City Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. We're going to go ahead and get started and call this meeting to order. We appreciate your patience. We were checking out a new fire truck, or excuse me, a new trash truck. It's an electric trash truck. It's the first one that the city has. And then we're also making sure that all of our systems are up and running. Today's the first day that we're doing our new online call-in option. So let me go ahead and read the new word or the verbiage that's going to go along with that. Let's see. We're going to go ahead and start with public comments. Citizens are now invited to comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visayas City Council and items listed on the closed session agenda. The council asks that you keep your comments concise and positive. Creative criticism presented with appropriate courtesy is welcome. The city does not tolerate disruptive behavior in our meetings. This council meeting is considered a limited public forum, which means The council can regulate time, place, and manner of speech. Speaker's comments during public comments must be limited to matters within the council's authority, generally referred to as within the council's subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker's comments are not related to the council's subject matter jurisdiction, the presiding officer will rule that the speaker is out of order. A speaker will not be ruled out of order because of disagreement with the content of their speech. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes and the presiding officer may establish a reasonable overall time limit for this public comment period and may adjust that time limit as necessary to ensure efficient, orderly, and fair conducting of a meeting. Please step to the podium and or form a line for those calling in. Raise your digital hand and now or dial star nine on the telephone to indicate you wish to speak and star six to unmute yourself. You may begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence. So anyone wishing to speak who's here, if you want to come up for public comments, come on up.

Hello, Council. My name's Jeff Poole, J-E-F-F-P-O-O-L. Lived in Visalia 62 years. I'm here just to... bring awareness to child trafficking and pedophilia here in Visalia. I'm a survivor myself. I was assaulted as a young child at seven years old and dealt with it my whole life. When I turned 17, that man passed away. And on that day, I got about that much of my soul back. And went on with life, started a business 23 years right here in Visalia, providing services for you all and contractors and whatnot, and doing waste management mainly under the guise of SWPPP, Stormwater Pollution Protection Program. basically keeping our water clean and whatnot. Anyway, went through a divorce, sold the business, company out of Elk Grove, now I'm retired, and I'm back in the waste management business regarding the pedophiles. Enough is enough, guys. Enough is enough. What is the city of Visalia doing about awareness for child trafficking and pedophilia? Right now we have 318 convicted pedophiles living here among us. It's like an iceberg. You got the 318 up here. You got 12,000 down there that haven't been caught that continue to push their evil on our children. And it's not fair. The silence is unacceptable. It is. I started this campaign here in Visalia on Father's Day. with my clown mask and my sign. It's incredible, the response that I'm getting. I get a lot of hate. I get death threats. I've had one attempt on my life. But there's a lot of love. Most of it is love. Thumbs up, hearts, little kids in the backseat of their parents' car. Their parents are looking straight ahead. I get little kids in the backseat giving me the heart. They're not afraid of the clown. They know, I don't know why, but they know what it's all about. I'm not the bad guy here. I'm just spreading awareness. I want to get the conversation started. That's what's happening. Guy took a picture of me, guy here in Visalia. I was out there on Plaza in 198. Just took a simple picture of me, posted it. Three days later, had almost 6,000 likes and hearts.

Thank you, sir. We appreciate your comments. Anybody else wishing to speak in person here at this time? Pay attention. Okay, seeing no one else who is here for in-person comments, City Clerk, do we have anyone online wishing to speak at this time?

We have no one online at the moment.

Okay, perfect. Can I ask a question real quick? Absolutely.

This is the first time we're doing this. Do people have to be in a waiting room by a certain time, or how is this working?

Thank you for your question, Councilmember. So there is no waiting room. They just would call in on the call-in information that's posted on the website and on our agenda. So it's on the right-hand corner of the agenda. So there is no waiting room. They would just call in and there is a process to raise either your virtual hand or if they call in using the platform that we're using and the link that's provided on the agenda they would use their virtual hand to, they would raise their virtual hand as well.

May I ask a clarifying question on that? If they call in now for a general public comment, would they be able to comment at this time, a general comment, or would it be only to subject matter now being considered as part of the agenda?

So the mayor, if we had someone raising the virtual hand now, the opportunity would still be made available because the mayor has not went on to the next item. If once the mayor goes on to the next item, which would be agenda item number one, then we would no longer be allowed to take that public comment on the general items of the agenda.

Thank you.

Perfect. Any other questions? All right, again, we appreciate everyone's patience as we kind of navigate through this new process. And thank you, Rena, for setting all that up. We got to come in a few days ago and practice everything, and it looks like it's working well, so thank you. All right, so we're going to go ahead and close public comments, and we are going to go ahead and open up the first portion of the work session, which is a proposed elimination of Transit Fixed Route 17. Staff report, please.

Thank you, Your Honor and City Council. Good afternoon. John Lawless, Assistant City Manager, and I'm joined today by Angelina Baker, who serves as Transit Manager, and presenting to you this evening a recommendation to begin a process of eliminating Route 17 that serves the Visalia Industrial Park.

Good evening. So as John mentioned, we're here to discuss our Industrial Route 17. This is the newest route that Visalia has. We started in 2021. So just a little bit of background on the Route 17. This was originally grant funded by CMAQ funds. CMAC will fund a pilot route for three years. However, this route exhausted it in two. And it costs quite a bit to run. So as of this year, we're estimating it's going to cost us about $850,000 to operate with very, very low ridership. So October 2021 is when we launched that. The funds were exhausted by 2023. TCAG had provided that CMAQ funding, $1.3 million, and then of course the city had a match, and we matched it with LTF funds typically. Since its inception, Route 17 has been the lowest ridership route. which is why we're proposing it here. And I know everybody's well aware we're working on our short range transit plan that will not be implemented. The soonest date it could possibly be implemented is in 2028. So the reason for us coming here today is just to get some low hanging fruit to help us with operational costs now, you know, without waiting another two years for kind of an underperforming route, just trying to do a little bit of cleanup before we make that big change in a couple years.

And if I could amend to that as well, that this was identified by the consultants looking at the short range transit plan, it was certainly an outlier in terms of its performance.

So to give some background on the federal, transit is governed by, you know, the feds, the Federal Transit Administration. So there are certain things that require us to walk through the process when you're proposing a route elimination. So one of those things is whether or not it's defined by a 25% reduction, and this also aligns with our rules. So our contract, if we adjust it with our operator more than 20%, it triggers a renegotiation. So those two numbers are pretty closely aligned for that reason. We would trigger a 30-day public comment period, and we would make ourself available to the public here at council, online, via Facebook, via telephone. We would give plenty of opportunity for the public to give us any feedback during that public comment period. And then I guess that's it on that, huh?

And that there is a number of different ways that the public can provide both in person, by email, however is most convenient to them to provide comments.

So just to go a little bit into the route expenditures here, this is just a quick breakdown. Now, fiscal year 21 looks short because we did not implement until October. So that's why that year is so short. And I just wanna note, our contractor is paid specifically by hours and miles of operation on any route. And then outside of that part of the invoice, there's what we call a fixed fee. And it's kind of like a massive overhead invoice that we get every month. So now that we are in contract, reducing this route would only reduce it by hours and miles. However, if we were in between contracts and negotiating this piece, it would actually be reduced a little bit further because we are paying a fixed fee monthly that this would come out of. Now that we're in contract, reducing it doesn't get rid of that part of the fixed fee, but I just wanna point that out. The cost of this are probably just a little bit higher when you take that into consideration. So like I stated, this year we're estimating 802,000 to operate this route. And when you tie that back to this ridership, and there are some months in there where the data is not reliable, so I chose to omit it. But you can see here the yearly ridership, 3,000 is probably our closest best year for the entire year. And I just wanna note that pre-COVID, we used to move 4,500 people a day. So just to put it in perspective how low performing this route is. Now, John mentioned our SRTP workshop. So our consultant did point out that industrial parks are really not a good fit for fixed route service for a lot of reasons. There's a lot of sprawl. They're very underdeveloped. There's not always sidewalks. When you're taking somebody to like UPS or Amazon, you're dropping them off a quarter mile from the door and they're still walking through a parking lot. So big buses, it's just really not a good fit in that. And that's part of why they're not always successful in those areas.

And if I can add, as indicated in the staff report, historically, the city has used a five riders per hour as its general, what's considered, I would say, the minimum for performance. And as I spoke to it being an outlier, when you divide the hours by passengers, you're at 0.3 riders per hour on this. And for comparison, and also identified by the short-range transit plan, but a little bit differentiated from Route 17 was Route 16, and that was one that also has low ridership. But it has different characteristics as to why that is, and I will speak to the efforts that have begun under the short-range transit plan. in terms of consolidation of where are your best opportunities of ridership and to consolidate them within existing and how do you better configure a fixed route system to consolidate those high ridership areas within existing fixed routes. So just a different characteristic of the area that it was being served and as in generally spoke to just certain specific challenges that come in a serving an industrial park especially the size of a vice alias and speaking to us you know there's some alternative transportation options that have been utilized out there certainly personal vehicles carpools and ride-sharing services, of which, and this kind of leads to my comment, this is a ripe area for micro-transit delivery. We've seen this, and comments received from those is it picks me up at my house and drops me right at the front of where I work at. As we continue to work towards the DOE complex resource, actually just came from a meeting previous to this, really looking at how that resource center could well serve this area through a microtransit kind of clustered service in that particular area, just given its specific characteristics to differentiate it from your typical fixed route service.

Question. Can we use any of the funds that we would save to subsidize microtransit? And that's a great question.

We are still on a pilot for micro transit, which is funded right now by TCAG through what's called SB 125 funds for to support transit. We have another year of that pilot project that will come up until June of 27. As part of our short range transit plan, we are accounting for how to expand and for microtransit to better serve that kind of what they would call coverage deficiencies. And this would be an example of one where it's a coverage deficiency from your fixed route system, but it has a particular characteristic that would benefit from microtransit.

And folks can still use Dial-a-Ride or microtransit to get out there, right? Like currently, if this were to stop today?

This is gonna be one that we also, the answer is yes. Another component of the short-range transit plan will be to better define the difference between microtransit and dial-a-ride. So dial-a-ride really is first priority to paratransit. those that are identified ADA in need of that. That is priority one. Priority two is to senior citizens. We have typically allowed dial-a-ride to serve same-day ridership, and what really needs to occur is that dial-a-ride and microtransit be separated so that individuals that are not paratransit and are not senior citizens would be steered to microtransit.

On your vision for the Doe Avenue complex, do you see that in the future as like a major drop off point for a fixed route for everybody in the industrial park and then from there they get shuttled to their different employers? Is that what you're thinking about?

