Agenda Item Wording:
title
Appeal of Historic Preservation Advisory Committee’s denial- A public hearing to consider an appeal of the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee’s denial of a request to replace 48 windows on a single-family residence located in the D-MU (Downtown Mixed Use) Zone. The project site is located at 410 North Court Street (APN: 094-271-006).
body
Deadline for Action: 5/5/2025
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner, 713-4443, cristobal.carrillo@visalia.city;
Paul Bernal, Planning and Community Preservation Director, 713-4025, paul.bernal@visalia.city
Department Recommendation:
Based on the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee’s (HPAC) decision, it is recommended that the City Council receive the staff report and presentation, hold a public hearing, and adopt Resolution No. 2025-27, denying the appeal and upholding the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee’s (HPAC) denial of HPAC Item No. 2025-05.
Please note, it is standard practice for the recommendation to be the upholding of an action taken by the HPAC.
Alternatively, the City Council may, in lieu of the recommended motion specified above, consider any of the following alternatives:
1. Uphold the appeal and approve the request as originally recommended and conditioned by staff to the HPAC on April 9, 2025, overturning the decision of the HPAC to deny HPAC Item No. 2025-05. City Council “findings” will need to be integrated into a revised Resolution for Council review and approval at a subsequent meeting; or
2. Uphold the appeal and approve the request with modifications to the proposal as determined by the Visalia City Council, overturning the decision of the HPAC to deny HPAC Item No. 2025-05. City Council “findings” will need to be integrated into a revised Resolution for Council review and approval at a subsequent meeting; or
3. Refer the matter back to the HPAC; or,
4. Continue the matter to a future City Council hearing for additional information.
Summary:
The applicant, Kevin Fistolera, filed HPAC Item No. 2025-05, requesting to replace 48 wood windows with vinyl windows, on a single-family residence listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures with a “Focus” classification, located within the Historic District. The application was heard by the HPAC at a public hearing on April 9, 2025, and was recommended for approval by staff based on the justifications and conditions noted in the staff report for HPAC Item No. 2025-05 (see Attachment 5). The proposal failed to be approved by a vote of 5 to 2 as a result of mitigating factors discussed by the Committee members at the meeting.
On April 14, 2025, the Visalia City Clerk received an appeal of the HPAC’s denial. The appeal states that the HPAC’s denial should be overturned based on the following:
1. That there is precedence for the approval of wood window replacement,
2. That the proposal adequately preserves the buildings appearance, and
3. That the proposal would improve the energy efficiency of the structure.
Synopses of the applicants’ original window proposal, the HPAC public hearing discussion, and the applicants appeal request are provided below in the “HPAC Review and Action”, “Appeal,” and “Project Overview” sections of this staff report.
Project Description:
Per the operational statement in Attachment 3, the applicant is requesting approval to remove and replace all the windows of the residence, 48 in total. Per the development plan in Attachment 3, the applicant will be replacing the windows with Milgard V300 Trinsic vinyl windows, and rebuilding full wood window screens for use on the windows to be replaced.
Per the applicant, the window replacement is required due to the age and deterioration of the original windows. The applicant states that the windows must be replaced to better secure the building from vandalism and break-ins.
Site Data and History:
The project site is zoned D-MU (Downtown Mixed-Use) and contains a vacant residence and 10-stall parking lot. The structure was built in 1921, making it approximately 104 years old. The project site is located within the Historic District, and structure added to the Local Register of Historic Structures in 1979 when the Historic District and Local Register were first adopted by the Visalia City Council.
Each building on the Local Register is given one of three classifications, denoting its architectural and community importance: Exceptional, Focus, and Background. The building at 410 North Court Street is classified as “Focus”, meaning per the Historic Preservation Element of the Visalia General Plan, that the structure is considered of “…significant value, of good to excellent quality, and should be considered for local recognition and protection.” The structure was upgraded from a “Background” classification to “Focus” on August 1, 2022, when the City Council approved the HPAC’s revised Local Register listings. The change in classification was due in large part to the structure’s association with the Bradley Family (see family information below).
