Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, August 1, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
Visalia City Council
City Council
Meeting Agenda - Final
Mayor Steve Nelsen
Vice Mayor Brian Poochigian
Council Member Greg Collins
Council Member Brett Taylor
Council Member Liz Wynn
City Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, August 1, 2022

ROLL CALL
CALL TO ORDER WORK SESSION - 4:00 PM

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Citizens are now invited to comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. The Council asks that you keep your comments concise and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome.

Each speaker will be allowed three minutes and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

WORK SESSION AND ACTION ITEMS (as described)

1. New Employee Introductions:

Transit Division:

Roxanna Plasencia - Office Assistant
Marla Bermudez - Community Outreach Coordinator
Visalia Police Department:

2. Receive the 2022 4th of July Illegal Fireworks Enforcement Detail Report presented by the Visalia Fire Department.
22-0298

Page 1 of 3 ends

1 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final August 1, 2022

3. Council to receive a presentation on options and provide direction for the use of reallocation Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act (CDBG-CV) funds allocated to Visalia in the amount of $291,599.
22-0286

4. Receive a staff presentation on the proposed local frontage road to be constructed with the Riggin Avenue Widening Project Mooney Blvd to Conyer Street.
22-0268
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 PM (or immediately following work session)
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION - 7:00 PM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION

ITEMS OF INTEREST

PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters that are not on the agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. The Council asks that you keep your comments brief and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome.

This is also the time for citizens to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes. Public comments related to all pulled Consent Calendar items and Regular or Public Hearing items listed on the agenda will be heard at the time that item is discussed or when the Public Hearing is opened.

Each speaker will be allowed three minutes, and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

1. Authorization to read ordinances by title only. 22-0305

2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a five ( 5) year maintenance contract with Motorola for dispatch radio consoles in the amount of $190,140.
22-0237

REGULAR ITEMS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

Page 2 of 3 ends

2 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final August 1, 2022
Comments related to regular Items and Public Hearing Items are limited to three minutes per speaker, for a maximum of 30 minutes per item. The Mayor may reasonably limit or extend the public comment period to preserve the Council's interest in conducting efficient, orderly meetings.

1. Conduct the second and final hearing, adopt Resolution declaring results of majority protest proceedings and renewing the Visalia Tourism Marketing District. (Resolution 2022-47 required) 22-0302

2. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract for RFB 21-22-38, Fleet Maintenance Building Settlement Repair Project, to Caliber Contracting Services Inc. of Fresno, CA, in the amount of $198,225.00.
22-0264

3. A Public Hearing to consider the following actions pertaining to property located on the northeast corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Meadow Avenue (Address: 914 South
Mooney Boulevard), (APNs: 096-023-023 & 096-023-031):

A) General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10, a request by Ming Lu Jin to change the land use designation of 5,196 square feet of a 15,261 square foot parcel from Low Density Residential ( RLD) to Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). (Resolution No. 2022-46 required).

B) Introduction of the first reading of Ordinance No. 2022-11 for Change of Zone No. 2021-12, a request by Ming Lu Jin to change the zoning designation of 5,196 square feet of a 15,261 square foot parcel from R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum site area) zone to C-MU (Commercial Mixed Use) zone. 22-0276

4. Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-01: A request by the City of Visalia to amend Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District).
22-0293

5. Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-02: A request by the City of Visalia to amend the Local Register of Historic Structures, reclassifying 100 structures.
22-0291

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

ADJOURNMENT

1. Upcoming City Council Meetings:

Monday, August 15, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. @ 707 W. Acequia, Visalia, CA 93291
Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. @ 707 W. Acequia, Visalia, CA 93291
22-0301

Page 3 of 3 ends

3 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0280 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

New Employee Introductions:

Transit Division:

Roxanna Plasencia - Office Assistant
Marla Bermudez - Community Outreach Coordinator
Visalia Police Department:

Dereck Esquibel, Police Officer
David Gray, Police Officer
Jose Almanza, Communications Operator
Eva McClelland, Hourly Crime Lab Assistant
Susanna Ferrer, Records Specialist
Ashley Garibay, Records Specialist
Ana Villalobos, Records Specialist
Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
4 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0298 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Receive the 2022 4th of July Illegal Fireworks Enforcement Detail Report presented by the Visalia Fire Department.

Deadline for Action: 8/1/2022
Submitting Department: Fire Department
Contact Name and Phone Number: Corbin Reed, 559-713-4272 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends Council accept the 2022 Illegal Fireworks Enforcement Detail Report.

Background Discussion:

This report provides City Council with a summary of events and activities conducted throughout the City of Visalia pertaining to the 2022 Illegal Fireworks Enforcement Detail.

Beginning on June 29th, local non-profit fireworks booths were able to open and begin selling Safe and Sane fireworks. For many of these organizations, fireworks sales comprise most of their funding to sustain operations throughout the year. Fireworks booths are inspected prior to opening and are only permitted to sell safe and sane fireworks. The number of permitted safe and sane fireworks booths is set by City ordinance and based on population. This year, there were 24 safe and sane fireworks booths permitted in the City of Visalia.

In the weeks leading up to the 4th of July, the Visalia Fire Department proactively hung approximately 2,500 informational door hangers in targeted neighborhoods. In 2021, the Fire Department distributed 2,000 informational door hangers. Neighborhoods were selected based on 2021’s calls for complaint data and other information that indicated use of illegal fireworks was prevalent in the area.

These door hangers provided the public with information compiled from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) intended to deter the purchase and use of illegal Dangerous Fireworks, the reporting number for the Illegal Fireworks Hotline, as well as information regarding the rewards program for reporting the sales of Dangerous Fireworks.

Additionally, during the month of June, the Visalia Police Department Property Crimes Unit ran multiple undercover operations within the community. These operations consisted of undercover officers contacting individuals selling illegal fireworks. Through these efforts, two individuals were cited for illegal sales, removing fireworks from the community before they were able to be sold.

Additionally, one business owner was sighted for illegally safe and sane fireworks, along with Visalia City Council Printed on 7/28/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
5 File #: 22-0298 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 2.
dangerous fireworks. Fines specific to sales of illegal fireworks are set at $4,000.

Reports of illegal fireworks use during the month of June 2022 were approximately 71% lower than June of 2021. Year to date, calls specific to illegal fireworks use are approximately 49% lower than the same time frame in 2021. This decrease in use was also noted by patrol units in the field during patrol periods.

Once again, a call center was operated out of the Emergency Operation Center (EOC) during peak hours on July 3rd and 4th. The Call Center allowed for an additional 294 calls to be received and properly routed without inundating Emergency Dispatch services. Nine city staff members were dedicated to receiving and entering call information to be routed to patrols in the field. Complaint information entered by call center staff shows up in real time on the mobile data terminals of the patrols in the field. Each call is indicated by a “target” icon in the area, or in some instances the address, where illegal firework use is reported. This target icon decreases in size as time passes indicating which complaints are more recent and which complaints are older.

Beginning in mid-June and continuing through the Independence Day Holiday, dedicated patrol units were assigned to patrol the city for illegal fireworks use. Leading up to July 3rd and 4th, patrol units focused on areas identified as high use areas throughout the community. This determination was made by analyzing complaint data from 2021 and complaints received prior to the detail as well as reports received during the patrol hours. On July 3rd and 4th, patrol efforts were focused on areas of high call volume or in areas where high use was witnessed by patrol units. Patrol units are not dispatched to specific addresses and some patrol/citizen interactions require the attention of multiple patrols for officer safety. During the patrol period, 79 citations for use/possession were issued totaling $170,000 in fines. This year is the second year of an increased $2,000 fine for the initial illegal fireworks use or possession offence. The increase in fines was proposed and implemented in 2021 as another means of discouraging citizens from participating in dangerous fireworks use.

Regardless of time of day, or date, dangerous fireworks are always illegal.

Safe and sane fireworks are relatively quiet, non-disruptive, and typically enjoyed by families until about 10:00 pm. Fountains, sparklers, smoke balls, and ground blossom flowers comprise the majority of safe and sane fireworks used throughout the community. These are very distinct and different from the illegal fireworks that create the danger and angst in the community.

Fiscal Impact:

Citations ranging from $2,000 to $4,000
Prior Council Action: N/A
Other: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

No motion required.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/28/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
6 File #: 22-0298 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: 2022 Illegal Fireworks Enforcement Detail Report PowerPoint Visalia City Council Printed on 7/28/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
7 2022 4 TH OF JULY ILLEGAL FIREWORKS

ENFORCEMENT DETAIL REPORT
Visalia Fire Department
8 PREVENTION
Social Media Posts
Banners hung at all stations
visalia.city/celebratesafely
Approximately 2,500 door hangers were
distributed throughout the community.
9 CALL CENTER
In operation on July 3rd and 4th
9 dedicated call takers
Information was relayed in real time to patrol units in the field.
Filtered 294 calls that otherwise would have gone to
dispatch.
Provided citizens a direct line to call specifically
designed to gather fireworks use data.
10 Calls per month
indicate that use
begins in mid to late
May and continues to
increase as
Independence Day
approaches. July
continues to be our
busiest time for illegal
fireworks use
throughout our
community.
11 ENFORCEMENT
Illegal fireworks citation amounts begin at $2,000
for the first offense and increase to $3,000 for the
second and $4,000 for each additional offense.
Citations are tracked over a three-year period. If
a resident received a citation last year for $2,000,
and is cited again this year, this year’s citation will would be for $3,000.
12 PATROLS
Dedicated patrols throughout the month of June.
Increasing saturation around the Independence Day
Holiday
Partnering with Visalia Police Department
Each patrol unit was comprised of a Visalia Police Officer and Visalia Fire Department member.
13 Beginning in 2017, consistent call
data has been collected. Calls for
service spiked in 2020 and have
steadily declined. Patrol units in the
field have noted the same trend
throughout the years.

The data collected indicates that
citation trends have tended to
follow illegal use reports.
14 During the 2022 patrol
period 82 citations for
possession, use, and/or
sales were issued
throughout our
community.
15 As reports are received by
Dispatch and the Call
Center, the data is relayed
via a map to units in the
field. Units typically start
their patrols by focusing on
hot spots and then transition
to in-field visuals as use
increases throughout the
night. Units assigned to the
patrol detail are not
dispatched to specific calls.

Some incidents require
multiple units respond for
officer safety.
16 This concludes the 2022 4th of July Illegal Fireworks Enforcement Detail Report.

Thank you.
17 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0286 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Agenda Item Wording:

Council to receive a presentation on options and provide direction for the use of reallocation Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act (CDBG-CV) funds allocated to Visalia in the amount of $291,599.

Deadline for Action: 8/1/2022
Submitting Department: Finance and Technology Services
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Margie Perez, Housing Specialist, [email protected], (559) 713-4460; Melody Murch, Assistant Finance Director, [email protected], (559) 713-4379; Renee Nagel, Finance Director, [email protected], (559) 713-4375 Department Recommendation:

That Council receive a presentation, conduct a discussion about the available options, and provide direction on the use of reallocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act (CDBG-CV) funds allocated to Visalia in the amount of $291,599. Based on Council’s direction tonight, staff will proceed with the process and bring back the appropriate items on August 15, 2022, for public hearing and Council consideration.

Background Discussion:

In response to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has notified the City of Visalia of an allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funds to be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. The CARES Act allocation was authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, 2020.

The City has previously received a total of $1,507,850 in CDBG-CV funds that were used for food assistance, and a Subsistence Payment Program. The Subsistence Payment Program included rental, mortgage, and utility assistance. On June 14, 2022, the City received official notification of a special allocation of CDBG-CV reallocation funds in the amount of $291,599 to be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19 as shown in Attachment A - HUD CDBG-CV Reallocation Letter.

The CARES Act made available $5 billion in CDBG-CV funds. CDBG-CV funds were allocated to grantees. However, some grantees did not apply for one or more allocation rounds or declined their awards. The remaining $3,069,687 of CDBG-CV funds are now reallocated to grantees that have demonstrated capacity to quickly expend CDBG-CV funds. The grantees eligible for this reallocation are limited to those that expended 99% or more of their CDBG-CV funds by January 4, 2022. As a Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
18 File #: 22-0286 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 3.
result, the City received a special allocation of CDBG-CV reallocation funds in the amount of $291,599 to be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19.

To accept this reallocation of $291,599, the City must amend the 2019-2020 Action Plan. The contract amendment must be fully executed by September 23, 2022, which requires the amendment to be completed and sent to HUD by August 16, 2022, to allow for creation and execution of the contracts by the deadline. The CDBG-CV amendment to 2019-2020 Action Plan requires a minimum 5-day public comment period and a Public Hearing which will be held at the August 15th Council meeting.

These CDBG-CV reallocation funds are subject to the CARES Act and the Notice of Program Rules, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements Under the CARES Act for Community Development Block Grants, and for Other Formula Programs. These requirements include oversight, reporting, and adequate procedures to prevent duplication of benefits.

Staff is seeking Council direction on the use of this additional $291,599 in CDBG-CV reallocation funds. Administration is capped at 20 percent, which is $58,320 and the program delivery is $233,279 for a total of $291,599 in CDBG-CV funds as shown below in Table-1: CDBG-CV Reallocation Funding. This funding must be completely spent by June 30, 2027.

Table-1: CDBG-CV Reallocation Funding
Administration at 20% $ 58,320
Program Delivery 233,279
Total CDBG-CV Reallocation $ 291,599
This funding must be used to benefit households at or below 80% of the area median income level that have been directly impacted by the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Eligible Activities: Eligible activities include Public Facilities Improvements, Economic Development, and Public Services.
· Public Facilities Improvements include construction or rehabilitation of facilities for testing sites or COVID-19 treatment or improvement to facilities to quarantine individuals. Challenges for this use include the need to leverage additional funds, and the difficult of acquiring and rehabilitating facilities quickly.
· Economic Development includes microenterprise assistance or small business assistance.

Challenges of this use include the need for assistance to be tied to a business currently disrupted from COVID-19, and for the owner and/or employee(s) household income to meet eligibility requirements.
· Public Services include rental, mortgage, utility, and/or food assistance; job training for health care workers to treat COVID-19; providing testing at a fixed or mobile location; delivering meals on wheels to quarantined individuals; and purchasing personal protective equipment.

Challenges of this use include the likelihood of duplication of services (other COVID funding received for the same expenses), which is not allowed, and the need to collect proof of client income to establish eligibility.

Community Survey: The City conducted an online community survey from July 11, 2022, through July 20, 2022, to determine which eligible services are most needed in the City of Visalia and inform Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
19 File #: 22-0286 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 3.
the discussion of how the City of Visalia might use CDBG-CV funds. The Community Survey was posted on the City Website, City social media outlets, and the Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance listserv to over 330 community stakeholders. Based on the community survey taken by 249 individuals, the highest identified need was Rental Assistance at 33%, the second was Business Assistance at 22%, and the third was Food Assistance at 20% as shown in Attachment B:

Community Survey Results.

Recommendation:

Based on the community survey staff proposes to utilize the full $251,599 to administer an Emergency Rental and/or Mortgage Assistance Program for low-moderate income working households directly impacted by the Coronavirus Pandemic to maximize each household assistance.

Emergency rental assistance will help tenants avoid evictions as well as ensuring landlords receive the rent due, allowing them to make mortgage payments and possibly preventing future foreclosures throughout the city. Rental assistance remains the highest need in our community as rents continue to skyrocket. Many families in our community are in need of emergency rental assistance to prevent homelessness as the statewide eviction moratorium ended on June 30, 2022. As COVID-19 case numbers remain high, workers may be forced to miss 1-2 weeks of work unexpectedly. For workers living paycheck to paycheck, this makes it difficult to catch up on rent payments and increases their risk of homelessness.

Possible features of an emergency rental assistance program may include limiting each household to $2,000 in assistance, which would allow the available funding to benefit approximately 116 households. Council may also choose to limit assistance to only working low to moderate income households currently impacted by COVID-19.

Fiscal Impact:

The program is to be funded 100% with CDBG-CV. An appropriation request will be included in the council item to be brought for a public hearing on August 15, 2022. No budget changes or appropriations are requested at this time.

Prior Council Action:
· May 18, 2020: Budget Amendment and Initial appropriation of CDBG-CV funding. · June 20, 2020: Approval of CDBG-CV Food Program agreement with CCFB · August 17, 2020: Approval of a CDBG-CV Subsistence Payment Program. · September 21, 2020: Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the 2019-20 Annual Action Plan to allocate $739,863 in round 3 CDBG-CV funding and $160,137 in prior year unspent CDBG to the Subsistence Payment Program, to bring the total funding available to $1,200,000.
· October 15, 2020: Adoption of 2019-20 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment II to initiate a CDBG-CV Subsistence Payment Program.

Other: None
Alternatives: None recommended.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
20 File #: 22-0286 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move that Council direct staff to conduct the process to amend the 2019/20 Action Plan to spend the additional CDBG-CV allocation to fund an emergency rental assistance program, providing a maximum of $2,000 assistance per working household.

Environmental Assessment Status: None
CEQA Review: None
Attachments:
· Attachment A - HUD CDBG-CV Reallocation Letter
· Attachment B - Community Survey Results
· Attachment C - CDBG-CV Reallocation PPT
Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
21 22
23 Attachment B: Community Survey Results

24 CDBG-CV

REALLOCATION
City Council - Work Session
August 1, 2022
25 CDBG-CV REALLOCATION
$291,599 in additional CDBG-CV
Admin: 20% at $58,320
Program Delivery: $233,279
Due to HUD by: 8/16/22
Completion Date: 6/30/27
26 CDBG-CV REQUIREMENTS
 Must be used to prevent, prepare, & respond to COVID-19.  Must meet a CDBG National Objective and benefit a low- income person, household or area.
 Proof of income eligibility required.
 No duplication of benefit.
27 PRIOR CDBG-CV FUNDS RECEIVED
28 SURVEY RESUL TS
1 2
3 29

ELIGIBLE

ACTIVITES
Public Facility Improvements
Economic Development
Public Services
30 PUBLIC

FACILITIES
 Eligible uses:
 Construct or rehab facilities for testing sites
or treatment
 Improvements to facilities (i.e., motel) to
quarantine individuals
 Challenges:
 Need to leverage additional funds
 Not able to acquire and rehab quickly
31 ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT
 Eligible Uses:
 Micro-enterprise assistance
 Small business assistance
 Challenges:
 Assistance must be tied to business
disruption from COVID-19
 Duplication of benefit not allowed
 Proof of owner or employee income
eligibility required
32 PUBLIC

SERVICES
 Eligible Uses:
 Rental, mortgage, utility or food assistance
 Job training for health care worker to treat
COVID-19
 Provide testing at a fixed/mobile location
 Delivering meals on wheels to quarantined
individuals
 Purchase PPE
 Challenges:
 Duplication of services not allowed
 Proof of client income eligibility required
33 PUBLIC

SERVICE

EXAMPLES
• Rent/Mortgage
• Rent/Mortgage/Utilities/Food Assistance
Possible Programs
• Max up to $2,000 per household
• Benefit: 116 households
• Max 1-month assistance
• Only to working households
Possible Terms
34 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0268 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Agenda Item Wording:

Receive a staff presentation on the proposed local frontage road to be constructed with the Riggin Avenue Widening Project Mooney Blvd to Conyer Street.

Deadline for Action: None
Submitting Department: Administration - CIP Engineering Contact Name and Phone Number:

Diego Corvera, Civil Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4209 Frank Senteno, City Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4331 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4323 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends City Council receive staff presentation on the proposed local frontage road to be constructed with the Riggin Avenue Widening Project Mooney Blvd to Conyer Street and provide potential direction regarding public outreach and next steps for implementation of the frontage road concept along the south side of Riggin adjacent to the residential homes.

Background Discussion:

The Council, at their June 21st, 2021, meeting directed staff to award the design contract to 4Creeks Inc. and accepted and appropriated $2.4 million from the Federal High Improvement Program (HIP) funds for the construction of the “RigginAvenue Widening Project”from North Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street.

The purpose of the “Riggin Avenue Widening Project” is to increase vehicle capacity on Riggin Avenue by adding additional east/west lanes and to provide for an efficient flow of traffic in support of the increase in development within the surrounding area. In addition, the City Council identified this segment of Riggin Avenue from Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street as a priority transportation corridor as it was part of the “Ring-Road” concept previously identified in various City reports.

The City of Visalia accepted $2.4 million from Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) federal funding for the construction of the “RigginAvenue Widening Project”and staff is moving forward with grant requirements to finalize construction funding obligation.

Frontage Road Proposal
The Riggin Avenue widening project’sdesign from Mooney Blvd to Conyer St is proposing a frontage road design along Riggin Avenue between Divisadero Street to Conyer Street to separate driveway ingress/egress access of the fronting residential homes from the travel lanes along Riggin Avenue.

This frontage road will incorporate a physical barrier in the form of a raised median to improve accessibility and traffic operations for both the residents fronting Riggin Avenue as well as motorists along Riggin. Fronting residents will have access to a local street configuration with slow moving Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
35 File #: 22-0268 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.
along Riggin. Fronting residents will have access to a local street configuration with slow moving traffic and low vehicle volume, the primary users of the frontage road will be those who live in the fronting homes. Motorists along Riggin Avenue will not be impeded by either backing or exiting vehicles to the multiple driveway access points which will allow traffic to operate more smoothly.

The attached PowerPoint presentation will discuss the frontage road concept in greater detail.

Other Riggin Avenue Projects Status:
- Riggin Avenue widening Kelsey St to Shirk St
o Currently in Design
o Construction Summer 2024 (Utility Relocation Fall 2023) - Riggin Avenue Widening Demaree St to Kayenta St
o Design Completed
o Construction October 2022
- Riggin Avenue Widening Mooney Blvd to Conyer St
o Currently in Design
o Construction Summer 2023
Refer to attached Riggin Widening Project exhibit, for project locations.

Public Outreach:

Staff is introducing and presenting this concept to the City Council in advance of a public meeting that staff intends to hold with the adjacent residents. Following the public meeting and the comments received, staff may return to City Council should a major issue or change in the plans occur. If Council agrees with this plan of action, a public meeting is tentatively planned for Wednesday September 14th at Riverway Elementary School or the Global Learning Charter School.

Fiscal Impact:

The consideration of this agenda item has no fiscal impact currently.

This project is currently funded with Highway Improvement Program federal funds at $2.4M, Transportation Impact Fund at $1.8M and Measure R Regional Bond fund at $1.3M for a total of $5.5M, plus a development contribution which will be determined at point of development. Project expenditures to date are approximately $200K.

Project budget is sufficient to finalize design and bidding process, after construction bids are received, staff will return to Council for any additional appropriation if necessary.

Prior Council Action:

June 20, 2022
Adopt Resolutions 2022-39 and 2022-40, designating a portion of City owned property located within 2 Parcels, Lot “A”of Highland Park Estates subdivision and Lot “A”of Highland Park, Unit No. 2 subdivision as part of the public City Street System respectively.

May 16, 2022
Adopt Resolution 2022-33 authorizing the City Manager to execute Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility Agreement No. CP0473-SCE2592 for the Riggin Widening project between Mooney Blvd to Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
36 File #: 22-0268 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Conyer Street.

April 18, 2022
Adoption Resolution No. 2022-27 certifying Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-16 prepared for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance as part of the Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) funding for the construction of the “Riggin Avenue Widening Project” from North Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street (State Clearing house No. 2022030456) (Resolution No. 2022-27 required).

June 21, 2021
Authorize the City Manager to award a sole source professional design services contract to 4Creeks, Inc., for the design of the “RigginAvenue Widening Project”from North Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street, and appropriation of funds to establish a preliminary project budget.

Other:

None
Alternatives:

1. Keep roadway design to conventional construction omitting the frontage road; foregoing need for outreach and feedback on the frontage road proposal.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

Informational only, no action.

Environmental Assessment Status:

Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-16
Attachments:

1. Presentation on Proposed Frontage Road

2. Riggin Widening Projects Map
Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
37 RIGGIN AVENUE WIDENING MOONEY TO
CONYER – PROPOSED FRONTAGE ROAD
August 1st, 2022
Riggin Avenue at Divisadero Street looking eastRiggin Avenue at Conyer Street looking west 38 2

STANDARD DESIGN & EXISTING CONDITION
• Riggin Avenue is classified as a 4-lane Arterial Roadway and has been identified as a City Ring Road
• - Standard Arterial Roadway Design:
• - 4-lane roadway, center median
• curb & gutter, & sidewalk
• 4-Lane Arterial Engineering Standard
• Riggin Ave – Existing Condition
39 3

FRONTAGE ROAD PROPOSAL
• Why a Frontage Road?
• - Riggin Avenue is a designated
• truck route.
• - Homes fronting a high-speed arterial
roadway.
• Street View Fresno CA – Frontage Road along Shields Ave 40 4

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Riggin Widening project from Mooney Blvd to Conyer St • Riggin Avenue Mooney Blvd to Conyer St. - Frontage Road Depicted in Y ellow 41 5

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
- - Riggin Ave travel lanes are designed to be 11’-12’ lanes - - Frontage Road cross-section is10’ travel lane with 7’ parking for a total of 17ft - - Splitter median at local roads to direct traffic in the one-way direction • Riggin Avenue Cross Section – Frontage Road
42 6

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
- - “Fire Bays” to be used by the Fire department, frontage road too narrow for a fire truck - - 10’ Travel lane at “Fire Bay” locations
- - On street parking will be eliminated at “Fire Bay” locations • Riggin Avenue Cross Section – Frontage Road & Fire Bay 45 9

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Frontage Road will begin at Divisadero Street and terminate at Conyer Street • Riggin Ave Widening – Mooney Blvd to Divisadero St
47 11

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Frontage Road will begin at Divisadero Street and terminate at Conyer Street • Riggin Ave Widening – Mooney Blvd to Divisadero St
Frontage Road
Begins here
48 12

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Frontage Road is a one-way local street parallel to Riggin Avenue • Riggin Ave Widening – Divisadero St to Rinaldi St
49 13

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Frontage Road is a one-way local street parallel to Riggin Avenue • Riggin Ave Widening – Divisadero St to Rinaldi St
Frontage Road
Begins here
50 14

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Frontage Road is a one-way local street parallel to Riggin Avenue • Riggin Ave Widening – Divisadero St to Rinaldi St
Frontage Road
Begins here
Fire Bays
51 15

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Frontage Road is a one-way local street parallel to Riggin Avenue • Riggin Ave Widening – Divisadero St to Rinaldi St
Frontage Road
Begins here
Fire Bays
Concrete
Median
52 16

FRONTAGE ROAD CIRCULATION
• - Fronting residents in green will need to go around the neighborhood to access Riggin Avenue from Divisadero St
• Riggin Ave Widening – Divisadero St to Rinaldi St
53 17

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Frontage Road does not have access to the signal at Giddings St and Riggin Ave • Riggin Ave Widening – Rinaldi St to Giddings St
54 18

FRONTAGE ROAD CIRCULATION
• - Fronting residents in purple
will need to go around the
neighborhood to access Riggin
Avenue at Divisadero St.
• Riggin Ave Widening – Divisadero St to Giddings St
55 19

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Frontage Road does not have direct access to the signal at Giddings St and Riggin Ave • Riggin Ave Widening – Giddings St to T urner St
56 20

FRONTAGE ROAD CIRCULATION
• - Fronting residents in orange will need to go around the neighborhood to access Riggin Avenue at Giddings St or Conyer St
• Riggin Ave Widening – Giddings St to Conyer St
57 21

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Frontage Road cannot merge into Riggin Ave with eastbound traffic • Riggin Ave Widening – T urner St to Conyer St
58 22

FRONTAGE ROAD CONFIGURATION
• - Frontage Road cannot merge into Riggin Ave with eastbound traffic • Riggin Ave Widening – T urner St to Conyer St
End of Frontage Road, residents
will not be permitted to merge
onto Riggin Ave
59 23

FRONTAGE ROAD CIRCULATION
• Riggin Ave Widening – Giddings St to Conyer St
• - Fronting residents in blue will need to go around the neighborhood to access Riggin Avenue at Giddings St 60 24

ADVANTAGES
• Frontage Road will Improve
Traffic Operations for the
Corridor
• - Fronting Residents will be separated
from the high-speed high-volume
traffic on Riggin Avenue.
• - Traffic along Riggin Ave will flow
smoothly with less interruptions from
driveways.
• Fresno CA – Frontage Road along Shields Ave
• Street View Fresno CA – Frontage Road along Shields Ave 61 25

DISADVANTAGES
• Frontage Road will Reduce
access to Riggin Avenue
• - Fronting Residents will no
longer have direct access to
Riggin Avenue.
• - Frontage road is a one-way
street.
• - Fronting Residents will lose
some on Street Parking.
• - Extended trips for northbound
traffic.
62 26

TRIP IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD
13 homes 12 homes
12 Trips PM Peak Hour
9 Trips AM Peak Hour
13 Trips PM Peak Hour
10 Trips AM Peak Hour
One vehicle every 13 minsOne vehicle every 12 mins
Five vehicles every hourFive vehicles every hour
63 27

NEXT STEPS
Next Steps:
- Public Survey (1) – Mail out August 10th, 2022 (3 weeks to respond) - Public Open House (1) – September 14th, 2022
- Potential Return to City Council – October 3rd, 2022
64 28

RIGGIN AVE PROJECTS - STATUS
* Pending SCE Pole Relocation
65 29
QUESTIONS?
66 S a i n
t J o h n s R i v
e r
Modoc Ditch
Mooney
Akers
Dinuba
Riggin
HoustonGoshen
Willis
Ferguson
County Center
JacobKelsey
West
Linwood
Demaree
Giddings
Houston
Roeben
Demaree
Ferguson
Shannon
Riverway
Doe
Shirk
Rd 116
Pratt
Kelsey
Rd 124
Riverway
Rd 108
Clancy
Kibler
Riggin
Ferguson
Riggin
Sunnyview
RigginAve 312
Rd 100
Rd 92
Ave 320
Construction
October 2022
Construction
Summer 2024*
Construction
Summer 2023*
© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA
Legend
Road Class
Collector
Local
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Other
Riggin Segment
CP0397: Akers to Demaree
CP0398: Kelsey to Shirk
CP0473: Mooney to Conyer
Railroad
Waterways
City Limits
Parcels
Urban Development Boundary Tier 1
Urban Development Boundary Tier 2
Urban Growth Boundary Tier 3
0 0.3 0.60.15 Miles
¯
Riggin Widening Projects
*Pending SCE Relocation
67 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0305 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorization to read ordinances by title only.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/28/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
68 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0237 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a five (5) year maintenance contract with Motorola for dispatch radio consoles in the amount of $190,140.

Deadline for Action: 7/18/2022
Submitting Department: Police Department
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Chief Jason Salazar, ext. 4215, [email protected]; Support Services Manager Lisa Davis, ext. 4230, [email protected]; Financial Analyst Liz Ybarra, ext. 4250, [email protected] Department Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a five (5) year maintenance contract with Motorola for dispatch radio consoles, supporting radio infrastructure and equipment in the amount of $190,140.

Summary:

The maintenance contract for the Motorola radio equipment which operates the Visalia Police Department’s Communications Center approached its end of term on June 30, 2022. The Motorola equipment consists of base radio console positions and supporting equipment. Tech-support is also included; however, Motorola is the sole proprietor of the equipment and only Motorola or their designated authorized representative can service their equipment.

A five (5) year contract has been proposed for the timeframe of July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027, in the amount of $190, 140.

Background Discussion:

In 2016, the Visalia Emergency Communications Center (VECC) went live with nine (9) Motorola P25 mixed-mode digital dispatch radio consoles and the supporting radio infrastructure, one (1) tower site, and multiple repeater sites throughout the city. At that time, a three (3) year radio maintenance agreement was signed.

Upon go-live, the Communications Center had a total of 12 dispatch workstations with nine (9) being completely outfitted making them fully functioning dispatch radio consoles. Three (3) additional workstations were left unequipped for future growth.

A second renewal was signed for the timeframe of July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022, in the amount of $96,124. In February 2022, two additional radio stations were purchased and installed increasing the total to 11 fully functioning radio workstations. Due to the purchase being within the Visalia City Council Printed on 7/28/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
69 File #: 22-0237 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 2.
current maintenance contract, Motorola agreed to incorporate these two (2) additional stations within the existing radio maintenance contract at no additional cost.

Fiscal Impact:

The expenditure is budgeted in Police Operations, is paid annually under radio maintenance 2101- 55850, and the current service contract C21062 is to be renewed. Motorola will bill the city annually with possible increases. If the Consumer Price Index - Urban (CPI-U) inflation rate exceeds 3% and the cost would increase by the percent that exceeds 3%.

Prior Council Action: None.

Other: N/A
Alternatives: None recommended.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a five (5) year maintenance contract with Motorola for dispatch consoles in the amount of $190,140.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: Motorola Service Agreement.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/28/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0302 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Conduct the second and final hearing, adopt Resolution declaring results of majority protest proceedings and renewing the Visalia Tourism Marketing District. (Resolution 2022-47 required) Deadline for Action: 8/1/2022
Submitting Department: Administration
Contact Name and Phone Number: Leslie Caviglia, City Manager Department Recommendation:

Conduct the second and final hearing, declaring results of majority protest proceedings, and adopt Resolution No. 2022-47 to renew the Visalia Tourism Marketing District (VTMD) and the levy of assessments on lodging businesses with twenty (20) rooms or more within the boundaries of the VTMD.

Background Discussion:

The VTMD is a benefit assessment district designed to help fund sales & marketing and destination development programs for certain Visalia lodging businesses. This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the state to improve tourism and drive demand for additional room nights to assessed lodging businesses. The renewed VTMD shall include all lodging businesses with twenty (20) rooms or more located within the boundaries of the City of Visalia (City), as shown on the map in the Management District Plan.

Lodging business owners decided to pursue renewal of the VTMD in order to continue a revenue source devoted to marketing Visalia as a tourist, meeting and event destination. If renewed, the VTMD would generate approximately $650,000 on an annual basis for promotion of travel and tourism specific to Visalia.

Fiscal Impact:

None immediately. Because the VTMD programs are intended to increase visitation to the City, there may be an increase in transient occupancy tax and sales tax collections.

Other: TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICTS: Tourism Marketing Districts (TMDs) utilize the efficiencies of private sector operation in the market-based promotion of tourism. These special assessment districts allow lodging business owners to organize their efforts to increase tourism.

Lodging business owners within the TMD fund the TMD, and those funds are used to provide services that are desired by and benefit the lodging businesses within the TMD.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
78 File #: 22-0302 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 1.

TMD benefits:
· Funds cannot be diverted for other government programs; · They are customized to fit the needs of each destination; · They allow for a wide range of services; including: destination marketing, tourism promotion, and sales lead generation;
· They are designed, created and governed by those who will pay the assessment; · They provide a stable funding source for tourism promotion.

In California, TMDs are primarily formed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (94 Law). This law allows for the creation of a special benefit assessment districts to raise funds within a specific geographic area. The key difference between TMDs and other special benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the TMD.

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
The Management District Plan (Attachment 1) includes the proposed boundary of the renewed VTMD, a service plan and budget, and a proposed means of governance. The VTMD shall include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, with twenty (20) rooms or more located within the boundaries of the City of Visalia (City).

The renewed VTMD shall have a ten (10) year life, beginning January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2032. The renewed VTMD assessment will be implemented beginning January 1, 2023. Once per year beginning on the anniversary of VTMD renewal there is a thirty (30) day period in which business owners paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and begin proceedings to terminate the VTMD.

The annual assessment rate is two percent (2%) of gross short-term room rental revenue. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days or stays by representatives or employees of a State or Federal government agency in the performance of their official duties as a representative or employee of the government agency paid for by the government agency.

The City shall be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each assessed business located in the boundaries of the VTMD. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each assessed business.

VTMD RENEWAL PROCESS
June 6, 2022 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION HEARING [COMPLETED] Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the business owners in the renewed VTMD who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessments proposed to be levied, the Visalia City Council (Council) may initiate proceedings to renew the VTMD by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
79 File #: 22-0302 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 1.
renew the VTMD.

Petition Status: Petitions in favor of VTMD renewal were submitted representing more than 50% of the total VTMD assessment. This majority petition allows the Council to initiate proceedings for VTMD renewal at the June 6, 2022 meeting.

June 7, 2022 NOTICE [COMPLETED]
The 94 Law requires the City to mail written notice to the owners of all businesses proposed to be within the renewed VTMD. Mailing the notice begins a mandatory forty-five (45) day period in which owners may protest VTMD renewal.

July 18, 2022 PUBLIC MEETING [COMPLETED]
Allow public testimony on the renewal of the VTMD and levy of assessments.

No Council action required.

August 1, 2022 FINAL PUBLIC HEARING
If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the renewed VTMD which will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than fifty percent (50%), no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses shall be taken for a period of one (1) year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the Council.

If the Council, following the public hearing, decides to renew the VTMD, the Council shall adopt a resolution of formation.

Alternatives: The Council could choose not to adopt the resolution declaring results of majority protest proceedings and renewing the VTMD.

Prior Council Action: June 6, 2022: Initiated the proceeds for processing the VMTD renewal. July 18, 2022: First public meeting held to allow public testimony on the renewal of the VMTD and levy assessments.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to adopt Resolution 2022-47 declaring the results of majority protest proceedings and renewing the Visalia Tourism Marketing District for 10 years beginning January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2032.

CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: Management District Plan; Resolution of Formation 2022-47 Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
80 2023-2032

VISALIA TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICT

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN

Prepared pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq.

May 6, 2022
81 Contents
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 3 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 4 III. BOUNDARY ....................................................................................................................................... 5 IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES ................................................................................ 6 A. Baseline Level of Services .................................................................................................. 6 B. Annual Service Plan ............................................................................................................ 6 C. Annual Budget .................................................................................................................... 8 D. California Constitutional Compliance ................................................................................ 9 E. Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 10 F. Penalties and Interest ........................................................................................................ 11 G. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments ................................................................. 11

V. GOVERNANCE ............................................................................................................................... 12 A. Owners’ Association ......................................................................................................... 12 B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance ............................................ 12 C. Annual Report ................................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX 1 – LAW .................................................................................................................................... 13 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES ............................................................................................. 24

Prepared by

(800)999-7781
www.civitasadvisors.com

82 VTMD Management District Plan 3
May 6, 2022

I. OVERVIEW

Developed by Visalia Toursim Marketing District Corporation (VTMDC) and local hoteliers , the Visalia Tourism Marketing District (VTMD) is a n assessment district proposed to provide specific benefits to payors, by funding marketing and sales promotion efforts for assessed businesses. This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the country to provide the benefit of additional room night sales directly to payors. The VTMD was created in 2018 for a five (5) year term. VTMDC and Visalia businesses now wish to renew the VTMD for a ten (10) year term.

Location: The VTMD includes all lodging businesses with twenty (20) rooms o r more located within the boundaries of the City of Visalia (City), as shown on the map in Section III.

Services: The VTMD is designed to provide specific benefits directly to payors by increasing awareness and demand for room night sales . Marketing an d sales promotions and destination development programs will increase demand for overnight tourism and market payors as tourist, meeting and event destination s, thereby increasing demand for room night sales.

Budget: The total VTMD annual assessment budget for the initial year of its ten (10) year operation is anticipated to be approximately $650,000. A similar budget is expected to apply to subsequent years, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do.

Cost: The a nnual assessment rate is two percent (2%) of gross short -term room rental revenue. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days or stays by representatives or employees of a State or Federa l government agency in the performance of their official duties as a representative or employee of the government agency paid for by the government agency.

Collection: The City shall be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each assessed business located in the boundaries of the VTMD. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each assessed business.

Duration: The renewed VTMD shall have a ten (10) year life, beginning January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2032. Once per year, beginning on the anniversary of VTMD renewal, there is a thirty (30) day period in which owners paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and initiate a City Council hearing on VTMD termination.

Management: The Visalia Tourism Marketing District Corporation shall continue to serve as the VTMD’s Owners’ Association. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing programs in accordance with this Plan, and must provide annual reports to the City Council.

83 VTMD Management District Plan 4
May 6, 2022
II. BACKGROUND

TMDs are an evolution of the traditional Business Improvement District. The first TMD was formed in West Hollywood, California in 1989. Since then, over 100 California destinations have followed suit. In recent years, other states have begun adopting the California model – Montana, South Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana have adopted TMD laws. Several other states are in the process of adopting their own legislation. The cities of Wichita, Kansas and Newark, New Jersey used an existing business improvement district law to form a TMD. And, some cities, like Portland, Oregon and Memphis, Tennessee have utilized their home rule powers to create TMDs without a state law.

California’s TMDs collectively
raise over $ 300 million
annually for local destination
marketing. With competitors
raising their budgets, and
increasing rivalry for visitor
dollars, it is important that
Visalia businesses continue to
invest in stable, lodging -
specific marketing programs.

TMDs utilize the efficiencies
of private sector operation in
the market -based promotion
of tourism districts. TMDs
allow assessed business
owners to organize their
efforts to increase demand for room night sales. Assessed business owners within the TMD pay an assessment and those funds are used to provide services that increase demand for room night sales.

