADUs up until now. This is because, as backed up by the Study, the City has been assessing impact fees at a rate less than the cost attributable to the real impact of the ADU upon the service, being that the City had never gone through the exercise of determining the real fiscal impacts as required by state law.

As noted above, the City Council may desire to provide thoughts or direction on whether a Police Facilities impact fee calculated at $264.74 should be applied to new ADUs, or should the City continue utilizing the practice of not charging the impact fee since impact fees are already charged upon the primary residence on a per-acre basis. (This is explained further starting on Page 2-3 of the Study.)
ADU Permit-Ready Plans, ADU Nexus Fee Study:

On August 6, 2021, the City entered into a contract with local architecture firm Skylab for the preparation of complete building plan sets for three permit-ready ADUs, to be offered to the public Visalia City Council Page 6 of 8 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 43
File #: 22-0241 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 3.
preparation of complete building plan sets for three permit-ready ADUs, to be offered to the public free-of-charge. These building plan sets are intended to be used for ADUs only free of charge as an incentive for the public to build an ADU on their property. The plan sets are not intended to be used for construction of a primary (non-ADU) residence.

The standardized design plans for ADUs are intended to assist Visalia with encouraging and increasing its production of affordable housing through the development of ADUs in existing residential neighborhoods. The permit-ready ADUs would benefit from an expedited permitting process conducted by the City of Visalia Community Development Department with an accompanying submittal of a site / plot plan (and other documents as deemed necessary based on the property location), along with saving property owners from the cost of hiring an architect or draftsperson.

It is the City’s intent to encourage property owners to seek assistance from the building plan designer of their selected ADU building plans should they need professional assistance to prepare a site plan.

It is also the City’s intent to encourage property owners to seek the assistance of the building plan designer for any desired plan customization.

The City’s approach in seeking the preparation of standardized design plans for ADUs follows a popular approach that has been and is currently being utilized in several other jurisdictions across California. Most notably, the City of Clovis established its Cottage Home Program that offered three different plans to encourage infill development in the Old Town Clovis area where the units and their respective parking spaces would be accessible from alleyways. Many other municipalities across the state, including Chico, Santa Cruz, and Stockton within the central portion of California, offer ADU plans to the public.

Plans Offered to Visalia Property Owners.

Three different floor plans have been created for public use. (See Exhibits “1”, “2”, and “3” for floor plans.)
· Studio with sleeping alcove (490 square foot area plus 35 square foot porch area) · One Bedroom (498 square foot area plus 55 square foot porch area) · Two Bedroom (918 square foot area plus 41 square foot porch area) The Studio and One Bedroom plans were intentionally designed to be less than 500 square feet, which exempts the applicant from both City impact fees and VUSD School Facility fees (approximately $8,000 altogether).

Each plan includes the following features:
· Inclusion of living room, kitchen, one bathroom, and space for stacked washer / dryer. · Accessible universal design features and wider doorway widths for increased accessibility. · Choice of three exterior elevation style: Contemporary, Craftsman, or Mediterranean.

Visalia City Council Page 7 of 8 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 44
File #: 22-0241 Agenda Date: 6/13/2022 Agenda #: 3.
· Choice of a flopped / mirrored plan.
· Solar panel ready, in accordance with California Building Code requirements.

Residents looking to utilize a plan will need to submit the following to the City of Visalia:
· Building permit application.
· Hold Harmless Agreement.
· Site Plan, indicating choice of preapproved plan, elevation style, and orientation. · Fire sprinkler plans (only if main residence is equipped with fire sprinklers; otherwise not required).
· Solar photovoltaic panel plans (only if main residence is equipped with panels; otherwise not required).
· Home Energy Rating System (HERS) calculations.

Upon the City’s plan check approval of the three plans sets (anticipated in June 2022), City staff will prepare how-to guides and handouts intended to assist property owners with utilizing the City’s preapproved plans. Staff will also coordinate with its social media outlets and with the building community to promote the availability of these plans to the public free of charge.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission consider the information provided in the report and provide comments and guidance as directed.

Recommendations provided by the City Council will be used as a basis for a future Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to update the Visalia Municipal Code sections pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units.

Environmental Assessment Status: No Environmental Assessment required at this time.

CEQA Review: No CEQA Review required at this time.

Attachments:

Exhibit 1: Draft Permit-Ready Building Plan - Studio Layout.

Exhibit 2: Draft Permit-Ready Building Plan - One Bedroom Layout.

Exhibit 3: Draft Permit-Ready Building Plan - Two Bedroom Layout.

Exhibit 4: Final Report ADU Impact Fee Study, May 13, 2022.

Exhibit 5: ADU Impact Fee Matrix Demonstrating Proportionality Factor.

Visalia City Council Page 8 of 8 Printed on 6/10/2022
powered by Legistar™ 45
63"x39"x75" F/G SHOWER CURTAIN ROD FURR WALL MIR.

M/C TV WALL LINE WIND BRACED WALL SCHEDULE SPACING (FT) TOTAL BRACING REQUIRED BRACING PROVIDED METHOD CONTRIBUTING & EQUIVALENT A 26.00
B CS-WSP & ABW 26.00
3 20.00
1 CS-WSP 20.00
2 20.00 WIND ADJUSTMENTS: 1. EXPOSURE CATEGORY - ONE STORY: "B" = 1.00 2. ROOF EAVE TO RIDGE HEIGHT <= 5': 0.70 3. STORY HEIGHT- 9 FEET: 0.95 4. NUMBER OF BRACED WALL LINES (PER PLAN DIRECTION- 2: 1.00 3: 1.30 3.0' x 1.0x 0.70x 0.95x 1.30 = 2.60' SEISMIC ADJUSTMENTS: 1. NONE.ABW & WSP CS-WSP CS-WSP 3.5' x 1.0x 0.70x 0.95x 1.30 = 3.03' 3.0' x 1.0x 0.70x 0.95x 1.30 = 2.60' 3.9' x 1.0x 0.70x 0.95x 1.00 = 2.60' WALL LINE SEISMIC BRACED WALL SCHEDULE SPACING (FT) TOTAL BRACING REQUIRED BRACING PROVIDED METHOD CONTRIBUTING & EQUIVALENT A BATHRM. 9' CL'G LVT FLR. 24" GAS RANGE W/ HOOD, LIGHT & E.F. G//D 36" REF. SPACE

STACKED
W/D
SPACE LIVING RM. 9' CL'G LVT FLR. DIRECT VENT OUTDOOR TANK-LESS W.H. COVERED PORCH 9' PLATE- CONC. 200 AMP SURFACE METER & SERVICE SOLAR INVERTER PHONE DROP TV DROP DUCT-LESS MINI-SPLIT CONDENSER ON CONC. PAD SPLIT
LINEN 2'10" 20"x30" (MIN.) ATTIC ACCESS 3030 SH HB
2630 SH
TEMP.
3040 SH 5040 XO 3040 SH 3'-0" x6'-8" F/G ENTRY DOOR KIT./DIN. RM. 9' CL'G LVT FLR. SLEEPING ALCOVE 9' CL'G LVT FLR. 20'-0" 13'-8" 6'-4" 5'-3" 8'-5" 26'-0"
15'-9" 10'-3"
12'-3" 3'-7" 20'-0" 13'-0" 7'-0" 12" 5'-0" 12"
8"
26'-8" 6'-9" 6'-3" 2'-6" 3'-6"
26'-8"
5'-8" 10'-9" 10'-3"
12" 4'-8" 6'-0" 4'-3" 3'-2" 8'-4" 2'-2" 6'-4" 11'-6" 8'-6" 2'-5" 3'-8" 2'-8" 2'-0" 3'-4" 2'-8" 4'-3" HB 3.9' x 1.0x 0.70x 0.95x 1.00 = 2.60' A 26.00
B 26.00
3 20.00
1 20.00
2 20.00 3.1' ABW & WSP CS-WSP 4.0' 3.6' 3.1' 4.0' (1) 2'-8" (ABW) = 4-0" EQUIV. + (1) 4'-0" WSP = 8'-0" TOTAL (2) 4'-0" = 8-0" TOTAL (2) 4'-0" = 8-0" TOTAL (1) 4'-0" PANEL + (1) 2'-8" (ABW) = 4-0" EQUIV. = 8'-0" TOTAL 4'-0"

NAILING
4'-0"
A

NAILING
12"
A
4'-0"

NAILING
A
4'-0"
NAILING 9" CS-WSP CS-WSP & ABW (1) 2'-8" (ABW) = 4-0" EQUIV. + (1) 4'-0" PANEL = 8'-0" TOTAL ABW & CS-WSP 2'-8" 4'-0" NAIL'G A
B4'-0"
C2'-8"
HD2
HD2
A4'-0" NAILING 2'-8" NOTES: HD1 = SIMPSON STHD14 STRAP-TYPE HOLD-DOWN. INSTALL 1/2" FROM PANEL EDGES & INSTALL (2) 1/2" (MIN.) @ 6"-12" FROM EDGES SEE DETAIL 2F/D1. HD2 = SIMPSON HDU2 HOLD-DOWN. INSTALL TO INTERIOR WALL STUDS W/ (6) 1/4" x2-1/2" SDS & (1) 5/8" ANCHOR BOLT IN FOOTING- SEE DETAIL 2F/D1.

HD1
HD1
C
C HD1
HD1
A
1 B
2 3 MAIN WATER W/ S.O.V. This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc.

A
B
C
D
F
4 3
2 1
E 01/04/2022 AT/PDM AS NOTED A1
NEW ADU- STUDIO:

VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 05-15-2020

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
DO NOT SCALE PDF 03-06-2022 4F CLIENT: ZONING: DESIGN CRITERIA: ROOF LIVE LOAD: ULTIMATE WIND SPEED: BASIC WIND SPEED: WIND EXPOSURE: SEISMIC DESIGN: RISK CATEGORY: SOIL BEARING OCCUPANCY: BUILDING TYPE: ADU AREA: PORCH AREA: TOTAL AREA (UNDER ROOF): PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ADU's- 1 BEDROOM C ITY OF VISALIA R-1-5 20 P.S.F. 110 MPH 85 MPH "B" D(0) II (PER C.B.C, TABLE 1604.5) 1,500 P.S.F. R-3 V-B 490 S.F. 35 S.F. 525 S.F. A1- FLOOR/BRACED WALL PLAN, PORCH OPTIONS, PROJECT INFO. & NOTES A2.1- ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN- CONTEMPORARY STYLE A2.2- ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN- CRAFTSMAN STYLE A2.3- ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN- MEDITERRANEAN STYLE S1- FOUNDATION PLAN & NOTES D1- TYPICAL DETAILS D2- TYPICAL DETAILS D3- TYPICAL DETAILS D4- TYPICAL DETAILS E1- ELECTRICAL PLAN, NOTES & SCHEDULES MP1- HVAC & PLUMBING PLANS, NOTES, SCHEDULES, NOTES & DETAILS T1.1- CF-1R (CONTEMPORARY STYLE) T2.1- CF-1R (CRAFTSMAN STYLE) T3.1- CF-1R (MEDITERRANEAN STYLE) GC1- GREEN CODE GC2- GREEN CODE, CONT'D. & MANDATORY MEASURES SUMMARY PL PROPERTY LINE CL CENTER LINE (E) EXISTING (N) NEW (P) PROPOSED W/ WITH S SEWER W WATER W.I. WROUGHT IRON BM. BEAM W/H WATER HEATER W.M. WATER METER P.P. POWER POLE F/H FIRE HYDRANT STDS. STANDARDS DTL. DETAIL V.T.R. VENT THROUGH ROOF C.O. CLEAN OUT CW COLD WATER HW HOT WATER TYP. TYPICAL SHEET INDEX 2F ABBREVIATIONS 3E STUDIO ADU- FLOOR/BRACED WALL PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PROJECT INFO GENERAL NOTES 2E 4C 4E FRAMING @ ADJOINING PANEL EDGES SHALL BE 3-INCHES NOMINAL OR WIDER. FASTENERS SHALL BE STAGGERED 3-INCHES ON CENTER TO AVOID SPLINTERING AND/OR SPLITTING OF MEMBER ORBE OFFSET BY 3-1/2" (MIN.) WITH FILLER TO EDGE. BRACED WALL LEGEND ASYM. TYPE- SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 HOLD-DOWNS FASTENING N/A SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 METHOD CS-WSP 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B./PLYWOOD SHEATHING 4'-0" (MIN.) LENGTH- SEE TABLE R602.10.5 @ 4B/D1 B WSP 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B./PLYWOOD SHEATHING 4'-0" (MIN.) N/A SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 1. DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALE. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. 2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS, WORK OR COMPLIANCE, REGULATIONS, CODES SET FORTH BY ANY AGENCY, & TO FOLLOW THE 2019 C.B.C. & 2019 C.R.C. CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS AT THE JOB SITE & REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE CONTRACTOR/JOB SUPERINTENDENT. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING PROPERTY THAT MAY OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED.. 3. JOB CARD REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE AT JOB SITE. 4. CHANGES FROM THE APPROVED PLANS DURING CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN 1) CABINET CHANGES WHEN NOT BEING SUPPORTED ENTIRELY BY THE ROOF STRUCTURE; 2 INTERIOR DOOR SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLAN; 3) A SINGLE NON-BEARING WALL RELOCATION WHEN NOT CREATING AN ADDITIONAL ROOM; AND 4) INTERIOR NONSTRUCTURAL WALL FINISHES; SHALL CAUSE PLAN APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION TO BE SUSPENDED. A NEW PLAN CHECK (FOR A NEW PLAN SHOWING CHANGES) WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL THROUGH THE NORMAL PLAN CHECK PROCESS. 5. SITE ADDRESS- WHEN ASSIGNED (2019 C.R.C. SECTION R319.1): BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE & VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THESE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE ARABIC OR ALPHABETICAL LETTERS. NUMBERS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES HIGH WITH A MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 1/2 INCH. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD & THE BUILDING ADDRESS CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE. 6. SUITABLE TOILET(S) SHALL BE PROVIDED & MAINTAINED IN A SANITARY CONDITION FOR THE USE OF WORKERS DURING CONSTRUCTION (2019 C.P.C., SECTION 422.5). 7. FIRE SPRINKLERS (REQUIRED ONLY IF MAIN RESIDENCE IS EQUIPPED, OTHERWISE NOT REQUIRED- CONTACT HSI FOR PLANS (SEE CONSULTANT LIST). 8. C.R.C. 401.3 DRAINAGE: SURFACE DRAINAGE SHALL BE DIVERTED TO A STORM SEWER CONVEYANCE OR OTHER APPROVED POINT OF COLLECTION THAT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD. LOTS SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN SURFACE WATER AWAY FROM FOUNDATION WALLS. THE GRADE SHALL FALL A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES WITHIN THE FIRST 10 FEET. EXCEPTION: WHERE LOT LINES, WALLS, SLOPES OR OTHER PHYSICAL BARRIERS PROHIBIT 6 INCHES OF FALL WITHIN 10 FEET, DRAINS OR SWALES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO ENSURE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. IMPERVIOUS SURFACES WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING FOUNDATION SHALL BE SLOPED A MINIMUM OF 2 PERCENT AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. ALL WORK MATERIAL ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED BY THE CITY BUILDING OFFICE. NOTHING IN THESE DOCUMENT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS TO PERMIT ANY WORK OR PRODUCT NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE CODES: 1. CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (C.R.C., 2019 EDITION) 2. THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CC-TITLE-24 & 25) 3. CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (C.B.C., 2019 EDITION) 4. CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (C.P.C., 2019 EDITION) 5. CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (C.M.C., 2019 EDITION) 6. CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (C.F.C., 2019 EDITION) 7. CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (C.E.C., 2019 EDITION) 8. CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (2019 C.E.C. STANDARDS) 9. CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (C.G.C., 2019 EDITION) THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ABOVE REGULATIONS AND CODES. THE CONTRACTOR AND SUB-CONTRACTOR(S) MUST BE FAMILIAR WITH ALL REGULATIONS AFFECTING THEIR PORTION OF THE WORK. SKYLAB INC., A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN COMPANY ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUBCONTRACTOR(S) CONFORMANCE TO THE ABOVE CODES AND REGULATIONS. THESE PLANS WERE PREPARED UNDER THE CONVENTIONAL FRAMING PROVISIONS OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 2308 & THE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE. WALL LEGEND: 2x4 D.F. STUD GRADE WALLS @ 16" O.C. 2x6 D.F. STUD GRADE WALLS @ 16" O.C. NOTES: 1. VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION WITH CITY OF VISALIA & ALL RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES. 2. FOR TRUSS BEARING POINTS SEE TRUSS CALC'S. 3. INSULATION VALUES @ EXTERIOR WALLS- SEE CF-1R SHEETS R-30 (EQUIVALENT CLOSED-CELL SPRAY ON FOAM = R-5.8/INCH) CAVITY INSULATION @ 2x6 STUD WALLS. PROVIDE R-5 RIGID FOAM @ ALL STUCCO EXTERIOR WALLS- ONLY. R-38 CEILING INSULATION- SEE CF-1R. R-15 INSULATION BETWEEN TRUSS TOP CHORDS. WINDOW VALUES (MI LoE 340 + Argon OR EQUAL): U-FACTOR = 0.27, SHGC = 0.14- SEE CF-1R; THIS PROJECT REQUIRES QUALITY INSULATION INSPECTION (Q.I.I.)- SEE CF-1R. 4. ALL DOORS TO BE 6'-8" TALL (U.O.N.). 5. ALL WINDOW HEADERS TO BE AT 6'-8" (U.O.N.). 6. SEE 2F/D4 FOR FLOOR PLAN NOTES. 7. INSTALL EXTRA LAYER OF GRADE-D BUILDING PAPER @ WOOD SHEATHING AREAS WITH STUCCO. 8. ALL COUNTERTOPS TO BE GRANITE & AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 34-INCHES. 9. SEE ROOF FRAMING PLAN ON SHEETS A2.1, A2.2 & A2.3 FOR ATTIC ACCESS LOCATION. 10. SEE 4F/S1 FOR FIRE-RESISTANCE CONSTRUCTION TABLES R302.1(1) & R302.1(2) FOR DISTANCES FROM PROPERTY LINES.

C SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 & DETAIL 2F/D1 SIMPSON STHD14- OUTSIDE SIMPSON HDU2- INSIDE ABW 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B./PLYWOOD SHEATHING 2'-8" (MIN.) CONSULTANT: Trusses: CVTruss (559) 888-2160 OTHER CONSULTANTS: Fire Sprinklers: HSI Jennifer Alexander- Designer (661) 383-1020 Solar: Sunpower by SunSolar Manny Gonzalez (559) 202-6205 46 12
5 +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE
14'-3"± TO SHEATHING
(16'-0" MAX.) "COOL ROOF" COLOR COMP. SHINGLES ON 7/16" (MIN.) RADIANT BARRIER O.S.B. ROOF SHEATHING ON PRE-MFR'D TRUSSES 34"x22" HALF ROUND GABLE VENT W/ 1x2 FOAM TRIM @ BOTTOM 2x8 FASCIA W/ 2" DRIP EDGE WEEP SCREED- TYP. @ ALL 4 ELEVATIONS- SEE 1F/D3 FOR DETAIL 3 COAT STUCCO ON INTERGRAL WIRE MESH/BUILDING PAPER @ PORCH COLUMNS 26 GA. FLASHING @ WALL/ROOF STUCCO CEILING 3 COAT STUCCO W/ INTEGRAL WIRE MESH/BUILDING PAPER ON R-5 RIGID FOAM INSULATION BOARD ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- TYP. @ ALL CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS 8" FINISH GRADE 4" TAPERED FOAM TRIM +2'-8" TOP OF CAP 1x6 FOAM TRIM FRONT RIGHT SIDE REAR LEFT SIDE +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE (1) 14"x24" GABLE VENT 12' RIDGE VENT 12' RIDGE VENT 18"Ø HALF ROUND GABLE VENT (BOTTOM @ TRUSS CHORD) W/ 1x2 FOAM TRIM @ BOTTOM +7'-2" 2x4 TYP. GABLE END FRAMING @ 24" O.C. TYPICAL ROOF SHEATHING 7/16" (MIN.) O.S.B. STRUCT 1 (P.I. 24/0) UNBLOCKED RADIANT BARRIER PLYWOOD SHEATHING. NAILED W/ 8d @ 6" O.C. EDGE & 12" O.C. FIELD 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR.
6x6 BM
6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. BTM. @ 7'
6x6 HDR. 22"x30" (MIN.) R.O. ATTIC ACCESS 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING 2x8 FASCIA-TYP. SIMPSON ST2122 STRAP BEAM TO TOP PLATES- TYP. 4DD3 4DD3 NOTE: 1. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x FOR BEAM SUPPORT. 2. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x6's FOR HEADER SUPPORT. 3DD3 3CD3 3CD3 2x4 TYP. GABLE END FRAMING @ 24" O.C. RIDGE VENT 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING TV C1A C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1C C1C C1D C2A This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc.

