Visalia City Council
July 17, 2023

REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION

HEARING DATE: April 10, 2023

PROJECT PLANNER: Josh Dan, Senior Planner
Phone No.: (559) 713-4003
Email: [email protected]

SUBJECT: Annexation No. 202 2-06: A request by AW Engineering to annex a 6.77- acre parcel into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R-1- 5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) and C (Conservation) which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the project site.

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595: a request by AW Engineering to subdivide a 6.77-acre parcel into a 34- lot single-family residential subdivision with three out lots for block wall and landscaping purposes.

Project Location: The project is located at 125 North Crenshaw Street, on the west side of Crenshaw Street between West Mineral King Avenue and West Oak Avenue. (APN: 085-130-002).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Annexation No. 2022-06
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve Annexation No. 2022-06, as conditioned, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2022-59. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan.

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595
Staff recommends approval of the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-60. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend approval of Annexation No. 2022-06, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-59.

I move to approve Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 95, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-60.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Bitta Toor, has filed entitlement applications for the annexation and a tentative subdivision map for a 6.77-acre parcel. Annexation No. 2022-06 is a request to annex the 6.77- acre project area but will also require the adjacent neighboring 0.34- acre parcel which both comprise the county island located along the west side of Crenshaw Street between West Mineral King Avenue and West Oak Avenue (see Exhibit “B”). The annexation application is requesting to annex the development site within the City of Visalia. Upon annexation, the Zoning designation for both the 6.77-acre parcel and the 0.34- acre parcel will be R -1-5 (Single-family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area).

The Crenshaw tentative subdivision map is a request to subdivide the 6.77-acre parcel into a 34- lot single-family residential subdivision at a density of 5.02 dwelling units per ac re (see Exhibit “A”). Most of the proposed lots will conform to the zoning standards required within the R-1-5 zoning district for lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or greater . A total of 2 1 of the 34 lots will be a minimum of 5,000 square feet in area and will conform to the normal setbacks prescribed by the R-1-5 zoning district. The remaining balance of the lots will be less than 5,000 square feet (range between ±4,016 square feet to ±4,996 square feet) in area and will utilize the setback standards prescribed per Visalia Municipal Code (VMC) Section 17.12.135.B of the zoning ordinance. No conditional use permit is necessary to establish the lots less than 5,000 square feet under this code section. The code section (17.12.135.B) allows newly created lots to deviate from the required zoning standards so long as all the lots are minimum of 3,600 square feet in area. The small lots will have reduced setbacks along the front and rear yards but will comply with all other requirements as identified in Section 17.12.135 of the VMC with the exception of Section

17.12.135.4. The 13 lots will be located throughout the subdivision.

The proposed single- family subdivision will be serviced by 60 -foot-wide local public streets containing full improvements (i.e., curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, sidewalks, and streetlights), sewer lines, storm drainage, and other public infrastructure, utilities, and services (i.e., electricity, gas, and water). Access to the subdivision will be from two points along North Crenshaw Street, a local roadway. Crenshaw Street, along the project site’s frontage, will be improved to its ultimate right-of-way width. Improvements along the roadway will include construction of curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, sidewalks, block wall, installation of park strip landscaping, streetlights, and undergrounding of utilit ies. The street improvements associated with this subdivision are discussed in greater detail in the Crenshaw and Local Street Improvements section of the report.

The subdivision map will also create three lettered lots for Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) purposes. Two of the LLD lots (Lots “A” and “B”) will contain landscaping and block walls along Crenshaw Street adjacent to Lots 1, 19, and 20. The third LLD lot, Lot “C”, is located along the north end of the project site, south of Mill Creek, abutting West Crowley Ave., see Exhibit “A”.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Future City Zoning: R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 sq uare foot minimum lot size)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North: R-1-20 / Mill Creek / Single-Family Homes South: R-1-5 / Residences – Crenshaw Woods Sub.

East: R-1-5 / Residences – Oak Creek Sub.

West: O-PA / Courtyards Office Park
Environmental Review: Initial Study / Negative Declaration No. 2022-60 Special Districts: None
Site Plan Review: SPR No. 2022-005

RELATED PLANS & POLICIES
Please see attached summary of related plans and policies.

SIMILAR PROJECTS
None.

PROJECT EVALUATION
Staff supports the annexation based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Specifically, the annexation will facilitate a residential subdivision development on a 6.77-acre site in a manner that is consistent with residential neighborhoods in the area.

Furthermore, staff recommends approval of Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances for approval of the tentative subdivision map. The following potential issue areas have been analyzed for the proposed project.

General Plan Consistency
The proposed 34-lot single-family residential subdivision on 6.77-acres is compatible with existing residential development adjacent to the area. The project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU- P-20 of the 2014 General Plan, which states that the city should “Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I) Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time”. The proposed site is a county island within the city and located on the west side of Crenshaw Street between West Mineral King Avenue and West Oak Avenue. Existing utility infrastructure (i.e., sewer, storm and water) can be provided to accommodate the project at buildout. Further, the site is in the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier I, which allows for immediate development upon successful annexation.

Furthermore, the project is consistent with Policy LU -P-55. The policy allows for residential development consistent with the Low Density Residential designation at a density range between two to ten dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed development will be developed at a residential density of 5.02 units per acre consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation as well as the R -1-5 zoning district. The policy states: “this designation is intended to provide for single- family subdivisions. ” Compatibility with the surrounding area is required by the General Plan in the decision to approve the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision meets all codified standards contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as well as all General Plan policies pertaining to residential development. Staff finds that the proposed tentative subdivision map is compatible with the surrounding area and the Low Density Residential land use designation.

Annexation No. 2022-06
The project proponents have also filed an application to initiate the annexation of the 6.77-acre parcel (i.e., Annexation No. 2022 -06). This is required to annex the site into the City’s land use jurisdiction. The Annexation can be supported on the basis that the proposed use is consistent with Land Use Policy LU -P-21, which allows for the annexation and development of residential land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier I) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram. The site can be service d with all of the requisite utility and infrastructure available to serve the site upon development. Cities can approve tentative maps prior to final approval of the annexation by the local agency formation commission but cannot approve the final subdivision map until after the land is annexed and the annexation is recorded through the Tulare County Recorder. Staff has included this requirement as Condition No. 3 of the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595.

Crenshaw and Local Street Improvements
The developer of the subdivision will be required to construct major street improvements along North Crenshaw Street. Improvements along the subdivision frontage include improving the street to their ultimate 60-ft right-of-way design.

Crenshaw Street is a 60-foot wide local street. Full street improvements along Crenshaw Street include a street widening, new curb, gutter, parkway landscaping and new sidewalk along the south side of the roadway fronting the new development. The landscaping frontage along Crenshaw Street adjacent to Lots 1, 19, and 20 is required to be dedicated to a Landscape and Lighting District wh ich will be formed with the subdivision map. The Landscape and Lighting District lot s are identified as lot s “A” and “B” of the Crenshaw tentative subdivision map (see Exhibit “A”). In addition, as noted in the Engineering Division’s Site Plan Review comme nts, all new utilities required to service the residential subdivision will be required to be undergrounded.

All local streets within the subdivision will be developed to full 60- foot widths. Each will be improved with curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, and sidewalk on both sides. It should be noted that LLD Lot “C”, located north of West Crowley Avenue (as detai led in exhibit “A”), is within the 50-ft riparian setback and will be a continuation of the pedestrian path along the south side of Mill Creek, existing to the west of the project site.

Development Standards
Most of the proposed lots will utilize standard single-family residential standards for lot size and setbacks. The lots will be required to meet R -1-5 zoning standard setback standards, described in further detail in VMC chapter 17.12 (see attached Related Plans and Policies). However, 13 of the 34 lots will utilize lot sizes and setbacks that will deviate from the conventional R -1-5 zoning standards. The 13 lots will be less than 5,000 square feet in area (ranging between 4,016 and 4,996 square feet) and will utilize setback standards prescribed as part of VMC Section

17.12.135.B. of the zoning code. The lots are located centrally within the proposed subdivision.

VMC Section 17.12.135 allows newly created lots to deviate from the required zoning standards so long as all the lots are a minimum of 3,600 square feet in area. All lots that are a minimum of 5,000 square feet in area will have a minimum lot depth between ± 89 to ±11 3 feet with the exception of the lots located on cul-de-sac or knuckle street bulbs. These lots will also be required to utilize standard single-family residential setback standards but are permitted to have a 20-foot setback for front-loading garages as identified in Section 17.12.080.C of the Zoning Ordinance.

Lots less than 5,000 s quare feet in area are required to be a minimum of 46 feet in width by 70 feet in depth as prescribed by VMC Section 17.12.135.B. Reduced setbacks are also allowed along the front and rear yard setbacks as outlined on the breakdown below.

The setbacks within the R-1-5 zone for lots 5,000 square feet or greater are as follows:

Minimum Lot
Area Front Side Street Side Rear
5,000 sq. ft.
15-ft. to
habitable space.
22-ft. to garage
5-ft. 10-ft. 25-ft.

The setbacks for the R -1-5 zone for lots that are between 3,600 and 4,999 square feet in area are as follows:

Minimum Lot
Area Front Side Street Side Rear
3,600 to 4,999
sq. ft.
12-ft. to
habitable space
20-ft. to garage
5-ft. 10-ft. 15-ft.

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 proposes that only 13 of the 43 lots will measure less than 5,000 square feet (30% of total lots). As such, a Conditional Use Permit is not required for a Planned Development. Subsequently, the applicant has show n compliance with Section

17.25.135 (A)&(B). Exhibits “A” and “C” demonstrate how compliance with the municipal code section is achieved. Staff has provided the table below demonstrating findings for compliance with the small lot requirements of section VMC 17.12.135:

VMC Section 17.12.135 Lot area less than 5,000 square feet.

Standards Analysis

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

The Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No.
5595 provides a density of 5.02 dwellings per gross
acre and complies with the Density and Intensity
standards for the Low Density Residential land use
identified in the General Plan Land Use Element of
2-10 dwellings per gross acre.

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

The Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No.
5595 proposes to establish 13 of the 43 lots, or
30% of the total lot count, as those measuring less
than 5,000 square feet.

3. Streets shall be constructed to public street
standards.

All streets within the subdivision are public street
and proposed to be built to the 60-foot local street
standard.

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

The applicant, per Exhibit “C”, has provided three
different floorplans with four elevation designs for
each small lot . The exhibit also provides
dimensional examples of how the proposed
buildings footprint will fit on certain lots within the subdivision meeting the full requirements of
Section 17.12.135.B dimensional criterial.