In California, most TMDs are formed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994. This law allows for the creation of a benefit assessment district to raise funds within a specific geographic area. The key difference between TMDs and other benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the district.

There are many benefits to TMDs:

• Funds must be spent on services and improvements that provide a specific benefit only to those who pay;
• Funds cannot be diverted to general government programs; • They are customized to fit the needs of payors in each destination; • They allow for a wide range of services;
• They are designed, created and governed by those who will pay the assessment; and • They provide a stable, long-term funding source for tourism promotion. 1 2 4 6 9 12
19 25 29 32
38 46
61 64
75 95
101
109 114
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Number of Districts Operating in California
84 VTMD Management District Plan 5
May 6, 2022
III. BOUNDARY

The renewed VTMD shall include all lodging businesses with twenty (20) rooms or more located within the boundarie s of the City of Visalia. The boundaries shall remain conterminous with the jurisdiction’s boundaries. Therefore, future lodging businesses annexed into the jurisdiction after the renewal of the VTMD shall automatically be included within the VTMD’s boundaries when a business license is issued to that lodging business.

Lodging business means: any structure or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location or other similar structure or portion thereof. Lodging business does not include a hospital room, medical clinic, convalescent home or home for the aged. Also, lodging business does not include a private home, vacation cabin or similar facility which is rented by a person who is not regularly engaged in the business of renting such facilities and does so only occasionally and incidentally to his or her own use thereof.

The boundary, as shown in the map below, currently includes sixteen (16) assessed businesses. A complete listing of assessed businesses within the VTMD can be found in Appendix 2.

85 VTMD Management District Plan 6
May 6, 2022
IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES

A. Baseline Level of Services
The “baseline level of services” is services, provided by the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau (Bureau) and funded by the City, in the amount at a minimum of the contracted amount in the previous year.

The VTMD fun ded services will supplement, not supplant, the City’s pre -existing funding to the Bureau. In the event the City reduces Bureau funding to a level below the baseline subsequent to the renewal of the VTMD, lodging businesses may gather petitions to disestablish the VTMD.

B. Annual Service Plan
Assessment funds will be spent to provide specific benefits conferred or privileges granted directly to the payors that are not provided to those not charged, and which do not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of conferring the benefits or granting the privileges. The privileges and services provided with the VTMD funds are sales and marketing and destination development programs available only to assessed businesses.

A service plan assessment budget has been developed to deliver services that benefit the assessed businesses. A detailed annual assessment budget will be developed and approved by the VTMDC board. The table below illustrates the initial annual assessment budget allocations. The total initial assessment budget is $650,000.

Although actual revenues will fluctuate due to market conditions, the proportional allocations of the assessment budget shall remain the same. However, the City and the VTMDC board shall have the authority to adjust assessment budget allocations between the categories by no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total assessment budget per year. A description of the proposed improvements and activities for the initial year of operation is below. The same activities are proposed for subsequent years. In the event of a legal challenge against the VTMD, any and all assessment funds may be used for the costs of defending the VTMD.

Each assessment budget category includes all costs related to providing that service. For example, the sales and marketing budget includes the cost of staff time dedicated to overseeing and implementing Sales & Marketing,
$448,500 , 69%
Administration &
Operations, $97,500 ,
15%
Destination
Development,
$65,000 , 10%
Contingency/Reserve,
$32,500 , 5%
City Fee,
$6,500 , 1%
Initial Annual Assessment Budget - $650,000
86 VTMD Management District Plan 7
May 6, 2022
the sales and marketing program. Staff time dedicated purely to administrative tasks is allocated to the administrative portion of the budget. The costs of an individual staff member may be allocated to multiple budget categories. The staffing levels necessary to provide t he services below will be determined by the VTMD board on an as- needed basis.

Sales and Marketing
A sales and marketing program will promote assessed businesses as tourist, meeting, and event destinations. The sales and marketing program will have a ce ntral theme of promoting Visalia as a desirable place for overnight visits. The program will have the goal of increasing demand for overnight visitation and room night sales at assessed businesses, and may include the following activities:
• Internet marke ting efforts to increase awareness and optimize internet presence to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Print ads in magazines and newspapers targeted at potential visitors to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• Television and/or radio ads targeted at potential visitors to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• Attendance of trade shows, professional industry conferences, and affiliation events to promote assessed businesses;
• Sales blitzes for assessed businesses;
• Familiarization tours of assessed businesses;
• Preparation and production of collateral promotional materials such as brochures, visitor guides, flyers and maps featuring assessed businesses;
• Attendance of professional industry conferences and affiliation events to promote assessed businesses;
• Partnership with local and state tourism organizations to target key international markets to increase overnight visitation at assessed businesses;
• Development and implementation of a public relations and communications strategy, inclusive of social media outlets and press release distribution designed to drive overnight visitation at assessed businesses;
• Development of Return on Investment (ROI) anal ysis on effectiveness of district funds to improve effectiveness and increase demand for overnight visitation at assessed businesses; • Development of a marketing plan to ensure district funds are strategically spent to mar ket assessed businesses;
• Director of Sales and General Manager meetings to plan and coordinate tourism promotion efforts for assessed businesses;
• Development and maintenance of a website designed to promote assessed businesses; • Education of hospitality staff on service and safety (related to alcohol and food) designed to create a visitor experience that will bring repeat visits to assessed businesses; • Education of assessed business management and the Owners’ Association on marketing strategies best suited to meet assessed businesses’ needs; • Implementation, operation, and/or development of a Visitor Center; and • Community organization grants to promote events and activities that target potential visitors to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses.

Destination Development
The Destination Development projects may include:
• Comprehensive and integrated wayfinding signage system; 87 VTMD Management District Plan 8
May 6, 2022
• Contributions towards funding a transportation program connecting assessed businesses with downtown, points of interest and other attractions, to increase room night sales; • Art and cultural projects, to attract overnight visitors; • Gateway enhancements, to attract overnight visitors;
• Enhancements to environmental experiences which attract overnight visitors; • Sustainability programs that offset impacts of tourist visitation within the destination; • Development of and/or improvements to visitor points of interest, such as hiking trails and parks, that attract overnight visitors;
• Enhancements to environmental experiences, which attract overnight visitors, that expose visitors to the value of the vital ecosystems; and
• Infrastructure improvements that enhance the destination’s competitive position to attract desirable special events year-round and attract overnight visitors.

Administration and Operations
The administration and operations portion of the budget shall be utilized for administrative staffing costs, office costs, advocacy, and othe r general administrative costs such as insurance, legal, and accounting fees.

City Administration Fee
The City of Visalia shall be paid a fee equal to one percent (1%) of the amount of assessment collected to cover its costs of collection and administration.

Contingency/Reserve
The assessment budget includes a contingency line item to account for unforeseen circumstances, such as higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated collections . If there are contingency funds collected, they may be held in a reserve fund or utilized for other program, administration or renewal costs at the discretion of the Owners’ Association. Policies relating to contributions to the reserve fund, the target amount of the reserve fund, and expenditure of monies from the reserve fund shall be set by the Board of Directors of the Owners’ Association. Contingency/reserve fund s may be spent on District programs or administrative and renewal costs in such proportions as determined by the Owners’ Association. The reserve fund may be used for the costs of renewing the VTMD.

C. Annual Budget
The total ten (10) year improvement and service plan budget is projected at approximately $ 650,000 annually, or $7,451,521.55 through 2032. A similar budget is expected to apply to subsequent years, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do.

The table below demonstrates the maximum cost of improvements and services over the VTMD’s ten (10) year term. A three percent (3%) annual increase in the cost of improvements and services is projected to account for anticipated increases in gross short term room rental revenue as a result of VTMD efforts.

Year Marketing
& Sales
Destination
Development
Admin Contingency
/Reserve
City Admin
Fee
Total
2023 $448,500.00 $65,000.00 $97,500.00 $32,500.00 $6,500.00 $ 650,000.00 2024 $461,955.00 $66,950.00 $100,425.00 $33,475.00 $6,695.00 $ 669,500.00 2025 $475,813.65 $68,958.50 $103,437.75 $34,479.25 $6,895.85 $ 689,585.00 88 VTMD Management District Plan 9
May 6, 2022
2026 $490,088.06 $71,027.26 $106,540.88 $35,513.63 $7,102.73 $ 710,272.55 2027 $504,790.70 $73,158.07 $109,737.11 $36,579.04 $7,315.81 $ 731,580.73 2028 $519,934.42 $75,352.81 $113,029.22 $37,676.41 $7,535.28 $ 753,528.15 2029 $535,532.45 $77,613.40 $116,420.10 $38,806.70 $7,761.34 $ 776,133.99 2030 $551,598.43 $79,941.80 $119,912.70 $39,970.90 $7,994.18 $ 799,418.01 2031 $568,146.38 $82,340.06 $123,510.08 $41,170.03 $8,234.01 $ 823,400.55 2032 $585,190.77 $84,810.26 $127,215.39 $42,405.13 $8,481.03 $ 848,102.57 Total $5,141,549.87 $745,152.16 $1,117,728.23 $ 372,576.08 $ 74,515.22 $7,451,521.55

D. California Constitutional Compliance
The VTMD assessment is not a property-based assessment subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. Courts have found Proposition 218 limited the term ‘assessments’ to levies on real property. 1 Rather, the VTMD assessment is a business-based assessment, and is subject to Proposition 26.

Pursuant to Proposition 26 all levies are a tax unless they fit one of seven exceptions. Two of these exceptions apply to the VTMD, a “specific benefit” and a “specific government service.” Both require that the costs of benefits or services do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of conferring the benefits or providing the services.

1. Specific Benefit
Proposition 26 requires that assessment funds be expe nded on, “ a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.”2 The services in this Pla n are designed to provide targeted benefits directly to assessed businesses, and are intended only to provide benefits and services directly to those businesses paying the assessment. These services are tailored not to serve the general public, businesses in general, or parcels of land, but rather to serve the specific businesses within the VTMD. The activities described in this Plan are specifically targeted to increase demand for room night sales for assessed businesses within the boundaries of the VTMD, and are narrowly tailored. VTMD funds will be used exclusively to provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales directly to the assessees.

Assessment funds shall not be used to feature non -assessed businesses in VTMD programs, or to directly generate sales for non-assessed businesses. The activities paid for from assessment revenues are business services constituting and providing specific benefits to the assessed businesses.

The assessment imposed by this VTMD is for a specific benefit conferred directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged. The specific benefit conferred directly to the payors is an increase in demand for room night sales. The specific benefit of an increase in demand for room night sales for assessed businesses will be provided only to businesses paying the VTMD assessment, with marketing and sales and destination development programs promoting businesses paying the VTMD assessment. The marketing and sales and destination development programs will be designed to increase room night sales at each assessed businesses. Because they are necessary to provide the marketing and sales and destination development programs that sp ecifically benefit the assessed businesses, the administration and contingency services also provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales to the assessed businesses.

1 Jarvis v. the City of San Diego 72 Cal App. 4th 230
2 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(1)
89 VTMD Management District Plan 10
May 6, 2022
Although the VTMD, in providing specific benefits to payors, may produce incidental benefits to non- paying businesses, the incidental benefit does not preclude the services from being considered a specific benefit. The legislature has found that, “A specific benefit is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific benefit’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific benefit to the payor.”3

2. Specific Government Service
The assessment may also be utilized to provide, “a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product .”4 The legislature has recognized that marketing and promotions services like those to be provided by the VTMD are government services within the meaning of Proposition 26 5. Further, the legislature has determined that “a specific government service is not excluded from classification a s a ‘specific government service’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific government service to the payor.”6

3. Reasonable Cost
VTMD services will be imple mented carefully to ensure they do not exceed the reasonable cost of such services. The full amount assessed will be used to provide the services described herein. Funds will be managed by the VTMD, and reports submitted on an annual basis to the City. Only assessed businesses will be featured in marketing materials, receive sales leads generated from VTMD-funded activities, be featured in advertising campaigns, and benefit from other VTMD-funded services. Non- assessed businesses will not receive these, nor any other, VTMD-funded services and benefits.

The VTMD-funded programs are all targeted directly at and feature only assessed businesses. It is, however, possible that there will be a spill over benefit to non -assessed businesses. If non -assessed businesses receive incremental room nights, that portion of the promotion or program generating those room nights shall be paid with non-VTMD funds. VTMD funds shall only be spent to benefit the assessed businesses, and shall not be spent on that portion of any program which directly generates incidental room nights for non-assessed businesses.

E. Assessment
The annual assessment rate is two percent (2%) of gross short term room rental revenue. Based on the benefit received, assess ments will not be collected on stays of more tha n thirty (30) consecutive days or stays by representatives or employees of a State or Federal government agency in the performance of their official duties as a representative or employee of the government ag ency paid for by the government agency.

The term “gross room rental revenue” as used herein means: the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in an assessed business valued in money, whether to be received in money, goo ds, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever. Gross room rental revenue shall not include any federal, state or local taxes collected, including bu t not limited to transient occupancy taxes.

3 Government Code § 53758(a)
4 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(2)
5 Government Code § 53758(b)
6 Government Code § 53758(b)
90 VTMD Management District Plan 11
May 6, 2022
The assessment is levied upon and a direct obligation of the assessed business. However, the assessed business may, at its discretion, pass the assessment on to transients. The amount of assessment, if passed on to each transient, shall be disclosed in advance and separately stated from the amount of rent charged and any other applicable taxes, and each transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the business. If the VTMD assessment is identified separately it shall be disclosed as the “VTMD Assessment.” As an alternative, the disclosure may include the amount of the VTMD assessment and the amount of the assessment imposed pursuant to the California Tourism Marketing Act, Government Code §13995 et seq. and shall be disclosed as the “Tourism Assessment.” The assessment is imposed solely upon, and is the sole obligation of the assessed business even if it is passed on to transients. The assessment shall not be considered revenue for any purpose, includin g calculation of transient occupancy taxes.

Bonds shall not be issued.

F. Penalties and Interest
The VTMD shall reimburse the City of Visalia for any costs associated with collecting unpaid assessments. If sums in excess of the delinquent VTMD assessment are sought to be recovered in the same collection action by the City, the VTMD shall bear its pro rata share of such collection costs.

Assessed businesses which are delinquent in paying the assessment shall be responsible for paying:

1. Original Delinquency: Any assessed business that fails to remit any assessment imposed within the time required shall pay a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the assessment in additional to the amount of the assessment.

2. Continued Delinquency: Any assessed business that fails to remit any delinquent remittance on or before a period of thirty (30) days following the date on which the remittance first bec ame delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment and the ten percent (10%) penalty first imposed.

3. Fraud: If the City determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due is due to fraud, a penalty of twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the assessment shall be added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.

4. Interest: In addition to the penalties imposed, any assessed business that fails to remit any assessment imposed shall pay interest at the rate of one-half of one percent (0.5%) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the assessment, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.

5. Penalties Merged with Assessment: Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues shall become a part of the assessment herein required to be paid.

G. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments
The VTMD assessment shall be implemented beginning January 1, 2023 and will continue for ten (10) years through December 31, 2032. The City will be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each assessed business. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each assessed business. The City shall forward the assessments collected to the Owners’ Association.

91 VTMD Management District Plan 12
May 6, 2022

V. GOVERNANCE

A. Owners’ Association
The City Council, through adoption of this Management District Plan, has the right, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the VTMD as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612. The City Council has determined that the Visalia Tourism Marketing District Corporation (VTMDC) shall continue to serve as the Owners’ Association for the VTMD. The entirety of the VTMDC Board of Directors shall be representatives of businesses paying the VTMD assessment.

B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance An Owners’ Association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. The Owners’ Association is, however, subject to government regulations relating to transparency, namely the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. These regulations are designed to promote public accountability. The Owners’ Association acts as a legislative body under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §54 950 et seq.). Thus, meetings of the VTMDC board and certain committees must be held in compliance with the public notice and other requirements of the Brown Act. The Owner s’ Association is also subject to the record keeping and disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. Accordingly, the Owners’ Association shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.

C. Annual Report
The VTMD shall present an annual report at th e end of each year of operation to the City Council pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36650 (see Appendix 1). The annual report shall include:
• Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of businesses within the district.
• The improvements and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. • An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for that fiscal year. • The method and basis of levying the assessment in suffi cient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for that fiscal year.
• The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
• The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.

92 VTMD Management District Plan 13
May 6, 2022
APPENDIX 1 – LAW

*** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2021 SUPPLEMENT *** (ALL 2020 LEGISLATION)

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
DIVISION 18. PARKING
PART 7. PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994

CHAPTER 1. General Provisions

ARTICLE 1. Declarations

36600. Citation of part

This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.”

36601. Legislative findings and declarations; Legislative guidance

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Businesses located and operating within business districts in some of this state’s communities are economically disadvantaged, are underutilized, and are unable to attract customers due to inadequate facilities, services, and activities in the business districts. (b) It is in the public interest to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of business districts in order to create jobs, attract new businesses, and prevent the erosion of the business districts. (c) It is of particular local benefit to allow business districts to fund business related improvements, maintenance, and activities through the levy of assessments upon the businesses or real property that receive benefits from those improvements.
(d) Assessments levied for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon the real property or a specific benefit upon the businesses in a business district are not taxes for the general benefit of a city, even if property, businesses, or persons not assessed receive incidental or collateral effects that benefit them. (e) Property and business improvement districts formed throughout this state have conferred special benefits upon properties and businesses within their districts and have made those properties and businesses more useful by providing the following benefits:
(1) Crime reduction. A study by the Rand Corporation has confirmed a 12-percent reduction in the incidence of robbery and an 8-percent reduction in the total incidence of violent crimes within the 30 districts studied.
(2) Job creation.
(3) Business attraction.
(4) Business retention.
(5) Economic growth.
(6) New investments.
(f) With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies throughout the state, property and business improvement districts have become even more important tools with which communities can combat blight, promote economic opportunities, and create a clean and safe environment. (g) Since the enactment of this act, the people of California have adopted Proposition 218, which added Article XIII D to the Constitution in order to place certain requirements and restrictions on the formation of, and activities, expenditures, and assessments by property-based districts. Article XIII D of the Constitution provides that property-based districts may only levy assessments for special benefits. (h) The act amending this section is intended to provide the Legislature’s guidance with regard to this act, its interaction with the provisions of Article XIII D of the Constitution, and the determination of special benefits in property-based districts.
(1) The lack of legislative guidance has resulted in uncertainty and inconsistent application of this act, which discourages the use of assessments to fund needed improvements, maintenance, and activities in property-based districts, contributing to blight and other underutilization of property. (2) Activities undertaken for the purpose of conferring special benefits upon property to be assessed inherently produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed.

Therefore, for special benefits to exist as a separate and distinct category from general benefits, the 93 VTMD Management District Plan 14
May 6, 2022
incidental or collateral effects of those special benefits are inherently part of those special benefits.

The mere fact that special benefits produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed does not convert any portion of those special benefits or their incidental or collateral effects into general benefits.
(3) It is of the utmost importance that property-based districts created under this act have clarity regarding restrictions on assessments they may levy and the proper determination of special benefits.

Legislative clarity with regard to this act will provide districts with clear instructions and courts with legislative intent regarding restrictions on property-based assessments, and the manner in which special benefits should be determined.

36602. Purpose of part

The purpose of this part is to supplement previously enacted provisions of law that authorize cities to levy assessments within property and business improvement districts, to ensure that those assessments conform to all constitutional requirements and are determined and assessed in accordance with the guidance set forth in this act. This part does not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes.

36603. Preemption of authority or charter city to adopt ordinances levying assessments

Nothing in this part is intended to preempt the authority of a charter city to adopt ordinances providing for a different method of levying assessments for similar or additional purposes from those set forth in this part. A property and business improvement district created pursuant to this part is expressly exempt from the provisions of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (Division 4 (commencing with Section 2800)).

36603.5. Part prevails over conflicting provisions

Any provision of this part that conflicts with any other provision of law shall prevail over the other provision of law, as to districts created under this part.

36604. Severability

This part is intended to be construed liberally and, if any provision is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Assessments levied under this part are not special taxes.

ARTICLE 2. Definitions

36606. “Activities”

“Activities” means, but is not limited to, all of the following that benefit businesses or real property i n the district:
(a) Promotion of public events.
(b) Furnishing of music in any public place.
(c) Promotion of tourism within the district.
(d) Marketing and economic development, including retail retention and recruitment. (e) Providing security, sanitatio n, graffiti removal, street and sidewalk cleaning, and other municipal services supplemental to those normally provided by the municipality. (f) Other services provided for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon assessed real property or specific benefits upon assessed businesses located in the district.

36606.5. “Assessment”

“Assessment” means a levy for the purpose o f acquiring, constructing, installing, or maintaining improvements and providing activities that will provide certain benefits to properties or businesses located within a property and business improvement district.

36607. “Business”

94 VTMD Management District Plan 15
May 6, 2022
“Business” means all types of businesses and includes financial institutions and professions.

36608. “City”

“City” means a city, county, city and county, or an agency or entity created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the public member agencies of which includes only cities, counties, or a city and county, or the State of California.

36609. “City council”

“City council” means the city council of a city or the board of supervisors of a county, or the agency, commission, or board created pursuant to a joint powers agreement and which is a city within the meaning of this part.

36609.4. “Clerk”

“Clerk” means the clerk of the legislative body.

36609.5. “General benefit”

“General benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, any benefit that is not a “special benefit” as defined in Section 36615.5.

36610. “Improvement”

“Improvement” means the acquisition, construction, installa tion, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Parking facilities.
(b) Benches, booths, kiosks, display cases, pedestrian shelters and signs. (c) Trash receptacles and public restrooms.
(d) Lighting and heating facilities.
(e) Decorations.
(f) Parks.
(g) Fountains.
(h) Planting areas.
(i) Closing, opening, widening, or narrowing of existing streets. (j) Facilities or equipment, or both, to enhance security of persons and property within the district. (k) Ramps, sidewalks, plazas, and pedestrian malls.
(l) Rehabilitation or removal of existing structures.

36611. “Management district plan”; “Plan”

“Management district plan” or “plan” means a proposal as defined in Section 36622.

36612. “Owners’ association”

“Owners’ association” means a private nonprofit entity that is under contract with a city to administer or implement improvements, maintenance, and activities specified in the management district plan. An owners’ association may be an existing nonprofit entity or a newly formed nonprofit entity. An owners’ association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be consider ed to be public officials for any purpose. Notwithstanding this section, an owners’ association shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), at all times when matters within the subject matter of the district are heard, discussed, or deliberated, and with the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code), for all records relating to activities of the district. 36614. “Property”

“Property” means real property situated within a district.

95 VTMD Management District Plan 16
May 6, 2022
36614.5. “Property and business improvement district”; “District”

“Property and business improvement district,” or “district,” means a property and business improvement district established pursuant to this part.

36614.6. “Property-based assessment”

“Property-based assessment” means any assessment made pursuant to this part upon real property.

36614.7. “Property-based district”

“Property-based district” means any district in which a city levies a property-based assessment.

36615. “Property owner”; “Business owner”; “Owner”

“Property owner” means any person shown as the owner of land on the last equalized assessment roll or otherwise known to be the owner of land by the city council. “Business owner” means any person recognized by the city as the owner of the business. “Owner” means either a business owner or a property owner. The city council has no obligation to obtain other information as to the ownership of land or businesses, and its determination of ownership shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this part. Wherever this part requires the signature of the property owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the property owner shall be sufficient. Wherever this part requires the signature of the business owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the business owner shall be sufficient.

36615.5. “Special benefit”

“Special benefit” means, for purposes of a property -based district, a particular and distinct benefit over and above general bene fits conferred on real property located in a district or to the public at large. Special benefit includes incidental or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of property-based districts even if those incidental or collateral effects benefit property or persons not assessed. Special benefit excludes general enhancement of property value.

36616. “Tenant”

“Tenant” means an occupant pursuant to a lease of commercial space or a dwelling unit, other than an owner.

ARTICLE 3. Prior Law

36617. Alternate method of financing certain improvements and activities; Effect on other provisions

This part provides an alternative method of financing certain improvements and activities. The provisions of this part shall not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. Every improvement area established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500) of this division) is valid and effective and is unaffected by this part.

CHAPTER 2. Establishment

36620. Establishment of property and business improvement district

A property and business improvement district may be established as provided in this chapter.

36620.5. Requirement of consent of city council

A county may not form a district within the te rritorial jurisdiction of a city without the consent of the city council of that city. A city may not form a district within the unincorporated territory of a county without the consent of the board 96 VTMD Management District Plan 17
May 6, 2022
of supervisors of that county. A city may not form a dist rict within the territorial jurisdiction of another city without the consent of the city council of the other city.

36621. Initiation of proceedings; Petition of property or business owners in proposed district

(a) Upon the submission of a writte n petition, signed by the property or business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than 50 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied, the city council may initiate proceedings to form a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to form a district.

The amount of assessment attributable to property or a business owned by the same property or business owner that is in excess of 40 percent of the amount of all assessments proposed to be levied, shall not be included in determining whether the petition is signed by property or business owners who will pay more than 50 percent of the total amount of assessments proposed to be levied. (b) The petition of property or business owners required under subdivision (a) shall in clude a summary of the management district plan. That summary shall include all of the following:
(1) A map showing the boundaries of the district.
(2) Information specifying where the complete management district plan can be obtained. (3) Information spec ifying that the complete management district plan shall be furnished upon request.
(c) The resolution of intention described in subdivision (a) shall contain all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activ ities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property or businesses within the district, a statement as to whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements do not need to be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the impr ovements, maintenance, and activities, and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) A time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the property and business improvement district and the levy of assessments, which shall be consis tent with the requirements of Section 36623.

36622. Contents of management district plan

The management district plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) If the assessment will be levied on property, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and, if businesses are to be assessed, each business within the district. If t he assessment will be levied on businesses, a map that identifies the district boundaries in sufficient detail to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. If the assessment will be levied on property and businesses, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries.
(b) The name of the proposed district.
(c) A description of the boundaries of the district, including the boundaries of benefit zones, proposed for establishment or extension in a manner sufficient to identify the affected property and businesses included, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The boundaries of a proposed property assessment district shall not overlap with the boundaries of another existing property assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a district created pursuant to this part to overlap with other assessment districts established pursuant to other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500)). This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with another business assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with a property assessment district created pursuant to this part. (d) The improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation of the district and the maximum cost thereof. If the improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation are the same, a description of the first year’s proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities and a statement that the same improvements, maintenance, a nd activities are proposed for subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
97 VTMD Management District Plan 18
May 6, 2022
(e) The total annual amount proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance, or activities, and debt service in each year of operation of the district. If the assessment is levied on businesses, this amount may be estimated based upon the assessment rate. If the total annual amount proposed to be expended in each year of operation of the district is not significantly different, the amount propos ed to be expended in the initial year and a statement that a similar amount applies to subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(f) The proposed source or sources of financing, including the proposed method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each property or business owner to calculate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business. The plan also shall state whether bonds will be issued to finance improvements.
(g) The time and manner of collecting the assessments.
(h) The specific number of years in which assessments will be levied. In a new district, the maximum number of years shall be five. Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years. Notwi thstanding these limitations, a district created pursuant to this part to finance capital improvements with bonds may levy assessments until the maximum maturity of the bonds. The management district plan may set forth specific increases in assessments for each year of operation of the district. (i) The proposed time for implementation and completion of the management district plan. (j) Any proposed rules and regulations to be applicable to the district. (k) (1) A list of the properties or businesses to be assessed, including the assessor’s parcel numbers for properties to be assessed, and a statement of the method or methods by which the expenses of a district will be imposed upon benefited real property or businesses, in proportion to the benefit received by the property or business, to defray the cost thereof. (2) In a property -based district, the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined exclusively in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the activities. An assessment shall not be imposed on any parcel that exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and a property-based district shall separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a property -based district that are owned or used by any city, public agency, the State of California, or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the governmental entity can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. The value of any incidental, secondary, or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of a property -based district and that benefit property or persons not assessed shall not be deducted from the entirety of the cost of any special benefit or affect the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel. (l) In a property -based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred upon the properties located within the property-based district.
(m) In a property-based district, the total amount of general benefits, if any. (n) In a property -based district, a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California supporting all assessments contemplated by the management district plan. (o) Any other item or matter required to be incorporated therein by the city council.

36623. Procedure to levy assessment

(a) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased property assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 53753 of the Government Code. (b) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased business a ssessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, except that notice shall be mailed to the owners of the businesses proposed to be assessed. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Every written protest shall be filed with the clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The city council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writ ing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the city as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business or the authorized representative. A written protest that does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest. If written protests are received from the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the proposed district that will pay 98 VTMD Management District Plan 19
May 6, 2022
50 percent or more of the assessments pr oposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses, as contained in the resolution of intention, shall be taken for a perio d of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the city council. (c) If a city council proposes to conduct a single proceeding to levy both a new or increased property assessment and a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the property assessment shall comply with subdivision (a), and the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the business assessment shall comply with subdivision (b). If a majority protest is received from either th e property or business owners, that respective portion of the assessment shall not be levied. The remaining portion of the assessment may be levied unless the improvement or other special benefit was proposed to be funded by assessing both property and business owners.

36624. Changes to proposed assessments

At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the city council may ado pt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them. At the public hearing, the city council may only make changes in, to, or from the boundaries of the proposed property and business improvement district that will exclude territory that will not benefit from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities. Any modifications, revisions, reductions, or changes to the proposed assessment district shall be reflected in the notice and map recorded pursuant to Section 36627.

36625. Resolution of formation

(a) If the city council, following the public hearing, decides to establish a proposed property and business improvement district, the city council shall adopt a resolution of formation that shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the pro posed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property, businesses, or both within the district, a statement on whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements need not be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) The number, date of adoption, and title of the resolution of intention. (3) The time and place where the public hearing was held concerning the establishment of the district.
(4) A determination regarding any protests received. The city shall not establish the district or levy assessments if a majority protest was received.
(5) A statement that the properties, businesses, or properties and businesses in the district established by the resolution shall be subject to any amendments to this part. (6) A statement that the improvements, maintenance, and activities to be conferred on businesses and properties in the district will be funded by the levy of the assessments. The revenue from the levy of assessments within a district shall not be used to provide improvements, maintenance, or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in the resolution of intention, as modified by the city council at the hearing co ncerning establishment of the district.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the district boundaries to create a special or specific benefit to the assessed parcels or businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the district. (7) A finding that the property or businesses within the area of the property and business improvement district will be benefited by the improvements, maintenance, and activities funded by the proposed assessments, and, for a property -based district, that property within the district will receive a special benefit.
(8) In a property -based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred on the properties within the property-based district.
(b) The adoption of the resolution of formation and, if required, recordation of the notice and map pursuant to Section 36627 shall constitute the levy of an assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the management district plan.
99 VTMD Management District Plan 20
May 6, 2022

36627. Notice and assessment diagram

Following adoption of the resolution establishing district assessments on properties pursuant to Section 36625, the clerk shall record a notice and an assessment diagram pursuant to Section 3114. No other provision of Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100) applies to an assessment district created pursuant to this part.

36628. Establishment of separate benefit zones within district; Categories of businesses

The city council may establish one or more separate benefit zones within the district based upon the degree of benefit derived from the improvements or activities to be provided within the benefit zone and may impose a different assessment within each benefit zone. If the assessment is to be levie d on businesses, the city council may also define categories of businesses based upon the degree of benefit that each will derive from the improvements or activities to be provided within the district and may impose a different assessment or rate of assess ment on each category of business, or on each category of business within each zone.

36628.5. Assessments on businesses or property owners

The city council may levy assessments on businesses or on property owners, or a combination of the two, pursuant to this part. The city council shall structure the assessments in whatever manner it determines corresponds with the distribution of benefits from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, provided that any property - based assessment conforms with the requirements set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) of Section 36622.

36629. Provisions and procedures applicable to benefit zones and business categories

All provisions of this part applicable to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of a property and business improvement district apply to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of benefit zones or categories of business. The city council shall, to establish, modify, or disestablish a benefit zone or category of business, follow the procedure to establish, modify, or disestablish a property and business improvement district.

36630. Expiration of district; Creation of new district

If a property and business improvement district expires due to the time limit set pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 36622, a new management district plan may be created and the district may be renewed pursuant to this part.

CHAPTER 3. Assessments

36631. Time and manner of collection of assessments; Delinquent payments

The collection of the assessments levied pursuant to this part shall be made at the time and in the manner set forth by the city council in the resolution levying the assessment. Assessments levied on real property may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as for the ad valorem property tax, and may provide for the same lien priority and penalties for delinquent payment. All delinquent payments for assessments levied pursuant to this part may be charged interest and penalties.
36632. Assessments to be based on estimated benefit; Classification of real property and businesses; Exclusion of residential and agricultural property

(a) The assessments levied on real property pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the real property within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify properties for purposes o f determining the benefit to property of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(b) Assessments levied on businesses pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the businesses within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify businesses for purposes of determining the benefit to the businesses of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
100

VTMD Management District Plan 21
May 6, 2022
(c) Properties zoned solely for residential use, or tha t are zoned for agricultural use, are conclusively presumed not to benefit from the improvements and service funded through these assessments, and shall not be subject to any assessment pursuant to this part.

36633. Time for contesting validity of assessment

The validity of an assessment levied under this part shall not be contested in an action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 30 days after the resolution levying the assessment is adopted pursuant to Section 36625. An appeal from a final judgment in an action or proceeding shall be perfected within 30 days after the entry of judgment.

36634. Service contracts authorized to establish levels of city services

The city council may execute baseline service contracts that would establish levels of city services that would continue after a property and business improvement district has been formed.

36635. Request to modify management district plan

The owners’ association may, at any time, request that the city council modify the management district plan. Any modification of the management district plan shall be made pursuant to this chapter.

36636. Modification of plan by resolution after public hearing; Adoption of resolution of intention

(a) Upon the written request of the owners’ association, the city council may modify the management district plan after conducting one public hearing on the proposed modifications. The city council may modify the improvements and activities to be funded with the revenue derived from the levy of the assessments by adopting a resolution determining to make the modifications after holding a public hearing on the proposed modifications. If the modification includes the levy of a new or increased assessment, the city council shall comply with Sect ion 36623. Notice of all other public hearings pursuant to this section shall comply with both of the following:
(1) The resolution of intention shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once at least seven days before the public hearing.
(2) A complete copy of the resolution of intention shall be mailed by first class mail, at least 10 days before the public hearing, to each business owner or property owner affected by the proposed modification.
(b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification prior to the public hearing required by this section. The public hearing shall be held not more than 90 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention.

36637. Reflection of modification in notices recorded and maps

Any subsequent modification of the resolution shall be reflected in subsequent notices and maps recorded pursuant to Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100), in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 36627.

CHAPTER 3.5. Financing

36640. Bonds authorized; Procedure; Restriction on reduction or termination of assessments

(a)The city council may, by resolution, determine and declare that bonds shall be issued to finance the estimated cost of some or all of the proposed improvements described in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, if the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to that section provides for the issuance of bonds, under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500)) or in conjunction with Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (Article 4 (commencing w ith Section 6584) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). Either act, as the case may be, shall govern the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds, although proceedings under the Bond Act of 1915 may be modified by the city council as necessary to accommodate assessments levied upon business pursuant to this part.
101

VTMD Management District Plan 22
May 6, 2022
(b) The resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall generally describe the proposed improvements specified in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, set forth the estimated cost of those improvements, specify the number of annual installments and the fiscal years during which they are to be collected. The amount of debt service to retire the bonds shall not exceed the amount of revenue estimated to be raised from assessments over 30 years.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, assessments levied to pay the principal and interest on any bond issued pursuant to this section shall not be reduced or terminated if doing so woul d interfere with the timely retirement of the debt.

CHAPTER 4. Governance

36650. Report by owners’ association; Approval or modification by city council

(a) The owners’ association shall cause to be prepared a report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the report. The owners’ association’s first report shall be due after the first year of operation of the district. The report may propose changes, including, but not limited to, the boundaries of the property and business improvement district o r any benefit zones within the district, the basis and method of levying the assessments, and any changes in the classification of property, including any categories of business, if a classification is used.
(b) The report shall be filed with the clerk and shall refer to the property and business improvement district by name, specify the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that fiscal year, shall contain all of the following information:
(1) Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of property or businesses within the district. (2) The improvements, maintenance, and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. (3) An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements, maintenance, and activities for that fiscal year.
(4) The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each real property or business owner, as appropriate, to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business for that fiscal year.
(5) The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
(6) The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.
(c) The city council may approve the report as filed by the owners’ association or may modify any particular contained in the report and approve it as modified. Any modification shall be made pursuant to Sections 36635 and 36636.

The city council shall not approve a change in the basis and method of levying assessments that would impair an authorized or executed contract to be paid from the revenues derived from the levy of assessments, including any commitment to pay principal and interest on any bonds issued on behalf of the district.

36651. Designation of owners’ association to provide improvements, maintenance, and activities

The management district plan may, b ut is not required to, state that an owners’ association will provide the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the management district plan. If the management district plan designates an owners’ association, the city shall contract with the designated nonprofit corporation to provide services.

CHAPTER 5. Renewal

36660. Renewal of district; Transfer or refund of remaining revenues; District term limit

(a) Any district previously established whose term has expired, or will expire, may be renewed by following the procedures for establishment as provided in this chapter. (b) Upon renewal, any remaining revenues deriv ed from the levy of assessments, or any revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, shall be transferred to the renewed district. If the renewed district includes additional parcels or businesses not included in the prior district, the remaining revenues 102

VTMD Management District Plan 23
May 6, 2022
shall be spent to benefit only the parcels or businesses in the prior district. If the renewed district does not include parcels or businesses included in the prior district, the remaining revenues attributable to these parcels shall be refunded to the owners of these parcels or businesses. (c) Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years, or, if the district is authorized to issue bonds, until the maximum maturity of those bonds. There is no requirement that the boundaries, assessments, improvements, or activities of a renewed district be the same as the original or prior district.

CHAPTER 6. Disestablishment

36670. Circumstances permitting disestablishment of district; Procedure

(a) Any district established or extended pursuant to the provisions of this part, where there is no indebtedness, outstanding and unpaid, incurred to accomplish any of the purposes of the district, may be disestablished by resolution by the city council in either of the following circumstances:
(1) If the city council finds there has been misappropriation of funds, malfeasance, or a violation of law in connection with the management of the district, it shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. (2) During the operation of the district, there shall be a 30 -day period each year in which assessees may request disestablishment of the district. The first such period shall begin one year after the date of establishment of the district and shall continue for 30 days. The next such 30 -day period shall begin two years after the date of the establishment of the district. Each successive year of operation of the district shall have such a 30-day period. Upon the written petition of the owners or authorized representatives of real property or the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the district who pay 50 percent or more of the assessments levied, the city council shall pass a resolution of intention to disestablish the district. The city council shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. (b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention to disestablish the district prior to the public hearing required by this section. The resolution shall state the reason for the disestablishment, shall state the time and place of the public hearing, and shall contain a proposal to dispose of any assets acquired with the revenues of the assessments levied w ithin the property and business improvement district. The notice of the hearing on disestablishment required by this section shall be given by mail to the property owner of each parcel or to the owner of each business subject to assessment in the district, as appropriate. The city shall conduct the public hearing not less than 30 days after mailing the notice to the property or business owners. The public hearing shall be held not more than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention.

36671. Refund of remaining revenues upon disestablishment or expiration without renewal of district; Calculation of refund; Use of outstanding revenue collected after disestablishment of district

(a) Upon the disestablishment or expiration without renewal of a district, any remaining revenues, after all outstanding debts are paid, derived from the levy of assessments, or derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, or from bond reserve or construction funds, shall be refunded to the owners of the property or businesses then located and operating within the district in which assessments were levied by applying the same method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the fiscal year in which the district is disestablished or expires. All outstanding assessment revenue collected after disestablishment shall be spent on improvements and activities specified in the management district plan. (b) If the disestablishment occurs before an assessment is levied for the fiscal year, the method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the immediate prior fiscal year shall be used to calculate the amount of any refund.