A
B
C
D
F
4 3
2 1
E 01/04/2022 AT/PDM AS NOTED A2.1

NEW ADU- STUDIO
VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 05-15-2020 DO NOT SCALE E;TERIOR ELEVATIONS- CONTE03ORARY STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4F ROOF NOTES: 1. TRUSSES TO CONFORM TO C.R.C. R802.10 AND C.B.C. 2303.4. 2. PROVIDE SIMPSON H2.5A CLIPS @ ALL TRUSS BEARING POINTS. 3. PROVIDE SIMPSON ST2122 STRAPS @ ALL BEAMS TO WALL. 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x STUDS @ ALL BEAMS/HEADERS, U.O.N. 5. WHERE BRACED WALL PANELS ARE INSTALLED/ INDICATED ON THE FLOOR PLAN/BRACED WALL PLAN AT THE EAVES, BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ABOVE THE BRACED WALL PANEL (NO EAVE VENTILATION ALLOWED). ATTIC VENTILATION SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C., SECTION 806 AND C.B.C., SECTION 1202. C.R.C. R806.2/C.B.C. 1202.2 THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATING AREA SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPT THAT REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL AREA TO 1/300 IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST 40% AND NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS LOCATED IN THE UPPER PART OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 3 FEET BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. C.R.C. R806.3/C.B.C.1203.2 WHERE EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS ARE INSTALLED, INSULATION SHALL NOT BLOCK THE FREE FLOW OF AIR. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1 INCH AIR SPACE BETWEEN INSULATION & ROOF SHEATHING AT THE VENT(S). NET FREE AREA OF VENTS CMI: 1412 14"x12" GABLE END VENT = 65 SQ IN 1418 14"x18 GABLE END VENT = 110 SQ IN 1424 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = 147 SQ IN EV223-PX 22 1 2"x3
1 2" EAVE VENT = 40 SQ IN EV622 22"x6 "EAVE VENT = 71 SQ. IN. SV223 22"X3" SOFFIT VENT = 60 SQ. IN. LPDG19 LOW PROFILE DORMER VENT = 43 SQ IN BH24 HALF ROUND DORMER VENT= 100 SQ IN 18" HALF ROUND 18.25"x9.25" R.O. = 48 SQ IN BUILDER'S EDGE: 18" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 26 SQ IN 22" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 54 SQ IN 22" OCTAGONAL VENT = 54 SQ IN 34"x22" HALF ROUND 10"x10" R.O. = 100 SQ IN O'HAGIN: MODEL "FLAT" TILE ROOF VENT = 98.75 SQ IN MODEL "S" TILE ROOF VENT = 97.5 SQ IN MODEL "M" TILE ROOF VENT = 86.25 SQ IN MODEL "TAPERED LOW-PROFILE" COMP. ROOF VENT = 72.0 SQ IN OWENS-CORNING: VENTSURE 15"x48" STRIP RIDGE VENT (WITH WEATHER PROTECTOR) = 20 SQ IN/ LN FT 4D ROOF FRA0IN*- CONTE03ORARY STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ATTIC VENT CALCS. 525 S.F. TOTAL ATTIC SPACE = /150x144 = 504 S.I. (1) 34"x22" HALF ROUND = (1) 18" HALF ROUND = (1) 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = (3) 15"x 48" RIDGE VENT (12' TOTAL) = TOTAL 100 S.I. 48 S.I. 147 S.I. 240 S.I. 535 S.I.

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
47 12
5 +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE
14'-3"± TO SHEATHING
(16'-0" MAX.) "COOL ROOF" COLOR COMP. SHINGLES ON 7/16" (MIN.) RADIANT BARRIER O.S.B. ROOF SHEATHING ON PRE-MFR'D TRUSSES 14"x12" GABLE VENT W/ 1x4 WOOD TRIM 2x8 FASCIA W/ 2" DRIP EDGE 2x3 WOOD TRIM & 1x4 STOOL @ WINDOWS OVER SIDING WEEP SCREED- TYP. @ ALL 4 ELEVATIONS- SEE 1F/D3 FOR DETAIL 2x3 WOOD EDGE TRIM- TYP. BUTT SIDING TO 1x10 CEMENT FIBER LAPPED SIDING ON 1 LAYER OF GRADE-D BUILDING PAPER ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- @ FRONT & SIDE RETURNS @ CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS CULTURED STONE BASE W/ CAP- SEE 4F/D3 FOR DETAIL 26 GA. FLASHING @ WALL/ROOF 1x2 ON 1x6 TRIM 3 COAT STUCCO W/ INTEGRAL WIRE MESH/BUILDING PAPER ON R-5 RIGID FOAM INSULATION BOARD ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- TYP. @ 3 ELEVATIONS @ CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS 2' SIDING RETURN W/ 2x3 TRIM 8" FINISH GRADE 1x6 TRIM +2'-8" TOP OF CAP 1x4 TRIM FRONT RIGHT SIDE REAR LEFT SIDE 2x3 DOOR TRIM +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE 2' SIDING RETURN W/ 2x3 TRIM (1) 14"x24" GABLE VENT 16' RIDGE VENT 16' RIDGE VENT 14'-3"± TO SHEATHING TV 2x4 TYP. GABLE END FRAMING @ 24" O.C. TYPICAL ROOF SHEATHING 7/16" (MIN.) O.S.B. STRUCT 1 (P.I. 24/0) UNBLOCKED RADIANT BARRIER PLYWOOD SHEATHING. NAILED W/ 8d @ 6" O.C. EDGE & 12" O.C. FIELD 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR.
6x6 BM.
6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. BTM. @ 7'
6x6 HDR. 22"x30" (MIN.) R.O. ATTIC ACCESS 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING 4DD3 3CD3 NOTE: 1. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x FOR BEAM SUPPORT. 2. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x6's FOR HEADER SUPPORT. 3DD3 3CD3 2x4 TYP. GABLE END FRAMING @ 24" O.C. RIDGE VENT 2x8 FASCIA-TYP. SIMPSON ST2122 STRAP BEAM TO TOP PLATES- TYP. 3CD3 C1A C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1C C1E JA2 C2A R01
J3A
J3B
J3B
J3B
J3B
J3B
J3C C2B C2B(2) 2x4 VALLEYS
2x4 RIDGE
BLOCKING This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc.

A
B
C
D
F
4 3
2 1
E 01/04/2022 AT/PDM AS NOTED A2.2

NEW ADU- STUDIO
VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 05-15-2020 DO NOT SCALE E;TERIOR ELEVATIONS- CRAFTS0AN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4F ROOF NOTES: 1. TRUSSES TO CONFORM TO C.R.C. R802.10 AND C.B.C. 2303.4. 2. PROVIDE SIMPSON H2.5A CLIPS @ ALL TRUSS BEARING POINTS. 3. PROVIDE SIMPSON ST2122 STRAPS @ ALL BEAMS TO WALL. 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x STUDS @ ALL BEAMS/HEADERS, U.O.N. 5. WHERE BRACED WALL PANELS ARE INSTALLED/ INDICATED ON THE FLOOR PLAN/BRACED WALL PLAN AT THE EAVES, BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ABOVE THE BRACED WALL PANEL (NO EAVE VENTILATION ALLOWED). ATTIC VENTILATION SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C., SECTION 806 AND C.B.C., SECTION 1203. C.R.C. R806.2/C.B.C. 1203.2 THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATING AREA SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPT THAT REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL AREA TO 1/300 IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST 40% AND NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS LOCATED IN THE UPPER PART OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 3 FEET BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. C.R.C. R806.3/C.B.C.1203.2 WHERE EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS ARE INSTALLED, INSULATION SHALL NOT BLOCK THE FREE FLOW OF AIR. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1 INCH AIR SPACE BETWEEN INSULATION & ROOF SHEATHING AT THE VENT(S). 4D ROOF FRA0IN*- CRAFTS0AN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NET FREE AREA OF VENTS CMI: 1412 14"x12" GABLE END VENT = 65 SQ IN 1418 14"x18 GABLE END VENT = 110 SQ IN 1424 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = 147 SQ IN EV223-PX 22 1 2"x3
1 2" EAVE VENT = 40 SQ IN EV622 22"x6 "EAVE VENT = 71 SQ. IN. SV223 22"X3" SOFFIT VENT = 60 SQ. IN. LPDG19 LOW PROFILE DORMER VENT = 43 SQ IN BH24 HALF ROUND DORMER VENT= 100 SQ IN 18" HALF ROUND 18.25"x9.25" R.O. = 48 SQ IN BUILDER'S EDGE: 18" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 26 SQ IN 22" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 54 SQ IN 22" OCTAGONAL VENT = 54 SQ IN 34"x22" HALF ROUND 10"x10" R.O. = 100 SQ IN O'HAGIN: MODEL "FLAT" TILE ROOF VENT = 98.75 SQ IN MODEL "S" TILE ROOF VENT = 97.5 SQ IN MODEL "M" TILE ROOF VENT = 86.25 SQ IN MODEL "TAPERED LOW-PROFILE" COMP. ROOF VENT = 72.0 SQ IN OWENS-CORNING: VENTSURE 15"x48" STRIP RIDGE VENT (WITH WEATHER PROTECTOR) = 20 SQ IN/ LN FT ATTIC VENT CALCS. 525 S.F. TOTAL ATTIC SPACE = /150x144 = 504 S.I. (1) 14"x12" GABLE END VENT = (1) 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = (4) 15"x48" RIDGE VENT (16' TOTAL) = TOTAL 65 S.I. 147 S.I. 320 S.I. 532 S.I.

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
48 12 5 +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE
14'-3"± TO SHEATHING
(16'-0" MAX.) "COOL ROOF" COLOR COMP. SHINGLES ON 7/16" (MIN.) RADIANT BARRIER O.S.B. ROOF SHEATHING ON PRE-MFR'D TRUSSES 22"Ø FULL ROUND GABLE VENT W/ 4" FOAM COLLAR 2x8 FASCIA W/ 2" DRIP EDGE WEEP SCREED- TYP. @ ALL 4 ELEVATIONS- SEE 1F/D3 FOR DETAIL 3 COAT STUCCO ON INTERGRAL WIRE MESH/BUILDING PAPER @ PORCH COLUMNS 26 GA. FLASHING @ WALL/ROOF STUCCO CEILING 3 COAT STUCCO W/ INTEGRAL WIRE MESH/BUILDING PAPER ON R-5 RIGID FOAM INSULATION BOARD ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- TYP. @ ALL CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS 8" FINISH GRADE +3'-0" TOP OF STONE CAP 1x6 FOAM TRIM FRONT RIGHT SIDE REAR LEFT SIDE +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE (1) 14"x24" GABLE VENT 16' RIDGE VENT 16' RIDGE VENT +6'-8" BOTTOM OF ARCH +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE +6'-8" BOTTOM OF ARCH +7'-9" TOP OF ARCH 6x4 TAPERED FOAM KEY +7'-10" TOP OF ARCH CULTURED STONE BASE W/ CAP- SEE 4F/D3 FOR DETAIL 2x4 TYP. GABLE END FRAMING @ 24" O.C. TYPICAL ROOF SHEATHING 7/16" (MIN.) O.S.B. STRUCT 1 (P.I. 24/0) UNBLOCKED RADIANT BARRIER PLYWOOD SHEATHING. NAILED W/ 8d @ 6" O.C. EDGE & 12" O.C. FIELD 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR.
6x6 BM
6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. BTM. @ 7'
6x6 HDR. 22"x30" (MIN.) R.O. ATTIC ACCESS 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING 2x8 FASCIA-TYP. SIMPSON ST2122 STRAP BEAM TO TOP PLATES- TYP. 4DD3 4DD3 NOTE: 1. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x FOR BEAM SUPPORT. 2. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x6's FOR HEADER SUPPORT. 3DD3 3CD3 3CD3 2x4 TYP. GABLE END FRAMING @ 24" O.C. RIDGE VENT 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING TV C1A C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1B C1C C1C C1D C2A This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc. A B C D F 4321 E 01/04/2022 AT/PDM AS NOTED A2.3 NEW ADU- 1 STUDIO
VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 05-15-2020 DO NOT SCALE E;TERIOR ELEVATIONS- 0EDITERRANEAN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4F ROOF NOTES: 1. TRUSSES TO CONFORM TO C.R.C. R802.10 AND C.B.C. 2303.4. 2. PROVIDE SIMPSON H2.5A CLIPS @ ALL TRUSS BEARING POINTS. 3. PROVIDE SIMPSON ST2122 STRAPS @ ALL BEAMS TO WALL. 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x STUDS @ ALL BEAMS/HEADERS, U.O.N. 5. WHERE BRACED WALL PANELS ARE INSTALLED/ INDICATED ON THE FLOOR PLAN/BRACED WALL PLAN AT THE EAVES, BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ABOVE THE BRACED WALL PANEL (NO EAVE VENTILATION ALLOWED). ATTIC VENTILATION SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C., SECTION 806 AND C.B.C., SECTION 1203. C.R.C. R806.2/C.B.C. 1203.2 THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATING AREA SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPT THAT REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL AREA TO 1/300 IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST 40% AND NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS LOCATED IN THE UPPER PART OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 3 FEET BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. C.R.C. R806.3/C.B.C.1203.2 WHERE EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS ARE INSTALLED, INSULATION SHALL NOT BLOCK THE FREE FLOW OF AIR. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1 INCH AIR SPACE BETWEEN INSULATION & ROOF SHEATHING AT THE VENT(S). 4D ROOF FRA0IN*- 0EDITERRANEAN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NET FREE AREA OF VENTS CMI: 1412 14"x12" GABLE END VENT = 65 SQ IN 1418 14"x18 GABLE END VENT = 110 SQ IN 1424 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = 147 SQ IN EV223-PX 2212"x312" EAVE VENT = 40 SQ IN EV622 22"x6 "EAVE VENT = 71 SQ. IN. SV223 22"X3" SOFFIT VENT = 60 SQ. IN. LPDG19 LOW PROFILE DORMER VENT = 43 SQ IN BH24 HALF ROUND DORMER VENT= 100 SQ IN 18" HALF ROUND 18.25"x9.25" R.O. = 48 SQ IN BUILDER'S EDGE: 18" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 26 SQ IN 22" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 54 SQ IN 22" OCTAGONAL VENT = 54 SQ IN 34"x22" HALF ROUND 10"x10" R.O. = 100 SQ IN O'HAGIN: MODEL "FLAT" TILE ROOF VENT = 98.75 SQ IN MODEL "S" TILE ROOF VENT = 97.5 SQ IN MODEL "M" TILE ROOF VENT = 86.25 SQ IN MODEL "TAPERED LOW-PROFILE" COMP. ROOF VENT = 72.0 SQ IN OWENS-CORNING: VENTSURE 15"x48" STRIP RIDGE VENT (WITH WEATHER PROTECTOR) = 20 SQ IN/ LN FT ATTIC VENT CALCS. 525 S.F. TOTAL ATTIC SPACE = /150x144 = 504 S.I. (1) 22"Ø FULL ROUND = (1) 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = (4) 15'x 48" RIDGE VENT (16' TOTAL) = TOTAL 54 S.I. 147 S.I. 320 S.I. 521 S.I.

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
49 5040 XO S&P
S&P
2'10"
3'-0" x6'-8" F/G
ENTRY DR. WALL LINE WIND BRACED WALL SCHEDULE SPACING (FT) TOTAL BRACING REQUIRED BRACING PROVIDED METHOD CONTRIBUTING & EQUIVALENT B 19.17 C CS-WSP 19.17
A 19.17
1 CS-WSP 26.00
2 26.00 WIND ADJUSTMENTS: 1. EXPOSURE CATEGORY - ONE STORY: "B" = 1.00 2. ROOF EAVE TO RIDGE HEIGHT <= 5': 0.70 3. STORY HEIGHT- 9 FEET: 0.95 4. NUMBER OF BRACED WALL LINES (PER PLAN DIRECTION- 2: 1.00 3: 1.30 3.90' x 1.0x 0.70x 0.95x 1.0 = 2.60' SEISMIC ADJUSTMENTS: 1. NONE.CS-WSP A
A

CURTAIN ROD
63"x39"x75"

F/G SHOWER
2'10"

BEDROOM
9' CL'G- LVT FLR. 4040 XO 2030 SH OBS.- TEMP. BATHRM. 9' CL'G LVT FLR. 2'10" MIR.

M/C 24" GAS RANGE W/ HOOD, LIGHT & E.F. 3036 XO G/D
33" REF.

SPACE

STACKED
W/D
SPACE GREAT RM. 9' CL'G LVT FLR. CLO. 9' CL'G LVT FLR.

UTILITY DIRECT VENT OUTDOOR TANK-LESS W.H. COVERED PORCH 9' PLATE- CONC. 19'-2"
12'-1" 7'-1"
5'-0" 26'-0" 6'-0" 9'-2" 10'-10" 4'-6" 6'-4" 4'-10
1 2 4'-3 " 1
2 "
19'-2"
12'-0" 7'-2"
5'-0" 26'-0" 11'-0" 15'-0" 19'-8" 6'-4" 4'-8" 10'-4" 4'-8" 3'-1" 17" FURR WALL 1'-6" 1'-9" 2'-5" 6'-4" 3'-4" CS-WSP WSP 3.90' x 1.0x 0.70x 0.95x 1.0 = 2.60' 3.0' x 1.0x 0.70x 0.95x 1.30 = 2.60' 3.5' x 1.0x 0.70x 0.95x 1.30 = 3.03' 3.0' x 1.0x 0.70x 0.95x 1.30 = 2.60' WALL LINE SEISMIC BRACED WALL SCHEDULE SPACING (FT) TOTAL BRACING REQUIRED BRACING PROVIDED METHOD CONTRIBUTING & EQUIVALENT B 19.17 C CS-WSP 19.17
A 19.17
1 CS-WSP 26.00 (2) x 4'-0" = 8'-0" TOTAL
2 26.00 4.00' CS-WSP CS-WSP WSP 4.00' (2) x 4'-0" = 8'-0" TOTAL 3.10' (2) x 4'-0" = 8'-0" TOTAL 3.60' (2) x 4'-0" = 8'-0" TOTAL 3.10' (2) x 4'-0" = 8'-0" TOTAL 4'-0" NAIL'G A 4'-0" NAIL'G
3'-6"
A
4'-0" NAIL'G
A 4'-0" NAIL'G
A 4'-0" NAIL'G
A
4'-0"
NAIL'G
A
4'-0"
NAIL'G
A
L= 4'
A
L= 4' 12" 9'-0" 12"
4'-0" 12" SHOWN WITH CONTEMPORARY PORCH 11'-0" CRAFTSMAN PORCH 11'-0" MEDITERRANEAN PORCH TV DUCT-LESS MINI-SPLIT CONDENSER ON CONC. PAD 5'-0" TRUSS

BEARINGS FLAT SOFFIT
12" 4'-0" 4x4 POST W/ SIMPSON HDWR. TOP & BOTTOM WRAPPED W/ 2x WOOD MITERED @ CORNERS ON WOOD BASE 5'-0" ARCH ABOVE
24'-2"
24'-2" 12" 9'-0" 12"
12" 4'-0" 11'-0" TRUSS BEARING POINTS
4'-4" 12"
BASE12" 9'-8" 12"
A
B
C
1 2

SOLAR INVERTER
200 AMP SURFACE

METER & SERVICE PHONE DROP TV DROP HB W/ MAIN SOV HB
4'-0" NAIL'G 4'-0" This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc.