The structure contains “Craftsman” and “Bungalow” style architectural elements, reflected through features such as knee brace brackets, window orientation, and lattice like gable venting. The structure is also unique in that it features both open air and screened porches, located along the north and south building exteriors.
The structure was built by Clarence Linn Bradley (1886 - 1969), the son of early Visalia attorney Nathaniel Oliver Bradley, and member of the prominent Bradley Family, many of which practiced law in Visalia for many years. Bradley was a lieutenant in the infantry during World War I, serving in France, and became an attorney upon returning home. Per his obituary, Bradley was active in several Visalia lodges and veterans organizations, including the Moose, Elks, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Kiwanis Clubs. He was also active in the Catholic church, in particular as a Fourth Degree Knight of Columbus. Bradley had two sons, one of which (Judge Nathaniel Oliver Bradley II) became a Tulare County Superior Court judge.
The structure at 410 North Court was part of a larger Bradley family compound, which included the family home at 420 North Court Street (the current location of Fistolera Construction and the Equity Group property management firm) and the craftsman bungalow structure at 421 North Church Street.
HPAC Review and Action:
At the April 9, 2025, HPAC meeting, a public hearing was held to consider HPAC Item No. 2025-05, a request to replace 48 windows on a single-family residence located at 410 North Court Street. Staff recommended approval of the request based on a visit to the project site to evaluate the condition of the windows. In its recommendation, staff cited as justification for approval the damage observed to the second story windows of the residential structure (see photographs provided with Attachment 3), preservation of the historic appearance of the residence through the application of new full wood window screens, and conditions of approval requiring the new windows to match the appearance of the existing windows. The recommended conditions of approval as outlined in the HPAC staff report are listed below as follows:
1. That the project shall be developed in substantial compliance with the development plan in Exhibit “A and operational statement in Exhibit “B”, except as modified by the conditions below.
2. That the new windows shall match the features of the original windows, including operating mechanism and style, mullion patterns and spacing, frame dimensions and profiles, and sightlines and proportions. That the project undergoes the appropriate City permitting process for exterior alterations on the project site.
3. That the applicant shall rebuild and install wood window screens for all the windows that can support window screens. The window screens shall retain an appearance consistent with the original window screens depicted in Exhibit “A”.
4. That any other exterior alterations to the site shall be brought before this Committee for review and approval prior to the issuance of any Building Permits and/or their installation or construction.
5. That all other City codes, ordinances, standards, and regulations shall be met.
6. That the approval from the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee shall lapse and become void twelve months after the date on which it became effective, unless the conditions of the approval allowed a shorter or greater time limit, or unless prior to the expiration of twelve months a building permit is issued by the city and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site that was the subject of the approval.
Public comment in favor of the proposal was received in person from applicant and property owner Kevin Fistolera, and via e-mail by community member Bill Huott. Additional public comment in opposition to the proposal was provided via e-mail by community member Aaron Collins. All public comment received at the April 9, 2025; meeting is included with the HPAC staff report in Attachment 5.
Speakers in support of the proposal stated that the request would maintain the existing appearance of the structure, and that because the existing windows were deteriorated, replacement would improve both the security and energy efficiency of the building and reduce noise impacts. Mr. Fistolera also claimed that the HPAC had previously approved the replacement of wood windows at other locations.
Comments in opposition from Mr. Collins noted that the structure is historically significant, and that due to its modest appearance, extra efforts should be made to preserve key elements of its construction (i.e. windows) to preserve its authenticity. Mr. Collins also stated that owners of historic structures have a responsibility to maintain their homes to the historic preservation programs’ high standards.
During the public hearing the HPAC discussed various aspects of the proposal with Mr. Fistolera. This included the condition of the windows (the deterioration of which was disputed by the Committee), the efficacy of full wood window screens to preserve appearances, whether an existing screened porch would remain screened, and what type of window was currently present in the dining room (the HPAC noting that rooms of prominence in older homes often contain specialized windows). Fistolera stated that he was unaware of the type of window present in the dining room. Discussion also occurred regarding the building’s affiliation with the Bradley Family, a family of local importance.