Precisely, and what we are right now there is as part of the Cross Valley Corridor with connectivity of the Cross Valley Express from Visalia Transit Center to Doe, and right now we're working through what is the best from a traffic circulation standpoint and stop circulation. So there's a couple of concepts that have been presented for conversation, but precisely to your point, with the doe Center serving as kind of that gateway into the industrial park and then how Trent public transit could better serve that industrial park accordingly with that being there would probably be two stops there would be one on the To the east which would be at and that would serve as a transit hub and then a stop in the plaza Goshen kind of in those two areas. But ideally, the Doe Center is established. It really serves as a great opportunity for a public transit system that would serve specifically the industrial park through like a microtransit circulator.

And the riders that you showed on there for 2025, because you said it was a pretty accurate figure, those are duplicated. So that could be one person riding.

Every time they get on a bus, we count them.

Yeah, and that... That equals $260 per ride. Yes. That's not a real good use of tax funds. Right. So, okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

John, why don't you, I got, I was fortunate to sit in two days of transit meetings, and why don't you explain the ridership from microtransit and why that's not the catch-all that people think it is, because the ridership is low on microtransit, I mean, per hour, and you still have the same fixed cost of a driver.

You're just confined by the number of seats. So if your vehicle and typically in right now It was it was um reported by the consultant that it's operating kind of at what's going to be its optimal which is four four rides an hour and that's that's better than most and if you think about it if you're in in really where for microtransit to work and this is where i say that the doe center really kind of in the visalia industrial park really lends itself to this is that you need shared rides So if you have, let's say, a van pool or a common place for people to come together to park their car, or let's say a van pool, I think that would be the preferred way. A van pool that takes itself to the Doe Center that then, because it could be any employer in the industrial park, could then connect to a microtransit. So I'm going to drop you at Amazon. I'm going to drop you at UPS. I'm going to drop you at any of the providers in the industrial park.

So the eventual goal with microtransit is finding that kind of balance, that sweet spot in the system. The system allows you to tell it how long a person is allowed to wait for a microtransit vehicle. So when we first implemented the microtransit pilot last year, we were really pushing that customer experience, giving everybody a good way to be exposed to this service, get everybody get their feet wet. So now what we need to do is adjust those dials in that software so that it says, you know what, you may ride with somebody else. It may not take, you may not be able to get where you're going in 15, 20 minutes. It may take 30 or 40 minutes, but we'll still get you door to door and you're gonna share that ride. Because for transit, for us, we're not meant to be a taxi service. It is meant to be a ride share and so far we're not really doing that. and finding that balance is the difficult part, and our consultant is really digging into that data right now to give us some feedback that we can really use to max out that service the way that it should be maxed out.

But to that point, it was remarked, and to the Councilman's question, is performing essentially to its capabilities as it relates to a single rider. I mean, if you're averaging three riders operational hour, you're doing it. You're getting people from where they wish to be in that time frame. So I mean, that's three riders an hour. And so to be able to get to, and that's just the limitation of that comparison to fixed route because you have a number of other obviously seats that are available to that. But again the characteristic of the industrial park is it's it's much more spread out and it works in a specific area that could really lend itself to having a central place that folks come together just like a transit center and then disperse to the different through a ride share arrangement.

So tonight with council's guidance, we're proposing this timeline. We would like, if you would direct us to, we would open a public comment period today, essentially. That public comment period would run for 30 days. During that time, we would take just like we talked about a little bit ago, those phone calls, those online comments, those reach outs, the folks who walk up to the window, just completely open to receiving any feedback that we would document. From there, we would come back to council on September 7th and have a hearing here as well and present any of that feedback that we had collected over that time. Depending on the feedback that we get, of course, with low participation, kind of, lending to our suggestion of eliminating this route, we would then move to eliminate the route effective one October.

In addition to that, outreach to specifically to Amazon to especially given Amazon was the kind of the catalyst to this being begun. And we have seen Amazon employees using microtransit for the very reasons explained saying just the convenience factor of it. as well as with the VEDC and the Business Roundtable that serves out there as well. So we've been engaged with the VEDC about, and they've been a big proponent of the DOE complex development and the Employment Resource Center that that could serve. So, yeah. trying to, as we can, and be curious to hear of any other feedback that comes from, you know, attempts were made to try to solicit feedback from riders of that, and in one case, you know, when the times that were rather out, there was one, just one that was using it, so. Have to answer any questions.

Yes, and we did have staff go out on a route in an attempt to perform onboard surveys. The entire time our staff member observed the route, there was one person who entered the bus and then did not wish to speak. So we really were not able to actually collect any feedback from folks using the route. One interesting thing I wanna share that I don't feel like lends to the ridership, but something that was shared with me directly by Amazon when we first talked about implementing this route was that in their first 90 days of opening a new facility, they have to offer the Monday through Friday eight to five type schedule. after the 90 days it shifts to a 24 hour facility and a lot of the feedback that we have gotten is that we can get them out there when their shift starts but not home when it's done or vice versa so the fixed route just really it just doesn't work in that area happy to have any further discussion or take any questions thank you councilman nelson any questions or comments no first of all i want to thank angelina for setting up the meeting that i was able to attend and a very informative uh

We were talking earlier, and it kind of grew a bunch of deep dive kind of questions on the different aspects of where transit's going. One quick question is, do we have any other routes that get this type of funding that we're now looking at that ridership, or is just the one we're looking at?

With the exception of Microtransit and Visalia Connect, this was our only new piloted route, and Microtransit is still in the pilot phase for another year.

Yeah, great report, and the meetings were outstanding, so thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, great report. You know, I think back seven years ago to Council Member Phil Cox saying, I'm tired of staring at empty buses. If no one's running, let's eliminate that route, and I think that's what we're doing. We're making this more efficient. Are we looking at different spots in the city where something like this could work, too? Like, are there certain hot spots we're looking at where, you know, a lot of, this is a popular route, but from there, people disperse. Is that how we're trying to set up, like, maybe like a grid system or something like that?

Yes, so part of the workshop that we had last week with our consultant, without sharing too much because of course all of that has to be approved here in this forum, we did rebuild essentially what we think would be a higher ridership fixed route system. And it really focuses on where our ridership is now in those parts of the city, which would then leave the outlying parts of the city is kind of underserved and the proposal would most likely be for microtransit to fill in those gaps in those areas. Again, that's all very hypothetical at this point, nothing permanent, nothing set in stone. We just worked with the operations folks, the nuts and bolts people, the workshop that Steve has mentioned, where we just really built it based on logic and ridership and creating efficient routes. but then we would come back here to this forum, also to the public, have lots of public workshops to receive feedback on that before any of that became permanent. Our SRTP consultant plans to give us a final report by March of 2027, and then it would take about a year to implement after that with council's approval.

Perfect. Like I said, I think it's great. Everything sounds great. You know, when you think of Visalia, it's kind of like Los Angeles, kind of the same way. Transit doesn't really work in those kind of places. You look at New York, Boston, even San Francisco, those cities were built on walking. So you have districts where people go in a district and get to disperse where they want. Whereas Visalia, Los Angeles, newer cities are built by automobiles where people drive everywhere. So finding those deficiencies and see how we get better served and better utilize the public's money, I think is fantastic. It's a great report.

Thank you.

Council Member Soto.

So I guess my only concern is the 60 to 100 people here that are going to lose the ridership out there. Is there any way we could subsidize a month or two after October just to help out extend that timeline with micro transit? Because I feel like, you know, three months is going to, it's coming up, it's coming up fast for someone to figure out, oh, I got to, I got to buy a car now or figure out how I'm going to get to work. Is that something we could look at?

It would be, be an amendment of kind of what we're doing with, with TCAG as the pilot project of, of microtransit. I would say that their TCAG has begun a, a study effort, if you will, to look at, you A subsidy program or a reduced fare program for rides that originate out of disadvantaged severely disadvantaged areas so. It's preliminary at this point but what I would say is to that is that there is through TCAG given that they're funding the pilot to continue to fund there would be additional funding I guess you would say if the ride was originating from a certain census tract that would be a less lesser fare. But again, that's still a month into the conversation right now. Hasn't come to the TCAC board yet as an example for approval.

Okay, that's why I understand why. I mean, you can obviously tell ridership is decreasing and it makes sense. So thank you for the report.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Wynn.

Thank you for the report and your workshops were really informative. I'm glad you've gathered that data. Because I mean, if you look at that, like a month, it's 240 riders, or riders that could be the same person, right? If they went to work 20 days out of the month, that's 12 people. And I think what Council Member Soto's talking about some sort of, maybe it's an income-based subsidy, but I'd also like to see, make sure that you talk to the industrial park folks about, you know, COS provides all their students Right? Maybe they could provide them with a split of microtransit fare or something because it's about $2.50 to ride the bus and $5 for microtransit, right?

$1.75 one way for the bus.

Yeah. Okay. So maybe something that would help cover that gap. But just suggestions. But you're right. I think you can use that money in much better ways to provide transit.

And again I should have said it I don't take lightly the reduction of a route. It's not something that we. But it just so happened as we began to look at this and knowing that there is increasing costs where are and what are better ways to serve. I guess that's really the and where is the greatest benefit that gets received. I think a number of different things are happening to try to answer that question. That's pilot projects or pilots try to help answer that question or at least provide some answers to it. We'll be looking at that same question as part of our Councilman Batygin's comment was kind of the same way. If you're focusing on where your highest ridership is and potential is, you don't want to leave anybody stranded. So they call it lifeline services. What are ways that you can connect people? And it wouldn't be door to door. It would be from their door to connecting to the fixed route system to get them where they need to go.

Well, I think you were looking at increasing the. on your heavier use fixed routes, which I think will make those even more popular if they're coming every 15 minutes rather than every 30 or every 45. So I think you have a good plan. It's gonna take you a while to get through it.

Also wanted to mention that this is, Council's not being asked to make a decision this evening. It's just for us to begin on the process that's required of the FTA, seeking input from the public and doing that over the next 30 to 40 days or so and then coming back to Council in September.

Yeah, I was running the same numbers as Vice Mayor Nguyen was running. $266 to get them to work, $532 to get them there and back. So unless they were making $66.50 an hour, it was costing us more money than probably they were making. That's $2,660 per person per week to get them to work, $11,000 a month, and $138,000 a year to get one person to work is what we were paying. I appreciate you guys saving the city money. We can definitely use that in other transit routes. I know the Vice City Connect has been wildly popular. I get a lot of people stopping me, telling me how appreciative they are of it, that it's a great pilot program that we're doing. So I definitely would like to see us focus more on getting the services to where they need it, because this is clearly one where, I mean, not to disregard the handful of people that are using that route, but $138,000 to get one person to work a year is just not realistic. So thank you guys. At this time, let's go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item, please come forward and state your name and city of residence. Seeing no one, city clerk, do we have anyone online wishing to speak?

