Executive Summary
The developer 4Creeks, Inc. (4Creeks) seeks to construct the Barr-Wood Housing Subdivision (Project) on the corner of Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue in Visalia, California. Currently, the project site is 69.35 acres of farmland on APN 119-022-041. 4Creeks has tasked Soar Environmental Consulting Inc. (Soar Environmental) to provide a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prior to implementation of the proposed Project.
The objectives of this Assessment were to: 1) provide a general characterization of biological resources for the property; 2) inventory plant and wildlife species; 3) evaluate the potential for federal or state listed plants and animals species afforded other special regulatory protection; and 4) describe the property’s sensitive biological resources and applicable federal, state, and local land use policies.
This BRA provides information about the biological resources within the Project footprint. Prior to conducting a habitat assessment (i.e., site visit for biological resources), Soar Environmental researched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, to compile a list of special-status species that could potentially be present in the vicinity of the Project area. Soar Environmental researched specific species and habitat requirements for the species noted in the CNDDB, IPaC and CNPS databases and included species listing status, and proximal species observations in this report.
No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed in the Project area during the field survey on June 27, 2022. Based on the Literature Review (Section 2.1 of this report) special-status species that have the potential to occur in the Project area based on documented occurrences in the vicinity include:
• San Joaquin kit fox
• Swainson's hawk
• vernal pool fairy shrimp
• yellow-billed cuckoo
All other special-status species identified in the record search are unlikely to occur in the Project area, due to lack of suitable habitat, proximity, and time since historical occurrences. No listed species were observed during the habitat assessment of the Project site, and no suitable habitat features, or conditions were observed that would be conducive for any of the special status species identified in this report. 933
Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................5
1.2 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................6
2. Methods................................................................................................................................................8
2.1 Literature Review...........................................................................................................................8
2.2 Field Reconnaissance Methodology.............................................................................................10
3. Habitat Assessment Results.................................................................................................................11
4. Special-Status Species .........................................................................................................................12
4.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Descriptions................................................................................17
4.1.1 San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica).........................................................................17
4.1.2 Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsonii)......................................................................................17
4.1.3 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi) ........................................................................17
4.1.4. Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)........................................17
5. Findings...............................................................................................................................................18
7. Study Limitations.................................................................................................................................18
8. Works Cited.........................................................................................................................................19 List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location.........................................................................................................................6 Figure 2 – Project Site Boundary ...............................................................................................................7 Figure 3 – Site Plan....................................................................................................................................8 Figure 4 – Historical Special-status Species Locations Proximate to the Project Site..............................10 List of Tables
Table 1– Wildlife and Plant Species Observed On Project Site................................................................11 Table 2 – Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species...........................................................................13 Table 3 – Potentially Occurring Listed Plant Species...............................................................................16 934
APPENDIX A: Site Photos..........................................................................................................................200 Photo 1 – Northern Boundary (View East) ..........................................................................................21 Photo 2 – Eastern Boundary (View South) ..........................................................................................21 Photo 3 – Southern Boundary (View West).........................................................................................22 Photo 4 – Western Boundary (View North).........................................................................................22 Photo 5 – Center of Project Site (North to South)...............................................................................23 Photo 6 – Center of Project Site (South to North)...............................................................................23 Photo 7 – Center of Project Site (East to West)...................................................................................24 Photo 8 – Center of Project Site (West to East)...................................................................................24 Photo 9 – Southeast Panhandle of Project Boundary (View East).......................................................25 Photo 10 – Canal Dividing Panhandle from the Rest of the Project Site .............................................25
935
1. Introduction
The proposed Project is a housing subdivision to be constructed on 69.35 acres of fallow farmland in the city of Visalia, Visalia County, California. Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Soar Environmental) has prepared this Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) for 4Creeks, Inc. (4Creeks) in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
A review of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) was conducted to identify sensitive wildlife species. Results indicated a habitat assessment would be necessary to search for potential suitable habitat or presence for the 17 following sensitive wildlife species: Two amphibian species include:
California red-legged frog, and California tiger salamander. Three bird species: Swainson's hawk, tricolored blackbird, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. One fish species: delta smelt. Five invertebrates:
vernal pool fairy shrimp, conservancy fairy shrimp, monarch butterfly, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Four mammals: Fresno kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, fisher, and San Joaquin kit fox. Two reptiles were identified: blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and giant garter snake.
Potential sensitive plant species were reviewed using the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California and CNDDB records. The data records search identified the following 6 sensitive plant species historically occurring in the vicinity of the Project site: California jewelflower, Hoover's Spurge, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, San Joaquin adobe sunburst, and Greene's tuctoria.
A habitat assessment was conducted in the Project area on June 27, 2022, by Soar Environmental biologist Ben Arax. The purpose of the Habitat Assessment Survey was to search for the presence of special-status species or suitable habitats that have historically been observed within, or surrounding, the Project area.
No special-statusspecies were observed during the site visit, and no suitable habitat was observed for any of the sensitive species identified in this report.
1.1 Project Location
The Project site is located on the northwest corner of Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue in Visalia, California. It is on the western edge of the City, in an agricultural and residential interface environment, approximately 1.25 miles east of State Route (SR) 99 and 1.4 miles south of State Route (SR) 198. It is comprised of Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 119-022-041. In the USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle of Visalia, it can be found in Township 19 South, Range 24 East, section 3, NW ¼ section, South 1/8. A map to the Project site location is depicted in Figure 1.
936
Figure 1. Project Location
1.2 Environmental Setting
Land use in the area is agricultural and residential. The Project site is approximately 1.25 miles east of State Route (SR) 99, and 1.4 miles south of SR 198. Agricultural land becomes more prevalent to the west while land use to the east is largely urbanized. The project area is rectangular with a Panhandle extending from the southeast corner. The Panhandle is divided by an irrigation canal running north and south, and the rest of the project area is divided by a natural surface road that runs east to west through the center of the property. The project site is bounded by residential neighborhoods to the north and east, separated by a wooden fence. Agricultural land borders west and southern boundaries with orchard trees to the west and a cattle ranch to the South.
The topography of the area is completely flat at approximately 300 feet elevation, vegetative ground cover was recently mowed. There are no structures on the property, no trees or bushes that would provide adequate habitat for nesting birds, and there were no small mammal Burrows that would provide adequate refuge for San Joaquin kitfox. Powerline poles exist along the main roads, but not on the 937
property itself, and did not appear to harbor any raptor nests. The irrigation canal on the east side of the property has dirt roads on both sides of the canal with little to no vegetation. There were no signs of pooling water or vernal pool habitat within the Project site.
Figure 1 – Project Site Boundary
938
Figure 3 – Site Plan
2. Methods
2.1 Literature Review
Prior to performing the habitat assessment, Soar Environmental conducted a records search for threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the Project area. The records search included a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory. The area covered by the data records search included USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles of Visalia, Cairns Corner, Exeter, Goshen, Ivanhoe, Monson, Paige, Traver, and Tulare 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles. From these sources a list of special-status plant and animal species was generated. Proximal locations of special-status plant and animal species located within 5 miles of the Project site are shown in (Figure 4).
Based on a review of CNDDB records (conducted April 7, 2022) it was determined there was potential for 13 State listed special-status species to occur within or in the vicinity of the Project site (listed below). • California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) • San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
939
• Swainson's hawk
• Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) • Tricolored blackbird
• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
• Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
• Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)
• Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) • California Jewelflower
• Hoover's spurge (Euphorbia hooveri)
• San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Pseudobahia peirsonii)
• San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis) A search of the IPaC database indicated 11 additional Federally listed sensitive wildlife and plant species likely to occur within or near the Project site include:
• Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus)
• California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
• Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio)
• Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)
• Fisher (Pekania pennanti)
• Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)
• Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas)
• Monarch butterfly (Danuas plexippus)
• Greene's tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei)
• Succulent owl's-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. Succulenta) A search of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory did not identify any additional plant species that were not identified in the CNDDB or IPaC records search.
No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed in the Project area during the habitat assessment on June 27, 2022. However, based on a review of CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS, and analysis of proximal historic occurrences, records indicated potential presence of the following special-status species. • San Joaquin kit fox
• Swainson's hawk
• vernal pool fairy shrimp
• yellow-billed cuckoo
940
Figure 4 – Historical Special-status Species Locations Proximate to the Project Site This map shows the closest and most recent special-status species locations from the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS Online Rare Plant Inventory
2.2 Field Reconnaissance Methodology
On June 27, 2022, Soar Environmental biologist Ben Arax conducted a habitat assessment on the property for the above mentioned species. Walking the perimeter of the property, and meandering transects throughout the Project area, the surveyor searched for bird nests, possible small mammal dens, identified vegetation, and looked for vernal pools or other signs of wildlife occupancy. Survey efforts emphasized the search for special-status species and associated suitable habitats, that had documented occurrences in the data records search of the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS databases. The surrounding area was also surveyed by vehicle in accessible areas within 0.5 miles of the Project site, to look for biological resources and features that may be conducive for suitable habitat of the identified special-status species. Photos were taken of the Project boundaries, center of the Project site in 4 cardinal directions, and other points of interest depicting the habitat and potential biological resources (Appendix A). 941
3. Habitat Assessment Results
During the habitat assessment, there were no observations of special-status plant or wildlife species. The Project site is an inactive agricultural field on the western edge of the City, with active agricultural land to the west and an urbanized residential environment to the east. A red tailed hawk and several other bird species were observed during the site visit, however there are no trees or bushes that would provide adequate refugia for the nesting bird species identified in this report, and no raptor nests were observed on any of the power line poles within the vicinity of the Project site. There were no signs of pooling water or vernal pools that would provide suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp. The ground was highly visible from recent mowing, and no small mammal burrows were observed anywhere on the property that would provide adequate refugia for San Joaquin kit fox.
Although no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed during the site visit, Soar Environmental biologists observed some common reptile and bird species flying around the area, listed in (Table 1) below, along with plant species observed onsite. No other wildlife species were observed during the habitat assessment.
Table 1– Wildlife and Plant Species Observed On Project Site Wildlife Species Observed Listing Status Plant Species Observed Listing Status American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos) MTBA
Common wild oat
(Avena fatua) None
Brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater) MTBA Cutleaf geranium
(Geranium dissectum) None
Great egret
(Ardea alba) MTBA Field bindweed
(Convolvulus arvensis) None
House finch
(Haemorhous mexicanus) MTBA Great brome
(Bromus diandrus) None
House sparrow
(Passer domesticus) MTBA Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum) None Killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus) MTBA Narrowleaf plantain
(Plantago lanceolata) None
Lesser goldfinch
(Spinus psaltria) MTBA Ripgut brome(Bromus diandrus) None Mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura) None
Russian thistle
(Salsola tragus) None
Northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos) MTBA Poison hemlock
(Conium maculatum) None
Red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis) MTBA Prickly lettuce(Lactuca serriola) None 942
Rock pigeon
(Columba livia) None Seaside barley
(Hordeum marinum) None
Western kingbird
(Tyrannus verticalis) MTBA Wall barley
(Hordeum murinum) None
Common side-blotched lizard
(Uta stansiburana) None Wild oat
(Avena fatua) None
Western fence lizard
(Sceloporus occidentalis) None Yellow star-thistle
(Centaurea solstitialis) None
4. Special-Status Species
Special-status plants and animals that have a reasonable possibility to occur in the Project area based on habitat suitability and requirements, elevation and geographic range, soils, topography, surrounding land uses, and proximity of known occurrences in the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS databases to the Project area are listed in Tables 2 and 3. The likelihood for occurrence of special-status species was assessed using information from the various listed sources, wildlife and botanical surveys. Narratives are provided for species for which there are land use planning and regulatory implications. Special-status species for which there are no habitat features are excluded from consideration due to the lack of suitable habitat and distance from the subject property.
Based upon a review of the resources and databases listed in Section 2.1 (Literature Review) for the Visalia, Cairns Corner, Exeter, Goshen, Ivanhoe, Monson, Paige, Traver, and Tulare USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles; it was determined that 19 special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the Project area. Of these 19 special-status species, 3 were determined to have a moderate potential for occurrence, and 4 species was determined to have potential for occurrence.
Species with Potential for Occurrence:
• San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
• Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
• Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
• Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Special-status species and sensitive habitats include plant and wildlife taxa, or other unique biological features that are afforded special protection by local land use policies, state and federal regulations.
Special-status plant and animal species are those that are listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts. Vegetation communities may warrant specialstatus if they are of limited distribution, have high wildlife value, or are particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Listed and special-status species are defined as:
• Listed or proposed for listing under the state or Federal Endangered Species acts. • Protected under other regulations (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act). • CDFG Species of Special Concern.
• Listed as species of concern by CNPS or USFWS; or
943
• Receive consideration during environmental review under CEQA.
Special-status species considered for this analysis are based on field survey results, review of the CNDDB occurrence records of species, review of the USFWS lists for special-status species occurring in the region, and CNPS literature (Tables 2 and 3).
• Present: Species known to occur on the site, based on CNDDB records, and/or was observed on the site during the field survey.
• High: Species known to occur on or near the site (based on CNDDB records within 8 km or 5 mi) and there is suitable habitat on the site.
• Low: Species known to occur in the vicinity of the site, and there is marginal habitat onsite. -ORSpecies is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site, however there is suitable habitat on the site.
• None: Species is not known to occur on or in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the species on the site. -OR- Species was surveyed for during the appropriate season with negative results.
Table 2 – Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species Common/ Scientific Name Listing
Status* Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Amphibians
California red-legged frog
(Rana draytonii) FT, SSC
Standing waters,
freshwater wetland.
Forest, scrub, woodland
riparian areas. Requires a
breeding pond, slowflowing stream. Will use
small mammal burrows.
None: Species is not
known to occur in the
vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) FT, ST
Grasslands, oak savannah
riparian woodlands, lower
elevations of coniferous
forests, ditches, vernal
pools, and wetlands.
None: Species is not
known to occur in the
vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Birds
Swainson's hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) ST, MBTA
Nests in isolated trees or
riparian woodlands
adjacent to suitable
foraging habitat
(agricultural fields,
grasslands, etc.).
Low: Species known to
occur in the vicinity of the
site, and there is marginal
habitat onsite.
Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
ST, BCC,
MBTA
Found in areas near water,
such as marshes,
grasslands, and wetlands.
They require some sort of
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
944
substrate nearby to build
nests.
for the species on the site.