103

VTMD Management District Plan 24
May 6, 2022

APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES

Business Name Business Address
America's Best Value Inn 623 W. Main St. Visalia, CA 93291 Best Western 9300 W. Airport Dr. Visalia, CA 93277
Comfort Suites Downtown 210 E. Acequia Ave. Visalia, CA 93291 Fairfield by Marriott 140 S. Akers St. Visalia, CA 93291 Hampton Inn & Suites 4747 W. Noble Ave. Visalia, CA 93277 Hilton Garden Inn (Opening in 2022) Visalia, CA
Holiday Inn Express 5625 W. Cypress Ave, Visalia CA 93277 La Quinta Inn & Suites 5438 W. Cypress Visalia, CA 93277 Lamp Liter Inn 3300 W. Mineral King Visalia, CA 93291
Majestic Inn (formerly the Marco Polo) 4545 West Noble, Visalia, CA 93277 Motel 6 4645 W. Noble Ave Visalia, CA 93277
Residence Inn 205 N. Plaza Drive, Visalia, CA 93291
Super 8 Visalia 4801 West Noble Ave, Visalia, CA 93277
The Darling Hotel 210 N. Court Street, Visalia, CA 93291 Visalia Marriott at the Convention Center 300 S. Court St. Visalia, CA 93291 Wyndham Visalia 9000 W. Airport Dr. Visalia, CA 93277

104
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-47____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA

DECLARING RESULTS OF MAJORITY PROTEST PROCEEDINGS AND

RENEWING THE VISALIA TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICT (VTMD)

WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Streets and Highways Code §36600 et. seq.) authorizes the City to renew business improvement districts upon petition by a weighted majority of the business owners located within the boundaries of the district; and

WHEREAS, lodging business owners who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the proposed assessment, as weighted according to the amount of the assessment to be paid by the petitioner, within the boundaries of the VTMD have petitioned the City Council to renew the VTMD; and

WHEREAS, included with the petitions was a Management District Plan (Plan) summary that describes the proposed assessment to be levied on lodging businesses within the VTMD to pay for sales and marketing programs and destination development programs, and other improvements and activities set forth in the Plan; and

WHEREAS, the assessed lodging businesses within the VTMD will receive a specific benefit from the activities and improvements set forth in the Plan; and

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2022 at 4:30 PM at Council Chambers at City Hall located at 707 W. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA 93291 , the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 2022-36 and

WHEREAS, the public meeting and public hearing to consider the renewal of the VTMD have been properly noticed in accordance with Streets and Highways Code §36623; and

WHEREAS, on July 18, 2022 at 7:00 PM at Council Chambers at City Hall located at 707 W. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA 93291, the City Council held a public meeting regarding the renewal of the VTMD, and the City Council heard and received objections and protests, if any, to the renewal of the VTMD and the levy of the proposed assessment; and

WHEREAS, on August 1, 2022 at 7:00 PM at Council Chambers at City Hall located at 707 W. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA 93291, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the renewal of the VTMD, and the City Council heard and received all objections and protests, if any, to the renewal of the VTMD and the levy of the proposed assessment; and

WHEREAS, the City Clerk has determined that there was no majority protest. A majority protest is defined as written protests received from owners of businesses in the renewed VTMD which would pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied. Protests are weighted based on the assessment proposed to be levied on each lodging business; and 105
2 WHEREAS, the City bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an assessment imposed for a specific benefit or specific government service is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the costs to the City in providing the specific benefit or specific government service, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the specific benefits or specific government services received by the payor.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT:

1. The recitals set forth herein are adopted by the City Council as findings and they are true and correct.

2. The VTMD is hereby renewed for a ten (10) years year term, beginning January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2032, unless renewed again pursuant to Stree ts and Highways Code § 36660.

3. The Plan dated May 6, 2022 is hereby adopted and approved.

4. The activities to be provided to benefit businesses in the VTMD will be funded by the levy of the assessment. The revenue from the assessment levy shall not be used: to provide activities that directly benefit businesses outside the VTMD; to provide activities or improvements outside the VTMD; or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in this Resolution, the Resolution of Intention, and the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the VTMD boundaries to create a specific benefit to the assessed businesses may be provided but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the VTMD.

5. The City Council finds as follows:

a) The activities funded by the assessment will provide a specific benefit to assessed businesses within the VTMD that is not provided to those not paying the assessment.

b) The assessment is a charge imposed for a specific bene fit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.

c) The assessment is a charge i mposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.

d) Assessments imposed pursuant to the VTMD are levied solely upon the assessed business, and the business owner is solely responsible for payment of the assessment when due. If the owner chooses to collect any portion of the assessment from a transient, that portion shall be specifically called out and identified for the transient in any and all 106
3 communications from the business owner as the “ VTMD Assessment” or “Tourism Assessment” as specified in the Plan.

6. The assessments levied for the VTMD shall be applied towards sales and marketing programs and destination development programs to market Visalia lodging businesses as tourist, meeting and event destinations, and other improvements and activities as set forth in the Plan.

7. Assessments levied on lodging businesses pursuant to this resolution shall be levied on the basis of benefit. Because the services provided are intended to increase room rentals, an assessment based on room rentals is the best measure of benefit.

8. The assessments for the entire VTMD will total approximately $650,000 in year one (1).

9. Bonds shall not be issued to fund the VTMD.

10. The VTMD shall include all lodging businesses with twenty (20) rooms or more located within the boundaries of City o f Visalia . A boundary map is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

11. The assessments shall be used for the purposes set forth above and any funds remaining at the end of any year may be used in subsequent years in which the VTMD assessment is levied as long as they are used consistent with the requirements set forth herein.

12. The assessments to fund the activities and improvements for the VTMD will be collected by the City on a monthly basis, and in accordance with Streets and Highw ays Code §36631.

13. The City Council, through adoption of this Resolution and the Plan, has the right pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the VTMD as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612. The City Council has determined that the Visalia Tourism Marketing District Corporation shall be the VTMD Owners’ Association.

14. Visalia Tourism Marketing District Corporation, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36650, shall cause to be prepared a report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvement and activities described in the report. The first report shall be due after the first year of operation of the VTMD.

15. The VTMD renewed pursuant to this resolution will be subject to any amendments to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (California Streets and Highways Code §36600 et. seq.).

16. The City Clerk, or his or her designee, is directed to take all necessary actions to complete the establishment of the VTMD and to levy the assessments.

107
4 17. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution of Formation was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 1st day of August, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

______________________________
Mayor

Attest Approved as to Form:

City Clerk City Attorney

PASSED AND ADOPTED: August 1, 2022 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF VISALIA )

I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2022-47 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on August 1, 2022.

Dated: August 2, 2022 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK

By Michelle Nicholson, Chief Deputy City Clerk

108
5 Boundary Map

109
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0264 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract for RFB 21-22-38, Fleet Maintenance Building Settlement Repair Project, to Caliber Contracting Services Inc. of Fresno, CA, in the amount of $198,225.00.

Deadline for Action: None
Submitting Department: Administration - CIP Engineering Contact Name and Phone Number:

Jaklin H. Rowley, Assistant Engineer, Jaklin [email protected], (559) 713-4369 Mike Porter, Civil Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4412 Frank Senteno, City Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4331 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4323 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract for RFB 21-22-38, Fleet Maintenance Building Settlement Repair Project, to Caliber Contracting Services Inc. in the amount of $198,225.00.

Summary:

The Fleet Maintenance Building is located near the west entrance to the Corp. Yard (see Attachment A: Vicinity Map). More than 4-inches of settlement has occurred at the westerly end of the Fleet Maintenance Building. The settlement has contributed to damage to the building causing the need for multiple building repairs including door jams, damage to floors, plumbing, footings, building slab, stairs, stairwells, roof, and metal siding. The excessive settlement has occurred as a direct result of poor soil compaction, excessive moisture content, and the presence of organic material in the subgrade as noted in the Geotechnical Investigation. This construction contract will consolidate the underlying soils and raise the building slab back to its original floor elevation extending the life of the building.

Background Discussion:

The typical method of repair for a building that is settling is to remove and replace the interior slab.

This option requires the removal of the building slab in the affected area, shoring of the building, excavation of the underlying unsuitable soils and backfilling with certified fill materials, replacement of the concrete slab, replacement of interior features such as walls and plumbing, and also hiring a structural engineer to design the concrete slab and building shoring during construction. This method is costly, destructive, and disruptive to buildings that are in use. As such, city staff researched alternative methods for repairing the fleet building that would be more cost-effective and allow the building to remain in use during the repair. The use of push piers and polymer injection as an alternative was recommended by the geotechnical engineers who prepared the geotechnical report Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
110
File #: 22-0264 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 2.
alternative was recommended by the geotechnical engineers who prepared the geotechnical report for the fleet building. The push piers are temporary hydraulic supports placed around the building and are used to lift the building in increments to bring it back to the designed elevation. The polymer is then injected through the interior slab to consolidate the underlying soil. Through additional research, city staff determined that this method is more cost-effective, less destructive, and allows the building to remain in use during most of the construction. Staff’s reference checks found this process successfully employed to remedy building settlement repairs but also in a variety of other infrastructure settlement repair type projects.

This project will lift and stabilize the building slab and perimeter footing for the Visalia Fleet Building, which was built about 1960. As recommended in the geotechnical report, the slab and perimeter footing will be lifted and supported through polymer injection and “push piers”, polymer shall be injected through a series of 5/8 inch holes drilled through the concrete slab in approximately a 4’grid pattern. The actual work plan, including the size and depth of the holes and the spacing of the grid pattern, shall be determined by and stamped by a licensed Structural Engineer. The work plan is a requirement of the contractor. The existing exterior concrete slab shall be saw cut, removed, and replaced to ensure positive drainage away from the building. All utilities, underground pipelines, or other underground structures will be protected in place during the removal of the exterior concrete.

The limits of concrete removal and replacement will be verified by the contractor before starting work.

In conjunction, the exterior landscaping and irrigation along the west end of the building will be removed and capped. The remaining irrigation shall remain functional. Additionally, the wooden stairway is to be removed and replaced with a new exterior-grade steel stairway. Should the City wish to continue using the Fleet Building, it must be structurally stabilized; requiring repairs be also made to the stairs and concrete. The roof is also scheduled to be repaired (the roof is being replaced with a separate CIP project).

Engineering staff performed a cost-benefit analysis, evaluated alternate means of repair, and determined the submittal from Caliber Contracting Services Inc was established as the most economical option for the project (see Attachment B - Cost Benefit Analysis). The cost-benefit analysis provides an analysis of several alternatives to repair the fleet maintenance building. This includes the traditional method of removing and replacing the slab as well as awarding only the portion of the bid that will lift the building. Staff also analyzed the option of removing/down stacking the westerly section of the fleet building which is settling. This option was not included in the staff’s cost-benefit analysis as this section of the building contains centrally located restroom facilities that are essential to fleet staff. City employees have expressed that this section of the building is commonly used by other divisions, and so they wish to keep and repair the section so they can continue to use it. The work that will be done by Caliber Contracting and Eagle lift is expected to provide a long-term solution to the building’ssettlement problem, by stabilizing and extending the foundation’s life for an estimated 30 additional years. See attachment B for further detail.

Bid Process:

The standard City bid process was conducted, and on April 28, 2022, City staff opened one (1) bid that was submitted for the project. Per the construction documents, the apparent low bid was established by the lowest base bid. The results are summarized below.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
111
File #: 22-0264 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 2.

No. Contractor Location Bid Amount

1. Caliber Contracting Services Inc. Fresno, CA $198,225.00 Caliber Contracting Services Inc. submitted the only responsive bid, and it is the staff’s recommendation they be awarded the contract. Caliber Contracting Services Inc. has completed similar site improvement projects and will be using Eagle Lift Inc. for the push pier installation and polymer injection/stabilization. Eagle Lift Inc. specializes in structural foundation repair and infrastructure rehabilitation, they have completed several polyurethane foundation lift projects in the past. Eagle lift provided both references and letters of referral to verify their work and project success. See Attachment B for copies of the reference letters and phone interviews conducted by city staff.

Fiscal Impact:

This project is funded by the Measure N Building Maintenance Fund 142, (No. 1420-72000/CP0250- 999), which has sufficient funds available to complete the construction.

Below is the project’s budget summary:

Budget Summary: Fleet Maintenance Building Settlement Repair Project, CP0250 Construction Cost $198,225
Construction Contingency (10%) $19,823
Plumbing Contingency (10%) $19,823
Construction Surveying (3%) $5,947
Construction Inspection (1%) $1,982
Construction Management (5%) $9,911
Material Testing (3%) $5,947
Total Estimated Project Costs $261,658
Based on various analyzed alternatives, the push Pier and Polymer injection method was determined to be the most effective repair. Based on positive feedback received, City staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Caliber Contracting Services Inc and their subcontractor Eagle Lift for the work to be done now.

Any unused monies will return from which the fund they come from.

Prior Council Action: None
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for RFB 21-22-38 in the amount of $198,225.00 for the Fleet Maintenance Building Slab Repair Project to Caliber Contracting Services Inc.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
112
File #: 22-0264 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 2.

CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments:

A: Vicinity Map
B: Cost Benefit Analysis
C: Fleet Settlement Presentation
Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
113

114
Page | 0

City of Visalia
Fleet Building Settlement Project
Project Manager - Mike Porter Assistant Project Manager - Jaklin H. Rowley CC: Renee Nagel Nick Mascia Frank Senteno Joe Cote Date: 07/11/2022 Figure 1: Vicinity Map - Fleet Maintenance Building
115
Page | 1

Contents
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary and Background ................................................................................................. 2 Possible Project Solutions/Alternatives .......................................................................................... 2 Alternative 1: Award Project Bid as Proposed ........................................................................... 2 Alternative 2: Leave the Building as is and Allow Settlement to Continue ................................ 2 Alternative 3: Re-Bid the Project ................................................................................................ 3 Alternative 4: Award a Portion of the Bid - Only to Lift the Building........................................ 3 Alternative 5: Alter the Scope of Work to Remove and Replace the Interior Slab ..................... 4 Overall Cost Estimates for Each Alternative .................................................................................. 4 Fiscal Impact for Each Alternative ................................................................................................. 7 Staff’s Recommendation ................................................................................................................. 7 Appendix A: Eagle Lift Reference Projects .................................................................................... 9 Appendix B: Letters of Reference/Recommendation ................................................................... 12 Appendix C: Supporting Figures .................................................................................................. 16

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map - Fleet Maintenance Building .................................................................... 0 Figure 2: Less Invasive and Cleaner Work Site Compared with Alternate Methods ..................... 9 Figure 3: Changes in Level at door Frames before Polymer Injection ......................................... 10 Figure 4: Floors Brought Back to Level After Polymer Injection ................................................ 10 Figure 5: Letter of Reference 1 ..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6: Letter of Reference 2 ..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7: Letter of Reference 3 ..................................................................................................... 14 Figure 8: Letter of Reference 4 With Project Pictures .................................................................. 15 Figure 9: Construction Cost Increases - 4 Creeks Estimate .......................................................... 16 Figure 10: Lidar Scan - First Floor Facing west ........................................................................... 17 Figure 11: Lidar Scan- First Floor Facing East ............................................................................ 17 Figure 12: Concrete Area to be Replaced to Correct Drainage .................................................... 18 Figure 13: Stairs to be replaced .................................................................................................... 19 Figure 14: Improper Door Closing from Settlement..................................................................... 20 Figure 15: Buckling of Siding Due to Settlement ......................................................................... 21 Figure 16: Examples of Shear and Stress Cracking in the Building ............................................. 22 Table of Tables
Table 1: Alternative 1: Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Alternative 2: Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 5 Table 3: Alternative 3: Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 5 Table 4: Alternative 4: Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 6 Table 5: Alternative 5: Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 6 116
Page | 2

Project Summary and Background

The Fleet Maintenance Building is located near the west entrance to the Corp. Yard (see Figure 1). More than 4 inches of settlement has occurred at the west end of the Fleet Building which was identified through survey and confirmed through LIDAR scanning (see Figures 10 & 11). The greatest settlement can be seen at the west entry door to the building. The settlement has caused the need for multiple repairs including door jams, floors, plumbing, footings, building slab, stairs, stairwells, roof, and metal siding (see Figures 12,13,14,15 &16). The excessive settlement has occurred due to poor soil compaction, excessive moisture content, and the presence of organic material in the subgrade as noted in the Geotechnical Investigation.

Possible Project Solutions/Alternatives

Alternative 1: Award Project Bid as Proposed

Key Points:

 Project will begin after bid is awarded by Council at the August 1st meeting o Lift will Begin in November by the subcontractor (Eagle Lift)  No guarantee this will permanently fix the foundation

Discussion:

This project option is projected to lift and stabilize the building slab and perimeter footing as recommended in the geotechnical report. As per the Geotechnical Engineer’s recommendation the slab and perimeter footing will be lifted and supported through polymer injection and “push piers”, Polymer shall be injected through a series of 5/8 inch holes drilled through the concrete slab in approximately a 4’ grid pattern. The actual work plan, including the size and depth of the holes and the spacing of the grid pattern, shall be determined by and stamped by a licensed Structural Engineer (to be determined). The existing exterior concrete shall be saw cut, removed, and hauled off by the contractor. All utilities, underground pipelines, or other underground structures will be protected in place during the removal of the exterior concrete. The limits of concrete removal and replacement will be verified by the contractor before starting work. In conjunction, the exterior landscaping and irrigation along the west end of the building will be removed and capped to reduce water retention around the foundation. The remaining irrigation shall remain functional. Additionally, the existing out-of-compliance wooden stairway is to be removed and replaced with a new exterior-grade steel stairway.

Alternative 2: Leave the Building as is and Allow Settlement to Continue

Key Points:

 Additional settlement will occur
 Repair and Maintenance costs will rise
 Potential liability for the City
 Potential seismic hazard (due to potential rolling of joists)

117
Page | 3

Discussion:

The city will reject the bid and let the building settlement continue. The geotechnical investigation advises that additional settlement will continue to occur. It is not possible to predict the precise amount of additional settlement that may occur, but it may exceed several inches over time and reduce the buildings structural capacity/strength. This alternative is not recommended if the City wishes to continue to use this building, the condition will likely get worse, and the costs of repairs and maintenance will continue to rise.

Alternative 3: Re-Bid the Project

Key Points:
 Bids are increasing and it is unlikely that a new bid would be less  Materials are on backorder and rebidding the project may cause further delay  This process will take multiple months and additional staff time  More settlement may occur

Discussion:

The city would send the project back out to advertise and accept new bids for the required work.

This option is not recommended as there is a high potential of receiving bids that are higher than the current bid. The city is seeing a continued increase in construction costs. Bids from suppliers and subcontractors are being issued with a one-week guarantee of price in many cases; in conjunction, the city has received notification from industry professionals that they are increasing their bids by 30% from 2020/2021 for work that will be done within the next two years (Figure 9). It is unlikely that rebidding the project will bring in lower bids and it is also a possibility that the city may receive no bids at all.

Alternative 4: Award a Portion of the Bid - Only to Lift the Building

Key Points:
 This would reduce the current bid by $70,000
 Remaining work would need to be re-bid
o There is no guarantee that the new bids would be less than $70,000  The remaining work includes staircase replacement and concrete work.  A Temporary barrier will need to be installed at the second-floor door.

Discussion:

Award the Polymer injection, push piers and associated saw cutting, concrete removal, and stair removal, but do award the concrete replacement or stair replacement. This would reduce the amount of the award by approximately $70,000.00. This would require a separate quote be obtained for the stair replacement, and separate quotes or a separate bid for the concrete work. This alternative is possible if we can use an informal process to complete the staircase replacement and concrete work.

Please note that their will be an additional cost to barricade the second-floor door while the stairs are out of commission.

118
Page | 4

Alternative 5: Alter the Scope of Work to Remove and Replace the Interior Slab

Key Points:
 The minimum estimated cost for the construction of this alternative is $316,000  Project will be re-bid for the new scope of work
 This will also increase the project duration

Discussion:

Remove and replace the interior slab. This option requires removal of the building slab in the affected area, shoring of the building, overexcitation of the underlying soils, replacement of the concrete slab, replacement of interior features such as walls and plumbing, and hiring a structural engineer to design the concrete slab and building shoring during construction. The estimated cost of construction for this alternative is $316,000.00 (minimum). This alternative is not recommended due to the high cost, lengthy project duration, and extensive disruption of ongoing activities during construction.

Overall Cost Estimates for Each Alternative

Please note that CP0250 is a shared CIP number and multiple projects pull from this fund. This cost analysis was based off an initial project cost estimate of $150,000.

Table 1: Alternative 1: Estimate Summary

Budget Summary: Alternative 1 – Award Bid as Is

Construction Cost $198,225.00
Construction Contingency (5%) $9,911.00
Plumbing Contingency (5%) $19,823.00
Construction Surveying (3%) $5,947.00
Construction Inspection (1%) $1,982.00
Construction Management (5%) $9,911.00
Material Testing (3%) $5,947.00
Total Estimated Project Costs $251,746.00

Project Budget $150,000
Project Fund (CP0250) $2,000,000

Project Deficit $101,746.00

119
Page | 5

Table 2: Alternative 2: Estimate Summary

Budget Summary: Alternative 2 – No Associated Costs

Construction Cost $0.00
Total Estimated Project Costs $0.00

Project Budget $0
Project Fund (CP0250) $2,000,000

Project Deficit $0.00

Table 3: Alternative 3: Estimate Summary

Budget Summary: Alternative 3 – Estimated 30% Construction Cost Increase

Construction Cost $257,692.50
Construction Contingency (5%) $12,884.63
Plumbing Contingency (5%) $12,884.63
Construction Surveying (3%) $7,730.78
Construction Inspection (1%) $2,576.93
Construction Management (5%) $12,884.63
Material Testing (3%) $7,730.78
Total Estimated Project Costs $314,384.85

Project Budget $150,000
Project Fund (CP0250) $2,000,000

Project Deficit $164,384.85

120
Page | 6

Table 4: Alternative 4: Estimate Summary

Budget Summary: Alternative 4 – Award Portion of Bid

Construction Cost $128,225.00
Construction Contingency (5%) $6,411.25
Plumbing Contingency (5%) $6,411.25
Construction Surveying (3%) $3,846.75
Construction Inspection (1%) $1,282.25
Construction Management (5%) $6,411.25
Material Testing (3%) $3,846.75
Total Estimated Project Costs $156,434.50

Project Budget $150,000
Project Fund (CP0250) $2,000,000

Project Deficit $6,434.50

Table 5: Alternative 5: Estimate Summary

Budget Summary: Alternative 5

Construction Cost $316,021.20
Construction Contingency (5%) $15,801.06
Plumbing Contingency (5%) $15,801.06
Construction Surveying (3%) $9,480.64
Construction Inspection (1%) $3,160.21
Construction Management (5%) $15,801.06
Material Testing (3%) $9,480.64
Total Estimated Project Costs $385,545.86

Project Budget $150,000
Project Fund (CP0250) $2,000,000

Project Deficit $235,545.86
121
Page | 7

Fiscal Impact for Each Alternative

Alternative 1:

This alternative is funded by the Measure N Building Maintenance Fund 142, (No. 1420-72000/CP0250-999). The cost to complete construction exceeds the original estimate by $101,746.00. There are sufficient funds available in CP0250 to complete the construction phase of the project.

Alternative 2:

This alternative will have a delayed fiscal impact. The longer the building sits the more repair and cost the building will accumulate. Ultimately the building will need to be stabilized; down stacked, stabilized and rebuilt; or removed from service.

Alternative 3:

This alternative would be funded by the Measure N Building Maintenance Fund 142, (No. 1420-72000/CP0250-999).

The cost of this project is expected to increase. The city has received estimates that have specifically noted there is a 30% increase in construction costs for projects constructing within the next two years (Figure 9: Construction Cost Increases – 4 Creeks Estimate). It is also worth noting that many materials are on backorder and rebidding the project may cause further delays or an additional increase in material costs. There are sufficient funds available in CP0250 to complete the construction phase of the project.

Alternative 4:

This alternative is funded by the Measure N Building Maintenance Fund 142, (No. 1420-72000/CP0250-999). The cost to complete the portion of construction to stabilize the building will exceed the original estimate by $6434.50 plus the additional cost of barricading the second-floor door. It should be noted that the remaining construction must be bid separately, and additional funds will be required to cover these costs. There are sufficient funds available in CP0250 to complete the construction phase of the project.

Alternative 5:

This alternative would be funded by the Measure N Building Maintenance Fund 142, (No. 1420-72000/CP0250- 999). The cost to complete construction exceeds the estimate created by staff for the push pier installation and polymer injection by $235,545.86. There are sufficient funds available in CP0250 to complete the construction phase of the project.

Staff’s Recommendation

Should the City wish to continue using the Fleet Building, it must be stabilized, and repairs made to the stairs/concrete, and the roof will need to be replaced (the roof is being replaced with a separate CIP project). Staff originally estimated the cost to repair the Fleet maintenance building to be $150,000 including staff time, in which the engineer’s estimate for the construction cost was $132,400. Staff believes the bid received for the project was high for several reasons, including an escalation in costs since the time of the original estimate, the fact that only one bid was received and the contractor’s markup on the subcontractor’s (EagleLIFT) portion of the contract. It is important to note that since the original cost estimate was created, by staff, building costs have seen a significant increase; in some cases, city staff has seen up to a 30% increase in construction costs from 2020 & 2021 (Figure 9). It should also be noted that additional items were incorporated into the project after the engineer’s estimate was completed (Concrete work and Stair repair).

City staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Caliber Contracting Services Inc despite the increase in the cost originally estimated for the project. It is important to note that there is no guarantee that the push piers and polymer 122
Page | 8

injection will be a permanent solution, though it is predicted to expand the life of the building. It is also important to note that the city has not previously used this method of construction, and there is a potential/probability of exacerbating the current cracking and movement of the building causing structural damage during the lift. Past projects done by the sub-contractor (Eagle Lift) have successfully lifted and stabilized buildings with settlement and unstable soil due to liquefaction.

Eagle Lift specializes in push pier and polymer injection to lift and stabilize buildings and is one of the very few companies that are qualified for this method of engineered lifting. Eagle lift provided both references and letters of referral to verify their work and project success. Two project references were submitted for jobs similar in scale to the project we are doing (the projects Eagle Lift works on are usually much larger and more complex). Eagle Lift also provided four letters of recommendation/reference from other projects they have worked on within the last five years.

A follow-up phone interview was done with the two references and the city did confirm the success of the projects and the satisfaction of Eagle Lift as a subcontractor. Each of the projects was successful according to the references and Eagle Lift was clean, efficient, on schedule, and quick to respond. Each of the references was more than satisfied with the work done by Eagle Lift and would use them again for future projects. See Appendix A for a summary of the phone interviews and Appendix B for a copy of the letters of recommendation/reference. The project references and contact are below.

1. Company: Geo-Engineering Solutions
a. Contact: Eric J Swenson
b. Phone: 925-433-0454
c. Email: [email protected]

2. Company: Williams Homes, Toll Brothers
a. Contact: Tom Laine
b. Phone: 760-532-9385

Engineering staff has performed a cost-benefit analysis, evaluated alternate means of repair, and determined the submittal from Caliber Contracting Services Inc is the most economical option for the project at the time the analysis was done (June/July 2022).

123
Page | 9

Appendix A: Eagle Lift Reference Projects

1. Geo-Engineering Solutions – Eric J Swenson (Phone Interview)

a. What is a description of the project you were working on and why did you choose to go with a push pier and polymer injection method?
i. The Z hotel in Oakland
ii. The project footings were on soil that was experiencing liquefaction. There was a large concern that an earthquake would cause a significant loss in bearing capacity. The project utilized the push pier and foam injection method to do ground improvement under the footings.

b. Was the project successful?
i. Yes, the project was successful in improving the ground beneath the footings. The project method also saved the owners hundreds of thousands of dollars.

c. How long ago was the project completed?
i. The project was completed in April of 2022

d. Has there been a noticeable settlement since?
i. No, and the ground is expected to remain stable based on CPT testing performed during and after the project. (CPT is Cone Penetration Testing)

e. Were there problems that arose due to the push piers or polymer injection (namely structural damage)?
i. None that was recorded, it is recommended that strain gauges be attached to the building to monitor the structure as it is lifted. The concern when lifting the building this way is mainly cosmetic. Stucco buildings often see a lot of cracking in the stucco after lifting.

f. Would you use this method again to correct a settling building? i. Yes, and GEO has used eagle Lift for other projects to stabilize other buildings.

g. Project Photos:

Figure 2: Less Invasive and Cleaner Work Site Compared with Alternate Methods Drilled holes and polymer
injection site
124
Page | 10

Figure 4: Floors Brought Back to Level After Polymer Injection Concrete floor has been
brought back to level at
the door frames
Figure 3: Changes in Level at door Frames before Polymer Injection Changes in Level at door
Frames before the
Polymer Injection
125
Page | 11

2. Williams Homes – Tom Laine (Phone Interview)

a. What is a description of the project you were working on and why did you choose to go with a push pier and polymer injection method?
i. This project lifted 4 homes and 1 swimming pool over the course of a year in the Santa Clarita area. The homes were approximately 2000 square feet and two stories, each had up to 5 inches of settlement at different corners of the homes. The project used both the push pier and the helical piers to lift the homes/pool and inject the polymer (helical piers have a different installation method and are used for loads that move side to side, such as water in a swimming pool). Eagle lift was clean and efficient throughout the project and provided quick responses with updated approaches, when necessary, that were approved by their engineers. This was the first time this company had used this method and it was a test of the functionality of this method which was successful.

b. Was the project successful?
i. The projects were successful in lifting the homes and the pool and they have been stable since. Before and after survey was conducted to show that the buildings had been lifted back their designed elevation(s).

c. How long ago was the project completed?
i. This project started in October of 2019 and was completed in December of 2021

d. Has there been a noticeable settlement since?
i. There has not been any recorded or noticeable settlement since the completion of the project.

e. Were there problems that arose due to the push piers or polymer injection (namely structural damage)?
i. There was no structural damage recorded but there was surface/cosmetic damage to the stucco on the building. There was cracking that occurred in the stucco however it was less severe than the contractors had been expecting from a building that had settled 5”.

f. Would you use this method again to correct a settling building? i. Yes, they would use eagle lift and this method again.

g. Project Photos?
i. Cannot be released due to ownership.
ii. It should be noted that Tom did specify that the photos did not truly show just how big of a difference the lifting of the buildings made. It was difficult to see the change through photos alone; it was very noticeable in-person to those who had been to the homes before and after the project.

126
Page | 12

Appendix B: Letters of Reference/Recommendation

Figure 5: Letter of Reference 1
127
Page | 13

Figure 6: Letter of Reference 2
128
Page | 14

Figure 7: Letter of Reference 3
129
Page | 15

Figure 8: Letter of Reference 4 With Project Pictures
130
Page | 16

Appendix C: Supporting Figures

Figure 9: Construction Cost Increases - 4 Creeks Estimate

131
Page | 17

Figure 10: Lidar Scan - First Floor Facing west

Figure 11: Lidar Scan- First Floor Facing East
West
Entry
Door
West
Entry
Door
4” of settlement as
per topographic
survey and
confirmed by Lidar
Majority of
settlement found at
west entry door
132
Page | 18

Figure 12: Concrete Area to be Replaced to Correct Drainage 133
Page | 19

Figure 13: Stairs to be replaced
134
Page | 20

Figure 14: Improper Door Closing from Settlement
135
Page | 21

Figure 15: Buckling of Siding Due to Settlement
¼” lags torn from
wood studs
Buckling can be seen on
the South and West side
of the building
136
Page | 22

Figure 16: Examples of Shear and Stress Cracking in the Building 137
Page | 23

138
Page | 24

139
Settlement at theFleet Maintenance Building 08/01/2022Administration – CIP EngineeringProject Manager – Mike Porter, PEAsst. Project Manager – Jaklin H. Rowley, EIT1 140
Settlement Occurring at the Fleet Maintenance Building
2 141
3 142
The Fleet Maintenance Building has Seen 4” of Settlement at the West end of the Building 4 143
Push Pier and Polymer Injection to Stabilize and Lift Structures (Eagle Lift, INC) 5 144
Pictorial of how the Push Pier and Polymer Injection System Works (Foundation Technology, 2015) & (BASEco, 2014)6
145
Questions?
(Foundation Technology, 2015) & (BASEco, 2014)7Recommended Motion:I move to authorize the City Manager to executean agreement RFB 21-22-38 in the amount of $198,225.00 for the FleetMaintenance Building Slab Repair Project toCaliber Contracting Services Inc. 146
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0276 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Agenda Item Wording:

A Public Hearing to consider the following actions pertaining to property located on the northeast corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Meadow Avenue (Address: 914 South Mooney Boulevard), (APNs: 096-023-023 & 096-023-031):

A) General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10, a request by Ming Lu Jin to change the land use designation of 5,196 square feet of a 15,261 square foot parcel from Low Density Residential (RLD) to Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). (Resolution No. 2022-46 required).

Deadline for Action: 8/1/2022
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Josh Dan, Associate Planner, (559) 713-4003, [email protected] Paul Bernal, Community Development Director, (559)713-4025, [email protected] Department Recommendation:

The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and receive a presentation with staff report for consideration and approval on the following:

A. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-46 approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-10, re- designating the land use designation of 5,196 square feet of a 15,261 square foot parcel from Low Density Residential (RLD) to Commercial Mixed Use, and B. Introduce the first reading of Ordinance No. 2022-11 for Change of Zone No. 2021-12, which changes the zoning designation of 5,196 square feet of a 15,261 square foot parcel from R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 square feet minimum site area) zoning to Commercial Mixed Use (C-MU) zoning.

The recommendation to change the land use and zoning designations for the site will facilitate the re- development and remodel of the existing building and project site to be used by the Tiger Tea House.

Summary:

The applicant’s submittal of the general plan amendment and change of zone entitlements is to facilitate the remodel of a vacant commercial building located at 914 South Mooney Boulevard, which was previously occupied by a bookstore and other various commercial businesses. The land use and Visalia City Council Printed on 7/28/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
147
File #: 22-0276 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 3.
was previously occupied by a bookstore and other various commercial businesses. The land use and zone change, if approved, will redesignate 5,196 square feet of an overall 15,261 square foot parcel from a residential designation to a commercial designation. The 5,196 square feet that will be redesignated to Commercial Mixed Use will be developed with parking stalls, paved drive aisle, landscaping, and block wall that will be incorporated into the adjoining commercial development site.

Background Discussion:

The applicant, through the Site Plan Review process, expressed interest in facilitating a cohesive redevelopment of this site by incorporating a vacant undeveloped site located to the east of the building to provide additional parking consistent with both Caltrans and City standards as shown in the site plan (Exhibit “A”). The applicant has submitted a development plan to remodel the existing structure at 914 South Mooney Boulevard to a permitted by-right “tea house” and other future commercial tenant spaces. The applicant/property owner has not identified any other potential tenants. The developed site, in its current configuration, cannot accommodate most uses allowed in the underlying C-MU zone as the existing paved on-site parking cannot support the parking requirements for most commercial uses based on the building square footage and number of parking stalls on-site. The existing building on the westerly parcel has been vacant and currently has parking along its Mooney Boulevard frontage, and at the rear of the building, which is accessed through an alleyway from Meadow Avenue. Once unified, the site will provide a total of 42 parking spaces, 15 of which will be needed for the Tiger Tea House business which is expected to occupy 2,192 square feet of the overall 5,850 square foot remodeled building. As depicted per Exhibit “A”,the parking stalls along the Mooney Boulevard frontage will be removed.

General Plan Consistency (Subject to Change of Zone)
As previously mentioned, the request to change the land use the proposed project is consistent with the City’sGeneral Plan as it relates to providing neighborhood specific commercial services. Land Use Element Objective LU-O-22 provides for creating inclusive compact neighborhoods with opportunities for neighborhood commercial services. Land Use Element Objective LU-O-28 encourages the promotion of pedestrian-oriented retail along transit corridors, such as Mooney Boulevard. In this case, the application of the Commercial Mixed Use designation for 5,196 square feet of the overall 15,261 square foot R-1-5 zoned parcel facilitates the remodel and revitalization of the entire site. The added amenities will benefit the surrounding neighborhood in compliance with the above objectives by retaining the pedestrian-oriented street-fronting configuration of the building in a location that is bound by commercial uses on three sides, including a primary school and junior college. In addition, the owner of the site will retain a 10,065 square foot R-1-5 zoned parcel which provides a buffer from their commercial business/site to the existing single-family residential homes to the north and east.

Furthermore, Land Use Element Policy LU-P-72 indicates that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses can be mitigated through good site planning and inclusion of appropriate operational measures. Staff concludes, based on the revised site plan accepted by the Site Plan Review Committee and the conditions of project approval, that the proposal meets the intent of this policy. Conditions of approval by the Planning Commission, together with City standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance for the Commercial Mixed Use zone and for commercial development in general, ensure that the project mitigates potential impacts between the retail building expansion and the existing residential neighborhood.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/28/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
148
File #: 22-0276 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Land Use Compatibility:

Per Figures 1 and 2 below, the project area is composed of two parcels. The westerly site contains the existing vacant building. The parcel to the east is vacant and contains decomposed gravel and has been used for over 25 years, evidenced by past aerial photos, as a parking lot despite not being developed to City standards. The Beverly Glen Subdivision is located north and east of the vacant lot, while Black Bear Diner and its associated parking lot are located north of the existing retail building. The project area is further surrounded by commercial uses to the west and south.

To reduce impacts to the surrounding residential uses, the project will include placement of a typical seven-foot-tall block wall along the portions of the project site abutting residential zones and uses, in accordance with City standards. To address lighting from the proposed parking lot, conditions related to City lighting standards in the Site Plan Review comments were added addressing lighting on the site.

The request to change the land use and zoning designation of the easternly parcel in the images above to Mixed Use Commercial will be compatible with the site and surrounding area. The two parcels on the northeast corner of Mooney Boulevard and Meadow Avenue have been under ownership of the Visalia Unified School District with a history of commercial / office uses on the site and the easternly undeveloped lot has served as a de facto parking lot, as shown in Figure 2, (2016 aerial imagery). Staff concludes the proposed request to change the land use and zoning designations to facilitate the redevelopment of the commercial site is compatible with the surrounding residential land uses.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Prior Council Action:

None.

Planning Commission Public Hearing:

The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on June 27, 2022, to consider the change of zone, general plan amendment, and a variance for building setbacks for the project site. The Planning Commission approved the variance for setbacks, based on the findings in the staff report, and concluded that the change of zone and general plan amendment warranted a recommendation of approval to the City Council to change the land use and zoning designation of the portion of the site requested by the applicant.

Specifically, the Planning Commission stated that overall project and the request to include 5,196 square feet of the overall 15,261 square foot R-1-5 zoned parcel to facilitate the remodel and revitalization of the entire site. The added amenities will benefit the surrounding neighborhood in compliance with the above objectives by retaining the pedestrian-oriented street-fronting configuration of the building in a location that is bound by commercial uses on three sides, including a primary school and junior college.

Other: N/A
Visalia City Council Printed on 7/28/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
149
File #: 22-0276 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Alternatives:

The City Council may, in lieu of the recommended motion specified above, consider any of the following alternatives:

1. Deny the Change of Zone; or

2. Refer the matter back to Planning Commission; or,

3. Continue the matter to a future City Council hearing.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to approve Resolution No. 2022-46 approving General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10; and I move to introduce for the first reading of Ordinance No. 2022-11, approving Change of Zone No. 2021-12.

Environmental Assessment Status:

Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 (Infill Projects) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CEQA Review:

The requested action is considered Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 (Infill Projects) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Categorical Exemption No. 2021-50). The exemption is appropriate as the project will not produce significant effects to noise, air, traffic, or water quality, is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations, is located on two properties totaling 35,423 sq. ft. in size with no significant habitat of note and maintains sufficient access to required utilities and public services.

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 2022-46 for General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10

2. Ordinance No. 2022-11 for Change of Zone No. 2021-12

3. Exhibit A - Site Plan

4. Exhibit B - Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 27, 2022

5. Exhibit C - Categorical Exemption No. 2021-50

6. Aerial Photo
Visalia City Council Printed on 7/28/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
150
Resolution No. 2022-46
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-46

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-10,
A REQUEST BY MING LU JIN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 5,196 SQUARE FEET OF A 15,261 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RLD) TO COMMERCIAL MIXED USE (CMU). PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST COERNER OF SOUTH MOONEY BOULEVARD AND WEST MEADOW AVENUE. ADDRESS:
914 SOUTH MOONEY BOULEVARD. (APN: 096-023-023).

WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10 is A reque st by Ming Lu Jin to change the land use designation of 5,196 square feet of a 15,261 square foot parcel from Low Density Residential (RLD) to Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). Property located on the northeast corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Meadow Av enue. Address: 914 South Mooney Boulevard. (APNs: 096-023-023); and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing for General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10 on June 27, 2022; and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia considered the General Plan Amendment in accordance with Section 17.54.060 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public heari ng, and recommended approval of said General Plan Amendment; and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia adopted Resolution No. 2021-52 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten days published notice, held a public hearing for General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10 on August 1, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia approves General Plan Amendment No. 2021 -10, as shown on Attachment “1” of this Resolution, on the real property described herein, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Sect ion 17.54.080 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, based on the following specific findings and evidence presented:

1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent wit h the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment from Low Density R esidential to Commercial Mixed Use is consistent with the original commercial use of the si te and would be appropriate for the proposed expansion of the existing com mercial building. Land Use Element Objective LU -O-22 provides for creating inclusive compac t neig hborhoods with opportunities for neighborhood commercial services while Land Us e Element Objective LU- O-28 encourages the promot ion of pede strian-oriented retai l along transit corridors .

Furthermore, the Mooney Boulevard corridor is largely designated Mixed Use Commercial and already serves as a commercial hub for the surrounding area. Application of C -MU zoning to the easternly site support s expansion of onsite improvements upon a parcel historically used as a parking lot.
151
Resolution No. 2022-46

3. That Categorical Exemption No. 2021- 50 was prepared for the project consi stent with the California Environmental Quality Act, Section No. 15332, whic h is appropriate as the project will not produce significant effects to noise, air, traffic, or water quality, is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations, is located on two properties totali ng 35,423 sq. ft. in size with no si gnificant habitat of not e, and maint ains sufficient access to required utilities and public services.