Mayor, at this time, we see no hands raised.

Okay. We'll turn it back over to council then, and I'll entertain a motion.

I move to authorize staff to open up a 30-day public comment period to receive feedback on a proposed elimination of Transit Fix Route 17 in the service of the Visalia Industrial Park and schedule a public hearing for the city council meeting of September 7th, 2026 for council determination.

I'll second that. We have first and second. All those in favor, please vote. Item passes 5-0. Thank you very much for your report. Thank you, Council. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right, next we're going to go on to work session item number two, which is City Department 4th of July post-report.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council, Corbin Reed, Fire Marshal for the City of Visalia Fire Department. I will be presenting along with Jason Glick.

Jason Glick, Parks and Recreation Director.

We'll be presenting the 2026 post-4th of July recap. This year we had 27 nonprofits that operated safe and sane booths throughout the city of Visalia. These booths go through the full process to obtain a permit and it is population based, based off our ordinance. Booths are inspected prior to opening and are only allowed to sell safe and sane fireworks which are provided by their licensed vendor.

Real quick, are the nonprofits required to be local within the city of Isiah nonprofits, or can there be nonprofits from outside of the area?

They're required to have their principal location within the Visalia Unified School District. So we have, I think, one group that their primary location is in Goshen, their church that's in Goshen, but they have to be within that district.

That's why I asked the question. I did notice that, and it just kind of surprised me that we had to. So it's within the Visalia Unified School District boundaries? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you.

This year, once again, we upgraded the call center. It was comprised of 10 city staff that took calls on both July 3rd and 4th. This call center was able to take 123 calls off of dispatch's plate, and we had a total of 243 calls just during that timeframe of the 3rd and 4th for specific fireworks. Year to date, this report was prepared last week, so our calls for service were at 376 calls specific to fireworks, which is a drop, I can't read that far, a little bit over 100 compared to last year's calls.

Urban, any issues with the call system? I had one resident reach out saying that the call system wasn't working.

I know when the call center ended, it has to be transferred a very specific way to get it up to dispatch. So for a couple hours after the call center ended, which was between 11 and midnight each night, there was a little time frame where it wasn't transferred correctly. We fixed that. We've added in our notes next year to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

But besides that, no other issues there?

No, everything functioned great. We didn't have any glitches and that info went directly to us in the field and was populating as it should.

Perfect, thank you.

For citations this year, there was a little bit of a decrease over last year's citations. We're issuing a total of 67 sites at this time. We issue these citations year-round, so it doesn't only happen during 4th of July. So if PD is out tonight and they come across somebody, they can get a citation as well. Additionally, across the third and fourth, we had 103 calls for service for the fire department. These calls range from medical aids, structure fires, grass fires, dumpster and trash can fires, vehicle fires. And that completes the fire portion.

Chief Griswold is going to play a highlight reel for the Independence Spectacular.

Hey Viseya, welcome to the third annual Independence Spectacular. We are about ready to have a great time watching our fireworks and celebrating America's 250th birthday. This is an amazing crowd and we're excited for this year's event.

It's a great reel. Okay, this year's event took place at Riverway Sports Park. It took place on soccer fields six through 10. The event hours were 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Staff started their day that morning at 7 a.m. and concluded their operations around 1 a.m. It was a very, very busy day. Our estimated attendance was 15,000 and increased, we estimated, by 5,000 from the previous year. We had an expanded kids zone on soccer fields 9 and 10. It was just a big area where the children were playing, and the adults were primarily on fields 6, 7, and 8. It was a free family fun event, live music curated and promoted by Momentum Broadcasting, stage and venue enhancements by Bueno Beverage. The free kids zone was supported by Vaisal Unified School District, Amplify and Recreation staff. Amplify provided an adaptive needs support for families and children, over 40 food vendors. And believe it or not, we need more food vendors next year. There is lines for food. I couldn't believe it. I was so excited and we had 40 food vendors and I think around eight o'clock, I could not believe the lines we had folks trying to get food. Even concluded with a fireworks show. We couldn't have done this event, the recreation staff will be the first ones to admit it without the support of other departments within the city. The Parks Division, the Visalia Police Department, the Visalia Fire Department, the Transit Division, the City Engineering Team, and Finance and Purchasing. We couldn't have done this event with everyone pulling together, coming together as a team and making this happen. Our partners, Momentum Broadcasting, Event Promotion and Music Lineup, Bueno Beverage, the Festive Stage and Venue Enhancement, VOSD, they were the primary in the Kids Zone, and the Vice City Community Enhancement Foundation, the Beer Garden Operations. Sponsors, Amplify, United Rentals. United Rentals provided a huge... video screen. I think it was set up on Soccer Field 8, and there's another smaller video screen in the Kids Zone that really added to the event. It was really, really cool. And of course, American Ambulance, Sanchez Bounce, Raising Canes, and Fun Flick. It was a great event. We're looking forward to next year. Next year, Visalia's celebrating the 175th anniversary of the city of Visalia. We were founded November 1st, 1852, and we're getting excited about, we're already talking about what we're going to do next year. So thank you all for council's support in this event. And just one other update with animal services. The lost animal count from July 3rd to July 6th was five, and two of those animals were reclaimed. So we had five calls for missed animals during that weekend. Thank you. Any questions?

Great. Thank you so much. Council Member Soto?

I know last year, I believe you guys had someone up in the air on a plane helping out. Was that plane up there that was flying around also helping out this year with fireworks? Just curious, because I did see it. I was out there just hanging out.

Those weren't local for Visalia. There may have been planes, but they weren't tied to the city of Visalia.

I'm just curious. Yeah, people will join the fireworks from above.

Last year, VPD did use their drone.

The drone, okay. Yes. Got it. Thank you.

How did the park and ride go? Was that well received, well used?

Yes, it was. We had quite a few folks. They were in the Target Shopping Center, and folks were utilizing that quite a bit. They would park there and ride over, but folks were walking over as well.

When I left, I walked, too, and there was a lot of pedestrians. Great venue and great area. Good job. Thank you.

Council Member Pugetian?

So on the fireworks. Me personally, I felt like there was less fireworks, especially around our neighborhood. I always say, like, on the 4th of July, you expect to hear things go boom and bang. But on the 3rd, 2nd, 1st, or after that, you don't. And I feel like we heard a lot less this year. According to the numbers, it was a lot lower. So I think hopefully the message is getting out about the fireworks. So you guys did a great job. On the 4th of July, I did have one complaint. There wasn't enough porta-potties. Someone shot me a text message that day, so maybe next year more porta-potties. I said, you have this many people, a couple more porta-potties. But that was the only negative thing I heard about the entire thing. I heard it was fantastic. I asked a bunch of people to see what they thought about it to get some feedback, and nothing negative. They said it was one of the best fireworks shows they've seen right there.

Council Member Nelson.

Question, was there any, because I didn't really see any reports, was there any illegal fireworks confiscated before the 4th?

We...

Within the city limits or within close proximity?

Not any large amounts, but there were. In some years past, we had had some illegal buys that are... things like that this year. Well, the last couple years, we've seen little to no illegal selling going on in our community or even closely related areas. I know there were some large bus, I want to say Reedley had one, but yeah, we didn't have any specific.

I was wondering. I agree with Council Member Pachigian. My neighborhood, first time ever, had zero illegal fireworks going off, except for one guy, and that was a short timeframe. But other than that, it was great. I've heard great comments on the event. The only negative I heard was the impact of parking in the vicinity. Very impactful, especially if you're in a neighborhood. Yeah, if you're having a party and there's no parking in front of your house. I heard that comment from a couple of people. But otherwise, great event.

Yeah, I want to say thank you to all the city staff who was there for the call center, you know, because that's like an army of folks who volunteer to be there to take those calls. You know, it's really amazing that they're willing to do that because instead of being out with their families, you know, celebrating on the 3rd and 4th of July. They're out there working on our citizens' behalf to make it better. I felt like this year, I mean, in my neighborhood, there's always illegal fireworks. My dog absolutely hates it. We have to bring her in for about a week straight because she'll just bark all night long if we don't. But it felt like it was a lot less than what it was in the past, and I think the numbers are indicating the same thing. i think the message is getting out there and i think the fact that we increased the fines a couple years ago and you know those are some serious fines that these folks are getting i think that's been helping out with the problem so and then as with the the third of july celebration that was an amazing event uh it was just to see the staff out there i was looking around like taking notes for everything and you know i was telling the city manager that I looked and there was no cups at the water station. And I was like, oh, so I'm making notes. Well, I turned around and looked five minutes later and someone had refilled it. And I was looking, oh, this trash can's full. And I wrote that down. And five minutes later, someone came and dumped it. And so the staff that was there, they were on it. They were just doing an amazing job. It was neat to see everyone out there having a great time, having fun. It was just a great night. I was impressed at how many people were there. And I think, yeah, there's going to be problems with parking and getting out. It took a while, but you're at a big event, and I think everyone just had a great time. So my only complaints were needed more bathrooms and needed more food vendors, which – I think we can handle that next year. But great job to all the staff. I mean, really, you guys just blew it out of the park. It was really neat. And again, thank you to the staff for not being with your families and partying when we got to go hang out with our families. You guys were out there working. And so we really do appreciate our staff for just making us look good and for throwing one heck of a party. So appreciate it. Let's go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone wishing to speak on this item, please come forward and state your name and city of residence. Seeing none we will open up to anyone in the online.

Mayor we have no public comments at this moment.

Perfect then we will go ahead and. Say thank you guys very much for your report and we'll look forward to next year. I think we're gonna have to plan to even open up more park space for events because it was just people everywhere. It was great.

Thank you. We will come back at a future meeting with recommendations on changes as you had requested to the ordinance increasing the fine and doing a full ordinance review as well.

Wonderful. Thank you. All right, we're going to go ahead and adjourn into closed session, and we welcome everyone to come back at 7 o'clock for our regularly scheduled session. So we'll go ahead and adjourn at this time. Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the Visayas City Council regular session meeting. We're going to go ahead and get started. We'll call this session to order. We will start by having our Pledge of Allegiance offered by Council Member Nelson, which, after that, we will have a prayer offered by Paul Passon from Gonzales from Neighborhood Church.