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, SE,
MBTA
Woodlands near streams
or lakes, abandoned
farmland, old fruit
orchards, successional
shrubland and dense
thickets.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Fish
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus) FT
Shallow, fresh, or slightly
brackish backwater
sloughs and edge waters,
and substrate for
spawning.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Invertebrates
Conservancy fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta conservatio) FE
Inhabit large, coolwater vernal pools from
early November to early
April, which fill with water
in the rainy season, then
slowly dry up.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) FC
Roosts located in windprotected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey
pine, cypress), with nectar
and water sources nearby.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
FT
Occurs only in the Central
Valley of California, in
association with blue
elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana), in riparian
scrub
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi) FT
Coastal mountains, in
valley foothills grasslands,
vernal pools, and
wetlands.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi) FE
Vernal pools, (hardpan,
duripan, or claypan),
grassland. Pools
commonly found in grassbottomed or mudbottomed swales.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Mammals
945
Fisher
(Pekania pennanti) FE
Occurs in intermediate to
large-tree stages of
coniferous forests and
deciduous-riparian
habitats with a high
percent canopy closure.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis) FE, SE
Arid and alkaline plains
under shrub and grass
vegetation, coastal scrub,
open stages of chaparral,
and desert scrub habitats,
and in conifer woodlands.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica) FE, SE
Arid flat grasslands,
scrublands, and alkali
meadows with short
vegetation.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, SE
Arid and alkaline plains
under shrub and grass
vegetation, coastal scrub,
open stages of chaparral,
and desert scrub habitats,
and in conifer woodlands.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Reptiles
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia sila) FE, SE
Semi-arid grasslands, alkali
flats, and washes, utilize
shrubs and small mammal
burrows.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
Giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas) FT
Marshes, sloughs,
drainage canals, irrigation
ditches, and prefers
locations with vegetation
close to water for basking.
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.
*Listing Status Notes:
Federal: FE – Federally listed Endangered
FT – Federally listed Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate Species
WL – USFWS Watch list
BCC – USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
MTBA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act
State: SE – State listed Endangered
ST – State listed Threatened
SC – State Candidate Species
SR – State Rare Species
SA – State Special Animal
FP – CDFW Fully Protected Species
SSC – CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL – CDFW Watch List
946
Table 3 – Potentially Occurring Listed Plant Species
Common/ Scientific Name
*Status
Fed/CA/CNPS
/ Bloom
Period
Habitat Description Habitat
Present/ Absent
California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)
FE/CE/1B.1/
Feb-May
Chenopod scrub, pinyonJuniper woodland, valley
and foothill grassland
Absent
Greene's tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
FE/SR/1B.1/
May-Jul
Vernal pools, hardpan,
tuffaceous alluvium, or
claypan
Absent
Hoover's spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri)
1B.2/
June-Oct
Vernal pools/<800 ft
elevaiton
Absent
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)
FT/CE/1B.1/
Feb-Apr
Cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland,
adobe clay
Absent
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT/CE/1B.1/
Apr-Sep Vernal pools
Absent
Succulent owl's-clover
(Castilleja campestris ssp.
Succulenta)
1B.2
(Mar) Apr-May
Vernal pools
(50 – 750 m; 165-2460 ft)
Absent
*Listing Status Notes:
Federal: FE – Federally listed Endangered
FT – Federally listed Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate Species
State: SE – State listed Endangered
ST – State listed Threatened
SC – State Candidate Species
SR – State Rare Species
CRPR: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank
CBR – Considered but Rejected
1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere 2 – Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA but common elsewhere 4 – Limited distribution (Watch-list)
CBR – Considered but Rejected
CRPR Extensions 0.1 – Seriously endangered in California
0.2 – Fairly endangered in California
0.3 – Not very endangered in California
947
4.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Descriptions
4.1.1 San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
The San Joaquin kit fox is listed as Threatened at the Federal level and Endangered at the State level. They are petite, light-colored canids, approximately 50 centimeters (20 inches) in length, with bushy, blacktipped tails, large ears, and pointed snouts.
San Joaquin kit fox is a desert-adapted species which occurs mainly in arid, flat grasslands, scrublands, and alkali meadows where the vegetation structure is relatively short. This species uses dens year-round and needs loose-textured soils suitable for burrowing. They primarily prey on kangaroo rats and other small rodents, as well as large insects and occasionally rabbits. A typical kit fox den is anywhere from four to 10 inches in diameter, and is taller than it is wide, often with a keyhole shape. Dens usually have dirt berms and matted vegetation adjacent to the entrances, and tracks and prey remains will normally be detected nearby. SJKF may also utilize man-made structures such as pipes and culverts as dens.
4.1.2 Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsonii)
Swainson’s hawk is listed as Threatened on the State level. favoring open habitat for foraging such as agricultural fields, pastures, and row crops. They nest in scattered stands of eucalyptus, willow, oak, cottonwood, and conifers. On occasion, Swainson’s hawk will nest on a power pole or transmission tower.
Nests are constructed with loose bundles of sticks and debris items. Incubation period is approximately 35 days and nesting period is 17-22 days. The breeding season for this species begins in March and ends in September.
4.1.3 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp is listed as Threatened on the Federal level and has no listing on the State level.
Measuring 2.5 centimeters (one inch) long, translucent crustaceans with 11 pairs of appendages. Thy are limited to vernal pool habitats in Oregon and California and do not occur in riverine, marine, or other permanent bodies of water where fish are present. During the wet season, the females produce hardy resting eggs, called cysts, which survive the dry season and hatch when the rains come again.
4.1.4. Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Yellow-billed cuckoos have uniform grayish-brown plumage on their head and back, and dull white underparts. Their tails are long with two rows of four to six large white circles on the underside. The bill of yellow-billed cuckoos is short to medium in length and curved downward with a black upper mandible and a yellow or orange lower mandible. Yellow-billed cuckoos have zygodactylous feet, meaning that of the four toes, the middle two point forward and the outer two point backward.
Yellow-billed cuckoos prefer open woodlands with clearings and a dense shrub layer. They are often found in woodlands near streams, rivers or lakes. In North America, their preferred habitats include abandoned farmland, old fruit orchards, successional shrubland and dense thickets. In winter, yellowbilled cuckoos can be found in tropical habitats with similar structure, such as scrub forest and mangroves.
948
5. Findings
During the Habitat Assessment, Soar Environmental did not observe any of the referenced special-status species within the Project site or environmental footprint. From the information gathered in the data records search and analysis of the habitat on site, the following 4 special-status species were found to have the highest potential for occurrence in the vicinity of the Project site: 1) San Joaquin kit fox, 2) Swainson's hawk, 3) vernal pool fairy shrimp, and 4) western yellow-billed cuckoo. However, due to habitat quality and proximity of historical occurrences, all of these species were found to be unlikely to occur within the vicinity of the Project site. Based on the findings of this assessment, the proposed development of this property is unlikely to adversely affect any special-status species and is likely to have no effect for CEQA considerations.
The Project site consists of 69.35 acres of an inactive agricultural field. The ground is highly disturbed and compacted from previous agricultural activities. Land use in the surrounding area is urban and residential to the east, becoming orchards and agricultural land to the west. There is an irrigation ditch on the eastern side of the property with little to no vegetation around it. There are no vernal pools or wetlands in the area that would provide suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp, or any other aquatic special-status species identified in this report.
Although a red-tailed hawk And several other common bird species were observed flying through the area, there were no raptor nests observed within a 0.5 miles search around the Project footprint. Due to agricultural activities, the orchard trees in the area do not provide suitable refugia for nesting birds. There are no trees or bushes in the area that would provide adequate nesting habitat for red-tailed hawk, western yellow-billed cuckoo, or any of the special-status bird species identified in this report.
No signs of San Joaquin kit fox were observed during the habitat assessment, and suitable habitat for this species is poor within the surrounding areas. The ground was highly visible from recent mowing, and no small mammal burrows were observed anywhere on the property that would provide adequate refugia for San Joaquin kit fox.
6. Recommendations
No listed species were observed during the Habitat Assessment of the Project site, and no suitable habitat features, or conditions were observed that would be conducive for any of the aforementioned species.
The proposed development of this parcel is unlikely to adversely affect any special-status species. Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. recommends that if any special status species are observed during construction activities, work be stopped immediately and CDFW is contacted.
7. Study Limitations
This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted environmental methodologies and contains all the limitations inherent in these methodologies. The Report documents site conditions that were observed during field reconnaissance and do not apply to future conditions. No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our contract and included in this Report.
949
8. Works Cited
Calflora. (2022). Taxon Report. Retrieved from https://www.calflora.org California Diversity Database (CNDDB). California Department of Fish and Wildlife RareFind.
Retrieved from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2022). Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov
California Native Plant Society. CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. https://rareplants.cnps.org CDFW. (17 June 2013). California’s Vernal Pools. Retrieved from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Vernal-Pools Audubon Guide to North American Birds. (2022). https://www.audubon.org Center for Biological Diversity. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.biologicaldiversity.org eBird Database, Cornell University Lab of Ornithology. (2022). Retrieved from https://ebird.org United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2022). NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/
Stephen Ward McCabe. University of California, Berkeley. The Jepson Herbarium. Vascular Plants of California. Thiede 2003 in Eggli (ed.) Illus Handbook Succulent Pls 6 (Crassulaceae):85--103. Springer. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1999). Standardized Recommendations for the Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Retrieved from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SurveyProtocols#377281285-mammals Gary M. Fellers and Kathleen L. Freel. A Standardized Protocol for Surveying Aquatic Amphibians.
Technical Report NPS/WRUC/NRTR-95-01 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service - Western Region National Biological Service - Cooperative Park Studies Unit The University of California - Davis, California. May 1995
950
APPENDIX A
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Area
951
Photo 1 – Northern Boundary (View East)
Photo 2 – Eastern Boundary (View South)
952
Photo 3 – Southern Boundary (View West)
Photo 4 – Western Boundary (View North)
953
Photo 5 – Center of Project Site (North to South)
Photo 6 – Center of Project Site (South to North)
954
Photo 7 – Center of Project Site (East to West)
Photo 8 – Center of Project Site (West to East)
955
Photo 9 – Southeast Panhandle of Project Boundary (View East) Photo 10 – Canal Dividing Panhandle from the Rest of the Project Site 956
Appendix C
Cultural Records Search Results
957
USGS Visalia 7.5’ topographic quadrangle
69.35-acre project boundary; intensive pedestrian survey Keywords: South Fork Persian Ditch
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the
Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project,
Tulare County, California
Consuelo Y. Sauls
Prepared By
Taylored Archaeology
6083 N. Figarden Dr., Ste 616
Fresno, CA 93722
Prepared For
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S. Santa Fe St., Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
July 2022
958
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Taylored Archaeology completed a Phase I cultural resource assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project (Project). Barr and Wood is an unincorporated property southwest of the City of Visalia in Tulare County, California. The Project proposes to construct a single-family residential development comprised of approximately 136 residential lots with park strip landscaping, streets, streetlights, sidewalks and a pond. In order to obtain development approval from the City of Visalia, the Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Visalia is the Lead Agency under CEQA for this Project.
To assess for cultural resources in conjunction with CEQA, Taylored Archaeology conducted a cultural resource study under contract with 4Creeks, Inc. to assess whether cultural resources are present with the Project boundary. This investigation included: (1) a records search from the Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), at California State University, Bakersfield; (2) a Sacred Lands File Search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); (3) archival research; (4) an archaeological pedestrian survey and (5) preparing California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms.
The SSJVIC reported that two previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the Project area and no cultural resources were recorded within the Project area. Taylored Archaeology reviewed the two cultural resource investigations (TU-00041 and TU-01190) and determined both are literature reviews and not surveys of the Project area. The SSJVIC identified five previous investigations and two recorded historical resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project boundary: 3431 South Shirk Street, a rural residential home (P-54-005058) and 6440 West Cadwell Avenue, a rural residential home (P-54-005059).
The NAHC stated a search of its Sacred Lands File was negative. Local tribes were previously contacted by the City of Visalia under Assembly Bill 52. The pedestrian survey of the Project site did not identify any prehistoric resources on the ground surface. However, a segment of the South Fork Persian Ditch was identified and recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation forms but was not formally evaluated for significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources. According to the Project description, the ditch will remain open in its present condition with only a single bridge crossing the ditch within the Project boundary. Because the Project proposes no substantial change to the ditch, there is no expected adverse change to this historical resource.
Taylored Archaeology makes the following management recommendations:
In the event that previously unidentified archaeological remains are encountered during development or ground-moving activities in the Project area, all work should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. In the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or ground959 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project iii
moving activities in the Project area, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot radius) until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.
If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Tulare County Coroner is to be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and PRC 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains. A copy of this report will be provided to the SSJVIC for inclusion in the CHRIS statewide database. 960
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project iv
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ..................................................................1
1.2 REGULATORY SETTING.............................................................................................1
1.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .............................................2
1.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................2
1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE ................................................................................................6 2 PROJECT SETTING................................................................................................................7
2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................7
2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING .............................................................................................8
2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................9
2.4 HISTORIC SETTING..................................................................................................10
2.4.1 California History .......................................................................................10
2.4.2 Central California History...........................................................................11
2.4.3 Local History...............................................................................................12 3 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................14
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ..................................................................................................14
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .............................................................................................14
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH .............................................................................14
3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY...............................................................14 4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................15
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH ..................................................................................................15
4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .............................................................................................17
4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH .............................................................................22
4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS................................................22 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION..............................................................................25 6 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................26
APPENDICIES
A Personnel Qualifications
B Records Search Results
C Native American Outreach
D Cultural Resource Record Forms
961
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project v
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California............................................................ 3 Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Visalia, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle.......................... 4 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project boundary showing survey coverage. ............................ 5 Figure 4-1 1885 Irrigation Map, Project site in Section 3 (Hammond 1885)......................... 17 Figure 4-2 1892 Atlas, Project site in Section 3 (Thompson 1892)........................................ 18 Figure 4-3 1927 topographic map, Project site in red (USGS 1927) ...................................... 19 Figure 4-4 1950 topographic map, Project site in red (USGS 1950) ...................................... 20 Figure 4-5 Northern portion of the Project site, facing east. ................................................ 23 Figure 4-6 Structure pad on the Project site, facing southeast. ............................................ 23 Figure 4-7 Water pump on the Project site, facing south...................................................... 24 Figure 4-8 South Fork Persian Ditch on the Project site, facing east..................................... 24 TABLES
Table 4-1 Previous Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5-miles radius of the Project Area....................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4-2 Previous Cultural Resource Investigation Reports within the Project Area......... 15 Table 4-3 Previous Cultural Resource Investigation Reports within 0.5-mile radius of the Project Area .......................................................................................................... 16 962
963
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 1 1
INTRODUCTION
Taylored Archaeology performed a Phase I cultural resource assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project (Project) near the city of Visalia, California in unincorporated Tulare County, California. As part of development approval process, the City of Visalia as lead agency must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000 [g] mandate that government agencies consider the impacts of a project on the environment, including cultural resources.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The proposed Project involves constructing a single-family residential development consisting of approximately 136 lots, a 3.7-acre park, a 1.6-acre stormwater retention basin, and associated paved streets, sidewalks, streetlights, and landscaping. Local streets within the subdivision will be connected to South Shirk Road/ Road 92 to the west, and South Roeben Street to the east.