A
B
C
D
F
4 3
2 1
E 01/04/2022 PDM AS NOTED A1
NEW ADU- 1 BEDROOM:

VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 01-25-2022

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
DO NOT SCALE- PDF 03-06-2022 4F CLIENT: ZONING: DESIGN CRITERIA: ROOF LIVE LOAD: ULTIMATE WIND SPEED: BASIC WIND SPEED: WIND EXPOSURE: SEISMIC DESIGN: RISK CATEGORY: SOIL BEARING OCCUPANCY: BUILDING TYPE: ADU AREA: PORCH AREA: TOTAL AREA (UNDER ROOF): PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ADU's- 1 BEDROOM C ITY OF VISALIA R-1-5 20 P.S.F. 110 MPH 85 MPH "B" D(0) II (PER C.B.C, TABLE 1604.5) 1,500 P.S.F. R-3 V-B 498 S.F. 55 S.F. 553 S.F. A1- FLOOR/BRACED WALL PLAN, PORCH OPTIONS, PROJECT INFO. & NOTES A2.1- ELEVATIONS & ROOF FRAMING PLAN- CONTEMPORARY STYLE A2.2- ELEVATIONS & ROOF FRAMING PLAN- CRAFTSMAN STYLE A2.3- ELEVATIONS & ROOF FRAMING PLAN- MEDITERRANEAN STYLE S1- FOUNDATION PLAN, NOTES & TABLE 302.1 (for fire-resistance construction) D1- TYPICAL DETAILS D2- TYPICAL DETAILS D3- TYPICAL DETAILS D4- TYPICAL DETAILS E1- ELECTRICAL PLAN, NOTES & SCHEDULES MP1- HVAC PLAN, NOTES & SCHEDULES T1.1- CF-1R (CONTEMPORARY) T2.1- CF-1R (CRAFTSMAN) T3.1- CF-1R (MEDITERRANEAN) GC1- GREEN CODE GC2- GREEN CODE, CONT'D. & MANDATORY MEASURES SUMMARY PL PROPERTY LINE CL CENTER LINE (E) EXISTING (N) NEW (P) PROPOSED W/ WITH S SEWER W WATER W.I. WROUGHT IRON BM. BEAM W/H WATER HEATER W.M. WATER METER P.P. POWER POLE F/H FIRE HYDRANT STDS. STANDARDS DTL. DETAIL V.T.R. VENT THROUGH ROOF C.O. CLEAN OUT CW COLD WATER HW HOT WATER TYP. TYPICAL SHEET INDEX 2F ABBREVIATIONS 3E PROJECT INFO WALL LEGEND: 2x4 D.F. STUD GRADE WALLS @ 16" O.C. 2x6 D.F. STUD GRADE WALLS @ 16" O.C. NOTES: 1. VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION WITH CITY OF VISALIA & ALL RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES. 2. FOR TRUSS BEARING POINTS SEE TRUSS CALC'S. 3. INSULATION VALUES @ EXTERIOR WALLS- SEE CF-1R SHEETS R-30 (EQUIVALENT CLOSED-CELL SPRAY ON FOAM = R-5.8/INCH) CAVITY INSULATION @ 2x6 STUD WALLS. PROVIDE R-5 RIGID FOAM @ EXTERIOR WALLS FOR ALL ELEVATIONS. R-38 CEILING INSULATION- SEE CF-1R. R-21 (EQUIVALENT CLOSED-CELL SPRAY ON FOAM = R-5.8/INCH) INSULATION BETWEEN TRUSS TOP CHORDS. SPRAYED TO 3.75-INCHES THICK. WINDOW VALUES (MI LoE 340 + Argon OR EQUAL): U-FACTOR = 0.27, SHGC = 0.14- SEE CF-1R; THIS PROJECT REQUIRES QUALITY INSULATION INSPECTION (Q.I.I.)- SEE CF-1R. 4. ALL DOORS TO BE 6'-8" TALL (U.O.N.). 5. ALL WINDOW HEADERS TO BE AT 6'-8" (U.O.N.). 6. SEE 2F/D4 FOR FLOOR PLAN NOTES. 7. INSTALL EXTRA LAYER OF GRADE-D BUILDING PAPER @ WOOD SHEATHING AREAS WITH STUCCO. 8. ALL COUNTERTOPS TO BE GRANITE & AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 34-INCHES. 9. SEE ROOF FRAMING PLAN ON SHEETS A2.1, A2.2 & A2.3 FOR ATTIC ACCESS LOCATION. 10. SEE 4F/S1 FOR FIRE-RESISTANCE CONSTRUCTION TABLES R302.1(1) & R302.1(2) FOR DISTANCES FROM PROPERTY LINES. FRAMING @ ADJOINING PANEL EDGES SHALL BE 3-INCHES NOMINAL OR WIDER. FASTENERS SHALL BE STAGGERED 3-INCHES ON CENTER TO AVOID SPLINTERING AND/OR SPLITTING OF MEMBER ORBE OFFSET BY 3-1/2" (MIN.) WITH FILLER TO EDGE. BRACED WALL LEGEND ASYM. TYPE- SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 HOLD-DOWNS FASTENING N/A SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 METHOD CS-WSP 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B./PLYWOOD SHEATHING 4'-0" (MIN.) LENGTH- SEE TABLE R602.10.5 @ 4B/D1 1 BEDROOM ADU- FLOOR/BRACED WALL PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES 2E4E CONSULTANT: Trusses: CVTruss (559) 888-2160 B WSP 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B./PLYWOOD SHEATHING 4'-0" (MIN.) N/A SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 4C 1. DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALE. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. 2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS, WORK OR COMPLIANCE, REGULATIONS, CODES SET FORTH BY ANY AGENCY, & TO FOLLOW THE 2019 C.B.C. & 2019 C.R.C. CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS AT THE JOB SITE & REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE CONTRACTOR/JOB SUPERINTENDENT. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING PROPERTY THAT MAY OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED.. 3. JOB CARD REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE AT JOB SITE. 4. CHANGES FROM THE APPROVED PLANS DURING CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN 1) CABINET CHANGES WHEN NOT BEING SUPPORTED ENTIRELY BY THE ROOF STRUCTURE; 2 INTERIOR DOOR SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLAN; 3) A SINGLE NON-BEARING WALL RELOCATION WHEN NOT CREATING AN ADDITIONAL ROOM; AND 4) INTERIOR NONSTRUCTURAL WALL FINISHES; SHALL CAUSE PLAN APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION TO BE SUSPENDED. A NEW PLAN CHECK (FOR A NEW PLAN SHOWING CHANGES) WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL THROUGH THE NORMAL PLAN CHECK PROCESS. 5. SITE ADDRESS- WHEN ASSIGNED (2019 C.R.C. SECTION R319.1): BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE & VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THESE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE ARABIC OR ALPHABETICAL LETTERS. NUMBERS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES HIGH WITH A MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 1/2 INCH. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD & THE BUILDING ADDRESS CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE. 6. SUITABLE TOILET(S) SHALL BE PROVIDED & MAINTAINED IN A SANITARY CONDITION FOR THE USE OF WORKERS DURING CONSTRUCTION (2019 C.P.C., SECTION 422.5). 7. FIRE SPRINKLERS (REQUIRED ONLY IF MAIN RESIDENCE IS EQUIPPED, OTHERWISE NOT REQUIRED- CONTACT HSI FOR PLANS (SEE CONSULTANT LIST). 8. C.R.C. 401.3 DRAINAGE: SURFACE DRAINAGE SHALL BE DIVERTED TO A STORM SEWER CONVEYANCE OR OTHER APPROVED POINT OF COLLECTION THAT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD. LOTS SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN SURFACE WATER AWAY FROM FOUNDATION WALLS. THE GRADE SHALL FALL A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES WITHIN THE FIRST 10 FEET. EXCEPTION: WHERE LOT LINES, WALLS, SLOPES OR OTHER PHYSICAL BARRIERS PROHIBIT 6 INCHES OF FALL WITHIN 10 FEET, DRAINS OR SWALES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO ENSURE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. IMPERVIOUS SURFACES WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING FOUNDATION SHALL BE SLOPED A MINIMUM OF 2 PERCENT AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. ALL WORK MATERIAL ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED BY THE CITY BUILDING OFFICE. NOTHING IN THESE DOCUMENT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS TO PERMIT ANY WORK OR PRODUCT NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE CODES: 1. CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (C.R.C., 2019 EDITION) 2. THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CC-TITLE-24 & 25) 3. CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (C.B.C., 2019 EDITION) 4. CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (C.P.C., 2019 EDITION) 5. CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (C.M.C., 2019 EDITION) 6. CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (C.F.C., 2019 EDITION) 7. CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (C.E.C., 2019 EDITION) 8. CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (2019 C.E.C. STANDARDS) 9. CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (C.G.C., 2019 EDITION) THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ABOVE REGULATIONS AND CODES. THE CONTRACTOR AND SUB-CONTRACTOR(S) MUST BE FAMILIAR WITH ALL REGULATIONS AFFECTING THEIR PORTION OF THE WORK. SKYLAB INC., A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN COMPANY ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUBCONTRACTOR(S) CONFORMANCE TO THE ABOVE CODES AND REGULATIONS. THESE PLANS WERE PREPARED UNDER THE CONVENTIONAL FRAMING PROVISIONS OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 2308 & THE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE. OTHER CONSULTANTS: Fire Sprinklers: HSI Jennifer Alexander- Designer (661) 383-1020 Solar: Sunpower by SunSolar Manny Gonzalez (559) 202-6205 50 +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE
8"
14'-0"± TO SHEATHING
(16'-0" MAX.)+7'-6" FLAT SOFFIT 12 5 "COOL ROOF" COLOR COMP. SHINGLES ON 7/16" (MIN.) RADIANT BARRIER O.S.B. ROOF SHEATHING ON PRE-MFR'D TRUSSES 12"Ø GABLE END VENT W/ 4" FOAM COLLAR 2x8 FASCIA W/ 2" DRIP EDGE- TYP. 3 COAT STUCCO CEILING @ PORCH 3 COAT STUCCO W/ INTEGRAL WIRE MESH & BUILDING PAPER ON R-5 RIGID FOAM INSULATION BOARD ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- TYP. @ CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS 4" TAPERED FOAM TRIM 12" WIDE SHUTTERS FRONT +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE WEEP SCREED- TYP. @ ALL 4 ELEVATIONS- SEE 1F/D3 FOR DETAIL REAR RIGHT SIDE 12 5 2' TRIM RETURN LEFT SIDE 2' TRIM RETURN 3 COAT STUCCO W/ INTEGRAL WIRE MESH & BUILDING PAPER 2x4 WOOD STUDS @ PORCH 4' RIDGE VENT (2) 14"x18" GABLE END VENTS (2) 14"x18" GABLE END VENTS 4' RIDGE VENT TV 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. 2x4 RIDGE

BLOCKING
(2) 2x6 VALLEYS (2) 2x6 VALLEYS
2x6 RIDGE 2x8 FASCIA- TYP.
2x4 TYP. GABLE END
FRAMING @ 24" O.C.
6x6 HDR.

BOTTOM
@ 7'-0" SIMPSON ST2122 STRAP BEAM TO TOP PLATES- TYP. TYPICAL ROOF SHEATHING 7/16" (MIN.) O.S.B. STRUCT 1 (P.I. 24/0) UNBLOCKED RADIANT BARRIER PLYWOOD SHEATHING. NAILED W/ 8d @ 6" O.C. EDGE & 12" O.C. FIELD 4DD3 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING 4DD3 3CD3 3C 3D D3 D3 3DD3 4x6 BM. NOTE: 1. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x FOR BEAM SUPPORT. 2. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x6's FOR HEADER SUPPORT. 2x4 INFILL FRAMING @ 24" O.C. (MIN.) 22"x30" R.O. ATTIC ACCESS 4x6 BM. 4' RIDGE VENT
A1A
A1B
A1B
A1B
A1B
A1B
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1D B1C B1B B1B B1A This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc. A B C D F 4321 E 01/04/2022 PDM AS NOTED A2.1
NEW ADU- 1 BEDROOM:

VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 01-25-2022

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
DO NOT SCALE E;TERIOR ELEVATIONS- CONTE03ORARY STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4F ATTIC VENT CALCS. ROOF NOTES: 1. TRUSSES TO CONFORM TO C.R.C. R802.10 AND C.B.C. 2303.4. 2. PROVIDE SIMPSON H2.5A CLIPS @ ALL TRUSS BEARING POINTS. 3. PROVIDE SIMPSON ST2122 STRAPS @ ALL BEAMS TO WALL. 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x STUDS @ ALL BEAMS/HEADERS, U.O.N. 5. WHERE BRACED WALL PANELS ARE INSTALLED/ INDICATED ON THE FLOOR PLAN/BRACED WALL PLAN AT THE EAVES, BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ABOVE THE BRACED WALL PANEL (NO EAVE VENTILATION ALLOWED). ATTIC VENTILATION SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C., SECTION 806 AND C.B.C., SECTION 1203. C.R.C. R806.2/C.B.C. 1203.2 THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATING AREA SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPT THAT REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL AREA TO 1/300 IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST 40% AND NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS LOCATED IN THE UPPER PART OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 3 FEET BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. C.R.C. R806.3/C.B.C.1203.2 WHERE EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS ARE INSTALLED, INSULATION SHALL NOT BLOCK THE FREE FLOW OF AIR. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1 INCH AIR SPACE BETWEEN INSULATION & ROOF SHEATHING AT THE VENT(S). 553 S.F. TOTAL ATTIC SPACE = /150x144 = 531 S.I. (1) 12"Ø FULL ROUND GABLE VENT = (4) 14"x18" GABLE VENTS = (1) 4' RIDGE VENT = TOTAL 42 S.I. 440 S.I. 80 S.I. 562 S.I. 4D ROOF FRA0IN*- CONTE03ORARY STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NET FREE AREA OF VENTS CMI: 1412 14"x12" GABLE END VENT = 65 SQ IN 1418 14"x18 GABLE END VENT = 110 SQ IN 1424 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = 147 SQ IN EV223-PX 2212"x312" EAVE VENT = 40 SQ IN EV622 22"x6 "EAVE VENT = 71 SQ. IN. SV223 22"X3" SOFFIT VENT = 60 SQ. IN. LPDG19 LOW PROFILE DORMER VENT = 43 SQ IN BH24 HALF ROUND DORMER VENT= 100 SQ IN 18" HALF ROUND 18.25"x9.25" R.O. = 48 SQ IN 12" FULL ROUND 12.25"x12.25" R.O. = 42 SQ IN BUILDER'S EDGE: 18" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 26 SQ IN 22" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 54 SQ IN 22" OCTAGONAL VENT = 54 SQ IN 34"x22" HALF ROUND 10"x10" R.O. = 100 SQ IN O'HAGIN: MODEL "FLAT" TILE ROOF VENT = 98.75 SQ IN MODEL "S" TILE ROOF VENT = 97.5 SQ IN MODEL "M" TILE ROOF VENT = 86.25 SQ IN MODEL "TAPERED LOW-PROFILE" COMP. ROOF VENT = 72.0 SQ IN OWENS-CORNING: VENTSURE 15"x48" STRIP RIDGE VENT (WITH WEATHER PROTECTOR) = 20 SQ IN/ LN FT 51 +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE
8"
14'-0"± TO SHEATHING
(16'-0" MAX.)+7'-6" FLAT SOFFIT 12
5 "COOL ROOF" COLOR COMP. SHINGLES ON 7/16" (MIN.) RADIANT BARRIER O.S.B. ROOF SHEATHING ON PRE-MFR'D TRUSSES 12"x14" GABLE VENT W/ 2x3 WOOD TRIM 2x8 FASCIA (@ GABLE ENDS- ONLY) T1-11 CEILING @ PORCH 4x4 POST WRAPPED W/ 2x WOOD TRIM 2x3 WOOD TRIM W/ 1x1 TRIM @ WINDOW/DOOR OVER SIDING FRONT +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE WEEP SCREED- TYP. @ ALL 4 ELEVATIONS- SEE 1F/D3 FOR DETAIL REAR RIGHT SIDE LEFT SIDE 2x3 WOOD EDGE TRIM- TYP. BUTT SIDING TO 1x10 CEMENT FIBER LAPPED SIDING ON R-5 RIGID FOAM INSULATION BOARD ON 1 LAYER OF GRADE-D BUILDING PAPER ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- @ FRONT & SIDE RETURNS @ CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS CULTURED STONE BASE- SEE 4F/D3 FOR DETAIL +3'-2" CAP- 1x ON 1x4 TRIM +7'-6" FLAT 1x6 TRIM 1x4 TRIM 2" DRIP EDGE- TYP. 3 COAT STUCCO W/ INTEGRAL WIRE MESH & BUILDING PAPER ON R-5 RIGID FOAM INSULATION BOARD ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- TYP. @ CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS 12 5 2' SIDING RETURN W/ 2x3 TRIM 4x4 D.F. POST W/ 2x MITERED & NAILED W/ 16d's 4' RIDGE VENT (2) 14"x18" GABLE END VENTS 4' RIDGE VENT (2) 14"x18" GABLE END VENTS TV 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. 2x4 RIDGE

BLOCKING
(2) 2x6 VALLEYS
(2) 2x6 VALLEYS
2x6 RIDGE
2x4 TYP. GABLE END
FRAMING @ 24" O.C.
6x6 HDR.

BOTTOM
@ 7'-0" SIMPSON ST2122 STRAP BEAM TO TOP PLATES- TYP. TYPICAL ROOF SHEATHING 7/16" (MIN.) O.S.B. STRUCT 1 (P.I. 24/0) UNBLOCKED RADIANT BARRIER PLYWOOD SHEATHING. NAILED W/ 8d @ 6" O.C. EDGE & 12" O.C. FIELD 4DD3 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. 4DD3 3CD3 3C 3D D3 D3 3DD3 4x8 BM. NOTE: 1. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x FOR BEAM SUPPORT. 2. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x6's FOR HEADER SUPPORT. 2x4 INFILL FRAMING @ 24" O.C. (MIN.) 22"x30" R.O. ATTIC ACCESS 4x4 POST W/ SIMPSON LCE4 CAP EACH SIDE W/ WRAPPED W/ 2x WOOD MITERED @ CORNERS ON WOOD BASE 4x8 BM. 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING
2x8 FASCIA @ GABLE
ENDS- ONLY 4' RIDGE VENT
A1A
A1B
A1B
A1B
A1B
A1B
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1D B1C B1B B1B B1A This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc.