Hello. Father, I just want to lift up the council and all of these people here, Lord, who give of their time and are committed to making this city a better place for everyone who lives here. So I just pray for a blessing over this city. I pray for a blessing over this council. I pray, Lord, that you give everyone here the wisdom and the strength the courage to represent you well, to take care of your people, to take care of our people. and do the things that is necessary to just make this city and everyone who lives here, just make this a good place to live, a good safe place. And so I just pray for strength and courage and wisdom for everyone here who shepherds and takes care of these people. In the name of Jesus, amen. So just a quick word, sorry. So neighborhood degree, our neighborhood community center, it opens up August 8th and at 8 o'clock. So if any of you can be there, we would love to have you there. The ribbon cutting is at 9 o'clock. Thank you.

Thank you, Pastor. We appreciate your invocation and information. All right, we're going to go ahead and start public comments. We're now doing public comments in person and also online. So we have a new script that I'll be reading tonight. So it says, citizens are now invited to comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visayas City Council and items listed on the closed session agenda. The council asks that you keep your comments concise and positive. Creative criticism presented with appropriate courtesy is welcome. The city does not tolerate disruptive behaviors in our meeting. This council meeting is considered a limited public forum, which means that the council can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. Speaker's comments during public comments must be limited to matters within the council's authority, generally referred to as within the council's subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker's comments are not related to the council's subject matter jurisdiction, the presiding officer will rule the speaker out of order. The speaker will not be ruled out of order because of disagreement with the content of their speech. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak. The presiding officer may establish a reasonable overall time limit for the public comment period and may adjust the time limit as necessary to ensure an efficient, orderly, and fair conducted meeting. If you would like to speak at this time, please step up to the podium or form a line. And all those calling in, Raise your digital hand now by dialing star nine on a telephone to indicate you wish to speak and star six to unmute yourself when the time is ready. You may begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence. Anyone wishing to speak at public comments who's here in person, please come forward at this time.

Good evening. My name is Linda Martinez, L-I-N-D-A-M-A-R-T-I-N-E-Z. I live in Visalia. My name is Linda Martinez. I have been a resident of Visalia since May of 2020, and my husband and his family have been here in Visalia since the early 2000s. Today I would like to make the city council aware of issues in our school district. While I understand you are not related and are separate government entities, I know there is also some crossover. Most importantly, as residents of this city, you should be aware of its issues. I am sure some of you have students or have had students in the USD and perhaps it may not be your own children but the children of your friends or family. In April my son's teacher was charged with child abuse and these charges were dropped because the statute of limitations. I will not go into details because of current litigation however I will discuss little about how that felt as a parent for myself and the other parents. Our trust in our students' teachers has been shattered. It has been heartbreaking to learn these children were mistreated. Every single student in each classroom across this nation deserves to be safe and respected. It is not up for debate and it matters more than any other benchmark. or statistic. Bullying is a huge problem in this district, in this city, and teachers should not be the bullies. No parent should have to worry about sending their kids to school, yet many of us do. The victims in this case were all nonverbal children, children who were unable to defend themselves by reporting how they were treated, They cannot tell us their parents how they were hurt or what happened in the classroom. Today I'm asking for your support in adding cameras to special needs classrooms. These cameras need to be monitored by a third party not someone at the school location. The data from these cameras should be stored to match the statute of limitations. As a society it is our duty and our responsibility to protect children. They are the most vulnerable and they are our future whether in the classroom or in other public and other settings we are responsible for teaching the next generation. While I am sure this case and others like it in the news lately with our school district are upsetting I hope they have also shown you that we need to make changes for our youth. Visalia is a great city. I love living here and raising my boys at the gateway to the sequoias. Just like the giant redwoods we are so proud of, we should be allowing our children to grow strong and big. The best way to get tall trees is to allow them in an ideal environment to root. and to be strong watered by our community and environment we create for them. Please stand with us parents in creating this strong environment by supporting our petition to add cameras into these special needs classrooms. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, Maria Guillen, G-U-I-L-L-E-N, accent over the E, Visalia resident. Contrary to the very popular and touching song title written by John Lennon and performed by the Beatles, strawberry fills are not forever, especially in Visalia, California, and particularly at the corner of Acres and Ferguson. Residents and visitors of Northwest Visalia have grown accustomed to the cheerful spot known as the Koi Strawberry Stand, and we are very sad to receive the news that they must cease growing and selling strawberries and other produce by August 2nd of this year. Many members have expressed much sadness, dismay, and frankly are very puzzled as to why this came up so suddenly. As I inquired with Koi and Yao this weekend, I learned that they have toiled and harvested this land for 18 years and love what they do and who they do it for. We benefit from their very fresh fruit and vegetables to feed our families, and their prices are extremely reasonable. It doesn't get much more farm to table than this. Plus, we also enjoy interacting with this very charming couple that truly care about their work and their community. Apparently, they leased the land from a woman named Debbie who lives on the property. According to Debbie, she does not plan to do anything with the land. She indicated she will keep it open. She said that she wasn't in favor of strangers coming onto her property, but the only people that are on the property are the customers that come into the driveway, make their purchases, and leave. Again, these are neighbors, not strangers. When Koi and Yao asked if they could possibly make an offer on the land, she said no, she was not interested, especially since she lives on the property. When the couple stated that they were willing to buy the property with help from their family and they would stipulate that Debbie could remain living on the property, her response was still a firm no. When a customer asked if they would find new land to grow on, they answered, we are looking and would like help finding a spot. And then he shared that he was hoping he could get a spot at the corner of Acres and Riggin. And of course, it hurt me to tell them that that land was recently designated to be sold to private developers. This is a real gem in our city, and I would be remiss not to ask if there was any way that the owner could be approached to reach some sort of a compromise or at least an extension. I clearly know that the property owner has the rights to do what they want with their land, but can we not at least appeal to her goodwill and consideration for the betterment of the community? If nothing else happens with this appeal today, at least let this be a tribute to Koi Strawberry for making Visalia a better place. a healthier and sweeter place a sweeter place than strawberry jam.

Irene Lapin Visalia. Public service announcements. This month the PSAs that addressed fireworks were much more timely attention grabbing and frequently posted. And I thank the city for taking the messaging issue more seriously this time. Also the posts addressing the need to properly prepare pets for this terrifying time of year. Please continue to post them every single year, weeks in advance of both July 4th and New Year's. Also, the new chip scanners are a huge asset. On a related matter, there's only one council meeting this month, and again, the fire marshal's fireworks report was scheduled for the work session. This only serves to discourage public input. Here's an excerpt from the staff report. Calls specific to illegal fireworks use continue to decline. Calls for complaints in 2026 were lower than any previously tracked year. Although there were pockets of the community that still had prevalent use of illegal fireworks, to date, calls for illegal fireworks have dropped by 119 calls compared to 2025. End quote. Sanity check. Again, I had to read that over and over because I was certain it was a misprint. Now, everyone in town knows such a claim is preposterous. For two weeks before, the snitches get stitches morons monopolize the police department's Facebook page and vowed, threatened to get the better of the system and to make this the nation's 250th. the most rowdy and even violent ever. It's not the police department's fault. And to this, the number of lost and found dogs this time versus cats was unprecedented. It continues to be to this day. Last, the call center is grievously under-equipped to handle the barrage of calls on those two days. Read all the social media comments, including those on the Nextdoor platform. As I wrote to you by email the day after, that size of phone staff is egregiously insufficient in terms of both answering calls and sending out patrols. So the above statement claiming improvement is based on a grossly flawed data collection system. It doesn't pass the smell test. A lot of work remains to be done. And I'm looking forward to hearing a more accurate and honest breakdown of the evening of the 4th and following morning. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Mickey K. I don't know, I don't think everybody got my email that I sent. I sent an email a couple weeks ago. It was online. It was about an experience that I had at the Transit Center. And then also too, I ride transit a lot. I ride transit all over the region, actually all over the congressional 20 district. I use private transportation, I use public transportation. And so one of the things that I have noticed as I'm going through this past month and a half, getting more familiar with the district, it's that The public transportation is severely lacking in the form of comfort for writers comfort for writers in the transit centers so ideally they're supposed to be chargers I understand a few people can ruin it for everybody. But. The city does contract with a security firm. The security firm could maybe use a little bit more discernment and not automatically think that just because you're riding a fixed route and utilizing transportation often that you are of a lower economic status because they treat you like dirt. I got accused of being homeless after attending the planning commissioner interviews. I was harassed by the security because of lack of discernment. They told me to move my meeting because I had to take a meeting over to the transit station. Transit station can be a little loud and a little boisterous sometimes depending on who's there. And they assured me that I was going to be safe next time. I went over there and I was there for maybe less than five minutes, pulled out my laptop, waited for my bus, was making some notes, and the security did not they didn't do their job. I had beer thrown all over me at a transit center. And so that's one of the things is that the security could use will maybe a little bit more discernment, a little bit more kindness to people. But not only that, but to actually do their job before an incident like that happens. And secondly, also if we could get the outlets working again in the transit center, that would be great. I had to go to Fresno and then from Fresno to Visalia to Wood Lake and I needed a charger. The V line, the fixed routes, and the TCAT, I think, all are supposed to have working outlets on them. They don't. So maybe if we could do something about it, that would be really nice because they do pay taxes. Thank you.

Any best wishing to speak? Okay. City Clerk, do we have anyone online wishing to speak?

Mayor, we have no callers with their hands raised at this time.

Okay, let's go ahead and close public comments this time. Any items of interest this time? You don't have any items of interest? No? Okay, let's go ahead and skip that and we'll go on to the consent calendar. Consent calendar items that are considered routine will be enacted by one motion. This is the time for members of the public to provide public comments on an item that's on the consent calendar. Comments will not be taken individually by the public if an item is pulled by a council member. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes and a timer will notify you when your time's expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on any item that's on the consent calendar? Seeing none, do we have anyone online wishing to speak on an item on the consent calendar?

Mayor, I see no hands raised at this time.

Okay, so let's start off with Council Member Nelson. Any items you'd like to pull? I have no items to pull. Council Member Puchigan? No items to pull. Vice Mayor?

No items to pull.

Council Member Soto? No items to pull, thank you. Okay, and I have none, so I will entertain a motion. I make a motion to accept the consent calendar as presented.

I'll second.