At the conclusion of the hearing, a majority of the HPAC expressed strong doubts that the windows could not be repaired, and that the affiliation of the building with the Bradley Family should not be overlooked. A motion was then made by Committee member Jay Hohlbauch, seconded by Committee member Kim Lusk, to accept staff’s recommendation and approve the request, with additional conditions of approval applied explicitly requiring rescreening of the screened porch (which had not been included in the applicants proposal), and requiring replacement of the dining room window with a new window containing the same features as the original, if applicable. The motion failed by a vote of 5 to 2 (Committee members Jay Hohlbauch and Michael Tomola voting to approve). As such, the request to replace the existing wood windows was denied.
Appeal:
On April 14, 2025, the City Clerk received an appeal of the HPAC’s denial of HPAC Item No. 2025-05. The appellant, Kevin Fistolera, alleges that the HPAC acted in error when denying the request. The full text of the appeal is included in Attachment 1. The three appellant claims and Staff responses are provided below.
1. HPAC Precedent
Claim: That window replacements have been previously approved by the HPAC for several buildings within the Historic District.
Staff Response: Within the appeal request the applicant did not provide specific examples of instances in which the HPAC had previously approved the replacement of windows. Staff conducted a survey of project reviews conducted by the HPAC between January 2019 to April 2025. Analysis showed that window replacements have been approved in the past. However, the approvals themselves are nuanced, with decisions varying depending on the unique conditions of each proposal.
Per the survey, 31 window replacement requests have been reviewed by the HPAC during the 6 year and 4-month timeframe (Note: for the purposes of this survey, projects involving the same structure have been grouped together and are considered one project). The majority of the requests were for sites located solely within the Historic District (18 in total). Evaluation criteria for alterations to sites solely within the Historic District only require compatibility with surrounding structures. This means that alterations to structures are often permissible, so long as overall compatibility with the Historic District is preserved. Given these criteria, all 18 proposals were approved by the HPAC. It should be noted that 8 of these proposals involved Code Enforcement cases in which the windows had already been replaced prior to HPAC review and Building Permit issuance. In these instances, the HPAC partly approved the unsanctioned window replacements to avoid causing additional financial hardship to the applicants.
The remaining 13 window replacements involved structures listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures. Unlike the Historic District criteria, Local Register evaluation criteria requires preservation of original features and emphasizes repair over replacement. Of the 13 proposals involved, 9 were approved. Out of the 9 approved projects, 3 received approval largely because the windows had already been installed or purchased prior to HPAC review. The remaining 6 projects were approved due to other factors, such as:
• The window replacement involved a non-primary structure located in the rear yard;
• The windows were to be replaced with new wood windows;
• The window replacement involved a structure serving a sensitive population (The Creative Center, 616 North Bridge Street, which serves clients with developmental disabilities), making energy efficiency concerns more acute. The windows were also primarily located in areas where they would not be visible to the public, with full screens applied;
• The proposal involved the relocation of original wood windows;
• The windows to be replaced were in the rear yard for a structure that had already been significantly altered.
For the 4 projects that were not approved outright, the HPAC either denied the proposal, required repair, or required a combination approach as follows:
• 403 North Floral Street (2023) - An Exceptional classified office. The vinyl window replacement was denied due to the original windows significance as an architectural feature, and the lack of evidence provided by the applicant to support energy efficiency claims. No additional action was taken by the applicant, and the windows currently remain in their original condition.
• 410 North Court Street (2025) - A Focus classified residence/office. The vinyl window replacement was denied due to the original windows significance as an architectural feature, lack of evidence to support claims of deterioration and energy efficiency, the building’s prominent location along North Court Street, and its association with person(s) of local significance. The denial was appealed and is the subject of this review.
• 509 North Locust Street (2023) - A Focus classified residence. Exteriors alterations to the residence were approved, but the vinyl window replacement was denied. A condition of approval was added instead requiring repair of the existing wood windows. The applicant subsequently obtained Building Permits and repaired the windows as requested.