A
B
C
D
F
4 3
2 1
E 01/04/2022 PDM AS NOTED A2.2
NEW ADU- 1 BEDROOM:

VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 01-25-2022

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
DO NOT SCALE E;TERIOR ELEVATIONS- CRAFTS0AN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4F ROOF NOTES: 1. TRUSSES TO CONFORM TO C.R.C. R802.10 AND C.B.C. 2303.4. 2. PROVIDE SIMPSON H2.5A CLIPS @ ALL TRUSS BEARING POINTS. 3. PROVIDE SIMPSON ST2122 STRAPS @ ALL BEAMS TO WALL. 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x STUDS @ ALL BEAMS/HEADERS, U.O.N. 5. WHERE BRACED WALL PANELS ARE INSTALLED/ INDICATED ON THE FLOOR PLAN/BRACED WALL PLAN AT THE EAVES, BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ABOVE THE BRACED WALL PANEL (NO EAVE VENTILATION ALLOWED). ATTIC VENTILATION SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C., SECTION 806 AND C.B.C., SECTION 1203. C.R.C. R806.2/C.B.C. 1203.2 THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATING AREA SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPT THAT REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL AREA TO 1/300 IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST 40% AND NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS LOCATED IN THE UPPER PART OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 3 FEET BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. C.R.C. R806.3/C.B.C.1203.2 WHERE EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS ARE INSTALLED, INSULATION SHALL NOT BLOCK THE FREE FLOW OF AIR. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1 INCH AIR SPACE BETWEEN INSULATION & ROOF SHEATHING AT THE VENT(S). 4D ROOF FRA0IN*- CRAFTS0AN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NET FREE AREA OF VENTS CMI: 1412 14"x12" GABLE END VENT = 65 SQ IN 1418 14"x18 GABLE END VENT = 110 SQ IN 1424 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = 147 SQ IN EV223-PX 22 1 2"x3
1 2" EAVE VENT = 40 SQ IN EV622 22"x6 "EAVE VENT = 71 SQ. IN. SV223 22"X3" SOFFIT VENT = 60 SQ. IN. LPDG19 LOW PROFILE DORMER VENT = 43 SQ IN BH24 HALF ROUND DORMER VENT= 100 SQ IN 18" HALF ROUND 18.25"x9.25" R.O. = 48 SQ IN BUILDER'S EDGE: 18" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 26 SQ IN 22" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 54 SQ IN 22" OCTAGONAL VENT = 54 SQ IN 34"x22" HALF ROUND 10"x10" R.O. = 100 SQ IN O'HAGIN: MODEL "FLAT" TILE ROOF VENT = 98.75 SQ IN MODEL "S" TILE ROOF VENT = 97.5 SQ IN MODEL "M" TILE ROOF VENT = 86.25 SQ IN MODEL "TAPERED LOW-PROFILE" COMP. ROOF VENT = 72.0 SQ IN OWENS-CORNING: VENTSURE 15"x48" STRIP RIDGE VENT (WITH WEATHER PROTECTOR) = 20 SQ IN/ LN FT ATTIC VENT CALCS. 553 S.F. TOTAL ATTIC SPACE = /150x144 = 531 S.I. (1) 14"x12" GABLE VENT = (4) 14"x18" GABLE VENTS = (1) 4' RIDGE VENT = TOTAL 65 S.I. 440 S.I. 80 .S.I. 585 S.I. 52 +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE
8"
14'-0"± TO SHEATHING
(16'-0" MAX.)+7'-4" ARCH 12 5 "COOL ROOF" COLOR COMP. SHINGLES ON 7/16" (MIN.) RADIANT BARRIER O.S.B. ROOF SHEATHING ON PRE-MFR'D TRUSSES (3) 6"Ø" x6" LONG PVC 2x8 FASCIA W/ 2" DRIP EDGE- TYP. 3 COAT STUCCO CEILING @ PORCH STUCCOED 1x4 FOAM TRIM ON 1x1 FOAM TRIM @ WINDOW FRONT +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING'PLATE WEEP SCREED- TYP. @ ALL 4 ELEVATIONS- SEE 1F/D3 FOR DETAIL REAR RIGHT SIDE 12 5 LEFT SIDE 6' RIDGE VENT +6'-8" STUCCOED 2" FOAM ON 4" FOAM CAP CULTURED STONE BASE- SEE 4F/D3 FOR DETAIL +3'-2" CULTURED STONE CAP 3 COAT STUCCO W/ INTEGRAL WIRE MESH & BUILDING PAPER ON R-5 RIGID FOAM INSULATION BOARD ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- TYP. @ CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS 3 COAT STUCCO ON INTERGAL WIRE MESH & BUILDING PAPER ON 2x4 STUDS @ PORCH 8' RIDGE VENT 8' RIDGE VENT 8' RIDGE VENT 6' RIDGE VENT 8' RIDGE VENT 8' RIDGE VENT 8' RIDGE VENT TV 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. 2x4 RIDGE

BLOCKING
(2) 2x6 VALLEYS
2x6 RIDGE 2x8 FASCIA- TYP. 6x6 HDR.BTM. @ 7'-0" SIMPSON ST2122 STRAP BEAM TO TOP PLATES- TYP. TYPICAL ROOF SHEATHING 7/16" (MIN.) O.S.B. STRUCT 1 (P.I. 24/0) UNBLOCKED RADIANT BARRIER PLYWOOD SHEATHING. NAILED W/ 8d @ 6" O.C. EDGE & 12" O.C. FIELD 3CD3 6x6 HDR. 6x8 HDR. 3CD3 3CD3 3CD3 3DD3 3DD3 NOTE: 1. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x FOR BEAM SUPPORT. 2. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x6's FOR HEADER SUPPORT. 3. PROVIDE EITHER DBL. 2x6's STUDS OR 4x6 POST @ HIP GIRDER. 2x4 INFILL FRM'G @ 24" O.C.

SIMPSON LUS24 HANGERS
SIMPSON LUS24 HANGERS
(MIN.) 22"x30" R.O.

ATTIC ACCESS
4x6 BM.
4x6 BM. 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING
J2A
J2B
J2C
A1H
A1B
A1C
A1C
A1C
A1G
J2C
J2B
J2ARA1 RA1 J8A J8B J8C J8D J8E J8D J8C J8B J8A J8A J8B J8C J8D J8E J8D J8C J8B J8A RA1 J2D
J2E
J2F
J2C
J2B
J2A B1M B1B B1B B1A RA2 This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc. A B C D F 4321 E 01/04/2022 PDM AS NOTED A2.3
NEW ADU- 1 BEDROOM:

VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 01-25-2022

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
DO NOT SCALE E;TERIOR ELEVATIONS- 0EDITERRANEAN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4F ROOF NOTES: 1. TRUSSES TO CONFORM TO C.R.C. R802.10 AND C.B.C. 2303.4. 2. PROVIDE SIMPSON H2.5A CLIPS @ ALL TRUSS BEARING POINTS. 3. PROVIDE SIMPSON ST2122 STRAPS @ ALL BEAMS TO WALL. 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x STUDS @ ALL BEAMS/HEADERS, U.O.N. 5. WHERE BRACED WALL PANELS ARE INSTALLED/ INDICATED ON THE FLOOR PLAN/BRACED WALL PLAN AT THE EAVES, BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ABOVE THE BRACED WALL PANEL (NO EAVE VENTILATION ALLOWED). ATTIC VENTILATION SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C., SECTION 806 AND C.B.C., SECTION 1203. C.R.C. R806.2/C.B.C. 1203.2 THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATING AREA SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPT THAT REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL AREA TO 1/300 IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST 40% AND NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS LOCATED IN THE UPPER PART OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 3 FEET BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. C.R.C. R806.3/C.B.C.1203.2 WHERE EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS ARE INSTALLED, INSULATION SHALL NOT BLOCK THE FREE FLOW OF AIR. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1 INCH AIR SPACE BETWEEN INSULATION & ROOF SHEATHING AT THE VENT(S). 4D ROOF FRA0IN*- 0EDITERRANEAN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NET FREE AREA OF VENTS CMI: 1412 14"x12" GABLE END VENT = 65 SQ IN 1418 14"x18 GABLE END VENT = 110 SQ IN 1424 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = 147 SQ IN EV223-PX 2212"x312" EAVE VENT = 40 SQ IN EV622 22"x6 "EAVE VENT = 71 SQ. IN. SV223 22"X3" SOFFIT VENT = 60 SQ. IN. LPDG19 LOW PROFILE DORMER VENT = 43 SQ IN BH24 HALF ROUND DORMER VENT= 100 SQ IN 18" HALF ROUND 18.25"x9.25" R.O. = 48 SQ IN BUILDER'S EDGE: 18" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 26 SQ IN 22" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 54 SQ IN 22" OCTAGONAL VENT = 54 SQ IN 34"x22" HALF ROUND 10"x10" R.O. = 100 SQ IN O'HAGIN: MODEL "FLAT" TILE ROOF VENT = 98.75 SQ IN MODEL "S" TILE ROOF VENT = 97.5 SQ IN MODEL "M" TILE ROOF VENT = 86.25 SQ IN MODEL "TAPERED LOW-PROFILE" COMP. ROOF VENT = 72.0 SQ IN OWENS-CORNING: VENTSURE 15"x48" STRIP RIDGE VENT (WITH WEATHER PROTECTOR) = 20 SQ IN/ LN FT ATTIC VENT CALCS. 553 S.F. TOTAL ATTIC SPACE = /150x144 = 531 S.I. (1) 6' RIDGE VENT = (3) 4' RIDGE VENTS @ HIPS (8' EACH) = TOTAL 120 S.I. 480 S.I. 600 S.I. 53 WALL LINEUSE WIND BRACED WALL SCHEDULE SPACING (FT) TOTAL BRACING REQUIRED BRACING PROVIDED METHOD CONTRIBUTING & EQUIVALENT A 32.00
B WSP & CS-WSP 32.00
3 32.00
1 CS-WSP 32.00
2 32.00 WIND ADJUSTMENTS: 1. EXPOSURE CATEGORY - ONE STORY: "B" = 1.00 2. ROOF EAVE TO RIDGE HEIGHT 6'-8"±: 1.00 3. STORY HEIGHT- 9 FEET: 0.95 4. NUMBER OF BRACED WALL LINES (PER PLAN DIRECTION- 3: 1.30 4.80' x 1.0x 1.0x 0.95x 1.3 = 5.93' SEISMIC ADJUSTMENTS: 1. NONE.WSP & ABW CS-WSP CS-WSP 5.30' x 1.0x 1.0x 0.95x 130 = 6.55' A
A TV
63"x39"x75"

F/G SHOWER

CURTAIN ROD
30" GAS RANGE

W/ HOOD, LIGHT
& E.F. 36" REF. SPACE LIVING RM. 9' CL'G LVT FLR. DIRECT VENT OUTDOOR TANK-LESS W.H. COVERED PORCH 9' PLATE- CONC. DUCT-LESS MINI-SPLIT CONDENSER ON CONC. PAD 3'-0" x6'-8" F/G
ENTRY DOOR KIT./DIN. RM. 9' CL'G LVT FLR. MAIN HB W/ SOV 32'-0" 11'-8" 2'-8" 17'-8" 8'-2" 3'-6" 5'-2" 12'-6" 32'-8"
32'-0" 8"
10'-6" 6'-0
1 2
" 3'-2
1 2
" 12'-3"
3'-1
1 2
" 2'-11"
32'-8"
26'-0" 6'-8"
10'-9" 15'-3" 5'-8" 12"
5'-6" 5'-4"
A 32'-0" 13'-4" 7'-0" 11'-8" 9'-2" 4'-2" 12" 5'-0" 12" 10'-10" 6'-10" 5'-10" 3'-2" 3'-10" 5'-10" 2'-0"10" 1'-10" 8'-8" 6'-6"
10"
6'-3" 4'-4" 4'-11" 3'-2" 7'-4"
2'-6" 200 AMP SURFACE METER & SERVICE SOLAR INVERTER PHONE DROP TV DROP 4040 XO 5040 XO BEDROOM 2 9' CL'G LVT FLR. 2'10" CLO. PR. 3'0" BIPASS S&P BATHRM. 9' CL'G LVT FLR. 4016 XO TEMP.MIR.M/C 2'10"SPLIT LINEN STACKED W/D SPACE 22"x30" (MIN.) R.O. ATTIC ACCESS ARCH
ABV.HALL 9' CL'G LVT FLR. BEDROOM 1 9' CL'G LVT FLR.4040 XO CLO.

PR. 2'6" BIPASS
S&P 6'-0"x6'-8" TEMP. GLASS SLIDER 34" WALL EATING BAR 6'x3' CONC. STOOP G/D
3030 XO HB2030 SH NOTE: HD = SIMPSON HDU2 HOLD-DOWN. INSTALL TO INTERIOR WALL STUDS W/ (6) 1/4" x2-1/2" SDS & (1) 5/8" ANCHOR BOLT IN FOOTING- SEE DETAIL 2F/D1. C CS-WSP 26.00 3'-0" 4.80' x
A 1.0x 1.0x 0.95x 1.3 = 5.93' 4.80' x 1.0x 1.0x 0.95x 1.3 = 5.93' 3.90' x 1.0x 1.0x 0.95x 1.3 = 4.82' 5.30' x 1.0x 1.0x 0.95x 130 = 6.55' 2'-2" 4'-0" NAILIING 20'-0" 4'-0" 1'-10" (2) x 4'-0" NAILING PANELS = 8'-0" TOTAL B L= 4' (1) x 4'-0" WSP + (1) 2'-8" ABW (4' EQUIVALENT) = 8'-0" TOTAL A 4'-0" NAIL'G 4'-0" NAIL'G
A 2'-8" 6" (2) x 4'-0" NAILIING PANELS + (1) 2'-8" ABW (4' EQUIVALENT) = 12'-0" TOTAL (2) x 4'-0" NAILING PANELS = 8'-0" TOTAL 8'-5" 4'-0" NAIL'G 4'-0" NAIL'G
A
B
L= 4'
A
4'-0" NAIL'G (1) x 4'-0" WSP + (1) 4'-0" NAILING PANEL = 8'-0" TOTAL A
4'-0" NAIL'G
4'-0"
NAILING (2) x 4'-0" NAILING PANELS = 8'-0" TOTAL WALL LINE SEISMIC BRACED WALL SCHEDULE SPACING (FT) TOTAL BRACING REQUIRED BRACING PROVIDED METHOD CONTRIBUTING & EQUIVALENT A 32.00
B WSP & CS-WSP 32.00
3 32.00
1 CS-WSP 32.00
2 32.00 4.90' WSP & ABW CS-WSP CS-WSP 5.76' C CS-WSP 26.00 4.90' 4.00' 5.76' 4.90' A
B
C
1 3
2 C
HD
HD This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc.

A
B
C
D
F
4 3
2 1
E 01/04/2022 AT/PDM AS NOTED A1
NEW ADU- 2 BEDROOM:

VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 05-15-2020

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
DO NOT SCALE PDF 03-06-2022 4F CLIENT: ZONING: DESIGN CRITERIA: ROOF LIVE LOAD: ULTIMATE WIND SPEED: BASIC WIND SPEED: WIND EXPOSURE: SEISMIC DESIGN: RISK CATEGORY: SOIL BEARING OCCUPANCY: BUILDING TYPE: ADU AREA: PORCH AREA: TOTAL AREA (UNDER ROOF): PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ADU's- 2 BEDROOM C ITY OF VISALIA R-1-5 20 P.S.F. 110 MPH 85 MPH "B" D(0) II(PER C.B.C, TABLE 1604.5) 1,500 P.S.F. R-3 V-B 918 S.F. 41 S.F. 959 S.F. A1- FLOOR/BRACED WALL PLAN, PROJECT INFO. & NOTES A2.1- ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN- CONTEMPORARY STYLE A2.2- ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN- CRAFTSMAN STYLE A2.3- ELEVATIONS & ROOF PLAN- MEDITERRANEAN STYLE S1- FOUNDATION PLAN & NOTES D1- TYPICAL DETAILS D2- TYPICAL DETAILS D3- TYPICAL DETAILS D4- TYPICAL DETAILS E1- ELECTRICAL PLAN, NOTES & SCHEDULES M1- HVAC PLAN, NOTES & SCHEDULES P1- PLUMBING PLAN, NOTES, SCHEDULES, NOTES & DETAILS T1.1- CF-1R (CONTEMPORARY STYLE) T2.1- CF-1R (CRAFTSMAN STYLE) T3.1- CF-1R (MEDITERRANEAN STYLE) GC1- GREEN CODE GC2- GREEN CODE, CONT'D. & MANDATORY MEASURES SUMMARY PL PROPERTY LINE CL CENTER LINE (E) EXISTING (N) NEW (P) PROPOSED W/ WITH S SEWER W WATER W.I. WROUGHT IRON BM. BEAM W/H WATER HEATER W.M. WATER METER P.P. POWER POLE F/H FIRE HYDRANT STDS. STANDARDS DTL. DETAIL V.T.R. VENT THROUGH ROOF C.O. CLEAN OUT CW COLD WATER HW HOT WATER TYP. TYPICAL SHEET INDEX 2F ABBREVIATIONS 3E PROJECT INFO WALL LEGEND: 2x4 D.F. STUD GRADE WALLS @ 16" O.C. 2x6 D.F. STUD GRADE WALLS @ 16" O.C. 2 BEDROOM ADU- FLOOR/BRACED WALL PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES 2E 4C 4E NOTES: 1. VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION WITH CITY OF VISALIA & ALL RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES. 2. FOR TRUSS BEARING POINTS SEE TRUSS CALC'S. 3. INSULATION VALUES @ EXTERIOR WALLS- SEE CF-1R SHEETS R-30 (EQUIVALENT CLOSED-CELL SPRAY ON FOAM = R-5.8/INCH) CAVITY INSULATION @ 2x6 STUD WALLS. PROVIDE R-5 RIGID FOAM @ ALL STUCCOED EXTERIOR WALLS. R-38 CEILING INSULATION- SEE CF-1R. R-20 (EQUIVALENT CLOSED-CELL SPRAY ON FOAM = R-5.8/INCH) INSULATION BETWEEN TRUSS TOP CHORDS. SPRAYED TO 3.5-INCHES THICK. WINDOW VALUES (MI LoE 340 + Argon OR EQUAL): U-FACTOR = 0.27, SHGC = 0.14- SEE CF-1R; THIS PROJECT REQUIRES QUALITY INSULATION INSPECTION (Q.I.I.)- SEE CF-1R. 4. ALL DOORS TO BE 6'-8" TALL (U.O.N.). 5. ALL WINDOW HEADERS TO BE AT 6'-8" (U.O.N.). 6. SEE 2F/D4 FOR FLOOR PLAN NOTES. 7. INSTALL EXTRA LAYER OF GRADE-D BUILDING PAPER @ WOOD SHEATHING AREAS WITH STUCCO. 8. ALL COUNTERTOPS TO BE GRANITE & AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 34-INCHES. 9. SEE ROOF FRAMING PLAN ON SHEETS A2.1, A2.2 & A2.3 FOR ATTIC ACCESS LOCATION. 10. SEE 4F/S1 FOR FIRE-RESISTANCE CONSTRUCTION TABLES R302.1(1) & R302.1(2) FOR DISTANCES FROM PROPERTY LINES. 1. DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALE. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. 2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS, WORK OR COMPLIANCE, REGULATIONS, CODES SET FORTH BY ANY AGENCY, & TO FOLLOW THE 2019 C.B.C. & 2019 C.R.C. CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS AT THE JOB SITE & REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE CONTRACTOR/JOB SUPERINTENDENT. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING PROPERTY THAT MAY OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED.. 3. JOB CARD REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE AT JOB SITE. 4. CHANGES FROM THE APPROVED PLANS DURING CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN 1) CABINET CHANGES WHEN NOT BEING SUPPORTED ENTIRELY BY THE ROOF STRUCTURE; 2 INTERIOR DOOR SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLAN; 3) A SINGLE NON-BEARING WALL RELOCATION WHEN NOT CREATING AN ADDITIONAL ROOM; AND 4) INTERIOR NONSTRUCTURAL WALL FINISHES; SHALL CAUSE PLAN APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION TO BE SUSPENDED. A NEW PLAN CHECK (FOR A NEW PLAN SHOWING CHANGES) WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL THROUGH THE NORMAL PLAN CHECK PROCESS. 5. SITE ADDRESS- WHEN ASSIGNED (2019 C.R.C. SECTION R319.1): BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE & VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THESE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE ARABIC OR ALPHABETICAL LETTERS. NUMBERS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES HIGH WITH A MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 1/2 INCH. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD & THE BUILDING ADDRESS CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE. 6. SUITABLE TOILET(S) SHALL BE PROVIDED & MAINTAINED IN A SANITARY CONDITION FOR THE USE OF WORKERS DURING CONSTRUCTION (2019 C.P.C., SECTION 422.5). 7. FIRE SPRINKLERS (REQUIRED ONLY IF MAIN RESIDENCE IS EQUIPPED, OTHERWISE NOT REQUIRED- CONTACT HSI FOR PLANS (SEE CONSULTANT LIST). 8. C.R.C. 401.3 DRAINAGE: SURFACE DRAINAGE SHALL BE DIVERTED TO A STORM SEWER CONVEYANCE OR OTHER APPROVED POINT OF COLLECTION THAT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD. LOTS SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN SURFACE WATER AWAY FROM FOUNDATION WALLS. THE GRADE SHALL FALL A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES WITHIN THE FIRST 10 FEET. EXCEPTION: WHERE LOT LINES, WALLS, SLOPES OR OTHER PHYSICAL BARRIERS PROHIBIT 6 INCHES OF FALL WITHIN 10 FEET, DRAINS OR SWALES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO ENSURE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. IMPERVIOUS SURFACES WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING FOUNDATION SHALL BE SLOPED A MINIMUM OF 2 PERCENT AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. ALL WORK MATERIAL ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED BY THE CITY BUILDING OFFICE. NOTHING IN THESE DOCUMENT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS TO PERMIT ANY WORK OR PRODUCT NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE CODES: 1. CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (C.R.C., 2019 EDITION) 2. THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CC-TITLE-24 & 25) 3. CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (C.B.C., 2019 EDITION) 4. CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (C.P.C., 2019 EDITION) 5. CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (C.M.C., 2019 EDITION) 6. CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (C.F.C., 2019 EDITION) 7. CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (C.E.C., 2019 EDITION) 8. CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (2019 C.E.C. STANDARDS) 9. CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (C.G.C., 2019 EDITION) THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ABOVE REGULATIONS AND CODES. THE CONTRACTOR AND SUB-CONTRACTOR(S) MUST BE FAMILIAR WITH ALL REGULATIONS AFFECTING THEIR PORTION OF THE WORK. SKYLAB INC., A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN COMPANY ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUBCONTRACTOR(S) CONFORMANCE TO THE ABOVE CODES AND REGULATIONS. THESE PLANS WERE PREPARED UNDER THE CONVENTIONAL FRAMING PROVISIONS OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 2308 & THE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE. CONSULTANT: Trusses: CVTruss (559) 888-2160 OTHER CONSULTANTS: Fire Sprinklers: HSI Jennifer Alexander- Designer (661) 383-1020 Solar: Sunpower by SunSolar Manny Gonzalez (559) 202-6205 FRAMING @ ADJOINING PANEL EDGES SHALL BE 3-INCHES NOMINAL OR WIDER. FASTENERS SHALL BE STAGGERED 3-INCHES ON CENTER TO AVOID SPLINTERING AND/OR SPLITTING OF MEMBER ORBE OFFSET BY 3-1/2" (MIN.) WITH FILLER TO EDGE. BRACED WALL LEGEND ASYM. TYPE- SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 HOLD-DOWNS FASTENING N/A SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 METHOD CS-WSP 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B./PLYWOOD SHEATHING 4'-0" (MIN.) LENGTH- SEE TABLE R602.10.5 @ 4B/D1 B WSP 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B./PLYWOOD SHEATHING 4'-0" (MIN.) N/A SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 C SEE TABLE R602.10.4 @ 4B/D1 & DETAIL 2F/D1 ABW 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B./PLYWOOD SHEATHING 2'-8" (MIN.) SIMPSON HDU2 HOLD-DOWN 54 TYPICAL ROOF SHEATHING 7/16" (MIN.) O.S.B. STRUCT 1 (P.I. 24/0) UNBLOCKED RADIANT BARRIER PLYWOOD SHEATHING. NAILED W/ 8d @ 6" O.C. EDGE & 12" O.C. FIELD 6x6 HDR.