152
Resolution No. 2022-46

ATTACHMENT “1”

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AS FOLLOWS

EXISTING

PROPOSED

153
Ordinance No. 2022-11

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-11

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2021-12, A REQUEST BY MING LU JIN TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF 5,196 SQUARE FEET OF A 15,261 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL FROM R-1-5 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINMUM SITE AREA) TO C-MU (MIXED USE COMMERCIAL). THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF SOUTH MOONEY BOULEVARD AND WEST MEADOW AVENUE. (ADDRESS:
914 S. MOONEY BOULEVARD) (APN: 096-023-023).

WHEREAS, Change of Zone No. 2021-12 is a request to change the zoning designation on 5,196 square feet from R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum site area) to C-MU (Mixed Use Commercial). (APN: 096-023-023); and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing for Change of Zone No. 2021-12 on June 27, 2022; and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia considered the Change of Zone in accordance with Section 17.44.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing, and recommended approval of said General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone; and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia adopted Resolution No. 2022- 11 recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 2021-12; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten days published notice, held a public hearing for Change of Zone No. 2021-12 on August 1, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Visalia approves Change of Zone No. 2021-12, as shown on Attachment “1” of this Ordinance, on the real property described herein, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Section 17.44.090 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, based on the following specific findings and evidence presented:

1. That Change of Zone No. 2021-12 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the site, as conditioned, is consistent with the C -MU (Commercial Mixed Use) zoning designation’s development standards. The request to change the zoning designation of the easternly site to Mixed Use Commercial will be compatible with the historic use of the site and improve the surrounding area.

3. That Categorical Exem ption No. 2021- 50 was prepared for the project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, Section No. 15332, which is appropriate as the project will not produce significant effects to noise, air, traffic, or water quality, is consistent wit h the applicable general plan and zoning designations, is located on two properties totaling 35,423 sq. ft. in size with no significant habitat of note, and maintains sufficient access to required utilities and public services.
154
Ordinance No. 2022-11

ATTACHMENT “1”

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AS

FOLLOWS

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA:

Section 1: The Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:

Section 2: This property and Zoning Map of the City of Visalia is hereby amended to show said property changes.

Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after passage hereof.

EXISTING

PROPOSED
155

Exhibit “A”
156

REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION

HEARING DATE: June 27, 2022

PROJECT PLANNER: Josh Dan, Associate Planner
Phone: (559) 713-4003
E-mail: [email protected]
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10: A request by Ming Lu Jin to change the land use designation of 5,196 square feet of a 15,261 square foot parcel from Low Density Residential (RLD) to Commercial Mixed Use (CMU).

Change of Zone No. 2021-12: A request by Ming Lu Jin to change the zoning designation of 5,196 square feet of a 15,261 square foot parcel from R -1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum site area) to C -MU (Mixed Use Commercial).

Variance No. 2021- 05: A request by Ming Lu Jin for encroachment of the southwest corner of the building into the 10- foot street side yard setback along Meadow Avenue.

Location: The project is located on the northeast corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Meadow Avenue. Address: 914 South Mooney Boulevard. (APNs: 096-023-023 & 096-023-031).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10, based on the findings in Resolut ion No. 20 21-52. Staff’s recommen dation is based on the conclusion that the request is consi stent with the Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Change of Zone No. 20 21-12: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Change of Zone No. 2021-12, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2022-11. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Variance No. 2021-05: Staff recommends approval of Variance No. 2021-05, as conditioned, based on the findings and c onditions in Resolution No. 20 21-57. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend app roval of General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2021-52.

I move to recommend approval of Change of Zone No. 20 21-12, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2022-11.

I move to approve Variance No. 2021-05, based on the findings and condit ions in Resolution No. 2021-57.

157

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM MAY 23, 2022
The Planning Commission conducted two public hearings on April 25, 2022, and May 23, 2022, for General Plan Amendment No. 202 1-10, Chang e of Zone No. 2021- 12, and Variance 2021-05 (Tiger Tea House). During the April 25th meeting, the applicant requested the Planning Commission continue the item so that a redesign could be explored of the site based on comments received during the public hearing. The Planning Commission granted the continuance to a date certain and continued the public hearing for this item to the May 23rd meeting. Staff prepared a revised staff report that identified the revisions to the site plan exhibit that incorporated a new layout to the s ite to address comments received from the neighborhood. However, on the evening of the May 23rd meeting, sta ff received an email from the applicant ’s representative requesting that th e Planning Commission continue the scheduled item to the June 27, 2022, Planning Commission meeting date. The applicant requested th e continuat ion to sub mit a further revised site plan exhibit to the Site Plan Review Co mmittee for review and comment . After taking public testimony , the Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue the item to the June 27, 2022, meeting date.

Revised Project Submittal
The applicant has since submitted the r evised site plan to the Site Plan Review Committee for the June 1, 2022, meeting and received staff comments . The revised site p lan exhibit has been added to th is report packe t as Exhibit “A” and t he associated resolutions have been revised to appropriately address the changes to the proposed site development.

In addition, t he project was re- noticed in the newspaper , by mail ( 300-foot mailing radius) and the revised site plan and public hearing not ice was emailed to persons in the Beverly Glenn neighborhood who have reached out to staff.

REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan to remo del the existing structure at 914 South Mooney Boulevard, which was occupied by a bookstore and other various commercial businesses, to a permitted by-right tea house and future retail/restaurant commercial spaces. Only one tenant, “The Tiger Tea H ouse” has been currently identified.

The existing building, in previous subm ittals, was detailed to measure 7,412 square feet; however, the revised site plan now depicts a porti on of the existing building to be demolished. The easternly wing of the building will be removed , while add itional building area will be construc ted along the westerly Mooney Boulevard frontage. The request will reduce the bui lding square footage from 7,412 square feet to 5,85 0 square feet. T he new building and site configuration will p rovide the necessary parking field required for the proposed and future uses (see Exhibit “A”). Parking requirements are further analyzed in the parking section of this report.

The revised site plan (see Exhibit “A”) has an inset “operational statement” which describes that the tea house will occupy 2,192 square feet of the overall 5,850 square foot building.

The applicant has not identified end users for the remaining 3,658 square feet of building area.

The developed site, in its current configuration, cannot accommodate most uses allowed in the underlying C-MU zone as the existing paved on-site parking cannot support the parking requirements for most commercial uses based on the bu ilding square footage and number of parking stalls on-site. The applicant, through the Site Plan Review process, expressed interest in facilitating a cohesive re development of this site by incor porating the vacant undeveloped site located to the east of the buil ding to provide additional parking consistent 158

with City standards. The development plan, as proposed and shown in the revised site plan (Exhibit “A”) and in the image below, would provide for the following:

1. A remodel of the building (expanding the footpr int westward toward Mooney Blvd.) and decreasing the building square foot age from 7,412 to 5,850 square feet.

2. Encroachment of the expanded building measuring 198 square feet approximately 5-feet into the 10- foot side yard setback along M eadow Avenue (Variance required).

3. Vacation of the existing a lleyway (as required per Condition No. 6 of Variance No. 2021-05).

4. Improvements to 5,196 square feet of a 15,261 square foot vacan t R-1-5 zoned parcel located to the east of the commer cial site to facilitate a parking lo t for the proposed uses. The parking lot improvements on the vacant R-1-5 zoned parcel requires a general plan amendment and change of zone red esignating 5,196 square feet of the overall 15,261 square f oot parcel from the R-1-5 zone designation to a C-MU (Commercial Mixed Use) zone designation.

5. Landscaping improvements along both frontages and within the interior.

The existing commercial building on the westerly parcel has been vacant and currently has parking along its Mooney Boulevard frontage, and at the rear of the building, which is accessed through an alleyway from Meadow Avenue. The alleyway bisects the two parcels, and the applicant is currently undergoing a separate process to have the alleyway vacated.

The vacation of the alleyway is being processed w ith the C ommunity Development Engineering Division. Vacation of the alleyway is expect ed to revert equal amounts of site area to each adjoining parcel. Should the General Plan Amendment and C hange of Zone be approved by the City Coun cil, a Lot Line Adjustment is required and shall be perfected 159

to facilitate the additional 5,196 square feet of C-MU land area to the westerly parcel. The Lot Line Adj ustment is required per Condition No. 7 f or Variance N o. 2021-05. Once unified, the site will provide a total of 39 parking spaces, 15 of which will be needed for the Tiger T ea House business which is expected to occupy 2,192 square feet of the overall 5,850 square foot remodeled building’s floor area. The identified use is consistent with a café and is ident ified in the zoning use m atrix as permitted “by-right”. Any future proposed uses to the sit e will require further review by the Site Plan Review Committe e for compliance with the municipal code’s zone use matrix for compatibility and parking.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use
Existing Designation:

Commercial Mixed Use, Low Density Residential
Proposed Designation: Commercial Mixed Use
Zoning
Existing Designation:

C-MU (Mixed Use C ommercial), R-1-5 (Single-Family
Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size)
Proposed Designation: C-MU (Mixed Use Commercial)

Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:

North:

C-MU, R-1-5 (Mixed Use Commercial, Single-
Family Residential) . / Black Bear Diner ,
single-family residence.

South: C-MU, Q -P (Mixe d U se Commercial, Qu asi-
Public) / W. Meadow Ave. , former Payless
Shoes, V isalia Char ter Independent Study
educational facility.

East: R-1-5 (Si ngle F amily Residential) / Single-
family residence
West: Q-P (Quasi-Public) / College of the Sequoias.

Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption No. 2021-50 Special Districts: N/A
Site Plan Review No: SPR No. 2021-136 & 2022-091

RELATED PROJECTS
There are no related projects.

PROJECT EVALUATION
Staff recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, and Variance, as conditioned. Staff concludes that the project’s revitalization of both an exi sting d eveloped commercial site and a vacant lot is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the entitl ements will allow f or an alternative land use plan on the undeveloped parcel that allow s for a lo w-intensity transitional use between existing commercial and residential buildings, based on the revised site plan submitted to the City.

General Plan Consistency
160

Figure 2
Figure 1
Staff concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan as it relates to providing neighborhood specific commercial services. Land Use Element Objective LU-O-22 provides for creating inclus ive compact neighborhoods with o pportunities f or neighborhood commercial services. Land Use Element Obj ective LU -O-28 encourages t he promotion of pedestrian-oriented retail along transit corrid ors, such as Mooney Boulevard. In this cas e, the application of the Commercial Mixed Use designation for 5,196 square feet of the overall 15,261 square foot R -1-5 zoned parcel facilitates the remodel and revitalization of th e entire site. The added amenities will benefit the surrounding neighborhood in compliance with the above objectives by retaining the pedes trian-oriented street-fronting configuration of the building in a location that is bou nd by commercial uses on three sides, including a primary school and junior college. In addition, the owner of the site will retain a 10,065 square foot R -1-5 zoned parcel which provides a bu ffer f rom t heir commercial business/site to the e xisting si ngle-family residential homes to the north and east.

Furthermore, Land Use Element Policy LU-P-72 indicates that noise, traffic , and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of com mercial and residential uses c an be mitigated through good site planning and inclusion of app ropriate operational measures. Staff concludes, based on the revised site plan accepted by the Site Plan Review Committee and the conditions of project approval , that the proposal meets the intent of this policy. Conditions included for the Planning Commission’ s consideration, together with City standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance for the Commercial Mixed U se zone and for c ommercial development in general , ensure that the project mitigates potential impacts between the retail building expansion and the existing residential neighborhood. This is discussed in greater detail in the sections below.

Land Use Compatibility
Per Figure s 1 and 2 below, t he project area i s composed of two parcels . The westerly site contains the existing vacant building, formerly occupied with a bookstore and other commercial businesses. The parcel to the east is vacant and contains decomposed grav el and has been used for over 25 years, evi denced by past aerial photos, as a n unpermitted parking lot. The Beverly Glen Subdivision is located north and east of the vacant lot, while Black Bear Diner and its associated parking lot are located north of the existing commercial building. The project area is further surrounded by commercial uses to the west and south.

To reduce impacts to the surrounding r esidential uses, t he project will include placement of a typical seven-foot-tall block wall along the portions of the p roject site abutting residential zones and uses, in accordance with City standards. To address lighting from the proposed parking lot, staff has included City lighting standards in the S ite Plan Review comments and has added various conditions addressing lighting on the site, further explained in the lighting section of the report below.
161

The request to change the land use and zoning designation on a portion of the easternly parcel in the images above to Mixed Use Commercial will be compatible with the site and surrounding area. The two parcels on the northeast corner of Mooney Boulevard and Meadow Avenue have been under ownership of the Visalia Unified School District with a history of commercial / office uses on the site and the easternly undeveloped lot has s erved as a de facto parking lot, as shown in Figure 2, (2016 aerial imagery). Staff concludes the proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible with the surrounding residential land uses.

Access / Circulation / Infrastructure
Currently, the existing buil ding contains seven nonconforming parking stalls along the Mooney Boulevard frontage and approximately 18 paved stalls behind the b uilding a ccessed from an improved alley from Meadow Avenue. In response to comments received by Caltrans and staff during the Site Plan Review process, the applicant was informed that redevelopment of the site requires removal of the nonconforming and unsafe parking stalls along the Moo ney Boulevard frontage. The removal of t hese nonconforming parking spaces, which permi ts vehicles to bac k at onto Mooney Boulevard (State Route 63) provides the basis for staff’s support of the General Plan Amendment and associated Change of Zone for the proposed parking lot on the vacant parcel. To facilitate a unified development between the buil ding and proposed parking lot, the applicant is required to summary vacate the alleyway and reconfigure the two existing approaches along Meadow Avenue for access onto the site (shown in Exhibit “A”).

Furthermore, the developer will add additional landscaping across the M eadow frontage, landscaping improvements alon g the north side of t he building, and provide a seven-foot block wall to better separate the parking area from the neighboring residential uses to the north and east. Removal of the drive approach and parking stalls along the Mooney Boulevard frontage will reduce conflicting traffic patterns of vehicles backing onto a heavily traveled state route.

The applicant is currently working wit h the Community Development Engineering Divis ion to vacate the alleyway located bet ween both parcels. A lot line adj ustment of the tw o parcels, following the alleyway vacation, is required per Variance Condition of Approval No. 7 should the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone be approved by the City Council.

Parking
The Site Plan (see Exhibit “A”) depicts a total of 39 parking spaces. The only identified use by the applicant is a tea house with a floor area of 2, 192 square feet. Zoning Ordinanc e Section

17.34.020(E)(10) prescribes park ing for restaurants, cafes, soda fountains and s imilar establishments as one parking space for each one hundred fift y (150) square feet of building area. As such, the identified use requires a total of fifteen (15) parking spaces. The remainder of the 24 parking stalls on-site are considered sufficient for the remaining 3,658 square feet of the building area, should it be a ssessed at the general retail store rate of one parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of build ing area. Future uses to the site shall re quire review by the Site Plan Review Committee for consistency with City standards, including zoning and parking requi rements. All parking stalls will be required t o comply with City standards for design, as stated per Condition of Approval Nos. 1 and 2.

Lighting
The exhibits provided by the applicant do not illustrate or detail any on site lighting. Variance Condition of Approval No. 3 requires that no illuminated wall signage directed toward residential uses be permitted. In addition, Variance Conditions of Approval Nos. 4 and 5 require that any onsite lighting shall not produce or exceed 0.5 lumens along p roperty lines , and that the applicant add lighting in the construction plans should they request use of lighting the parking lot area. Furthermore, Condition No. 5 includes language that if parking lot lights are added to the site, prior to occupancy of any tenant space in the commercial building, the applicant/developer 162

shall conduct, with City staff verif ication, that the on -site lighting installed for t his development complies with and shall not exceed 0.5 lumens at the property lines.

Variance Findings
The Planning C ommission is required to make five findings before a v ariance can be granted.

The applicant has provided response to the variance findings and staff has included the analysis for each finding below. The applicant’s responses to the variance findings are also included in Exhibit “D”.

1. That strict or literal interpretation and e nforcement of the specified regulation would resu lt in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance;
Applicant’s Findings:
• The existing building was built in the late 1950’s or early 1960’ s and encr oaches into the 1 0-foot building setback along Meadow Lane up to the property line. When this building was built there w ere no setbacks required and to adhere to the curr ent setbacks w ould be an unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance.

Staff Analysis:

The portion of the building remodel that is expected to encr oach into the streetside side yard setback along W est Meadow Avenue will not encroach any further than the existing building envelope along the southern frontage. This will result in 198 square f eet encroaching into this setback area. Additionally, the City Traffic Engineer has determined that the addition will not affect the sight visibility triangle on the northeast corner of Mooney Boulevard and Meadow Avenue.

2. That there ar e exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicabl e to the property involv ed or to the intend ed us e of the property which do not apply generally t o other properties classified in the same zone;
Applicant’s Findings:
• As the existing building was built in the late 1950’s or early 1960’s and encroaches into the setback along Meadow Lane up to the p roperty line, is an exceptional condition that other parcels in this zone generally do not have. We are p roposing to c ontinue the existing building line on the Southwest corner of the project which is ±5’ into the setback to the building corner. When this building was built there were no setbacks required.

Staff Analysis:

Staff c oncurs with the applicant that the e xisting building likely complied with t he requirements of the time when it was constructed, and minimal encroachment is consistent with many other parcels along M ooney Boulevard that do not m eet building / landscape setbacks. Additionally, removal of parking along the Mooney Boulevard frontage will provide 15- 20-foot open area from the Mooney Boulevard frontage to be landscaped.

3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties cl assified in the same zone;
Applicant’s Findings:
• Due to the existing bui lding’s loca tion wit hin the current building setback , the strict interpretation and enforcement of the building setback would depr ive the applicant of 163

privileges enjoyed by other property owners. The existing building is ±38’ back from the property line along Mooney Boulevard over 23’ further back than others allowed in this zone. Other sites have superior visibility and the small encroachment into the side yard setback helps offset this locations front yard disadvantage.

Staff Analysis:

Staff concurs with the applicant. The current building on site currently encroaches into the 10-foot street side yard setback. The requested encroachment is minimal in relation, and the proposed remodel to the building will not extend beyond the exiting building envelope along the West Meadow Avenue frontage.

4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone; Applicant’s Findings:
• Our existing building line, which we pro pose to match, extends 5’ int o the current setback. This is the sam e distance as the building on the South side of Meadow Lane.

The granting of the variance wi ll not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone.

Staff Analysis:

Staff concurs with the applicant. There are a large number of properties located along the Mooney Boulevard corridor which cont ain reduced or no nexistent landscape setbacks along their front yard and side yard setbacks and along their street f rontages. The project proposal will still result in la ndscape setbacks that are greater than other properties in the same zone along the Mooney Boulevard corridor.

5. That the granting of the variance w ill no t be detri mental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

Applicant’s Findings:
• As this is only a r eduction in the bui lding setback along Mead ow Lane and does not encroach into t he sit e visibility of the corner, there will be no detriment to the public health, saf ety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in t he vicinity.

Staff Analysis:

Staff concurs with the applicant. The variance will not be detrim ental to the public as the variance will still provide adequate setback of the building along the Mooney Boulevard and Meadow Avenue frontages not affecting the sight visibility triangle on the no rtheast corner. Even with the proposed variance, the proposed setb acks will be greater than what exists on many sites along the Mooney Boulevard corridor at present.

Environmental Review
The requested action is considered Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 (Infill Projects) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the C alifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Categorical Exemption No. 20 21-50). The exempti on is appropriate as the project will not produce significant effects to n oise, air, traffic, or water qual ity, is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations, is located on two properties totaling 35,423 sq. ft. in size with no significant habitat of note and maintains sufficient access to required utili ties and public services.

164

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10

1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent wit h the goals, objectiv es, and policies of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the publi c health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment from Low Density R esidential to Commerc ial Mixed Use is consistent with the original commercial use of the si te and would be appropriate for the proposed expansio n of t he existing commercial building. Land Use Element Objec tive LU -O-22 provides for creating inclusive compac t neig hborhoods with opportunities for neighborhood commercial services while Land Us e Element Objective LU- O-28 encourages th e promotion of ped estrian-oriented retail along transit corridors .

Furthermore, the Mooney Boulevard corridor is largely designated Mi xed Use Commercial and alr eady serves as a commercial hub for the surrounding area. Applic ation of C -MU zoning to the easternly site support s expansion o f onsite i mprovements upon a parcel historically used as a parking lot.

3. That Categorical Exemption No. 20 21-50 was prepared for the project consi stent with the California Environmental Quality Act, Section No. 15332, which is appropriate as t he project will not produce significant effects to n oise, air, traffic, or water quality, is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations, is located on two properties totaling 35,423 sq. ft. in size with no signifi cant habitat of no te, and maint ains sufficient access to required utilities and public services.

Change of Zone No. 2021-12

1. That Change of Z one No. 20 21-12 is c onsistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the site, as conditioned, is consistent with the C-MU (Commercial Mixed Use) zoning designation’s development standards. The request to change the zoning designa tion of the easternly site to Mixed Use Commercial will be co mpatible with the historic use of the site and improve the surrounding area.

3. That Categorical Exe mption No. 20 21-50 was prepared for the project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, Section No. 15332, which is appropriate as the proje ct will not produce significant effects to noise, air, traffic, or water quality, is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations, is located on two properties totaling 35,423 sq. ft. in size with no significant habitat of n ote, and maintains sufficient access t o required utilities and public services.

Variance No. 2021-05

The portion of the building remodel that is expected to encroach into the streetside side yard setback along West Meadow Avenue will not encroach any further than the existing building envelope along the southern frontage. This will result in 136 square feet encroaching into the setback area. Additionally, the City Traffic Engineer has determined that the addition will not 165

affect the sight visibility triangle on the northeast corner of Mooney B oulevard and Meadow Avenue.

Staff c oncurs with the applicant that the existing building likely complied with t he requirements of the time when it was constructed, and minimal encroachment is consistent with many other parcels along M ooney Boulevard that do not meet build ing / landscape setbacks. Additionally, removal of parking along the Mooney Boulevard frontage will provide at least a 23-foot open area from the Mooney Boulevard frontage to be landscaped and used by the tea house’s covered patio.

The current building on site currently encroaches into the 10- foot street side yard setba ck.

The requested encroachmen t is minimal in relation, and the proposed re model t o the building will not extend beyond the exiting building env elope along the W est Meadow Avenue frontage.

4. That the granting of the variance wi ll not constitute a gr ant of speci al privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone.

There are a large n umber of properties located along the Mooney Boulevard corridor which contain reduced or no nexistent landscape setbacks al ong their front yard and side yard setbacks and along their street f rontages. The project proposal will still result in la ndscape setbacks that are g reater than other properties in the same zone along the Mooney Boulevard corridor.

5. That the grant ing of the var iance will not be detrimental to the publ ic health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

The variance will not be detrimental to the public as the variance will still provide adequate setback of the buildin g along the Mooney Boulevard and Meado w Avenue frontages not affecting the sight visibility triangle on the northeast corner. Even with the proposed variance, the pro posed setbacks w ill be greater than what exists on many sites along the Mooney Boulevard corridor at present.

6. That the project i s considered Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the Guidelines for Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Categorical Exemption No.2021-50).

166

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10 and Change of Zone No. 2021-12 There are no recom mended conditions f or the General Plan Amendment or the Change of Zone.

Variance No. 2021-05

1. That the project be developed in substantial complia nce an d be consistent with the comments of Site Plan Review No. 2021-136 and 2022-091.

2. That the project be developed in substantial compliance with the revised Site Plan in Exhibit “A”.

3. That illuminated wall signage directed toward residential uses shall be prohibited.

4. That any onsite lighting shall incorporate lighting shields to deflect light away from abut ting residential sites so as to not cause glare.

5. Prior t o occupancy of the development, the applicant/ developer shall demons trate to the satisfaction of City staff that all on-site lighting installed shall not exceed the lumen intensity limit of 0.5 lumens a t the property lines . Prior to occupancy and/or operat ion of any tenant space within the commercial building, the applicant/developer shall conduct, with Community Development staff verification , that the on -site lighting installed for this development complies with and shall not exceed 0.5 lumens at the property lines.

6. That the applicant shall file the necessary applications and payment to initiate the request to vacate the al leyway. The vacation of the all eyway shall be recorded and perfected prior to building permit final.

7. That after completion of the alleyway summary vacation a Lot Li ne Adjustment shall be approved and recor ded to merge the two project sites int o one parcel prior to occupancy of the remodeled and expanded building.

8. That the applicant submit landscaping plans demonstrating compliance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) standards through the building permit process.

9. That Variance No. 2021- 05 shall be null and void unless G eneral Plan Amendme nt No. 2021-10 and Change of Zone No. 2021-12 are both approved by the Visalia City Council.

10. That the applicant shall coordinate with Calt rans to acqui re any necessary encroachment permits for any work done along the State Right-of-Way.

11. That all other federal, state, regional , and county laws and city c odes and ordinances be complied with.
167

APPEAL INFORMATION
General Plan and Change of Zone
The Planning Commission’s dec isions on these mat ters are advisory only. T he final decisions will be by the Visalia City Council a fter one or more public hearings. Therefore, th e Planning Commission’s decisions in these matters are not appealable.

Variance
According to the City of Vi salia Zoning Ordinanc e Section 17.02.145, an appeal to the C ity Council may be s ubmitted within ten d ays foll owing the date of a decision by the Plan ning Commission. An appeal with applicable fees shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 N. Santa Fe Street. The appeal shall specify errors or abuses of discretion by the Planning Commission, o r decisions not supported by the ev idence in th e rec ord. The appeal form can be found on the city’s website www.visalia.city or from the City Clerk.

Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2021-52 – General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10 • Resolution No. 2022-11 – Change of Zone No. 2021-12
• Resolution No. 2021-57 – Variance No. 2021-05
• Exhibit “A” – Site Plan
• Exhibit “B” – Floor Plan
• Exhibit “C” – Elevations
• Exhibit “D” – Variance Findings
• Environmental Document No. 2021-50
• Site Plan Review Comments No. 2021-136 & 2022-091
• General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map
168

RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
General Plan and Zoning: The following General Pla n and Zoning Ordinance objectives and policies apply to the proposed project:

General Plan
LU-O-22 Provide for creating incl usive c ompact neighborhoods with opportunities for neighborhood commercial services.

LU-O-28 Promote pedestrian- oriented r etail and mixed use development along transit corridor s, in neighborhood nodes, and in Downtown and East Downtown.

LU-P-67 Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Neighborhood Commercial designation on the Land Use Diag ram, i ntended for small -scale comm ercial development that primarily serves surrounding r esidential areas, wherein small o ffice uses as well as horizontal or vertical residential mixed use are also s upported. Provide standards to ensure that neighborhood commercial uses are econom ically-viable and also integrated into neighborhoods, wi th multimodal access and context-sensitive design.

Neighborhood Commercial development shall be subject to design revi ew and public input. If residential uses are included, densit y should be 10 to 15 dwelling u nits per gross acre.

Shopping centers in Neighborhood Commercial areas shall have the following characteristics:
• Anchored by a grocery store or similar business offering fresh produce, poultry, fish and meat;
• Include smaller in-line stores of less than 10,000 square feet; • Total size of 5 to 12 acres or as shown on the Land Use Diagram; and • Integrated with surrounding neighborhood uses in terms of design, with negative impacts minimized.
• Located no closer than one mile from other General Plan-designated Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial locations, or from existing grocery stores. • No individual tenant shall be larger than 40,000 square feet in size.

Standards for Neighborhood Commercial development also shall require design measures that create a walkable environment and require local street and pedestrian connections. Alterations and additions in existing nonconforming centers may be permitted, subject to design review and conditions of approval to minimize neighborhood impacts.

LU-P-72 Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, buildi ng design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
___________________________________________________________________________________

COMMERCIAL ZONES
Chapter 17.18

17.18.010 Purpose and intent.

A. The several types of commercial zones included in this chapter are designed to achieve the following:
169

1. Provide appropriate areas for various types of retail stores, offices, service establishments and wholesale businesses to be concentrated for the convenience of the public; and to be located and grouped on sites that are in logical proximity to the respective geographical areas and respective categories of patrons that they serve in a manner consistent with the general plan;

2. Maintain and improve Visalia's retail base to serve the needs of local residents and encourage shoppers from outside the community;

3. Accommodate a variety of commercial activities to encourage new and existing business that will employ residents of the city and those of adjacent communities;

4. Maintain Visalia's role as the regional retailing center for Tulare and Kings Counties and ensure the continued viability of the existing commercial areas;

5. Maintain commercial land uses that are responsive to the needs of shoppers, maximizing accessibility and minimizing trip length;

6. Ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses.

B. The purposes of the individual commercial zones are as follows:

1. Neighborhood Commercial Zone (C-N). The purpose and intent of the neighborhood commercial zone district is to provide for small-scale commercial development that primarily serves surrounding residential areas, wherein small office uses as well as horizontal or vertical residential mixed use are also supported, and provide standards to ensure that neighborhood commercial uses are economically viable and also integrated into neighborhoods in terms of design, with negative impacts minimized, with multimodal access, and context-sensitive design. Neighborhood Commercial development shall be subject to design review and public input. There should be 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre where residential uses are included. Shopping centers shall be of a total size of 5 to 12 acres and located no closer than one mile from other General Plan designated Neighborhood Commercial locations, or from existing grocery stores, anchored by a grocery store or similar business no larger than 40,000 square feet in size, and include smaller in-line stores of less than 10,000 square feet. Alterations and additions in existing nonconforming centers may be permitted, subject to design review and conditions of approval to minimize neighborhood impacts.

2. Regional Commercial Zone (C-R). The purpose and intent of the regional commercial zone district is to provide areas for retail establishments that are designed to serve a regional service trade area. The uses permitted in this district are to be of a large-scale regional retail nature with supporting goods and services. Uses that are designed to provide service to residential areas and convenience, neighborhood and community level retail are not permitted, while office uses are to be limited.

1. Service Commercial Zone (C-S). The purpose and intent of the planned service commercial zone district is to provide areas that accommodate wholesale, heavy commercial uses, such as lumberyards and construction material retail uses, etc., and services such as automotive, plumbing, and sheet metal fabrication. It is intended that uses in this district be those that can be compatible with heavy truck traffic and noise. Uses that would restrict the operation of generally permitted heavy commercial businesses are not provided in this district. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7310

17.18.015 Applicability.

The requirements in this chapter shall apply to all property within the C-N, C-R, and C-S zone districts. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017)

17.18.020 Permitted uses.

Permitted uses in the C-N, C-R, and C-S zones shall be determined by Table 17.25.030 in Section

17.25.030. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017; Ord. 2016-06, 2016; Ord. 2015-04 § 2, 2015; Ord. 2015-01 § 2, 2015; Ord. 2014-07 § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 2012-10, 2012; Ord. 2012-08, 2012; Ord. 2012-02, 2012; Ord. 2011-07 § 2, 2011; Ord. 2010-16, 2010; Ord. 2009-02, 2009; Ord. 2006-17, 2006; Res. 2004-75 (part), 2004; Ord. 2004-08 § 3, 2004; Res. 2004-14 (part), 2004; Res. 2003-95 (part), 2003; Res. 2002-83, 2002; Res. 2002-26, 2002; Res. 2001-40, 2001; Res. 2001-29, 2001; Ord. 2000-01 § 6, 2000; Ord. 9903 § 3, 1999; Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997; amended by council August 13, 1997; amended by council June 3, 1996 and May 20, 1996: prior code § 7328)

17.18.030 Conditional and temporary uses.

Conditional and temporary uses in the C-N, C-R, and C-S zones shall be determined by Table

17.25.030 in Section 17.25.030. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2016-06, 2016; Ord. 2015-04 § 2, 170

2015; Ord. 2015-01 § 2, 2015; Ord. 2014-07 § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 2012-10, 2012; Ord. 2012-08, 2012; Ord. 2012-02, 2012; Ord. 2011-07 § 2, 2011; Ord. 2010-16, 2010; Ord. 2009-02, 2009; Ord. 2006-17, 2006; Res. 2004-75 (part), 2004; Ord. 2004-08 § 3, 2004; Res. 2004-14 (part), 2004; Res. 2003-95 (part), 2003; Res. 2002-83, 2002; Res. 2002-26, 2002; Res. 2001-40, 2001; Res. 2001-29, 2001; Ord. 2000-01 § 6, 2000; Ord. 9903 § 3, 1999; Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997; amended by council August 13, 1997; amended by council June 3, 1996 and May 20, 1996: prior code § 7328)

17.18.040 Required conditions.

A. A site plan review permit must be obtained for all development in all C-N, C-S, and C-R zones, subject to the requirements and procedures in Chapter 17.28.

B. All businesses, services and processes shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading areas, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining areas, nurseries, garden shops, Christmas tree sales lots, bus depots and transit stations, electric distribution substation, and recycling facilities;
C. All products produced on the site of any of the permitted uses shall be sold primarily at retail on the site where produced;
D. All new construction in existing C-N zones not a part of a previously approved planned development shall conform with development standards determined by the site plan review committee. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7319)

17.18.050 Off-street parking and loading facilities.

Off-street parking and off-street loading facilities shall be provided as prescribed in Chapter 17.34. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7325)

17.18.060 Development standards in the C-N zone.

The following development standards shall apply to property located in the C-N zone:

A. Minimum site area: five (5) acres.

B. Maximum building height: fifty (50) feet.

C. Minimum required yards (building setbacks):

1. Front: fifteen (15) feet;

2. Rear: zero (0) feet;

3. Rear yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: fifteen (15) feet;

4. Side: zero (0) feet;

5. Side yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: fifteen (15) feet;

6. Street side yard on corner lot: ten (10) feet.

D. Minimum required landscaped yard (setback) areas:

1. Front: fifteen (15) feet;

2. Rear: five (5) feet (except where a building is located on side property line);

3. Rear yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: five (5) feet;

4. Side: five (5) feet (except where a building is located on side property line);

5. Side yards abutting an R-1 or R-M zone district: five (5) feet;

6. Street side on corner lot: ten (10) feet. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017) ___________________________________________________________________________________

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
(Chapter 17.12)

Article 1. General

17.12.010 Purpose and intent.

In the R-1 single-family residential zones (R-1-5, R-1-12.5, and R-1-20), the purpose and intent is to provide living area within the city where development is limited to low density concentrations of one- family dwellings where regulations are designed to accomplish the following: to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life; to provide space for community facilities needed to compliment urban residential areas and for institutions that require a residential environment; to minimize traffic 171

congestion and to avoid an overload of utilities designed to service only low density residential use. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7270)

17.12.015 Applicability.

The requirements in this chapter shall apply to all property within R-1 zone districts. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017)

17.12.020 Permitted uses.

In the R-1 single-family residential zones, the following uses shall be permitted by right:

A. One-family dwellings;
B. Raising of fruit and nut trees, vegetables and horticultural specialties; C. Accessory structures located on the same site with a permitted use including private garages and carports, one guest house, storehouses, garden structures, green houses, recreation room and hobby shops;
D. Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests; provided, that no swimming pool or accessory mechanical equipment shall be located in a required front yard or in a required side yard;
E. Temporary subdivision sales offices;
F. Licensed day care for a maximum of fourteen (14) children in addition to the residing family; G. Twenty-four (24) hour residential care facilities or foster homes, for a maximum of six individuals in addition to the residing family;
H. Signs subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.48;
I. The keeping of household pets, subject to the definition of household pets set forth in Section

17.04.030;
J. Accessory dwelling units as specified in Sections 17.12.140 through 17.12.200; K. Adult day care up to twelve (12) persons in addition to the residing family; L. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner; M. Legally existing multiple family units, and expansion or reconstruction as provided in Section

17.12.070;
N. Transitional or supportive housing as defined by California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.2(h) and 53260(c);
O. In the R-1-20 zone only, the breeding, hatching, raising and fattening of birds, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters, other small animals and fowl, on a domestic noncommercial scale, provided that there shall not be less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of site area for each fowl or animal and provided that no structure housing poultry or small animals shall be closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line, closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any dwelling on the site, or closer than fifty (50) feet to any other dwelling;
P. In the R-1-20 zone only, the raising of livestock, except pigs of any kind, subject to the exception of not more than two cows, two horses, four sheep or four goats for each site, shall be permitted; provided, that there be no limitation on the number of livestock permitted on a site with an area of ten acres or more and provided that no stable be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any dwelling on the site or closer than one hundred (100) feet to any other dwelling.
(Ord. 2017-13 (part), 2017: Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2012-02, 2012: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997:

Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7271)

17.12.030 Accessory uses.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, the following accessory uses shall be permitted, subject to specified provisions:

A. Home occupations subject to the provisions of Section 17.32.030; B. Accessory buildings subject to the provisions of Section 17.12.100(B).

C. Cottage Food Operations subject to the provisions of Health and Safety Code 113758 and Section

17.32.035. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7272)

17.12.040 Conditional uses.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, the following conditional uses may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.38:
172

A. Planned development subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.26; B. Public and quasi-public uses of an educational or religious type including public and parochial elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools and colleges; nursery schools, licensed day care facilities for more than fourteen (14) children; churches, parsonages and other religious institutions; C. Public and private charitable institutions, general hospitals, sanitariums, nursing and convalescent homes; not including specialized hospitals, sanitariums, or nursing, rest and convalescent homes including care for acute psychiatric, drug addiction or alcoholism cases; D. Public uses of an administrative, recreational, public service or cultural type including city, county, state or federal administrative centers and courts, libraries, museums, art galleries, police and fire stations, ambulance service and other public building, structures and facilities; public playgrounds, parks and community centers;
E. Electric distribution substations;
F. Gas regulator stations;
G. Public service pumping stations, i.e., community water service wells; H. Communications equipment buildings;
I. Planned neighborhood commercial center subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.26; J. Residential development specifically designed for senior housing; K. Mobile home parks in conformance with Section 17.32.040; L. [Reserved.]
M. Residential developments utilizing private streets in which the net lot area (lot area not including street area) meets or exceeds the site area prescribed by this article and in which the private streets are designed and constructed to meet or exceed public street standards; N. Adult day care in excess of twelve (12) persons;
O. Duplexes on corner lots;
P. Twenty-four (24) hour residential care facilities or foster homes for more than six individuals in addition to the residing family;
Q. Residential structures and accessory buildings totaling more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet;
R. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner. (Ord. 2017-13 (part), 2017: Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2012-02, 2012: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: Ord. 2000-02 § 1 (part), 2000; amended during 10/97 supplement: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7273)

17.12.050 Site area.

The minimum site area shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Site Area
R-1-5 5,000 square feet
R-1-12.5 12,500 square feet
R-1-20 20,000 square feet
A. Each site shall have not less than forty (40) feet of frontage on the public street. The minimum width shall be as follows:

Zone Interior Lot Corner Lot
R-1-5 50 feet 60 feet
R-1-12.5 90 feet 100 feet
R-1-20 100 feet 110 feet
B. Minimum width for corner lot on a side on cul-de-sac shall be eighty (80) feet, when there is no landscape lot between the corner lot and the right of way. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7274)

17.12.060 One dwelling unit per site.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on each site, with the exception to Section 17.12.020(J). (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7275)

173

17.12.070 Replacement and expansion of legally existing multiple family units.

In accordance with Section 17.12.020 legally existing multiple family units may be expanded or replaced if destroyed by fire or other disaster subject to the following criteria:

A. A site plan review permit as provided in Chapter 17.28 is required for all expansions or replacements.

B. Replacement/expansion of unit(s) shall be designed and constructed in an architectural style compatible with the existing single-family units in the neighborhood. Review of elevations for replacement/expansion shall occur through the site plan review process. Appeals to architectural requirements of the site plan review committee shall be subject to the appeals process set forth in Section 17.28.050.

C. Setbacks and related development standards shall be consistent with existing single-family units in the neighborhood.

D. Parking requirements set forth in Section 17.34.020 and landscaping requirements shall meet current city standards and shall apply to the entire site(s), not just the replacement unit(s) or expanded area, which may result in the reduction of the number of units on the site.

E. The number of multiple family units on the site shall not be increased.

F. All rights established under Sections 17.12.020 and 17.12.070 shall be null and void one hundred eighty (180) days after the date that the unit(s) are destroyed (or rendered uninhabitable), unless a building permit has been obtained and diligent pursuit of construction has commenced. The approval of a site plan review permit does not constitute compliance with this requirement. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017:

Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7276)

17.12.080 Front yard.

A. The minimum front yard shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Front Yard
R-1-5 Fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty-two (22) feet for front- loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cochere. A Porte Cochere with less than twenty-two (22) feet of setback from property line shall not be counted as covered parking, and garages on such sites shall not be the subject of a garage conversion.

R-1-12.5 Thirty (30) feet
R-1-20 Thirty-five (35) feet
B. On a site situated between sites improved with buildings, the minimum front yard may be the average depth of the front yards on the improved site adjoining the side lines of the site but need not exceed the minimum front yard specified above.