Local streets will additionally cross over the on-site ditch in a single bridge, and the ditch will remain open in its present condition. The planned maximum excavation of the Project will be the stormwater retention basin at 12 feet below ground surface (bgs). The Project site will also be annexed into the City of Visalia.
The current Project site consists of 69.35-acres of agricultural land within Tulare County Assessor’s Parcel Number 119-022-041. The Project area is in unincorporated Tulare County near the City of Visalia, California (Figure 1-1). The Project area is visible on the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Visalia, California, topographic quadrangle in Section 3 of Township 19 South, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Figure 1-2).
1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
In this report “cultural resources” are defined as prehistoric or historical archaeological sites as well as historical objects, buildings, or structures. In accordance with 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.4, “historical” in this report applies to cultural resources which are at least 50 years old. The significance or importance of a cultural resource is dependent upon whether the resource qualifies for inclusion at the local or state level in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or at the federal level in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are called “historical resources” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5[a]). Under this statue the determination of eligibility is partially based on the consideration of the criteria of significance as defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3). Cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are deemed “historic properties”.
964
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 2 1.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR. Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically or archaeologically significant” (PRC §5020.1[j]). In addition, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with the state guidelines are also considered historic resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.
CEQA details appropriate measures for the evaluation and protection of cultural resources in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. According to CEQA guidelines §15064.5 (a)(3), criteria for listing on the CRHR includes the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
According to CEQA guidelines §21074 (a)(1), criteria for tribal cultural resources includes the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
Protection of cultural resources within California is additionally regulated by PRC §5097.5, which prohibits destruction, defacing, or removal of any historic or prehistoric cultural features on land under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.
1.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Archaeologist Consuelo Y. Sauls (M.A.), a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA 41591505), managed the assessment and compiled this report for the Project. Ms. Sauls also conducted the records search, literature review, requested Sacred Lands File and performed the pedestrian field survey of the Project site. Ms. Sauls meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Professional Qualifications in Archaeology. Statement of Qualifications for key personnel is provided in Appendix A.
965
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 3 Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California. 966
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 4 Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Visalia, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle. 967
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 5 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project boundary showing survey coverage. 968
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 6 1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE
This report documents the results of a cultural resource assessment of the proposed Project area.
In order to assess potential project impacts to archaeological and historical resources pursuant to CCR §15064.5, the following specific tasks were completed: (1) requesting a records search from the Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), at California State University, Bakersfield; (2) requesting a Sacred Lands File Search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); (3) archival research (background research); (4) conducting archaeological pedestrian survey and (5) preparing California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms.
Taylored Archaeology prepared this report following the California Office of Historic Preservation standards in the 1990 Archaeological Resources Management Report Recommended Contents and Format. Chapter 1 describes the introduction of the Project and its location, and identifies the key personnel involved in this report. Chapter 2 summarizes the Project setting, including the natural, prehistoric, historic, and ethnohistoric background for the Project area and surrounding area. Chapters 3 details the methods used for cultural records search, archival research, local Native American outreach, and archaeological pedestrian survey. Chapter 4 summarizes the results of the cultural resource investigation. Chapter 5 discusses the Project findings and offers management recommendations. Chapter 6 is a bibliography of references cited within this report. The report also contains the following appendices: Qualifications of key personnel (Appendix A), the CHRIS records search results (Appendix B), and the NAHC letter of the SLF results (Appendix C) and DPR 523 series record forms for recorded cultural resources (Appendix D).
969
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 7 2
PROJECT SETTING
2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Project site lies in the Central Valley of California, which is approximately 450 miles from north to south, and ranges in width east to west from 40 to 60 miles (Prothero 2017). The Central Valley is divided into two subunits, the Sacramento Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in the south, which are each named after the primary rivers within each valley (Madden 2020).
The Project is located approximately 294 feet above sea level on the open flat plains of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Climate within the San Joaquin valley is classified as a ‘hot Mediterranean climate’, with hot and dry summers, and cool damp winters characterized by periods of dense fog known as ‘tule fog’ (Prothero 2017).
The San Joaquin Valley is a comprised of a structural trough created approximately 65 million years ago and is filled with nearly six miles of sediment (Bull 1964). The San Joaquin Valley ranges from Stockton and the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta in the north to Wheeler Ridge to the south, ranging nearly 60 miles wide at its widest (Zack 2017). It is split by late Pleistocene alluvial fans between the San Joaquin River hydrologic area in the north and the Tulare Lake Drainage Basin in the south (Rosenthal et al 2007). The Project site is located within the latter of the two hydrologic units. The Kaweah, Tule, Kern, and Kings rivers flowed into large inland lakes with no outflow except in high flood events, in which the lakes would flow through the Fresno Slough into the San Joaquin River. The largest of these inland lakes was the Tulare Lake, which occupied a vast area of Tulare and Kings Counties and was the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi. These four rivers in the Tulare Lake Drainage Basin accounted for more than 95 percent of water discharged into Tulare Lake, with the remaining five percent sourced from small drainages originating in the Coast Ranges to the west (Adams et al. 2015).
The Project is in central western Tulare County on the valley floor of the San Joaquin Valley within the greater Kaweah River Delta alluvial fan. Specifically, the Project is located 1.8 miles north of Packwood Creek, which is a distributary of the Kaweah River (Thompson 1892). Distributaries form when debris-laden river waters meet abrupt changes in channel and slope confinement, resulting in unstable channel networks that change with time (Wagner et al. 2013). Before the appearance of agriculture in the nineteenth century, the Project location would have been comprised of prairie grasslands with scatter oak tree savannas near the foothills, and along the various streams and drainages (Preston 1981). Riparian environments would also have been present along various waterways, including drainages and marshes. Native vegetation likely would have consisted of needle grasses and other perennial bunchgrasses before the introduction of non-native species in the 1800s.
The valley floor of the region was largely dominated by marshlands, lakes, and annual grasslands.
Historically, these habitats provided a lush environment for large animals, including various migratory birds and other waterfowl, grizzly bear (Ursus arctos californicus), tule elk (Cervus sp.), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), black bear (Ursus 970
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 8 americanus), and mountain lion (Puma concolor) (Preston 1981). Native trees and plants observed in the Project vicinity include various blue, live, and white oaks (Quercus sp.), cottonwood (Populus aegiros), and willow (Salix sp.). The introduction of agriculture to the region resulted in large animals being forced out of their habitat. Common land mammals now include valley coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox, kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), and rabbits (Leporidae). Rivers and lakes throughout the valley provide habitat for freshwater fish, including rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Sacramento sucker (Catostomidae sp.), and Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus), (Preston 1981).
The Project site is presently characterized as agricultural utilized for winter wheat cultivation, surrounded by single-family residential development to the north and east, a dairy farm and row crops to the south, and rural residences and orchards to the east. The immediate region is located at the southwest of the City of Visalia suburban footprint and is rapidly transitioning from agricultural to suburban residential use.
2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING
Research into San Joaquin Valley prehistory began in the early 1900s with several archaeological investigations (Rosenthal et al. 2007). The Southern San Joaquin Valley is of one of the least understood areas within California due to a lack of well-grounded chronologies for large segments of the valley (Rosenthal et al. 2007). This is largely due to the valley floor being filled with thick alluvial deposits, and from human activity largely disturbing much of the valley floor due to a century and a half of agricultural use (Dillon 2002; Siefken 1999). Mound sites may have occurred as frequently as one every two or three miles along major waterways but studying such mounded occupations sites is difficult as most surface sites have been destroyed (Schenck and Dawson 1929). Much of the early to middle Holocene archaeological sites may be buried as deep as 10 meters due to millennia of erosion and alluvial deposits from the western Sierras (Moratto 1984).
Mass agricultural development has heavily disturbed and changed the landscape of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, from the draining of marshes and the vanishing of the extensive Tulare Lake, to grading nearly the entire valley for agricultural operations (Garone 2011). These activities have impacted or scattered much of the shallow surface deposits and mounds throughout the valley (Rosenthal et al 2007). Some researchers have suggested that potentially as much as 90 percent of all Central California archaeological sites have been destroyed from these activities (Riddell 2002).
The cultural traits and chronologies which are summarized below are largely based upon information discussed in multiple sources, including Bennyhoff and Fredrickson (1973, 1974), Garfinkel (2015), McGuire and Garfinkel (1980), Moratto (1984), and Rosenthal et al. (2007). The most recent comprehensive approach to compiling a chronology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley prehistory is by Garfinkel in 2015, which builds off Rosenthal’s 2007 previous work. Both Garfinkel’s and Rosenthal’s chronologies are calculated in years B.C. In the interest of maintaining 971
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 9 cohesiveness with modern anthropological research, the dates of these chronologies have been adapted into years before present (B.P.).
The Paleo-Indian Period (13,500-10,600 cal B.P.) was largely represented by ephemeral lake sites which were characterized by atlatl and spear projectile points. Around 14,000 years ago, California was largely a cooler and wetter place, but with the retreat of continental Pleistocene glaciers, California largely experienced a warming and drying period. Lakes filled with glacial meltwater were located in the valley floor and used by populations of now extinct large game animals. A few prehistoric sites were discovered near the southwestern shore of Tulare Lake (Garfinkel 2015). Foragers appear to have operated in small groups which migrated on a regular basis.
During the Lower Archaic Period (10,500-7450 cal B.P.), climate change created a largely different environment which led to the creation of larger alluvial fans and flood plains. Most of the archaeological records of the prior period wound up being buried by geological processes. During this time, cultural patterns appear to have emerged between the foothill and valley populations of the local people. The foothill sites were often categorized by dense flaked and ground stone assemblages, while the valley sites were instead characterized by a predominance of crescents and stemmed projectile points. Occupation within the area is represented mostly by isolated discoveries and along the former shoreline of Tulare Lake. Archaeological finds are typically characterized by chipped stone crescents, stemmed points, and other distinctive flakes stone artifacts (Rosenthal et al. 2007). Variations in consumption patterns emerged as well, with the valley sites more marked by consumption of waterfowl, mussels, and freshwater fish, while the foothills sites saw an increase in nuts, seeds, and a more narrowly focused diet than the valley sites.
The Middle Archaic (7450-2500 cal B.P.) saw an increase in semi-permanent villages along river and creek settings, with more permanent sites located along lakes with a more stable supply of water and wildlife. Due to the warmer and drier weather of this period, many lakes within the valley dramatically reduced in size, while some vanished completely (Garone 2011). Cultural patterns during this time saw an increase in stone tools, while a growth in shell beads, ornaments, and obsidian evidence an extensive and ever-growing long-distance trade network. Little is known of cultural patterns in the valley during the Upper Archaic (2500-850 B.P.), but large village structures appeared to be more common around local rivers. An overall reduction of projectile point size suggests changing bow and arrow technologies. Finally, the Emergent Period (850 cal B.P. - Historic Era) was generally marked by an ever-increasing specialization in tools, and the bow and arrow generally replaced the dominance of the dart and atlatl. Cultural traditions ancestral to those recorded during ethnographic research in the early 1900s are identifiable.
2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY
The Project area is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory of the San Joaquin Valley.
The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts. The Yokuts are a sub-group of the Penutian language that covers much of coastal and central California and Oregon (Callaghan 1958). The 972
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 10 Yokuts language contained multiple dialects spoken throughout the region, though many of them were mutually understandable (Merriam 1904).
The Yokuts have been extensively researched and recorded by ethnographers, including Powers (1877), Kroeber (1925), Gifford and Schenck (1926, 1929), Gayton (1930, 1945), Driver (1937), Harrington (1957), Latta (1977), and Wallace (1978). Much of the research from these ethnographers focuses on the central Yokuts tribes due to the northernmost tribes being impacted by Euro-Americans during the California Gold Rush of the mid 1800s, and by the southernmost tribes often being removed and relocated by the Spanish to various Bay Area or coastal missions. The central Yokuts tribes, and especially the western Sierra Nevada foothill tribes, were the most intact at the time of ethnographic study.
The most detailed ethnographic information gathered regarding Native American group territories in Central California is located within maps prepared by Kroeber. The information presented in Kroeber’s map of Southern and Central Yokuts shows the Project area within the Telamni Yokuts territory (1925: Plate 47). The main village for this area was Waitatshuulul, which was approximately 3 miles east of the Project site along Packwood Creek (Kroeber 1925). Primary Yokuts villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses, with scattered secondary or temporary camps and settlements located near gathering areas in the foothills.
Yokuts were organized into local tribes, with one or more linked villages and smaller settlements within a territory (Kroeber 1925).
Each local tribe was a land-owning group that was organized around a central village, and shared common territory and ancestry. Most local tribe populations ranged from 150 to 500 people (Kroeber 1925). These local tribes were often led by a chief, who was often advised by a variety of assistants including the winatum, who served as a messenger and assistant chief (Gayton 1930). Early studies by Kroeber (1925), Gifford and Schenck (1926), and Gayton (1930) concluded that social and political authority within local tribes was derived from male lineage and patriarchy. However, more recent reexaminations (Dick-Bissonnette 1998) argue that this assumption of patriarchal organization was based on male bias by early 20th century researchers, and instead Yokuts sociopolitical authority was matriarchal in nature and centered around matrilineal use-rights and women’s work groups.
Prior to Euro-American contact, there was abundance of natural resources within the greater Tulare Lake area. Due to these resources, Yokuts maintained some of the largest populations in North America west of the continental divide (Cook 1955a).