BTM. @ 7'
4x8 BM. 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR.
(2) 2x8 VALLEYS
(2) 2x8 VALLEYS 2x4 IN-FILL FRM'G @ 24" OC.
2x6 RIDGE
2x4 RIDGE
BLOCKING 2x4 GABLE END FRAMING @ 24" O.C.- TYP. 2x4 RIDGE 2x4 GABLE END FRM'G
@ 24" O.C.- TYP. BLOCKING
2x4 GABLE END FRM'G
@ 24" O.C.- TYP. SIMPSON ST2122 STRAP BEAM TO TOP PLATES- TYP. 4DD3 NOTES: 1. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x's FOR BEAM SUPPORT. 2. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x6's FOR HEADER SUPPORT. 3. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x's OR 4x's @ GIRDER TRUSS BEARING. 3DD3 4DD3 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING 3CD3 4DD3 2x8 FASCIA- TYPICAL 3CD3 6x6 HDR. 6x8 HDR. 6x6 HDR.

BTM. @ 8' 22"x30" (MIN.) R.O. ATTIC ACCESS SIMPSON MUS26 HANGERS RIDGE VENT 6x6 HDR.

BTM. @ 7' TV
C1A
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1C
C1C
C1C
C1C
C1C
C1D C2A(2) C2B C2B C2C C3A 12
5 "COOL ROOF" COLOR COMP. SHINGLES ON 7/16" (MIN.) RADIANT BARRIER O.S.B. ROOF SHEATHING ON PRE-MFR'D TRUSSES 3 COAT STUCCO ON INTERGRAL WIRE MESH/BUILDING PAPER @ PORCH COLUMNS 26 GA. FLASHING @ WALL/ROOF +2'-8" TOP OF 4" TAPERED FOAM CAP 16' RIDGE VENT +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING/PLATE 15'-5"± TO SHEATHING
(16'-0" MAX.) 22"Ø FULL ROUND GABLE VENT W/ 4" FOAM COLLAR 2x8 FASCIA W/ 2" DRIP EDGE WEEP SCREED- TYP. @ ALL 4 ELEVATIONS- SEE 1F/D3 FOR DETAIL 3 COAT STUCCO W/ INTEGRAL WIRE MESH/BUILDING PAPER ON R-5 RIGID FOAM INSULATION BOARD ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- TYP. @ ALL CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS 8" FINISH GRADE 16' RIDGE VENT FRONT RIGHT SIDE REAR LEFT SIDE +7'-6" 1x6 FOAM TRIM STUCCO CEILING +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING/PLATE (2) 14"x24" GABLE VENT (2) 14"x24" GABLE VENT C1C This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc.

A
B
C
D
F
4 3
2 1
E 01/04/2022 AT/PDM AS NOTED A2.1
NEW ADU- 2 BEDROOM:

VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 05-15-2020 DO NOT SCALE E;TERIOR ELEVATIONS- CONTE03ORARY STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4C ROOF 3LAN- CONTE03ORARY STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4F ROOF NOTES: 1. TRUSSES TO CONFORM TO C.R.C. R802.10 AND C.B.C. 2303.4. 2. PROVIDE SIMPSON H2.5A CLIPS @ ALL TRUSS BEARING POINTS. 3. PROVIDE SIMPSON ST2122 STRAPS @ ALL BEAMS TO WALL. 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x STUDS @ ALL BEAMS/HEADERS, U.O.N. 5. WHERE BRACED WALL PANELS ARE INSTALLED/ INDICATED ON THE FLOOR PLAN/BRACED WALL PLAN AT THE EAVES, BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ABOVE THE BRACED WALL PANEL (NO EAVE VENTILATION ALLOWED). ATTIC VENTILATION SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C., SECTION 806 AND C.B.C., SECTION 1203. C.R.C. R806.2/C.B.C. 1203.2 THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATING AREA SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPT THAT REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL AREA TO 1/300 IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST 40% AND NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS LOCATED IN THE UPPER PART OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 3 FEET BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. C.R.C. R806.3/C.B.C.1203.2 WHERE EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS ARE INSTALLED, INSULATION SHALL NOT BLOCK THE FREE FLOW OF AIR. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1 INCH AIR SPACE BETWEEN INSULATION & ROOF SHEATHING AT THE VENT(S). NET FREE AREA OF VENTS CMI: 1412 14"x12" GABLE END VENT = 65 SQ IN 1418 14"x18 GABLE END VENT = 110 SQ IN 1424 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = 147 SQ IN EV223-PX 22 1 2"x3
1 2" EAVE VENT = 40 SQ IN EV622 22"x6 "EAVE VENT = 71 SQ. IN. SV223 22"X3" SOFFIT VENT = 60 SQ. IN. LPDG19 LOW PROFILE DORMER VENT = 43 SQ IN BH24 HALF ROUND DORMER VENT= 100 SQ IN 18" HALF ROUND 18.25"x9.25" R.O. = 48 SQ IN BUILDER'S EDGE: 18" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 26 SQ IN 22" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 54 SQ IN 22" OCTAGONAL VENT = 54 SQ IN 34"x22" HALF ROUND 10"x10" R.O. = 100 SQ IN O'HAGIN: MODEL "FLAT" TILE ROOF VENT = 98.75 SQ IN MODEL "S" TILE ROOF VENT = 97.5 SQ IN MODEL "M" TILE ROOF VENT = 86.25 SQ IN MODEL "TAPERED LOW-PROFILE" COMP. ROOF VENT = 72.0 SQ IN OWENS-CORNING: VENTSURE 15"x48" STRIP RIDGE VENT (WITH WEATHER PROTECTOR) = 20 SQ IN/ LN FT ATTIC VENT CALCS. 959 S.F. TOTAL ATTIC SPACE = /150x144 = 921 S.I. (1) 22"Ø FULL ROUND GABLE END VENT = (4) 14"x24" GABLE END VENTS = (4) 15"x 48" RIDGE VENT (16' TOTAL) = TOTAL 54 S.I. 588 S.I. 320 S.I. 962 S.I.

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
55 TYPICAL ROOF SHEATHING 7/16" (MIN.) O.S.B. STRUCT 1 (P.I. 24/0) UNBLOCKED RADIANT BARRIER PLYWOOD SHEATHING. NAILED W/ 8d @ 6" O.C. EDGE & 12" O.C. FIELD 6x6 HDR.

BTM. @ 8' 22"x30" (MIN.) R.O. ATTIC ACCESS SIMPSON MUS26 HANGERS RIDGE VENT 6x6 HDR.

BTM. @ 7' TV
C1A
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1B
C1C
C1C
C1C
C1C
C1C
C1D C2A(2) C2B C2B C2C C3A 2x3 WOOD TRIM & 1x6 STOOL @ WINDOWS OVER SIDING (2x3 TRIM @ DOOR) 2x3 WOOD EDGE TRIM- TYP. BUTT SIDING TO 1x10 CEMENT FIBER LAPPED SIDING ON 1 LAYER OF GRADE-D BUILDING PAPER ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- @ FRONT & SIDE RETURNS @ CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS CULTURED STONE BASE W/ CAP- SEE 4F/D3 FOR DETAIL 2' SIDING RETURN W/ 2x3 TRIM 1x8 TRIM 12 5 "COOL ROOF" COLOR COMP. SHINGLES ON 7/16" (MIN.) RADIANT BARRIER O.S.B. ROOF SHEATHING ON PRE-MFR'D TRUSSES 26 GA. FLASHING @ WALL/ROOF +2'-8" TOP OF STONE CAP 16' RIDGE VENT +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING/PLATE 15'-5"± TO SHEATHING
(16'-0" MAX.) 14"x12" GABLE VENT W/ 2x3 TRIM 2x8 FASCIA W/ 2" DRIP EDGE WEEP SCREED- TYP. @ ALL 4 ELEVATIONS- SEE 1F/D3 FOR DETAIL 3 COAT STUCCO W/ INTEGRAL WIRE MESH/BUILDING PAPER ON R-5 RIGID FOAM INSULATION BOARD ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- TYP. 3 EXTERIOR CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS 8" FINISH GRADE 16' RIDGE VENT FRONT RIGHT SIDE REAR LEFT SIDE +7'-6" 1x6 TRIM T1-11 CEILING +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING/PLATE (2) 14"x24" GABLE VENT (2) 14"x24" GABLE VENT 2' SIDING RETURN W/ 2x3 TRIM This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc.

A
B
C
D
F
4 3
2 1
E 01/04/2022 AT/PDM AS NOTED A2.2
NEW ADU- 2 BEDROOM:

VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 05-15-2020 DO NOT SCALE E;TERIOR ELEVATIONS- CRAFTS0AN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4C ROOF 3LAN- CRAFTS0AN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4F ROOF NOTES: 1. TRUSSES TO CONFORM TO C.R.C. R802.10 AND C.B.C. 2303.4. 2. PROVIDE SIMPSON H2.5A CLIPS @ ALL TRUSS BEARING POINTS. 3. PROVIDE SIMPSON ST2122 STRAPS @ ALL BEAMS TO WALL. 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x STUDS @ ALL BEAMS/HEADERS, U.O.N. 5. WHERE BRACED WALL PANELS ARE INSTALLED/ INDICATED ON THE FLOOR PLAN/BRACED WALL PLAN AT THE EAVES, BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ABOVE THE BRACED WALL PANEL (NO EAVE VENTILATION ALLOWED). ATTIC VENTILATION SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C., SECTION 806 AND C.B.C., SECTION 1203. C.R.C. R806.2/C.B.C. 1203.2 THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATING AREA SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPT THAT REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL AREA TO 1/300 IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST 40% AND NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS LOCATED IN THE UPPER PART OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 3 FEET BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. C.R.C. R806.3/C.B.C.1203.2 WHERE EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS ARE INSTALLED, INSULATION SHALL NOT BLOCK THE FREE FLOW OF AIR. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1 INCH AIR SPACE BETWEEN INSULATION & ROOF SHEATHING AT THE VENT(S). NET FREE AREA OF VENTS CMI: 1412 14"x12" GABLE END VENT = 65 SQ IN 1418 14"x18 GABLE END VENT = 110 SQ IN 1424 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = 147 SQ IN EV223-PX 22 1 2"x3
1 2" EAVE VENT = 40 SQ IN EV622 22"x6 "EAVE VENT = 71 SQ. IN. SV223 22"X3" SOFFIT VENT = 60 SQ. IN. LPDG19 LOW PROFILE DORMER VENT = 43 SQ IN BH24 HALF ROUND DORMER VENT= 100 SQ IN 18" HALF ROUND 18.25"x9.25" R.O. = 48 SQ IN BUILDER'S EDGE: 18" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 26 SQ IN 22" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 54 SQ IN 22" OCTAGONAL VENT = 54 SQ IN 34"x22" HALF ROUND 10"x10" R.O. = 100 SQ IN O'HAGIN: MODEL "FLAT" TILE ROOF VENT = 98.75 SQ IN MODEL "S" TILE ROOF VENT = 97.5 SQ IN MODEL "M" TILE ROOF VENT = 86.25 SQ IN MODEL "TAPERED LOW-PROFILE" COMP. ROOF VENT = 72.0 SQ IN OWENS-CORNING: VENTSURE 15"x48" STRIP RIDGE VENT (WITH WEATHER PROTECTOR) = 20 SQ IN/ LN FT ATTIC VENT CALCS. 959 S.F. TOTAL ATTIC SPACE = /150x144 = 921 S.I. (1) 14"X12" GABLE END VENT = (4) 14"x24" GABLE END VENTS = (4) 15"x 48" RIDGE VENT (16' TOTAL) = TOTAL 65 S.I. 588 S.I. 320 S.I. 973 S.I.

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
56 TV TYPICAL ROOF SHEATHING 7/16" (MIN.) O.S.B. STRUCT 1 (P.I. 24/0) UNBLOCKED RADIANT BARRIER PLYWOOD SHEATHING. NAILED W/ 8d @ 6" O.C. EDGE & 12" O.C. FIELD 6x6 HDR.

BTM. @ 7'
4x8 BM. 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR. 6x6 HDR.
(2) 2x8 VALLEYS 2x4 IN-FILL FRM'G @ 24" OC. 2x6 RIDGE 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING 2x4 GABLE END FRAMING @ 24" O.C.- TYP. 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING SIMPSON ST2122 STRAP BEAM TO TOP PLATES- TYP. 4DD3 NOTES: 1. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x's FOR BEAM SUPPORT. 2. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x6's FOR HEADER SUPPORT. 3. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x's OR 4x's @ GIRDER TRUSS BEARING. 3DD3 3CD3 2x4 RIDGE BLOCKING 3CD3 3CD3 2x8 FASCIA- TYPICAL 3CD3 6x6 HDR. 6x8 HDR. 6x6 HDR.

BTM. @ 8' 22"x30" (MIN.) R.O. ATTIC ACCESS RIDGE VENTS
6x6 HDR.

BTM. @ 7'
SIMPSON LUS24 HANGERS
SIMPSON LUS24 HANGERS SIMPSON MUS26's SIMPSON HHUS26-2 RIDGE VENT RIDGE VENT RIDGE VENT J2A M2A(2)
J2B
J2C
M1A(2)
M1B
M1C
M1D
M1D
M1D
M1E
M1F
M1G(2)
J2C
J2B
J2A J8A J8B J8C J8D J8D J8D J8D J8D J8D J8D J8D J8D J8D LG1
LG1
R01 M2B M2B M2C M3A
J2C
J2B
J2A
R01 J8C J8B J8A J8D J8D J8D J8D J8D J8D J8C J8B J8A
R01 12
5 "COOL ROOF" COLOR COMP. SHINGLES ON 7/16" (MIN.) RADIANT BARRIER O.S.B. ROOF SHEATHING ON PRE-MFR'D TRUSSES 3 COAT STUCCO ON INTERGRAL WIRE MESH/BUILDING PAPER @ PORCH COLUMNS 26 GA. FLASHING @ WALL/ROOF 4' RIDGE VENT +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING/PLATE 15'-5"± TO SHEATHING
(16'-0" MAX.) 14"x22" ROUND TOP GABLE VENT 2x8 FASCIA W/ 2" DRIP EDGE WEEP SCREED- TYP. @ ALL 4 ELEVATIONS- SEE 1F/D3 FOR DETAIL 3 COAT STUCCO W/ INTEGRAL WIRE MESH/BUILDING PAPER ON R-5 RIGID FOAM INSULATION BOARD ON 3/8" (MIN.) O.S.B. SHEATHING ON 2x6 WOOD STUDS- TYP. @ ALL CONDITIONED SPACE WALLS 8" FINISH GRADE 12' RIDGE VENT FRONT RIGHT SIDE REAR LEFT SIDE +6'-8" BOTTOM OF ARCH STUCCO CEILING +0'-0" FIN. SLAB +9'-0" CEILING/PLATE 12' RIDGE VENT +8'-2" TOP OF ARCH 6"x8" TAPERED KEY CULTURED STONE BASE W/ CAP- SEE 4F/D3 FOR DETAIL +2'-8" TOP OF STONE CAP 12' RIDGE VENT 12' RIDGE VENT 4' RIDGE VENT 4' RIDGE VENT 12' RIDGE VENT 12' RIDGE VENT 4' RIDGE VENT This is an unpublished work and may not be duplicated, published or otherwise used in whole or part without written consent of Skylab Residential Designs REVISIONS Date: Drawn by: Scale: Job # Sheet
1004 W. Main St. Suite A
Visalia, Ca. 93291
Ph. (559) 625-9150
Fax (559) 625-9153
[email protected]
Jesus R. Gutierrez, President Checked by:
, Inc.