C. On cul-de-sac and knuckle lots with a front lot line of which all or a portion is curvilinear, the front yard setback shall be no less than fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty (20) feet for front-loading garages. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2004-20 (part), 2004: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7277)

17.12.090 Side yards.

A. The minimum side yard shall be five feet in the R-1-5 and R-1-12.5 zone subject to the exception that on the street side of a corner lot the side yard shall be not less than ten feet and twenty-two (22) feet for front loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cocheres.

B. The minimum side yard shall be ten feet in the R-1-20 zone subject to the exception that on the street side of a corner lot the side yard shall be not less than twenty (20) feet.

C. On a reversed corner lot the side yard adjoining the street shall be not less than ten feet.

D. On corner lots, all front-loading garage doors or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cochere, shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet from the nearest public improvement or sidewalk. A porte cochere with less than twenty- two (22) feet of setback from property line shall not be counted as covered parking, and garages on such sites shall not be the subject of a garage conversion.

E. Side yard requirements may be zero feet on one side of a lot if two or more consecutive lots are approved for a zero lot line development by the site plan review committee. 174

F. The placement of any mechanical equipment, including but not limited to, pool/spa equipment and evaporative coolers shall not be permitted in the five-foot side yard within the buildable area of the lot, or within five feet of rear/side property lines that are adjacent to the required side yard on adjoining lots.

This provision shall not apply to street side yards on corner lots, nor shall it prohibit the surface mounting of utility meters and/or the placement of fixtures and utility lines as approved by the building and planning divisions.
(Ord. 2017-13 (part), 2017: Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7278)

17.12.100 Rear yard.

In the R-1 single-family residential zones, the minimum yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet, subject to the following exceptions:

A. On a corner or reverse corner lot the rear yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet on the narrow side or twenty (20) feet on the long side of the lot. The decision as to whether the short side or long side is used as the rear yard area shall be left to the applicant's discretion as long as a minimum area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of usable rear yard area is maintained. The remaining side yard to be a minimum of five feet.

B. Accessory structures not exceeding twelve (12) feet may be located in the required rear yard but not closer than three feet to any lot line provided that not more than twenty (20) percent of the area of the required rear yard shall be covered by structures enclosed on more than one side and not more than forty (40) percent may be covered by structures enclosed on only one side. On a reverse corner lot an accessory structure shall not be located closer to the rear property line than the required side yard on the adjoining key lot. An accessory structure shall not be closer to a side property line adjoining key lot and not closer to a side property line adjoining the street than the required front yard on the adjoining key lot.

C. Main structures may encroach up to five feet into a required rear yard area provided that such encroachment does not exceed one story and that a usable, open, rear yard area of at least one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet shall be maintained. Such encroachment and rear yard area shall be approved by the city planner prior to issuing building permits. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7279)

17.12.110 Height of structures.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, the maximum height of a permitted use shall be thirty-five (35) feet, with the exception of structures specified in Section 17.12.100(B). (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2006-07 § 2 (part), 2006: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7280)

17.12.120 Off-street parking.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.34. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7281)

17.12.130 Fences, walls and hedges.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, fences, walls and hedges are subject to the provisions of Section 17.36.030. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7282)

17.12.135 Lot area less than 5,000 square feet.

A. Notwithstanding Section 17.12.050, lots in the R-1-5 zone may have a lot area of between 3,600 and 4,999 square feet if all of the following standards are met:

1. The Planning Commission finds that the development's overall density is consistent with the General Plan.

2. The maximum number of lots less than 5,000 square feet that may be approved by a tentative subdivision map shall be fifty (50) percent or less of the total lots.

3. Streets shall be constructed to public street standards.

4. Each subdivision with at least 15 lots that are less than 5,000 square feet in size shall make available to buyers at least three (3) different small lot floor plans with at least four (4) available elevation designs for each floor plan to construct on those lots.

5. The primary frontage of the dwelling unit shall face a public street, primary entryway, circulation walkway, or open space with sidewalks that provide delineated paths of travel. 175

6. The primary frontage of the dwelling unit shall include the primary entrance and at least one window.

7. Required covered parking spaces shall be in garages. Carports are prohibited.

8. The width of the garage shall not be greater than fifty (50) percent of the width of the dwelling unit.

9. The garage shall not extend beyond the front building facade (living area.)

10. All dwelling units shall include a covered front porch at least four (4) feet deep and six (6) feet wide or an uncovered front courtyard at least five (5) feet wide and five (5) feet deep that is surrounded on four sides by the dwelling unit or a wall or fence between three (3) and four (4) feet high with a pedestrian gate or entryway.

11. The building official shall not approve a building permit for a new dwelling unit on a lot with a lot area less than 5,000 square feet until the city planner, or designee, has determined that the standards identified in this section are met.

12. The subdivision shall provide a common, usable open space area of a minimum 3,000 square feet or two hundred fifty (250) square feet per lot under 5,000 square feet, whichever is greater. The area shall be landscaped and maintained with funding from either a homeowner's association or a landscape and lighting act district.

B. Notwithstanding this Chapter, lots with less than five thousand (5,000) square feet shall have the following minimum dimensions and building setback areas, unless they were approved with a planned development permit:

1. The minimum lot depth shall be seventy (70) feet.

2. The minimum lot width shall be forty-six (46) feet for interior lots and fifty-one (51) feet for corner lots.

3. The minimum front building setback area shall be twelve (12) feet for livable space and twenty (20) feet for garages.

4. The minimum rear yard building setback area shall be fifteen (15) feet.

5. The minimum interior side yard building setback area shall be five (5) feet.

6. The minimum corner side yard building setback area shall be ten (10) feet.

7. The maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet.

8. Lots shall provide for a usable open space area of a minimum three hundred (300) square feet.

The open space shall be a minimum fifteen (15) feet wide.

C. Lots less having a lot area of 3,600 square feet, or lots that do not meet the standards in this section may be approved through the planned development permit process per Chapter 17.26. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017)

17.12.137 Signs.

Signs shall be placed in conformance with Chapter 17.48. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017) Article 2. Accessory Dwelling Units

17.12.140 Purpose and intent.

It is the purpose of this article to provide for the following:

A. To encourage a range of housing types, styles and costs to suit the varying needs and desires of the community;
B. To allow homeowners a means of obtaining, through tenants and accessory dwelling units, an additional source of income, companionship, security, and services; C. To add inexpensive rental units to the housing stock of the city; D. To create homeownership opportunities for moderate income households who might otherwise be excluded from the housing market, through the additional income derived from accessory dwelling units; E. Develop housing in single-family neighborhoods that is appropriate for a variety of stages in the household life cycle, thereby lessening fluctuations in neighborhood demand for public services; F. Protect the stability, property values, and character of single family residential neighborhoods by insuring that accessory dwelling units are subject to the standards that follow. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017:

Ord. 2003-23 § 2, 2003: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7283(A))

17.12.150 Definitions.

As used in this article, the following terms are defined in this section:
176

"Principal dwelling unit" means a single-family dwelling unit situated on a residential lot in the A or R-1 zones to which an accessory dwelling unit as defined by this article has been or is proposed to be added. "Accessory dwelling unit" means an additional dwelling unit having separate kitchen, sleeping, and sanitation facilities constructed or adopted within, onto, or detached from a single-family dwelling on a residential lot in the A or R-1 zones. Accessory dwelling units may also be efficiency units, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the health and Safety code, and manufacturing homes, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
"Living area" means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or an accessory structure. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2003-23 § 2, 2003:

Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7283(B))

17.12.160 General provisions.

An accessory dwelling unit may be established by the conversion of an attic, basement, garage (if alternative parking area is provided for the principal dwelling unit), or other portion of a principal dwelling unit. A detached accessory dwelling unit may be established by the conversion of an accessory structure or may be new construction. Second dwelling units may be mobile homes, provided that such units are subject to all applicable standards of Section 17.32.110, governing the placement of mobile homes on single-family lots. All applications for accessory dwelling units, whether processed as a permitted use or an exception, must comply with the general provisions stated below:

A. Accessory dwelling units shall only be allowed on lots located in the A and R-1 zones; B. In no case shall more than one accessory dwelling unit be placed on the same lot or parcel; C. Second dwelling units shall be subject to all applicable building, fire, health and safety codes and may not have adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places;
D. Second dwelling units may only be constructed on lots or parcels that are at least five thousand (5,000) square feet in area;
E. A covenant running with the land between the city and the applicant shall be recorded with the Tulare County recorder prior to the issuance of any building permits requiring that the primary or the proposed accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied by the owner of record; F. The accessory dwelling unit shall be clearly subordinate to the principal dwelling unit by size, location and appearance;
G. The second unit's scale, appearance and character shall be similar to and compatible in design with the principal dwelling unit and adjacent residences; H. In no case shall any accessory dwelling unit be approved on a site on which the principal dwelling unit has been the subject of a garage conversion pursuant to the regulations of Section 17.32.140 governing such conversions.

I. Size. A manufactured home shall not be less than eight (8) feet wide by forty (40) feet long and three hundred twenty (320) square feet in living area. An efficiency unit shall not be less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet in living area and meet all space and occupancy standards of Chapter 5 of the Uniform Housing Code;
J. Access. Doorway access shall be provided either to the side or rear of the second housing unit; K. Utility Services. Second housing units shall be provided with water, sewer, and other utilities as determined by the building official. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2003-23 § 2, 2003: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7283(C))

17.12.170 Process.

The city planner shall approve or deny accessory dwelling unit requests based upon the specified requirements. The applicant may appeal the decision of the city planner to the planning commission, setting forth the reason for such appeal to the commission. Such appeal shall be filed with the city planner, in writing, within ten (10) days after notification of such decision. The appeal shall be placed on the agenda of the commission's next regular meeting. If the appeal is filed within five (5) days of the next regular meeting of the commission, the appeal shall be placed on the agenda of the commission's second regular meeting following the filing of the appeal. The planning commission's review shall be limited to compliance with the specified requirements. The decision of the commission shall be final unless appealed to the council pursuant to Section 17.02.145. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2003-23 § 2, 2003: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7283(D)) 177

17.12.180 Development requirements.

The following development requirements shall apply to accessory dwelling units:

A. The increased floor area of the second unit shall not exceed twelve hundred (1,200) square feet or ) fifty (50) percent of the main dwelling unit, whichever is greater, and shall be used as an accessory to the primary single family home.

B. Adequate parking area must be available on the streets adjacent to the accessory dwelling unit. If adequate on-street parking is not available in the immediate vicinity, or in the case of all second units located on cul-de-sac lots, one additional off-street parking space must be provided. Tandem parking shall not be deemed as meeting the above parking requirement. The additional parking space shall be waived if in any of the following instances:

1. The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half (0.5) miles of public transit.

2. The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.

3. The accessory dwelling unit is part of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure.

4. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.

5. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.

C. All standards of the underlying zoning district including, but not limited to, height, lot and yard requirements, and lot coverage shall apply.

D. Detached accessory dwelling units are subject to all applicable standards for accessory structures, as stated in the development requirements for the underlying zone, unless a variance has been granted pursuant to Chapter 17.42. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2003-23 § 2, 2003: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7283(E))

17.12.190 Appeals.

The applicant may appeal the decision of the city planner to the planning commission, setting forth the reason for such appeal to the commission. Such appeal shall be filed with the city planner in writing, within ten (10) days after notification of such decision. The appeal shall be placed on the agenda of the commission's next regular meeting. If the appeal is filed within five (5) days of the next regular meeting of the commission, the appeal shall be placed on the agenda of the commission's second regular meeting following the filing of the appeal. The planning commission's review shall be limited to compliance with the specified requirements. The decision of the commission shall be final unless appealed to the council pursuant to Section 17.02.145. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2003-23 § 2, 2003: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7283(F))

17.12.200 Existing nonconforming accessory dwelling units.

An existing accessory dwelling unit situated on a lot or parcel in the A or R-1 zones shall constitute a violation of this title unless: (1) the unit meets the standards and criteria of Chapter 17.12, and an agreement is recorded; or (2) the accessory dwelling unit qualifies as a permitted nonconforming use and structure under the provisions of Chapter 17.40. No enlargement of habitable space shall be allowed unless the standards and criteria of Chapter 17.12 are met. This shall not apply to maintenance of the unit. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2003-23 § 2, 2003: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7283(G))

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Chapter 17.54

17.54.010 Purpose.

As the general plan for Visalia is implemented, there may be a need for amendments to land use boundaries and policies of the general plan. Such amendments shall be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in this chapter. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7650) 178

17.54.020 Initiation.

A. An amendment to the land use boundaries of the general plan may be initiated by any interested person or the owners of the property within the area for which the amendment is proposed. The area of a proposed land use amendment and/or policy amendment may be expanded in scope by the planning commission in the resolution of intention.

B. An amendment to land use boundaries and/or policies may be initiated by the city planning commission or the city council by adoption of a resolution of intention. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7651)

17.54.030 Application procedures.

A. An application for an amendment shall be filed by the applicant with the city planning commission on a form prescribed by the commission. Said application shall include the following data:

1. Name and address of the applicant;

2. Statement that the applicant is the owner of the property for which a land use boundary amendment is proposed or the authorized agent of the owner. In the case of a policy amendment the statement shall indicate the interest of the applicant;

3. Address and legal description of the subject property, if applicable;

4. The application shall include material deemed necessary by the city planner to clearly show the applicant's proposal.

B. The application shall be accompanied by a fee set by resolution of the city council to cover the cost of processing the application. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7652)

17.54.040 Public hearing—Notice.

Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days or more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the city, and by mailing notice of the time and place of the hearing to property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of the area under consideration if an amendment to the land use element is under consideration. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7653)

17.54.050 Investigation and report.

The city planning staff shall make an investigation of the application or the proposal and shall prepare a report thereon that shall be submitted to the city planning commission. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7654)

17.54.060 Hearing.

At the public hearing, the city planning commission shall review the application or the proposal and may receive pertinent evidence regarding the proposed amendment. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7655)

17.54.070 Action of city planning commission.

179

Within forty-five (45) days following the public hearing, the city planning commission shall make a specific recommendation and shall transmit a report to the city council. The report shall include a resolution recommending either approval or denial of the proposed amendment, together with pertinent information and the report of the city planning staff. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7656)

17.54.080 Action of the city council.

A. Upon receipt of the resolution and report of the city planning commission, the city council shall hold at least one public hearing with public notice as prescribed in Section 17.54.040. Following the noticed public hearing, the city council shall approve, deny or modify the city planning commission recommendation.

B. If the element or amendment has been approved by the city planning commission, the city council shall not modify the recommendation until the proposed change or modification has been referred back to the city planning commission for a report and a copy of the report has been filed with the city council.

Failure of the city planning commission to report within forty (40) days after the reference, or such longer period as may be designated by the city council shall be deemed to be approval of the proposed change or modification. It shall not be necessary for the city planning commission to hold a public hearing on such proposed change or modification.

C. The adoption of a general plan element, or amendment, shall be by resolution of the city council.

(Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7657)

CHAPTER 17.42: VARIANCES

17.42.010 Variance purposes.

The city planning commission may grant variances in order to prevent unnecessary hardships that would result from a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of certain regulations prescribed by this title. A practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship may result from the size, shape or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon, from geographic, topographic or other physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from population densities, street locations or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. The power to grant variances does not extend to use regulations, because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance is provided by the conditional use provisions of this title.

17.42.020 [Reserved]

17.42.030 Variance powers of city planning commission.

The city planning commission may grant variances to the regulations prescribed by this title with respect to fences and walls, site area, width, frontage coverage, front yard, rear yard, side yards, height of structures, distance between structures, off-street parking facilities, accessory dwelling unit standards pursuant to Sections 17,12.140 through 17.12.200, and downtown building design criteria pursuant to Section 17.58.082 through 17.58.088; in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter.

17.42.040 [Reserved]

17.42.050 Application procedures.

A. Application for a variance or exception shall be made to the city planning commission on a form prescribed by the commission and shall include the following data:

1. Name and address of the applicant;

2. Statement that the applicant is the owner of the property, is the authorized agent of the owners, or is or will be the plaintiff in an action in eminent domain to acquire the property involved;

3. Address and legal description of the property;
180

4. Statement of the precise nature of the variance or exception requested and the hardship or practical difficulty that would result from the strict interpretation and enforcement of this title;

5. The application shall be accompanied by such sketches or drawings that may be necessary to clearly show applicant's proposal;

6. Additional information as required by the historic preservation advisory board;

7. When reviewing requests for an exception associated with a request for density bonus as provided in Chapter 17.32, Article 2, the applicant shall submit copies of the comprehensive development plan, sketches and plans indicating the nature of the request and written justification that the requested modifications result in identifiable cost reductions required for project to reach target affordability.

B. The application shall be accompanied by a fee set by resolution of the city council sufficient to cover the cost of handling the application.

17.42.060 Hearing and notice.

A. The city planning commission shall hold a public hearing on an application for a variance.

B. Notice of a public hearing shall be given not less than ten days or more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing a notice of the time and place of the hearing to property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of the area occupied or to be occupied by the use that is the subject of the hearing.

17.42.070 Investigation and report.

The city planning staff shall make an investigation of the application and shall prepare a report thereon that shall be submitted to the city planning commission.

17.42.080 Public hearing procedure.

At a public hearing the city planning commission shall review the application and the statements and drawings submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent evidence concerning the variance, particularly with respect to the findings prescribed in Section 17.42.090.

17.42.090 Variance action of the city planning commission.

A. The city planning commission may grant a variance to a regulation prescribed by this title with respect to fences and walls, site area, width, frontage, coverage, front yard, rear yard, side yards, height of structures, distances between structures or landscaped areas or in modified form if, on the basis of the application, the report of the city planning staff or the evidence submitted, the commission makes the following findings:

3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zone;

4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone;

5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

B. The city planning commission may grant a variance to a regulation prescribed by this title with respect to off-street parking facilities, if, on the basis of the application, the report of the city planner or the evidence submitted the commission makes the findings prescribed in subsection (A)(1) of this section and that the granting of the variance will not result in the parking of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. 181

C. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such conditions as the commission may prescribe.

D. The city planning commission may deny a variance application.

17.42.100 [Reserved]

17.42.110 Appeal to city council.

The decision of the city planning commission on a variance or exception application shall be subject to the appeal provisions of Section 17.02.145.

17.42.120 Lapse of variance.

A variance shall lapse and become void one year following the date on which the variance became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued by the building official and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site that was the subject of the variance application, or a certificate of occupancy is issued by the building official for the site or structure that was the subject of the variance application. A variance may be renewed for an additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of one year from the date when the variance became effective, an application for renewal of the variance is made to the commission. The commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a variance.

17.42.130 Revocation.

A variance granted subject to a condition or conditions shall be revoked by the city planning commission if the condition or conditions are not complied with.

17.42.140 New application.

Following the denial of a variance application or the revocation of a variance, no application for the same or substantially the same variance on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year of the date of denial of the variance application or revocation of the variance. 182

Exhibit “A”
183

Exhibit “B”
184

Exhibit “C”
185

Exhibit “D”
186

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 713-4359

To: County Clerk
County of Tulare
County Civic Center
Visalia, CA 93291-4593

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10, Change of Zone No. 2021-12, and Variance No. 2021-

05. PROJECT TITLE
914 S. Mooney Boulevard (APNs: 096-023-023, 031)

PROJECT LOCATION
Visalia Tulare

PROJECT LOCATION - CITY COUNTY
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10 – A request to change the land use designation of a 15,261 sq. ft. parcel from Low Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use. Change of Zone No. 2021-12 – A request to change the zoning designation of a 15,261 sq. ft. parcel from R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum site area) to C-MU (Mixed Use Commercial) Variance No. 2021-05 - A request for encroachment of the southwest corner of the building into the 10-foot street side yard setback.

DESCRIPTION - Nature, Purpose, & Beneficiaries of Project City of Visalia

NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT
Ming Lu Jin, 2311 N. 11th Avenue, Hanford CA 93230, (678) 687-4614, E-mail: N/A

NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT CARRYING OUT PROJECT
Eric McConnaughey, EBM Design Group, Inc., 4412 W. Ferguson Avenue, Visalia CA 93291, (559) 732-9236, [email protected]

NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENT CARRYING OUT PROJECT
EXEMPT STATUS: (Check one)
Ministerial - Section 15073
Emergency Project - Section 15071
Categorical Exemption - State type and Section number: Section 15332, In-fill Development Projects
Statutory Exemptions- State code number:

Project will remodel an existi ng building on a site under five acres in size. Proposed land use designation changes will be continue to be consistent and will be in compliance with exis ting General Plan policies and Zoning regulations.

REASON FOR PROJECT EXEMPTION

Josh Dan, Associate Planner (559) 713-4003

CONTACT PERSON AREA CODE/PHONE

DATE Brandon Smith, Senior Planner

ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR

187

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 713-4359

To: County Clerk
County of Tulare
County Civic Center
Visalia, CA 93291-4593

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-10, Change of Zone No. 2021-12, and Variance No. 2021-

05. PROJECT TITLE
914 S. Mooney Boulevard (APNs: 096-023-023, 031)

PROJECT LOCATION
Visalia Tulare

DESCRIPTION - Nature, Purpose, & Beneficiaries of Project City of Visalia

NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT
Ming Lu Jin, 2311 N. 11thAvenue, Hanford CA 93230, (678) 687-4614, E-mail: N/A

NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT CARRYING OUT PROJECT
Eric McConnaughey, EBM Design Group, Inc., 4412 W. Ferguson Avenue, Visalia CA 93291, (559) 732-9236, [email protected]

NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENT CARRYING OUT PROJECT
EXEMPT STATUS:(Check one)
Ministerial - Section 15073
Emergency Project - Section 15071
Categorical Exemption - State type and Section number: Section 15332, In-fill Development Projects
Statutory Exemptions- State code number:

Project will remodel an existing building on a site under five acres in size. Proposed land use designation changes will be continue to be consistent and will be in compliance with existing General Plan policies and Zoning regulations.

REASON FOR PROJECT EXEMPTION
Josh Dan, Associate Planner (559) 713-4003

CONTACT PERSON AREA CODE/PHONE

DATE Brandon Smith, Senior Planner

ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
188
Aerial
S M
ooney Blvd
W Beverly Dr
W Meadow Ave
S Bonnie St
W Meadow Ave
.
0 60 12030 Feet Project Site
Parcels
189
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Agenda Item Wording:

Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-01: A request by the City of Visalia to amend Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District).

Deadline for Action: 8/1/2022
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

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

Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing, receive a presentation and staff report, and introduce the first reading of Ordinance No. 2022-10, approving Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-01, a request by the City of Visalia to amend Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District).

Background:

In 1979 Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District Ordinance) was adopted to protect and preserve the City’sdistinct collection of unique and historically significant structures.

These properties can be located anywhere within City Limits, inside or outside of the bounds of the Historic District. The Local Register currently contains 368 properties. Structures on the Local Register are given one of three classifications, based on factors such as historical importance, uniqueness of architecture, and quality of construction. The classifications are defined as follows:
· Exceptional: Properties with preeminent historical significance, considered for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
· Focus: Properties having significant value, of good to excellent quality, considered for local recognition and protection.
· Background: Properties that may not be historically significant or unique in their construction, Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 1 of 11
powered by Legistar™
190
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.
but which contribute positively to the “visual fabric” of the City of Visalia.

The HPAC has review authority over projects conducted within the Historic District and/or on sites located outside the Historic District and listed as "Exceptional" or "Focus" on the Local Register. “Background”Local Register structures located outside the Historic District are not subject to HPAC review unless proposed for demolition. Actions of the HPAC are appealable directly to the Visalia City Council.

Project Description:

The Historic Preservation Ordinance Update is a city-initiated request to implement a series of historic preservation-related Zoning Ordinance text amendments. In early 2021, the Visalia City Council directed the HPAC to provide recommendations for revision of the Historic Preservation District Ordinance to address concerns that the ordinance does not adequately protect historically designated structures and sites from destruction and blight.

Proposed Ordinance updates were formulated by the HPAC and discussed with the Visalia City Council and Visalia Building Advisory Committee at work sessions held on October 10, 2021, November 17, 2021, and February 22, 2022. Upon completion of the work sessions, the City Council directed the HPAC to pursue six areas of revision. The proposed revisions are as follows:

A. Update the Ordinance so that exterior alterations to “Background”Local Register structures located outside the Historic District are subject to HPAC review.

B. Grant the HPAC the ability to deny demolition requests for any property within the Historic District or Local Register.

C. Add definitions for Local Register classifications to the Ordinance.

D. Add specific criteria for the evaluation of fencing proposals.

E. Limit the percentage of paved surfaces allowed within front yard areas.

F. Change the frequency of Local Register reviews.

Additionally, a seventh area was suggested and approved for revision by the Visalia Planning Commission during its July 11, 2022, review of the proposal. It is identified in the report as Item G, listed below:

G. Include reference to the California Register of Historical Resources.

The proposed amendments to the Historic Preservation District Ordinance will affect only those areas contained within the City of Visalia’sHistoric District and properties listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures. A map containing the location of the existing Historic District and Local Register sites is included as Exhibit “A”.All other areas of the City, not subject to the Historic District and/or Local Register, will be unaffected by the proposal unless a historic designation or Local Register status is applied in the future by the Visalia City Council.

General Plan Consistency:

The proposed zoning text amendments are consistent with the following objectives and policies of the Visalia General Plan Historic Preservation Element:

Historic Preservation Element Objective H-O-1 - Assure the recognition of the City’shistory Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 2 of 11
powered by Legistar™
191
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Historic Preservation Element Objective H-O-1 - Assure the recognition of the City’shistory through the preservation of historic sites, structures and featuring zoning overlay designation and discretionary review procedures for the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-7 - Continue to use the Historic Preservation Ordinance development review process to protect structures listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures or located within the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-9 - Periodically survey historic resources and nominate historically and/or architecturally significant sites, structures, and neighborhoods to the Local Register of Historic Structures and/or Historic District, State of California Inventory of Historic Resources, National Register of Historic Places to ensure they are protected.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-10 - Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.

Specifically, the proposed amendments related to review of demolition requests and “Background” structures ensure that all protections of the Historic Preservation Ordinance can be fully applied to all structures in the Historic District and on the Local Register. Provisions for fencing and landscaping assist in the preservation of historically designated areas by ensuring compatibility of fencing designs and streetscapes. Changes to Local Register reviews do not conflict with timeframes identified in H-P -9 and H-P-10 and will provide the HPAC with time to conduct thorough reviews without constraining the Committee and staff from pursuing other projects.

Proposed Zoning Text Amendments:

The following are the updates to the Historic Preservation District Ordinance proposed by the HPAC, and which the City Council directed be pursued. The proposals include the associated ordinance text changes required to implement the provision. Changes proposed to Visalia Municipal Code Chapter

17.56 are noted with underline & italics for additions and strikeout for deletions.

A. Update the Ordinance so that exterior alterations to “Background” Local Register structures located outside the Historic District are subject to HPAC review.

Summary of Recommended Action: Currently, if a Local Register structure is located outside the Historic District, and is classified as “Background”,it is only subject to HPAC review if proposed for demolition. Local Register structures located outside the Historic District and classified as “Background”that propose exterior alterations, additions, and construction of new structures, are exempt from HPAC review. Removal of this exemption provision will authorize the HPAC to review exterior building alterations for any property that is within the Historic District or on the Local Register, regardless of classification. The HPAC proposes the change to prevent the negative alteration and loss of historic structures due to lack of oversight and communication with applicants/property owners. The change, if approved, also strengthens the ability of the HPAC to pursue the purpose and intent of the Historic Preservation District Ordinance, described in Section 17.56.010.B as to preserve and promote the public welfare through protection of the City’s historic structures, sites, and features.

This change would affect 36 properties which are currently located outside the Historic District and listed on the Local Register with a “Background”classification. At present, these 36 properties are not subject to HPAC oversight for exterior alterations. If this proposed change is approved, the 36 properties would be subject to HPAC review for any exterior alteration proposed, similar to all other properties within the Historic District and/or on the Local Register with a “Focus”/”Exceptional” classification. Given the small number of properties impacted, this change is not expected to have a Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 3 of 11
powered by Legistar™
192
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.
classification. Given the small number of properties impacted, this change is not expected to have a significant impact on staff time.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
· 17.56.040 Regulation of structures.

No structure shall be constructed, altered or enlarged that is located in the historic district or that is listed as an "exceptional" or "focus" structure on the local register and is located outside the historic district, unless such a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter. No structure listed on the local register shall be moved or demolished unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter.
· 17.56.050.C.3: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the construction or exterior alteration or enlargement of structures within the historic district or for structures located outside the historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" structures on the local register. The committee shall have the power to approve, modify or disapprove such applications before a building permit can be issued, subject to the provisions of Sections 17.56.100 and 17.56.110.
· 17.56.050.C.4: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for sign permits within the historic district or for properties located outside the historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" on the local register. The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval or denial of the sign permit application based upon the proposed design and/or materials, but not upon the proposed size or location. The application shall then be presented to the proper issuing authority for sign permits, pursuant to Chapter 17.48. Sign permits shall be issued only in compliance with the recommendation of the committee. Approval by the committee in no way implies approval by the issuing authority for sign permits, whose approval must also be secured pursuant to Chapter 17.48. · 17.56.110 Local register structures.

This section contains criteria for reviewing all applications for building permits for exterior rehabilitation, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, or enlargement of any local register structure within the historic district, or any "exceptional" or "focus" local register structure outside the historic district, and for any interior modification that requires the issuance of a building permit for a publicly owned and publicly accessible local register structure. In reviewing an application, the historic preservation advisory committee shall consider the following general standards and principles:

B. Grant the HPAC the ability to deny demolition requests for any property within the Historic District or Local Register, regardless of classification.

Summary of Recommended Action: The Historic Preservation District Ordinance requires the HPAC to review all applications for demolition of structures listed on the Local Register or located within the Historic District. However, the ordinance only grants the HPAC the authority to deny a request for demolition of a historically designated structure in instances where the site is on the Local Register with an “Exceptional”classification. In all other instances, the HPAC is compelled to either approve a demolition on the grounds that the structure is a public hazard, approve the demolition request outright, or approve the demolition request with a moratorium of up to six months on the issuance of a Demolition or Moving Permit. The proposed change will provide the HPAC with another tool with which to enact the purpose and intent of the Historic Preservation District Ordinance, to preserve and Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 4 of 11
powered by Legistar™
193
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.
which to enact the purpose and intent of the Historic Preservation District Ordinance, to preserve and promote the city's cultural heritage, by ensuring its historic structures, sites, and features are not destroyed.

In all except one instance, the HPAC approved the demolition request. The sole exception was for the Odell-Mor building, which resulted in the application of a six-month moratorium, after which a demolition permit was issued. Furthermore, any denial of a demolition request by the HPAC can be appealed by an applicant free of charge to the City Council.

CEQA Considerations: Approval of the proposal will trigger a requirement for staff to conduct a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for any demolition request submitted for review.

The possibility of denial will make any demolition request a discretionary matter, triggering CEQA processes. This could potentially result in fees being charged and additional processing time added for review of the demolition request. HPAC review is currently free of charge. The addition of CEQA processes will increase fees to $78.00 for a Categorical Exemption or $800.00 for an Initial Study/Negative Declaration. A separate $58.00 filing fee is also required for the filing of a CEQA review determination with the Tulare County Clerk. The preparation of a CEQA Categorical Exemption is not expected to have a significant impact on the processing of a demolition request.

However, if an Initial Study/Negative Declaration is required (as would be the case for the proposed demolition of a structure adjacent to a State Highway or on the National Register of Historic Places), the increased level of CEQA review will increase fees for the applicant and add processing periods between one to several months depending on the project. The preparation of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration could also result in the requirement that technical studies be submitted to help address issues related to the demolition request. The cost for staff to review technical studies will add an additional $238.00 fee per study to a demolition request. Applicants will also be subject to additional fees charged by consultants to prepare the required technical studies.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
· 17.56.050.C.5: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the moving or demolition of structures in the historic district or listed on the local register. The committee shall have the power to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove such applications, subject to the provisions of Section 17.56.130. · 17.56.070.B.3: In the case of local register structures that have been classified as "exceptional," the The committee may deny an application for demolition, after the six-month moratorium has expired. Denial of a demolition permit by the committee is subject to appeal to the city council pursuant to Section 17.56.060.

C. Addition of language to the Historic Preservation Ordinance defining the “Exceptional”, “Focus” and “Background” classifications of the Local Register.

Summary of Recommended Action: Section 17.56.030 (Definitions) of the Historic Preservation Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 5 of 11
powered by Legistar™
194
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Summary of Recommended Action: Section 17.56.030 (Definitions) of the Historic Preservation District Ordinance does not provide definitions for the three Local Register classifications noted in the Historic Preservation Element of the 2014 Visalia General Plan. This change will update the definitions section of the ordinance to include the classifications, to codify the language provided in the Historic Preservation Element.

Note that staff also recommends including language under the “Local Register” definition to clarify that the designation applies to all structures located within the boundaries of the property which the designation has been applied to and not just the primary structure alone. This has been the existing interpretation of the language existing in the ordinance by staff and the HPAC. It ensures compatibility of all structures located on the same site as a historically significant structure. The proposed change will assist in clarifying the applicability of the Local Register designation.

Furthermore, per a recommendation provided by the Planning Commission at its July 11, 2022 meeting, reference to the California Register of Historical Resources has been included in the definition for “Exceptional”.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
· 17.56.030.B Definitions.
o "Local register" means the listing of local historic structures, sites and features adopted by the city council and maintained by the historic preservation advisory committee, and incorporated herein by reference. This designation is inclusive of all structures and features located within the boundaries of the property for which the local register designation has been applied.
o “Localregister, Background”means properties that may not be historically significant or unique in their construction, but which contribute positively to the “visual fabric” of the City of Visalia.
o “Local register, Exceptional” means properties with preeminent historical significance, considered for nomination to the California Register of Historical Resources and/or the National Register of Historic Places.
o “Local register, Focus” means properties having significant value, of good to excellent quality, considered for local recognition and protection.

D. Removal of language regarding specific fencing types, in favor of general language requiring consideration based on style and context:

Summary of Recommended Action: The Historic Preservation District Ordinance states that review of fencing proposals within the Historic District should consider “Walls of Continuity”, meaning “continuouscohesive walls of enclosures along streets”.The Historic Preservation District Ordinance specifically calls out “brick walls”, “wrought iron fences”, and “evergreen landscape masses” as acceptable types of fencing that creates suitable “wallsof continuity”.No specific fencing language is included for Local Register sites. As such, staff has generally also applied the “Walls of Continuity” guidance to Local Register sites. As a result of the existing language in the ordinance, the HPAC has established a longstanding precedent that materials such as chain link fencing are not appropriate for historic areas and do not constitute an appropriate wall of continuity.

In 2021, several proposals for chain link fencing were submitted for HPAC review. Property owners argued that the material should be permitted due to the prevalence of chain link in the Historic District Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 6 of 11
powered by Legistar™
195
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.
argued that the material should be permitted due to the prevalence of chain link in the Historic District and because chain link can be historically appropriate in certain contexts. Owners also noted the financial constraints of purchasing fencing types other than chain link. When the comments from property owners where shared with the City Council at the October 2021 work session, the Council was sympathetic to the concerns. At that meeting the Council requested that the HPAC create specific standards for fence reviews and that such standards be inclusive of chain link fencing materials. This directive was altered at the February 2022 follow up work session, wherein the City Council expressed reservations over the outright approval of all chain link fencing proposals.

Recommended changes also allow for the consideration of chain link fencing, subject to findings which would allow for approval based on historic compatibility or economic hardship. The intent is to increase flexibility and equitability in the review of fencing, allowing for a wide range of fencing types within the Historic District and Local Register.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
· 17.56.100 Building design compatibility criteria.
o E. Walls of Continuity. Physical ingredients such as brick walls, wrought iron fences, and evergreen landscape masses should be used to form continuous cohesive walls of enclosure along the street.
o FE. Landscaping.
o GF. Directional Expression of Front Elevations.
· 17.56.120 Fencing and wall design criteria.

This section contains criteria for reviewing all applications for new fencing and walls within the historic district or on the local register, and for any application for rehabilitation, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, or enlargement of fencing and walls within the historic district or on the local register. In reviewing an application, the historic preservation advisory committee shall consider the following general standards and principles:

A. Fencing proposals shall be used to form continuous cohesive walls of enclosure along the street, and shall be compatible with the architectural style of the main building and historic district.

B. If historic walls or fencing exist on a property, preference should be given to repair of the existing fencing or wall to restore its original appearance to the extent possible. If removal and replacement of historic fencing and walls is proposed, preference should be given to the use of like materials to preserve the appearance of the original fencing or wall.

C. Proposals for new fencing or walls should be compatible with the character and architectural elements of the historic structure onsite and its period of original construction.

D. Appropriate materials for fencing and walls shall include, but not be limited to, landscape masses, wood, wood pickets, wrought iron, cast iron, masonry walls, brick, stone, decorative wire, and vinyl materials that mimic the appearance of painted wood.

E. Proposals for chain link fencing in areas visible from the street shall be discouraged.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 7 of 11
powered by Legistar™
196
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.

E. Proposals for chain link fencing in areas visible from the street shall be discouraged.

The historic preservation advisory committee may grant an application for chain link fencing along public streets if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the committee makes one of the following findings:

1. That the proposed chain link fencing is compatible with the historic structure and the neighborhood;

2. That sufficient evidence has been provided indicating that the applicant will experience an economic hardship should the chain link fencing not be permitted to be placed onsite;
· 17.56.120 17.56.130 Role of building official.
· 17.56.130 17.56.140 Separability.

E. Inclusion of language requiring historically designated sites to maintain a minimum 50% of front yard areas for landscaping purposes.

Summary of Recommended Action: The Historic Preservation District Ordinance does not currently include language regarding the inclusion of landscaping in historic areas. As such there is no oversight of landscaping improvements on historically designated sites. This has resulted in loss of aesthetically appealing streetscapes due to the paving of front yard areas and removal of mature plantings. To address this issue, it is recommended that language be included in the ordinance requiring sites within the Historic District or Local Register to maintain a minimum 50% of front yard areas for landscaping purposes. The intent is to prevent front yard areas from being permanently paved and to encourage placement of landscaping for the beautification of historic sites and neighborhoods. The 50% provision would only be applicable to front yard setback areas and would still allow sufficient space for the paving of driveways for garages and entryways. Alternative landscape materials such as river rock and synthetic turf would still be permitted under this proposal.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
· 17.56.050.C:
o 8. Sites within the historic district or on the local register shall reserve a minimum 50% of the required front yard setback area for the purposes of landscaping. This shall include non-living ground cover and turf.

F. Modification of language requiring the annual review of the Local Register of Historic Structures.

Summary of Recommended Action: The Historic Preservation District Ordinance currently mandates that the Local Register be reviewed on an annual basis, with recommendations for removal or addition of structures provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for certification. Reviews of this sort require increased efforts from committee members and staff to survey, research, and evaluate existing and potential Local Register sites. Due to limitations in staff time and resources, undertaking tasks of this magnitude and frequency are not always feasible.

It is recommended that comprehensive reviews of the Local Register be conducted on a five-year basis to allow sufficient time for review and analysis. Please note that such a change would not prevent the HPAC from conducting Local Register reviews within a quicker timeframe for individual Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 8 of 11
powered by Legistar™
197
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.
sites, or the entire Local Register, if resources are available.

Please note that the HPAC is in the process of conducting a comprehensive update to the Local Register of Historic Structures (HPAC Item No. 2022-12). The intent is to ensure that all Local Register sites are given the appropriate classification. Any potential changes to the classification of Local Register structures will require review by the HPAC, Planning Commission, and City Council at public hearings.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
· 17.56.050.C.6: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to compile and update the historic survey and inventory, and to nominate properties to the local register and the National Register of Historic Places. In selecting properties for nomination to the local register, the board shall consider:
a. Architectural significance and style;
b. Historic significance, including age of structure, original owners, and events related to the structure, site or original owners.

The committee shall review the local register annually every five years, make recommendations for the addition or deletion of structures or sites, and submit said recommendations to the planning commission and city council for certification.

G. Inclusion of references to the California Register of Historical Resources.

Summary of Recommended Action: At its July 11, 2022, review of the Historic Preservation Ordinance update, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal to the Visalia City Council. Their decision included a recommendation that reference to the California Register of Historical Resources also be included in the ordinance, similar to references to the National Register of Historic Places. The change directs the HPAC to nominate locally important and historic structures for placement on both the state and national registers.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
· 17.56.050.C.6: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to compile and update the historic survey and inventory, and to nominate properties to the local register, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the National Register of Historic Places. In selecting properties for nomination to the local register, the board shall consider:

Public Outreach:

The HPAC conducted a public outreach meeting on March 30, 2022, to answer questions and solicit comment on the text amendments proposed for Historic Preservation District Ordinance Update. For the public outreach meeting, notices were sent to all owners/occupants of sites in the Historic District and Local Register and included in the weekly City newsletter. Subsequent public hearings were held on May 26, 2022, with the HPAC, and July 11, 2022, with the Planning Commission. For both meetings, public notices were published in the Visalia-Times Delta to inform members of the public of the proposed changes. Public comments received by the HPAC have been positive, with stakeholders generally in favor of the changes proposed.