2.4 HISTORIC SETTING
2.4.1 California History
European contact in modern-day California first occurred in 1542 with the arrival of a Spanish expedition lead by Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo into San Diego Bay (Engstrand 1997). Expeditions along the California coast continued throughout the sixteenth century and primarily focused on 973
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 11 finding favorable harbors for further expansion and trade across the Pacific. However, rocky shorelines, unfavorable currents, and wind conditions made traveling north from New Spain to the upper California coast a difficult and time-consuming journey (Eifler 2017). The topography of California, with high mountains, large deserts, and few natural harbors lead to European expansion into California only starting in the 1760s. As British and Russian expansion through fur trading encroached on California from the north, Spain established a system of presidios, pueblos, and missions along the California coast to defend its claim, starting with Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1769 (Engstrand 1997).
2.4.2 Central California History
The San Joaquin Valley did not experience contact with Europeans until the late 1700s (Starr 2007). Life at the California missions was hard and brutal for Native Americans, with many dying of disease, poor conditions, and many fleeing to areas not under direct Spanish control (Jackson and Castillo 1995). The earliest exploration of the San Joaquin Valley by Europeans was likely by the Spaniards when in the fall of 1772 a group known as the Catalonian Volunteers entered the valley through Tejon Pass in search of deserters from the Southern California Missions (Zack 2017). However, the group only made it as far north as Buena Vista Lake in modern day Kern County before turning around due to the extensive swamps. Additional excursions to the valley were for exploration such as those led by Lieutenant Bariel Moraga in 1806, but also to find sites for suitable mission sites and to track down Native Americans fleeing the coastal missions (Cook 1958).
Subsequent expeditions were also sent to pursue outlaws from the coast who would often flee to the valley for safety. One of the subsequent explorations was an expedition in 1814 to 1815 with Sargent Juan Ortega and Father Juan Cabot, who left the Mission San Miguel with a company of approximately 30 Spanish soldiers and explored the San Joaquin Valley (Smith 2004). This expedition passed through the Kaweah Delta and modern-day Visalia and made a recommendation to establish a mission near modern-day Visalia. However, with European contact also came European disease. Malaria and other new diseases were brought by Europeans, and in 1833 an epidemic of unknown origin traveled throughout the Central Valley.
Some estimates place the Native American mortality of the epidemic as high as 75 percent (Cook 1955b). Combined with the rapid expansion of Americans into California in 1848 during the Gold Rush, Native American populations within the valley never fully recovered (Eifler 2017).
Initial settlement within the valley by Europeans in the 1830s was largely either by trappers like Jedediah Smith or horse thieves like Pegleg Smith (Clough and Secrest 1984). In fact, horse and other livestock theft was so rampant that ranching operations on the Rancho Laguna de Tache by the Kings River and Rancho del San Joaquin Rancho along the San Joaquin River could not be properly established (Cook 1962). With the end of the Mexican American War and the beginning of the gold rush in 1848, the San Joaquin Valley became more populated with ranchers and prospectors. Most prospectors traveled by sea to San Francisco and used rivers ranging from the Sacramento River to the San Joaquin River to access the California interior (Eifler 2017). Most areas south of the San Joaquin River were less settled simply because those rivers did not connect 974
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 12 to the San Francisco Bay area except in wet flood years. By 1850, California became a state and Tulare County was established in 1853.
2.4.3 Local History
The City of Visalia is one of the oldest cities within the Southern San Joaquin Valley and was founded in 1852. By the late 1850s the town of Visalia was a major station along the Butterfield Overland Mail stage route as it traveled north from Los Angeles to Stockton (Helmich 2008).
During the first few decades, Visalia was a supply center for nearby gold rushes, served as the regional population center of Tulare County, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock and some agriculture (Dyett and Bhatia 2014). During the 1850s and 1860s roughly made earthen ditches and dams diverted stream water for irrigation, with the earliest ditches in the San Joaquin Valley being constructed in Visalia between 1852 to 1853 (Caltrans 2000). The Southern Pacific Railroad was extended from Fresno into Tulare County in the early 1870s but bypassed the City of Visalia as it was located six miles to the east of the rail line (Small 1926).
The construction of the rail line also brought an increase in agriculture and farms, which clashed with existing ranching operations in the local area. Escalating conflicts and livestock disputes between ranchers and farmers lead to the “No Fence Law” in 1874, which forced ranchers to pay for crop and property damage caused by their cattle (Ludeke 1980). With the passage of this law and the expansion of irrigation systems, predominant land use in the 1870s switched from grazing to farming (Mitchell 1974). This led to the beginning of the vast change of the San Joaquin Valley from native vegetation and grasslands to irrigated crops (Varner and Stuart 1975).
Water rights within California originally arose from the ‘first come first serve’ policy of the Gold Rush era. Diverting surface water to farms became big business but was a convoluted mess of customs, traditions, and conflicting claims (Zack 2017). Fed up with the situation, small farmers gathered behind Modesto lawyer C.C. Wright, who was elected to the California legislature in 1887 on the platform of taking water rights from large estates and putting it in the power of community-controlled irrigation districts (Hundley 1992). To solve this mess, the Wright Act of 1887 was passed that allowed residents to petition a local county board of supervisors to create irrigation districts that had the power to issues bonds, and tax land within the district boundaries to pay for the creation and maintenance of canals and ditches for irrigation purposes.
One of the first three districts created under the new act was the Tulare Irrigation District (TID), which was organized on September 21, 1889 (Caltrans 2000). The TID originally covered 219,000 acres from the foothills of the Sierra Nevada to the eastern boundary of Tulare Lake but was ultimately reduced to approximately 32,000 acres (Zack 2017).
At the same time as the Wright Act, an important step forward was made in ditch-digging technology that allowed irrigation systems to be built at a faster pace. From the 1840s to 1890s, farm ditches and canals were largely constructed through the use of buckboards and slip-scoops, which involved the use of a board pulled by horses in an uprights position in order to level ground (Bulls 2010). Between 1883 and 1885, Scottish immigrant James Porteous had moved to Fresno and made significant improvements to the buckboard style scraper that allowed the new scraper 975
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 13 to be pulled by two horses and scrape and move soil while dumping it at a controlled depth. This new design was patented and sold as the “Fresno Scraper”, which lead to an explosion of ditch digging efforts within the San Joaquin Valley (Zack 2017).
With the passage of a $500,000 bond approved by residents of the newly formed TID, construction of the Tulare Irrigation Canal started in 1891 (Small 1926). Starting at the St. John’s River, the main canal was sixty-four feet wide and six feet deep, with a capacity of 500 cubic feet per second, and supplied water to farms as far south as the City of Tulare. 976
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 14 3
METHODS
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
On May 20, 2022, Taylored Archaeology requested a cultural resource records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California. The purpose of this request was to identify any prehistoric or historical resources on or near the Project site that had been previously recorded within the Project boundary and a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area and identify and review prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the Project boundary. SSJVIC staff researched historical USGS topographic maps, reports of previous cultural resource investigations, archaeological site and survey base maps, cultural resource records (DPR forms) as well as listings of the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources (Appendix B).
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Archival research was conducted to investigate the historical background for any potential historic structures, buildings and historical deposits that may exist and land use within the Project boundary. Historical maps, historical aerial photographs, historical US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, Google Earth aerial photographs, Google Street View photos, books, scholarly articles, and other records were used to better understand the prehistory and history of the Project area. The results of this research are presented in Chapter 4.
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
On May 20, 2022, Taylored Archaeology sent an email to the NAHC requesting a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search to identify places in or near the Project area that may be tribal cultural resources, including sacred sites or other resources of importance. No outreach to local Native American representatives was conducted, as they were previously contacted through Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) consultation by the City of Visalia as the CEQA lead agency for the Project. The result of the SLF search is in Chapter 4.
3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
On June 4, 2022, Archaeologist Consuelo Sauls conducted a Phase I archaeological pedestrian survey of the 69.35-acre Project site using systematic transects spaced 15 meters apart within the Project boundary. The entire Project site was accessible and surveyed to identify any prehistoric deposits and potential historical features, structures, and artifacts more than 50 years old that may be present on the ground surface. Ms. Sauls used a plan map, visible landmarks, and Gaia GPS application for navigation to locate and survey the Project area. She also photographed the survey area using an iPhone 11 Pro digital camera.
977
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 15 4
RESULTS
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH
The SSJVIC provided the records search results in a letter dated June 1, 2022 (Records Search File No. 22-214; Appendix B). The results of this search indicate that there are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area. However, there are two cultural resources previously recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area (Table 4-1). Both are historic-era and builtenvironment resources: P-54-005058 and P-54-0055059 are both rural single-family residences.
Table 4-1 Previous Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5-miles radius of the Project Area Resource Number Age
Association Resource Type Distance from Project Boundary P-54-005058 Historic Building; Single Family
Residence
0.48 miles south of project
boundary
P-54-005059 Historic Building; Single Family
Residence
0.48 miles south of project
boundary
According to the results, two previous cultural resource study reports were conducted within the Project area (Table 4-2). Further review revealed that TU-00041 is only a literature review of the Project region and TU-01190 is a book on conflicts between Native Americans and California gold miners during the 1850s Gold Rush in Mariposa. Neither of these reports included archaeological surveys.
Table 4-2 Previous Cultural Resource Investigation Reports within the Project Area Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-00041 Self, William 1995 Class I Overview Santa Fe
Pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P.
Proposed Concord to Colton
Pipeline Project
Literature Review; No
survey of Project area
TU-01190 Mitchell, Annie R. 1957 Jim Savage and the Tulareño Indians
Book; No survey of
Project area
978
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 16 Five previous cultural resource studies were conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area as shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3 Previous Cultural Resource Investigation Reports within 0.5-mile radius of the Project Area Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-00246 Cantwell, R.J. 1979 Archaeological and Historical Survey Report for the Walnut
Avenue Extension from Watson
Ditch Near Shirk Road to the
Termination of Road 86, Visalia,
California
Archaeological and
Architectural/Historical
Field Survey
TU-00247 Cantwell, R.J. 1979 Historic Property Survey Report for the Extension of Walnut
Avenue, Road A288 and Road
86, Approximately Two and a
Half Miles of New Road, from
Watson Ditch to Southern
Terminus of Akers Road
Architectural/Historical
Filed Study
TU-01395 Schmidt, James J. 2009 Deteriorated Pole Replacement Project Twin Butte, Seville,
Tarusa, St. Johns, Wells,
Shinkle, Gopher, Caratan,
Higby, Chinowith, Oval, Lowry,
and Harrell 12 kV Distribution
Lines, Tulare County, California
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-01546 Orfila, Rebecca S. 2011 Archaeological Survey of Project Area for the Southern
California Edison Company:
Infrastructure Improvement
and Maintenance (IIM) Project
- Diamante 12kV Project
(IO#315323, TD 397679; RSOC
Consultant Work Authorization
CWA 104)
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-01659 Haley, Kathryn 2009 Historic Property Survey Report for Avenue 280 Road Widening
Project, Tulare County,
California
Architectural/Historical
Filed Survey
In addition to the SSJVIC research, Taylored Archaeology further reviewed the cultural resources
0.5-miles from the Project boundary. Using Google Earth aerial maps, P-54-005058 was determined to have been demolished circa 2021 (Google Earth 2022). 979
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 17 4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Historic map coverage of the Project site began in 1885. A review of an 1885 irrigation map of Fresno to Porterville shows all of Section 3, including the Project site, as owned by a “Coughran” (Figure 4-1), with no canals, ditches, or natural waterways depicted on, or adjacent to, the Project site (Hammond 1885).
Figure 4-1 1885 Irrigation Map, Project site in Section 3 (Hammond 1885) An 1892 survey map of Tulare County similarly shows all of Section 3, including the Project site, as owned by a “W. Coughran” (Figure 4-2) with no artificial or natural waterways depicted on, or adjacent to, the Project site (Thompson 1892). No structures are depicted within Section 3 but the Evans Ditch is depicted as running along the southern boundary of Section 3, approximately
0.5 miles south of the Project site.
980
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 18 Figure 4-2 1892 Atlas, Project site in Section 3 (Thompson 1892) Available topographic map coverage of the Project site begins in 1927. The USGS topographic map of the Project site in 1927 depicts an unnamed irrigation ditch, likely the South Fork Persian Ditch, crossing the Project site from the northeast to southwest, and an unnamed natural watercourse crossing the northern portion of the Project site from east to west (Figure 4-3; USGS 1927).
981
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 19 Figure 4-3 1927 topographic map, Project site in red (USGS 1927) The next available historical map of the Project site is the USGS topographic map from 1950 (USGS 1950). This map depicts the unnamed ditch, likely the South Fork Persian Ditch, as modified from the original 1927 map. By 1950, the ditch had been reoriented to cross the project site from directly north to south, and the natural watercourse in the 1927 map is now depicted at completely gone (Figure 4-4). Additionally, two structures are depicted at the northwestern portion of the Project site.
982
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 20 Figure 4-4 1950 topographic map, Project site in red (USGS 1950) Finally, the 1969 topographic map depicts the Project site similar to the 1950 topographic map, with no discernable change (USGS 1969).
A review of available Projectsite specific environmental reports revealed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) for the Project site conducted by Salem Engineering Group in 2020 (Lodge 2020). The 2020 Phase I ESA conducted an intensive review of available historical aerial imagery of the Project site to determine past development history of the site. Below is a reproduction of the results of the review by Salem Engineering (Lodge 2020):
• 1937 Aerial Photograph
The northwest portion of the subject property appears to be developed with a single-family dwelling and several out buildings. A dirt road traverses the southeast corner of the subject property. Undeveloped land adjoins the subject property to the north, south, east, and west. A dirt road (South Shirk Road) adjoins the subject property to the west, beyond which is undeveloped land. • 1952 Aerial Photograph
Several of the structures previously observed on the northwest corner of the subject property appear to have been demolished. The subject property and all adjoining properties appear to be utilized for agricultural purposes. A small set of 983
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 21 rural residences or barn structures are observed adjoining the subject property on the agricultural land to the south.
• 1969 Aerial Photograph
The northwest corner of the subject property is occupied by what appears to be a single-family dwelling and associated agricultural-use out buildings. The remainder of the subject property appears to be utilized for agricultural purposes as orchard. An east-west trending dirt road traverses the middle of the subject property. Direct access roads adjoining the subject property to the north and south. The conditions on the adjoining properties are similar to the 1952 aerial photograph.
• 1972 Aerial Photograph
The conditions on the subject property and adjoining properties are similar to the 1969 aerial photograph with the exception of the adjoining property to the south, which appears to have long rectangular-shaped structures which appear to be cattle shade structures.
• 1977 Aerial Photograph
The conditions on the subject property and adjoining properties are similar to the 1972 aerial photograph.