A
B
C
D
F
4 3
2 1
E 01/04/2022 AT/PDM AS NOTED A2.3
NEW ADU- 2 BEDROOM:

VISALIA, CA. J.G.

PDF 05-15-2020 DO NOT SCALE E;TERIOR ELEVATIONS- 0EDITERRANEAN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4C ROOF 3LAN- 0EDITERRANEAN STYLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4F ROOF NOTES: 1. TRUSSES TO CONFORM TO C.R.C. R802.10 AND C.B.C. 2303.4. 2. PROVIDE SIMPSON H2.5A CLIPS @ ALL TRUSS BEARING POINTS. 3. PROVIDE SIMPSON ST2122 STRAPS @ ALL BEAMS TO WALL. 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM DBL. 2x STUDS @ ALL BEAMS/HEADERS, U.O.N. 5. WHERE BRACED WALL PANELS ARE INSTALLED/ INDICATED ON THE FLOOR PLAN/BRACED WALL PLAN AT THE EAVES, BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED ABOVE THE BRACED WALL PANEL (NO EAVE VENTILATION ALLOWED). ATTIC VENTILATION SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C., SECTION 806 AND C.B.C., SECTION 1203. C.R.C. R806.2/C.B.C. 1203.2 THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATING AREA SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPT THAT REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL AREA TO 1/300 IS PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST 40% AND NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS LOCATED IN THE UPPER PART OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 3 FEET BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. C.R.C. R806.3/C.B.C.1203.2 WHERE EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS ARE INSTALLED, INSULATION SHALL NOT BLOCK THE FREE FLOW OF AIR. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1 INCH AIR SPACE BETWEEN INSULATION & ROOF SHEATHING AT THE VENT(S). NET FREE AREA OF VENTS CMI: 1412 14"x12" GABLE END VENT = 65 SQ IN 1418 14"x18 GABLE END VENT = 110 SQ IN 1424 14"x24" GABLE END VENT = 147 SQ IN EV223-PX 22 1 2"x3
1 2" EAVE VENT = 40 SQ IN EV622 22"x6 "EAVE VENT = 71 SQ. IN. SV223 22"X3" SOFFIT VENT = 60 SQ. IN. LPDG19 LOW PROFILE DORMER VENT = 43 SQ IN BH24 HALF ROUND DORMER VENT= 100 SQ IN 18" HALF ROUND 18.25"x9.25" R.O. = 48 SQ IN BUILDER'S EDGE: 18" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 26 SQ IN 22" FULL DIAMETER ROUND VENT = 54 SQ IN 22" OCTAGONAL VENT = 54 SQ IN 34"x22" HALF ROUND 10"x10" R.O. = 100 SQ IN 14"x22" ROUND TOP = 50 SQ IN 22"x32" ROUND TOP = 40 SQ IN O'HAGIN: MODEL "FLAT" TILE ROOF VENT = 98.75 SQ IN MODEL "S" TILE ROOF VENT = 97.5 SQ IN MODEL "M" TILE ROOF VENT = 86.25 SQ IN MODEL "TAPERED LOW-PROFILE" COMP. ROOF VENT = 72.0 SQ IN OWENS-CORNING: VENTSURE 15"x48" STRIP RIDGE VENT (WITH WEATHER PROTECTOR) = 20 SQ IN/ LN FT ATTIC VENT CALCS. 959 S.F. TOTAL ATTIC SPACE = /150x144 = 921 S.I. (1) 14"x22" ROUND TOP GABLE END VENT = (2) 15"x 48" RIDGE VENT (8') = (3x3) 15"x48" RIDGE VENTS @ HIPS (12' EACH) = TOTAL 50 S.I. 160 S.I. 720 S.I. 930 S.I.

CITY OF VISALIA

STANDARD LAYOUT
57 Final Report
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.751658
Executive Summary..................................................................................................S-1 Organization of This Report ......................................................................................... S-1 Existing and Proposed ADU Impact Fees ..................................................................... S-2 The Proportionality Requirement................................................................................ S-3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... S-4 Chapter 1. Introduction............................................................................................1-7 Purpose......................................................................................................................... 1-7 Definitions.................................................................................................................... 1-7 Impact Fees Limitations for ADUs................................................................................ 1-7 How The Mitigation Fee Act Applies to ADU Impact Fees........................................... 1-9 Legal Framework for Impact Fees................................................................................ 1-9 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology ........................................................................ 1-13 Facilities Addressed in this Study............................................................................... 1-13 Chapter 2. Impact Fee Analysis.................................................................................2-1 Demand Variables for ADU Impact Fees...................................................................... 2-1 Population-Based Impact Fees..................................................................................... 2-2 Police and Fire Protection Impact Fees........................................................................ 2-3 Transportation Impact Fees......................................................................................... 2-4 Sewer Main and Treatment Plant Connection Fees .................................................... 2-5 Other Impact/Mitigation Fees...................................................................................... 2-6 Proposed Schedule of ADU Impact Fees...................................................................... 2-7 Chapter 3. Proportional Impact Fees for ADUs..........................................................3-1 Square Footage Proportionality for ADU Impact Fees................................................. 3-1 Applying Proportional ADU Impact Fees...................................................................... 3-1 Mitigating Unfairness in Proportional ADU Impact Fees............................................. 3-2 Chapter 4. ADU Impact Fee Policy Comparison .........................................................4-1 59 City of Visalia Page S-1
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
California law governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and the imposition of impact fees on ADUs has been evolving rapidly over the past two years. The City of Visalia has engaged NBS to study its impact fees for ADUs and to recommend ways of structuring ADU impact fees that meet the requirements of recent legislation.

We can start by quoting from some key provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2, as amended by AB 3182.

Paragraph 65852.2 (f) (1) refers to relevant portions of the Mitigation Fee Act and makes it clear that impact fees imposed on ADUs are subject to the requirements of that Act:
“Fees charged for the construction of accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012).”
Paragraph 65852.2 (f) (3) (A) reads as follows.
“A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
The first sentence of Paragraph 65852.2 (f) (3) (A), above, clearly states that no impact fees may be imposed on an ADU of less than 750 square feet. Because it mentions special districts and water corporations, we believe that restriction also applies to water and sewer capacity charges.

It is the second sentence of Paragraph 65852.2 (f) (3) (A), that makes impact fees for ADUs complicated under the new law. That paragraph requires impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or larger to be based on the proportional relationship between the square footage of the ADU and the square footage of the primary unit. Because that relationship will differ from case-to-case, there is no way to avoid calculating impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or larger on a case-by-case basis.

Organization of This Report
Chapter 1 of this report includes relevant definitions and discusses both the limitations imposed on ADU impact fees by recent legislation and the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act as it applies to all impact fees, including those for ADUs.

Chapter 2 calculates impact fees for accessory dwelling units based on the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, without applying the proportionality requirement of Paragraph 65852.2 (f) (3) (A). Those fees would apply only in circumstances where the proportional relationship between the square footage of the ADU and the square footage of the primary unit is such that it does not require those fees to be reduced. 60 City of Visalia Page S-2
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
Chapter 3 addresses the proportionality requirement and how it interacts with the impact fees that would otherwise apply to ADUs. It also discusses the potential inequities that may result from the application of the proportionality requirement, which has the effect of increasing impact fees for ADUs associated with smaller primary units and reducing the impact fees for ADUs associated with larger primary units. The formula for the proportionality calculation is:

Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet) Chapter 4 compares the policies adopted by a number of California cities and one county with respect to the imposition of impact fees on ADUs. More on that below.

Existing and Proposed ADU Impact Fees
Table ES.1 summarizes the City’s existing impact fees for ADUs. The impact fees shown in Table ES.1, which became effective in 2021, are lower than the impact fees the City was charging under a schedule adopted in 2019. The 2019 ADU impact fees totaled $9,114.00.

For comparison, Table ES.2 summarizes proposed ADU impact fees calculated by NBS in Chapter 2, based on the estimated impacts of ADUs relative to the impacts of a singlefamily dwelling unit. In other words, those fees are intended to meet the reasonable relationship standard spelled out in the Mitigation Fee Act.

Table ES.1: 2021 ADU Impact Fees
Impact Fee Impact Fee
Type per ADU
Park Acquisition 1
$ 1,127.00
Park Development 1
$ 1,522.00
Civic Center 1
$ 322.00
Corporation Yard 1
$ 52.00
Library 1
$ 43.00
Fire Facilities No Fee
Police Facilities No Fee
Transportation 2
$ 2,269.00
Subtotal w/o Sewer $ 5,335.00
Sewer Main Connection 3
$ 78.00
Treatment Plant Connection 4
$ 446.00
Total $ 5,859.00
1 Based on Mobile Home fee
2 Based on Senior/Assisted Living fee
3 Based on Hotel/Motel fee
4 Based on Hotel with Dining Facility fee
61 City of Visalia Page S-3
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
As discussed in Chapter 2, an impact fee for Police facilities was calculated in this study and is shown in Table ES.2 to provide the City Council with the option to charge that fee in the future should it choose to do so. The City does not currently charge an impact fee to ADUs for Police facilities, and City staff take the position that fee may not be justified because construction of ADUs in single-family zoning districts may not increase the density above that allowed by the zoning ordinance.

Also, as indicated in the footnote to Table ES.2, NBS was unable to find a basis for calculating either sewer main or treatment plant connection fees based on the impacts of an ADU. Consequently, the two sets of fees in Table ES.1 and Table ES.2 can be compared only by excluding the sewer main and treatment plant connection fees.

Excluding those fees, the impact fees in Table ES.2 are 19% higher than the existing fees shown in Table ES.1.

The Proportionality Requirement
Even if the City were to adopt the schedule of impact fees for ADUs shown in Table ES.2, those fees would have to be tested against the proportionality requirement of Government Code Section 65852.2 every time they are applied. And it is likely that the proportionality test would require that the proposed fees be reduced for a substantial number of new ADUs.

Table ES.2: Proposed ADU Impact Fees from Chapter 2
Impact Fee Impact Fee
Type per ADU
Park Acquisition $ 1,061.11
Park Development $ 1,432.99
Civic Center $ 302.84
Corporation Yard $ 49.27
Library $ 39.12
Fire Facilities No Fee
Police Facilities 1
$ 264.74
Transportation $ 3,830.73
Sewer Main Connection 2
See Note
Treatment Plant Connection 2
See Note
Total $ 6,980.81
1 The City does not currently charge a police facilities impact for ADUs; a police facilities impact fee was calculated in this report to provide the City Council with the option to charge that fee in the future if it chooses to do so
2 NBS was unable to find a basis to calculate sewer
main connectionimpact fees or treatment plant connection impact fees for ADUs
62 City of Visalia Page S-4
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
So, the City is faced with a choice as to whether it should adopt a standard schedule of impact fees for ADUs and then check those fees against the proportionality standard each time they are applied to an ADU, or simply to calculate proportional impact fees for the ADU in each case based on the impact fees that apply to the primary unit. As discussed in Chapter 4, most California cities we surveyed set impact fees for ADUs over 750 square feet by applying the proportionality requirement contained in the Government Code.

That appears to be the simplest alternative available to Visalia.

The other issue the City may want to consider with respect to the ADU impact fees is that the proportionality requirement has the potential to create some inequities, resulting in lower fees for ADUs associated with larger primary units and higher fees for ADUs associated with smaller primary units. Chapter 3 of this report discusses possible ways of mitigating those inequities.

The only example we found of an agency attempting to address those potential inequities was Sacramento County. That county has adopted ordinances that provide for proportional impact fees, with an option to choose an alternative impact fee if that fee is lower than the proportional fee. But we did not find opportunities in Visalia’s impact fee schedule to use a similar approach and any alternative would likely make administration of the City’s ADU impact fees quite cumbersome.

Conclusion
On balance, given the constraints of State law pertaining to the imposition of impact fees on ADUs larger than 750 square feet, we recommend that the City calculate those impact fees on a case-by-case basis using the proportionality formula derived from Government Code Section 65852.2.

The proportionality calculation would have to be made for each of the following impact or connection fees:
• Park Acquisition
• Park Development
• Civic Center
• Corporation Yard
• Library
• Transportation
• Sewer
• Sewer Main
• Treatment Plant
The Police and Fire facilities impact fees are not included here because the City does not currently charge those fees to ADUs.

To simplify calculation of ADU impact fees case-by-case, NBS has developed a matrix that allows City staff and applicants to quickly and easily determine the decimal factor that 63 City of Visalia Page S-5
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
can be applied to a standard impact fee to determine the amount of the proportional ADU impact fee. That matrix is shown on the next page. The appropriate factor can be determined by selecting the row corresponding to the square footage of the primary unit and the column corresponding to the square footage of the ADU. The cell where the row and column intersect shows the appropriate decimal factor.

For example, where the primary unit is close to 1,800 square feet and the ADU is close to 800 square feet, the decimal factor is 0.444. To determine the proportional impact fee for a particular ADU, all that’s necessary is to multiply that factor by the amount of the impact fee for a single-family unit.
64 City of Visalia Page
S-6
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
1500 0.500 0.533 0.567 0.600 0.633 0.667 0.700 0.733 0.767 0.800 1550 0.484 0.516 0.548 0.581 0.613 0.645 0.677 0.710 0.742 0.774 1600 0.469 0.500 0.531 0.563 0.594 0.625 0.656 0.688 0.719 0.750 1650 0.455 0.485 0.515 0.545 0.576 0.606 0.636 0.667 0.697 0.727 1700 0.441 0.471 0.500 0.529 0.559 0.588 0.618 0.647 0.676 0.706 1750 0.429 0.457 0.486 0.514 0.543 0.571 0.600 0.629 0.657 0.686 1800 0.417 0.444 0.472 0.500 0.528 0.556 0.583 0.611 0.639 0.667 1850 0.405 0.432 0.459 0.486 0.514 0.541 0.568 0.595 0.622 0.649 1900 0.395 0.421 0.447 0.474 0.500 0.526 0.553 0.579 0.605 0.632 1950 0.385 0.410 0.436 0.462 0.487 0.513 0.538 0.564 0.590 0.615 2000 0.375 0.400 0.425 0.450 0.475 0.500 0.525 0.550 0.575 0.600 2050 0.366 0.390 0.415 0.439 0.463 0.488 0.512 0.537 0.561 0.585 2100 0.357 0.381 0.405 0.429 0.452 0.476 0.500 0.524 0.548 0.571 2150 0.349 0.372 0.395 0.419 0.442 0.465 0.488 0.512 0.535 0.558 2200 0.341 0.364 0.386 0.409 0.432 0.455 0.477 0.500 0.523 0.545 2250 0.333 0.356 0.378 0.400 0.422 0.444 0.467 0.489 0.511 0.533 2300 0.326 0.348 0.370 0.391 0.413 0.435 0.457 0.478 0.500 0.522 2350 0.319 0.340 0.362 0.383 0.404 0.426 0.447 0.468 0.489 0.511 2400 0.313 0.333 0.354 0.375 0.396 0.417 0.438 0.458 0.479 0.500 2450 0.306 0.327 0.347 0.367 0.388 0.408 0.429 0.449 0.469 0.490 2500 0.300 0.320 0.340 0.360 0.380 0.400 0.420 0.440 0.460 0.480 2550 0.294 0.314 0.333 0.353 0.373 0.392 0.412 0.431 0.451 0.471 2600 0.288 0.308 0.327 0.346 0.365 0.385 0.404 0.423 0.442 0.462 2650 0.283 0.302 0.321 0.340 0.358 0.377 0.396 0.415 0.434 0.453 2700 0.278 0.296 0.315 0.333 0.352 0.370 0.389 0.407 0.426 0.444 2750 0.273 0.291 0.309 0.327 0.345 0.364 0.382 0.400 0.418 0.436 2800 0.268 0.286 0.304 0.321 0.339 0.357 0.375 0.393 0.411 0.429 2850 0.263 0.281 0.298 0.316 0.333 0.351 0.368 0.386 0.404 0.421 2900 0.259 0.276 0.293 0.310 0.328 0.345 0.362 0.379 0.397 0.414 2950 0.254 0.271 0.288 0.305 0.322 0.339 0.356 0.373 0.390 0.407 3000 0.250 0.267 0.283 0.300 0.317 0.333 0.350 0.367 0.383 0.400 3050 0.246 0.262 0.279 0.295 0.311 0.328 0.344 0.361 0.377 0.393 3100 0.242 0.258 0.274 0.290 0.306 0.323 0.339 0.355 0.371 0.387 3150 0.238 0.254 0.270 0.286 0.302 0.317 0.333 0.349 0.365 0.381 3200 0.234 0.250 0.266 0.281 0.297 0.313 0.328 0.344 0.359 0.375 3250 0.231 0.246 0.262 0.277 0.292 0.308 0.323 0.338 0.354 0.369 3300 0.227 0.242 0.258 0.273 0.288 0.303 0.318 0.333 0.348 0.364 3350 0.224 0.239 0.254 0.269 0.284 0.299 0.313 0.328 0.343 0.358 3400 0.221 0.235 0.250 0.265 0.279 0.294 0.309 0.324 0.338 0.353 3450 0.217 0.232 0.246 0.261 0.275 0.290 0.304 0.319 0.333 0.348 3500 0.214 0.229 0.243 0.257 0.271 0.286 0.300 0.314 0.329 0.343

ADU SQUARE FEET

PRIMARY UNIT SQUARE FEET
65 City of Visalia Page 1-7
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to develop a schedule of impact fees for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Visalia. Over the past few years, the State of California has enacted several laws intended to promote construction of ADUs as a way of alleviating a critical housing shortage that is making housing unaffordable for many families. Among other things, those laws restrict the imposition of impact fees on ADUs. Some recent legislation on ADUs addresses other issues, such as the process for approving applications for ADUs and eliminating owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs, but those matters are beyond the scope of this report.

Definitions
To understand the legal restrictions on impact fees for ADUs, it is important to define some of the terms used in the laws governing those fees. “Accessory Dwelling Unit” or “ADU” is a secondary dwelling unit on a lot occupied by a primary dwelling unit. ADU’s may be attached to or detached from the primary unit or may consist of converted space within an existing primary unit. The primary unit may be either a single-family unit or a multi-family unit.

For jurisdictions without a local ordinance limiting the size of ADUs, the maximum size for a detached ADU under State law is 1,200 square feet. For attached ADUs the square footage may be up to 50% of the floor area of the existing primary unit, but not less than 800 square feet. Local agencies may limit the size of detached ADUs to 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the unit has more than one bedroom. Local agencies also have the option of increasing the maximum size for ADUs.
“Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” or “JADU” is a unit converted from existing space in a single-family unit. A JADU may not exceed 500 square feet. A single lot may have both an ADU and a JADU.

Impact Fees Limitations for ADUs
Recent legislation has limited the imposition of impact fees on ADUs in several ways. No impact fees may be charged to JADUs or ADUs smaller than 750 square feet. For those ADUs that are subject to impact fees, those fees must be proportional to the fees that would be charged to a primary unit, based on the square footage of the ADU and the square footage of the primary unit. Paragraph 65852.2 (f) (3) (A) of the Government Code, as amended by AB 3182 reads, in part:
“Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
66 City of Visalia Page 1-8
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
For example, if the primary unit is 2,000 square feet and the ADU is 1,000 square feet, the impact fees charged for the ADU would be limited to 50% of the fees that would apply to the primary unit. That rule can create inequities, because the larger the primary unit the smaller the fees for the ADU. That limitation applies to both impact fees and fees in lieu of park land dedication under the Quimby Act.