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

The lotting diagram shown in the Crenshaw
Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 submittal will
provide the ability for all small lot homes to front
onto public streets with landscape strips and
sidewalks.

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

Exhibit “C” demonstrates that each of the three
floorplans will provide frontages with primary
entrances and at least one window.

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

Exhibit “C” demonstrates that each of the three
floorplans will provide two covered parking spaces
in the form of a two-car garage.

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

Exhibit “C” demonstrates that each of the three
floorplans will not have garages exceeding 50
percent of the dwelling width.

9. The garage shall not extend beyond the front
building facade (living area.)
Exhibit “C” demonstrates that each of the three
floorplans will have garages that are equal to or
recessed in relation to the overall building facade.

10. All dwelling units shall include a covered front
porch at least four (4) feet deep and six (6)
feet wide or an uncovered front courtyard at
least five (5) feet wide and five (5) feet deep
that is surrounded on four sides by the
Exhibit “C” demonstrates that each of the three
floorplans will provide porches that meet or exceed
the minimum four feet by six feet requirement.

dwelling unit or a wall or fence between three
(3) and four (4) feet high with a pedestrian
gate or entryway.

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

Staff have concluded that the floor plans provided
demonstrate substantial compliance with the
requirements of the VMC Section 17.25.135 “A” &
“B”. The deve loper shall be required to submit
building plans for these lots through the City’s
Building Permit Review process. Through this
process, staff will ensure that the residential plans
comply with the zoning provisions as prescribed in
Section 17.12.135.

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

The 13 small lots of the proposed subdivision
require the applicant to provide 3,250 square feet
of common open space. The proposal offers a
24,522 square open space area with connectivity
to existing westerly pedestrian path along Mill
Creek, identified as Lot “C”, and far exceeds the
section’s requirement.

Landscape and Lighting Assessment District and Block Walls A Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) will be required for the long -term maintenance of the out lots (Lots A through C), which include blocks walls, landscaping, streets lights and a small park as noted on Exhibit “A”. The block walls along the major street frontages will be typical City standard 6-foot, 8-inch block walls. The block wall height shall be reduced to three feet where the block wall runs adjacent to the front yard setback along the front yard areas of the adjoining residential lots. The three-foot transition areas can be found between the corner residential lots and the local streets heading into the subdivision from South Crenshaw Street. Staff has included Condition No. 6 to require the stepped down walls.

Infrastructure
Water Service: Staff has included Condition No. 7 that requires a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company if, prior to development of the subdivision, the determination of water availability letter lapses.

Sanitary Sewer: The sewer system will have to be extended to the boundaries of the development where future connection and extension is anticipated. The sewer system will be sized in order to service the entire subdivision. The sanitary sewer master plan for the entire development will be required to be submitted for approval prior to approval of any portion of the system.

Storm Drainage: The subdivision will have storm -water flows directed into the City’s storm drain system.

Subdivision Map Act Findings
California Government Code Section 66474 lists seven findings for which a legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map if it is able to make any of these findings.

These seven “negative” findings have come to light through a recent California Court of Appeal decision (Spring Valley Association v. City of Victorville ) that has clarified the scope of findings that a city or county must make when approving a tentative map under the California Subdivision Map Act.

Staff has reviewed the seven findings for a cause of denial and finds that none of the findings can be made for the proposed project. The seven findings and staff’s analysis are below.

Recommended finings in response to this Governm ent Code section are included in the recommended findings for the approval of the tentative subdivision and tentative parcel map.

GC Section 66474 Finding Analysis
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans as specified
in Section 65451.

The proposed map s have been found to be
consistent with the City’s General Plan. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 1 of the
Tentative Subdivision Map. There are no specific
plans applicable to the proposed maps.
(b) That the design or improvement of the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.

The proposed design and improvement of the
maps have been found to be consistent with the
City’s General Plan. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 1 of the Tentative
Subdivision Map. There are no specific plans
applicable to the proposed maps.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the
type of development.

The site is physically suitable for the proposed
maps and its affiliated development plan, which is
designated as Low Density Residential and
developed at a density of 5.02 units per acre. This
is included as recommended Finding No. 3 of the
Tentative Subdivision Map.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.

The site is physically suitable for the proposed
maps and its affiliated development plan, which is
designated as Low Density Residential. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 4 of the
Tentative Subdivision Map.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The proposed design and improvement s of the
maps have not been found likely to cause
environmental damage or s ubstantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. This finding is further supported by the project’s
determination of no new effects under the
Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), included as
recommended Finding No. 6 of the Tentative
Subdivision Map.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public
health problems.

The proposed design of the map has been found
to not cause serious pu blic health problems. This
is included as recommended Finding No. 2 of the
Tentative Subdivision Map.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type
of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.

The proposed design of the map s do not conflict
with any existing or proposed easements located
on or adjacent to the subject property. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 5 of the
Tentative Subdivision Map.

Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared for the propose d project. Initial Study and Negative Declaration No. 2022 -60 disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant. Staff concludes that Initial Study and Negative Declaration No. 2022 -60 adequately analyzes and addresses the proposed project and reduces environmental impacts to a less than significant level.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
Annexation No. 2022-06

1. That the Annexation is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed Annexation, which will re -designate a total of 7.11 -acres of R -1 (Single- Family Residential) County zone district to R-1-5 (Single-family Residential) City zone district, and will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

3. That the parcel is not located within an Agricultural Preserve.

4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.

5. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Negative Declaration No. 2022-60, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitat.

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595

1. That the proposed location and layout of the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595, its improvements and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. The 6.77-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 34- lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-20 of the General Plan. Policy LU-P-20 allows for the “annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”.

2. That the proposed Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 95, its improvement s and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed tentative subdivision map will be compatible with adjacent land uses. The project site is bordered by existing residential development and two major streets.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map. The Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is adjacent to land zoned for residential development, and the subdivision establishes a local street pattern that will serve the subject site and the future development of vacant parcels located to the west of the subject site.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision and the project’s density, which is consistent with the underlying Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed location and layout of the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 , its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. The 6.77- acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 34- lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-20.

5. That the proposed Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595, design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The 34-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. The development of the site with a 34- lot single -family residential subdivision would extend local streets, infrastructure improvements, utilities, right -of-way improvements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found in the area. The project will include the construction of local streets within the subdivision and frontage street improvements along both South Crenshaw Street.

6. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Negative Declaration No. 2022-60, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to neither cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Annexation No. 2022-06

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned Single- Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum (R-1-5) consistent with the pre- zoning designated by the General Plan Land Use Map.

2. That the applicant(s) enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The draft Pre- Annexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” of Resolution No. 2022-59. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595

1. That the subdivision map be developed in substantial compliance with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review Committee as set forth under Site Plan Review No. 2022- 005 incorporated herein by reference.

2. That the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”.

3. That approval of the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2022-06, placing the project site within the corporate limits of the City of Visalia, is approved by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and is fully executed to include all conditions contained in the Pre- Annexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2022-06.

4. That all lots that are a minimum of 5,000 square feet in area shall comply with the R- 1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5 ,000 sq. ft. min. site area) zone district standards for the front, side, street side yard, and rear yard setbacks.

5. That all lots that are less than 5,000 square feet in area shall comply with the R -1-5 zoning district standards contained as part of Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.12.135.

6. That the block walls located within the Landscape and Lighting District lots shall transition to three-foot height within the 15-foot front yard setback areas of the adjoining residential identified as Lots 1, 19, and 20 of the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 (Exhibit “A”).

7. That if, prior to development of the subdivision, the determination of water availability letter lapses, then the applicant/developer shall obtain and provide the City with a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company.

8. That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met.

APPEAL INFORMATION
Annexation
For the Annexation, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory only. The final decision will be by the Visalia City Council following a public hearing. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s recommendation in this matter is not appealable.

CrenshawTentative Subdivision Map No. 5595
According to the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Section 17.02.145, an appeal to the City Council may be submitted within ten days following the date of a decision by the Planning Commission.

An appeal with applicable fees shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 N.

Santa Fe Street Visalia California. The appeal shall specify errors or abuses of discretion by the Planning Commission, or decisions not supported by the evidence in the record. The appeal form can be found on the city’s website www.visalia.city
or from the City Clerk.

Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2022-59 – Annexation No. 2022-06
- Attachment “A” – Annexation Area
- Attachment “B” – Annexation Agreement
• Resolution No. 2022-60 – Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 • Exhibit "A" – Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 • Exhibit “B” – Annexation Area
• Exhibit “C” – Small Lot Plans and Elevation Variations • Initial Study / Negative Declaration No. 2022-60
• Site Plan Review Item No. 2022-005
• General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map

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

General Plan Land Use Policies:

LU-P-20: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.

LU-P-55: Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Low Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram for development at 2 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre, facilitating new planned neighborhoods and infill development in established areas. This designation is intended to provide for single-family detached housing with densities typical of single-family subdivisions. Duplex units, townhouses, and small-lot detached housing may be incorporated as part of Low Density Residential developments. Development standards will ensure that a desirable single-family neighborhood character is maintained.

Zoning Ordinance Chapter for R-1 Zone
Chapter 17.12
R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE

17.12.010 Purpose and intent.

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

17.12.015 Applicability.

The requirements in this chapter shall apply to all property within R-1 zone districts.

17.12.020 Permitted uses.

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

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

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

17.12.070.

N. Transitional or supportive housing for six (6) or fewer resident/clients.

O. In the R-1-20 zone only, the breeding, hatching, raising and fattening of birds, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters, other small animals and fowl, on a domestic noncommercial scale, provided that there shall not be less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of site area for each fowl or animal and provided that no structure housing poultry or small animals shall be closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line, closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any dwelling on the site, or closer than fifty (50) feet to any other dwelling;

P. In the R-1-20 zone only, the raising of livestock, except pigs of any kind, subject to the exception of not more than two cows, two horses, four sheep or four goats for each site, shall be permitted; provided, that there be no limitation on the number of livestock permitted on a site with an area of ten acres or more and provided that no stable be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any dwelling on the site or closer than one hundred (100) feet to any other dwelling;

17.12.030 Accessory uses.

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

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

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

17.32.035.

17.12.040 Conditional uses.

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

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

S. Transitional or supportive housing for seven (7) or more resident/clients.

17.12.050 Site area.

The minimum site area shall be as follows:

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

Zone Interior Lot Corner Lot
R-1-5 50 feet 60 feet
R-1-12.5 90 feet 100 feet
R-1-20 100 feet 110 feet
B. Minimum width for corner lot on a side on cul-de-sac shall be eighty (80) feet, when there is no landscape lot between the corner lot and the right of way.

17.12.060 One dwelling unit per site.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on each site, with the exception to Section 17.12.020(J).