• 719 North Highland (2021) - An Exceptional classified residence. Window replacement with vinyl windows was permitted on the side and rear building elevations. However, the applicant was required to repair the front facing original wood windows, in order to preserve their unique features. The applicant subsequently obtained Building Permits for the remodel of the home, including replacement of the side and rear windows. The original windows on the building’s front exterior remain and have not been altered.
To summarize, the applicant is correct that there is precedence for approval of window replacements. However, the bar to approve replacements on Local Register structures is higher than for structures solely located within the Historic District. This is due to the requirements of VMC Section 17.56.110, which lists standards and principles that apply during the review of exterior alterations to Local Register structures. This is covered more in depth under the “Project Analysis” section of staffs report.
Circumstances unique to each structure reviewed also dictate whether replacements are appropriate. For 410 North Court Street, it was the determination of the Committee that the information, as presented by staff and the applicant, did not adequately demonstrate that the existing windows were beyond repair and that energy efficiency would be improved with replacement. The site’s location along a major street within the Downtown core and association with persons of local importance also played factors in the Committee’s decision to withhold approval.
2. Maintenance of Architectural Features
Claim: That the proposal would not alter the appearance of the structure, as it would maintain the existing sizes and orientations of the original windows.
Staff Response: Per the proposal submitted by the applicant, no window openings would be altered in size. The applicant also stated that new wood full window screens would be provided for all the windows to be replaced, obscuring the proposed vinyl windows from direct view. However, the Committee concluded that these improvements would not represent the protection of architectural features, as required by the Historic Preservation Ordinance for structures on the Local Register (see Project Analysis section below). The original feature, in this case the wood window casings and original glass, would be removed entirely, replaced with vinyl material that is not found elsewhere on the residential structure. The proposed new wood full window screens would only serve to obscure the lost original feature, which is not a solution supported by the Local Register criteria in the Ordinance. As such, the Committee concluded that the applicant would not be maintaining the architectural features of the home but instead would create a veneer of authenticity.
3. Energy Efficiency and Noise
Claim: That the proposal would improve the energy efficiency of the structure and would reduce noise impacts from traffic on North Court Street.
Staff Response: Staff notes that the applicant did not provide any studies or energy audits to support their claim that replacement of the windows would reduce noise and improve energy efficiency. During the public hearing, the Committee stated that with older residential structures, a number of issues outside of windows could impact the efficiency of the home.
Sources also demonstrate that historic wood windows can be made to provide energy efficiency on par with new vinyl windows. Per information provided by the Window Preservation Standards Collaborative <https://windowstandards.org/> (a group of window specialists from across the United States) and the National Trust for Historic Preservation <https://www.westonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3040/Overview-of-Wood-Windows-Tips-from-the-National-Trust-for-Historic-Preservation-PDF>, restoration, weatherstripping, addition of storm windows, and/or proper maintenance can ensure that historic windows are as energy efficient as modern vinyl windows. Without further information, it is not a forgone conclusion that energy efficiency can only be achieved through the replacement of the windows, and not via repair of the existing wood windows.
Project Analysis:
Local Register Criteria
Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District) contains separate criteria for the evaluation of alterations to structures located in the Historic District and Local Register. In instances where both designations apply (as is the case with 410 North Court Street), the Local Register criteria is prioritized. Historic District criteria (VMC Sec. 17.56.100) generally requires “…compatibility or complementariness with a majority of structures in the immediately surrounding area”. In contrast, Local Register criteria (VMC Sec. 17.56.110) requires preservation of original and distinguishing architectural features, “wherever possible,” with repair taking precedence over replacement. Guiding standards and principles from this municipal code section are listed below:
• 17.56.110(B) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.
• 17.56.110(E) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship, which characterize a building, structure or site, shall be treated with sensitivity.
• 17.56.110(F) Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures.
Due to their design, variety, material, and placement on the structure, the original wood windows are considered a distinguishing feature of the building. The wood frames, upper sash horns, trim, and placement in threes account for most of the buildings’ historic character. If the windows are to be replaced, the applicant must demonstrate that replacement is necessary, and that the replacement materials will match the original in “…composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities.”