With respect to impact fees for water or sewer service, Government Code Section 65855.2 seems to contain conflicting provisions. Paragraph 65852.2 (f) (2) reads:
“An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling.”
That language appears to mean that agencies may not charge water or sewer impact fees to ADUs except when they are constructed with a new single-family dwelling. However, paragraph 65852.2 (f) (5), below, states that proportionate water and sewer impact fees may be charged to ADUs, except for JADUs or ADUs within the space of a single-family dwelling as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e). “For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.” The ADU Handbook 2020 published by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) contains the following language.
“ADUs converted from existing space and JADUs shall not be considered by a local agency, special district or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, unless constructed with a new single-family dwelling. The connection fee or capacity charge shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU, based on its square footage or plumbing fixtures as compared to the primary dwelling. State ADU law does not cover monthly charge fees.”
So, clearly, HCD interprets the law to allow proportionate sewer connection fees for detached ADUs and this report will rely on that interpretation. 67 City of Visalia Page 1-9
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
How The Mitigation Fee Act Applies to ADU Impact Fees
Beyond the specific rules that apply to impact fees for ADUs, those impact fees still must satisfy the reasonable relationship requirements required for all impact fees by the Mitigation Fee Act. Paragraph 65852.2 (f) (1) of the Government Code makes that clear by referring to relevant sections of the Mitigation Fee Act:
“Fees charged for the construction of accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012).”
So, this report looks at ADU impact fees in two ways. Firstly, with respect to the nexus or reasonable relationship requirement, and secondly, with respect to the specific restrictions on impact fees for ADUs. The next section looks at legal requirements for impact fees, generally.

Legal Framework for Impact Fees
This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general overview. It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as legal advice.

U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution.

In two landmark cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval or imposes ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development project that do not apply to development generally, a higher standard of judicial scrutiny applies. To meet that standard, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (Nollan v.

California Coastal Commission, 1987) and make an” individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development (Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994).

Until recently, it was widely accepted that legislatively enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the higher standard of judicial scrutiny flowing from the Nollan and Dolan decisions. But after the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District (2013), state courts have reached conflicting conclusions on that issue.

In light of that uncertainty, we recommend that any agency establishing or imposing impact fees should demonstrate that those fees satisfy the nexus and proportionality requirements required by constitutional case law.
68 City of Visalia Page 1-10
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
Defining the “Nexus.” While courts have not been entirely consistent in defining the nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees, that term can be thought of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees.

Need or Impact. Development must create a need for the facilities to be funded by impact fees. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees.

The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus.

Benefit. Development must benefit from facilities funded by impact fees. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees.

Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended expeditiously or refunded. Those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus.

Proportionality. Impact fees must be proportional to the impact created by a particular development project. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development-related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.

California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police 69 City of Visalia Page 1-11
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only if the fees charged to a project exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve the project. In that case, the fees would also run afoul of the U. S.

Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act.

Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development.” The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time, the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, it is clear both in case law and statute (see Government Code Section 65913.8) that impact fees may not be used to pay for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title.

Nor does it use the more common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….”
To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely accepted terms “impact fee” and “development impact fee” which both should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the implementation chapter of this report.

Required Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
70 City of Visalia Page 1-12
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022

2. Identify the use of the fee; and,

3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. (Applies when fees are imposed on a specific project.) Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below.

Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund construction of certain capital improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City grows.

This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development.

Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents.

Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:

1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;

2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and,

3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

These three reasonable relationship requirements, as defined in the statute, mirror the nexus and proportionality requirements often cited in court decisions as the standard for defensible impact fees. The term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The “duality” of the nexus refers to (1) an impact or need created by a development project subject to impact fees, and (2) a benefit to the project from the expenditure of the fees.

Although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual rational nexus formulation, it was explicitly required by the Supreme Court in the Dolan case, and we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus.
71 City of Visalia Page 1-13
ADU Impact Fee Study
May 13, 2022
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus.

Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation. To some extent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.

Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development is represented by some measurable attribute of development such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by different types and amounts of development.

This study does not calculate ADU impact fees from scratch. Rather it calculates new ADU impact fees based on Visalia’s existing schedule of impact fees by adjusting those fees to reflect the impacts of ADUs. All of the City’s existing impact fees are based on impact fee nexus studies, some of them dating back more than ten years. The impact fees originally calculated in those studies have been adjusted periodically to keep pace with changes in facility costs.

This study looks at how the impacts of residential development were quantified in those studies, and how the impacts of ADUs are different from the impacts of other types of residential development for which impact fees were calculated. For example, in cases where population per unit was used as the basis for an impact fee, this study uses an estimated population per unit for ADUs to determine what the impact fee for an ADU should be, relative to the impact fee for other types of residential development.

Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact or in-lieu fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
▪ Park Land Acquisition
▪ Park and Recreation Improvements
▪ Civic Center
▪ Corporation Yard
▪ Libraries
▪ Fire Protection Facilities
▪ Police Facilities
▪ Transportation
▪ Sewer System Improvements
72 City of Visalia Page 2-1
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
Demand Variables for ADU Impact Fees
Demand variables are attributes of development that are used in impact fee calculations to represent service demand. Population is one of the most commonly used demand variables in impact fee analysis and was used as the basis for many of the City’s existing impact fees. Another demand variable used in this analysis is vehicle trips generated by development.

As discussed in Chapter 1, ADUs smaller than 750 square feet are not subject to impact fees. That is approximately the average size of one-bedroom apartment units constructed in the U. S. in 2018 based on a survey by Yardi Matrix. So, it is reasonable to assume that ADUs larger than 750 square feet have at least two bedrooms. That information is useful in estimating the average population per unit for ADUs subject to impact fees, given that there are no available data on population per unit specifically for ADUs. To date, there are no data available on population per unit specific to ADUs.

For additional perspective on population per unit, Table 2.1 shows data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) for population in occupied units by tenure and units in structure. The column titled “All Units Pop/DU” in Table 2.1 shows the average population per unit for all occupied units, by units in structure. The two columns at the right end of the table show average population per unit for owner-occupied and renter-occupied units.

Table 2.1 shows that the overall average population per unit for single-family dwelling units, including both detached and attached units, is 3.09. Single-family attached units are individually owned dwellings such as townhouses and condominium units.

For attached units with 2-4 units in a structure, the average population per unit is 2.2, and for attached units with 5 or more units in a structure, the average is 2.14. The average population per unit for all attached units (not shown in the table) is 2.18.

Table 2.1 Population per Unit by Tenure and Units in Structure Units Owner Renter Total Occ Owner Renter Total All Units Owner Occ Renter Occ in Structure Occ Units 1 Occ Units 1 Units 1 Occ Pop 2 Occ Pop 2 Pop 2Pop/DU 3Pop/DU 4Pop/DU 5
1, detached/att 25,339 10,579 35,918 74,430 36,610 111,040 3.09 2.94 3.46 2 to 4 77 4,778 4,855 77 10,609 10,686 2.20 1.00 2.22
5 or more 159 3,070 3,229 406 6,509 6,915 2.14 2.55 2.12 Mobile home 625 1,251 1,876 1,022 3,487 4,509 2.40 1.64 2.79 Total/Average 26,200 19,678 45,878 75,935 57,215 133,150 2.90 2.90 2.91 1 Occupied units by tenure; data from American Community Survey, Table 25032, 2019 1-Year Estimates 2 Population in occupied units by tenure; data from American Community Survey, Table 25033, 2019 1-Year Estimates 3 Average population per unit by units in structure for all units 4 Average population per unit by units in structure for owner-occupied units 5 Average population per unit by units in structure for renter-occupied units 73 City of Visalia Page 2-2
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
All of the City’s existing population-based impact fees for multi-family units are based on a factor of 2.74 persons per unit from a 2004 nexus study. In Table 2.1, with the exception of owner-occupied units with 2-4 units in a structure, the population per unit factors for multi-family units ranges from 2.12 to 2.55.

Considering all of the available information on population per unit, this study proposes to use a factor of 2.0 persons per ADU as the basis for population-based impact fees per unit. Considering that ADU impact fees apply only to units larger than 750 square feet, most of which are likely to have at least two bedrooms, we believe that number is both reasonable and conservative.

Population-Based Impact Fees
Several of Visalia’s existing impact fees are calculated based on population per unit. In order to calculate an impact fee for ADUs based on population per unit, we need to determine both the population per unit for ADUs and the cost per capita underlying the City’s existing population-based impact fees. All of those impact fees date back to the 2004 nexus study and those fees have been escalated repeatedly over time to keep pace with increasing costs. Consequently, the current cost per capita is not the same as the cost per capita used to calculate those fees originally.

Table 2.2 shows the City’s current population-based impact fees for single-family units, multi-family units and mobile home units. That table also shows the population per unit that was used to calculate the impact fees for each type of residential development in the original 2004 impact fee study.

In addition, Table 2.2 calculates the current impact fee per capita for each type of residential development by dividing the impact fee per unit by the corresponding population per unit.

When the fees were originally calculated, the impact fee per capita was the same for all types of residential units. However, because those fees have been adjusted repeatedly over time, the effects of rounding have accumulated so that the impact fee per capita for single-family units is no longer exactly the same as the impact fee per capita for the other types of residential development.

The purpose of this calculation is to estimate the impact fee per capita underlying the current impact fees. And since that number differs slightly among residential development types, we will use the average of those numbers as the fee per capita to establish impact fees per unit for ADUs in this study.

The average impact fee per capita for each of the population-based impact fees is shown in the right-hand column of Table 2.2.
74 City of Visalia Page 2-3
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
Police and Fire Protection Impact Fees
Visalia’s police and fire protection impact fees were originally calculated on a per-acre basis and are still charged on that basis. Although these two fees are similar in some ways, there are reasons to treat them differently when it comes to ADUs. The fire protection impact fees do not vary by development type. The per-acre fee is the same for all types of development in the City, both residential and non-residential. The logic underlying that approach to the fees is that the total cost of fire protection facilities, apparatus and vehicles needed to serve the City is dictated primarily by the Fire Department’s emergency response time standard. As a result, that cost depends to a large extent on the size of the area to be served, which can be stated as acres. The initial response time standard doesn’t vary by development type, so the cost per acre is the same for all types of development. Constructing a new ADU does not add to the acreage to be served, so we recommend that the fire protection impact fee not be applied to ADUs.

The situation is somewhat different for police services. The police impact fees are also charged on a per-acre basis, but those fees vary by development type because they were based on the average number of calls for service per acre for various types of development. In this case, it is a question of whether constructing a new ADU is likely to increase the population of an area and thereby increase the number of calls for service generated within the area. City staff has indicated that adding ADUs in single-family zoning districts is not likely to increase densities above what is allowed by the zoning ordinance, so it may not be appropriate to charge police impact fees to ADUs. However, because that is a decision for the City Council, we will calculate a police impact fee for ADUs so that fee can be imposed if the City chooses to do so.

Since there is no way to establish an acreage basis for charging police impact fees to ADUs, it is necessary to convert those fees to per-unit fees and then to calculate a per-capita amount for each fee.

Table 2.3 shows the calculation of average impact fees per capita for police facilities. As indicated in the footnotes to that table, impact fees per acre from the current impact fee schedule are divided by the estimated average number of units per acre for single-family Table 2.2: Population-Based Impact Fees per Capita
Impact Fee Single- Multi Mobile Pop/DU Pop/DU Pop/DU Fee/Capita Fee/Capita Fee/Capita Avg Fee Type Family 1
Family 1 Home 1SFDU 2 MFDU 2 MHDU 2
SFDU 3 MFDU 3 MHDU 3 per Capita 4
Park Acquisition $1,645.00 $1,448.00 $1,127.00 3.08 2.74 2.13 $ 534.09 $ 528.47 $ 529.11 $ 530.56 Park Development $2,222.00 $1,955.00 $1,522.00 3.08 2.74 2.13 $ 721.43 $ 713.50 $ 714.55 $ 716.50 Civic Center $ 467.00 $ 415.00 $ 322.00 3.08 2.74 2.13 $ 151.62 $ 151.46 $ 151.17 $ 151.42 Corporation Yard $ 76.00 $ 68.00 $ 52.00 3.08 2.74 2.13 $ 24.68 $ 24.82 $ 24.41 $ 24.64 Library $ 59.00 $ 53.00 $ 43.00 3.08 2.74 2.13 $ 19.16 $ 19.34 $ 20.19 $ 19.56 1 Current impact fees by unit type (effective date August 21, 2021) 2 Population per unit by unit type from the 2004 General Facilities and Library Impact Fee Study by Maximus and Tischler & Assoc. 3 Impact fee per capita = impact fee per unit / population per unit by unit type; SFDU = single-family dwelling unit; MFDU = multi-family dwelling unit; MHDU = mobile home dwelling unit 4 Average of impact fees per capita for SFDU, MFDU, and MHDU 75 City of Visalia Page 2-4
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
and multi-family residential development to arrive at impact fees per unit. (There are no existing police or fire impact fees for mobile homes.)
Then, impact fees per unit are divided by population per unit to calculate a fee per capita.

It should be noted that, since population per unit was not used in the original impact fee calculations for police impact fees, the population per unit factors shown in Table 2.3 are based on recent data shown in Table 2.1. The population per unit for single-family units is almost identical to the number shown in Table 2.2 from the 2004 impact fee study.

However, the population per unit factor used in Table 2.3 for multi-family units (the average of the factors for the two multi-family categories in Table 2.1) is substantially lower than the corresponding number in Table 2.2. The far right-hand column in Table 2.3 shows the average of the per capita fees for single-family and multi-family dwelling units.

Transportation Impact Fees
Visalia’s transportation impact fees were originally calculated in the 2015 Transportation Impact Fee Update Nexus Study by TJKM. One factor used to calculate those impact fees is a trip demand factors (TDF) per unit for each type of development. Trip demand factors are based on average daily trips (ADT) adjusted for pass-by trips and multiplied by a trip length factor.

Table 2.4 calculates the current impact fees per TDF for each type of residential development for which the City has existing transportation impact fees. Similar to the other impact fees discussed above, the purpose of this analysis is to establish a current impact fee per TDF that can be applied to ADUs.

Probably because the transportation impact fees date back only to 2015, there is little variance between the impact fee per TDF numbers for single-family and multi-family development in Table 2.4. There is no existing transportation impact fee for mobile homes. The average impact fee per TDF for the single-family and multi-family residential categories is shown in the right-hand column of Table 2.4.

Table 2.3: Police Impact Fees per Capita
Impact Fee Single- Multi Mobile Pop/DU Pop/DU Pop/DU Fee/Capita Fee/Capita Fee/Capita Avg Fee Type Family 1
Family 1 Home 1SFDU 2 MFDU 2 MHDU 2SFDU 3 MFDU 3 MHDU 3 per Capita 4 Police Facilities $ 381.67 $ 307.87 No Fee 3.09 2.18 N/A $ 123.52 $ 141.22 N/A $ 132.37 1 Current impact fees by unit type; fees have been converted from fees per acre to fees per unit based on typical densities from Table 1-37 in the Housing Element of the Visalia General Plan; 4.8 units per acre (low-density) was used for single-family residential development and 15 units per acre (in the range between medium-density and high-density) was used for multi-family residential 2 Population per unit by unit type based on data from Table 2.1 3 Fee per capita = fee per unit / population per unit by unit type; SFDU = single-family dwelling unit; MFDU = multi-family dwelling unit; MHDU = mobile home dwelling unit
4 Average of impact fees per capita for SFDU and MFDU; there are no existing Police impact fees for MHDU 76 City of Visalia Page 2-5
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
In addition to the average fee per Trip Demand Factor (TDF) from Table 2.4, we need to determine the appropriate TDF for ADUs before we can calculate a transportation impact fee for ADUs. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual, Trip Generation, lists more than 20 types of residential uses with their trip generation rates. The TJKM study calculated transportation impact fees for three types of residential development, singlefamily, multi-family and senior adult housing, using the 7th Edition of that publication. The Trip Demand Factors for those three development types are based on average daily trip generation (ADT) rates of 9.57 (ITE 210: single-family detached), 6.72 (ITE 220: formerly “apartment” now “multi-family low-rise”) and 3.48 (ITE 252: elderly housing-attached), respectively. There is no information available regarding specific trip generation rates for ADUs.

As discussed previously, this analysis assumes that ADUs paying impact fees are likely to have at least two bedrooms, which is similar to many multi-family rental units. So, it would not be unreasonable to apply the multi-family transportation impact fee to ADUs.

However, to be conservative, we recommend that the transportation impact fees for ADUs be based on the trip generation rate for residential condominium/townhouse (ITE:230), which was 5.86 in the 7th edition. (Some of the categories and trip generation rates have changed in subsequent editions). After applying the residential adjustment factor of 1.11 from the TJKM study, the trip demand factor for ADUs would be 6.5. That factor will be used in Table 2.5 to calculate the recommended transportation impact fee for ADUs.

Sewer Main and Treatment Plant Connection Fees
Based on the way in which Visalia’s sewer main and treatment plant connection fees were calculated in 1994, we see no way to calculate sewer fees for ADUs other than as a percentage of the standard fees. As noted on page 1-2 in Chapter 1, Paragraph 65852.2 (5) (f) of the Government Code reads, “Consistent with Section 66013, the connection (to a sewer or water system of an ADU that is not within the space of an existing residence or accessory building) may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values…) “ Table 2.4: Transportation Impact Fees per Trip Demand Factor Impact Fee Single- Multi Mobile TDF / DU TDF / DU TDF / DU Fee / TDF Fee / TDF Fee / TDF Avg Fee Type Family 1
Family 1 Home 1SFDU 2 MFDU 2 MHDU 2
SFDU 3 MFDU 3 MHDU 3 per TDF 4
Transportation $6,235.00 $4,379.00 No Fee 10.58 7.43 N/A $ 589.32 $ 589.37 N/A $ 589.34 1 Current impact fees by unit type
2 Trip demand factor (TDF) per dwelling unit from the 2015 Traffic Impact Fee Update Nexus Study by TJKM; Trip demand factor = average daily trips (ADT) adjusted for pass-by trips X trip length factor 3 Impact fee per TDF = impact fee per unit / trip demand factor; SFDU = single-family dwelling unit; MFDU = multi-family dwelling unit; MHDU = mobile home dwelling unit
4 Average of the impact fees per TDF for SFDU and MFDU; there is no existing transportation impact fee for MHDU 77 City of Visalia Page 2-6
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
The City of Visalia does not use drainage fixture units in assessing sewer connection fees and the language above is not specific about how the proportionality should be determined. However, as noted on page 1-1 of Chapter 1, Paragraph 65852.2 (f) (3) (A) of the Government Code, as amended by AB 3182, states that “Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.” That language provides a basis for calculating sewer impact fees for ADUs based on the relative size of the ADU and the primary unit. Indeed, that proportionality requirement applies to all of the ADU impact fees discussed in this report, so in a subsequent chapter we will address potential conflicts between the proportionality mandate and the requirement that ADU impact fees must satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, including the reasonable relationship requirements.

Other Impact/Mitigation Fees
Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee. This fee is intended to pay for measures needed to mitigate the net negative effect on groundwater recharge of converting agricultural land uses to urban/industrial land uses. The amount of the fee is based on a 2004 analysis by Provost and Pritchard Engineering of the net negative recharge effect of converting agricultural uses to urban/industrial uses and the cost of mitigating that effect by providing for additional direct recharge of surface water by way of recharge basins.

Provost and Pritchard analyzed the need for additional groundwater recharge resulting from conversion of agricultural land uses to urban/industrial land uses on a per-acre basis rather than as an impact of specific types of development projects. To the extent that ADUs are constructed on land that has already been converted to residential use, there does not appear to be any additional impact of a new ADU that would justify applying this fee to the ADU. That is reinforced by the fact that if an ADU were constructed concurrently with a new dwelling on an undeveloped lot, inclusion of the ADU would not increase the amount of the groundwater overdraft mitigation Fee that would otherwise apply to the new dwelling. Consequently, we recommend that the City not apply this fee to ADUs.