17.12.070 Replacement and expansion of legally existing multiple family units.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17.12.080 Front yard.

A. The minimum front yard shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Front Yard
R-1-5 Fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty-two (22) feet for front-loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cochere. A Porte Cochere with less than twenty-two (22) feet of

setback from property line shall not be counted as covered parking, and garages on such sites shall not be the subject of a garage conversion.

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

C. On cul-de-sac and knuckle lots with a front lot line of which all or a portion is curvilinear, the front yard setback shall be no less than fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty (20) feet for front-loading garages.

17.12.090 Side yards.

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

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

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

D. On corner lots, all front-loading garage doors shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet from the nearest public improvement or sidewalk.

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

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

This provision shall not apply to street side yards on corner lots, nor shall it prohibit the surface mounting of utility meters and/or the placement of fixtures and utility lines as approved by the building and planning divisions.

17.12.100 Rear yard.

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

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

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

C. Main structures may encroach up to five feet into a required rear yard area provided that such encroachment does not exceed one story and that a usable, open, rear yard area of at least one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet shall be maintained. Such encroachment and rear yard area shall be approved by the city planner prior to issuing building permits.

17.12.110 Height of structures.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, the maximum height of a permitted use shall be thirty-five (35) feet, with the exception of structures specified in Section 17.12.100(B).

17.12.120 Off-street parking.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.34.

17.12.130 Fences, walls and hedges.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, fences, walls and hedges are subject to the provisions of Section 17.36.030.

17.12.135 Lot area less than 5,000 square feet.

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

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

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

3. Streets shall be constructed to public street standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Lots shall provide for a usable open space area of a minimum three hundred (300) square feet. The open space shall be a minimum fifteen (15) feet wide.

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

Resolution No. 2022-59
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-59

A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
VISALIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION NO. 2022-06

AND DETACHMENT OF PROPERTY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA
NO. 1, PERTAINING TO TWO PARCELS TOTALING 7.11 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS OF VISALIA. UPON ANNEXATION, THE SITE SHALL BE ZONED R-1-5 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5,000 SQUARE FOOT

MINIMUM) WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROJECT SITE . THE PROJECT I S
LOCATED AT 125 NORTH CRENSHAW STREET, ON THE WEST SIDE

OF CRENSHAW STREET BETWEEN WEST MINERAL KING AVENUE
AND WEST OAK AVENUE. (APN: 085-130-002).

WHEREAS, the project proponents approve to initiate proceedings for annexation to said city of territory described on the attached legal description included as Attachment “A” of this resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after a duly published notice, did hold a public hearing on April 10, 2023, and

WHEREAS, the proponent desires to annex said territory to the City of Visalia for the following reasons: 1) The annexation will contribute to and facilitate orderly growth and development of both the City and the territory proposed to be annexed; 2) W ill facilitate and contribute to the proper and orderly layout, design and construction of streets, gutters, sanitary and storm sewers and drainage facilities, both within the City and within the territory proposed to be annexed; and 3) W ill provide and facilitate proper overall planning and zoning of lands and subdivision of lands in said City and said territory in a manner most conducive of the welfare of said City and said territory; and

WHEREAS, this proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese- Knox-Hertzburg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed has a single home on each parcel; and

WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is located in Voting District 3 as identified in the Election District Map adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022 per Resolution No. 2022-11; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal on April 10 , 2023, and found it to be consistent with the General Plan; and

Resolution No. 2022-59
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project with the incorporation of mitigation measures; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings with regard to the project:

1. That the Annexation is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the prop osed Annexation, which will re- designate a total of 7.11- acres of R -1 (Single-Family Residential) County zone district to R -1-5 (Single-family Residential) City zone district, and will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

3. That the parcel is not located within an Agricultural Preserve.

4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.

5. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, c onsistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Negative Declaration No. 2022-60, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitat.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-60 for Annexation No. 2022- 06 and Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 that was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia recommends approval to the City Council of the Annexation described herein, subject to the following conditions:

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned Single-Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum (R-1-5) consistent with the pre-zoning designated by the General Plan Land Use Map.

2. That the applicant(s) enter into a Pre- Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The draft Pre- Annexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” of Resolution No. 2022-59. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.

Exhibit A
Geographic Description
City of Visalia
Annexation 2022-___
Annexation to the City of Visalia and Detachment from CSA #1

Lot 53 of Fulgham Highway Acres Tract No. 2, recorded in Book 17 of Maps at Page 30 of Official Records and located in the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 26, Township 18 South, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, in the County of Tulare, State of California, described as follows:

Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 53, being on the West right of way line of Crenshaw Street and an angle point in the existing City of Visalia City Limit Line; thence, along said line the following courses:

Course 1: thence, North 8924'18" West, along the North line of Crenshaw Woods Unit No. 1 recorded in Book 32 of Maps at Page 97 of Official Records, and the existing City of Visalia City Limit Line 49.20 feet;

Course 2: thence, continuing along said North line and existing City of Visalia City Limit Line, North 8033'20" West, 233.71 feet;

Course 3: thence, continuing along the North line of said Crenshaw Woods Unit No. 1 and the North line of Crenshaw Woods Unit No. 2 recorded in Book 33 of Maps at Page 12 of Official Records, and the existing City of Visalia City Limit Line, North 4924'25" West, 168.31;

Course 4: thence, continuing along the North line of said Crenshaw Woods Unit No. 2 and the existing City of Visalia City Limit Line, South 6430'46" West, 82.00 feet;

Course 5: thence, continuing along the North line of said Crenshaw Woods Unit No. 2 and the existing City of Visalia City Limit Line, South 8042'43" West, 79.90 feet;

Course 6: thence, continuing along the North line of said Crenshaw Woods Unit No. 2 and the existing City of Visalia City Limit Line, South 7421'44" West, 82.83 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 53 of said Fulgham Highway Acres Tract No. 2;

Course 7: thence, North 0034'48" West, along the East line of said Lot 53 and the existing City of Visalia City Limit Line, 518.86 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 53;

Course 8: thence, South 7717'57" East, along the North line of said Lot 53 and the existing City of Visalia City Limit Line 321.70 feet;

Course 9: thence, South 8808'41" East, along the North line of said Lot 53 and the existing City of Visalia City Limit Line 143.00 feet;

Course 9: thence, North 7344'53" East, along the North line of said Lot 53 and the existing City of Visalia City Limit Line 191.06 feet to the West right of way line of said Crenshaw Street;

Course 10: thence, South 0034'53" East, along the West line of said Crenshaw Street and existing City of Visalia City Limit Line, 574.98 feet more or less to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 6.82 acres more or less

Crenshaw Annexation
10/13/22
APN 085-130-002GRANT DEEDDOC. NO. 2021-0017739 TCRANNEXATION AREA6.82 ACRES ±123414131211109CRENSHAW WOODSUNIT NO. 1RM 32/97PM 46/47PM 45/71 TRACT 59RM 19/104
CRENSHAW WOODSUNIT NO. 2RM 33/12
49484746
S. CRENSHAW AVENUES77°17'57"E 321.10'COURSE 8S88°08'41"E 143.00'COURSE 9N73°44'53"E 191.06'COURSE 10S0°34'53"E 574.98'COURSE 11N89°24'18"W 49.20'COURSE 1COURSE 2N80°33'20"W 233.71'COURSE 3N49°24'25"W 168.31'COURSE 4S64°30'46"W 82.00'COURSE 5S80°42'43"W 79.90'COURSE 6S74°21'44"W 82.83'COURSE 7N0°34'48"W 518.86'FULGHAM HIGHWAY ACRESTRACT NO. 2RM 17/30LOT 53WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINEOF CRENSHAW ST.20' 20'
30'
30'SOUTH BANK OF MILL CREEK
POINT OF BEGINNINGSE COR. LOT 53SCALE: 1" = N200'0'100'100'LEGENDPROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITSEXISTING CITY OF VISALIA CITY LIMITS LINEVICINITY MAPSITECHECKED:DRAWN:DATE:10/13/2022EXHIBIT BCITY OF VISALIAANNEXATION NO. 2022-___ANNEXATION TO THE CITY VISALIA AND DETACHMENT FROM CSA #1PROJECT:NTSNHIGHWAY 198W. MINERAL KING AVE.S. CRENSHAW ST.ROBINWOOD CT.CROWLEY CT.N. AKERS ST.CITY OFVISALIACOUNTY OFTULARECITY OFVISALIA 1 of 8

EXHIBIT B

Pre-Annexation Agreement

This Pre -Annexation Agreement (”Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ______________, by and among the City of Visalia, a charter law city (“City’) and Santokh Toor, (hereinafter “Owner”):

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Owners are the record owners of the property , currently located in the unincorporated area of the C ounty of Tulare, legally described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”); and

WHEREAS, the Property is adjacent to and contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City, but is not situated within the limits of any municipality; and

WHEREAS, Owner desires to have the Property annexed to the City and to have the Property zoned as R-1-5, which would permit the Property to be used for Low Density Residential and Conservation; and

WHEREAS, the Properties consist of approximately 7.11 acres, and no electors reside thereon; and

WHEREAS, proper applications have been filed with the City for approval of the annexation and for the legal subdivision of the lot, as may be required for the Property; and

WHEREAS, the City has, by a resolution requesting initi ation of proceedings to annex territory (“Resolution”) adopted on May ___, 2023, initiated proceedings to annex the Property; and

WHEREAS, in certain annexation proceedings Williamson Act issues arise which require indemnification of LAFCO, in said ev ent, Cit y requires indemnification from Developer; and

WHEREAS, finding __ of Resolution No. 2022-___ initiating annexation requires entry into this Annexation Agreement prior to the City submitting an application to the Local Area Formation Commission to commence the proposed annexation; and

WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that during the term of this Agreement the Property will be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations of the City, as they may be amended from time to time, as well as state and federal statutes and regulations, as they may be amended.
2 of 8

WHEREAS, the City is authorized by its police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and is entering into this Agreement and executing such authority for said purpose; and

WHEREAS, nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or in crease by tow n o f any tax, fee, or charge.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals and the following Covenants, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:

I. AGREEMENT

A. Parties. The parties to this Agreement are the City and Owner.

B. Incorporation of Recitals. The parties confirm and incorporate the foregoing Recitals into this Agreement.

C. Purpose/Limits of Agreement. A specific purpose of this Agreement is to set forth specific terms and con ditions of annexation of the Property to City.

II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION; PURPOSE OF

AGREEMENT

Generally, each party to this Agreement is benefited and burdened by detachment from the County and annexation to the City. Owner will obtain a variety of services from City and City will obtain additional tax revenues. City has adopted ordinances , regulations, and policies concerning design, improvement, construction, development and use of property within the City .