We have first and second. Please vote. Consent calendar items passes with a five to zero vote. Thank you very much. All right, now we're gonna go on to regular items of public hearings. We'll go on to item number one, which is an ordinance adoption.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council, Paul Burnell, Planning and Community Preservation Director. Before I turn it back over to Devon to give you an overview of this pretty comprehensive cannabis ordinance, I did want to take this time to acknowledge the hard work Devin did project managing this ordinance. As you're well aware, if you read all the information provided before you, this had a lot of moving pieces to it. Devin did a good job presenting it to Planning Commission, providing the entire context, even though Planning Commission's review and recommendation was only limited to Title 17. In the updates within that, I wanted to at least acknowledge the hard work that Devin undertook with the help of our city attorney's office and Jim Kuntz in particular. of ensuring everything was addressed, noted, rescinded, highlighted to make sure everyone fully understand what the city was entertaining here this evening. So again, I want to just take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that was done with this and turn over Devin to walk council through the entire comprehensive cannabis ordinance update.

Thank you, Paul. Devin Jones, economic development manager. THIS EVENING WE HAVE THE FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE 2026-05 AND RESOLUTION 2026-42 FOR THE APPLICATION AND SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES. Recommendation this evening again to conduct the public hearing and introduce the first reading Included in the ordinance is chapter 4.0 for which is essentially the commercial cannabis ordinance and Rescinding Chapter 5.66, which was passed prior in response to State Senate Bill 1186, as it pertained to delivery-only medical marijuana. That chapter is essentially kind of duplicative at this point, so rescinding that and incorporating that into 4.04. Amending chapter 8.64, just for kind of proper references of these new chapters. Approving zoning text amendment 2026-01, which Paul referenced that the planning commission reviewed last week. And then as mentioned, also adopting resolution 2026-42, establishing that application selection process for storefront and non-storefront retail license applications. But as a reminder, this cannabis ordinance is currently worded to establish the number of businesses permitted to zero. So we were effectively passing the regulations, the regulatory framework, the rules, but we're not allowing such businesses to yet apply for licenses to operate in the city. And additionally, staff, we're in the process of the fee nexus study with our consultant HDL, so we will be coming back to the council in the future once we've had an opportunity to essentially draft a fee program for this. So some of the major points in the chapter 4.04, retail hour restrictions would be 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and annual license terms would expire June 30th to align with our kind of regular business tax timing. Application selection process, as mentioned before, will be codified by that separate resolution brought to you this evening. City Manager is authorized to make all decisions concerning the issuance of the renewal licenses, and all appeals will be heard by an appointee designated by the City Manager. Also want to note that an update was made to Section 4.04.090A4 to indicate the proposed date of ordinance adoption of August 3rd, as that was previously left blank. This would basically indicate that any cannabis business license applicant conducting cannabis business activity in the city prior to this date I would not be eligible to obtain such a license or be employed by such a licensee in the city. We can update this date a future time by an ordinance, but we at least wanted to put a date in for the time being. So in terms of the retail storefront buffers, That's in Chapter 4.04 as well. It will essentially be a 600-foot buffer from existing churches, parks, schools, K-12 public and private, state-licensed daycare facilities, and youth centers. And we'll have a 100-foot buffer from all residential zoning within the city. Here's a visual to kind of illustrate that point. IT'S KIND OF HARD TO TELL OBVIOUSLY FROM HERE, BUT ESSENTIALLY THERE'S POCKETS OF SERVICE COMMERCIAL, A LOT OF KIND OF REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ON MOONEY. CMU TENDS TO HAVE A LOT OF THE PARK AND SENSITIVE USE BUFFERS, SO THEY'LL BE KIND OF LIMITED CMU, BUT THERE WILL BE SOME POCKETS. SO THAT'S THE VISUAL THERE. In terms of rescinding chapter 5.66, again, when adopting the cannabis ordinance, we recommend rescinding this just to avoid duplication and kind of clarify information for both staff and potential applicants in the future. And then chapter 8.64, this also requires minor edits to be consistent with the new chapter language. So the zoning text amendment, there's three main elements. Sorry. The three main elements, the first is definitions, adding appropriate definitions for the uses proposed. Retail storefront and non-storefront, essentially, obviously, one open to customer traffic, one not. OPEN TO CUSTOMER TRAFFIC, OPERATING MORE LIKE A FULFILLMENT CENTER DISTRIBUTION. CULTIVATION, COUNCIL'S PRIOR DIRECTION WAS NOT TO ALLOW ANY KIND OF ACTUAL GROWING OR CULTIVATION. HOWEVER, THE PROCESSOR SUBLICENSE TYPE IS MORE LIKE A DISTRIBUTION CENTER OR KIND OF A PROCESSING FACILITY. SO WE'RE ALLOWING THAT USE SPECIFICALLY. MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION Testing laboratories, again, won't have any actual product stored for lengths of time. They will bring in the goods to be tested and then leave the facility almost immediately. Micro-businesses, the only Cultivation type that would be allowed under that category would be the processor as mentioned before. And then in terms of retail use, we're only going to allow non-storefront retail. And this will kind of allow us to kind of compartmentalize micro business uses in the industrial or light industrial zones. Delivery only medical marijuana will remain permitted in the industrial and light industrial per state mandate so that we can kind of be an adherence to SB 1186. Another section of the ZTA 2026-01 is adding the applicable use categories for the zoning use matrix. THE RETAIL STOREFRONT, AGAIN, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, SERVICE COMMERCIAL, AND COMMERCIAL MIXED USE, EXCLUDING THE MICROBREWING OVERLAY DISTRICT. AGAIN, PRIOR DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL WAS TO KIND OF STEER CLEAR THE DOWNTOWN AREA, SO WE WILL INCLUDE THAT PORTION OF THE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE ZONE TO KIND OF AVOID STAYING IN THAT KIND OF EAST DOWNTOWN OR DOWNTOWN REGION. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, MOST OF THE USES WOULD BE IN THAT AREA. NON-STOREFRONT RETAIL DISTRIBUTORS, MANUFACTURERS, MICROBUSINESS AND PROCESSORS. THE INDUSTRIAL PARK OVERLAY ONLY, I'LL SHOW THAT SHORTLY, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S THE INDUSTRIAL PARK PROPER, KIND OF WEST OF SHERK. THERE'S SOME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY, BUT WE WANTED TO KIND OF KEEP THE APPROPRIATE AREA KIND OF IN ONE PARK TOWN. TESTING LABORATORIES, COMMERCIAL MIXED USE, OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS RESEARCH PARK, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR INDUSTRIAL. AGAIN, MAINLY BECAUSE THIS WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE PRODUCT ACTUALLY IN THE FACILITY. IT WILL OPERATE PRETTY MUCH JUST LIKE ANOTHER TYPE OF LABORATORY FOR ALL INTENSE PURPOSES. AND THEN DELIVERY-ONLY MEDICAL MARILYN RETAIL, PERMITTED BY RIGHT, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL ZONES. And then the last piece in the ZTA was being made to chapter 17.32, properly referencing the new chapter 4.04. So here again is that visual, the industrial park overlay. So as you can see, you know, it's pointing folks to the kind of industrial park proper, as we would call it. So the resolution 2026-42, again codified separately from the business ordinance itself, this will have the actual application selection process given prior direction from council. This will include the application itself, a financial responsibility and indemnity and consent to inspection agreement, agreement on limitations of city's liability or another indemnification document, Property owner consent landlord affidavit that the applicant has the ability to you know Conduct this use on their property proof of property ownership or lease agreement proof of insurability zoning verification application and letter from the city verifying that the zoning is appropriate Application fee to be set by the fee program that we establish and then background checks of all owners employees partners Business application evaluation review, main segments, business plan itself, the location and neighborhood compatibility plan, safety and security plan, community benefits plan, and again, to be clear, the licensees, all licensees would be expected to pay an annual minimum to the city of $50,000 or 1% annual gross receipts, whichever is greater, and this would be in addition to the kind of established fees that would be expected. So the other process we wanted to highlight is the lottery selection versus merit-based. based on prior input from council given direction that we've kind of been given from HDL or consultant in designing this, lottery process is strongly recommended in an effort to kind of reduce exposure to litigation. We understand that we will likely be appealed by any applicants that won't be granted a license in our process whenever that may begin. And so a lottery selection is just kind of a cleaner, easier kind of route to kind of roll this out. However, given that and kind of prior considerations from council, we're pretty confident in the application process that's been designed. We have a lot of kind of post-selection to kind of ensure that we get strong applicants and that they perform. And we have a number of other means to kind of try to avoid issues of folks transferring licenses. So some of those specifically, all licensees will need to go through site plan review first. The public hearing will occur with the conditional use permit. All uses, again, other than the already permitted by right delivery only medical marijuana retail, all other uses will require that conditional use permit. Selected applicants will have 12 months to acquire their CUP and any necessary building permits and also begin construction. Renewal licenses for those licensees will not be provided if they don't meet that timeframe. Selected applicants will have 24 months to acquire their certificate of occupancy or they could lose their license. Cannabis business license won't be able to be transferred or otherwise sold within the first five years of the date of issuance and a transferee must obtain an amendment to the license from the city manager And the process of transferring is essentially a whole new application, background checks, kind of the whole application fees all would apply. In terms of CEQA review, the project is exempt under CEQA guidelines 15061 , which states the project is exempted from CEQA if it's covered by common sense exemption. And that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing significant effect on the environment. So the recommended motion this evening is to conduct a public hearing for the first reading of ordinance number 2026-05 and adopt resolution 2026-42. We're here for any questions.

Thank you so much. Council Member Soto, any questions or comments?

One question. After the five-year mark, let's say there's multiple businesses and one buys out the other. Are we going to require that community benefit for each location or is it just one for the whole, regardless of how many locations they own?

So the way we would roll it out is if they have one of the licenses, they would have to have the community benefit agreement in place.

And each location would be its own license, right? Correct. Got it. Thank you.

Council Member Nelson, any questions or comments?

First off, I agree with you, Paul, very thorough. staff report, we crossed all the T's, all the I's tremendously, so I appreciate that. I think the only thing that I looked at, and I look at other municipalities that have cannabis sales, not only Tulare County, but other areas, I would ask that we look at that minimum annual payment. I think it could be higher without negating the interest in trying to open up retail stores here in Visalia. But I think we're, you know, I think there's a range. And in my review, I think we're on the low end, and I'd rather see us in the middle. I'm not saying we have to be the highest, but I think we should look at that. But a very thorough presentation. I think it's going to be the established big boys that will apply, and they know how to run operations. And I think with the guidelines you put in there, I think it holds them accountable. But I just look at the minimum. So thank you.

Council Member Puccini?