For August 1, 2022, City Council public hearing, a public notice was also published in the Visalia Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 9 of 11
powered by Legistar™
198
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Times-Delta. At present, no public comment has been received for the proposal.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Prior Council Action:

1. At the February 16, 2021, meeting of the City Council, during presentation of the 2020 HPAC Annual Report, members of the Council directed the HPAC to provide recommendations for the revision of the Historic Preservation District Ordinance.

2. At the March 1, 2021, City Council Committee/Commission Work Session, the HPAC was encouraged to undertake projects related to their mission. A request was made by members of the City Council for the HPAC to consider reviewing the Historic Preservation District Ordinance for potential changes.

3. At the October 4, 2021, City Council and Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Work Session, direction was provided by the Council regarding proposed revisions to the Historic Preservation District Ordinance. The Council directed the Committee to meet with the Building Advisory Committee, solicit comment, and return to the Council for a follow-up work session

4. At the February 22, 2022, City Council and Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Work Session, the HPAC presented comments provided by the Building Advisory Committee on proposed revisions to the Historic Preservation District Ordinance. The Council provided additional comment and directed the HPAC to pursue a Zone Text Amendment to revise the Historic Preservation District Ordinance.

5. At the June 20, 2022, meeting of the City Council, during presentation of the 2021 HPAC Annual Report, the Council approved the Committee’s 2021 Work Plan. This included completion of the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update project.

Committee/Commission Action:

Building Advisory Committee
At the direction of the City Council, the HPAC conducted a joint meeting with the Building Advisory Committee (BAC) on November 11, 2021, to solicit comment on proposed changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The BAC members in attendance expressed support for the majority of changes proposed by the HPAC. The BAC only advocated for elimination of a proposal which would have removed exceptions for activities conducted with “Like Materials (such as reroofing/residing/masonry/assorted repairs). The HPAC concurred with this recommendation and removed the change to the “Like Materials” section of the Ordinance.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
HPAC review of the proposal was completed at a special called meeting held May 26, 2022. At that meeting, the Committee recommended approval of the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update to the Visalia Planning Commission on the basis that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Element of the Visalia General Plan, and that the proposal will not be injurious to the character or overall uniformity of the Historic District and Local Register of Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 10 of 11
powered by Legistar™
199
File #: 22-0293 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Historic Structures.

Visalia Planning Commission
Planning Commission review of the proposal was completed at a regular meeting held July 11, 2022.

At that meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update to the Visalia City Council on the basis that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Element of the Visalia General Plan. With its decision the Commission included a recommendation that the ordinance update include references to the California Register of Historical Resources as appropriate.

Alternatives:

The City Council, in lieu of staff’s recommendation, may consider the following alternatives:

1. Deny the Zoning Text Amendment in whole or in part, or

2. Return the item to the Planning Commission for further consideration.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to introduce for first reading Ordinance No. 2022-10 for Zone Text Amendment No. 2022-01.

CEQA Review:

The requested action is considered exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) Per Section 15061 (b) (3) of the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Exemption has been prepared for the project because Section 15061 (b) (3) states that the project is exempted from CEQA if the activity is covered by the common-sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

The proposed text amendment to Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic District Preservation Ordinance) will not have a significant effect on the environment.

Attachments:

1. Ordinance No. 2022-10 for Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-01 (Historic Preservation Ordinance Update).

2. Attachment “A” - Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures Map.

3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 11, 2022.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 11 of 11
powered by Legistar™
200
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-10

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2022-01,

A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF VISALIA TO AMEND VISALIA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.56 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT) AS TO: A) REQUIRING “BACKGROUND” CLASSIFIED LOCAL REGISTER STRUCTURES LOCATED

OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TO UNDERGO HISTORIC PRESERVATION

ADVISORY COMMITTEE (HPAC) REVIEW FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION

REQUESTS, B) GRANTING THE HPAC THE ABILITY TO DENY DEMOLITION

REQUESTS FOR ANY PROPERTY WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND/OR

LISTED ON THE LOCAL REGISTER, C) ADDING DEFINITIONS FOR LOCAL

EVALUATION OF FENCING PROPOSALS WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND/OR

ON THE LOCAL REGISTER, E) LIMITING THE PERCENTAGE OF PAVED SURFACES

ALLOWED WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK AREAS FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND/OR ON THE LOCAL REGISTER; AND F) CHANGING THE FREQUENCY OF LOCAL REGISTER REVIEWS. THE PROJECT AREA IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CITY OF VISALIA’S HISTORIC DISTRICT AND LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES.

WHEREAS, Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-01 is a request by the City of Visalia to amend Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District) as to: A) requir e “Background” classified Local Register structures located outside the Historic District to undergo Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) review for exterior alteration requests, B) grant the HPAC the ability to deny demolition requests for any property within the Historic District and/or listed on the Local Register, C) add definitions for Local Register classifications, D) add specific criteria for the evaluation of fencing proposals within the Historic District and/or on the Local Register, E) limit the percentage of paved surfaces allowed within front yard setback areas for properties within the Historic District and/o r on the Local Register; and F) chang e the frequency of Local Register reviews. The project area is contained within the City of Visalia’s Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures. The specific amendments apply City-wide and are specified in Exhibit “A” of this Ordinance; and,

WHEREAS, the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption); and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after dul y published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on July 11, 2022; and,

201
Ordinance No. 2022-10

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia considered the Zone Text Amendment in accordance with Section 17.44.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said City Council on August 1, 2022 , and introduced said Ordinance for first reading on that date.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council concurs that the project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia finds as follows:

1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the Historic Preservation Element, and the Visalia General Plan, as described in the following Historic Preservation Element objectives and policies:

Historic Preservation Element Objective H-O-1 – Assure the recognition of the City’s history through the preservation of historic sites, structures and featuring zoning overlay designation and discretionary review procedures for the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H -P-7 – Continue to use the Historic Preservation Ordinance development review process to protect structures listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures or located within the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H -P-9 – Periodically survey historic resources and nominate historically and/or architecturally significant sites, structures, and neighborhoods to the Local Register of Historic Structures and/or Historic District, State of California Inventory of Historic Resources, National Register of Historic Places to ensure they are protected.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H -P-10 – Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.

2. That the proposal will not be injurious to the character or overall uniformity of the Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures.

3. That the project is exempt f rom further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

202
Ordinance No. 2022-10

NOW, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA, that Zoning Text Amendment 2022-01, is approved, as contained in Exhibit “A” of this Ordinance.

Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivision, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Visalia hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.

Construction. The City Council intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent.

Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption.

Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law.

203
Ordinance No. 2022-10

Ordinance No. 2022-__

EXHIBIT “A”

An Ordinance of the City Council amending Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District) of Title 17 of the Visalia Municipal Code.

Changes to City of Visalia Municipal Code, as specified by underline & italics for additions and strikeout for deletions.
______________________________________________________________________

VISALIA MUNICIPAL CODE
TITLE 17, Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 17.56 Historic Preservation District
Sections:

17.56.010 Purposes and intent.

17.56.020 Components of the chapter.

17.56.030 Definitions.

17.56.040 Regulation of structures.

17.56.050 Creation of historic preservation advisory committee.

17.56.060 Appeal.

17.56.070 Demolition or moving of historic structures.

17.56.080 Ordinary maintenance and repair.

17.56.090 Exceptions to Visalia Municipal Code requirements.

17.56.100 Building design compatibility criteria.

17.56.110 Local register structures.

17.56.120 Fencing and wall design criteria

17.56.120 17.56.130 Role of building official.

17.56.130 17.56.140 Separability.

17.56.010 Purposes and intent.

A. There is created a historic district, the boundaries of which are shown on the two maps entitled, "Historic District Overlay," which accompany the ordinance codified in this chapter and which are on file in the office of the city clerk, on the 19th day of November, 204
Ordinance No. 2022-10

1979 and dated 19th day of November, 1979. Said maps are adopted and made a part of this chapter.

B. This chapter is enacted to preserve and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city, and to express the commitment of the city to assure that the city's cultural heritage, as reflected in its historic structures, sites, and features is not destroyed, through:

1. The protection and preservation of historic structures;

2. The preservation and maintenance of historic residential areas as cohesive neighborhood units;

3. The enhancement of property values in the older areas of the city;

4. The assurance that the community's cultural h eritage, as reflected in the environment, is not lost;

5. The encouragement of the development of vacant and incompatibly developed properties in accordance with the character of the historic district;

6. The involvement of residents of the older areas in planning their own neighborhoods. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001 -13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7700)

17.56.020 Components of the chapter.

This chapter shall include:

1. The ordinance, which specifies the historic district ove rlay designation, design evaluation criteria, and the formation, powers and duties of a historic preservation advisory committee;

2. Creation of a local register of historic structures, sites and features that may be modified from time to time by resolution of the city council.

3. Two maps that designate the historic district overlay. (Ord. 2017 -01 (part), 2017:

Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7701)

17.56.030 Definitions.

A. All definitions, general and specific, set forth i n Section 17.04.030 shall be applicable to this chapter.

"Local register" means the listing of local historic structures, sites and features adopted by the city council and maintained by the historic preservation advisory committee, and incorporated herein by reference. This designation is inclusive of all structures and features located within the boundaries of the property for which the Local register designation has been applied. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001:
prior code § 7702)
“Local register, Background” means properties that may not be historically significant or unique in their construction, but which contribute positively to the “visual fabric” of the City of Visalia.
“Local register, Exceptional” means properties with preeminent historical significance, considered for nomination to the California Register of Historical Resources and/or National Register of Historic Places.
“Local register, Focus” means properties having significant value, of good to excellent quality, considered for local recognition and protection.

17.56.040 Regulation of structures.

Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7703)

17.56.050 Creation of historic preservation advisory committee.

In order to execute the purposes declared in this chapter, there is created a historic preservation advisory committee.

A. Committee Membership.

1. The historic preservation advisory committee shall consist of seven member s appointed by the city council to serve without compensation. All committee members shall be residents of the city at the time of their appointment and will lose their position if they move outside the city limits during their term of office. Members shall be appointed on the basis of:
a. Relevant professional or business qualifications;
b. Ownership of property within the historic district; c. Practical experience in restoration or preservation; d. Exceptional civic interest.
e. Terms of office shall be for two years.
206
Ordinance No. 2022-10

2. Vacancies that may occur on the committee shall be filled by appointment of a new member of the city council for the duration of the unexpired term of office. The Council has the option of appointing up to two Historic Preservation Advisory Committee alternates. Should a mid -term vacancy occur, an alternate may automatically fill the unexpired term. The council shall also have the power to remove any member from the committee by an affirmative vote of three council members.

3. Four members of the committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

B. Procedures for the Review of Applications. The operating procedures of the historic preservation advisory committee shall be prescribed from time to time by resolution of the city council, for the purpose of carrying into effect the standards and specifications of this chapter. The committee may adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations governing the conduct of its meetings, as long as said rules do not violate the procedures established by the city council or the terms of this chapter.

C. Duties and Responsibilities. The historic preservation advisory committee shall review applications only as specified in this chapter, consistent with the rules and regulations adopted from time to time by resolution of the city council (as referred to in Section 17.56.050(B)). Applications shall be approved or disapproved based solely on the considerations set forth in this chapter. It is the intent of this chapter that the historic preservation advisory committee shall encourage applicants to make altera tions and repairs to structures in the spirit of the architectural style of the structure. The duties and responsibilities of the historic preservation advisory committee shall include the following:

1. It shall be the duty of the historic preservatio n advisory committee to review all proposed zoning actions (zone changes, conditional use permits, special zoning exceptions, planned unit developments and variances) within the historic district. The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval, modification or disapproval of an application based upon the expected impact of the proposed zoning action on the historic or architectural significance of the affected structure(s), neighborhood, or the entire historic district. The committee's recommend ation shall be forwarded to the planning commission for its consideration.

2. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for site plan review permits within the historic district for compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Items that shall be subject to review by the committee include but are not limited to vehicular access, location and screening of parking, setbacks, location of service use areas, walls and landscaping. The committee may re commend approval, conditional approval, disapproval or resubmittal of the site plan review permit application. The committee's recommendation shall be forwarded to the site plan review committee for its consideration.

3. It shall be the duty of the hi storic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the construction or exterior alteration or enlargement of structures within the historic district or for structures located outside the historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" structures on the local register. The committee shall have the 207
Ordinance No. 2022-10

power to approve, modify or disapprove such applications before a building permit can be issued, subject to the provisions of Sections 17.56.100 and 17.56.110.

4. It shall be the d uty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for sign permits within the historic district or for properties located outside the historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" on the local register. The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval or denial of the sign permit application based upon the proposed design and/or materials, but not upon the proposed size or location. The application shall then be presented to the proper issuing authority for sign permits, pursuant to Chapter 17.48. Sign permits shall be issued only in compliance with the recommendation of the committee. Approval by the committee in no way implies approval by the issuing authority for sign permits, whose approval must also be s ecured pursuant to Chapter 17.48.

5. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the moving or demolition of structures in the historic district or listed on the local register. The committee shall have the power to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove such applications, subject to the provisions of Section 17.56.130.

6. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to compile and update the historic survey and inventory, and to nominate properties to the local register, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the National Register of Historic Places. In selecting properties for nomination to the local register, the board shall consider:
a. Architectural significance and style;
b. Historic significance, including age of structure, original owners, and events related to the structure, site or original owners.

The committee shall review the local register annually every five years , make recommendations for the addition or deletion of structures or sites, and submit said recommendations to the planning commission and city council for certification.

7. Permits may be issued for air conditioners, electrical work and plumbing work that is visible from a public right -of-way when the chief building official determines that the work insignificantly affects the exterior of a structure, or that reasonable alternatives as to location or screening have been employed. The building official may fo rward to the historic preservation advisory committee applications for permits for this type of work when it appears that the appearance of a structure may be significantly altered. This subsection shall not apply to the following types of permit applications:

1. Reroofing with like materials;

2. Residing with like materials;

3. Swimming pools;

4. Masonry repairs with like materials;
208
Ordinance No. 2022-10

5. Chimney repair with like materials. (Ord. 2017 -01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2008 -11 § 1, 2008: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7704)

8. Sites within the historic district or on the local register shall reserve a minimum 50% of the required front yard setback area for the purposes of landscaping.

17.56.060 Appeal.

Any person or persons jointl y or severally aggrieved by a decision of the historic preservation advisory committee may make an appeal in writing therefrom to the city council within ten days of said action. The city council, after proceeding in the manner as provided therein and with the same power and authority there invested in passing upon appeals before it under the provisions of law and this chapter and in the exercise thereof, may reverse, affirm or modify or affirm as modified the action of the historic preservation advisory committee. Appeals of a decision of the site plan review committee shall be filed with the planning commission in the manner prescribed in Section 17.28.050. (Ord. 2017- 01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7705)

17.56.070 Demolition or moving of historic structures.

A. The demolition of structures listed on the local register, and the moving of local register structures from their sites, shall be discouraged. The historic preservation advisory committee shall review all applicat ions for demolition or moving permits for structures on the local register and for any structures within the historic district boundaries.

B. After due consideration, the committee shall exercise one of the options listed below:

1. The committee may approve the demolition permit if it finds that the structure is a hazard to public health or safety, as determined by the building official or his designee, in consultation with the historic preservation advisory committee.

2. The committee may decide that up to a six -month moratorium be placed upon the processing of the demolition or moving permit, in order to allow time for the applicant and the committee to find alternative uses for the structure and to seek alternative solutions to the demoliti on or moving of the structure. If no alternatives are found, after the six - month moratorium has expired, the committee must approve the application.

3. In the case of local register structures that have been classified as "exceptional," the The committee may deny an application for demolition, after the six-month moratorium has expired. Denial of a demolition permit by the committee is subject to appeal to the city council pursuant to Section 17.56.060.

4. The committee may approve the application.

may be issued. Approval of a permit application by the committee in no way implies approval by the building official, whose approva l must also be secured. (Ord. 2017 -01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7706)

17.56.080 Ordinary maintenance and repair.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent ordinary maintenance or repair of any structure with in the historic district; provided such work involves no change that requires issuance of a building permit. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition of any feature that, in the view of the proper authority acting lawfully, is required for the public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001:
prior code § 7708)

17.56.090 Exceptions to Visalia Municipal Code requirements.

Due to the peculiar conditions of design and construction in historic neighborhoods where structures were sometimes built close to lot lines, and where ownership patterns have changed over the years, it is sometimes in the public interest to retain the historic appearance of a neighborhood by making an exception to normal setback, parking, landscaping, fencing and screening requirements of the Visalia Municipal Code, where such an exception does not interfere with the public health or safety. Within the historic district, where it is deemed that such an exception is warranted and will not adversely affect neighboring properties, the historic preservation advisory committee may initiate and/or recommend to the planning commission that such exception to Visalia Municipal Code requirements be made. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001:
prior code § 7709)

17.56.100 Building design compatibility criteria.

This section contains criteria for reviewing all applications for new construction and sign permits within the historic district, and for any rehabilitation, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, or enlargement affecting the exterior appearance of any structure within the historic district that is not listed on the local register, which requires the issuance of a building permit. Each application shall be considered in terms of its compatibility or complementariness with a majority of structures in the immediately surrounding area. In reviewing an application, the historic preservation advisory committee shall consider the following general design standards and principles:

A. Height and Scale. New buildings should be constructed to a height within a reasonable average height of existing adjacent buildings.

B. Spacing of B uildings on Street. A rhythm of recurrent building masses to separations should be retained.

C. Relationship of Materials and Textures. Choice of building materials and texture (smooth and rough) should enhance the desired neighborhood qualities such as compatibility, similarity and continuity.
210
Ordinance No. 2022-10

D. Relationship of Architectural Details and Roof Shapes. Choice of architectural details and roof shape should insure compatible appearance with surrounding structures.

E. Walls of Continuity. Physical ingredients such as brick walls, wrought iron fences, and evergreen landscape masses should be used to form continuous cohesive walls of enclosure along the street.

F E. Landscaping. Landscaping should reflect the predominant quality and quantity of landscaping within the surrounding area. The concern here is more with mass and continuity.

G F. Directional Expression of Front Elevations. Structural shape, placement of openings, and architectural details should be used to give a compatible appearance with adjacent structures that may be horizontal, vertical or nondirectional in nature. (Ord. 2017- 01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7710)

17.56.110 Local register structures.

This section contains criteria for reviewing all applications for building permits for exterior rehabilitation, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, or enlargement of any local register structure within the historic district, or any "exceptional" or "focus" local register structure outside the hi storic district, and for any interior modification that requires the issuance of a building permit for a publicly owned and publicly accessible local register structure. In reviewing an application, the historic preservation advisory committee shall consider the following general standards and principles:

A. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property that requires minimal alteration of the building structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose.

B. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.

C. All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time.

Alterations that have no historic basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.

D. Changes, which may have taken place in the course of time, are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected.

E. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship, which characterize a building, structure or site, shall be treated with sensitivity.

Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate 211
Ordinance No. 2022-10

duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures.

G. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be under taken, without prior approval of the historic preservation advisory committee.

H. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction project. (Ord. 2710 (part), 2017:

Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7711)

17.56.120 Fencing and wall design criteria.

This section contains criteria for reviewing all applications for new fencing and walls within the historic district or on the local register, and for any application for rehabilitation, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, or enlargement of fencing and walls within the historic district or on the local register. In revie wing an application, the historic preservation advisory committee shall consider the following general standards and principles:

A. Fencing proposals shall be used to form continuous cohesive walls of enclosure along the street, and shall be compatible with the architectural style of the main building and historic district.

B. If historic walls or fencing exist on a property, preference should be given to repair of the existing fencing or wall to restore its original appearance to the extent possible . If removal and replacement of historic fencing and walls is proposed, preference should be given to the use of like materials to preserve the appearance of the original fencing or wall.

C. Proposals for new fencing or walls should be compatible with the character and architectural elements of the historic structure onsite and its period of original construction.

D. Appropriate materials for fencing and walls shall include, but not be limited to, landscape masses, w ood, wood pickets, wrought iron, cast iron, masonry walls , brick, stone, decorative wire, and vinyl materials that mimic the appearance of painted wood.

E. Proposals for chain link fencing in areas visible from the street shall be discouraged. The historic preservation advisory committee may grant an application for chain link fencing along public streets if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the committee makes one of the following findings:

1. That the proposed chain link fencing is compatible with the historic structure and the neighborhood;
212
Ordinance No. 2022-10

2. That sufficient evidence has been provided indicating that the applicant will experience an economic hardship should the chain link fencing not be permitted to be placed onsite;

17.56.120 17.56.130 Role of building official.

A. The building official shall refuse to issue all building or sign permits based upon an application disapproved by the historic preservation advisory committee, unless such application is later approved by the city council. The building official may approve any application approved or conditionally approved by the committee at such time as any conditions specified in such conditional approval are clearly indicated by the applicant on the plans presented to the building official for approval. If an appeal to the city council is filed within ten days from the date of committee approval of an application, no permit shall be issued until the outcome of said appeal is finally determined by the city council.

B. After a building permit has been issued, the building official or his/her designee shall from time to time inspect the construction, alteration or enlargement approved by the committee and shall take such action as is necessary to assure compliance with the approved plans. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001 -13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7712)

17.56.130 17.56.140 Separability.

The provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be severable, and if any of its provisions shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of the court shall not impair any of the remaining provisions. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7707)

213
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!( !(!( !(!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!( !(!(!(
!( !(!(!(!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!( !(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(!(!(
!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!( !( !(!( !(
!(!(
Hwy 198
W Myrtle Ave
W Murray Ave
W Kaweah Ave
W Center Ave
W Mineral King Ave
W Tulare Ave
S Giddings St
N Court St
N Floral St
E Main St
N Bridge St
S Mooney Blvd
N Santa Fe St
N Locust St
S Bridge StS Locust St
W Burrel Ave
N Encina St
S Conyer St
E Race Ave
N Garden St
W Laurel Ave
S Church St
W Grove Ave
E Noble Ave
S Sowell St
S Watson St
E Tulare Ave
S Encina St
E Center Ave
E School Ave
E Murray Ave
W Beverly Dr
N Church St
S Garden St
E Oak Ave
E Acequia Ave
N Jacob St
W Acequia Ave
NE 1st Ave
S Divisadero St
W Goshen Ave
N Tipton St
S Santa Fe St
W School Ave
W Race Ave
N Park St
NW 1st Ave
N Leslie St
W Meadow Ave
S Oak Park St
Alley
E Mineral King Ave
NE 2nd Ave
N Turner St
W College Ave
NW 2nd Ave
Pearl St
N Fairway St
N Johnson St
W Main St
W Green Acres Dr
S West St
E Cypress Ave
N West St
N Rinaldi St
N Willis St
S Willis St
Granite St
E Laurel Ave
N Mooney Blvd
E Myrtle AveS Jacob St
S Court St
W Noble Ave
N Giddings St
N Conyer St
E Douglas Ave
E Kaweah Ave
S Liberty St
W Pershing Ave
W Sunset Dr
N Midland St
W Hyde Ave
S Dollner St
S Central St
N Highland St
W Club Dr
S Johnson St
NE 3rd Ave
N Hall St
NW 3rd Ave
W Sady Ave
E Grove Ave
W Westcott Ave
S Stevenson St
N Todd St
S Elm St
S Floral St
W Switzer Ave
S Tipton St
Ash St
S Shady St
W Linden Ave
S Bonnie St
S Clark St
N Stevenson St
W Olive Ave
Pine St
W Sierra Ave
E Sequoia Ave
W Manor Dr
Grape St
W Oak Ave
N Dudley St
N Divisadero St
S Martin St
W Sanders Ave
N Liberty St
E Willow Ave
S Edwards Ct
Private St
W Willow Ave
N Highland St
Alley
W Laurel Ave
Alley
Alley
S Tipton St
Alley
Alley
Alley
N Conyer St
Alley
E Cypress Ave
Alley
Alley
S Stevenson St
Alley
S Court St
W Goshen Ave
Alley
W Mineral King Ave
N Dudley St
S Conyer St
Alley
W Grove Ave
Alley
N Divisadero St
S Central St
S Church St
N Liberty St
W Oak Ave
E Myrtle Ave
Alley
S Bridge St
S Willis St
N Willis St
S Johnson St
E Laurel Ave
N Turner St
N Stevenson St
Alley
Alley
Alley
E Myrtle Ave
W School Ave
N Divisadero St
W Oak Ave
W Laurel Ave
N West St
S Martin St
N Rinaldi St
W Myrtle Ave
W School Ave
W Tulare Ave
N Conyer St
N Hall St
Alley
Alley
E Sequoia Ave
S Locust St
S Clark St
N Stevenson StAlley
Alley
W Noble Ave
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
W Kaweah Ave
Alley
Alley
N Hall St
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
S Dollner St
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
N Giddings St
N Jacob St
E Douglas Ave
N Stevenson St

MILL CREEK
EXHIBIT "A"
H i s t o r i c
D i s t r i c t &
L o c a l
R e g i s t e r
M a p
City Limits
Streets
Railroad
Waterways
Parcels
!( Local Registry
Historical District
0 600 1200300
Feet
¨
214

REPORT TO THE CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION

HEARING DATE: July 11, 2022

PROJECT PLANNER: Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
Phone: (559) 713-4443
E-mail: [email protected]

SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment No. 202 2-01: A request by the City of Visalia to amend Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District) as to: A) requiring “Background” classified Local Reg ister structures located outside the Historic District to undergo Historic Preservation Adv isory Committee (HPAC) review for exterior alteration requests, B) granting the HPAC the ability to deny demolition requests for any property within the Historic District and/or listed on the Local Register, C) adding definitions for Local Register classifications, D) adding specific criteria for the evaluation of fencing proposals within the Historic District and/or on the Local Register, E) limiting the percentage o f paved surfaces allowed within front yard se tback areas for properties within the Historic District and/or on the Local Register; and F) changing the frequency of Local Register reviews. The project area is contained within the City of Visalia’s Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2022-30, recommending that the City Council approve adoption of Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-

01. This recomm endation is based on the information contained in t he staff report, compatibility with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and Historic Preservation Element of the Visalia General Plan.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend that the City Counc il approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-01, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-30.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
In 1979 Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17. 56 (Historic Preservation District Ordinance ) was adopted to protect and preserve the City’s dist inct collection of unique and historically significant structures. The Ordinance created the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) to oversee building and zoning actio ns related to historically significant sites and structures within two areas of jurisdiction: the Historic District and th e Local Register of Historic Structures (see Exhibit “A”).

The Historic District consists of three areas containing large groupings of historically significant structures, often with similar architectural styles and elements. A to tal o f 6 78 properties are located within the boundaries of the Historic District. The Local Register consists of individual properties which have been identified by the HPAC as containing historically significant and unique structures. These properties can be l ocated anywhere within City L imits, inside or outside of the bounds of the Historic District. The Local Register 215
currently contains 368 properties. Structures on the Local Register are given one of three classifications, based on factors such as histo rical importance, uniquen ess of architect ure, and quality of construction. The classifications are defined as follows:
• Exceptional: Properties with preeminent historical significance, considered for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. • Focus: Properties having significant value, of good to excellent quality, considered for local recognition and protection.
• Background: Properties that may not be historically significa nt or unique in their construction, but which contribute positively to the “visual fabric” of the City of Visalia.

The HPAC has review authority over projects conducted within the Histori c District and/or on sites located outside the Historic District and listed as "Exceptional" or " Focus" on the Local Register. “Background” Local Register structures located outside the Historic District are not subject to HPAC review unless proposed for d emolition. Actions of the HPAC are appealable directly to the Visalia City Council.

Project Description
The Historic Preservation Ordinance U pdate is a city -initiated request to implement a series of historic preservation-related Zoning Ordinance text amendments. In early 2021, the Visalia City Council directed the HPAC to provide recommendations for revision of the Historic Preservation District Ordinance to address concerns that the ordinance does not adequately protect historically designated structures and sites from destruction and blight.

Proposed Ordinance updates were formulated by the HPAC and discussed with the Visalia City Council and Visal ia Building Advisory Committee at w ork sessions held on Oct ober 10, 2021, November 17, 2021, and February 22, 2022. Upon completion of the work sessions, the City Council direct ed the HPAC to pursue six areas of revision. The proposed rev isions are as follows:

A. Update the Ordinance so that exterior alterations to “Background” Lo cal Register structures located outside the Historic District are subject to HPAC review.

B. Grant the HPAC the ability to de ny demolition requests for any property wit hin the Historic District or Local Register.

C. Add definitions for Local Register classifications to the Ordinance.

D. Add specific criteria for the evaluation of fencing proposals.

E. Limit the percentage of paved surfaces allowed within front yard areas.

F. Change the frequency of Local Register reviews.

The propose d amendments to the Historic Preservat ion District Ordin ance w ill affect only those areas contained within the City of Visalia ’s Historic District and properties listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures. A map containing the location of the exis ting Historic District and Local Regis ter sites is inclu ded as Exhibit “A”. All othe r areas of th e City , not subject to the Historic District and/or Local Register, will be unaffected by the proposal unless a historic de signation or Local Register status is applied in the future by the Visalia City Council.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Review
HPAC review of the proposal was completed at a special called meeting held May 26, 2022.

At that meeting, the Committee recommended approval of the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update to the Visalia Planni ng Commission on the basis that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Element of the Visalia 216
General Plan, and that the proposal will not be injurious to the character or overall uniformity of the Historic D istrict and Local Register of Historic Structures. The approval letter from the HPAC is included as Exhibit “B”.

The Planning Commission must consider the recommendation o f the HPAC and provide a recommendation to the Visalia City Council for consideration. Final authority to approve the proposal resides with the City Council.

PROJECT EVALUATION
General Plan Consistency
The proposed zoning text amendments are consistent wi th the following objectives and policies of the Visalia General Plan Historic Preservation Element:

Historic Preservation Element Objective H-O-1 – Assure the recognition of the City’s history through the preservation of historic sites, structures and feat uring zoning overlay designation and discretionary review procedures for the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-7 – Continue to use the Historic Preservation Ordinance development review process to protect structures listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures or located within the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-9 – Periodically survey historic resources and nominate historically and/or architecturally significant sites, structures, and neighborhoods to the Local Register of Historic Structures and/or Historic District, State of Cali fornia Invento ry of Historic Resources, National Regis ter of Historic Places to ensure they are protected.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-10 – Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.

Provisions for fencing and landscapi ng assist in the preserv ation of historically designated areas by ensuring compatibility of fencing designs and s treetscapes. Changes to Local Register reviews do not conflict with timeframes identified in H -P-9 and H -P-10 and will provide the HPAC with time to conduct thorough reviews without constraining the Committee and staff from pursuing other projects.

Proposed Zoning Text Amendments
The following are the updates to the Historic Preservation District Ordinance proposed by the HPAC, and which the City Council directed be pursued. The proposals include the associated ordinance text change s required to implement t he provision. Changes proposed to Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 are noted with underline & italics for additions and strikeout for deletions.

A. Update the Ordinance so that exterior alterations to “Background” Local Register structures located outside the Historic District are subject to HPAC review.

Summary of Recommended Action: Currently, if a Local Register structure is located outside the Historic District, and is classified as “Background”, it is only subject to HPAC review if proposed for demol ition. Local R egister structures located outside the Historic District and classified as “Background” that propose exteri or alterations, additions, and construction of new structures, are exempt fr om HPAC review. Removal of this exemption provision will authorize the HPAC to re view exterior building alterations for any property that is within the 217
Historic District or on the Local Register, regardless of classification. The HPAC proposes the change t o prevent the negative alt eration and loss of historic stru ctures due to lack of oversight and communication with applicants/property owners. The change, if approved, also strengthens the abilit y of the HPAC to pursue the purpose and intent of the Historic Preservation District Ord inance, described in Section 17.5 6.010.B as to preserve and promote the public welfare through prote ction of the City ’s historic structures, sites, and features.

This c hange would affect 36 properties which are c urrently located outside the Historic District and listed on the L ocal Register with a “Background” classification. At present, these 36 properties are not subject to HPAC oversi ght for exterior alt erations. If t his proposed change is approved, the 36 properties would be subject to HP AC revi ew for a ny exterior alteration proposed, similar to all other p roperties wit hin the Historic District and/or on the Local Register with a “Focus”/”Exceptional” classification. Given the small number of properties impacted, this change is not expected to have a significant impact on staff time.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
• 17.56.040 Regulation of structures.

17.56.110.
• 17.56.050.C.4: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applicatio ns for sign pe rmits within the historic district or for properties located outside t he historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" on the local register. The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval or denial of the sign permit a pplication based upon the proposed design and/or materials, but not upon the propose d si ze or location . The application shall then be p resented to the proper issuing authority for sign permits, pursuant to Chapter 17.48. Sign permits shall be issued only i n compliance with the recommendation of the committee. Approval by the committee in no w ay implies app roval by the issuing authority fo r sig n permits, whose approval must also be secured pursuant to Chapter 17.48. • 17.56.110 Local register structures.

This section cont ains criteria for reviewing all applications for building permits f or exterior rehabilit ation, renovation, alteration, re construction, or enlar gement of an y local register structure within the historic district, or any "exceptional" or "focus " local register structure outside the historic district , and for any interior mo dification that requires the issuance of a building pe rmit for a publicly owned and publicly accessible local register structure. In reviewing an ap plication, the historic pre servation advisory committee shall consider the following general standards and principles:

218

B. Grant the HPAC the ability to deny demoli tion requests for any pr operty within the Historic District or Local Register, regardless of classification.

Summary of Recommended Action: The Historic Preservation District Ordinance requires the HPAC t o review all applicat ions for demolition of structur es listed on the Local R egister or located within the Historic District. However , the ordinance only grants the HPAC the authority to deny a request for demolition of a historically designated structure in instances where the site is on the Local Register with an “Exceptional” classification. In all other instances, the HPAC is compelled to either approve a demolition on the g rounds that the structure is a public hazard, approve the demolition request outr ight, or approve the demolition request with a moratorium of up to six months on the iss uance of a Demolition or Moving Permit. The exemption provision has resulted in a numbe r of historic buildings being demolished, mostly recently the Odell -Mor Building located at 2 09 N. E ncina Street. The proposed change will provide the HPAC w ith another tool with which to enact the purpose and intent of the Historic Preservation Distri ct Ordinance, to preserve and promote the city's cultural heritage, by ensuring its historic structures, sites, and features are not destroyed.

If approved, the change will affect the 355 properties that are currently on the Local Register with a “Focus” and “Background” classification, as well the 377 properties that are in the Historic District but not on the Local Register. Since the ordinance already permits the HPAC to rev iew demolition requests for any site within the Historic District or Local Register , th e only significant effect of the proposed change is the possibility that a demolition request may be denied. To that effect, staff’s research has found that review of demolition requests is rare, and that such requests are almost always approved. Between January 2011 and May 2022, the HPAC has only reviewed eight (8) demolition requests. Six of the eigh t requests were for main structu res, such as a residence or office . In all exc ept one instance , the HPAC approved the demolition request. The sole exception was for t he Odell-Mor building, which resulted in the application of a six -month m oratorium, after which a d emolition permit was issued. Furthermore, any denial of a demolition request by the HPAC can be appealed by an applicant free of charge to the City Council.

CEQA Considerations: Approval of the proposal will trigger a requirement for staff to cond uct a California Environmental Q uality Act (CEQA) review for any de molition request submitted for review. The possibility of denial will make any demolition request a discretionary matter, triggering CEQA processes. This could potentially result in fees be ing charged and additional processing time added for review of the demolition request. HPAC review is currently free of charge. The addition of CEQA processe s will in crease fees to $78.00 for a Categorical Exemption or $800.00 for an Initial Study/Negative Declaration. A separate $58.00 filing fee is also required for the filing of a CEQA review determination with the Tulare County Clerk. The preparation of a CEQA Categorical Exemption is not expected to have a significant impact on the processing of a demo lition request. However, if an I nitial Study/Negative Declaration is required (as would be the case for the proposed demolition of a structure adjacent to a S tate Highway or on the National Register of Historic Places) , the increased level of CEQA review will increase fees for the applic ant and add processing periods between one to seve ral months depending on the project . The preparation of an Initial Study/Negative Dec laration could also result in the requirement that technical studies be submitted to help address issues related to the demolition request. The cost for staff to review technical studies will add an additional $238.00 fee per study to a demolition request. Applicants will also be subject to additional fees charged by consultants to prepare the required technical studies. 219
Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
• 17.56.050.C.5: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the moving or demolition of structures in the historic district or listed on t he local register. The c ommittee shall have the power to approv e, conditionally approve, or disapprove such applications, subject to the provisions of Section 17.56.130.
• 17.56.070.B.3: In the case of local register structures that have been classifi ed as "exceptional," the The committee may deny an application for dem olition, after the six- month moratorium has expired . Denial of a demolition permit by the commit tee is subject to appeal to the city council pursuant to Section 17.56.060.

C. Addition of la nguage to the H istoric Preservation Ordinance defining the “Exceptional”, “Focus” and “Background” classifications of the Local Register.

This change will update the definitions section of the ordinance to include the classifica tions, to codify the language provided in the Historic Preservation Element.

This has been the existing interpretation of the language existing in the ordinance by staff and the HPAC . It ensures compatibility of all structures located on the same site as a historically significant structure. The proposed change will assist in clarifying the applicability of the Local Register designation.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
• 17.56.030.B Definitions.
o "Local register" means the listing of local historic structures, sites and features adopted by the city council and maintained by the historic preservation advisory committee, and incorporated herein by reference. This designation is inclusive of all structures and features located within the boundaries of the property for which the local register designation has been applied.
o “Local regi ster, Background” means p roperties that may not be historically significant or uniqu e in their construction, but which contribute positively to the “visual fabric” of the City of Visalia.
o “Local register, Exceptional” means p roperties with pree minent histo rical significance, considered for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
o “Local regis ter, Focus” means p roperties having significant value, of good to excellent quality, considered for local recognition and protection.

220
D. Removal of languag e regarding specific fencing types, in favor of general language requiring consideration based on style and context:

No specific fencing language is included for Local Register sites . As such, staff has generally also applied the “Walls of Continuit y” guidance to Local Register sites . As a re sult of the existing language in the ordinance, t he HPAC has established a longstanding pre cedent that materials such as chain link fencing are not appropriate for historic areas and do not constitute an appropriate wall of continuity.

Owners also noted the financial constraints of purchasing fencing types other than chai n link.

When the comments from property owners where shared with the City Council at the October 2021 work session, the Council was sympathetic to the concerns. At that meeting the Council requested that the HPAC create specific standards for fence reviews and that such standards be inclusive of chain link fencing mate rials. This directive was alter ed at th e February 2022 follow up work sessi on, wherein the C ity Counc il expresse d reservations over the outright approval of all chain link fencing proposals.

To add ress the directives of the City Council , staff recommends the elimination of text referencing “walls of continuity ” in fa vor of definitive language th at encourages repair of historic fencing and use of specific new materials that are compati ble with historic structures and streetscapes. Recommended changes also allow for the consideration of c hain lin k fencing, subject to findings which would allow for approval based on hi storic compatibility or economic hardship. The intent is to increase flexibility and equitability in the review of fencing, allowing for a wide range of fencing types within the Historic District and Local Register.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
• 17.56.100 Building design compatibility criteria.
o E. Walls of Continuity. P hysical ingredients such as brick walls, wrought iron fences, and evergreen landscape masses sh ould be used to form conti nuous cohesive walls of enclosure along the street.
o FE. Landscaping.
o GF. Directional Expression of Front Elevations.
• 17.56.120 Fencing and wall design criteria.

This section contains criteria for reviewing all applications for new fencing and walls within the historic distric t or on the local re gister, and for any application for rehabilitation, renova tion, alteration, reconstruction, or en largement of fencing and walls within the historic district or on the local register. In reviewing an application, the historic preservation advisory committee shall consider the following general standards and principles:

A. Fencing proposals sh all be used t o form continuous c ohesive walls of enclosure along the street , and sh all be compatible w ith the architectural styl e of the main building and historic district.
221
B. If historic walls or fencing exist on a property, preference should be given to repair of the e xisting fencing or wall to r estore its original appearance to the extent possible. If rem oval and replacement of historic fencing and walls is proposed, preference should be given to the use of like materials to prese rve the appearance of the original fencing or wall.

C. Proposals for new fencing or walls sh ould be compatible with the character and architectural elements of the historic structure onsite and its period of orig inal construction.

D. Appropriate materials for fe ncing and walls shall include, bu t not be limited to , landscape mas ses, wood, wood picket s, wrought iron, cast i ron, masonry wal ls, brick, stone, decorative wire , and vinyl materials that mi mic the appearance of painted wood.