Nothing contained in this Agr eement s hall constitute a wa iver of City’ s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by City of any tax or fee . The p urpose of this Agreement is to sp ell out additional conditions to which Owner will be subject following annexation and prior to development within the City due to the burden placed on City by Owner’s desired annexation:

A. Water Acquisition Policy: Although City’s current water service provider, California Water Service, continues to issue will -serve letters, City’s Council is aware of the steadily decreasing level of water in the City’s underground water aquifers and has determined that increasin g development is contributin g to this ser ious problem. Therefore, City’s Council has studied the issue and investigated possible solutions in order that it may continue to assure citizens that there will be water available to serve the community’s needs. City’s Council is actively engaged in wa ter replenishment activities with the Kaweah Delta Water 3 of 8
Conservation District and it has adopted a policy, as set forth in Chapter

16.54 of the Visalia Municipal Code, which requires annexation applicants to convey title to water rights to City upon annexation and/or to pay a fee to City (pursuant to an adopted fee schedule) so that City may acquire water for groundwater replenishment and storage in order to serve new development that comes with annexation, includin g development of the Propert y (the “Water Acquisition Policy”). Therefore, Owner agrees that, at the time that LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related theret o), Owner will comply with the Water Acqu isition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to either (i) convey to City those water rights vested in the Property, if any, (ii) agree to pay City a fee in lieu thereof, (iii) agree to some combination of an in lieu fee payment and water right conveyance, or (iv) to comply by any other method allowed by the Water Acquisition Policy, provided that such agreement includes a condition precedent requiring City’s water supplier to agree to serve the Property w ith pota ble water in amount sufficient to meet Owner’s reasonably anticipated total water demand for the Property, as determined by a valid water supply assessment prepared pursuant to California Water Code § 10910 et seq. No post -annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued by City unless and until Owner complies with the Water Acquisition Policy in a manner consistent with this subsection II(A). Owner agrees that it shall identify all water rights which, to the best of Owner’s knowledge, have been used by O wner or its ag ents in connection with the Property, regardless of whether they are considered “vested” in the Property, and shall comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to c onvey su ch rights, if any, t o City. City shall cooperate with Owner in valuing such water rights for the purposes of determining the amount of offset to be applied against the in lieu fee as required pursuant of the Water Acquisition Policy. Owner furthe r agrees that City shall hav e first right of refusal in acquiring upon mutually acceptable terms any water rights that Owner owns that may be in addition to those required to meet Owner’s obligations under the Water Acquisition Policy. City agrees that wa ter rights need not be convey ed and in lieu fees shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more parcel maps or final subdivision maps covering the Property and, in the event Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agre es such water rights convey ance or fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each final subdivision map, with conveyance of water rights or payment to be made on a per map basi s upon City’s issuance of each final subdivision map covering the Property.

B. General Plan Maintenance Fee: On June 21, 2004, the City adopted (by Resolution 2004 -63, as corrected ) a General Plan Maintenance Fee.

Owner agrees that, at the time LA FCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee in an amount equal to 4 of 8
$427 per acre and no post-annexation permit o r entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued unless and until said agreement is executed. City agrees that such fee shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more final subdivis ion maps covering the Property and, in th e e vent Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by eac h final subdivision map, with payment to be made on a p er map basis upon City’s issuance of each final subdivision map covering the Property. Owner’s satisfaction of its obligations under this Section II(B) will satisfy any and all of Owner’s obligations r elated to and arising under the General Plan Maintenance Fee.

C. Plan For Providing Services . The parties agree to cooperate in, and to take such actions as may be necessary to ensure, the diligent preparation of a Plan For Providing Services to the Prope rty, t o be submitted to LA FCO along wit h C ity’s annex ation application, in accordance with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requirements.

Developer understands and agrees that building permits and other entitlements for development on the Property will not be issued unless and until eac h and every condition herein is met.

III. TERM

The term of this Agreement shall become effective when fully executed by the parties hereto ( the “Effective Date”) and continue for a period of twenty (20) years. This Agreement shall terminate if (a) the annexa tion proceedi ngs are terminated for any reason; or (b) the completion of the annexation (recordation of a Certificate of Completion) does not occur on or before one (1) year from the Effective Date. Any indemnification provisio n included herewith shall su rvive termination and continue until expiration of the statute of limitations applicable to the subject matter thereof.

IV. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT

In the event of breach or default of any term, condition, covenant or ob ligation of this Agreement b y either part y, the other p arty may exercise any rights available at law or in equity, including an action for specific performance or other injunctive relief, and all such remedies shall be cumulative. This Agreement shall be enforceable, unless lawfully terminated or cancelled, by any party to the Agreement or any party’s successor in interest, notwithstanding any subsequent changes in any applicable law adopted by the City which alters or amends the laws, ordinances, resoluti ons, rul es or policies frozen by this Agreement.

V. INDEMNIFICATION

Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City and the City’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability, claims, 5 of 8
causes of actions, and demands, includi ng attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation, or with any other action annexation or other action determined necessary or desirable by the City in order to effectuate the annexat ion of Owner’s property, or which are in any manner con nected with the City’s enforcement of this Agreement. Owner further agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against or at the City’s option to pay the attorney’s fees and court costs, whi ch arise out of or are in a ny manner connected with this Agreement or its operation.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

a. Binding Effect/Covenants to Run With Land. The Parties hereto agree to be bound by this Agreement. This Agreement shall be bi nding upon and shall inure t o the benefit of the heirs, transferees, successors and assigns of the part ies hereto. The terms and conditions stated herein shall constitute covenants running with the land.

b. Assignment. Neither party shall assign, delegate or transfer their rights and duties in th is Agreement w ithout the written consent of the other party.

c. Authorized Signatory. The individuals executing this Agreement, by their signature hereto, declare that they are authorized to, and have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

d. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be effective upon personal delivery to City, or Owner, as the case may be, three (3) business days after deposit in the United States Mail, p ostage fully prepaid, addressed to the respective parties as follows:

To the City: City Manager
City of Visalia
220 N. Santa Fe Street
Visalia, CA 93292

With Copy to: Kenneth J. Richardson
City Attorney
Peltzer & Richardson
3746 West Mineral King Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291

To Owner: Santokh Toor
27725 Rd. 92
Visalia, CA 93277

Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
6 of 8

e. Entire Ag reement. This Agreemen t represents the entire agreement between the City and Owner as to its subject matter and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or affect.

f. Amendment. No part of this Agreement may be modif ied with out the written consent of both parties.

g. Headings. Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions under the heading.

h. No Third Party Beneficiaries In tended. Except as p rovided herein, the parties of this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy.

i. Exhibits and Recitals . The recitals and any exhibits to this Agreement are full y incorporated by re ference and are integra l parts of th is Agreement.

j. Conflict With Laws or Regulations /Severability. This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found by any court or othe r legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing this subject, the conflicting provision(s) shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a materi al benefit of the A greement to either par ty is lost, t he Agreement may be terminated at the option of the effected party. In all other cases, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

k. Waiver. A waiver of any breech of thi s Agreement by any party shall not constitute a continui ng waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breech of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

l. Choice of Law - Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California a nd any q uestions ari sing he reunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. Venue for any legal action arising from or in connection with this Agreement or the Property shall be in Tulare County, California.

m. Attorneys Fees . In the event either party commen ces any action, arbitration or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court or arbitrator, shall be entitled to recovery of its reasonable fees and costs, including attorneys fees, co urt costs an d arbitration costs inc urred in the action brought thereon.

n. No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership . It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that Owner is not an agent of City. City and 7 of 8
Owner hereby ren ounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection therewith shall be construed as making C ity and Owner joint v enturers or partners.

o. Excusable Delays; Extension of Time of Performance . In the event of delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, war, terrorism, lockouts, third -party litigation or other legal ch allenges regarding the an nexation, riots, floods, eart hquakes, epidemic, quarantine, freight embargoes, failure of contractors to perform, or other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the parties and which cause substantially interferes with t he ability of either party to perform its o bligations under this Agreement, then the time for performance of any such obligation shall be extended for such period of time as the cause of such delay shall exist but in any event not longer than for such period of ti me.

p. Further Assurances. The par ties will execute and deliver, upon demand by the other party, such further documents, instruments and conveyances, and shall take such further actions as such other party may request from time to time to document the tra nsactions set forth herein.

q. Recordation of Agre ement; Counterparts. This Agreement, or an abstract of its material terms and conditions shall be recorded by either party in the Official Records of the Tulare County Recorder. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, when all co unterparts ar e combined, shall constitute a single agreement.

/////

8 of 8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth next to their signature.

CITY

Date: ____________ By: _________________________________ Leslie Caviglia, City Manager

Attest:

Date: ____________ By: _________________________________ Michelle Nicholson, City Clerk

Approved as to Form:

Date: ____________ By: _________________________________ Kenneth J. Richardson,
City Attorney

OWNER

Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ Santokh Toor
Property Owner

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-60

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
VISALIA APPROVING CRENSHAW TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5595, A REQUEST BY AW ENGINEERING TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.77-ACRE PARCEL INTO A 34 -LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

WITH THREE OUT LOTS FOR BLOCK WALL AND LANDSCAPING
PURPOSES. THE 6.77 ACRES IS PROPOSED TO BE ZONED R -1-5 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 5 ,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE) UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF VISALIA. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 125 NORTH CRENSHAW STREET, ON THE WEST

SIDE OF CRENSHAW STREET BETWEEN WEST MINERAL KING
AVENUE AND WEST OAK AVENUE. (APN: 085-130-002)

WHEREAS, Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 95 is a request to subdivide 6.77 acres into a 34-lot single-family residential subdivision. The project is pre- zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5 ,000 sq uare foot minimum site area) ; and is located at 125 North Crenshaw Street, on the west side of Crenshaw Street between West Mineral King Avenue and West Oak Avenue. (APN: 085-130-002); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on April 10, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 in accordance with Chapter 16.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Visalia, based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-60 for Annexation No. 2022- 06 and Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 95 that was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia approves the proposed tentative subdivision map based on the following specific findings and based on the evidence presented:

1. That the proposed location and layout of the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595, its improvement s and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. The 6.77- acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 34-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Resolution No. 2022-60
Policy LU-P-20 of the General Plan. Policy LU -P-20 allows for the “annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”.

2. That the proposed Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 559 5, its improvements and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems.

The proposed tentative subdivision map will be compatible with adjacent land uses.

The project site is bordered by existing residential development and two major streets.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map. T he Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 559 5 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is adjacent to land zoned for residential development, and the subdivision establishes a local street pattern that will serve the subject site and the future development of vacant parcels located to the west of the subject site.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision and the project’s density, which is consistent with t he underlying Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed location and layout of the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. The 6.77 -acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 34-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-20.