• 1984 Aerial Photograph
The conditions of the subject property and adjoining properties are similar to the 1977 aerial photograph, with the exception that an irrigation water retention basin is now visible on the adjoining property to the northwest. • 1994 Aerial Photograph
The structures on the northwest corner on the subject property appear to have been demolished. The remainder of the subject property appears to be utilized for agricultural purposes as an orchard. The adjoining properties to the east and northeast have been developed with residential tracts. The conditions on the adjoining properties to the north, south, and west are similar to the 1984 aerial photograph.
• 2006 Aerial Photograph
The conditions on the subject property and adjoining properties to the south and west are similar to the 1994 aerial photograph. An increase in residential development is observed on the properties to the north, northeast, and east. The irrigation water retention basin previously observed to the west of the subject property no longer appears to be in use.
984
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 22 Further review of historic aerial imagery available in the 2020 Phase I ESA and at the Fresno State Map and Aerial Locator Tool (MALT) shows the northeast to southwest alignment of the ditch on the Project site appears to have been modified to a north to south alignment between 1937 and 1946 (Lodge 2020; USAAA 1946). Finally, the north to south alignment of the ditch was changed to its present-day alignment with a 90 degree turn to the west between 2003 and 2004 to accommodate the development of a single-family residential neighborhood adjacent to the northeast of the Project site (Google Earth 2022).
A review of the City of Visalia Planning Information Map confirmed the name of the ditch on the Project site as the South Fork Persian Ditch (Visalia 2022). On July 8, 2022, Taylored Archaeology placed a call to the Persian Ditch Company who confirmed that they manage the South Fork Persian Ditch. No information regarding the date of the ditch construction or the history of the ditch was provided because the Persian Ditch Company stated they are a privately held company which only shares information with company stockholders.
4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
The NAHC responded on July 6, 2022, via letter regarding Taylored Archaeology’s request. The letter stated a search of the SLF was negative. The NAHC supplied a list of Native American representatives to contact for information or knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area (Appendix C).
Prior to the commencement of this cultural resources assessment by Taylored Archeology for the Project, the City of Visalia conducted AB 52 consultation with local Native American tribes. Paige Berggren, a Cultural Specialist Monitor for the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe responded on behalf of the Tribe requesting an archaeological firm be hired to conduct a pre-construction survey, a records search with NAHC and CHRIS center, and monitoring of any ground disturbing activities. Additionally, the Tachi Yokut Tribe request to be put in contact with the archaeological firm hired so they can maintain updates about the Project (Appendix C).
4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS
The landscape on the Project site consisted of a harvest wheat field (Figure 4-5). As discussed in Section 4.2 of this report, the natural topography of the area has been altered by historical and modern agricultural practices and much of the land on the Project site had been graded, plowed, planted and/or harvested, which has caused additional disturbance to the soil. The soil was gray to light brown sandy silt. During the survey, ground visibility was good (80 percent) due to vegetation in the wheat field and other short grasses. However, the ground visibility in the northwestern portion of the Project site was poor (0 to 5 percent) due to annual grasses and the remnants of a concrete pad, former barn, and wood piles (Figure 4-6). Rodent burrows and related soil piles were closely examined for soil type and lithic scatters.
An irrigation water pump was observed in the eastern portion of the Project site adjacent to the South Fork Persian Ditch (Figure 4-7). The South Fork Persian Ditch is an unlined earthen irrigation ditch that is owned and operated by the Persian Ditch Company (Figure 4-8). The ditch was 985
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 23 observed transecting the southeast portion of the Project site. Two potential historic resources were assessed during the survey and recorded. No prehistoric or tribal resources were discovered during the field survey.
Figure 4-5 Northern portion of the Project site, facing east.
Figure 4-6 Structure pad on the Project site, facing southeast. 986
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 24 Figure 4-7 Water pump on the Project site, facing south.
Figure 4-8 South Fork Persian Ditch on the Project site, facing east. 987
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 25 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Phase I cultural resource assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project was completed. The purpose of this assessment is to identify potential cultural resources within the 69.35-acre Project boundary in Tulare County, California. The Project proposes to construct a single-family residential development comprised of approximately 136 residential lots with park strip landscaping, streets, streetlights and sidewalks and a pond. The Project site will also be annexed into the City of Visalia.
The SSJVIC reported that two previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the Project area and no cultural resources were recorded within the Project area. Taylored Archaeology reviewed the two cultural resource investigations (TU-00041 and TU-01190) - both are literature reviews and are not surveys of the Project area. The SSJVIC identified five previous investigations and two recorded historical resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project boundary: 3431 S. Shirk Street, a rural residential home (P-54-005058) and 6440 W. Cadwell Avenue, a rural residential home (P-54-005059).
The NAHC stated a search of its Sacred Lands File was negative. Local tribes were previously contacted by the City of Visalia under AB 52. The pedestrian survey of the Project site did not identify any prehistoric resources on the ground surface. However, a segment of the South Fork Persian Ditch was identified and recorded on DPR forms but was not formally evaluated for significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources. According to the Project description, the ditch will remain open in its present condition with only a single bridge crossing the ditch within the Project boundary.
Because the Project proposes no substantial change to the ditch, there is no expected adverse change to this historical resource.
In the event that previously unidentified archaeological remains are encountered during development or ground-moving activities in the Project area, all work should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. In the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or groundmoving activities in the Project area, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot radius) until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.
If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Tulare County Coroner is to be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and PRC 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains. 988
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 26 6
REFERENCES
Adams, Kenneth D., Robert M. Negrini, Edward R. Cook, and Seshadri Rajagopal. 2015 Annually resolved late Holocene paleohydrology of the southern Sierra Nevada and Tulare Lake, California. Water Resources Research 51:9708-9724.
Bull, William B.
1964 Geomorphology of Segmented Alluvial Fans in Western Fresno County, California.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 352-E. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Bulls, Diana.
2010 The Fresno Scraper: A Mechanical Engineering Marvel. Kings River Life Magazine.
August 14.
Callaghan, Catherine A.
1958 California Penutian: History and Bibliography. International Journal of American Linguistics. 24(3):189-194.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California: Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures. Sacramento, California.
Clough, Charles W. and William B. Secrest, Jr.
1984 Fresno County The Pioneer Years: From the Beginnings to 1900. Panorama West Publishing, Fresno, California.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1955a The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Anthropological Records 16:31–80. University of California, Berkeley.
1955b The Epidemic of 1830-1833 In California and Oregon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3):303-326. University of California, Berkeley.
1958 The Project Gutenberg eBook, Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of California Central Valley, 1800-1820
1962 Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1820-1840. Anthropological Records 20(5):151-212.
989
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 27 Dillon, Brian D.
2002 California Paleo-Indians: Lack of Evidence, or Evidence of a Lack? In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga, edited by William J.
Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 110–128. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 60. Berkeley.
Dick-Bissonnette, Linda E.
1998 Gender and Authority among the Yokoch, Mono, and Miwok of Central California.
Journal of Anthropological Research 54(1):49-72.
Driver, Harold E.
1937 Cultural Elements Distribution: VI, Southern Sierra Nevada. University of California Anthropological Records 1(2):53–154.
Dyett and Bhatia
2014 Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. August.
Eifler, Mark A.
2017 The California Gold Rush: The Stampede that Changed the World. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group Press, Las Vegas.
Engstrand, Iris H.W.
1997 Seekers of the "Northern Mystery": European Exploration of California and the Pacific.
California History, 76(2/3):78–110.
Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.
Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41-54.
Garfinkel, Alan P.
2015 Archaeological Background and Cultural Sequence for The San Joaquin, Central California. Electronic document,
https://www.academia.edu/14721089/ArchaeologicalBackgroundfor theSanJoaquinValleyCentralCalifornia, accessed July 13, 2020. Academia.edu Garone, Philip
2011 The Fall and Rise of the Wetlands of California’s Great Central Valley. University of the Press, Berkeley.
Gayton, Anna H.
1930 Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. University of California Publications in 990
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 28 American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(8):361–420.
1945 Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. American Anthropologist 47(3):409–426.
Gifford, E.W., and W. Egbert Schenck
1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23(1).
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4).
Hammond, William.
1885 Composite, Fresno to Porterville, Detail Irrigation Map. California State Engineering Department.
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~207677~3003421:
Accessed July 10, 2022.
Harrington, Mark R.
1957 A Pinto Site at Little Lake, California. No. 17. Southwest Museum.
Helmich, Mary A.
2008 Stage Road Hazards. California State Parks, Interpretation & Education Division. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25445. Accessed March 20, 2021.
Hundley, Norris Jr.
1992 The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770s – 1900s. University of California Press, Berkley, California.
Jackson, Robert H. and Edward Castillo
1995 Indians, Franciscans, and Spanish Colonization: The Impacts of the Mission System on California Indians. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of California Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Washington, D.C. Reprinted 2018, Dover Publications, New York, New York.
Latta, Frank F.
1977 Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Reprinted 2014, Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.
Lodge, Shannon.
2020 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vacant Land, NWC West Whitendale Ave and South Roben Street, Visalia, California, Salem Project No. 2-420-0864. Salem Engineering Group, Inc., Bakersfield, California.
991
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 29 Ludeke, John.
1980 The No Fence Law of 1874: Victor for San Joaquin Valley Farmers. California History 2(59):98-115. University of California Press, Berkley, California.
Madden, Derek.
2020 The Naturalist’s Illustrated Guide to the Sierra Foothills and Central Valley. Heyday Publishing, Berkley, California.
McGuire, Kelly R. and Alan P. Garfinkel.
1980 Archaeological Investigations in the Southern Sierra Nevada: The Bear Mountain Segment of the Pacific Crest Trail. Cultural Resources Publications, Archaeology, unnumbered: xii – 304.
Merriam, Hart C.
1904 Distribution of Indian Tribes in the Southern Sierra and Adjacent Parts of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Science 19(494):912-917.
Mitchell, Annie R.
1974 A Modern History of Tulare County. Limited Edition of Visalia, Incorporated. Visalia, California.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Powers, Stephen
1877 Tribes of California. Washington Press, Washington, D.C.
Preston, William L.
1981 Vanishing Landscapes: Land and Life in the Tulare Lake Basin. Olympic Marketing Corp, Hopkins.
Prothero, Donald R.
2017 California’s Amazing Geology. Taylor and Francis Group.
Riddell, Francis A.
2002 The Status of San Joaquin Valley Archaeological. In Essays in California Archaeology:
A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 55-61. University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Contribution Number 60. Berkeley, California.
992
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 30 Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., Gregory G. White, and Mark Q. Sutton 2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbirds’s Seat. In California Prehistory:
Colonization, Cultural, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar.
AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Schenck, W.E., and E.J. Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25:289-413. University of California, Bakersfield, California.
Siefken, Nelson.
1999 Archaeology of the Redfeldt Mound (CA-KIN-66), Tulare Basin, California. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.
Small, Kathleen Edwards.
1926 Early History of Tulare County California. 2001 reprint edition, Bear State Books, Exeter, California.
Smith, Wallace.
2004 Garden of the Sun: A History of the San Joaquin Valley: 1772-1939. 2 nd ed., revised by
William B. Secrest, Jr. Linden Publishing, Fresno, California.
Starr, Kevin.
2007 California: A History. Random House Publishing Group, New York, New York.
Thompson, Thos. H.
1892 Township 19 South, Range 24 East. Official historical atlas map of Tulare County compiled, drawn and published from personal examinations and surveys by Thos. H.
Thompson, Tulare, California. David Rumsey Map Collection. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~24940~970092:T19S-R-24E, accessed July 10, 2022.
U.S. Agricultural Adjustment Administration (USAAA)
1946 Fresno County, California Aerial Survey No. 1946 F-K 14-37, http://digitized.library.fresnostate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/aerial/id/16194, accessed through Map and Aerial Locator Tool (MALT), Henry Madden Library, California State University, Fresno, accessed July 9, 2022.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1927 Visalia, California, Quadrangle Map. 7.5-minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
1950 Visalia, California, Quadrangle Map. 7.5-minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
993
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 31 1969 Visalia, California, Quadrangle Map, 1949, photo revised 1969. 7.5-minute series. U.S.
Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
Varner, Dudley M. and David R. Stuart.
1975 Survey of Archaeological and Historical Resources in the Central Yokohl Valley, Tulare County, California. Sacramento: Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Visalia, City of.
2022 City of Visalia Planning Information Map.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/bff05c1d6b7b4c0fa23de98ca2d46cd6/, Visalia, California, accessed July 8, 2022.
Wagner, David L., Jerome V. De Graff, and Jeremy T. Lancaster. 2013 Debris flows in the southern and eastern Sierra Nevada region, California. In Geologic Excursions from Fresno, California, and the Central Valley: A Tour of California’s Iconic Geology. Keith Daniel Putrika, pp. 99-128. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Wallace, William J.
1978 Southern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Ed.
Robert F. Heizer, pp. 448-461. The Geological Society of American, Inc., Boulder, Colorado
Zack, Richard.
2017 Quest for Water Tulare Irrigation District its History, People, and Progression.
PartnerPress.org, Carlsbad, California.
994
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 32 APPENDIX A
Personnel Qualifications
995
Consuelo Sauls, M.A., RPA 41591505 [email protected] Archaeologist 559.797.1572
6083 N. Figarden Dr., Ste. 616, Fresno, CA 93722
Professional Experience
2019 – 2022 Principal Investigator, Taylored Archaeology, Fresno, California
2018 – 2019 Staff Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
2016 – 2018 Principal Investigator, Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc., Fresno, California
2015 Archivist/Database Technician, Development and
Conservation Management, Inc., Laguna Beach,
California
2013 Laboratory Research Assistant, Durham University
Archaeology Department and Archaeology Museum,
Durham, England, UK
2011 – 2012 Laboratory Technician (volunteer), University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2008 – 2009 Laboratory Technician (intern), California State University, Fresno
2008 Field School, California State University, Fresno
Technical Qualifications
Ms. Sauls meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as an archaeologist. She has conducted pedestrian surveys, supervised Extended Phase I survey, authored technical reports, and completed the Section 106 process with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Her experience includes data recovery excavation at Western Mono sites and processing recovered artifacts in the laboratory as well as conducting archival research about prehistory and ethnography of Central California. Ms. Sauls has authored and contributed to technical and letter reports in compliance with of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). She also has supported NHPA tribal consultation and responded to Assembly Bill 52 tribal comments. Ms. Sauls also has an extensive background supervising laboratory processing, cataloging, and conservation of prehistoric and historical archaeological collections. In addition, she worked with the Rock Art Heritage Group in the management, preservation, and presentation of rock art in museums throughout England, including a thorough analysis of the British Museum’s rock art collections. At Durham University Archaeology Museum, Ms. Sauls processed the excavated skeletal remains of 30 individuals from the seventeenth century Areas of Expertise
Prehistoric archaeology
Rock art recordation and analysis
Laboratory management
Years of Experience
12
Education
M.A., Archaeology, University
of Durham, 2014
B.A., Anthropology, California
State University, Fresno, 2009
Registrations/Certifications
Registered Professional
Archaeologist 41591505
Professional Affiliations
Coalition for Diversity in
California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
Society for California Archaeology
Society of Black Archaeologists
996
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 33 APPENDIX B
Records Search Results
997
6/1/2022
Consuelo Sauls
Taylored Archaeology
6083 N. Figarden Drive, Suite 616
Fresno, CA 93722
Re: Barr-Wood Project
Records Search File No.: 22-214
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Visalia USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.5 mile radius:
As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ GIS data
Resources within project area: None
Resources within 0.5 mile radius: P-54-005058, 005059
Reports within project area: TU-00041, 01190
Reports within 0.5 mile radius: TU-00246, 00247, 01395, 01546, 01659 Note:
Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Note: Only the Title Page, Table of Contents, & Executive Summary of TU-00102 was included.