E. Proposals for chain link fencing in areas visible from the street shall be discouraged. The historic preservation advisory committee may grant an application for chain link fencing al ong public streets if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the committee makes one of the following findings:

1. That th e proposed chain link fencing is compatible with the historic structure and the neighborhood;

2. That sufficient evid ence has been provided indicating that the a pplicant wi ll experience an economic hardship should the chain link fencing not be permitted to be placed onsite;
• 17.56.120 17.56.130 Role of building official.
• 17.56.130 17.56.140 Separability.

E. Inclusion of la nguage requiring historically designa ted sit es to maint ain a minimum 50% of front yard areas for landscaping purposes.

Summary of Recom mended Action: The Historic Preservation District Ordinance does not currently include language regarding the inclusion o f landscaping in historic areas. As such there is no ov ersight of landscaping improvements on historically designated sites . This has resulted in loss of aesthetically appealing streetscapes due to the paving of front yard areas and removal of mature plantings. To address this issue, it is recommended that language be included in the ordinance requiring si tes within the Historic District or Local Register to maintain a minimum 50% of front yard areas for landscaping purposes. The intent is to prevent front yard areas from being permanently paved and to encourage placement of landscaping for the beautificat ion of historic sites and neighbor hoods. The 5 0% provision would only be applicable to front yard setback areas and would still allow sufficient space for the paving of driveways for garages and entr yways. Alternative landscape materials such as river rock and synthetic turf would still be permitted under this proposal.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
• 17.56.050.C:
o 8. Sites within the historic dist rict or on the local register shall reserve a minimum 5 0% of the required front yard setback area for the purpose s of landscaping. This shall include non-living ground cover and turf.

222
F. Modification of l anguage requiring the annual review of the Local Regi ster of Historic Structures.

Summary of Recomm ended Acti on: The Historic Preservation District Ordinance currently mandates that the Local Register be reviewed on an annual basis, with recommend ations for removal or addition of stru ctures provided to the P lanning Commission and City Cou ncil for certification. Reviews of this sort require increased efforts from committee members and staff to survey, research, and evaluate existing and potential Local Regi ster sites. Due to limitations in staff time and resources, undertaking tasks of this magnitude and frequency are not always feasible.

It is recommended that comprehensive reviews of the Local Register be conducted on a five- year basis to allow suffi cient time for review and analysis. Please note that such a change would not prevent the HPAC from conducting Local Re gister reviews within a quicke r timeframe for individual sites, or the entire Local Register, if resources are available.

Please note that the HPAC is in the proces s of conducting a comprehensive u pdate to the Local Register of Historic Structures (HPAC Item No. 2022-12). The intent is to ensure that all Local Register sites are g iven the appropriate classification. Any potential changes to the classification of Loca l Register structures will requir e review by the HPAC, Plan ning Commission, and City Council at public hearings.

The committee s hall review the local register annually every five years , make recommendations for the a ddition or deletion of structures or sites, and submit said recommendations to the planning commission and city council for certification.

Public Outreach
The HPAC cond ucted a public ou treach meeting on March 30, 2022, to answer qu estions and solicit comme nt on the text amendments propose d for Historic Preservation District Ordinance Update. A subsequent public hearing was held on May 26, 2022, by the HPAC.

For both meetings, public notices were sent to inform members of the public of the proposed changes. Public c omments received by the H PAC have been positive, with stakeholders generally in favor of the changes proposed.

For the July 11, 2022, Planning Commission public hearing, a public notice was published in the Visalia Times-Delta. At present, no public comment has been received for the proposal.

Environmental Review
The requested action is considered exempt under S ection 15061(b)(3) Per Section 15061 (b) (3) of th e State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Exemption has been prepared for the p roject because Section 15061 (b) (3) stat es that the project is exempted from CEQA if the activity is covered by the common-sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significan t effect on the environment. Wher e it can be seen with certainty that ther e is no possibility that the 223
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

The proposed text amendment to Visalia Munic ipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic District Preservation Ordinance) will not have a significant effect on the environment.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

1. That the proposed develo pment is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the Historic Preservation Element , an d the Visalia General Plan, as descri bed in the following Historic Preservation Element objectives and policies:

Historic Preservation Element Objective H-O-1 – Assure the recognition of the City’s history through the preservation of historic sites, struct ures and featuring zoning overlay des ignation and discretionary review procedu res for the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-7 – Continue to use th e Histor ic Preservation Ordinance development review process to protect structures listed on the Local Register of Histor ic Structures or located within the Hist oric District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-9 – Periodically survey historic resources and nominate historically and/or architecturally significant sites, structures, and neighborhoods to the Local Regist er of Historic Structures and/or Historic District, State of California Invento ry of Historic Resources, National Register of Historic Places to ensure they are protected.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-10 – Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.

2. That the proposal will not be injuriou s to the character or overall u niformity of the Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures.

3. That the project is exempt from fu rther review under the California Environ mental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

APPEAL INFORMATION
The Planning Commission’s recommendation on the project is advisory only and is automatically referred to the Visalia City Council for final action.

Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies - Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District)
• Resolution No. 2022-30
• Exhibit “A” – Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures Map • Exhibit “B” – Historic Preservation Advisory Committee No. 2022-11, May 26, 2022, Approval Letter
224

RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
Chapter 17.56

HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT
Sections:

17.56.010 Purposes and intent.

17.56.020 Components of the chapter.

17.56.030 Definitions.

17.56.040 Regulation of structures.

17.56.050 Creation of historic preservation advisory committee.

17.56.060 Appeal.

17.56.070 Demolition or moving of historic structures.

17.56.080 Ordinary maintenance and repair.

17.56.090 Exceptions to Visalia Municipal Code requirements.

17.56.100 Building design compatibility criteria.

17.56.110 Local register structures.

17.56.120 Role of building official.

17.56.130 Separability.

17.56.010 Purposes and intent.

1. The protection and preservation of historic structures;

2. The preservation and maintenance of historic residential areas as cohesive neighborhood units;

3. The enhancement of property values in the older areas of the city;

4. The assurance that the community's cultural heritage, as reflected in the environment, is not lost;

5. The encouragement of the development of vacant and incompatibly developed properties in accordance with the character of the historic district;

6. The involvement of residents of the older areas in planning their own neighborhoods. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7700)

17.56.020 Components of the chapter.

This chapter shall include:

1. The ordinance, which specifies the historic district overlay designation, design evaluation criteria, and the formation, powers and duties of a historic preservation advisory committee; 225

2. Creation of a local register of historic structures, sites and features that may be modified from time to time by resolution of the city council.

3. Two maps that designate the historic district overlay. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7701)

17.56.030 Definitions.

A. All definitions, general and specific, set forth in Section 17.04.030 shall be applicable to this chapter.

B. Definitions.
"Construction" means any building activity requiring the issuance of a building permit, except for any activity that does not affect the exterior appearance of the structure. "Enlargement" means construction that results in the expansion of the gross floor area of a structure.
"Historic structure" means a structure listed on the Local Register. "Local register" means the listing of local historic structures, sites and features adopted by the city council and maintained by the historic preservation advisory committee, and incorporated herein by reference. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001:
prior code § 7702)

17.56.040 Regulation of structures.

17.56.050 Creation of historic preservation advisory committee.

In order to execute the purposes declared in this chapter, there is created a historic preservation advisory committee.

A. Committee Membership.

1. The historic preservation advisory committee shall consist of seven members appointed by the city council to serve without compensation. All committee members shall be residents of the city at the time of their appointment and will lose their position if they move outside the city limits during their term of office. Members shall be appointed on the basis of:
a. Relevant professional or business qualifications;
b. Ownership of property within the historic district; c. Practical experience in restoration or preservation; d. Exceptional civic interest.
e. Terms of office shall be for two years.

Should a mid-term vacancy occur, an alternate may automatically fill the unexpired term. The council shall also have the power to remove any member from the committee by an affirmative vote of three council members.
226

3. Four members of the committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

17.56.050(B)). Applications shall be approved or disapproved based solely on the considerations set forth in this chapter. It is the intent of this chapter that the historic preservation advisory committee shall encourage applicants to make alterations and repairs to structures in the spirit of the architectural style of the structure. The duties and responsibilities of the historic preservation advisory committee shall include the following:

1. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all proposed zoning actions (zone changes, conditional use permits, special zoning exceptions, planned unit developments and variances) within the historic district. The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval, modification or disapproval of an application based upon the expected impact of the proposed zoning action on the historic or architectural significance of the affected structure(s), neighborhood, or the entire historic district. The committee's recommendation shall be forwarded to the planning commission for its consideration.

2. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for site plan review permits within the historic district for compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Items that shall be subject to review by the committee include but are not limited to vehicular access, location and screening of parking, setbacks, location of service use areas, walls and landscaping. The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval, disapproval or resubmittal of the site plan review permit application.

The committee's recommendation shall be forwarded to the site plan review committee for its consideration.

3. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the construction or exterior alteration or enlargement of structures within the historic district or for structures located outside the historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" structures on the local register. The committee shall have the power to approve, modify or disapprove such applications before a building permit can be issued, subject to the provisions of Sections 17.56.100 and 17.56.110.

4. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for sign permits within the historic district or for properties located outside the historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" on the local register. The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval or denial of the sign permit application based upon the proposed design and/or materials, but not upon the proposed size or location. The application shall then be presented to the proper issuing authority for sign permits, pursuant to Chapter 17.48. Sign permits shall be issued only in compliance with the recommendation 227
of the committee. Approval by the committee in no way implies approval by the issuing authority for sign permits, whose approval must also be secured pursuant to Chapter 17.48.

5. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the moving or demolition of structures listed on the local register. The committee shall have the power to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove such applications, subject to the provisions of Section 17.56.130.

6. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to compile and update the historic survey and inventory, and to nominate properties to the local register and the National Register of Historic Places. In selecting properties for nomination to the local register, the board shall consider:
a. Architectural significance and style;
b. Historic significance, including age of structure, original owners, and events related to the structure, site or original owners.

The committee shall review the local register annually, make recommendations for the addition or deletion of structures or sites, and submit said recommendations to the planning commission and city council for certification.

7. Permits may be issued for air conditioners, electrical work and plumbing work that is visible from a public right-of-way when the chief building official determines that the work insignificantly affects the exterior of a structure, or that reasonable alternatives as to location or screening have been employed. The building official may forward to the historic preservation advisory committee applications for permits for this type of work when it appears that the appearance of a structure may be significantly altered. This subsection shall not apply to the following types of permit applications:

1. Reroofing with like materials;

2. Residing with like materials;

3. Swimming pools;

4. Masonry repairs with like materials;

5. Chimney repair with like materials. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2008-11 § 1, 2008:

Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7704)

17.56.060 Appeal.

Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by a decision of the historic preservation advisory committee may make an appeal in writing therefrom to the city council within ten days of said action. The city council, after proceeding in the manner as provided therein and with the same power and authority there invested in passing upon appeals before it under the provisions of law and this chapter and in the exercise thereof, may reverse, affirm or modify or affirm as modified the action of the historic preservation advisory committee.

Appeals of a decision of the site plan review committee shall be filed with the planning commission in the manner prescribed in Section 17.28.050. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7705)

17.56.070 Demolition or moving of historic structures.

A. The demolition of structures listed on the local register, and the moving of local register structures from their sites, shall be discouraged. The historic preservation advisory committee 228
shall review all applications for demolition or moving permits for structures on the local register and for any structures within the historic district boundaries.

B. After due consideration, the committee shall exercise one of the options listed below:

2. The committee may decide that up to a six-month moratorium be placed upon the processing of the demolition or moving permit, in order to allow time for the applicant and the committee to find alternative uses for the structure and to seek alternative solutions to the demolition or moving of the structure. If no alternatives are found, after the six-month moratorium has expired, the committee must approve the application.

3. In the case of local register structures that have been classified as "exceptional," the committee may deny an application for demolition, after the six-month moratorium has expired. Denial of a demolition permit by the committee is subject to appeal to the city council pursuant to Section 17.56.060.

4. The committee may approve the application.

C. When an application is acted upon, the committee shall notify the building official of the approval, conditional approval or denial. Upon receipt of said notification, the building official shall process the application accordingly. If, after six months from the date of filing of the application, the building official has not received such notification, a permit may be issued. Approval of a permit application by the committee in no way implies approval by the building official, whose approval must also be secured. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001- 13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7706)

17.56.080 Ordinary maintenance and repair.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent ordinary maintenance or repair of any structure within the historic district; provided such work involves no change that requires issuance of a building permit. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition of any feature that, in the view of the proper authority acting lawfully, is required for the public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7708)

17.56.090 Exceptions to Visalia Municipal Code requirements.

Due to the peculiar conditions of design and construction in historic neighborhoods where structures were sometimes built close to lot lines, and where ownership patterns have changed over the years, it is sometimes in the public interest to retain the historic appearance of a neighborhood by making an exception to normal setback, parking, landscaping, fencing and screening requirements of the Visalia Municipal Code, where such an exception does not interfere with the public health or safety. Within the historic district, where it is deemed that such an exception is warranted and will not adversely affect neighboring properties, the historic preservation advisory committee may initiate and/or recommend to the planning commission that such exception to Visalia Municipal Code requirements be made. (Ord. 2017- 01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7709)

229

17.56.100 Building design compatibility criteria.

A. Height and Scale. New buildings should be constructed to a height within a reasonable average height of existing adjacent buildings.

B. Spacing of Buildings on Street. A rhythm of recurrent building masses to separations should be retained.

D. Relationship of Architectural Details and Roof Shapes. Choice of architectural details and roof shape should insure compatible appearance with surrounding structures.

E. Walls of Continuity. Physical ingredients such as brick walls, wrought iron fences, and evergreen landscape masses should be used to form continuous cohesive walls of enclosure along the street.

F. Landscaping. Landscaping should reflect the predominant quality and quantity of landscaping within the surrounding area. The concern here is more with mass and continuity.

G. Directional Expression of Front Elevations. Structural shape, placement of openings, and architectural details should be used to give a compatible appearance with adjacent structures that may be horizontal, vertical or nondirectional in nature. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7710)

17.56.110 Local register structures.

C. All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time.

Alterations that have no historic basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.
230
D. Changes, which may have taken place in the course of time, are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected.

E. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship, which characterize a building, structure or site, shall be treated with sensitivity.

F. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures.

G. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible.

Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken, without prior approval of the historic preservation advisory committee.

17.56.120 Role of building official.

17.56.130 Separability.

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2022-01,

A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF VISALIA TO AMEND VISALIA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.56 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT) AS TO: A) REQUIRING “BACKGROUND” CLASSIFIED LOCAL REGISTER STRUCTURES LOCATED

OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TO UNDERGO HISTORIC PRESERVATION

ADVISORY COMMITTEE (HPAC) REVIEW FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION

REQUESTS, B) GRANTING THE HPAC THE ABILITY TO DENY DEMOLITION

REQUESTS FOR ANY PROPERTY WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND/OR

LISTED ON THE LOCAL REGISTER, C) ADDING DEFINITIONS FOR LOCAL

EVALUATION OF FENCING PROPOSALS WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND/OR

ON THE LOCAL REGISTER, E) LIMITING THE PERCENTAGE OF PAVED SURFACES

WHEREAS, Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-01 is request by the City of Visalia to amend Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Hist oric Preservation District) as to: A) requiring “Background” classified Local Register structures located outside the Historic District to undergo Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) review for exterior alteration requests, B) granting the HPAC the ability to deny demolition requests for any property within the Historic District and/or listed on the Local Register, C) adding definitions for Local Register classifications, D) adding specific criteria for the evaluation of fencing proposals within the Historic D istrict and/or on the Local Register, E) limiting the percentage of paved surfaces allowed within front yard setback areas for properties within the Historic District and/or on the Local Register; and F) changing the frequency of Local Regis ter reviews. The project area is contained within the City of Visalia’s Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures. The specific amendments are specified in Attachment “A” of this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption); and

WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Advis ory Committee of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Committee on May 26 , 2022; and

WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee of the City of Visalia considered the Zoning Text Amendment in accordance with Section 17.56.050.B of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia , and based on evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing , recommended approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to the Visalia Planning Commission , via approval of HPAC No. 2022-11; and,

232
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-30

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly publi shed notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on July 11, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia cons idered the Zone Text Amendment in accordance with Section 17.44.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony pres ented at the public hearing.

NOW, THEREF ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Pl anning Commission recommends that the City Council concur that the project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15 061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia recommends approval to the City Council of the proposed Zone Text Amendment based on the following specific findings and evidence presented:

1. That the proposed development is consis tent with the Zoning Ordi nance, the Historic Preservation Element, and the Visalia General Plan, as described in the following Historic Preservation Element objectives and policies:

Historic Preservation Element Objective H-O-1 – Assure the recognition of the City’s history through the preservation of historic sites, structures and featuring zoning overlay desi gnation and discretionary review procedures for the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-7 – Continue to use the Historic Preservation Ordinance development review process to protect structures listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures or located within the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-9 – Periodically survey historic resources and nominate historically and/or architecturally significant sites, structures, and neighborhoods to the Local Register of Historic Structures and/or Historic Distr ict, State of California Invento ry of Historic Resources, National Register of Historic Places to ensure they are protected.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-10 – Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.

2. That the proposal will not be injurious to the character or overall uniformity of the Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures.

3. That the project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that t he Planning Commission of the City of Visalia recommends approval to the City Council of the Zone Text Amendment described herein in Attachment “A”, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Section 17.44.070 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia.

233
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-30
Resolution No. 2022-30

ATTACHMENT A

Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 2022-30, Historic Preservation Ordinance Update. Changes to City of Visalia Municipal Code Title 17 – Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District Ordinance) , as specified by underline & italics for additions and strikeout for deletions.

A. Update the Ordinance so that exterior alterations to “Backg round” Local Register structures located outside the Historic District are subject to HPAC review.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
• 17.56.040 Regulation of structures.

No structure shall be constructed, altered or enlarged that is located in the historic district or that is listed as an "exceptional" or "focus" structure on the local register and is located outside the historic district , unless such a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter. No structure listed on the local register shall be moved or demolished unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter.
• 17.56.050.C.3: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the construction or exterior alteration or enlargement of structures within the historic district or for structures located outside the historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" structures on the local register. The committee shall have the power to a pprove, modify or disapprove such a pplications before a building permit can be issued, subject to the provisions of Sections 17.56.100 and 17.56.110.
• 17.56.050.C.4: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applicat ions for sign permits within the hi storic district or for properties located outside the historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" on the local register. The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval or denial of the sign permit application based upon the proposed design and/or materials, but not upon the proposed size or location.

The application shall then be presented to the proper issuing authority for sign permits, pursuant to Chapter 17.48. Sign permits shall be issued only in compliance with the recommendat ion of the committee. Approval by the committee in no way implies approval by the issuing authority for sign permits, whose approval must also be secured pursuant to Chapter 17.48. • 17.56.110 Local register structures.

This section contains criteria for r eviewing all applications for building permits for exterior rehabilitation, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, or enlargement of any local register structure within the historic district, or any "exceptional" or "focus" local register structure outsid e the historic district , and for any interior modification that requires the issuance of a building permit for a publicly owned and publicly accessible local register structure. In reviewing an application, the 234
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-30
historic p reservation advisory committee shal l consider the following general standards and principles:

B. Grant the HPAC the ability to deny demolition requests for any property within the Historic District or Local Register, regardless of classification.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
• 17.56.050.C.5: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the moving or demolition of structures in the historic district or listed on the local register. The committee shall have the power to approve, con ditionally approve, or disapprove such applications, subject to the provisions of Section 17.56.130.
• 17.56.070.B.3: In the case of local register structures that have been classified as "exceptional," the The committee may deny an application for demolition, after the six -month moratorium has expired . Denial of a demolition permit by the committee is subject to appeal to the city council pursuant to Section 17.56.060.

C. Addition of language to the Historic Preservation Ordinance defining the “Exceptional”, “F ocus” and “Background” classifications of the Local Register.

This designation is inclusive of all struc tures and features located within the boundaries of the property for which the local register designation has been applied.
o “Local register, Background” means properties that may not be historically significant or unique in their construction, but which co ntribute positively to the “visual fabric” of the City of Visalia.
o “Local register, Exceptional” means properties with preeminen t historical significance, considered for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
o “Local register, Focus” means properties having significant value, of good to excellent quality, considered for local recognition and protection.

D. Removal of l anguage regarding specific fencing types, in favor of general language requiring consideration based on style and context:

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
• 17.56.100 Building design compatibility criteria.
o E. Walls of Continuity. Physical ingre dients such as brick walls, wrought iron fences, and evergreen landscape masses should be used to form continuous cohesive walls of enclosure along the street. o FE. Landscaping.
o GF. Directional Expression of Front Elevations.
235
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-30
• 17.56.120 Fencing and wall design criteria.

This section contains criteria for reviewing all applications for new fencing and walls within the historic district or on the local register, and for any application for rehabilitation, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, or enlargeme nt of fencing and walls within the historic district or on the local register. In reviewing an application, the hi storic preservation advisory committee shall consider the following general standards and principles:

A. Fencing proposals sh all be used to form continuous cohesive walls of enclosure along the street, and shall be compatible with the architectural style of the main building and historic district.

B. If historic walls or fencing exist on a property, preference should be given to repair of the existing fencing or wall to restore its original appearance to the extent possible . If removal and replacement of historic fencing and walls is proposed, preference should be given to the use of like materials to preserve the appearance of the original fencing or wall.

C. Proposals for new fencing or walls should be compatible with the character and architectural elements of the historic structure onsite and its period of original construction.

D. Appropriate materials for fencing and walls shall include, but not be limited to, landscape masses, w ood, wood pickets, wrought iron, cast iron, masonry walls, brick, stone, decorative wire, and vinyl materials that mimic the appearance of painted wood.

E. Proposals for chain link fencing in areas visible f rom the street shall be discouraged. The historic preservation advisory committee may grant an application for chain link fencing along public streets if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the committee makes one of the following findings:

1. That the propo sed chain link fencing is compatible with the historic structure and the neighborhood;

2. That sufficient evidence has been provided indicating that the applicant will experience an economic hardship should the chain link fencing not be permitted to be placed onsite;
• 17.56.120 17.56.130 Role of building official.
• 17.56.130 17.56.140 Separability.

E. Inclusion of language requiring historically designated sites to maintain a minimum 50% of front yard areas for landscaping purposes.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
• 17.56.050.C:
o 8. Sites within the historic district or on the local register shall reserve a minimum 50% of the required front yard setback area for the purposes of landscaping. This shall include non-living ground cover and turf.

236
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-30
F. Modification of language requiring the annual review of the Local Register of Historic Structures.

Recommended Changes to Zoning Ordinance:
• 17.56.050.C.6: It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to compile and update the historic survey and inventory, and to nominate properties to the local register and the National Register of Historic Places. In selecting properties for nomination to the local register, the board shall consider:
a. Architectural significance and style;
b. Histor ic significance, including age of structure, original owners, and events related to the structure, site or original owners.
c. The committee shall review the local register annually every five years, make recommendations for the addition or deletion of structures or sites, and submit said recommendations to the planning commission and city council for certification.

237
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!( !(!( !(!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!( !(!(!(
!( !(!(!(!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!( !(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(!(!(
!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!( !( !(!( !(
!(!(
Hwy 198
W Myrtle Ave
W Murray Ave
W Kaweah Ave
W Center Ave
W Mineral King Ave
W Tulare Ave
S Giddings St
N Court St
N Floral St
E Main St
N Bridge St
S Mooney Blvd
N Santa Fe St
N Locust St
S Bridge StS Locust St
W Burrel Ave
N Encina St
S Conyer St
E Race Ave
N Garden St
W Laurel Ave
S Church St
W Grove Ave
E Noble Ave
S Sowell St
S Watson St
E Tulare Ave
S Encina St
E Center Ave
E School Ave
E Murray Ave
W Beverly Dr
N Church St
S Garden St
E Oak Ave
E Acequia Ave
N Jacob St
W Acequia Ave
NE 1st Ave
S Divisadero St
W Goshen Ave
N Tipton St
S Santa Fe St
W School Ave
W Race Ave
N Park St
NW 1st Ave
N Leslie St
W Meadow Ave
S Oak Park St
Alley
E Mineral King Ave
NE 2nd Ave
N Turner St
W College Ave
NW 2nd Ave
Pearl St
N Fairway St
N Johnson St
W Main St
W Green Acres Dr
S West St
E Cypress Ave
N West St
N Rinaldi St
N Willis St
S Willis St
Granite St
E Laurel Ave
N Mooney Blvd
E Myrtle AveS Jacob St
S Court St
W Noble Ave
N Giddings St
N Conyer St
E Douglas Ave
E Kaweah Ave
S Liberty St
W Pershing Ave
W Sunset Dr
N Midland St
W Hyde Ave
S Dollner St
S Central St
N Highland St
W Club Dr
S Johnson St
NE 3rd Ave
N Hall St
NW 3rd Ave
W Sady Ave
E Grove Ave
W Westcott Ave
S Stevenson St
N Todd St
S Elm St
S Floral St
W Switzer Ave
S Tipton St
Ash St
S Shady St
W Linden Ave
S Bonnie St
S Clark St
N Stevenson St
W Olive Ave
Pine St
W Sierra Ave
E Sequoia Ave
W Manor Dr
Grape St
W Oak Ave
N Dudley St
N Divisadero St
S Martin St
W Sanders Ave
N Liberty St
E Willow Ave
S Edwards Ct
Private St
W Willow Ave
N Highland St
Alley
W Laurel Ave
Alley
Alley
S Tipton St
Alley
Alley
Alley
N Conyer St
Alley
E Cypress Ave
Alley
Alley
S Stevenson St
Alley
S Court St
W Goshen Ave
Alley
W Mineral King Ave
N Dudley St
S Conyer St
Alley
W Grove Ave
Alley
N Divisadero St
S Central St
S Church St
N Liberty St
W Oak Ave
E Myrtle Ave
Alley
S Bridge St
S Willis St
N Willis St
S Johnson St
E Laurel Ave
N Turner St
N Stevenson St
Alley
Alley
Alley
E Myrtle Ave
W School Ave
N Divisadero St
W Oak Ave
W Laurel Ave
N West St
S Martin St
N Rinaldi St
W Myrtle Ave
W School Ave
W Tulare Ave
N Conyer St
N Hall St
Alley
Alley
E Sequoia Ave
S Locust St
S Clark St
N Stevenson StAlley
Alley
W Noble Ave
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
W Kaweah Ave
Alley
Alley
N Hall St
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
S Dollner St
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
N Giddings St
N Jacob St
E Douglas Ave
N Stevenson St

MILL CREEK
EXHIBIT "A"
H i s t o r i c
D i s t r i c t &
L o c a l
R e g i s t e r
M a p
City Limits
Streets
Railroad
Waterways
Parcels
!( Local Registry
Historical District
0 600 1200300
Feet
¨
238

May 27, 2022

City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
RE: Historic Preservation Advisory Committee No. 2022-11 (Historic Preservation District Ordinance Update)
On May 26, 2022, the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) reviewed your request to update Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17. 56 (Historic Preservation District Ordinance). The HPAC recommended approval of the request to the Visalia Planning Commission based upon the following findings and conditions:

Findings:

1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Element of the Visalia General Plan.

2. That the proposal will not be injurious to the character or overall uniformity of the Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures.

The Historic Preservati on Advisory Committee ’s recommendation on Historic Preservation Advisory Committee No. 2022 -11 is advisory only and is automatically referred to the Visalia Planning Commission , which shall provide a recommendation to the Visalia City Council. The City Council has final authority over the project.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (559) 713 -4443 or e -mail [email protected]

Regards,

Cristobal Carrillo,
Associate Planner

City of Visalia Planning Division
315 E. Acequia Ave., Visalia, CA 93291 Tel: (559) 713-4359; Fax: (559) 713-4814 239
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0291 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 5.

Agenda Item Wording:

Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-02: A request by the City of Visalia to amend the Local Register of Historic Structures, reclassifying 100 structures.

Deadline for Action: 8/1/2022
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

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

Staff recommends that the Visalia City Council hold a public hearing, receive a presentation and staff report, and adopt Resolution No. 2022-45, approving Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-02, reclassifying 82 structures and removing 18 structures from the Local Register of Historic Structures.

Background:

The Ordinance created the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) to oversee building and zoning actions related to historically significant sites and structures within two areas of jurisdiction: the Historic District and the Local Register of Historic Structures (see Exhibit “A”).The proposal before the Committee recommends changes to the designations applied to some of the properties listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures.

The Local Register consists of individual properties which have been identified as containing historically significant and unique structures (see Exhibit “B”).These properties can be located anywhere within City Limits, in or outside the bounds of the Historic District. The Local Register currently contains 386 properties, primarily clustered in and around the downtown Visalia core.

Structures on the Local Register are given one of three classifications, based on factors such as historical importance, uniqueness of architecture, and quality of construction. The classifications are defined as follows:
· Exceptional: Properties with preeminent historical significance, considered for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
· Focus: Properties having significant value, of good to excellent quality, considered for local recognition and protection.
· Background: Properties that may not be historically significant or unique in their construction, Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™
240
File #: 22-0291 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 5.
but which contribute positively to the “visual fabric” of the City of Visalia.

The Historic Preservation District Ordinance tasks the HPAC with identifying structures to be added to the Local Register. This includes recommending appropriate classifications based on characteristics of a structure and maintaining/updating the list as onsite conditions change. Local Register recommendations provided by the HPAC must be evaluated by the Visalia Planning Commission, which then provides a recommendation to the Visalia City Council for ultimate consideration. The City Council has final authority over the application of a Local Register designation.

Project Description:

Section 17.56.050.C.6 of the Visalia Municipal Code requires the HPAC to “…review the local register annually, make recommendations for the addition or deletion of structures or sites, and submit said recommendations to the planning commission and city council for certification.”The last comprehensive review of the Local Register was conducted in 2013, resulting in the addition of the Home Builders Addition subdivision and individual properties to the Historic District and Local Register, respectively. The Local Register of Historic Structures Update is a city-initiated request to conduct a comprehensive review of the Local Register, recommending reclassification of 82 properties and removal of 18 properties currently listed on the Local Register. A full listing of the sites proposed for reclassification or removal is included in Exhibit “C”.

The Local Register update is being undertaken to ensure that all Local Register buildings, in particular those located outside the bounds of the Historic District, are assigned an appropriate classification that allows the structures to benefit from all the protections provided by the Historic Preservation District Ordinance.

Note, though the project has been processed as a Zoning Text Amendment, the reclassifications and removals from the Local Register of Historic Structures do not require an Ordinance for codification.

The Local Register is a listing of historic properties that is maintained by the City of Visalia, but which is not within the Visalia Municipal Code. Per analysis conducted by the City Attorney, a resolution is sufficient to formalize the recommended changes to the Local Register.

General Plan Consistency:

The proposed zoning text amendments are consistent with the following objectives and policies of the Visalia General Plan Historic Preservation Element:

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-10 - Regularly review the Local Register of Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™
241
File #: 22-0291 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 5.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-10 - Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.

Onsite surveys conducted and reclassifications proposed as part of this project serve to ensure that sites are appropriately listed and protected.

Surveys of Local Register Properties:

Upon initiation of the Local Register update in early 2021, the HPAC, staff, and community volunteers embarked on the process of visiting all 368 properties on the Local Register and conducting surveys of each site. Surveys involved photographing each Local Register structure, documenting existing conditions, cross-referencing observations with previous surveys and noting any physical changes, and occasionally speaking to property owners and members of the public. Once surveys where completed, a classification recommendation would be provided for consideration by the HPAC. Public notices were sent to all owners and occupants of Local Register sites informing them that surveys of their properties would occur. Site visits were conducted solely from the public right of way. Survey activities were completed in late 2021.

Evaluations of Local Register Surveys:

The Committee conducted evaluations of the Local Register survey materials during regularly scheduled public meetings between November 2021 to April 2022. Evaluations consisted of Committee reviews of the survey materials, photographs, and consideration of the information and recommendations provided by the surveyor. Classification designations would then be assigned via a vote by the Committee, which would be noted by staff. On occasion, the Committee would request additional background information from staff to make a determination. This often consisted of researching previous decisions by the HPAC and Building Permit activity.

Classification determinations were reached by the HPAC using several criteria. This included:
· Whether the structure contained physical attributes that were considered unique at the time of construction, or which had gained significance with the passing of time. · Whether the structure had been altered in such a way as to enhance or degrade its physical attributes.
· Whether persons or events of historical significance on a local, state, or national level were known to be affiliated with a structure.
· Whether the structure had lost historical significance due to lack of maintenance. · Whether the structure had been subject to demolition or relocation.

Recommended Local Register Reclassifications and Removals:

There are a total of 368 properties currently listed on the Local Register: 34 “Exceptional”,151 “Focus”,and 190 “Background”.Changes are recommended for 100 of the 368 properties on the Local Register. The recommendations break down into four general categories:
· Structures upgraded to “Exceptional”,
· Structures upgraded or downgraded to “Focus”,
Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™
242
File #: 22-0291 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 5.
· Structures downgraded to “Background”, and
· Structures removed from the Local Register.
82 of the 100 identified sites are proposed for reclassification, while the remaining 18 are proposed for removal. All other 268 properties listed on the Local Register are recommended to retain their existing classification. No action by the HPAC, Planning Commission, or City Council is required for the 268 properties.

If the recommended changes to the Local Register are approved by the City Council, it will result in a total of 350 properties listed on the Local Register: 65 “Exceptional”, 151 “Focus”, and 134 “Background”.Each category is discussed below, with a full listing of the affected structures included in Exhibit “C”.

Sites Upgraded to “Exceptional”
There are a total of 32 properties recommended by the HPAC to be upgraded from their existing classifications to “Exceptional”.Properties under this category were generally upgraded due to the presence of significant architectural elements that had either been restored or had been excellently maintained. In some instances, an “Exceptional”classification was applied where a structure gained uniqueness and additional significance through the passage of time. Association with persons of significance was also a factor in certain designations. 27 of the 32 sites were upgraded from a “Focus”classification, and five upgraded from “Background”.Examples of those upgraded from “Focus”to “Exceptional”include the St. Mary’sCatholic Church Doherty Center building located at 520 N. Church Street (a former convent) and the Crotty Mansion at 617 N. Encina Street. Both structures gained significance over time due to excellent maintenance, the addition of features in keeping with the existing architecture, and association with persons/organizations of local historical interest.

For the five “Background”sites, the structures where significantly restored by new owners, or contained architectural elements that had become rare with the passage of time. Examples included the Victorian wood construction of the Bianco Law Firm building at 303 N. Church Street and the adobe exterior of the Iglesia de Jesuscristo Ministry building at 112 E. Oak Avenue.

Sites Changed to “Focus”
There are a total of 41 properties recommended by the HPAC to be changed from their existing classifications to “Focus”. Of these, 40 properties are recommended to be upgraded from “Background”to “Focus”.The remaining site, a residence located at 614 W. Myrtle Avenue, is proposed for downgrade from “Exceptional”to “Focus”.Though the structure is acknowledged as being a good example of Bungalow style architecture, it is recommended to be downgraded due to significant alteration of the façade with aluminum siding material, which resulted in a loss of historic authenticity.

The 40 properties recommended for upgrade are generally in good to excellent condition and contain significant architectural elements and original details that are uncommon throughout the City.

Examples include the Bungalow residence at 1102 W. Main Street, which contains a unique brick exterior, and the Vernacular residence at 410-412 W. Goshen Avenue, which contains unique duplex construction for its period of construction. Through these upgrades, the HPAC acknowledges the efforts of property owners and occupants to maintain and/or restore the historic structures under their care.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™
243
File #: 22-0291 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 5.

Sites Downgraded to “Background”
There are a total of nine properties recommended by the HPAC to be downgraded from their existing classifications to “Background”. In all instances, the structures identified are proposed for downgrading from “Focus”to “Background”.HPAC reviews determined that while the structures may contain historic architectural elements, the loss of original detail over time from severe alteration or lack of regular maintenance resulted in a loss of historical significance. Examples of this include the Vernacular residence at 507 S. Court Street, which was downgraded due to significant alteration to the façade, including removal of an original porch feature and addition of a deck. The Craftsman Bungalow residence at 829 N. Floral Street was downgraded due to replacement of original siding and loss of original window treatments.

Other structures, while adequately maintained, where downgraded due to the loss of significance in comparison to changing times. This was the case for the triplex located at 605 W. Kaweah Avenue which, while historic, does not presently contain any unique architectural elements that would be considered of “significantvalue”.Rather than remove the building entirely from the Local Register, it is recommended that a “Background”classification be applied so the building will have the potential to acquire significance over time through the application of Local Register design requirements on new exterior alteration proposals.

Sites Removed from the Local Register
There are a total of 18 properties recommended for removal from the Local Register. 15 of the 18 properties are recommended for removal from the Local Register due to the original historic structure no longer being located on the property. This is due to demolition, destruction due to fire, or relocation to a different site for which a Local Register designation has not been applied. It should be noted that for the structures that were relocated, it has been determined by the City Attorney that the Local Register designation does not follow the building to the new property. Designations are site specific and remain on a property until removed by the City Council. The HPAC has recorded the existing locations of the relocated structures for possible re-addition to the Local Register in the future.

The remaining three properties on the list are proposed for removal due to either a lack of architecturally significant features, or the substantial loss of significant features due to alterations conducted over time. Attachment “C” - Local Register of Historic Structures - Proposed Reclassifications and Removals attached to this staff report provides the full comprehensive list of all structures be reclassified as noted above.

Public Outreach:

The HPAC conducted a public outreach meeting on March 30, 2022, to answer questions and solicit comment on the changes proposed to the Local Register. Subsequent public hearings were held on May 26, 2022 with the HPAC, and July 11, 2022 with the Planning Commission. For both meetings, public notices were sent to inform members of the public of the proposed changes to the Local Register.

While many calls were received with questions regarding the project, only one member of the public expressed concerns over the redesignation of a property. The comment was provided at the July 11, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. In that instance, it was requested that the classification of the residence at 727 S. Court Street remain “Focus”instead of being upgraded to “Exceptional”as recommended by the HPAC. The change was requested due to the change out of side yard windows not in keeping with the architecture of the residence. It was determined by the HPAC that due to the location of the work, and lack of visual evidence submitted, its “Focus”recommendation for the Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™
244
File #: 22-0291 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 5.
location of the work, and lack of visual evidence submitted, its “Focus”recommendation for the residence would stand.

For the August 1, 2022, City Council public hearing, a public notice was published in the Visalia Times-Delta as well as mailed to all owners and occupants of properties listed on the Local Register.

At present, no public comment has been received for the proposal.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Prior Council Action:

At the June 20, 2022, meeting of the City Council, during presentation of the 2021 HPAC Annual Report, the Council approved the Committee’s 2021 Work Plan. This included completion of the Local Register of Historic Structures Update project.

Committee/Commission Action:

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Review
HPAC review of the proposal was completed at a special called meeting held May 26, 2022. At that meeting, the Committee recommended approval of the Local Register Update to the Visalia Planning Commission on the basis that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Element of the Visalia General Plan, and that the proposal will not be injurious to the character or overall uniformity of the Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures.

Visalia Planning Commission
Planning Commission review of the proposal was completed at a regular meeting held July 11, 2022.

At that meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the Local Register of Historic Structures Update to the Visalia City Council on the basis that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Element of the Visalia General Plan.

The recommendation was approved by a vote of 4-0 with Commissioner Adam Peck recusing himself due to connection with one of the historic structures recommended for reclassification.

Alternatives:

The City Council, in lieu of staff’s recommendation, may consider the following alternatives:

1. Deny the Zoning Text Amendment in whole or in part, or

2. Return the item to the Planning Commission for further consideration.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to approve Resolution No. 2022-45 for Zone Text Amendment No. 2022-02.

CEQA Review:

The requested action is considered exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) Per Section 15061 (b) (3) of the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Exemption has been prepared for the project because Section 15061 (b) (3) states that the project is exempted from CEQA if the activity is covered by the common-sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™
245
File #: 22-0291 Agenda Date: 8/1/2022 Agenda #: 5.
that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

The proposed reclassification and removal of sites listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures will not have a significant effect on the environment.

Attachments:

1. City Council Resolution No. 2022-45

2. Attachment “A” - Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures Map.

3. Attachment “B” - Local Register of Historic Structures.

4. Attachment “C” - Local Register of Historic Structures - Proposed Reclassifications and Removals.

5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 11, 2022.