5. That the proposed Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 95, design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The 34-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. The development of the site with a 34 -lot single -family residential subdivision would extend local streets, infrastructure improvements, utilities, right-of-way improv ements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found in the area. The project will include the construction of local streets within the subdivision and frontage street improvements along both South Crenshaw Street.

6. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Negative Declaration No. 2022-60, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Resolution No. 2022-60
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the tentative subdivision map on the real property herein above described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provisions of Visalia Municipal Code Section

16.16.030, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the subdivision map be developed in substantial compliance with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review Committee as set forth under Site Plan Review No. 2022-005 incorporated herein by reference.

2. That the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 95 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”.

3. That approval of the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2022 -06, placing the project site within the corporate limits of the City of Visalia, is approved by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and is fully executed to include all conditions contained in the Pre-Annexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2022-06.

4. That all lots that are a minimum of 5,000 square feet in area shall comply with the R - 1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 sq. ft. min. site area) zone district standards for the front, side, street side yard, and rear yard setbacks.

5. That all lots that are les s than 5,000 square feet in area shall comply with the R -1-5 zoning district standards contained as part of Visalia Municipal Code Section

17.12.135.

6. That the block walls located within the Landscape and Lighting District lots shall transition to three-foot height within the 15-foot front yard setback areas of the adjoining residential identified as Lots 1, 19, and 20 of the Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 (Exhibit “A”).

7. That if, prior to development of the subdivision, the determination of water availability letter lapses, then the applicant/developer shall obtain and provide the City with a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company.

8. That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

CITY OF VISALIA
315 E. ACEQUIA STREET
VISALIA, CA 93291

NOTICE OF A PROPOSED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Project Title: Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595

Project Description:

Annexation No. 2022 -06: A request by AW Engineering to annex a 6.77-acre parcel into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R -1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) and C (Conservation) which is consistent with the General Plan.

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595: a request by AW Engineering to subdivide a

6.77-acre parcel into a 34- lot single-family residential subdivision with three out lots for block wall and landscaping purposes.

Project Location: The project is located at 125 North Crenshaw Street, on the wes t side of Cr enshaw Street between West Mineral King Avenue and West Oak Avenue. (APN: 085-130-002).

Contact Person: Josh Dan, Associate Planner Phone: 559-713-4003 Email: [email protected]

Time and Place of Public Hearing: A public hearing w ill be held before the Planning Commission on April 10 th, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in t he Visalia City Hall Council Chambers , located at 707 W. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, California.

Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2388, the Environmental Coordinator of the C ity of Visalia has reviewed the proposed project desc ribed herein and has found that the project will not result in any significant effect upon the environment because of the reasons listed below:

Reasons for Negative Declaration: Initia l Study No. 202 2-60 has not identified any significant, adverse environmental impact(s) that may occur because of the project. Copies of the initial study and other documents relating to the subject project may be examined by interested parties at the Planning Division in City Hall East, at 315 East Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA, and online at:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/ceqa_environmental_review.asp.

Comments on this proposed Negative Dec laration will be accepted from March 16, 20 23, to April 6, 2023.

Date: __3/14/2023___________ Signed: _____________________________

Brandon Smith, AICP
Environmental Coordinator
City of Visalia

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 Project Description: Annexation No. 2022 -06: A request by A W Engineering to annex a 6.77-acre parcel into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R -1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) and C (Conservation) which is consistent with the General Plan .

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 95: a request by AW Engineering to subdivide a 6.77- acre parcel into a 34 -lot single -family residential subdivision with three out lots for block wall and landscaping purposes.

Project Location: The project is located at 125 North Crenshaw Street, on the west side of Crenshaw Street between West Mineral King Avenue and West Oak Avenue. (APN: 085-130-002).

Project Facts: Refer to In itial S tudy for projec t facts, plans and policies, and discussion of environmental effects.

Attachments:

Initial Study (X)
Environmental Checklist (X)
Maps (X)
DECLARATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:

This project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:
(a) The project does not have the potential to degrade the qual ity of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populat ion to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
(b) The project does not have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
(c) The proje ct does not have environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Cumulati vely c onsiderable m eans that the i ncremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. (d) The environm ental effects o f th e project will not caus e substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

This Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Visalia Planning Division in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. A copy may be obtained from the City of Visalia Planning Division Staff during normal business hours.

APPROVED
Brandon Smith, AICP
Environmental Coordinator

By:

Date Approved: _03/14/2023__
Review Period: 21 days

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

INITIAL STUDY
I. GENERAL
A. Description of the Project:

Annexation No. 2022-06: A request by AW Engineering to annex a 6.77-acre parcel into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R -1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) and C (Conservation) which is consistent with the General Plan.

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 95: a request by AW Engineering to subdivide a 6.77- acre parcel into a 34- lot single- family residential subdivision with two out lots for block wall and landscaping purposes.

B. Ident ification o f the Environmental Setti ng: The site is mostly vacant with one existing residential dwelling on site and was previously f armed with row crops . There is an existing two -lane street (North Crenshaw Street) adjacent to the east and bordered by Mill Creek to the north. The Visalia Circulation Element designates Crenshaw as a local roadway.

The development of the site with the 34-lot single-family residential subdivision will create new local streets and will extend infrastructure improvements, utilities, right-of-way improvements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found to the south and east of the surrounding area. Street frontage improvements along Crenshaw Street will be included as well. Street improvements throughout the subject site will include construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the installation of park strip landscaping and streetlights.

The areas surrounding the subject property are predominately developed with single-family homes to the north, east, and south, and an office complex to the west.

The surrounding uses, Zoning district, and General Plan land use designation are as follows:

General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Zoning District Surrounding uses
North: Conservation

Residential Very
Low Density

R-1-20 (Single-family
residential, 20,000 sq. ft.
min. site area)

Mill Creek, Single-Family
Residential.

South: Residential Low
Density
R-1-5 (Single-family
residential, 5,000 sq. ft.
min. site area)

Single-Family Residential,
(Crenshaw Woods No. 2
Subdivision)
East: Office O-PA (Office
Professional-
Administrative)

Courtyards (Office/Business
Complex)
West: Residential Low
Density
R-1-5 (Single-family
residential, 5,000 sq. ft.
min. site area)

Single-Family Residential, (Oak
Creek No. 2 Subdivision)

Fire and police prot ection servi ces, street maintenance of public streets, ref use collection, and wastewater treatment will be provided by the City of Visalia upon the development of the area.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

C. Plans and Poli cies: The General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the site as Res idential Low Density.

The annexation will facilitate the development of the site with single- family residential units consistent with the residential development pattern in the surrounding area. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use designation of the General Plan.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified for this pr oject. The City of Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance contains policies and regulations that are designed to mitigate impacts to a level of non-significance.

III. MITIGATION MEASURES
There are no mitigati on measures for this project. The City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance contai ns guidelines, criteria, and requirements for the mitigation of potential impacts related to light/glare, visibility screening, noise, and traffic/parking to eliminate and/or reduce potential impacts to a level of non-significance.

IV. PROJECT COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONES AND PLANS The project is comp atible with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as the project relates to surrounding properties.

V. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are hereby incorporated into this Negative Declaration and Initial Study by reference:
• Visalia General Plan Update. Dyett & Bhatia, October 2014. • Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-38 (Certifying the Visalia General Plan Update), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, June 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, March 2014.
• Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-37 (Certifying the EIR for the Visalia General Plan Update), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia Municipal Code, including Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance). • California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
• City of Visalia, California, Climate Action Plan, Draft Final. Strategic Energy Innovations, December 2013.
• Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-36 (Certifying the Visalia Climate Action Plan), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• City of Visalia Storm Water Master Plan. Boyle Engineering Corporation, September 1994. • City of Visalia Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. City of Visalia, 1994. • Tulare County Important Farmland 2018 Map. California Department of Conservation, 2018.

VI. NAME OF PERSON WHO PREPARED INITIAL STUDY

_________________________ ____________________________

Josh Dan Brandon Smith
Senior Planner Environmental Coordinator

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
NAME OF PROPONENT: Bitta Toor NAME OF AGENT: Allen Williams, AW Engineering Address of Proponent: 27725 Rd. 92 Address of Agent: 810 W. Acequia Ave.

Tulare, CA 93274 Visalia, CA 93291
Telephone Number: 559-690-9024 Telephone Number: 559-713-6139 Date of Review 02/24/2023 Lead Agency: City of Visalia

The following checklist is used t o dete rmine if the proposed pro ject cou ld pot entially have a significant effect on the envi ronment.

Explanations and information regarding each question follow the checklist. 1 = No Impact 2 = Less Than Significant Impact
3 = Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 4 = Potentially Significant Impact

I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Publ ic Resources Code Section 21099, w ould the project:
2 a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 b) Substantially damage sc enic r esources, including, but not limited to , trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildi ngs within a state scenic highway?
2 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public v iews of the site and its s urroundings? (Public views are those that are exper ienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbaniz ed area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
2 d) Create a new source of substantia l light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead ag encies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site A ssessment Mod el (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of C onservation as an optional model to use in asse ssing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental ef fects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of f orest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Fores t L egacy Assessment project; and for est ca rbon measurement methodology provided in Fores t Protocols adopted by the California Air Resour ces Board. Would the project:
2 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farm land, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use? 1 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
1 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or c ause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or t imberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
1 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
2 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could r esult in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
2 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
2 b) Result in a cum ulatively considera ble net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under appl icable federal or stat e am bient air quality standard?
2 c) Expose sensiti ve recep tors t o substantial pollutant concentrations?
1 d) Result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
2 a) Have a substantial adverse ef fect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on an y species identifi ed as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulat ions, or by the California Department of F ish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service?
2 b) Have a substantial adverse effect o n any riparian habitat or other sensitive natur al community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and G ame or U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service?
2 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on fede rally protected wetlands (including but not lim ited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, fil ling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
2 d) Interfere substanti ally wit h the movement of any native resident or migratory f ish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
1 e) Conflict wi th any local policies or ordinan ces pro tecting biological resources, such as a tree preserv ation policy or ordinance?
Name of Proposal Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

