Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Downtown Redevelopment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Tulare studies three downtown redevelopment options: mixed‑use Nielsen site, senior housing and Women’s Clubhouse renovation

Tulare City Council · November 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City Manager Mondell outlined three linked downtown concepts — a Nielsen mixed‑use pro‑forma, senior affordable housing on the former library/museum block with a community garden, and purchase/renovation of the Women’s Clubhouse — and asked council to appoint two liaisons to work with staff while pursuing grants and nonprofit partners.

City Manager Mister Mondell presented a study session to the Tulare City Council on Nov. 4 that outlined three interrelated downtown redevelopment concepts aimed at adding housing, jobs and cultural amenities to the city center.

Mondell said the concepts should be viewed together to leverage public investment and private and nonprofit funding. "If you want it to happen, then you have to be willing to subsidize it," he told the council, explaining that seed public contributions can unlock tax credits, federal and state grants and nonprofit financing.

The three concepts presented were: a mixed‑use redevelopment for the former Nielsen site, senior affordable housing on the former library/museum block combined with a community garden, and acquisition and renovation of the historic Women’s Clubhouse (a city‑owned building located on Union Pacific property).

On the Nielsen site, Mondell described a conceptual three‑story building with ground‑floor retail, offices, roughly 24 residential units and structured parking. He said the pro‑forma shows the project would not currently pencil out in the private market and estimated a financing gap of about $8,000,000 under the assumptions presented. He suggested partnering with an affordable‑housing nonprofit that can access tax credits and other funding to close the shortfall.

For the former library/museum block, Mondell outlined a roughly 30,000‑square‑foot building with about 50 senior units, a 3,500‑square‑foot community center, additional smaller units, pickleball courts, solar generation and a roughly 10,000‑square‑foot public garden. He said the project currently has an estimated funding gap of about $7.7 million and noted demolition and relocation costs (demolition estimated about $350,000 and the current museum lease expires in November 2032).

On the Women’s Clubhouse, Mondell described ongoing conversations with Union Pacific over buy versus lease options. He said leasing had become costlier in recent negotiations and recommended purchase if an act of Congress to convey the rail parcel can be secured; he estimated a purchase price of about $365,000 and architect renovation estimates in the $1.7–$2.0 million range. "We would buy the land and contribute the land," he said, describing one potential subsidy model.

Public comment and council discussion focused on historic preservation, site suitability and timelines. Patty Rocha, speaking for the Tulare Historical Society, said the museum board "has no desire to have their museum torn down" and proposed alternatives, including renovating the old library as a cultural venue. Resident Alberto Aguilar urged caution about the Women’s Clubhouse site, saying it is "so close to the railroad tracks" and severely dilapidated.

Council members pressed for clear guiding principles (affordable housing priority, project timelines and community engagement), asked for cost estimates and suggested giving property owners firm deadlines to respond. Mondell recommended appointing two council members as liaisons to work with staff and outside partners; he suggested Council member Maderos and Council member Sayer.

No final approvals were taken; council indicated consensus to continue feasibility work, community outreach and market studies, and to have two council members work with staff on next steps. Mondell emphasized flexibility in scope and funding sources and said staff would return with more refined cost estimates, potential funding sources and recommended next steps.

What’s next: Council asked staff to continue studies, hold community engagement, pursue potential federal and state grants and, where appropriate, solicit proposals from nonprofit affordable‑housing developers. The city will return these concepts for future council review and possible formal actions once financing paths are clearer.