Visalia City Council Printed on 7/29/2022Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™
246
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA, APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2022-02, A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF VISALIA TO AMEND THE LOCAL REGI STER OF HISTORIC STR UCTURES, RECLASSIFYING 100 STRUCTURES AS FOLLOWS:
 RECLASSIFYING 32 STRUCTURES TO “EXCEPTIONAL”, LOCATED AT 407 NE 1ST AVE (APN: 094 -085-003), 108 W CENTER AVE (APN: 094 -335-010), 303 N CHURCH ST/120 E OAK AVE (APN: 094-281-005), 520 N CHURCH ST (APN: 094- 262-001), 608 N CHURCH ST (APN: 094-093-014), 436 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097- 062-001), 437 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097-061-006), 501 S COURT ST (APN: 097- 033-002), 727 S COUR T ST (APN: 097 -024-012), 820 S COURT ST (APN: 097- 014-003), 617 N ENCINA ST (APN: 094-012-018), 301 N FAIRWAY ST (APN: 093- 322-011), 403 N FLORAL ST (APN: 094-341-005), 513 S GARDEN ST (APN: 097- 065-004), 1300 W GOSHEN AVE (APN: 093-073-018), 208 W GROVE AVE (APN:
094-023-012), 300 W GROVE AVE (APN: 094 -024-013), 401 W GROV E AVE (APN: 093-164-004), 719 N HIGHLAND ST (APN: 093-162-008), 727 N HIGHLAND ST (APN: 093 -162-007), 807 N HIGHLAND ST (APN: 093 -153-012), 119 S LOCUST ST (APN: 094-326-010), 515 S LOCUST ST (APN: 097-032-004), 307 W MURRAY AVE (APN: 094-342-003), 112 E OAK AVE (APN: 094-281-009), 201 W OAK AVE (APN: 094-336-004), 200/202 W OAK AVE (APN: 094-333-005), 425 W RACE AVE (APN: 093 -165-001), 319 W SCHOO L AVE (APN: 094 -332-009), 615 N WILLIS ST (APN: 093-166-010), 700 N WILLIS ST (APN: 093-164-007), AND 722 N WILLIS ST (APN: 093-164-001).
 RECLASSIFYING 41 STRUCTURES TO “FOCUS”, LOCATED AT 210 W CENTER AVE (APN: 094 -336-006), 910 W CENTER AVE (APN: 093 -224-004), 914 W CENTER AVE (APN: 093-224-003), 915/917 W CENTER AVE (APN: 093-225-001), 1007 W CENTER AVE (APN: 093-226-004), 1013 W CENTER AVE (APN: 093-226- 002), 1105 W CENTER AVE (APN: 0 93-227-014), 1110 W CENTER AVE (APN:
093-222-003), 1115 W CENTER AVE (APN: 093-227-002), 1300 W CENTER AVE (APN: 093-264-021), 406 N CHURCH ST (APN: 094-272-009), 421 N CHURCH ST (APN: 094-271-002), 515 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097-066-005), 609 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097-071-002), 825 S CHURCH ST/114 E TULARE AVE (APN: 097-087-008), 410 N COURT ST (APN: 094-271-006), 500 & 506 N COURT ST (APN : 094-261- 010), 711 N COURT ST (APN: 094-015-014), 632 N ENCINA ST (AP N: 094-013- 005), 309 N GARDEN ST (APN: 094-282-003), 415 N GARDEN ST (APN: 094-272- 004), 427 S GARDEN S T (APN: 097-052-003), 408 W GOSHEN AVE ( APN: 094- 352-006), 410-412 W GOSHEN AVE (APN: 094 -352-007), 411 W GOS HEN AVE (APN: 094-351-002), 810 N HIGHLAND ST (APN: 093-154-016), 505 W KAWEAH AVE (APN: 096 -143-001), 600 W KAWEAH AVE (A PN: 096 -133-006), 81 5 W KAWEAH AVE (APN: 096-151-003), 904 W MAIN ST (APN: 093-225-007), 1102 W MAIN ST (APN: 093-227-013), 310 W MURRAY AVE (APN: 094-353-009), 614 W MYRTLE AVE (APN: 096-153-009), 709 W NOBLE AVE (APN: 096-134-003), 715 W NOBLE AVE (APN: 096-134-001), 735 W OAK AVE (APN: 093-187-002), 406 W SCHOOL AVE (APN: 094 -341-006), 507 W SCH OOL AVE (APN: 093 -184-003), 701 N WILLIS ST (APN: 093-163-013), 714 N WILLIS ST (APN: 093-164-008), AND 720 N WILLIS ST (APN: 093-164-009).
247
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
 RECLASSIFYING 9 STRUCT URES TO “BACKGROUND” , LOCATED AT 621 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097-071-006), 710 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097-076-012), 506 S COURT ST (APN: 097 -034-007), 507 S COURT ST (APN: 097 -033-003), 720 S COURT ST (APN: 097 -025-006), 829 N FLORA L ST (APN: 094 -024-014), 601 W KAWEAH AVE/605 S WILLIS ST (APN: 096-153-005), 605 W KAWEAH AVE (APN:
096-153-004), AND 624 S LOCUST ST (APN: 097-036-007).
 REMOVING 18 STRUCTUR ES FROM THE LOCAL RE GISTER OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES, LOCATED AT 411 NE 1ST AVE (APN: 094-085-002), 200 NW 1ST AVE (APN: 094-022-019), 431 S BRIDGE ST (APN: 097-053-011), 508 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097-065-015), 611 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097-071-003), 622 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097-072-012), 708 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097-076-013), 715 S CHURCH ST (APN: 097-077-004), 807 S COURT ST (APN: 097-024-014), 209 N ENCINA ST (APN: 094-337-007), 520 N ENCINA ST (APN: 094-354-019), 816 W KAWEAH AVE (APN: 096-135-009), 209 N LOCUST ST (APN : 094-336-005), 520 W MINERAL KING AVE (APN: 093-204-018), 800 W MINERAL KING AVE (APN: 093-201-012), 208 N WEST ST (APN: 094-338-012), 705 N WILLIS ST (APN: 093-163-012), AND 501, 503 & 509 W WILLOW AVE (APN: 096-204-020).

WHEREAS, Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-02 is a request by the City of Visalia to amend the Local Register of Historic Structures, reclassifying 100 structures as follows:
 Reclassifying 32 structures to “Exceptional”, located at 407 NE 1st Ave (APN:
094-085-003), 108 W Center Ave (APN: 094 -335-010), 303 N Church St/120 E Oak Ave (APN: 094 -281-005), 520 N Church St (APN: 094 -262-001), 608 N Church St (APN: 094 -093-014), 436 S Church St (APN: 097 -062-001), 437 S Church St (APN: 097-061-006), 501 S Court St (APN: 097-033-002), 727 S Court St (APN: 097 -024-012), 820 S Court St (APN: 097 -014-003), 617 N Encina St (APN: 094 -012-018), 301 N Fairway St (APN: 093 -322-011), 403 N Floral St (APN: 094-341-005), 513 S Garden St (APN: 097 -065-004), 1300 W Goshen Ave (APN: 093-073-018), 208 W Grove Ave (APN: 094-023-012), 300 W Grove Ave (APN: 094 -024-013), 401 W Grove Ave (APN: 093 -164-004), 719 N Highland St (APN: 093-162-008), 727 N Highland St (APN: 093-162-007), 807 N Highland St (APN: 093 -153-012), 119 S Locust St (APN: 094 -326-010), 515 S Locust St (APN: 097 -032-004), 307 W Murray Ave (APN: 094 -342-003), 112 E Oak Ave (APN: 094-281-009), 201 W Oak Ave (APN: 094-336-004), 200/202 W Oak Ave (APN: 094 -333-005), 425 W Race Ave (APN: 093 -165-001), 319 W School Ave (APN: 094 -332-009), 615 N Willis St (APN: 093 -166-010), 700 N Willis St (APN: 093-164-007), and 722 N Willis St (APN: 093-164-001).  Reclassifying 41 structures to “Focus”, located at 210 W Center Ave (APN: 094- 336-006), 910 W Center Ave (APN: 093-224-004), 914 W Center Ave (APN: 093- 224-003), 915/917 W Center Ave (APN: 093 -225-001), 1007 W Center Ave (APN: 093-226-004), 1013 W Center Ave (APN: 093 -226-002), 1105 W Center Ave (APN: 093 -227-014), 1110 W Center Ave (APN: 093 -222-003), 1115 W Center Ave (APN: 093-227-002), 1300 W Center Ave (APN: 093 -264-021), 406 N Church St (APN: 094-272-009), 421 N Church St (APN: 094-271-002), 515 S Church St (APN: 097 -066-005), 609 S Church St (APN: 097 -071-002), 825 S Church St/114 E Tulare Ave (APN: 097 -087-008), 410 N Court St (APN: 094 - 271-006), 500 & 506 N Court St (APN: 094-261-010), 711 N Court St (APN: 094- 015-014), 632 N Encina St (APN: 094 -013-005), 309 N Garden St (APN: 094 - 248
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
282-003), 415 N Garden St (APN: 094 -272-004), 427 S Garden St (APN: 097 - 052-003), 408 W Goshen Ave (APN: 094 -352-006), 410 -412 W Goshen Ave (APN: 094-352-007), 411 W Goshen Ave (APN: 094 -351-002), 810 N Highland St (APN: 093 -154-016), 505 W Kaweah Ave (APN: 096 -143-001), 600 W Kaweah Ave (APN: 096-133-006), 815 W Kaweah Ave (APN: 096-151-003), 904 W Main St (APN: 093 -225-007), 1102 W Main St (APN: 093-227-013), 310 W Murray Ave (APN: 094-353-009), 614 W Myrtle Ave (APN: 096-153-009), 709 W Noble Ave (APN: 096-134-003), 715 W Noble Ave (APN: 096 -134-001), 735 W Oak Ave (APN: 093 -187-002), 406 W School Ave (APN: 094 -341-006), 507 W School Ave (APN: 09 3-184-003), 701 N Willis St (APN: 093 -163-013), 714 N Willis St (APN: 093-164-008), and 720 N Willis St (APN: 093-164-009).  Reclassifying 9 structures to “Background”, located at 621 S Church St (APN:
097-071-006), 710 S Church St (APN: 097-076-012), 506 S Court St (APN: 097- 034-007), 507 S Court St (APN: 097 -033-003), 720 S Court St (APN: 097 -025- 006), 829 N Floral St (APN: 094 -024-014), 601 W Kaweah Ave/605 S Willis St (APN: 096-153-005), 605 W Kaweah Ave (APN: 096-153-004), and 624 S Locust St (APN: 097-036-007).
 Removing 18 structures from the Local Register of Historic Structures, located at 411 NE 1st Ave (APN: 094 -085-002), 200 NW 1st Ave (APN: 094 -022-019), 431 S Bridge St (APN: 097-053-011), 508 S Church St (APN: 097-065-015), 611 S Church St (APN: 097-071-003), 622 S Church St (APN: 097 -072-012), 708 S Church St (APN: 097 -076-013), 715 S Church St (APN: 097 -077-004), 807 S Court St (APN: 097 -024-014), 209 N Encina St (APN: 094 -337-007), 520 N Encina St (APN: 094-354-019), 816 W Kaweah Ave (APN: 096-135-009), 209 N Locust St (APN: 094 -336-005), 520 W Mineral King Ave (APN: 093 -204-018), 800 W Mineral King Ave (APN: 093 -201-012), 208 N West St (APN: 094 -338- 012), 705 N Willis St (APN: 093 -163-012), and 501, 503 & 509 W Willow Ave (APN: 096 -204-020). T he reclassifications and removals are specified in Attachment “C” of this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on July 11, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia considered the Zoning Text Amendment in accordance with Section 17.44.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing recommended approval of the Zoning Text Amendment and adopted Resolution No. 2022 -31, recommending approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022 - 02; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten (10) days published notice, held a public hearing before said Council on August 1, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia finds the Zoning Text Amendment to be in accordance with Section 17.44.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing and based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia; and
249
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45

WHEREAS, the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption); and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council concurs that the project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia approves Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022 -02 based on the following specific findings and evidence presented:

Historic Preservation Element Policy H -P-7 – Continue to use the Histori c Preservation Ordinance development review process to protect structures listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures or located within the Historic District.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H -P-9 – Periodically survey historic resources and n ominate historically and/or architecturally significant sites, structures, and neighborhoods to the Local Register of Historic Structures and/or Historic District, State of California Inventory of Historic Resources, National Register of Historic Places to ensure they are protected.

Historic Preservation Element Policy H -P-10 – Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.

2. That the proposal will not be injurious to the character or overall uniformity of the Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures.

3. That the project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia approves Zone Text Amendment No. 2022-02, reclassifying 100 structures on the Local Register of Historic Structures as described herein in Attachment “C” , in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Section 17.44.070 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia.
250
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45

Number Dir. Street APN Style Classification Recommendation Justification 407 NE 1st Ave 094-
085-003
Colonial
Revival Focus Exceptional
 Associated with prominent local person – Richard and Fleta Lipscomb.  Rare use of brick materials on residence.
 Unique and excellent example of the architectural style.  Impressive original detail, including presence of highly ornate front porch.
 Structure relatively well maintained.

108
W
Center
Ave
094-
335-010
Utilitarian
Commercial Background Exceptional
 Renovation of building removed a mid-century style alteration and restored the original façade of the structure.
 Ornate brick dentil design saved because of the restoration.

Sites Upgraded to “Exceptional”
Attachment “C”
Local Register of Historic Structures
Proposed Reclassifications and Removals
251
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
303 N
Church
St
094-
281-005
Vernacular /
Italianate Background/Focus Exceptional
 Structure built in the 1800’s.
 Structure was used as a hotel and was known as the Pacific House.  Excellent example of Italianate architecture.
 Structure contains rare Victorian wood construction on a commercial building.
 Addition of awnings further increase the historic appeal of the structure.
 Structure is well maintained.

120
E
Oak Ave
520
N
Church
St
094-
262-001
Spanish
Eclectic Focus Exceptional
 Structure was formerly the location of Fr. Dade’s Academy of the Nativity. Also, formerly the location of St. Mary’s Convent.  Per a plaque onsite, it is “the first Catholic church in the lower valley, August 1861”.
 Excellent example of Spanish Eclectic architecture.
 Structure contains significant architectural elements, including an ornate entryway.
 Structure is well maintained.

608
N
Church
St
094-
093-014 Mission Focus Exceptional
 Site of St. Mary’s Catholic Church.
 Excellent example of Mission architecture.
 Structure contains significant architectural elements, including the three-story bell tower, large stained glass entryway window,  Structure is well maintained.

252
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
436 S Church
St
097-
062-001
Dutch
Colonial
Revival
Focus Exceptional
 Rare architectural construction. Likely only structure of its kind within the City of Visalia.
 Structure contains unique double-pitched gambrel (“barn”) roofs and flaring eaves.

437 S Church
St
097-
061-006
Craftsman
Bungalow Focus Exceptional

 Excellent and unique example of Craftsman/Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains a large amount of architecturally significant elements, including a low-pitched gabled roof, exposed roof rafters, a porch with thick square columns, an exterior stone chimney, and numerous windows with muntins.
 Structure is well maintained.
 Addition of wood fencing does not detrimentally affect the overall historic aesthetic of the site.

253
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
501 S Court St 097-
033-002 Bungalow Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains a large amount of architecturally significant elements, including a gable roof with dormer windows, a large covered front porch with stone columns, exposed roof rafters, and numerous windows.
 Structure is well maintained.

727 S Court St 097-
024-012
Period
Revival Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Period Revival style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including steeply pitched roofs, asymmetrical design, and numerous windows with muntins.
 Structure is well maintained.

820 S Court St 097-
014-003 Bungalow Background Exceptional
 Excellent example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure has largely maintained its original appearance, save for the addition of solar panels to the roof. However, should the panels ever be removed, the structure would appear much as it did when first constructed.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including dormer windows, large gable roof, porch with square columns, and windows with muntins.
 Structure is well maintained.

254
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
617 N Encina St 094-
012-018 Queen Anne Focus Exceptional
 Structure associated with prominent local person – Stevens Family, owners of Stevens and Co. Department Store, Ernest Crotty.  Excellent example of Queen Anne style architecture.
 Structure has been significantly altered from original appearance.

However, the alterations themselves have gained historic significance with the passing of time.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a turret tower, decorative rounded exterior shingles, a cupola on the roof, numerous windows, and elaborate brick and wrought iron fencing.  Structure and grounds are excellently maintained.

301 N Fairway
St
093-
322-011
Spanish
Eclectic Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Spanish Eclectic style architecture. The structure is one of the largest of its style in the City of Visalia.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including tile roofing and smooth adobe like exteriors.
 Structure and grounds are excellently maintained.

255
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
403 N Floral St 094-
341-005
Colonial
Revival Focus Exceptional
 Structure built in 1908.
 Structure associated with prominent local person – The Combs Family, one of the early families of the City of Visalia.
 Largely unchanged from original appearance.
 Excellent example Colonial Revival style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant original elements, including clinker bricks in the porch columns and perimeter walls, exterior shingle siding, ornate entryway, numerous windows with muntins, and bracketed roof eaves.
 Structure and grounds are excellently maintained.

513 S Garden
St
097-
065-004
Colonial
Revival Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Colonial Revival style architecture.  Structure largely unchanged from original appearance.  Structure contains architecturally significant and unique elements, including asymmetrical design, rounded porch columns, balustrades, dormer windows, wood shingle exteriors, double hung windows, and a flared hip roof.

256
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
1300 W Goshen
Ave
093-
073-018
Victorian
Gothic Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Victorian Gothic style architecture.  Unique architectural style, likely the only one of its kind in the City of Visalia.
 Located within the grounds of the Visalia Cemetery, an important cultural and historic site. Used as a chapel for services held at the cemetery.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including cast stone exterior walls, high pitched roofs, pointed arches over entryways, windows, and vents, and stained-glass windows.
 Structure and grounds are excellently maintained.

208 W Grove
Ave
094-
023-012
Colonial
Revival Focus Exceptional
 Structure associated with a prominent local person – W.R. Spaulding.  Excellent example of Colonial Revival style architecture.  Structure was originally employed as a carriage house for the Spaulding House residence, located at 631 N. Encina Street. Possibly one of the few carriage houses remaining in the City of Visalia.  Structure remains largely unchanged from original construction.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including three garage doors with paneled windows, hip roof, and windows with muntins.
 Structure is well maintained.

300 W Grove
Ave
094-
024-013
Colonial
Revival Focus Exceptional
 Structure associated with a prominent local person – John Coffee Hays (with the Southern California Edison Company), and Chas.

Whitmore (owner of the Visalia Times Delta).
 Excellent example of Colonial Revival style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including numerous windows, bracketed front porch, multi-pitched roofs, and wood siding.
 Structure is well maintained.

257
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
401 W Grove
Ave
093-
164-004
Colonial
Revival Focus Exceptional
 Built in 1908.
 Structure associated with a prominent local person – G.L. Hyde.  Excellent example of Colonial Revival style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including ornate entry way, unique side porch, numerous windows, clapboard siding, and exposed rafter tails.
 Structure is well maintained.

719 N Highland
St
093-
162-008
Craftsman
Bungalow Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Craftsman Bungalow style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including numerous windows with unique diamond shaped muntins, large front porch and gable roof, and shingle siding (not original material, but preserves historical appearance).
 Structure is well maintained.

727 N Highland
St
093-
162-007
Craftsman
Bungalow Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Craftsman Bungalow style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including a stone chimney, unique gable roof, unique façade arrangement, windows with muntins, and wood siding.
 Structure is well maintained.

258
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
807 N Highland
St
093-
153-012 Bungalow Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant original detail, including several dormer windows, large front porch with square shaped columns adorned with stone, exposed rafter tails, and wood siding.  Structure is well maintained.

119 S Locust St 094-
326-010 Greek Revival Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Greek Revival style architecture. Likely one of the few buildings of this type in the City of Visalia.
 Structure contains architecturally significant detail, including rounded windows throughout, pilasters, unique seal feature at the top of the parapet roof.
 Structure is well maintained.

515 S Locust St 097-
032-004
Craftsman
Bungalow Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Craftsman Bungalow style architecture.  Structure remains largely unchanged.
 Structure contains architecturally significant and unique elements, including brick exterior walls, dormer windows, large entry porch, multi pitched roofs, and a unique façade arrangement.
 Structure is well maintained.

259
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
307 W Murray
Ave
094-
342-003 Eastlake Focus Exceptional

 Excellent example of Eastlake style architecture
 Structure is largely unchanged from original appearance.  Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including a unique asymmetrical façade arrangement, numerous windows, large front porch with “eyebrows”, multi-pitched roofs, and modulated wood shingle siding.
 Structure is well maintained.

112 E Oak Ave 094-
281-009
Pueblo
Revival Background Exceptional
 Excellent example of Pueblo Revival style architecture. Likely only structure of its kind in the City of Visalia
 Structure contains architecturally significant and unique elements, including uncommon adobe brick construction, entryway with arched openings.

260
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
201 W Oak Ave 094-
336-004
Georgia
Colonial
Revival
Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Georgia Colonial Revival style architecture.

Likely only structure of its kind in the City of Visalia.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, entryway with prominent columns, large steeple, brick exterior, and large windows.  Structure is well maintained.

200 / 202 W Oak Ave 094-
333-005
Mission
Revival Focus Exceptional
 Structure associated with important cultural/community use – Tulare County Library.
 Excellent example of Mission Revival style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant uncommon elements, including tile roofing, numerous windows with muntins, and a unique façade arrangement.
 Structure is well maintained.

261
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
425 W Race
Ave
093-
165-001 Bungalow Background Exceptional
 Excellent example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including numerous windows, a unique façade arrangement, large front porch, and tile roofing.
 Structure is well maintained.

319 W School
Ave
094-
332-009
Colonial
Revival Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Colonial Revival style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including a unique façade arrangement, wood shingle siding, dormer windows, prominent roof eaves, asymmetrical porch/entryway with rounded columns,
 Structure largely unchanged from original appearance.  Structure is well maintained.

615 N Willis St 093-
166-010 Bungalow Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including numerous windows with muntins, large and bracketed front porch, multi-pitched roofs, and wood siding.
 Structure noted as having previously received an HPAC Preservation Award.
 Structure is well maintained.

262
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
700 N Willis St 093-
164-007 Bungalow Focus Exceptional
 Structure associated with an important original use, as one of the oldest multifamily buildings in the City of Visalia.
 Excellent example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including numerous original double hung sash windows, large entryway, “U- shaped” construction.
 Structure is well maintained.

722 N Willis St 093-
164-001
Period
Revival Focus Exceptional
 Excellent example of Period Revival style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including a unique façade arrangement, uncommon entry room with a flat roof, windows with muntins, and a small dormer window,  Structure noted as having previously received an HPAC Preservation Award.
 Structure is well maintained.

263
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
Number Dir. Street APN Style Classification Recommendation Justification 210
W
Center
Ave
094-
336-006 Commercial Background Focus
 Structure previously housed an important original use.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including brick architecture.
 Exterior alterations have occurred, loss of some original detail.

910
W
Center
Ave
093-
224-004 Vernacular Background Focus
 Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including a porch with a unique gable and lattice work.  Some exterior alterations have occurred, including new windows.

Sites Changed to “Focus”

264
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
914
W
Center
Ave
093-
224-003 Vernacular Background Focus
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a unique porch and gable treatment.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including placement of brick to entryway. However, work is somewhat compatible.

915/917
W
Center
Ave
093-
225-001
Craftsman
Bungalow Background Focus
 Structure is an uncommon Craftsman style duplex.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a large porch with gable roofs and exposed beams.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including the addition of ADA ramps and new windows.
 Structure is well maintained.

265
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
1007
W
Center
Ave
093-
226-004 Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including uncommon fenestration.
 Brick exposed on porch columns.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including loss of original brick chimney, original door and windows.
 Structure is well maintained.

1013
W
Center
Ave
093-
226-002
Airplane
Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Airplane Bungalow style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a large porch, wood siding, and original windows.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including to the original double doors.
 Structure is well maintained.

1105
W
Center
Ave
093-
227-014 Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Enclosed portion of the porch has been removed. Unclear if enclosed room was original to the structure.
 Structure is well maintained.

266
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
1110
W
Center
Ave
093-
222-003
Period
Revival Background Focus
 Great example of Period Revival architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including unique brick work, uncommon chimney, and uncommon front gable roof with flattened pitch.
 Structure is well maintained.

1115
W
Center
Ave
093-
227-002 Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a large front porch with thick columns.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including loss of original windows and doors.
 Structure is well maintained.

1300
W
Center
Ave
093-
264-021
Period
Revival Background Focus
 Great example of Period Revival style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including roofs with flattened pitches.
 Structure is well maintained.

267
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
406
N
Church
St
094-
272-009
Colonial
Revival Background Focus

 Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including an uncommon architectural arrangement, porch with uncommon, raised roof feature, and wood siding.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including loss of porch railings.
 Structure is well maintained.

421
N
Church
St
094-
271-002
Craftsman
Bungalow Background Focus
 Structure associated with prominent local person – Nathaniel Bradley, Bradley Family.
 Great example of Craftsman Bungalow style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including front porch with exposed trusses and exposed rafter tails.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including the addition of security bars to windows, brick trim around front porch.  Structure is well maintained.

268
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
515 S Church
St
097-
066-005
Craftsman
Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Craftsman Bungalow style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a porch with exposed rafters, exposed trusses, wood siding, and dormer windows.

609 S Church
St
097-
071-002
Colonial
Revival Background Focus
 Great example of Colonial Revival style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including wood siding, entryway feature, and dormer window with flared eaves.  Structure is well maintained.

825 S Church
St
097-
087-008 Bungalow Background Focus  Great example of Bungalow style architecture. 269
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
114 E Tulare
Ave
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, unique porch columns, wood siding, and unique gable features.
 Contains Accessory Dwelling unit in the rear of the property.  Structure is well maintained.

410 N Court St 094-
271-006 Bungalow Background Focus

 Structure associated with prominent local person – The Bradley Family.
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Contains historic architectural elements, including multipaned windows and a stucco chimney.
 Structure is well maintained.

270
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
500 & 506 N Court St 094-
261-010
Bungalow/Pra
irie Background Focus
 Great example of Bungalow/Prairie style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including a large porch, numerous windows with muntins, and prairie style roofs.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including addition of metal bars to porch.

711 N Court St 094-
015-014 Commercial Background Focus
 Structure contains architecturally significant and unique elements, including brick architecture.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including window change outs and addition of awnings.
 Structure is well maintained.

632 N Encina St 094-
013-005
Period
Revival Background Focus
 Great example of Period Revival style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including numerous windows, wood siding, multiple pitched roofs, multiple entryways.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including change out of original windows, addition of fencing.
 Structure is well maintained.

271
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
309 N Garden
St
094-
282-003 Vernacular Background Focus
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including brick architecture.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including addition of awning that complement the structure.
 Structure is well maintained.

415 N Garden
St
094-
272-004
Craftsman
Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Craftsman Bungalow style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a porch with brick columns, wood shingle siding, numerous windows with muntins, and large gable roofs.
 Exterior alterations currently underway, largely in keeping with historic nature of structure.
 Structure is well maintained.

272
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
427 S Garden
St
097-
052-003 Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Built in 1924.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including multiple gable roofs, wood siding.
 Work conducted to restore structure to original appearance.  Structure is well maintained.

408 W Goshen
Ave
094-
352-006
Colonial
Revival Background Focus
 Great example of Colonial Revival style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including dormer vents, wood siding, asymmetrical front porch with rounded columns.
 Exterior repairs have improved appearance and restored features.  Structure is well maintained.

273
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
410-412 W Goshen
Ave
094-
352-007 Vernacular Background Focus
 Great example of Vernacular style architecture.
 Uncommon duplex for type of structure.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including wood construction, multiple front porches, dormer feature, multiple roof features.
 Exterior alterations have improved appearance and restored features.  Structure is well maintained.

411 W Goshen
Ave
094-
351-002 Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including exposed rafter tails and dormer windows.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including loss of original windows.

810 N Highland
St
093-
154-016
Mission
Revival /
Regency
Background Focus
 Great example of Mission Revival/Regency style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including rounded front porch with rounded columns, tile roofing, unique roof line.
 Structure is well maintained.

274
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
505 W Kaweah
Ave
096-
143-001 Eastlake Background Focus
 Great example of Eastlake style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including ornate exteriors, bay window, unique facade.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including the addition of a garage that is compatible with the main structure.
 Structure is well maintained.

600 W Kaweah
Ave
096-
133-006 Bungalow Background Focus
 Added in 2013 to the Local Register with addition of the Homebuilders Addition subdivision to the Historic District.
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including an original trellis feature.
 Structure is well maintained.

815 W Kaweah
Ave
096-
151-003 Vernacular Background Focus
 Great example of Vernacular/Mission Revival style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, tile roofing, arched vents and windows, a central “bell tower feature,  Some exterior alterations have occurred.
 Structure is well maintained.

275
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
904 W Main St 093-
225-007
Craftsman
Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Craftsman Bungalow style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including clinker brick porch columns, exposed rafter tails, unique gable feature, intersecting roof lines.
 Structure is well maintained.

1102 W Main St 093-
227-013 Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including brick architecture, dormer feature, intersecting roof lines.
 Structure is well maintained.

310 W Murray
Ave
094-
353-009 Queen Anne Background Focus
 Great example of Queen Anne style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including windows with muntins, gable roofs with shingle siding, and an asymmetrical façade,
 Structure is well maintained.

276
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
614 W Myrtle
Ave
096-
153-009 Bungalow Exceptional Focus
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including slanted roof features, rounded porch columns, siding, exterior brick treatments.
 Exterior alterations have occurred resulting in a loss of significance. In particular, the original siding was replaced with aluminum material not in keeping with the original structure.
 Structure is well maintained.

709 W Noble
Ave
096-
134-003
Airplane
Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Airplane Bungalow style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a porch with thick columns, gable vent feature, original prairie windows.  Structure is well maintained.

715 W Noble
Ave
096-
134-001 Vernacular Background Focus
 Great example of Vernacular style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including a front porch with tapered columns, a chimney with inset detail, bay/prairie windows.
 Structure is well maintained.

277
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
735 W Oak Ave 093-
187-002
Airplane
Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Airplane Bungalow style architecture.  Structure contains architecturally significant and uncommon elements, including a prominent porch with unique gable feature, and original windows with muntins.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including covering of brick porch columns with stucco.
 Structure is well maintained.

406 W School
Ave
094-
341-006 Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, a unique front porch with rounded and square columns.
 Structure lightly rehabilitated to improve historic appearance.  Structure is well maintained.

278
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
507 W School
Ave
093-
184-003 Vernacular Background Focus
 Great example of Vernacular style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements wood siding, entry way, and gable roof with shingle siding.
 Some loss of original details (small dormer window), but otherwise intact.
 Structure is well maintained.

701 N Willis St 093-
163-013 Bungalow Background Focus
 Great example of Bungalow style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a porch with brick columns, brick and siding exterior, and roofs with flattened pitches.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred.
 Structure is well maintained.

714 N Willis St 093-
164-008
Period
Revival Background Focus
 Great example of Period Revival style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a high- pitched roof, asymmetrical design, and original wood windows with muntins.
 Structure is well maintained.

279
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45

720 N Willis St 093-
164-009
Period
Revival Background Focus
 Great example of Period Revival style architecture.
 Structure contains architecturally significant elements, including a small portico.
 Some exterior alterations have occurred, including change of double hung windows to single hung.
 Structure is well maintained.

280
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
Number Dir. Street APN Style Classification Recommendation Justification 621 S Church
St
097-
071-006 Vernacular Focus Background

 Significant loss of original detail, in particular to windows and the front porch.
 Addition of faux historical elements to structure.

710 S Church
St
097-
076-012 Vernacular Focus Background

 Loss of original detail to front porch, including loss of exposed rafters.  Structure has fallen in disrepair due to lack of maintenance.

Sites Downgraded to “Background”

281
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
506 S Court St 097-
034-007 Eastlake Focus Background
 Loss of original detail, in particular to windows, removal of original landing.

507 S Court St 097-
033-003 Vernacular Focus Background

 Significant loss of original detail, including removal of front porch, loss of original door and front windows.
 Addition of features not architecturally compatible with original structure, including stair railings and a wood deck.

282
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
720 S Court St 097-
025-006
Airplane
Bungalow Focus Background
 Significant loss of original detail, including replacement of original shingle siding with vinyl horizontal siding, loss of original gable vents, and loss of 2nd floor exposed rafter tails.

829 N Floral St 094-
024-014
Craftsman
Bungalow Focus Background

 Loss of original detail, in particular replacement of original windows and damage to exterior shingle siding.
 Addition of plywood fencing along northern property boundary detrimental to historic aesthetic of site and neighborhood.  Structure has fallen in disrepair due to lack of maintenance.

601 W Kaweah
Ave
096-
153-005 Bungalow Background/Focus Background
 Structure is a fair example of Bungalow architecture but retains no distinguishing architectural elements warranting “Focus” classification.  Duplex construction.

605 S Willis St
283
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
605 W Kaweah
Ave
096-
153-004 Bungalow Focus Background
 Placed on the Local Register in 2013 when the Homebuilders Addition subdivision was added to the Historic District.
 Structure is a g ood example of the Bungalow architecture and contributes to the historic aesthetic of the surrounding neighborhood.  Structure contains no distinguishing architectural elements warranting a “Focus” classification.

624 S Locust St 097-
036-007 Vernacular Focus Background
 Significant loss of original detail to the front exterior due to fire damage and rehabilitation not in keeping with original structure.  Changes include addition of vinyl windows, a new porch banister railing, metal screen door, and loss of original porch brackets.

Number Dir. Street APN Style Classification Recommendation Justification Sites Removed from the Local Register

284
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
411 NE 1st Ave 094-085-
002
Vernacular Background Remove from Local
Register
 Per older survey documents, the original historically designated structure is no longer on the property.
 The existing structure is different from the one previously documented. It is unclear whether the original structure was demolished or relocated.

200 NW 1st Ave 094-022-
019
Vernacular Background Remove from Local
Register
 The original historically designated structure was demolished.

431 S Bridge St 097-053-
011
Colonial
Revival
Background Remove from Local
Register.
 The original historically designated structure was demolished.  A new office building was constructed onsite in 1987.

285
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
508 S Church St 097-065-
015
Vernacular Background Remove from Local
Register
 The original historically designated structure was demolished.  A new residence was constructed onsite in 2008.

611 S Church St 097-071-
003
Vernacular Background Remove from Local
Register
 The original historically designated structure was demolished.  A new triplex was constructed onsite in approximately 2004.

622 S Church St 097-072-
012
Vernacular Background Remove from Local
Register
 The structure was damaged due to fire in 1996. Damaged portions of the structure where subsequently demolished.
 The structure was repaired and converted into a duplex in 1997.  Repairs significantly altered the appearance of the building, removing almost all architecturally significant features.

286
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
708 S Church St 097-076-
013
Vernacular Background Remove from Local
Register
 The original historically designated structure was demolished.

715 S Church St 097-077-
004
Vernacular Background Remove from Local
Register
 Structure significantly altered from original appearance (date work conducted unknown).
 Original batten board siding removed, windows altered, and a non-original porch feature added.

807 S Court St 097-024-
014
Italianate Focus Remove from Local
Register
 Structure destroyed by fire in 2021.

287
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
209 N Encina St 094-337-
007
Bungalow Background Remove from Local
Register
 Original structure demolished in 2021.

520 N Encina St 094-354-
019
Eastlake Background Remove from Local
Register
 Determined by HPAC that structure does not contain significant features of historical or architectural value to warrant Local Register designation.  Noted that alterations had also occurred to the original windows and garage door.
 Original surveys note that structure built in 1969, making the building no more than 53 years of age.

816 W Kaweah
Ave
096-135-
009
Revival Background Remove from Local
Register
 The structure was completely altered from its original appearance in 2008 as a result of a remodel of the residence.
 The existing front façade, while historically compatible with the surrounding area, bears no resemblance to the original structure.
 Reconsideration for placement back on the Local Register will be made at a future date once the structure is of age to warrant Local Register designation.

288
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
209 N Locust St 094-336-
005
Eastlake Focus Remove from Local
Register
 Residence relocated to 1103 W. Center Avenue. Date unknown.  Local Register designations to do not follow structures when they are relocated, as they are site specific.
 Consideration will be given to placing the relocated structure back on the Local Register in the future.

520 W Mineral
King
093-204-
018
Mission
Revival
Focus Remove from Local
Register
 Structure relocated to 732 W. Oak Avenue in 2003.
 Local Register designations to do not follow structures when they are relocated, as they are site specific.
 Consideration will be given to placing the relocated structure back on the Local Register in the future.

800 W Mineral
King
093-201-
012
Cluster
Cottage
Focus Remove from Local
Register
 Structures were relocated to the southwest corner of N. Giddings Street and W. Center Avenue (105, 119 N. Giddings Street/1301 W. Center Street) in approximately 1990.
 Local Register designations to do not follow structures when they are relocated, as they are site specific.
 Consideration will be given to placing the relocated structure back on the Local Register in the future.

289
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-45
208 N West St 094-338-
012
Vernacular Background Remove from Local
Register
 The original structure was demolished in 2008.

705 N Willis St 093-163-
012
Bungalow Focus Remove from Local
Register
 The original historically designated structure was damaged by fire and subsequently demolished in 2002.
 A new residence was constructed onsite in 2007.

501, 503 & 509 W Willow
Ave
096-204-
020
Airplane
Bungalow,
Mission
Revival/Sp-
anish
Eclectic,
Bungalow
Background,
Background,
Background
Remove all from
Local Register
 501 W. Willow Avenue – Residence relocated to 606 N. Bridge Street. Date unknown.
 503 W. Willow Avenue – Residence relocated to 614 N. Bridge Street. Date unknown.
 509 W. Willow Avenue – Residence relocated. Date and location unknown.  Local Register designations to do not follow structures when they are relocated, as they are site specific.
 Consideration will be given to placing the relocated structures back on the Local Register in the future.

290
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!( !(!( !(!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!( !(!(!(
!( !(!(!(!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!( !(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(!(!(
!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!( !( !(!( !(
!(!(
Hwy 198
W Myrtle Ave
W Murray Ave
W Kaweah Ave
W Center Ave
W Mineral King Ave
W Tulare Ave
S Giddings St
N Court St
N Floral St
E Main St
N Bridge St
S Mooney Blvd
N Santa Fe St
N Locust St
S Bridge StS Locust St
W Burrel Ave
N Encina St
S Conyer St
E Race Ave
N Garden St
W Laurel Ave
S Church St
W Grove Ave
E Noble Ave
S Sowell St
S Watson St
E Tulare Ave
S Encina St
E Center Ave
E School Ave
E Murray Ave
W Beverly Dr
N Church St
S Garden St
E Oak Ave
E Acequia Ave
N Jacob St
W Acequia Ave
NE 1st Ave
S Divisadero St
W Goshen Ave
N Tipton St
S Santa Fe St
W School Ave
W Race Ave
N Park St
NW 1st Ave
N Leslie St
W Meadow Ave
S Oak Park St
Alley
E Mineral King Ave
NE 2nd Ave
N Turner St
W College Ave
NW 2nd Ave
Pearl St
N Fairway St
N Johnson St
W Main St
W Green Acres Dr
S West St
E Cypress Ave
N West St
N Rinaldi St
N Willis St
S Willis St
Granite St
E Laurel Ave
N Mooney Blvd
E Myrtle AveS Jacob St
S Court St
W Noble Ave
N Giddings St
N Conyer St
E Douglas Ave
E Kaweah Ave
S Liberty St
W Pershing Ave
W Sunset Dr
N Midland St
W Hyde Ave
S Dollner St
S Central St
N Highland St
W Club Dr
S Johnson St
NE 3rd Ave
N Hall St
NW 3rd Ave
W Sady Ave
E Grove Ave
W Westcott Ave
S Stevenson St
N Todd St
S Elm St
S Floral St
W Switzer Ave
S Tipton St
Ash St
S Shady St
W Linden Ave
S Bonnie St
S Clark St
N Stevenson St
W Olive Ave
Pine St
W Sierra Ave
E Sequoia Ave
W Manor Dr
Grape St
W Oak Ave
N Dudley St
N Divisadero St
S Martin St
W Sanders Ave
N Liberty St
E Willow Ave
S Edwards Ct
Private St
W Willow Ave
N Highland St
Alley
W Laurel Ave
Alley
Alley
S Tipton St
Alley
Alley
Alley
N Conyer St
Alley
E Cypress Ave
Alley
Alley
S Stevenson St
Alley
S Court St
W Goshen Ave
Alley
W Mineral King Ave
N Dudley St
S Conyer St
Alley
W Grove Ave
Alley
N Divisadero St
S Central St
S Church St
N Liberty St
W Oak Ave
E Myrtle Ave
Alley
S Bridge St
S Willis St
N Willis St
S Johnson St
E Laurel Ave
N Turner St
N Stevenson St
Alley
Alley
Alley
E Myrtle Ave
W School Ave
N Divisadero St
W Oak Ave
W Laurel Ave
N West St
S Martin St
N Rinaldi St
W Myrtle Ave
W School Ave
W Tulare Ave
N Conyer St
N Hall St
Alley
Alley
E Sequoia Ave
S Locust St
S Clark St
N Stevenson StAlley
Alley
W Noble Ave
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
W Kaweah Ave
Alley
Alley
N Hall St
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
S Dollner St
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
N Giddings St
N Jacob St
E Douglas Ave
N Stevenson St

MILL CREEK
EXHIBIT "A"
H i s t o r i c
D i s t r i c t &
L o c a l
R e g i s t e r
M a p
City Limits
Streets
Railroad
Waterways
Parcels
!( Local Registry
Historical District
0 600 1200300
Feet
¨
291

Page 1 ends

Visalia City CouncilAugust 1, 2022

Visalia City Council
August 1, 2022