1 f) Conflict wit h the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
2 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 15064.5?
2 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resou rces Code Section 15064.5?
2 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
2 a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessar y consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
2 b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as deli neated on the most r ecent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Z oning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
1 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
1 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1 iv) Landslides?
1 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unsta ble, or that would bec ome unstable as a resul t o f the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
1 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform B uilding Code (1994), c reating substantial risks to life or property?
1 e) Hav e soil s incapable of adequately supporting the use o f septic tanks or a lternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
1 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
2 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a signifi cant impact on the
environment?
2 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of gr eenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
1 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or t he environment through the routine transport, use, o r disposal of hazardous materials?
1 b) Create a signif icant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the re lease of hazardous mat erials into the environment?
2 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material s, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
1 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Gover nment C ode
section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
1 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a saf ety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
1 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfer e wi th an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
2 a) Violate an y water quality standar ds of waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
2 b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
2 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of i mpervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
2 i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; 2 ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in floodi ng on- or offsite; or
2 iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 2 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
2 e) Conflict with or obstruct imple mentation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
1 a) Physically divide an established community?
1 b) Cause a significant environmenta l i mpact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

1 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
1 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
2 a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards establ ished in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
1 b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
1 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, wi thin t wo miles of a public airpo rt or p ublic use airport, would the project expose people r esiding or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
1 a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for ex ample, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indi rectly (for exampl e, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
1 b) Displace substantial numbers of exi sting people or housing, necessitating the con struction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
1 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisi on of new or physically altered governmental facilit ies, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause signific ant environmental i mpacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1 i) Fire protection?
1 ii) Police protection?
1 iii) Schools?
1 iv) Parks?
1 v) Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:
1 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recr eational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
1 b) Does the project i nclude recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVII. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Would the project:
1 a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation s ystem, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
2 b) Would the project confli ct or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
1 c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1 d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of t he size and scope of the landscape, sacred plac e, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1 a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of histor ical resources as defined in Public Resources C ode section 5020.1(k), or
1 b) A resource determined by the lead agency , in its discretion and supported by subst antial evidence, to be signific ant pursuant t o criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Publ ic Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying t he criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of P ublic Resources Code Secti on 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the sig nificance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
2 a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or sto rmwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
2 b) Have sufficient water suppl ies available to service t he project and reasonable foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
1 c) Result in a determination b y the wastewater tr eatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the pr oject’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
1 d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in exce ss of the capacity of local i nfrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduct ion goals?
1 e) Comply with federal, state , a nd local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
1 a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occ upants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
1 c) Require the in stallation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as r oads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
1 d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, i ncluding downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
2 a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of t he environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild life population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or anim al community, substantially reduce the number o r restrict the ran ge of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
2 b) Does the project have impacts that a re individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“C umulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection wi th the effects of past projects, the effects of o ther current projects, and t he effects of probable future projects)?
2 c) Does the pr oject have environ mental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being s, either directly or indirectly?

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code;
Sections 2108 0(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05,
21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public
Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v . City of Eureka (2007) 147
Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v.

Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City a nd
County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

Revised 2019
Authority: Public Resources Code sections 21083 and
21083.09
Reference: Public Resources Code s ections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3/ 21084.2 and 21084.3

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

I. AESTHETICS
a. The proposed project is new residential construction which will meet City standards for setbacks , landscaping and height restrictions.

This project will not adversely affect the view of any scenic vistas. T he Sie rra Nevada mountain range may be
considered a scenic vista and the view will not be
adversely impacted by the project.
b. There are no scenic resources on the site.
c. The proposed project includes residential developmen t that will be aesthetically consistent with surrounding development and with General Plan policies. Furthermore, the City has developme nt standards related to
landscaping and other amenities that will ensur e that the visual character of the area is enhanced and not
degraded. Thus, t he proje ct wou ld not substantially
degrade the existing visu al character of the site and its surroundings.
d. The project will create new sources of light t hat are typical of residential development. The City has development
standards that require that light be direc ted an d/or
shielded so it does not fall upon adjacent properties.

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a. The project is located on property that is identified as Urban and Built -up Lan d a nd Farmland of Local
Importance based on maps pre pared by the California
Department o f Cons ervation and contained within the
Visalia General Plan, Figure 6-4.

The project will be consistent with Policy LU -P-34.

Although the site has been used for farming row crops, the site is identified as Urban and Built -Up and as such does not r equire mitigation to offset the loss since i t is not considered prime farmland as stated in Policy LU-P-34.

The policy states; “the mitigation program shall specifically allow exemption s for conversion of agricultural lands in Tier I.”
Because there is sti ll a significant impact to loss of agricultural resources after conversion of properties within the General Plan Planning Area to non-agricultural uses, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously
adopted with the Visalia General Plan Update EIR.
b. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use. All agricultural related uses have ceased on the property. The project is bordered by urban develop ment or non -
producing vacant land on all sides . There are no known Williamson Act contra cts on any properti es within the project area.
c. There is no f orest or tim ber land currently located on the site.
d. There is no forest or tim ber land currently located on t he site.
e. The project will not i nvolve any changes that would promote or resul t in the co nversion of farmlan d to non- agriculture use. The subject pro perty is currentl y
designated for an urban rather than agricultura l land use.

Properties that are vaca nt may develop in a way that is consistent with their zoning and land use designated at any ti me. T he adopt ed Vi salia General Plan’s
implementation of a three-tier growth boundary system
further assists in protecting open space around the City fringe to ensure that premature conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses does not occur.

III. AIR QUALITY
a. The project site is located in an area that is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The project in itself does not disrupt implementation of t he San Joaquin Regional Air Quality Management Plan, and w ill t herefore be a less than
significant impact.
b. Development under the Vis alia General Plan will result in emissions that w ill exceed thresholds establi shed by the SJVAPCD for PM10 and PM2.5. The project will
contribute to a net increase of criteria pol lutants and w ill therefore contribute to exceeding the thresholds . Also the project could result in short-term air quality impacts related to dust generation and exha ust due to construction and grading activities. This site was evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update EIR for co nversion into urban
development. Development under the General Plan will
result in increases of construction and operation-re lated criteria pollutant impacts, which are considered significant and unavoidable. Gen eral Plan po licies identified under Impacts 3.3 -1 and 3.3- 2 serve as th e mitigation which assists in reducing the severity of the impact to the extent possible while still a chieving the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a certain amount of growth to occur within the Planning Area.

The project is required to adhere to requirements
administered by the SJVA PCD to reduce emiss ions to a
level of compliance consistent wi th the District’s grading regulations. Compl iance with the SJVAPCD’s rules and
regulations will reduc e potential im pacts associated with air quality standard violations to a less than significan t level.

In additio n, d evelopment of the project will be subje ct to the SJV APCD Indirect Source Review (Ru le 9510)
procedures that became effective on M arch 1, 2006. The Applicant will be required to obtain permits demonst rating compliance with Rule 9510, or payment of miti gation fees to the SJVAPCD.
c. Tulare Cou nty is designated non-attainment for certain federal ozone and state ozone levels. The pr oject will result in a net increase of criteria pollutants. This site was evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update EIR for
conversion into urban development. De velopment under
the General Plan will result in increases of construction and operation-related criteria pollutant impacts, which are Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

considered significant and unavoidable. General Plan
policies identified und er Impacts 3.3 -1, 3.3 -2, and 3.3-3 serve as the mitigation which assists in reducing the
severity of the impact to the extent possible w hile sti ll achieving the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a
certain amount of gr owth to occur wi thin the Planning Area.

The project is required to adhere to r equirements
administered by the SJVAPCD to redu ce emissions to a
level of compliance consistent with the Di strict’s gr ading regulations. Compliance with the SJVAPCD ’s rules and
regulations will reduce potential im pacts associat ed with air quality standard violations to a less than significant level.

In addition, development of the project will be subject to the SJVAPCD In direct Source Review (Rule 9510)
procedures that became effe ctive on March 1, 2006. The Applicant will be required to obtain permits demo nstrating compliance with Rule 9510, or payment of mitigation fees to the SJVAPCD.
d. The prop osed proj ect w ill not inv olve the generation of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The site has no known species identified as a candidate, sensitive, o r special status species in local or regional plans, po licies, or regul ations, or by the California Department of Fis h and Game or U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service. The project would therefore not have a
substantial ad verse effect on a sensitive, candidate, or special species.

In addition, staff had con ducted an on-site visit t o the site on February 9, 2023 to observe biol ogical conditions an d did not observe any evidence or s ymptoms that would
suggest the presence of a sensi tive, candidate, or special species.

City-wide biological resources were evaluat ed in the
Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR concluded that certai n special -status species or their habitats may be directly or indirectly affected by future development wit hin the General Plan Planning Area. This may be through the removal of or
disturbance to habitat. Such effects woul d be considered significant. However, the General Plan contains multiple polices, identifie d under Impac t 3.8 -1 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on
special-status species likely to occur in the Planning Area.

With implementation of these policies, impacts on special- status species will be less than significant.
b. The project is not located within or adjacent to an
identified sensitive riparian habitat or other nat ural community.

City-wide biological resources were evaluated in the
Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR concluded that certain sensitive natural communities may be directly or indirectly affected by
future dev elopment w ithin the Gener al P lan Planning Area, particularly valley oak woodlands and valle y oa k riparian woodlands. Such eff ects would be considered
significant. However, the General Plan contains multiple polices, identified under Impact 3.8-2 of the E IR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on
woodlands located within in t he P lanning Area. With
implementation of these policies, impacts on woodlands
will be less than significant.
c. The proje ct is not located within or adjacent to federa lly protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

City-wide biologic al r esources were evaluated in the
Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR concluded that certain protected wetlands and other waters may be di rectly or indir ectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning
Area. Such effects would be considered significant.

However, the G eneral Plan c ontains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.8-3 of the EIR, that togethe r work to r educe the pote ntial for impacts on wetlands and other waters located within in t he P lanning Area. With implementation of these policies, impacts on wet lands will be less than significant.
d. City-wide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR co ncluded that the mov ement of wil dlife species may be di rectly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning. Such
effects would be considered significant. Howeve r, the General Plan contains multiple polices, identified und er Impact 3.8-4 of t he EIR, that together work to reduc e the potential for impacts on wildli fe movement c orridors
located within in the Pla nning Area. With implementation of these poli cies, impa cts on wildlife movement corridors will be less than significant.
e. The project wil l not c onflict with any local polic ies or ordinances protecting biologic al resources. The City has a municipal ordinance in place to protect valley oak trees.