Storm Drainage Impact Fee. The storm drainage impact fees are based on a Storm Water Master Plan prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation in 1994. The storm drainage impact fees were enacted by resolution the same year. Since that time, the impact fees have been updated periodically to keep pace with cost inflation and have increased by approximately 96% since they were originally adopted. The storm drainage impact fees were adopted in two parts: an acquisition fee, and a development fee, and are still charged that way. The acquisition fee is charged prior to approval of a final subdivision map, if any, or prior to commencement of work on the development project. The development fee is charged prior to commencement of work on the development project. 78 City of Visalia Page 2-7
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
In the Master Plan, costs for planned drainage improvements were allocated to various types of development based on the estimated percentage of impervious surface area associated with each type of development. For residential development there were four density categories: rural (20%), low-density (43%), medium density (70%) and highdensity (80%). Those percentages are still shown in the schedule of storm water impact fees.

The question to be considered here is whether either or both of those fees should be charged to ADUs, and if so, what amount should be charged to an ADU. These fees are charged on the basis of gross acreage, and construction of an ADU on a lot obviously has no effect on the acreage of the lot. Of course, construction of a new ADU may well increase the total amount of impervious surface area on a lot, but that increase would not necessarily push the overall percentage of impervious surface area on the lot substantially above the percentage used in the original impact fee calculations.

Also, as with the groundwater overdraft mitigation fee, the storm drainage impact fee would not increase if an ADU were constructed concurrently with a new dwelling on an undeveloped lot. Consequently, we recommend that the City not apply this fee to ADUs.

Waterway Acquisition Fee. We have not been able to find any documentation regarding the calculation or adoption of the waterway acquisition fee. That fee appears on the same schedule as the storm drainage impact fees and appears to be an additional component of the storm drainage impact fees. Consequently, our recommendation regarding the application of this fee to ADUs is the same as for the storm drainage impact fees.

Proposed Schedule of ADU Impact Fees
Based on the foregoing analysis, NBS is proposing the following schedule of ADU impact fees where impact fees can be applied directly to an ADU without considering the size of the ADU relative to the size of the primary unit on the property. 79 City of Visalia Page 2-8
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
As noted in the previous discussion, we are recommending that the City not apply the following impact fees to accessory dwelling units:
▪ Fire impact fee
▪ Groundwater overdraft mitigation fee
▪ Storm drainage impact fee
▪ Waterway acquisition fee
In addition, as noted earlier, City staff believe the Police impact fee shown in Table 2.5 should not be applied to ADUs because the addition of ADUs is not likely to increase densities in single-family residential zoning districts above what is allowed by City ordinance. We are also recommending that the sewer main and treatment plant connection fees be applied proportionately to ADUs based on the square footage of the ADU relative to the square footage of the primary unit as provided in Paragraph 65852.2 (5) (f) of the Government Code.

The next chapter discusses the proportionality requirement and potential issues in applying it.

Table 2.5: Proposed ADU Impact Fees
Impact Fee Demand per Demand Avg Fee per Impact Fee
Type Unit Basis per ADU 1
Demand Unit 2per ADU 3
Park Acquisition Population 2.0 $ 530.56 $ 1,061.11
Park Development Population 2.0 $ 716.50 $ 1,432.99
Civic Center Population 2.0 $ 151.42 $ 302.84
Corporation Yard Population 2.0 $ 24.64 $ 49.27
Library Population 2.0 $ 19.56 $ 39.12
Police Population 2.0 $ 132.37 $ 264.74
Transportation Trip Demand Factor 6.5 $ 589.34 $ 3,830.73 1 Assumed population per unit for ADUs = 2.0 - see discussion in text; trip demand factor for ADUs = 6.5 - see discussion in text
2 Average fee per capita for population-based fees from Table 2.2; average fee per trip demand factor (TDF) for transportation impact fee from Table 2.4 3 Impact fee per ADU = demand per ADU X average fee per demand unit 80 City of Visalia Page 3-1
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
Square Footage Proportionality for ADU Impact Fees
As noted in previous chapters, Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, as amended by AB 3182, contains the following requirement:
“Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
That section of the Government Code also requires that fees imposed on accessory dwelling units be determined in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act including the reasonable relationship requirements of Section 66001.

To some extent, those two requirements are in conflict. In Chapter 2 of this report, we calculated ADU impact fees that are intended to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act for several types of facilities. For reasons explained in that chapter, we were unable to calculate sewer main and treatment plant connection fees in a similar manner. However, as we noted in Chapter 2, Section 65852.2 specifically addresses requirements for establishing water and sewer connection fees on a proportional basis.

Those fees may be based either on the number of plumbing fixture units in the primary unit vs. the ADU or the relative square footage of the two units. Based on review and discussion with City staff and legal counsel, we expect that the City will choose the latter option.

Applying Proportional ADU Impact Fees
In this chapter, we address the square footage proportionality requirement and how fees calculated on that basis relate to the fees calculated in Chapter 2. Although it is not spelled out in Section 65852.2, we think it is obvious that when calculating ADU impact fees in cases where the primary unit is a single-family detached unit, the starting point for the proportionality calculation is the fee that applies to the single-family unit. The law also allows for ADUs on lots or parcels where the primary unit is a multi-family unit. In that situation, it seems logical that the ADU impact fee should be proportional to the impact fee that applies to the multi-family unit, but we think ADUs within multi-family developments are likely to be rare, and for that reason, we don’t address them further in this report.

The formula for calculating proportional ADU impact fees would be:

Primary unit impact fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet) One thing that becomes obvious in that formula is that, for an ADU of a particular size, a larger primary unit results in lower impact fees for the ADU.

For example, if the ADU is 1,000 square feet and the primary unit is 2,000 square feet, the proportional impact fee for the ADU would be 50% of the impact fee that would apply to 81 City of Visalia Page 3-2
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
the primary unit. But if the primary unit is 1,200 square feet, the impact fee for the samesized ADU would be 83.33% of the primary unit fee.

Mitigating Unfairness in Proportional ADU Impact Fees
It seems likely that discrepancy is an unintended consequence of language in Section 65852.2 that was not thoroughly considered before adoption. It is also worth noting that for impact fee studies adopted after July 1, 2022, AB 602 requires that impact fees for all types of residential units must be proportionate to the square footage of a unit unless a different approach can be justified. Impact fees based on square footage will tend to reduce the inequity created by the proportionality language of Section 65852.2 because the fees that apply to a smaller primary unit would be less than the fees that apply to a larger primary unit. However, that standard applies only when impact fees are updated, so it may be a number of years before Visalia, and many other cities in California, adopt residential impact fees based on square footage. Therefore, we want to consider ways in which the City might minimize the inequities created by the ADU impact fee proportionality requirement in Section 65852.2.

The first step in that process is to compare the ADU impact fees calculated in Chapter 2 with the City’s current single-family dwelling unit impact fees. Table 3.1 shows the ADU impact fees calculated in Table 2.5 in Chapter 2 as a percentage of the current impact fees per unit for single-family detached or low-density residential development, whichever designation is used in the impact fee schedule. Note that since police impact fees are charged on a per-acre basis, they must be converted to per-unit fees for this comparison.

The ADU fees in Table 3.1 range from 61.4% to 69.4% of the single-family unit impact fees.

For ADU impact fees in that range, it is clear that the proportionality requirement would Table 3.1: ADU Impact Fees as % of Single-Family Unit Impact Fees Impact Fee Single-Family ADU ADU Impact
Type Impact Fee 1
Impact Fee 2Fee % 3
Park Acquisition $ 1,645.00 $ 1,061.11 64.5%
Park Development $ 2,222.00 $ 1,432.99 64.5%
Civic Center $ 467.00 $ 302.84 64.8%
Corporation Yard $ 76.00 $ 49.27 64.8%
Library $ 59.00 $ 39.12 66.3%
Police $ 381.67 $ 264.74 69.4%
Transportation $ 6,235.00 $ 3,830.73 61.4%
1 Impact fee per unit for single-family detached or low-density residential from the City of Visalia 2021 fee schedule; police impact fee converted from per-acre fee to per-unit fee using a density of 4.8 units per acre; see Table I-37 in the City's Housing Element
2 ADU impact fee from Table 2.5, Chapter 2
3 ADU impact fee as a percentage of the single-family impact fee per unit 82 City of Visalia Page 3-3
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
come into play for many combinations of primary unit square footage and ADU square footage. Table 3.2 on the next page shows the critical sizes of primary units for three different sizes of ADUs: 800 square feet, 1,000 square feet and 1,200 square feet. The critical size is the primary unit square footage above which the ADU impact fees calculated in Chapter 2 would have to be reduced to satisfy the proportionality requirement.

For example, in the case of an 800 square foot ADU, primary units larger than the numbers shown in the third column of Table 3.2 would require that the ADU impact fees be reduced below the amounts calculated in Chapter 2. The larger the primary unit, the greater the required reduction.

The City could consider adopting a policy the mitigate the apparent unfairness in the proportionality requirement which requires lower fees for ADUs associated with larger primary units. The only way to do that would be to set a lower limit on the size of the primary unit square footage that would be used to calculate proportionality. So, for example, if the lower limit were set at 1,800 square feet, the City would use that figure to calculate proportional ADU impact fees, even if the actual size of a primary unit is smaller.

The effect would be to reduce the ADU impact fees that would otherwise be charged to ADUs with a primary unit smaller than 1,800 square feet.

Another possibility would be to set the lower limit as a multiple of the size of the ADU.

So, for example, if a factor of 2.0 is chosen, the minimum primary unit size used to calculate impact fees for an 800 square foot ADU would be 1,600 square feet.

Obviously, such adjustments increase the administrative complexity involved in administering impact fees for ADUs. That will certainly be a consideration when the City chooses policies related to the application of ADU impact fees.

Table 3.2: ADU Impact Fees - Critical Size of Primary Unit Impact Fee ADU Impact For 800 For 1,000 For 1,200
Type Fee % 1
Sq Ft ADU 2Sq Ft ADU 2Sq Ft ADU 2
Park Acquisition 64.5% 1,240 1,550 1,860
Park Development 64.5% 1,240 1,551 1,861
Civic Center 64.8% 1,234 1,542 1,850
Corporation Yard 64.8% 1,234 1,543 1,851
Library 66.3% 1,206 1,508 1,810
Police 69.4% 1,153 1,442 1,730
Transportation 61.4% 1,302 1,628 1,953
1 ADU impact fee as a percentage of the 2021 single-family residential impact fee per unit from Table 3.1
2 Primary unit square footage above which the proportionality requirement controls; critical square footage = ADU square feet / ADU impact fee % 83 City of Visalia Page 4-1
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
Part of the scope of work for this study was to compare the policy approaches adopted by other California cities regarding impact fees for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Legislation establishing limits on impact fees for ADUs dates back only about two years, so there is not lot of standardization in the approaches used by cities and counties with respect to these fees. In addition, since Government Code Section 65852.2 establishes the “proportionality” rule for charging impact fees for ADUs, it appears that many cities have not found it necessary to adopt their own policies.

Our initial focus in comparing approaches was on other cities in the San Joaquin Valley.

Visalia identified five cities that were of primary interest:
▪ Modesto
▪ Fresno
▪ Clovis
▪ Tulare
▪ Bakersfield
Of those five cities, we found only two that have adopted specific policies regarding ADU impact fees. Both Modesto and Clovis have explicitly adopted the approach defined in Section 65852.2, which requires that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary unit. The following links may be used to find the web pages stating those policies, for Clovis (https://cityofclovis.com/planning-and-development/planning/adu/), and for Modesto (https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/18289/Capital-Facilities-FeesAnnual-Report-Fiscal-Year-2020-21-PDF?bidId=) Because that small sample did not yield many useful examples, we widened the search to include a number of other cities across California, including:
▪ Anaheim
▪ Berkeley
▪ Burbank
▪ Fullerton
▪ Glendale
▪ Pasadena
▪ Sacramento
▪ San Clemente
▪ San Diego
▪ San Jose
▪ San Luis Obispo
▪ Santa Ana
▪ Santa Monica
▪ Walnut Creek
84 City of Visalia Page 4-2
ADU Impact Fee Study
April 4, 2022
Among that group, we found that several have not explicitly adopted policies regarding ADU impact fees. Of those that have, San Diego exempts all ADUs from impact fees.

Berkeley, Pasadena and San Clemente have adopted the proportionality rule stated in Section 65852.2. And Sacramento and San Jose have adopted specific fees for ADUs, but it appears those fees pre-date enactment of Section 65852.2.

Of interest is the fact that San Clemente provides a worksheet for applicants to calculate proportional impact fees based on the square footages of the ADU and primary unit. It is linked here: https://www.san-clemente.org/home/showpublisheddocument/64984.

The only example we found of an agency that appeared to address the potential inequities that can result from the application of proportional impact fees as required by Section 65852.2 was Sacramento County.1 The Sacramento County Code exempts any ADU of 850 square feet or less and multi-bedroom ADUs of 1,000 square feet or less from impact fees entirely. For ADUs that are subject to impact fees, Sacramento County bases most of those fees on the lesser of the fee based on proportionality, or the fee that would apply to an RD-20 Unit with one occupant. A different alternative applies to the County’s Transportation Development Fees and Transit Impact Fees. For those fees the alternative to the impact fee based on proportionality is a fee calculated using one of several formulas that apply to specific types of development.

We considered the possibility that Visalia might adopt a policy similar to that used by Sacramento County but found that the proposed ADU fees shown in Table 2.5 are, with two possible exceptions, already lower than any of the existing impact fees charged by the City to any category of residential development, even before the proportionality rule is applied. The exceptions are the Senior/Assisted category for transportation impact fees and the Mobile Home category for park acquisition and development impact fees.

Consequently, we concluded that the Sacramento County approach would be of very limited benefit to Visalia.

We did not find any examples of agencies that apply a policy similar to the option proposed in Chapter 3, that would set either a certain square footage, or a multiple of the ADU square footage, to be used as the minimum size of the primary unit in calculating proportional impact fees.
1 The inequity referenced here results from the fact that, as proportionality is defined in Section 65852.2, ADUs associated with smaller primary units pay a higher fee than those associated with larger primary units.
85 Proportionality Factor for ADU Impact Fees
750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
1500 0.500 0.533 0.567 0.600 0.633 0.667 0.700 0.733 0.767 0.800 1550 0.484 0.516 0.548 0.581 0.613 0.645 0.677 0.710 0.742 0.774 1600 0.469 0.500 0.531 0.563 0.594 0.625 0.656 0.688 0.719 0.750 1650 0.455 0.485 0.515 0.545 0.576 0.606 0.636 0.667 0.697 0.727 1700 0.441 0.471 0.500 0.529 0.559 0.588 0.618 0.647 0.676 0.706 1750 0.429 0.457 0.486 0.514 0.543 0.571 0.600 0.629 0.657 0.686 1800 0.417 0.444 0.472 0.500 0.528 0.556 0.583 0.611 0.639 0.667 1850 0.405 0.432 0.459 0.486 0.514 0.541 0.568 0.595 0.622 0.649 1900 0.395 0.421 0.447 0.474 0.500 0.526 0.553 0.579 0.605 0.632 1950 0.385 0.410 0.436 0.462 0.487 0.513 0.538 0.564 0.590 0.615 2000 0.375 0.400 0.425 0.450 0.475 0.500 0.525 0.550 0.575 0.600 2050 0.366 0.390 0.415 0.439 0.463 0.488 0.512 0.537 0.561 0.585 2100 0.357 0.381 0.405 0.429 0.452 0.476 0.500 0.524 0.548 0.571 2150 0.349 0.372 0.395 0.419 0.442 0.465 0.488 0.512 0.535 0.558 2200 0.341 0.364 0.386 0.409 0.432 0.455 0.477 0.500 0.523 0.545 2250 0.333 0.356 0.378 0.400 0.422 0.444 0.467 0.489 0.511 0.533 2300 0.326 0.348 0.370 0.391 0.413 0.435 0.457 0.478 0.500 0.522 2350 0.319 0.340 0.362 0.383 0.404 0.426 0.447 0.468 0.489 0.511 2400 0.313 0.333 0.354 0.375 0.396 0.417 0.438 0.458 0.479 0.500 2450 0.306 0.327 0.347 0.367 0.388 0.408 0.429 0.449 0.469 0.490 2500 0.300 0.320 0.340 0.360 0.380 0.400 0.420 0.440 0.460 0.480 2550 0.294 0.314 0.333 0.353 0.373 0.392 0.412 0.431 0.451 0.471 2600 0.288 0.308 0.327 0.346 0.365 0.385 0.404 0.423 0.442 0.462 2650 0.283 0.302 0.321 0.340 0.358 0.377 0.396 0.415 0.434 0.453 2700 0.278 0.296 0.315 0.333 0.352 0.370 0.389 0.407 0.426 0.444 2750 0.273 0.291 0.309 0.327 0.345 0.364 0.382 0.400 0.418 0.436 2800 0.268 0.286 0.304 0.321 0.339 0.357 0.375 0.393 0.411 0.429 2850 0.263 0.281 0.298 0.316 0.333 0.351 0.368 0.386 0.404 0.421 2900 0.259 0.276 0.293 0.310 0.328 0.345 0.362 0.379 0.397 0.414 2950 0.254 0.271 0.288 0.305 0.322 0.339 0.356 0.373 0.390 0.407 3000 0.250 0.267 0.283 0.300 0.317 0.333 0.350 0.367 0.383 0.400 3050 0.246 0.262 0.279 0.295 0.311 0.328 0.344 0.361 0.377 0.393 3100 0.242 0.258 0.274 0.290 0.306 0.323 0.339 0.355 0.371 0.387 3150 0.238 0.254 0.270 0.286 0.302 0.317 0.333 0.349 0.365 0.381 3200 0.234 0.250 0.266 0.281 0.297 0.313 0.328 0.344 0.359 0.375 3250 0.231 0.246 0.262 0.277 0.292 0.308 0.323 0.338 0.354 0.369 3300 0.227 0.242 0.258 0.273 0.288 0.303 0.318 0.333 0.348 0.364 3350 0.224 0.239 0.254 0.269 0.284 0.299 0.313 0.328 0.343 0.358 3400 0.221 0.235 0.250 0.265 0.279 0.294 0.309 0.324 0.338 0.353 3450 0.217 0.232 0.246 0.261 0.275 0.290 0.304 0.319 0.333 0.348 3500 0.214 0.229 0.243 0.257 0.271 0.286 0.300 0.314 0.329 0.343 Transportation Impact Fee proposed in ADU Impact Fee Study Table ES.2 utilized only All Impact Fees proposed in ADU Impact Fee Study Table ES.2 utilized *** In case of highlight, use Table ES.2. Exception is to use percentage for sewer fees.

Square Footage of Primary Dwelling Unit
Square Footage of Accessory Dwelling Unit
86 Proportionality Factor for ADU Impact Fees
Impact Fee Original Fee Proposed Fee Percent Reduced Notes Park Acquisition $ 1,645.00 $ 1,061.11 0.645
Park Development $ 2,222.00 $ 1,432.99 0.645
Civic Center $ 467.00 $ 302.84 0.648
Corporation Yard $ 76.00 $ 49.27 0.648
Library $ 59.00 $ 39.12 0.663
Fire Facilities removed all together
Police Facilities $ 381.67 $ 264.74 0.694 proposed to be removed Transportation $ 6,235.00 $ 3,830.73 0.614
Sewer Main Commection $ 836.00 0.000
Treatment Plant Connection $ 830.00 0.000
87

Visalia City Council and Visalia Planning CommissionJune 13, 2022

Visalia City Council and Visalia Planning Commission
June 13, 2022