Yeah, so this will probably be the eighth year that I've said this, that If we're not gonna allow marijuana in the city, we need to have something on the books so the state doesn't come in and says, you have to allow marijuana and the money needs to go to this. That's why I've been saying that at least we now have an ordinance in place so no matter what happens, we should be covered. But you did a fantastic job on this. I think you listened to us thoroughly. You put everything in here. I do kind of agree with Council Member Nelson. We're kind of on the lower end on the community benefit portion of that. I wouldn't mind seeing that raised a little bit. But grant report, being very clear, this does not allow marijuana sales in the city of Visalia. It just allows us an ordinance in place. So in case we ever decide to flip that switch, we have an ordinance in place so the state can't come down and say, you have to do this, and the money needs to go to this. But yeah, great job. CHRIS JERRAM.

Vice Mayor Wind.

Yes, thank you for your thorough review of all of our comments and all the notes and all the time you've put in on it. I know it's been a long process. I would agree with my fellow council members that perhaps our community benefits should go up to maybe like $75,000 minimum, 1.5%. And I've been just looking at others.

What is kind of a more mid-range? I don't know. Are you guys aware of anything?

So from the jurisdiction we looked at, some were around $100,000 an annual. However, the language in those other jurisdictions, the fee program was part of that. So we haven't yet established the fee program as well. So we will have our application fee. We'll have a number of fees that will also be incorporated into our costs. So we can change that when that comes forward if we want? Well, we could look at the CBA amount now. Council can make that change at this time. But the fee program itself will also come forward with costs that will be factored in, including also the up to 10% tax that they will be paying.

So this is separate from the tax?

Yes.

The ones I looked at were like $100,000 minimum. So that's why I split the baby.

Okay. Yeah, appreciate you guys' report. Let's go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item, please come forward and state your name and city of residence. Okay, seeing no one. City Clerk, do we have anyone online wishing to speak on this?

Mayor, we have no hands raised at this time.

The tension's really building on this online one. We keep saying no, and I'm just waiting for one person. I keep waiting for one person.

We do have callers online, but we do not have any hands raised. So as a reminder, please raise your virtual hands, or for those calling in, please use star nine to raise your virtual hands. Thank you.

Okay, let's give it just a second to see if anyone decides to raise their hand.

You're doing that, Brett. If we make a motion, do you want to include the increase in the minimum? Yeah, now's the time to do it. I think that would be the best time to do it.

Okay, I'll be okay with that. All right, anyone?

I was going to mention, was it $75,000 or $100,000? I mean, I'll go with this.

Anyone raise their hand yet? Okay, then we'll go ahead and close public comments, and we'll turn it back over to council to entertain a motion or any further discussion.

I move to introduce the first reading, Ordinance Number 2026-05, adding Chapter 4.04, Commercial Cannabis Activities of Visalia Municipal Code, rescinding Chapter 5.66, amending Chapter 8.64, and approving Zoning Tax Amendment Number 2026-01 and adopt resolution number 2026-42, establishing the application selection process for both storefront and non-storefront retail cannabis business, license applications, raising the minimum community benefit to 75,000 and 1.5%. I'll second that. Thank you. First and second.

All those in favor, please vote. Okay. Item passes 5-0. Thank you, guys. Appreciate that. All right. Next, we'll go on to item number two, which is appeal of the Planning Commission action. Staff report, please.

Good evening, commissioners. Jared Wilson, planning division. Council members, my apologies. Before you for our consideration is a tentative subdivision map number 5606, conditional use permit number 2025-24, and tentative parcel map number 2025-13. The subject property is on the northeast corner of Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue on approximately 87 acres. We have here a 200, sorry, A subdivision spread across four phases with a designated remainder at the northwest corner of the subdivision. The northeast corner of the property is proposed to be gated. Um, this, uh, project went through, uh, planning commission on, on, uh, June 8 and they recommended, um, um, uh, that the, uh, general plan be amended, um, uh, and the prezones as such. And this will be discussed. in the next public hearing item. The applicant appealed two conditions, conditional use permit condition 7J, which conditioned sidewalks on at least one side of a minimum width of five feet within the gated subdivision. As the applicant proposed, there were no sidewalks within this subdivision, within the gated area. And this exhibit here shows one interpretation of what that sidewalk design could look like. The appellant's argument was that the condition for sidewalks within private subdivisions within the city has been inconsistent with the city's historical application. Staff does concur. The city has not consistently required private gated subdivisions to install sidewalks. However, prior discretionary approvals does not mandate that future Okay, the subdivisions have to follow suit. Our hands are not tied here. The planned residential development centers do give the city the authority to mandate such sidewalks. This provision here says pedestrian access and bicycle paths should be incorporated within planned developments, such paths and bikeways, to be separated from vehicle streets when possible. And here is a cross-section of what the developer proposed on top, and as a commission conditions, the The width of the sidewalk can be accommodated within the proposed gated south division streets. The right of way is proposed at approximately 48 feet wide, curb to curb, whereas our city standard is only 40 feet wide. That is about eight feet extra width. that could be accommodated and so therefore staff and the commission felt that it was feasible and possible to mandate sidewalks. At least one side here. There are general plan policies supporting this and they can be found here on this slide Um, we also have a general plan guidance, uh, that is, uh, attached to the staff report. Um, that guides us to facilitate connectivity and pedestrian accessibility by limiting block size, which may be varied as long as public benefits are provided. The blocks within the gated subdivision are approximately 727 feet long, which exceeds the 600 feet. There are no mid-block pedestrian connections proposed, so therefore, staff felt that it was appropriate to add sidewalks on at least one side of the street. Moving on to the tentative subdivision map and the tentative parcel map conditions. Commission added a condition that within one year of filing a final map, the public frontage improvements along the designated remainder, that is the northwest corner of the proposed sub, BE IMPROVED WITH CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK TO CITY STANDARDS. THE APPLICANT APPEALED THIS AND TO PARAPHRASE THEIR ARGUMENTS, Deerhorn does not own the property. I think that the frontage should be improved at time of development of the designated remainder. The proposed subdivisions do not require the external improvements. THERE'S NO GAP IN THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. THE CONDITION WOULD COST THE DEVELOPER APPROXIMATELY $500,000 AND PRIMARILY BENEFIT THE DESIGNATED REMAINDER AND SHOULD BE DEFERRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THESE ARGUMENTS, STAFF DOES OWN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS THE TENTATIVE MAP SHOWS, IT IS OUR PROPERTY, SO WE ARE ONLY ASKING THEM TO CONSTRUCT THE IMPROVEMENTS, NOT TO DEDICATE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY. discussing the deferral of the improvements. We think that these conditions would directly benefit both the guests and the residents of this subdivision. So without this condition, guests and residents would need to walk a quarter mile along a 60 mile an hour shoulder to the nearest sidewalk or across a four line 60 mile an hour median arterial to get to that nearest sidewalk. And the developer's traffic engineer found that signalizing this intersection is not warranted at this time. So this is essentially the alternative approach for accessibility here. Um. CONDITION 7A WOULD NOT FINISH THE CONNECTION, SO THERE WOULD BE A GAP. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER GAP. CURRENTLY, AS CONDITIONS, THE GAP WOULD BE REDUCED FROM ONE QUARTER MILE TO ONLY 200 FEET. THE REMAINING 200 FEET WOULD BE BETWEEN THE DESIGNATED REMAINDER AND THE HICKENS RANCH SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH. This gap contains both a SoCal Edison easements and the railroad. Back in 2025, council adopted strategic priorities to prioritize proactive planning for road construction and ongoing maintenance and a follow up with a council item on this to advance street construction. Here is an example of what a designated remainder looks like when it's not improved. This is at the northwest corner of Caldwell and Robin. This subdivision This area highlighted in blue is a designated remainder from a subdivision back in 2003. And the city followed through with a grant-funded called Wall Sidewalk Construction Projects and made these improvements 20-something years later.

Any question on that? So they do that, do we reimburse them?

We'll get into the discussion on improvements across the remainder and how one could get refunded back on the monies using an area benefit tool.

DEVELOPMENT ON THE REMAINDER WOULD DIRECTLY The development on the remainder would directly benefit from the installation of these sidewalks. However, so would the subdivision residents and guests too. So there is not just a sole benefit to the designated remainder developer, these residences These residents need to get to other areas in town, and there's no obligation that any resident own a car. So they need to get to places somehow, and that... should be through a safe sidewalk connection. As mentioned, the city is willing to entertain an area of benefit reimbursement mechanism. What this would do, would set up an agreement such that the developer of the designated remainder would pay this developer back at the time that that development actually happened.

Council, and just to give you an example of where that has occurred, the reserve multifamily development at the northeast corner of Acres and Riggin, when San Joaquin Valley Homes built Greystone to the east of that, there was an area benefit that was created by the developer so that when sidewalks were installed, San Joaquin Valley Homes was paid back with the developer of that multifamily development, I think it was Ginder out of Fresno. that entertained that and looking back at Jason, he's confirming with that by shaking his head that yes, that's what happened.

They kind of knew that one was already coming in, it was already kind of in the pipeline, right?

No, at the time when the residential subdivision went forward, they had no considerations for multifamily development other than they realized, given they were kind of the first subdivision out in that area, connectivity with Acres to the South and moving people around in that area was warranted. So they entertained because they did control that remainder parcel that sidewalk should be included, but establish San Joaquin Valley Homes doesn't build multifamily, but establishing an area benefit would allow them to get paid back for that improvement.

And Paul, is there a sunset on these areas of benefit? Because I want to make sure if we do this, the developer gets repaid.

The 20 years is the sunset on an area benefit.

Thank you.

And staff continues to find that construction of these improvements is a necessary prerequisite and provides immediate public benefits and safety benefits as well. With that, staff recommends that City Council deny the applicant or the appellants Appeal and Uphold Planning Commission's Conditional Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 2025-24, Tentative Subdivision Map Number 5606, and Tentative Parcel Map Number 2025-13. And that's it for our presentation. And Seth is here for comments.

Mayor, if I may, just one thing to kind of maybe just kind of wrap some of this up. So with the applicant identifying a designated remainder on the MAP Act, designated remainders can be included. And they're usually identified because they're trying to be not included or counted as a parcel for development. However, the MAP Act does provide provisions to make specific findings. that in order to, as part of the approval process, the cities can enact improvements across those remainders if the findings are made and staff provided reasons to support those improvements, which Planning Commission also agreed to. And again, in this case, it was just the construction of sidewalk. along Sunnyside and Lovers Lane to provide connectivity with that area of Lovers Lane along the east side. It should be noted, yes, is there a gap that would exist at the railroad and the easement? Yes, that would occur, but again, it reduces that gap from a quarter mile to about 200 linear feet. And also, if the council recalls, you have Higgins Ranch and Pearl Woods being developed. Pearl Woods will eventually tie into or provide connection to the park that's being developed to the east. So again, looking at the entire area, both your staff and commission concluded that the construction of the sidewalk was a necessary benefit for the entire community.