Four valley oaks have been id entified adjacent to the project site, however these are located outside of the
development area and will be preserved within the 50-ft riparian setback of the Mill Creek.
f. There are no local or regional habitat conservation plan s for the area.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. There are no known historical resources located within the project area. If some potentially historical or cultural resource is unearthed dur ing development all work should cease until a qualified professional archaeologi st can evaluate t he finding and make necessary mitigati on
recommendations.
b. There are no known archaeological resources located
within the project area. If some archaeological resource is unearthed during development all work should cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can eval uate the finding and make necessary mitigation recommendations.
c. There are no known human remains buried in the project vicinity. If human re mains are unearthed during
development all work should cease until the proper
authorities are notified and a qualified professional
archaeologist can ev aluate the fi nding and make any
necessary mitigation recommendations. In the event that potentially sign ificant cultural r esources are discovered during ground disturbing activities a ssociated with project preparation, construction, or completion, work shall halt in Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

that area until a qualified Native American t ribal observer, archeologist, or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate
treatment me asures in consu ltation with Tulare County Museum, Coroner, and other appropriate agencies and
interested parties.

VI. ENERGY
a. Development of the site will require the us e of energy supply and infrastructure. However, the use of energy will be typical of that a ssociated with residential development associated with the underlying zo ning. Furthermore, the use is not considered the type of use or intensity that would resul t in wasteful, inef ficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during c onstruction or operation. The pr oject will be requi red to comply wit h California Building Code Title 24 standards for energy
efficiency.

Polices identified under Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 of the EIR will reduce any potential impacts to a less than signif icant level. With implement ation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts to energy will be less than significant.
b. The project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, based on the discussion above.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. The State Geologist has not issue d an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Map for Tulare County. The project area is not located on or near any known earthquake fault lines.

Therefore, the project will not expose people or structures to potential s ubstantial adverse impacts involving
earthquakes.
b. The dev elopment of this site wi ll require movement of topsoil. Existing City Engineering Division s tandards
require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted for review to the C ity to ensu re that off- and on- site
improvements will be designed to meet City standards.
c. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unsta ble. Soils in the Visalia area have few limitations with regard to development . Due to low clay content and limit ed topographic reli ef, soils in the Visalia area have low expansion characteristics.
d. Due to low clay content, soils in the Visalia area have an expansion index of 0 -20, which is defined as very low
potential expansion.
e. The project doe s n ot involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems since sanitary
sewer lines are used for the disposal of waste water at this location.
f. There are no known unique paleontological resources or geologic features l ocated within the project ar ea. In the event that pote ntially significa nt cultural r esources are discovered during ground disturbing activities associated with project preparation, construction, or completion, work shall halt in that area until a qualified N ative Amer ican tribal observer, archeologist, or pal eontologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consult ation with
Tulare C ounty Museum, Coroner, and other appropriate
agencies and interested parties.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. The project i s expected to generate Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) emissions in the short -term as a result of the
construction of residences and long-term as a res ult of day-to-day operation of the proposed residences.

The City has prepared and adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which includes a baseline G HG emissions
inventories, reduction measures, and reduction targets
consistent with local an d State goals. The CAP was
prepared concurrently with the proposed General P lan
and its i mpacts are also evaluated in the Visalia G eneral Plan Update EIR.

The Vi salia General Plan and the CAP both include
policies that aim to reduce the level of GHG em issions emitted in association with buildout conditions under the General Plan. Although emissions will be generated as a result of the project, implem entation of t he General Plan and CAP policies will result in fewer emissions than would be associated wi th a continuation of baseline conditions.

Thus, the impact to GHG emissions wil l b e less tha n
significant.
b. The Stat e o f California has enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which included provisions for reducing the GHG emission levels to 1990 baseline
levels by 2020 and to a level 80% below 1990 baseline
levels by 2050. In a ddition, the State has ena cted SB 32 which included provisions for reduc ing the GHG emission levels to a level 40% below 1990 baseline levels by 2030.

The proposed project will not i mpede the State’s ability to meet the GHG emission reduction targets under AB 32
and SB 3 2. Curr ent and probable future state and lo cal GHG reduc tion measures will continue to reduce the
project’s contribution to climate change. As a r esult, the project will not contribute significantly, either individually or cumulatively, to GHG emissions.

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. No hazardous materials are anticipated with the project. b. Construction activities associated with development of the project may includ e maintenance of on- site construction equipment which could l ead to minor fuel and oil sp ills.

The use and handling of any hazardous materials during
construction activities would occur in accordance with
applicable federal, state, region al, and local laws .

Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than
significant.
c. There is one school loc ated wit hin a quarter mile of the project site. The school is located 57-feet northwest of the project site (Willow Glen Elem entary). Notwithstanding, there is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could affect the site.
d. The project area does not include any sit es liste d as hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code
Section 65692.5.
e. The City of Visalia an d County of Tulare adopted Airport Master Plans show the project area is located outside of any Airport Zo nes. There are no res trictions for the proposed project related to Airport Zone requirements.

The project area is not located within two miles of a public airport.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

f. The project will not interfere with the impleme ntation of any ad opted emergency r esponse plan or evacuation
plan.
g. There are no wild lands within or near the project area.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Development projects associated with bui ldout under the Visalia General Plan are subject to regulations which
serve to en sure that such pr ojects d o not violate water quality standards of waste discharge requirements. These regulations include the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA),
the National Poll utant Discharge Eli mination System
(NPDES) permit program. Stat e re gulations inc lude the State Water Reso urces Control Board (S WRCB) and
more specifi cally the Cen tral Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), of which the project site area falls within the jurisdiction of.

Adherence to these regulations res ults in projects
incorporating mea sures th at re duce pollutants. The
project will be required to adhere to municipal waste water requirements set by the Central Valley RWQCB and any
permits issued by the agency.

Furthermore, there are no reasonably foreseeable
reasons why the project would result in the degradation of water quality.

The Vis alia General Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.6-2 and 3.9-3 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts to water quality. With implementat ion of these policies and the existing City sta ndards, impacts to wat er quali ty wi ll be less than significant.
b. The project area overlies the southern portion of the San Joaquin unit of the Centr al Valley groundwater aquifer.

The project w ill result in an increase of imper vious
surfaces on the project site, which might affect the amount of precipitation that is recharged to the aquifer. However, as the City of Visalia is alread y largely develope d and covered by impervious surfaces, the inc rease of
impervious surfaces through this project will be small by comparison. The project therefore might affect the amount of precipitation that is recharged to the aquifer. The City of Visalia’s water conversation measures and explorations for surface water use over gr oundwater extraction will assist in offsetting the loss in groundwater recharge.
c.
i. The development of this site will require movement of topsoil. Existing City Engineering Division standards
require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted
for review t o t he C ity to ensure that off- and on-s ite improvements will be des igned to meet City
standards.
ii. Development of the site will create additional
impervious surfaces. However, existing and planned
improvements to st orm water drainage facilities as
required through the Visalia General Plan policies will reduce any potential impacts to a less than signif icant level.

Polices identified under Impact 3.6-2 of the EIR will
reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. With implementation of these policies and the
existing City standards, impacts to groundwater
supplies will be less than significant.
iii. Development of the site will create additional
impervious surfaces. However, existing an d planned
improvements to storm water drainage facilities as
required through the Visalia General Plan policies will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Polices identified under Impact 3.6-2 of the EIR will
reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. With implementation of these policies and th e existing C ity standards , impacts to groundwater
supplies will be less than significant.

The project site will be accommodated by an
extension of the City’s storm water lines.

Furthermore, the project will be required to meet the
City’s improvement stand ards for directing storm
water runoff to the City’s storm water drainage system
consistent with the City’s adopted City Storm Drain
Master Plan. These im provements will no t cause
significant environmental impacts.
d. The project area is located sufficientl y inland and distant from bodies of water, and outside potent ially hazardous areas for seiches and tsunamis. The site is als o relatively flat, which will contribute to the lack of impacts by mudflow occurrence. Therefore th ere wil l be no impact related to these hazards.
e. Development of the site has the potential to affect
drainage pat terns in the short term due to erosion and sedimentation during construction activities and in the long term through the expansion of imper vious surfaces.

Impaired storm water runoff may then be intercepted and directed to a storm drain or water body, unl ess allowed to stand in a detention area. The Ci ty’s existing standards may re quire the preparation and impl ementation of a
Storm Water Po llution Prev ention Plan (SWPPP) in
accordance with the SWRCB’s General Construction
Permit process , which would addre ss erosion control
measures.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple po lices,
identified under Impact 3.6-1 of the EIR, that tog ether work to reduce the potential for erosio n. With
implementation of these policies and the existing Ci ty standards, impacts to erosion will be less than significant.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The project will not phys ically divide an established community. The proposed project is to be developed on
land designated for residential development. The project site is surrounded on three sides by urban development
and is bordered by one roadway.
b. The 6.77-acre development will place single-family
residential homes within the City of Visalia’s Tier I Urban Development Boundary as implemented by the City
General Plan. Development of lands in Tier I may occur at any time.

The proposed project is consistent with Lan d Use Policy LU-P-19 of t he General Plan. Policy LU -P-19 state s:
“Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric
fashion by implementing the General Plan’ s phased
growth strategy.”
Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

The proposed project will be consiste nt with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, including Policy LU -P-55 for Low Density Residential Development, and consistent with the standards for single-family residential development pursuant to the Visalia Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) Chapter 17.12.

The project as a whole does not conflict with any land use plan, po licy or regulation of the City of Visalia. The site contains a General Plan Land Use Designation of
Residential Low Density . The project is part of an
annexation request and d oes not currently have an
assigned Zoning Designati on, how ever, once ann exed
into the city, the underlying land use would a llow for the most consistent zoning designation of Single-family
Residential (R -1-5). The City of Vis alia’s Zoning
Ordinance allows for single-family residences as permitted uses in their respective zones.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.1-2 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts to the
development of land as designated by the Gener al Plan.

With implementation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts to land use dev elopment consistent
with the General Plan will be less than significant.

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. No mineral areas of regional or statewide importance exist within the Visalia area.
b. There are no mineral resource recovery sites delineated in the Visalia area.

XIII. NOISE
a. The project will result in noise generation typical of urban development, but not in excess of standa rds establi shed in the City of Visalia’s Gener al Plan or Noise Ordinance.

The Vi salia Noise E lement and City Ordinance contain
criterion for acceptable nois e levels inside and outside residential living spaces. This standard is 65 dB DNL for outdoor activity areas associated with residences and 45 dB DNL for indoor areas.

Ambient noise levels w ill increase beyond current levels as a result of the proje ct; however, these levels will be typical of noise levels associated with urban development and not in excess of s tandards established in the City of Visalia’s General Plan or Noise Or dinance. The City’s
standards for setbacks and construction of fences or walls along major streets and bet ween residential uses reduce noise levels to a level that is less than significa nt. Noise associated with the establishment of new residential uses was previously e valuated with the General Plan for the conversion of land to urban uses.