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Note: P-15-007046 is not listed in the BERD. The 2013 HPD page was included for this resource. 998
Caltrans Bridge Survey: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/cultural-studies/california-historical-bridges-tunnels Ethnographic Information: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Literature: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
Local Inventories: Not available at SSJVIC
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=1 and/or http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb8489p15p;developer=local;style=oac4;doc.view=items Shipwreck Inventory: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://www.slc.ca.gov/shipwrecks/
Soil Survey Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.
The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.
Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).
Sincerely,
Celeste M. Thomson
Coordinator
999
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 34 APPENDIX C
Native American Outreach
1000
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
July 6, 2022
Consuelo Sauls
Taylored Archeology
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Barr-Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project, Tulare County Dear Mr. Sauls:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
1001
Big Sandy Rancheria of
Western Mono Indians
Elizabeth Kipp, Chairperson
P.O. Box 337
Auberry, CA, 93602
Phone: (559) 374 - 0066
Fax: (559) 374-0055
[email protected]
Western Mono
Dunlap Band of Mono Indians
Benjamin Charley, Chairman
P. O. Box 14
Dunlap, CA, 93621
Phone: (559) 338 - 2545
[email protected]
Mono
Dunlap Band of Mono Indians
Dirk Charley, Tribal Secretary
5509 E. Mckenzie Avenue
Fresno, CA, 93727
Phone: (559) 554 - 5433
[email protected]
Mono
Kern Valley Indian Community
Robert Robinson, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1010
Lake Isabella, CA, 93240
Phone: (760) 378 - 2915
[email protected]
Kawaiisu
Tubatulabal
Koso
Kern Valley Indian Community
Julie Turner, Secretary
P.O. Box 1010
Lake Isabella, CA, 93240
Phone: (661) 340 - 0032
Kawaiisu
Tubatulabal
Koso
Kern Valley Indian Community
Brandy Kendricks,
30741 Foxridge Court
Tehachapi, CA, 93561
Phone: (661) 821 - 1733
[email protected]
Kawaiisu
Tubatulabal
Koso
North Fork Mono Tribe
Ron Goode, Chairperson
13396 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, CA, 93619
Phone: (559) 299 - 3729
[email protected]
Mono
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi
Yokut Tribe
Leo Sisco, Chairperson
P.O. Box 8
Lemoore, CA, 93245
Phone: (559) 924 - 1278
Fax: (559) 924-3583
Southern Valley
Yokut
Tubatulabals of Kern Valley
Robert Gomez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 226
Lake Isabella, CA, 93240
Phone: (760) 379 - 4590
Fax: (760) 379-4592
Tubatulabal
Tule River Indian Tribe
Kerri Vera, Environmental
Department
P. O. Box 589
Porterville, CA, 93258
Phone: (559) 783 - 8892
Fax: (559) 783-8932
[email protected]
Yokut
Tule River Indian Tribe
Joey Garfield, Tribal Archaeologist
P. O. Box 589
Porterville, CA, 93258
Phone: (559) 783 - 8892
Fax: (559) 783-8932
joey.garfield@tulerivertribensn.gov
Yokut
Tule River Indian Tribe
Neil Peyron, Chairperson
P.O. Box 589
Porterville, CA, 93258
Phone: (559) 781 - 4271
Fax: (559) 781-4610
[email protected]
Yokut
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom
Valley Band
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
1179 Rock Haven Ct.
Salinas, CA, 93906
Phone: (831) 443 - 9702
[email protected]
Foothill Yokut
Mono
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Barr-Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project, Tulare County.
PROJ-2022-
003875
07/06/2022 04:21 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Tulare County
7/6/2022
1002
Appendix D
Energy Calculations
1003
Construction Equipment Energy Use
Phase Name Off Road Equipment Type Off Road Equipment Unit Amount1
Usage Hours
Per Day1
Horse Power
(lbs/sec)1 Load Factor1
Total
Operational
Hours
BSFC2 Fuel Used
(gallons)3 MBTU4
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8 247 0.4 0 0.367 0.00 0 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8 81 0.73 0 0.408 0.00 0 Demolition Excavators 0 8 158 0.38 0 0.408 0.00 0
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 247 0.4 960 0.367 4896.50 680.6135 Site Preparation Graders 0 8 187 0.41 0 0.367 0.00 0
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37 1280 0.408 2636.54 366.4797 7533.04 Grading Excavators 2 8 158 0.38 1760 0.367 5455.20 758.2732 Grading Graders 1 8 187 0.41 880 0.367 3483.10 484.1506 33057.81 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 880 0.367 4488.46 623.8957 Grading Scrapers 2 8 367 0.48 1760 0.367 16005.80 2224.807 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 1760 0.408 3625.25 503.9095 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 231 0.29 7770 0.367 26871.29 3735.11 144328.96 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8 89 0.2 26640 0.408 27214.85 3782.864 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 8880 0.408 31679.30 4403.423 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37 23310 0.408 48013.94 6673.938 Building Construction Welders 1 8 46 0.45 8880 0.408 10549.57 1466.391 Paving Pavers 2 8 130 0.42 1200 0.367 3382.45 470.1606 8419.96 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 1200 0.367 2943.85 409.1947 Paving Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 1200 0.408 2093.66 291.019
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 8 9 0.56 0 0.408 0.00 0 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8 97 0.37 0 0.408 0.00 0 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 450 0.408 966.94 134.4048 Total 194306.72 27008.63
Construction Phases
PhaseNumber Phase Name Phase Type
Phase Start
Date Phase End Date
Num Days
Week
Total Number
of Days
1 Demolition Demolition 5
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2023 2/24/2023 5 40 3 Grading Grading 2/25/2023 7/28/2023 5 110
4 Building Construction Building Construction 7/29/2023 10/29/2027 5 1110 5 Paving Paving 10/30/2027 2/11/2028 5 75
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/12/2028 5/26/2028 5 75 Notes
1. CalEEMod Default Values Used
3. Fuel Used = Load Factor x Horsepower x Total Operational Hours x BSFC / Unit Conversion
4. MBTU calculated for comparison purposes. Assumed 1 gallon of diesel = 0.139 MBTU
2. BSFC - Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (pounds per horsepower‐hour) – If less than 100 Horsepower = 0.408, if greater than 100 Horsepower = 0.367 1004
Mobile Energy Use (Construction)
Worker Trips
Daily Worker
Trips1
Worker Trip
Length1 VMT/Day MPG Factor
(EMFAC2017)
Gallons of
Gas/Day # of Days Total Gallons of Gas MBTU Total Gallons in Construction Demolition 0 10.8 0 29.23 0.0 0 0.0 0 0
Site Preparation 18 10.8 194.4 29.23 6.7 40 266.0 30.8832 7799 Grading 20 10.8 216 29.23 7.4 110 812.9 94.36532 33871
Building Construction 49 10.8 529.2 29.23 18.1 1110 20096.2 2332.968 164425 Paving 15 10.8 162 29.23 5.5 75 415.7 48.25499 8836
Architectural Coating 10 10.8 108 29.23 3.7 75 277.1 32.17 1244 Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1410 21867.9 2538.642 216175
Vendor Trips
Daily Vendor
Trips
Vendor Trip
Length VMT/Day MPG Factor Gallons of Diesel/Day # of Days Total Gallons of Diesel MBTU Building Construction 15 7.3 109.5 8.43 13.0 1110 14418.14947 2004.123 Hauling Trips
Daily Hauling
Trips
Hauling Trip
Length VMT/Day MPG Factor Gallons of Gas/Day # of Days Total Gallons of Diesel MBTU Demolition 0 7.3 0 8.43 0.0 0 0 0
Fleet Characteristics 14418.14947
Vehicle Class Fleet Mix
2024 MPG
Factor
(EMFAC2017)
Average MPG
Factor
LDA 33% 33.24
LDT1 33% 28.07
LDT2 33% 26.38
MHD 50% 9.74
HHD 50% 7.12
Notes
1. CalEEMod Default values used
2. MBTU calculated for comparison purposes. Assumed 1 gallon of gasoline = 0.11609 MBTU Assumed Vehicle Fleet for
Workers 29.23
Assumed Vehicle Fleet for
Vendor Trips 8.43
1005
Mobile Energy Use (Operations)
Total Annual
VMT from
Project
(CalEEMod) 2,771,614
Fleet Mix & Fuel Calculations
Gas Diesel Gas Diesel Gas Diesel Gas Diesel
LDA 52.16% 1445673.9 100% 0% 1443022.73 2651.13 28.92 42.70 49890.6 62.1 5800.4 LDT1 21.00% 582038.9 100% 0% 581823.73 215.21 23.79 24.66 24461.6 8.7 2841.0 LDT2 17.00% 471174.4 100% 0% 469654.18 1520.20 23.27 32.65 20186.9 46.6 2350.0 MDV 6.00% 166296.8 98% 2% 163666.19 2630.65 18.87 23.72 8674.5 110.9 1022.4 LHD1 0.08% 2217.3 50% 50% 1106.38 1110.91 9.67 15.77 114.4 70.4 23.1 LHD2 0.09% 2494.5 27% 73% 675.23 1819.22 8.58 13.15 78.7 138.4 28.4 MHD 0.76% 21064.3 18% 82% 3760.23 17304.03 4.80 8.78 783.4 1970.6 364.9 HHD 2.00% 55432.3 0% 100% 12.18 55420.10 3.37 6.22 3.6 8914.8 1239.6 OBUS 0.00% 0.0 63% 37% 0.00 0.00 4.79 6.96 0.0 0.0 0.0
UBUS 0.43% 11917.9 64% 36% 7682.51 4235.43 8.41 12.12 913.6 349.3 154.6 MCY 0.25% 6929.0 100% 0% 6929.04 0.00 40.47 NA 171.2 0.0 19.9 SBUS 0.01% 277.2 38% 62% 105.21 171.95 9.83 8.13 10.7 21.2 4.2 MH 0.22% 6097.6 65% 35% 3982.07 2115.48 4.41 9.39 902.2 225.2 136.0 Total 100.00% 2771614.0 2682419.69 89194.31 14.55 106191 11918 13984.4 Fleet Characteristics 23.5
Source: EMFAC 2021 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Tulare County
Calendar Year: 2028
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/year for VMT, trips/year for Trips, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption
GASOLINE
Region
Calendar
Year
Vehicle
Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT (Annual) Trips (Annual) Fuel
Consumption
(1000 gal/year)
Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons) MPG
Tulare County 2025 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 2 164 36 0.0486 49 3.37 Tulare County 2025 LDA Aggregated Aggregated GAS 62800 2580000 292000 89.2 89200 28.92 Tulare County 2025 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 5590 186000 24100 7.82 7820 23.79 Tulare County 2025 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 29000 1140000 135000 49 49000 23.27 Tulare County 2025 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 2670 97700 39800 10.1 10100 9.67 Tulare County 2025 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 336 12100 5010 1.41 1410 8.58 Tulare County 2025 MCY Aggregated Aggregated GAS 3370 19100 6750 0.472 472 40.47 Tulare County 2025 MDV Aggregated Aggregated GAS 27500 983000 125000 52.1 52100 18.87 Tulare County 2025 MH Aggregated Aggregated GAS 356 3200 36 0.725 725 4.41 Tulare County 2025 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 176 10800 3520 2.25 2250 4.80 Tulare County 2025 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 73 3870 1460 0.808 808 4.79 Tulare County 2025 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 28 1750 110 0.178 178 9.83 Tulare County 2025 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 12 497 47 0.0591 59 8.41 DIESEL
Region Calendar Year
Vehicle
Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips
Fuel
Consumption
(1000 gal/year)
Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons) MPG
Tulare County 2025 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 4890 746000 88700 120 120000 6.22 Tulare County 2025 LDA Aggregated Aggregated DSL 159 4740 658 0.111 111 42.70 Tulare County 2025 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 4 69 12 0.00279 3 24.66 Tulare County 2025 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 88 3690 422 0.113 113 32.65 Tulare County 2025 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 2760 98100 34700 6.22 6220 15.77 Tulare County 2025 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 871 32600 11000 2.48 2480 13.15 Tulare County 2025 MDV Aggregated Aggregated DSL 424 15800 1950 0.666 666 23.72 Tulare County 2025 MH Aggregated Aggregated DSL 196 1700 20 0.181 181 9.39 Tulare County 2025 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 1060 49700 12400 5.66 5660 8.78 Tulare County 2025 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 32 2240 390 0.322 322 6.96 Tulare County 2025 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 135 2860 1950 0.352 352 8.13 Tulare County 2025 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 3 274 14 0.0226 23 12.12 Notes
1. Used project-specific vehicle fleet mix for residential
2. Proportion of diesel vs. gasoline vehicles calculated based on total annual VMT for each vehicle class Vehicle Class Proportion
of Fleet Mix1
Annual VMT
by Vehicle
Class
MBTU/Year3
Annual Fuel Use from Project
(gallons)
Fuel Efficiency (MPG) by
Vehicle Class and Fuel Type
(EMFAC2021)
Annual VMT by Vehicle Class
and Fuel Type
Proportion of vehicle class
using gas or diesel
(EMFAC2021)2
1006
3. MBTU Calculated for comparison purposes. Assumed 1 gallon of gasoline = 0.116090 MBTU and 1 gallong of diesel = 0.139 MBTU 1007
Appendix E
VMT Analysis Results
1008
324 S. Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, California 93292
www.4-creeks.com
August 31, 2022
Ms. Leslie Blair, PE
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Subject: Response to City Comments to Trip Generation Estimate and Phasing Analysis for Barr & Wood Subdivision, dated May 10, 2022
Dear Ms. Blair,
The letter is in response to City comments to the Trip Generation Estimate and Phasing Analysis for Barr & Wood Subdivision, dated May 10, 2022. The City commented:
The information provided shall address intersection impacts (ex. Roeben at Walnut), circulation impacts, and justify the proposed phasing of off-site improvements. 4Creeks provided trip generation information and construction phasing. They are proposing not to connect Whitendale to Shirk for Phase I. They plan for the development to obtain access off of Roeben; hence, no need to build out Whitendale to connect to Shirk for Phase I. The City had requested that intersection impacts (ex. Roeben and Walnut), circulation impacts, etc. created from this phased approach be addressed. The City wants to know what the traffic impacts will be on the surrounding network caused by not connecting Whitendale between Shirk and Roeben.