Perfect, thank you. Do you guys want to ask questions now or wait for the public? Yeah, wait for the public. Okay, you guys okay with that? All right, let's go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone who's here in the council chambers who would wish to speak on this item, please come forward and state your name and city of residence.

Hello, my name is Amin Narwal. I'm representing DR Horton. I appreciate the opportunity to speak regarding the Clements Ranch project and the conditions of approval adopted by Planning Commission and your staff. Our request is to limit and focus on the conditions, specifically the ones that Paul had just mentioned briefly here. First, the internal sidewalk requirement. The Clements Ranch subdivision, there is a private street HOA maintained subdivision. Similar to other private lot neighborhoods, like Paul had mentioned, Visalia has not historically been required to install those internal sidewalks. Those internal sidewalks would probably be a added cost to those homeowners. So that's something that we should be consider, especially coming from the fact that we are trying to be a more affordable alternative to potential home buyers within the city of Visalia. And our concern extends beyond Clements Ranch. If this condition is upheld without clear policy bias, it will effectively establish a new standard for future private subdivisions and new citywide development. And then secondly, we have the Lovers Lane frontage improvements. The condition requires improvements along an area that will require the developer, us, DR Horton, to construct something that is intended for future ownership and development by other property owners that might be able to come in, such as a high density developer. We can anticipate these costs being up to $500,000, which are not really within the scope of feasibility for this project. And the infrastructure serving, serving future growth should be allocated barely among benefiting properties rather than assigned disproportionately to a single project. And we respectfully request that the city council modify the sidewalk and Lubbers Lane improvement conditions to ensure that they are supported by substantial evidence and consistent with established city practice. And I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak at this time?

Good evening, Council. Steve Brandt with QK. We're the project engineer for Deer Horton. I'm passing out a exhibit that shows basically what we want to make sure you understand what you're asking for with these improvements along Lovers Lane. So. Jared mentioned there would be a, or Paul or Jared mentioned there would be a 200-foot gap. I had a 250-foot gap. That may be a discrepancy because K Road does not follow the section line exactly, but in any event, it's a significant distance. So if the sidewalk was put in, someone would be walking about a quarter mile and then get to the end of it and then not know where to go. As you can see from the overhead, they're gonna end short of K Road by about 75 feet and then either have to decide, am I gonna keep going and cross here or am I gonna keep walking 250 feet over the railroad tracks? You can see on the pictures on the right, that's the view from that point of the decision you have to make is like, am I going to keep going in the dirt or am I going to turn around? So, and the reason for this is it's not just an SCE easement. They actually own that property. So we don't have the ability to build on that. That's their property. So you can see that it, It isn't really an orderly extension. It's encouraging someone to walk into some place that isn't improved. If you go to the second page, you see kind of what you're gonna be getting. The curb on the picture on the top left shows, it's right about where that curb actually would be. So it would be inside the power lines. There'd be about a five foot gap between the curb and the sidewalk and then about a seven foot wide sidewalk. That's city standard for an arterial. And then the right of way line would be immediately behind the sidewalk. So there's really no room for error. If a pedestrian steps off the sidewalk, they're stepping onto private property. Private property that still might be farmed for several more years. When you get to the ditch crossing, that sidewalk is gonna have to push in close to the traffic. I heard 60 mile an hour traffic. Those pedestrians will be 10 feet away from the travel lane. Not just the road, but 10 feet from the actual cars.

Steve, real quick, are you representing the D.R. Horton tonight? Yes. Okay, as the applicant who appealed this, we will allow the applicant to speak for more than the three minutes, so if you need a few extra minutes.

Okay, and I'm almost done. The last picture you can see, north of the ditch, there's a grade difference. So in order to actually construct the sidewalk, there's gonna have to be fill brought in. And you can't just stop the fill right at the property line. There's gonna have to be a slope. So the city is gonna have to obtain a slope easement from the property owner. So right now, the city does not have all the right of way that they need there are gonna be some additional things need to be obtained from the owner of the remainder parcel if we're going to construct this according to city standard. This would not be a problem if you waited until the site developed because then the entire site would be graded and the sidewalk could be built in the proper place. it would not be a problem with the ditch because the ditch is gonna be undergrounded when the site develops and then the sidewalk could be built in the proper location. Our recommendation is that people that wanna walk in this area, walk on the other side of the street where there's already trees, the sidewalk's in the right place, and there's landscaping protecting them from the traffic.

Thanks. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak at this time?

Good evening, Dave Crinklaw, West Star Construction. Maybe a little odd situation here. I'm here actually to support DR Horton in this action. And for a lot of reasons, actually, you know, if it affects them, it could affect us. It can affect the next developers. A dangerous situation to start going down. Costs right now are so high just to do a project. And when you add another, 500,000 and it's funny we hear about the sidewalks, but we're talking about a lane, curb and gutter, and a sidewalk. Tremendous amount of cash outlay. The other problem I'd see is since it's zoned high density, who knows what's gonna go to there? Where's the water, sewer, all the utilities? So all we're gonna be doing is digging up that new street somewhere along the line and getting utilities and maybe turnouts into that project after a nice new street is completed somewhere along the line. But that would get them their reimbursement, so I guess that's the bright side. But you just never know what's going to happen. So that would be my biggest fear is what is this going to lead to for the next developer down the line? It's kind of a small group in the Valley developers. You don't want to get that reputation of doing things that are unfair, uncalled for, can stifle development. People will go elsewhere if they can't make the numbers work. And it's very tough to get this far into a project and get this kind of off-site conditions set forth on it. And again, it's going to end, it looks like, 200 feet, 250 feet, and then it just stops. So I'm not sure if you really solve any problems there. One thing I've noticed on the north side of Riggin, west of Shirk, they put in a small path I'm not sure if it's asphalt or just grindings, but that allowed pedestrians to walk on. It's totally a temporary type thing, but it definitely gives them a place to walk that's not a huge investment. So things to consider there. I appreciate your time. I surely appreciate this council and the city and everything it's done. And again, I hope you understand where I'm coming from on that. Again, I appreciate your time.

Anybody else wishing to speak? All right, so none moving. Is there anybody online wishing to speak?

Mayor, we have no hands raised at this time.

Okay, so let's go ahead and close the public comment portion, and we'll turn it over to Council Member Puchigan with any comments or questions.

Yeah, so I'm going to break this up into a couple different sections here. We have design standards. I didn't like the design standards. I didn't vote for the design standards. I passed it anyway. I believe this applicated everything in the design standards that we went over with all the different builders, correct?

So, Council Member Cheegan, I guess with regards to objective design standards, So they did everything with regards to layout and design for the small lot PRD. One of the things that council may recall is when we initially brought these for adoption, we were referred back to meet with the building community and then subsequent revisions kind of whittled down and gave more of an option based consideration for rejected design standards. So really one of the requirements for sidewalk connection from the front door to the sidewalk or public street is an option now that they can select. I don't know in this case if their plans have that. as a three-foot pedestrian sidewalk from the front door to the street, or in this case, a private street, I couldn't tell you if they actually provided that as one of their design considerations.

So this is a gated community, correct?

Well, it's two. It's gated on the north side of the future Sunnyside alignment, and then it's just a public street, regular subdivision to the south.

Okay. And then on Lovers Lane, Here's my show Lovers Lane. We're saying they need to put in a sidewalk in the city would reimburse them. That's one thing that we did. We've done that further.

No, no. In this case, let's just assume an area benefit were created by the applicant, the property owner. how that person would get reimbursed, or in this case, maybe D.R. Horton, is if and when the high-density multifamily piece is developed, the fee amount required to construct that improvement would be reimbursed back to the developer. Or however that was brokered, if the property owner, in this case, Clements, elected to pursue that, then they could figure that out as the property owner. The thing here that when you look at the entire project is you have the property owner, Clements, selling this project site to the developer, D.R. Horton. Horton is requesting general plan amendment and maneuvering of the land use designations that were adopted in the city's general plan. And I think they're laying them out in a manner that actually makes sense and your staff is supportive of that. I think we've been supportive of the entire project all the way through with the exception of realizing that there could be a long time before anyone provides connection along that Lover's Lane frontage and you're essentially building an island of residential development east of Lover's Lane. How do you provide some form of connectivity for those future residents if they ever want to traverse north rather than going across the Lovers Lane street. Because as Jared noted, currently that intersection of Lovers Lane and Sunnyside will not be signalized if this project were entirely built out. I guess it could potentially be signalized when the entire subdivision is built out. So that could be some time, and again, if it meets warrants to have that. So you'd have an uncontrolled intersection with people running across a formally divided arterial to get to the west side as stated by the applicant's representative. So again, looking at the project in its context and how this was discussed with commission, the one thing that was, looking at it, and again, not trying to establish precedent, but understanding what the applicant was doing with regards to land use maneuvering and setting it up, staff felt it was appropriate in this case to establish a condition on the remainder, which the MAP Act allows cities to do if you make specific findings. In this case, those findings could be made.

So where I really struggle is we're having this developer, because it's been hard to develop on the southeast as well. It's taken a long time to get a lot of projects out there. And now we're requiring this developer to develop a sidewalk along Lover's Lane on property that he doesn't own, that he's not going to get reimbursed for however it works out. But then, you know, as soon as he gets done, he's going right back to dirt anyway. That's where I struggle with. Also, that we're adding cost to this, you know, with affordability in homes, and we're adding more cost to this, and costing houses in California going up and up and up, you know. I will not be supportive of this, I think, tonight because I struggle with making them do it on a property that they don't own. So that's where I'm at.

Council Member Nelson?

First of all, I appreciate the Planning Commission doing the deep dive on this and their recommendation. I think one of the things I look at is the city council talks about and touts about bikeability, walkability, our trail system, walking neighborhoods. Just because it's a gated community, I don't think it needs to have a special deal where we don't have to have a sidewalk. I think that's important. I think the area where I'm concerned as well as Council Member Pachigian is When you're asking a developer to swallow $500,000 and hoping I get reimbursed within 20 years, that's a tough pill to swallow. I struggle with that. I would like to think that I'm smart enough that if I'm going down Lover's Lane and the sidewalk stops that I might walk on the dirt to go further. I mean, I think I know how to transverse that. That's not a concern for me. I think the concern for me is asking the developer to bankroll something and he doesn't get reimbursed. Worst case scenario, 20 years. I mean, if we are talking... that this dirt's gonna be flipped and developed multifamily within two years, I wouldn't have a problem. I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. But we don't know that. Unless someone has a crystal ball and comes in tomorrow and says, hey, the dirt's flipped. Yeah, I'm having a tough time. So that's all I got.