Noise levels will i ncrease temporarily during the
construction of the project but shall remain within the limits defined by the City of Vi salia Noise Ordinance. Temporary increase in ambient noise levels is considered to be less than significant.
b. Ground-borne vibration or gr ound-borne noise levels may occur as part of construction activities associated with the project. Construction acti vities wil l be temporary and will not expose persons to such vibration or noise levels for an extended period of time; thus the impacts will be less than significant. There are no existing uses near the project area that cre ate ground-borne vibration or gr ound-borne noise levels.
c. The project area is located in excess of t wo miles from a public airport. The project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels resulting from aircraft operations.

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. The project will not directly in duce substantial unplanned population growth th at is in excess of that plann ed in the General Plan, as the General Plan placed a default land use designation of Low Density Residential on all future school sites.
b. Development of the site will result in the removal of one non-deed restricted residential structures on the 6.77-acre site. The removal of this structures in addition to se veral accessory structures will he lp in facilitating the
development of this site with 34 new single-family homes.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a.
i. Current fire protection facilities are located at the Visalia Station 55, located approximately 2.5 miles north of the property, and ca n adequately serve the site without a
need for alteration. Impact fees will be paid to miti gate the project’s proportionate impact on these facilities. ii. Current police protection facilities can adequately serve the site without a need f or alteration. Impact fees will be paid to mitigate the project’s proportionate impact on
these facilities.
iii. The project will generate additional dwelling units, for which existing schools in the area may accommodate.
iv. Current park facilities can a dequately serve th e sit e without a need for alteration. Impact fees will be paid to mitigate the project’s proportionate i mpact on these
facilities.
v. Other public facilities can adequately ser ve the site without a need for alteration.

XVI. RECREATION
a. The project will gen erate new res idents and will therefore incrementally increase the use of existing parks and other recreational f acilities, but not at a level that will cause or accelerate substantia l adverse impacts or reduce
acceptable serv ice levels. Further, the project will pay Recreation Impact Fees to fund the creation and
maintenance of new parks and recreational programs.
b. The proposed project does not include public recreational facilities o r require the construction or expansion of any existing recreational facil ities within the area that would otherwise have an adverse phy sical effect on the
environment.

The Visalia Gener al Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3. 9-7 of th e EIR, that together work t o address the quality and management of
recreational fa cilities and the development of new
recreational facilities with progressive growth of the City .

With implementation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts will be less than significant.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

XVII. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. Development and op eration of th e project is not
anticipated to conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies est ablishing measures of effectiveness of the City’s ci rculation system. Th e project will result in an increase in traffic levels on arterial and collector roadways, although the City of Visalia’s Circulation Element has been prepared to address this increase in traffic.
b. Development of the site will result in increased traff ic in the area, but will not cause a subs tantial increase in traffic on the city’s existing circulation pattern.

The City of Visalia, in determining the significance of transportation impa cts for land use projects, recognizes the adopted City of Visalia Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT ) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (“Guidelines ”) recommended threshold as the basis for what constitutes a significant or less than significant transport ation impact.

The Guidelines recommend a 16% reduction target based
on the Greenhouse Gas emis sion reduction target for
2035 for th e Tulare County region set by t he SB 375
Regional Plan Climate Target. Therefore, residential
projects exceeding 16% below the existing VMT per capita is indicative of a significant environmental impact.

For the metric measuring VMT per trip distance, a map of the City of Visalia, produced by Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), provides areas with 84% or less
average VMT per trip distance, or 16% below the regional average. In the subject site’s TAZ, the current average trip distance experienced is 14.7537 miles, which is above the average county-wide trip distance of 11. 9 miles and the 16% target reduction of 9.76 mil es. However, under the Guidelines, the projec t is screened out from creating a significant impact since the project will generate less than 1,000 trips daily and is consistent with the City’s Ge neral Plan and current zoning. The Crenshaw Tentative
Subdivision project is projected to generate a maximum 321 trips daily. As proposed, the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and will comply with Chapter 17.12 Single-Family Resi dential Zone development standards.

Hence, the proposal is screened out of performing a VMT analysis and the project will hav e a less than significant impact with regards to complianc e with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
c. There are no planned geometric designs associated with the project that are considered hazardous.
d. The pr oject will not result in inadequate emergency access.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 a s either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of t he landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural val ue to a C alifornia Native American tribe.
a. The site is not listed or eligible for l isting in t he California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register o f historical resources as def ined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
b. The site has been det ermined to not be significant pursuant to criteria set fort h in subdivision (c) of Pu blic Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth i n subdivision (c) of Public R esource C ode Section 5024.1, the lead agency sha ll consider t he
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Pre-consultations lette rs were sent to local tribes in accordance with AB 52, providing tribes a 20-day early
review period. Staff did not receive correspondence in
return from any of the tribes which where noticed.

Further, the EIR (SCH 2010041078) for the 2014 General Plan update included a thorough review of sacred lands files through the Califor nia Native American H eritage Commission.

The sacred lands file did not contai n a ny kn own c ultural resources information for the Visalia Planning Area.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. The project will be connecting to existing City sa nitary sewer lines, consi stent with the City S ewer Mas ter Pl an.

The Visalia wastewater treatment plant has a current rated capacity of 22 million gallons per day, but currently treat s an average da ily maximum month flow of 12.5 million
gallons per day. With the completed project, the plant has more t han suff icient capacity to accommodate impacts
associated w ith t he pr oposed pr oject. The proposed
project will therefore not cause signif icant environme ntal impacts.

The project site will be accommodated by an extension of the City’s sanitary sewer and storm water lines. As part of the project, existing sanitary sewer and storm water mains will be extended off -site along public street frontages.

Usage of these lines is consistent with the City Sewer
System Master Plan and Storm Water Master Plan. These
improvements wil l n ot cause significant environmental impacts.
b. California Water Serv ice Company has determined that there are sufficient water supplies to support the site, and that service can be extended to the site.
c. The City has deter mined that there is adequat e c apacity existing to serve the site’s projected wastewater treatment demands at the City wastewater treatment plant.
d. Current solid waste disposal facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration.
e. The project will be able to meet the applicable regulations for solid waste. Rem oval of debris from construction will be subject to the City’s waste disposal requirements.

XX. WILDFIRE
a. The project is located on a site that is adjacent on multiple sides b y e xisting deve lopment. The site will be further served by mult iple points of access. In the event of an emergency respon se, coordinatio n would be made with
the C ity’s Engineering, Police, and Fire Divisions to
ensure that adequate access to and fr om the site is
maintained.
b. The project area is r elatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unstable. Therefore, t he site is not in a location that is likely to exacerbate wildfire risks.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

c. The project is located on a site that is adjacent on multiple sides by existing development. New pro ject development will require the installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure; however the in frastructure would be typical of residential development and would be developed to the standards of the underlying responsible agencies.
d. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying s oil is not known to be unstable. Therefore, the sit e is not in a location tha t would expose persons or structures to
significant risks of flooding or landslides.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The project wi ll n ot a ffect the habit at of a fish or wildl ife species or a plant or animal comm unity. This site was evaluated in the Pro gram EIR ( SCH No. 2010041078) for the City of Visalia’s General Plan Update for conversion to urban use. The City adopted mitigation m easures for
conversion to urban development. Where effects were still determined to be significant a statem ent of overridi ng considerations was made.
b. This site was evaluated in the Program EIR (SCH No.
2010041078) for the City of Visalia General Plan Updat e for the area’s conver sion to urban use. The City adopted mitigation measures for conversion to urban development.

Where effects were still determined to be significant a statement of overriding considerations was made.
c. This site was evaluated in t he Program EI R ( SCH No. 2010041078) for the City of Visalia General Plan Update for conversion to urban use. The City adopted mitigation measures for conversion to urban development. Where
effects were st ill determined to be significant a statement of overriding considerations was made.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.

I find that although the proposed project could have a signifi cant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the proj ect. A MITIGATED NEGAT IVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.

I find the proposed project MAY have a sig nificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed projec t MAY have a "potentially s ignificant impact" or " potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least on e effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal stan dards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as describ ed on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that as a result of the proposed proj ect no new effects could oc cur, or new m itigation measures would be required that have not been addressed wi thin the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Visalia General Plan was certified by Resolution No. 2014-37 adopted on October 14, 2014. THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WILL BE UTILIZED.

March 14, 2023

Brandon Smith, AICP Date
Environmental Coordinator

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

0 200 400100
Feet
General Plan
Land Use Map
W Oak Ave
N Crenshaw St
S Crenshaw St
W Hillsdale Ave
W Crowley Ct
S Atwood Ct
W Robinwood Ct
S Hilton Ct
N Atwood St

MILL CREEK

PERSIAN
Vicinity Map
Dinuba
Mooney
Demaree
Riggin
M
a i n
Walnut
G o s h e n
Houston
Noble
Lovers Lane
Court
Akers
Hwy 99
Shirk
P
l
a
z
a
B e t t y
Hwy 198
.

Conservation
Commercia Mixed Use
Office
Public Institutional
Residential Low Density
Residential Very Low Density

WATERWAYS
0 200 400100
Feet
Zoning Map
W Oak Ave
N Crenshaw St
S Crenshaw St
W Hillsdale Ave
W Crowley Ct
S Atwood Ct
W Robinwood Ct
S Hilton Ct
N Atwood St

MILL CREEK

PERSIAN
Vicinity Map
Akers
Dinuba
Mooney
Demaree
Walnut
G o s h e n Houston
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Court
Hwy 99
Noble
Riggin
Shirk
P
l
a
z
a
Betty
Hwy 198
.

C-MU Mixed Use Commercial
O-PA Professional / Admin Office
QP Quasi-Public
R-1-20 Single-family Residenital
R-1-5 Single-family Residenital
County Areas

WATERWAYS
0 200 400100
Feet
Aerial Photo
W Oak Ave
N Crenshaw St
S Crenshaw St
W Hillsdale Ave
W Crowley Ct
S Atwood Ct
W Robinwood Ct
S Hilton Ct
N Atwood St

MILL CREEK

PERSIAN
Vicinity Map
Akers
Dinuba
Mooney
Demaree
M
a i n
Walnut
G o s h e n
Houston
Noble
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Court
Hwy 99
Riggin
Shirk
P
l
a
z
a
Betty
Hwy 198
.

0 200 400100
Feet
Location Map
W Oak Ave
N Crenshaw St
S Crenshaw St
W Hillsdale Ave
W Crowley Ct
S Atwood Ct
W Robinwood Ct
S Hilton Ct
N Atwood St

MILL CREEK

PERSIAN
Vicinity Map
Akers
Dinuba
Mooney
Demaree
Walnut
G o s h e n Houston
Lovers Lane
Caldwell
Court
Hwy 99
Noble
Riggin
Shirk
P
l
a
z
a
Betty
Hwy 198 .