In response, the applicant submitted pictures of the existing windows (see Attachment 3). However, none of the pictures depict damage that is considered extensive, warranting replacement. Windows are shown to be worn, but do not appear to contain significant rot or cracks that cannot be repaired. Broken glass is present on some windows, but even this can be removed and replaced without having to destroy the existing wood windows.
Furthermore, the replacement material proposed (vinyl windows) would not match the original material in terms of composition and texture. The vinyl windows lack the warmth and grain texture of wood and would not contain distinctive upper sash horns. It is also unclear, given the information provided by the applicant, whether the existing window spacings and trim would be maintained with the installation of vinyl windows, which often come in prepacked sizes, necessitating changes to the size of window openings.
Visalia General Plan
The Historic Preservation Element of the Visalia General Plan includes goals and policies intended to guide the protection of historic resources. This includes language in Historic Preservation Element Policy H-P-8 that supports the work of the HPAC to “Initiat[e] efforts to educate the public to the significance of historic areas, sites and structures and the cultural and social events associated with them.” The HPAC has interpreted this as supporting the consideration of people of importance into its project reviews, when applicable. As stated previously, the building at 410 North Court Street was associated with the Bradley Family, whose many members impacted all manner of Tulare County society through their work in the legal field and community affiliations. The Committee believes it is because of this association that elements of the structure should be preserved, so as to provide a window into the past of the City and its people.
Streetscape Compatibility
Though Local Register evaluation criteria takes precedence, there is a basis to also consider Historic District criteria encouraging compatibility with the surrounding areas. Staff notes that the project site is located along North Court Street, a major traffic corridor that provides egress from the Downtown core. Despite the loss of historic structures in the Downtown due to damage and/or redevelopment, the 300 to 500 block of North Court Street maintains many of its historic buildings, with many original architectural elements intact (including wood windows). The cluster of blocks represent one of the few places in the Downtown where the City’s historic fabric has been preserved. The replacement of original architectural elements on a building within this area would represent a diminishment of that historic character.
Public Comment:
Public comment in support of the appeal request was submitted by member of the public Bill Huott and is included as Attachment 2. No other public comment has been received as of the publication of this report.
Fiscal Impact:
The project will not result in any fiscal impact to the City.
Prior Council Action:
No previous Council actions related to this project have occurred.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
recommendation
I move to deny the appeal and uphold the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee’s approval of HPAC Item No. 2025-05 per Resolution No. 2025-27.
end
Alternative Motions:
Alternatively, the City Council may, in lieu of the recommended motion specified above, consider any of the following alternatives:
1. Uphold the appeal and approve the request as originally recommended and conditioned by staff to the HPAC on April 9, 2025, overturning the decision of the HPAC to deny HPAC Item No. 2025-05. City Council “findings” will need to be integrated into a revised Resolution for Council review and approval at a subsequent meeting; or
2. Uphold the appeal and approve the request with modifications to the proposal as determined by the Visalia City Council, overturning the decision of the HPAC to deny HPAC Item No. 2025-05. City Council “findings” will need to be integrated into a revised Resolution for Council review and approval at a subsequent meeting; or
3. Refer the matter back to the HPAC; or,
4. Continue the matter to a future City Council hearing for additional information.
CEQA Review:
No environmental review is required for projects that are considered non-discretionary in nature. Projects of an administrative, non-discretionary nature, are expected to be approved so long as they meet the requirements of the Visalia Municipal Code.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 2025-27, denying the appeal and upholding Historic Preservation Advisory Committee’s denial of HPAC Item No. 2025-05.
Attachment 1 - Appeal of Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Action, April 14, 2025 - Kevin Fistolera
Attachment 2 - Public Comment from Bill Huott
Attachment 3 - Project Exhibits
Attachment 4 - April 18, 2025, Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Action Letter
Attachment 5 - April 9, 2025, Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Staff Report and Public Comment
Historic District and Local Register Map
General Plan Map
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
Vicinity Map