Council Member Soto, any questions or comments?

Thanks for the report. Um, I would agree with council member Nelson on walkability connectivity of a neighborhood with, with the inside of the neighborhood. Um, um, but I, again, just very similarly, I do have a problem, I guess, with not having a connected sidewalk, it's just 250 feet. Um, I, I mean, I myself would probably walk across the street on levers lane, uh, on the east side there, uh, you know, for safety. And then, yeah, again, having them wait up to 20 years, if that. I guess we don't have any plans of that property being developed anytime soon, right? There's no, that owner's not, he's still farming it right now, I guess, is that what I heard?

Well, I don't know if he's farming it. Areas look like it may be fallow. But there's no applications? No, the only multifamily we have going right now is on the northwest corner. That's under, it's in permit review right now.

Yeah, so yeah, very similarly to Council Member Nelson, I would say inside the neighborhood, I would vote in favor of the Planning Commission and for the Leverage Lane, I would probably vote against.

Vice Mayor Nguyen, any questions or comments?

Yeah, I agree on the interior of the subdivision Sidewalks on one side, I mean, primarily, if you're doing an HOA, I think sidewalks could hold up a lot better than your asphalt is, having experience with an HOA and asphalt. HOAs don't like to do their asphalt maintenance like regular streets. But also, I think for walkability of the neighborhood, and even if it's gated, you're gonna have those crazy prime and Amazon and UPS drivers tearing through the subdivision. I would not be in favor of the Lover's Lane, Couple of things that stand out. One is that the ditch is a big thing, so you're gonna put this sidewalk in there. I like Mr. Crinklaw's suggestion of just something temporary, some asphalt or something. It's gonna get torn up again when they underground the ditch. You've got the big gap by the railroad and the SCE and also that drop off, that two foot grade. And then also, who would maintain the most strip between the sidewalk and the curb and gutter is that's another burden on the city on Lovers Lane. I mean, we've seen what Caldwell looks like. We don't need any more undeveloped most strips to maintain, but so I would not be in, especially with the payback potentially being so far out, I would not be in favor of the Lovers Lane sidewalk, but I would favor an interior sidewalk. in the subdivision for the neighborhood.

All right. So I have a few questions. So we haven't required sidewalks in private gated subdivisions and other places. I've personally never had anyone ever say that was an issue. Not one person in my life has ever said I've had a problem with that. But let's just say we said, hey, it's their own private streets. They're responsible. The HOA could add stripes for walking paths in their streets. They could put in speed bumps. They could do speed limits and different things if they thought there was an issue with safety and walkability. Would the HOA be allowed to put all that in there if they wanted? Like on this example, let's just say we didn't require any sidewalks and then the HOA was like, no, we absolutely want a walking spot. They could just paint, use street paint and paint a five foot walkway on the asphalt and then create a parking after that and then the street like normal, right?

Well, I think in this case, if they were going to do that, they would want to shut up front because the issue becomes is if you start to narrow down that private street, did solid waste and or fire or emergency personnel have a chance to look at that and comment on that if that were done after the fact? That would be one of the issues I think we'd want to point out.

So if instead of just creating sidewalks, what if we just told them to paint a five-foot section on the road and say that's a walking path? I've seen that in Fresno where it's an asphalt walk path instead of concrete. And there's no dips and going up and down every curb every three seconds because these are tiny little lots. So you're literally just going to be doing this the whole entire time. So for me, it'd be a lot easier to walk on a flat asphalt that was just striped that said walking path or bike path.

There would be no dips here, Mayor. They're proposed roll curb and gutter. You'd have sidewalk behind roll curb. There'd be no dips in the sidewalk.

Okay, so it's not panning down. Okay. Yeah. But I mean, would that be an option if we just told them to paint a strip on the, like a five foot strip rather than build sidewalks?

I would assume it eliminates parking then and then ADA accessibility 2% cross slope, streets are built at 2% so it probably meets it. They'd wanna be careful.

OK. So I mean, I just have a hard time that it's not in our standard. We just updated our design standards. I know we've asked staff to come back with new small lot standards. And maybe this is something that we put in there as something to talk about at that time. Because in my mind, I'm kind of annoyed that we've updated this policy. The folks who submitted these plans, they did everything they're supposed to. And now we're kind of just throwing more monkey wrenches for them. after they've already spent years doing this plan, probably millions of dollars getting it to this point, now we're just throwing more costs. So I just have a hard time of forcing someone to do this when we haven't done it for other folks, when it's been perfectly fine. At the end of the day, this is gonna be a private subdivision, so if there's safety concerns, the HOA can handle speed bumps, they can handle speed limits, And so I just don't think it's appropriate for us to do that unless we want to collectively as a council say, yeah, we want this in all of ours. But at the same time, we talk about affordability and adding costs just to add costs because it might look nice. I agree it would look nice. But when we boast about being one of the most affordable cities in the nation, and we complain about California always throwing ridiculous policies and then now we're gonna throw a ridiculous policy just because we felt like it. I have a major problem with that. And the same thing with this on Lover's Lane. Getting someone to pay without, Knowing you're going to get paid back for 10, 20 years, I just couldn't do that. I mean, these folks are putting a performer together to make this project happen. And to have an unknown half million dollar liability over your head is just not the way we do business. So I have a real difficult time with supporting either one of those. I will entertain a motion or any further discussion. Can we vote on these things separately or we have to vote all as one?

So in this case, I think you have the condition for the private street, so you may want to vote on that separately so that we're understanding of where that lies because I think we've heard several comments on support and not support. And then vote on the condition for the sidewalk along Lovers Lane as well.

Okay, so I'll go ahead and entertain a motion for the issue of the sidewalk along Lovers Lane. On Lovers Lane?

On Lovers Lane, yeah. Well, I guess the motion would be to decline the sidewalk on Lovers Lane and reimbursement policy.

I think council member Nelson that you would uphold the appeal on that particular item. I believe that would be the part of it.

Okay. All right. So we have first and second to uphold the appeal on the sidewalk requirements on lovers lane. All those in favor, please vote.

I believe that's the wrong motion.

Yes.

But it is for the motion of just the sidewalk along Lovers Lane. So you vote yes to the motion?

The actual motion is to uphold the appeal or to grant the appeal. So that would be the motion you're voting on. Yes.

Okay, so that item passes 5-0. Thank you. And now I'll entertain a motion about whether or not sidewalks would be required within the gated subdivision.

I move to deny the appeal for the sidewalks inside the gated division.

I second that.

Okay, we have a first and a second. All those in favor, please vote.

Yeah, mine's not either. I'll be a no.

Mine popped up. There we go.

I'll be a no. Nay.

And the yeses pass with a three to two vote. Thank you very much.

All right.

So next we're going to go on to item number three, which is consideration of a general plan amendment pre-zone ordinance adoption and annexation. And I think it's all the same stuff.

Yes, sir. Gerald Olson, planning division. Before you know, for for consideration is it is a part two of the Clements Ranch sub division applications, journal plan amendment number 2025 dash 04 and annexation number 2025 dash 04. Same property here. The applicant is proposing to annex in the Cummings Branch subdivision property and additionally amend the general plan to coincide with its proposed land uses. In addition, they are proposing to realign the K Avenue collector alignment between Lovers Lane and Road 148 from the K Avenue alignment to the north, shown here in a kind of peach or PALE PINK COLOR DOWN TO THE DASHED ORANGE LINE BELOW. STAFF SUPPORTS THIS BECAUSE TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THIS AREA THERE IS THE SOCAL EDISON RECTORS SUBSTATION. WE WILL NOT BE MOVING THAT SUBSTATION SO THIS IS A LOGICAL change here. This is also a schematic drawing. It is not precise. As the tub element moves further east, the new study, the new sunnyside alignment can be fine-tuned moving east. Here is the proposed general plan land use changes. stripping everything around really to accommodate the projects. If the medium density is moving from the northwest portion to the northeast, the low density from the east to the south, and the high density from the southwest to the northwest here. And as I previously discussed, here are the circulation element changes, bringing it down south to the sunny side alignments in the pre-zone and annexation into city limits here. Consistent with their proposed land uses, land use changes. High density residential should be located along corridors, same with MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THIS ALL ALIGNS WITH HOW IT IS PROPOSED. SO STEPH FINDS IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. With the last action, the initial study unmitigated negative declaration was adopted. We would ask for you to adopt the unmitigated negative declaration again for these actions. ON NOTE, INQUIRIES OR COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED, EITHER POSITIVE NOR NEGATIVE. AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF BOTH RECOMMEND THAT STATE COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER 2025-04 AND ANNEXATION NUMBER 2025-04. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, COUNCILMEMBER NELSON. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

Great report.

Council Member Soto, any questions, comments? Thank you for the report. Vice Mayor?

No questions.

And I have none, so let's go ahead and open this up to the public. Anybody from the public who's present in this room and wish to speak on this item, please come forward and state your name and city of residence. Seeing no one jumping up there. Oh, go ahead. You're about a millisecond away. Sorry.

Steve Brand again with UK, the engineer for the project. No, we support everything that staff said about the project. This was... This was a challenging project because it's the first one in the area, first time to really look at the land use and the circulation, and then recognizing that K Road's not gonna go through where it's currently shown. So we're glad we could collaborate with staff on making those changes and coming up with something that I think is good for this subdivision, but also good for the future as the city continues to grow east in this area, so support.

Anybody else wishing to speak? All right. Seeing none, anyone online? The clerk says no one online. So go ahead and close public comments, and I will entertain a motion.

I move to approve resolution number 202646, adopting initial study mitigated negative declaration prepared for general plan amendment 2504 and annexation pre-zone number 2504. I move to approve resolution. Do I have to read all that? Yeah, I move staff recommendations.

I'll second it. All right, we have a first and second to approve staff recommendations. All those in favor, please vote. And item passed is 5-0. Thank you very much. All right, do we have any closed session items to report?

No report this evening.

Okay, then we will go ahead and adjourn, and we thank you guys for attending, and we welcome you to come back at our next city council meeting, which will be Monday, August 3rd, and everyone have a wonderful evening.