Hanford council asks staff to draft regulated allowance for feather flags after code enforcement briefing

Hanford City Council on Tuesday directed staff to draft amendments to the municipal code to allow feather flags in commercial areas under defined conditions after a staff presentation on how the city enforces sign and other code violations.

The discussion grew out of a report by city code staff that reviewed enforcement practices, the difference between notices of violation and citations, and examples of how other nearby cities regulate feather flags. The council did not adopt an ordinance at the meeting; it asked staff to return with specific draft language and options.

Why it matters: Council members and business owners said feather flags are a low‑cost way for small businesses to advertise. Other council members and staff warned that removing limits could produce clutter, safety problems in the right‑of‑way and enforcement inconsistencies unless rules set clear parameters.

Staff presentation and enforcement context Jason (staff presenter) introduced the item and said code compliance’s primary goal is voluntary compliance. Gavino Barrera, who “oversees code compliance,” and Tom Webb, who “oversees the building and code compliance division,” joined him for the briefing.

Barrera told the council that most cases are resolved after a notice of violation: 96.6% of code cases in 2024 were resolved after a notice without citation, staff said. About 3.4% of cases led to citations and 0.6% of violations resulted in a paid citation; staff reported roughly 2,000 notices of violation in 2024. Barrera described a door‑tag outreach approach and said staff typically tries to work with residents and businesses before assessing fines.

“Citations are the last resort,” Barrera said, describing the notice as a “heads up” that explains the specific code section and gives time to comply.

What other cities do Staff reviewed how neighboring jurisdictions treat feather flags: several ban them outright, while others allow them under conditions. Examples cited by staff include Visalia (where temporary sign rules limit height, area and setbacks), Farmersville (one per business, business hours only) and cities that treat feather flags as temporary signs with strict time or spacing limits. Staff said they did not identify any jurisdiction that allows unrestricted use without conditions.

Council questions and direction Councilmembers pressed for practical rules that protect safety and avoid micromanaging responsible businesses. Councilmember House said she favored allowing flags with clear rules on spacing, maintenance and limiting encroachment into the right‑of‑way, and suggested business‑hours display. Vice Mayor Paden and Councilmember Regan emphasized storefront limits, standards for tattered or faded flags, and setbacks from the curb or intersections. Several councilmembers noted complaints had been received from other businesses about excessive or poorly maintained flags.

Public comment and enforcement status Several business owners spoke in favor of allowing regulated use. Steven Olivera, who identified himself as a Hanford business owner, told the council he brings flags in at night because they will be stolen if left out and said his peers supported allowing clean, well‑maintained flags.

Barrera reported that enforcement of the current feather‑flag provisions (enforcement that began April 1) resulted in notices to 67 parcels; staff said all 67 parcels were now in compliance and 9 citations were issued during that process. Staff indicated they had given a grace period for a new code to be implemented.

Next steps and limits on enforcement Council gave staff direction to return with draft municipal code language that would allow feather flags under specified conditions rather than a blanket repeal of the ban. Council identified topics to be included in the draft ordinance: minimum setback from the public right‑of‑way, limits tied to storefront frontage (a cap on number per linear foot of frontage or a fixed maximum), display during business hours (with discussion about 24‑hour exemptions for truly 24‑hour businesses), standards for maintenance and appearance, spacing and distance from intersections, and clear enforcement processes.

Council and staff also agreed on interim enforcement priorities: staff said it would not proactively target compliant businesses while ordinance language is developed and negotiations are ongoing.

What remains unresolved Staff will return with specific draft code language, comparative ordinance examples and an implementation plan (setbacks, permit or permit‑exempt approach, and enforcement protocols). No change to the municipal code took effect at the meeting; existing code remains in force until council adopts an amendment.

Provenance: Meeting discussion and public comment on code enforcement and feather flags were presented by code compliance staff beginning with the staff presentation on enforcement approach and later returned to during the council’s discussion of potential municipal code changes.