This traffic information was not included, and needs to be provided.
Per Table 1 below and as provided in the original May 10, 2022 letter, the project will generate approximately 1,339 daily trips, including 99 AM peak hour trips (26 inbound, 73 outbound) and 133 PM peak hour trips (84 inbound, 49 outbound). The City of Visalia’s Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), March 2021, indicates residential developments generating less than 200 peak hour trips do not require a TIA. Therefore, as per the City’s TIA guidelines, it is anticipated the project will not require a TIA.
TABLE 1: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Single-Family
Detached Housing
(ITE Code 210) -
Project Phase
Total
Units
Daily* AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour*
Trips
%
In:Out In Out Total
%
In:Out In Out Total
Phase 1 43 464 26:74 9 26 35 63:37 28 17 45
Phase 2 (add 46 units) 89 906 26:74 17 50 67 63:37 56 33 89 Phase 3 (add 47 units) 136 1,339 26:74 26 73 99 63:37 84 49 133 Total Project 136 1,339 26:74 26 73 99 63:37 84 49 133
*Regression equations used based on procedure in Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, September 2017 Whitendale Avenue does not currently exist between Shirk Road and Roeben Street. Phase 1 of the project is expected to generate approximately 464 daily trips, including 35 AM peak hour trips (9 inbound, 26 outbound) and 45 PM peak hour trips (28 inbound, 17 outbound). The number of trips generated 1009
Ms. Leslie Blair, PE Page 2 of 2
August 31, 2022
324 S. Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, California 93292
www.4-creeks.com
during both the AM and PM peak hours for Phase 1 are significantly less than the total project and less than the City’s TIA guidelines that would require additional analysis.
Given that Whitendale Avenue does not currently exist, that few trips will be generated during Phase 1, and that the City’s TIA guidelines do not require analysis for residential projects generating less than 200 peak hour trips, it is not anticipated that there will be any significant impact to adjacent intersections during Phase 1 or that additional analysis should be required.
Should you have any questions or if 4Creeks can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me or David Duda at (559) 802-3052.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Wallis-Dutra, PE, TE, PTOE, RSP1
Sr. Traffic Engineer
Cc: David Duda, AICP
1010
324 S. Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, California 93292
www.4-creeks.com
May 10, 2022
Ms. Leslie Blair, PE
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Subject: Trip Generation Estimate and Phasing Analysis for Barr & Wood Subdivision Dear Mr. Smith,
4Creeks, Inc. is pleased to provide this trip generation estimate and phasing analysis for the proposed Barr & Wood Subdivision in Visalia, California. The project area is approximately 69.35 acres of vacant land between Shirk Road (Road 92) and Roeben Street north of the Whitendale Avenue alignment on APN 119-022-041. The property is zoned as R-1-20 Prezone, Very Low Density Residential, and is planned as a 136-lot residential subdivision.
The project is proposed to be constructed in three (3) phases, as shown on the attached Phasing Plan.
Phase 1 consists of 45 lots located at the southeast section of the property. Two (2) of the 45 lots will be used as a temporary stormwater basin during Phase 1; therefore, 43 single-family homes will be constructed in Phase 1. Phase 2 consists of 44 lots located at the southwest section of the property. The two (2) lots that were used as a temporary stormwater basin during Phase 1 will be used to construct residences during Phase 2. Therefore, an additional 45 single-family homes will be constructed during Phase 2. Phase 3 will construct an additional 47 single-family residences located on the northern section of the property.
Trip Generation
Estimated trip generation was determined for daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour for the proposed project, as well as those generated at the completion of each phase of the project. The estimated trip generation for each was based on published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. 4Creeks used trip generation rates for the ITE land use Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210). Regression equations to determine trip estimates were used instead of the average rates based on procedures established in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, September 2017.
Table 1 shows the estimated trips generated for the proposed project, as well as the trips generated at the completion of each phase of the project. Phase 1 is expected to generate approximately 464 daily trips, including 35 AM peak hour trips (9 inbound, 26 outbound) and 45 PM peak hour trips (28 inbound, 17 outbound). The completion of Phase 2 is expected to generate approximately 906 daily trips, including 67 AM peak hour trips (17 inbound, 50 outbound) and 89 PM peak hour trips (56 inbound, 33 outbound).
Phase 3 completes the project and is expected to generate approximately 1,339 daily trips, including 99 AM peak hour trips (26 inbound, 73 outbound) and 133 PM peak hour trips (84 inbound, 49 outbound). 1011
Ms. Leslie Blair, PE Page 2 of 2
May 10, 2022
324 S. Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, California 93292
www.4-creeks.com
TABLE 1: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Single-Family
Detached Housing
(ITE Code 210) -
Project Phase
Total
Units
Daily* AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour*
Trips
%
In:Out In Out Total
%
In:Out In Out Total
Phase 1 43 464 26:74 9 26 35 63:37 28 17 45
Phase 2 (add 46 units) 89 906 26:74 17 50 67 63:37 56 33 89 Phase 3 (add 47 units) 136 1,339 26:74 26 73 99 63:37 84 49 133 Total Project 136 1,339 26:74 26 73 99 63:37 84 49 133
*Regression equations used based on procedure in Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, September 2017 The City of Visalia’s Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), March 2021, indicates residential developments generating less than 200 peak hour trips do not require a TIA. Therefore, as per the City’s TIA guidelines, it is anticipated the project will not require a TIA.
Construction Phasing
As previously indicated, the project will be constructed in three (3) phases as shown on the attached Phasing Plan. Phase 1 is the southeast section of the property on the west side of Roeben Street north of Whitendale Avenue. During Phase 1, Roeben Street will be constructed to its full width north along the property’s frontage. Whitendale Avenue will also be constructed to the two-third roadway width requirements along the project’s frontage to the west property line of lot 24 (approximately 1,625-feet west of Roeben Street) during Phase 1. These improvements will allow access into Phase 1 of the subdivision from Roeben Street at Evergreen Court. Temporary emergency access will also be provided from Whitendale Avenue through lot 24 as shown on the Phasing Plan.
There will be 89 total residences constructed through Phase 2 which covers the southern portion of the property. The two (2) lots used as a temporary stormwater basin during Phase 1 will be used to construct residences during Phase 2. The remaining roadway requirements for the project will be constructed during Phase 2. These include constructing the two-third roadway width requirements along the project’s Shirk Road frontage. It also includes constructing the continuation of the two-third roadway width requirement on Whitendale Avenue to Shirk Road. Therefore, all 89 residences will have access from both Roeben Street and Shirk Road with Phase 2.
Phase 1 provides access for the initial 43 residences from Roeben Street with temporary emergency access from Whitendale Avenue. Phase 2 provides access to 89 residences from Shirk Road and Roeben Street. Phase 2 completes the adjacent roadway requirements; therefore, the same access will be used during Phase 3. No access will be provided from Whitendale Avenue during Phases 2 or 3.
Should you have any questions or if 4Creeks can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me or David Duda at (559) 802-3052.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Wallis-Dutra, PE, TE, PTOE, RSP1
Sr. Traffic Engineer
Cc: David Duda, AICP
1012
1013
1014
1015
1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CHAIRPERSON: VICE CHAIRPERSON:
Marvin Hansen Adam Peck
COMMISSIONERS: Mary Beatie, Chris Gomez, Chris Tavarez, Adam Peck, Marvin Hansen MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2023
VISALIA COUNCIL CHAMBERS
LOCATED AT 707 W. ACEQUIA AVENUE, VISALIA, CA
MEETING TIME: 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER –
2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE –
3. CITIZEN’S COMMENTS – This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters that are not on the agenda but are within the jurisdiction of the Visalia Planning Commission. You may provide comments to the Planning Commission at this time, but the Planning Commission may only legally discuss those items already on tonight’s agenda.
The Commission requests that a five (5) minute time limit be observed for Citizen Comments.
You will be notified when your five minutes have expired.
4. CHANGES OR COMMENTS TO THE AGENDA –
5. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items under the consent calendar are to be considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. For any discussion of an item on the consent calendar, it will be removed at the request of the Commission and made a part of the regular agenda. • No Items on the Consent Calendar
6. PUBLIC HEARING – Josh Dan, Senior Planner
Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-20: A request by Andrew Goodwin Designs to construct a 1,597 square foot commercial building with a drive-thru lane for the Lady’s Chicken and Rice quick serve restaurant. The site is zoned C-MU (Commercial Mixed Use) and is located on the southeast corner of the East Houston Avenue and North Santa Fe Street roundabout (APN: 094-130-049). The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Categorical Exemption No. 2023-31.
1016
Planning Commission Agenda, Monday, June 26, 2023
2 7. PUBLIC HEARING – Josh Dan, Senior Planner
Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-21: A request by Supreme Construction, Inc. to convert the former Main Street Theater into an indoor virtual golf club with seven virtual golf simulator rooms, lobby, seating area, and full-service bar and dining area. The site is zoned D-MU (Downtown Mixed Use) and is located at 307 East Main Street (APN: 094-296-001). The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 153301, Categorical Exemption No. 2023-29.
8. PUBLIC HEARING – Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
a. Annexation No. 2022-04: A request by D.R. Horton to annex one parcel totaling approximately 40.44 acres into the city limits of Visalia. Upon annexation, the area would be zoned R-1-5 (Single-family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum lot area) and QP (QuasiPublic) zone designations, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Low Density and Parks/Recreation. The project site is located on the east side of Road 88, approximately ¼ mile south of West Goshen Avenue (APN: 081-030-080). An Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-32 be adopted (State Clearinghouse No. 2023050712).
b. Shepherds Ranch II Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5589: A request by D.R. Horton to subdivide a 40.44-acre parcel into 200 lots for single-family residential use and additional lots for landscaping, park, and trail purposes, to be located within the R-1-5 (Single-family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum lot area) and QP (Quasi-Public) zone designations.
The Project would result in onsite infrastructure improvements including but not limited to new utilities, new public residential streets, and improvements to the frontage of Road 88.
The project site is located on the east side of Road 88, approximately ¼ mile south of West Goshen Avenue (APN: 081-030-080). An Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-32 be adopted (State Clearinghouse No. 2023050712). c. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-03: A request by D.R. Horton to subdivide 40.44 acres into three parcels for phasing and financing purposes to be located within the R-1-5 (Singlefamily Residential 5,000 square foot minimum lot area) and QP (Quasi-Public) zone designations. The project site is located on the east side of Road 88, approximately ¼ mile south of West Goshen Avenue (APN: 081-030-080). An Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-32 be adopted (State Clearinghouse No. 2023050712). 1017
Planning Commission Agenda, Monday, June 26, 2023
3 9. PUBLIC HEARING – Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner a. Annexation No. 2022-03: A request by Woodside Homes to annex one parcel totaling approximately 69.35 acres into the city limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size), which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Very Low Density.
The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue (APN: 119-022-041). An Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 be adopted (State Clearinghouse No. 2023050728). b. Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588: A request by Woodside Homes to subdivide a 69.35-acre parcel into 136 lots for single-family residential use and additional lots for private streets, landscaping and lighting district lots, and a pocket park, to be located within the R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone. The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including but not limited to new and relocated utilities, new private and public residential streets, improvements of South Roeben Street and South Shirk Road, and the continuation and improvement of West Whitendale Avenue. The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue (APN: 119-022-041). An Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 be adopted (State Clearinghouse No. 2023050728).
c. Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06: A request by Woodside Homes to allow a planned unit development on a 69.35-acre parcel consisting of 136 single-family residential lots, private streets, two gated entries, landscaping and lighting district lots, and a pocket park, to be located within the R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone. The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue (APN: 119-022-041). An Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 be adopted (State Clearinghouse No. 2023050728). d. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02: A request by Woodside Homes to subdivide 69.35 acres into three parcels for phasing and financing purposes, to be located within the R-1- 20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone. The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue (APN: 119-022-041). An Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 be adopted (State Clearinghouse No. 2023050728).
10.CITY PLANNER/ PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION –
a. Upcoming July 10th Planning Commission meeting:
- Swearing in of new Planning Commissioner
- Election of Chair and Vice Chair
1018
Planning Commission Agenda, Monday, June 26, 2023
4 The Planning Commission meeting may end no later than 11:00 P.M. Any unfinished business may be continued to a future date and time to be determined by the Commission at this meeting. The Planning Commission routinely visits the project sites listed on the agenda.
For Hearing Impaired – Call (559) 713-4900 (TTY) 48-hours in advance of the scheduled meeting time to request signing services.
Any written materials relating to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Office, 315 E. Acequia Visalia, CA 93291, during normal business hours.
APPEAL PROCEDURE
THE LAST DAY TO FILE AN APPEAL IS THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2023, BEFORE 5 PM According to the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Section 17.02.145 and Subdivision Ordinance Section
16.04.040, an appeal to the City Council may be submitted within ten days following the date of a decision by the Planning Commission. An appeal form with applicable fees shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 N. Santa Fe, Visalia, CA 93291. 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.
THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MONDAY, JULY 10, 2023 1019
REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE: June 26, 2023
PROJECT PLANNER: Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
Phone No.: (559) 713-4443
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 2022-03: A request by Woodside Homes to annex one parcel totaling approximately 69.35-acres into the City Limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size), which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Very Low Density.
Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588: A request by Woodside Homes to subdivide a 69.35-acre parcel into 136 lots for single-family residential use and additional lots for private streets, landscaping, lighting, and a pocket park, to be located within the R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06: A request by Woodside Homes to allow a planned unit development on a 69.35-acre parcel consisting of 136 single-family residential lots, private streets, two gated entries, landscaping and lighting district lots, and a pocket park, to be located within the R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02: A request by Woodside Homes to subdivide
69.35 acres into three parcels for phasing and financing purposes, to be located within the R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone.
Project Location: The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue (APN: 119-022-041).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Annexation No. 2022-03
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Annexation No. 2022-03, as conditioned, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2022-18. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan.
Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588
Staff recommends approval of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-17. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5) and the Visalia Housing Element.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, as conditioned, based upon the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-15. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 1020
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-16. 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. 2022-03, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-18.
I move to approve Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-17.
I move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-15.
I move to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2022-16.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Woodside Homes, has filed entitlement applications for the development of a private 136-lot single-family residential subdivision, on a 69.35-acre parcel located outside of City Limits, within the Tier II urban development boundary. The project site is currently vacant and was previously employed for agricultural use, though it is not within an agricultural preserve or listed as prime farmland/farmland of statewide importance. Entitlements for this project consist of an annexation, tentative subdivision map, a conditional use permit for a planned residential development, and a tentative parcel map.
Annexation No. 2022-03 is a request to annex the 69.35-acre parcel into the Visalia City Limits (see Exhibit “B”). Upon annexation, the zoning designation for the project site will be R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential 20,000 square foot minimum site area), as dictated by the Visalia General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential.
Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 is a request to subdivide the 69.35-acre parcel into a 136-lot single-family residential subdivision (see Exhibit “A”). The density of the subdivision will be 1.96 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the density range of the Very Low Density Residential General Plan land use classification, which notes density between 0.1 to 2 units per acre. The development will be a gated private subdivision, with private streets, landscape outlots, walking trails, a neighborhood park, and additional amenities, all maintained by a homeowner’s association (HOA). In order to enable the private nature of the subdivision and allow deviation from Visalia Municipal Code standards for lots within the R-1-20 Zone, the subdivision proposal is accompanied by a request for a Planned Residential Development via Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06. Per Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.26 deviations from normal zoning regulations and standards may be requested if it can be shown that the deviations maximize benefits to the eventual residents of a planned residential development. The Conditional Use Permit request entails several deviations from VMC standards, listed below as follows:
• Lot size. The minimum lot size in the R-1-20 Zone is 20,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing lots averaging 15,139 square feet in size, ranging from 11,592 square feet to 25,592 square feet. Approximately 94.85% of lots will be less than the R-1-20 Zone’s 20,000 square foot minimum lot size.
1021
• Setbacks. The R-1-20 Zone requires a 35 foot front yard, 10-foot side yards, 20-foot street side yard, and a 25-foot rear yard. The applicant requests a reduction to the front and side yard setbacks, allowing a 30-foot front yard, 5-foot side yard, and 10-foot street side yard.
COMPARISON OF SETBACK STANDARDS
Front
Yard
Side Yard Street
Side
Yard
Rear
Yard
Street Side
Yard
(Garage)
EXISTING R-1-20
SETBACKS
35 10 20 25 22
PROPOSED SETBACKS 30 5 10 25 22
• Lot Width. The minimum lot width for the R-1-20 Zone is 100 feet for interior lots, and 110 feet for corner lots, as measured from a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.
The applicant requests minimum lot widths of 85 feet.
• Private streets and gated entries. The local streets serving the subdivision are proposed to be privately maintained by an HOA. No sidewalks will be installed along the private streets, with the exception of the internal loop street surrounding the proposed pocket park, and lots leading to said park, which will contain landscaping and an eight-foot-wide trail/sidewalk on one side (see Exhibit “E”). Public access to the subdivision will be via gated entries along South Roeben Street and South Shirk Street. A temporary emergencyonly access entry will be installed with Phase 1 of the subdivision, providing a second point of access to West Whitendale Avenue to the south while Phase 1 of the subdivision is under construction.
• Neighborhood park. A 3.7-acre park, identified as Lot F in the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”, is proposed to be centrally located and privately maintained by the HOA.
Per the project narrative in Exhibit “H”, project amenities will be provided to occupants of the subdivision, to include walking trails and a centralized 3.7-acre park with oak trees, play equipment, and a small amphitheater that will host neighborhood events. The applicant states that the deviations are requested to allow the lots to accommodate large homes, provide area for generous park space and amenities, and to facilitate the highly walkable, sociable neighborhood envisioned by the developer.
Lastly, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 is proposed, to subdivide the project site into three parcels for phasing purposes (see Exhibits “C” and “D”). Parcel 1/Phase 1 will be approximately
21.61 acres in area and will include 45 lots. Parcel 2/Phase 2 will be approximately 24.83 acres in area and will include 44 lots. Parcel 3/Phase 3 will be approximately 18.76 acres in area and include 47 lots.
The proposed single-family subdivision will be serviced by private streets: a 36-foot-wide internal private road with City standard curb and gutter, and a 48-foot-wide internal loop street, with 8 feet of landscaping and an 8-foot sidewalk/trail on one side. Additional improvements proposed include installation of a permanent stormwater basin, streetlights, sewer lines, storm drainage, and public infrastructure such as electricity, gas, and water. Additional public street improvements will be conducted to South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue, both Collector Streets which will be widened to 42 feet within the boundaries of the subdivision, and South Shirk Street, a Minor Arterial which will be widened to 55 feet, again within the boundaries of the subdivision, and including portions east of Shirk Street, between the project site and West Walnut Avenue.
The terminus of South Jacques Street, a Local Street within the Roeben Ranch subdivision to the north, will be separated from the project site through the installation of a six-foot-tall wrought iron 1022
fence (see Exhibit “E”) with a sidewalk cross-connection at the end of the street stub. Lastly, improvements will be conducted to the Persian Ditch, which traverses the eastern portion of the project site. Improvements will include the widening of existing service roads to 12 feet on each side.
Primary access to Phase I of the subdivision will initially be from South Roeben Avenue, with a second emergency access provided along West Whitendale Avenue. Upon completion of Phase 2 the temporary access will be removed, in favor of a new second permanent access along South Shirk Street. Improvements along these major streets include construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, block walls (where lots do not front onto roadways), installation of park strip landscaping, streetlights, sanitary sewer, and undergrounding of utility lines. The street improvements associated with this subdivision are discussed in greater detail in the Street Improvements section of the report.
The subdivision map will create 14 lettered outlots to be maintained by the HOA. The outlots will provide a variety of functions, including use as a private street (Outlet N), trail pathway (Outlets D, E, G, H, I, J), landscaping lot with block walls (Outlots A, B, C), a stormwater basin (Outlet K), canal (Outlets L, M), and a private neighborhood park (Outlet F). The outlots account for approximately 16.17 acres of the total 69.35-acre development.
The applicant has provided floor plans and elevations for five master plans to be associated with the development, each with multiple exterior treatment options. The plans are all single-story units ranging in size from 2,515 square feet to 3,507 square feet of livable space (see Exhibits “F” and “G”).
The parcel is surrounded by the Oak Meadows subdivision to the north, the Roeben Ranch and Lisendra Heights subdivisions to the east, and agricultural uses to the south and west. The project site, and areas to the south and west are currently outside City Limits and under the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Very Low Density Future City Zoning: R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North: R-1-20 / Oak Meadows Estates and Roeben Ranch residential subdivision
South: Tulare County jurisdiction, AE-20 (Exclusive
Agricultural, 20 Acre Minimum) / Shirk Dairy,
undeveloped agricultural land
East: R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 square
foot minimum site area), QP (Quasi-Public) /
Roeben Ranch and Lisendra Heights
residential subdivisions, Sunset Park
West: Tulare County jurisdiction, AE-20 /
Undeveloped agricultural land
1023
Environmental Review: Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022- 18 Special Districts: None
Site Plan Review: SPR No. 2020-193
RELATED PLANS & POLICIES
Please see attached summary of related plans and policies.
SIMILAR PROJECTS
On May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approve Annexation No. 2021-03, and approved Higgins Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5585 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-01. The project was a request to annex and subdivide a 32.35-acre parcel into 174-lots for residential use consistent with the R-1-5 Zone.
On June 12, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approve Annexation No. 2022-05, and approved Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07. The project was a request to annex and subdivide a 67.70-acre parcel into 273-lots for residential use consistent with the R-1-5 Zone.
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 69.35-acre site in a manner that is consistent with residential neighborhoods in the area.
Furthermore, staff recommends approval of Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5), and the Visalia Housing Element. The subdivision map proposes to develop a parcel of land that is designated for residential development at a density prescribed in the 2030 Visalia General Plan. Furthermore, the project is providing housing that meets the City’s Regional Housing Needs for the above moderate-income level.
Annexation
The project proponents have filed an application to initiate the annexation of the 69.35-acre project site into the Visalia City Limits. Annexation is required in order for the City to apply its land use jurisdictional rules and regulations. The Annexation is supported on the basis that the proposed use is consistent with Visalia General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-P-21, which allows for the annexation and development of residential land to occur within the Tier II Urban Development Boundary when it is consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram. The site will be pre-zoned to an R-1-20 classification, consistent with the subject sites General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential.
The site will have access to requisite utility and infrastructure services, which will be readily available for connection upon development of the project. Though the project is not currently within City Limits, the applicant has submitted a Tentative Subdivision/Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit to be considered along with the annexation request. Cities have the authority to approve tentative map proposals prior to final approval of an annexation by a local agency formation commission (LAFCO). However, “final maps” for such applications cannot be approved until after an annexation is completed and recorded through the Tulare County Recorder. Staff 1024
have included this requirement as Condition No. 3 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 and Condition No. 6 for Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588.
General Plan Consistency
Land Use Element Policies
The project is consistent with Visalia General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-P-21, which states that the city should “Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”. The proposed site is within the County of Tulare and is adjacent to and consistent with existing developed residential sites to the north and east. Existing utility infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, and stormwater) can be provided to accommodate the project at buildout. Furthermore, the site is located within the Tier II Urban Development Boundary (UDB), which allows for immediate development of a project site upon its successful annexation. Note the City of Visalia met General Plan residential land use thresholds for expansion into the Tier 2 UDB in July 2021.
The project is also consistent with Policy LU-P-54. The policy allows for residential development consistent with the Very Low Density Residential designation at a density range between 0.1 to 2 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed development will be developed at a residential density of 1.96 units per acre, consistent with the Very Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation and R-1-20 zoning district. The policy is intended to facilitate “..single-family detached housing on large lots and a rural residential transition to surrounding agricultural areas.” The proposal meets the intent of the policy, providing a development compatible with residential areas to the north and east, with lot sizes comparable to surrounding lots, at a location that transitions smoothly with agricultural areas to the south and west.
The proposed subdivision does not meet all codified standards contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The applicant proposes lot sizes, setbacks, and lot widths that are smaller than what is required under the R-1-20 standards. To address this, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit request for a Planned Residential Development, to permit deviations from Zoning Ordinance standards. The deviations are discussed in the Planned Residential Development section of this report. As it stands, the proposal meets the intent of the Very Low Density Residential land use designation. The proposed deviations will still result in a development within the density limits of the land use designation, with lot sizes compatible with the surrounding areas.
Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 66589.5) The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards, including design review, if they were in effect at the time that the housing development application was deemed complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and that there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact1.
With approval of the attached Conditional Use Permit/Planned Residential Development, the project is considered to be consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and single-family residential development standards. The lots proposed for the Barr & Wood subdivision meet density standards for the Very Low Density Residential land use designation and will be compatible with surrounding developed residential areas. Furthermore, the subdivision will develop a private network of local streets and improve adjacent Collector and 1 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).
1025
Arterial public roadways, thereby facilitating increased street connectivity to accommodate future growth areas.
Planned Residential Development
The applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit request for a Planned Residential Development (PRD) to allow deviations from R-1-20 Zone development standards. Proposed deviations are for reduced lot sizes, reduced setbacks, reduced minimum lot widths, and creation of an HOA for the private maintenance of streets, open spaces areas, and related infrastructure.
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.26 (Planned Development), development standards may be deviated in order to maximize the benefits that may be derived from a more unique project that could not otherwise be accommodated by adherence to Visalia Municipal Code standards.
The proposed modifications can be supported on the basis that the resulting buildable lots, as conditioned, will be fully functional without undue intrusion or conflict with adjacent residences, and consistent with the development pattern and residential density of the surrounding area.
Though the minimum lot size will be reduced, at 1.96 units to the acre the development is at the higher end of the 0.1 to 2 units per acre density range of the Very Low Density Residential land use designation, maximizing the lands usage. Setback and lot width reductions maintain typical residential standards, while providing additional area as usable open space, exceeding PRD requirements. Private streets and infrastructure proposed maintain adequate circulation throughout the site, while supporting implementation of walking trail amenities.
The proponent is required to have a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) to maintain the common areas. This is included Condition No. 9 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, and Condition No. 9 of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588.
Agricultural Preservation Ordinance
In June 2023 the Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO) came into effect. The purpose and intent of the ordinance is to address the conversion of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance through the adoption of an agricultural land preservation program. In addition, the ordinance established a process for the required preservation of agricultural land through the acquisition of agricultural conservation easements or the payment of an in-lieu fee for projects subject to the provisions of this ordinance. Only sites that are considered prime farmland and/or farmland of statewide importance are subject to the ordinance’s provisions.
For the Barr & Wood Subdivision, the project site is not designated as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined per the Tulare County Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. As such, the project site is not subject to the City’s agricultural preservation ordinance.
No action is needed on the part of the applicant to limit impacts to farmland.
Airport Land Use
The proposed project is located approximately 1.77 miles southeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport). According to the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (TC CALUP), the project site is located within Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone). Per the use matrix provided in the land use plan, single family residential development is considered compatible within Safety Zone 6. This is subject to a requirement that, in areas where aircraft noise is expected to exceed 60dB CNEL, inhabited residential structures must meet California Noise Standards and be designed to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL or less.
Per the CEQA analysis, the project site will not be impacted by the airport use. Noise contours developed for 2019 show that the airport would produce less than 65 dB. Per the applicant, noise exposure at this level would not pose a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Given the above, Condition No. 10 for both Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, and Barr 1026
& Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, is recommended, requiring the applicant to comply with the TC CALUP and noise requirements therein prior to issuance of a building permit for the tentative subdivision map.
Street Improvements
The developer of the subdivision will be required to construct major street improvements along South Roeben Street, West Whitendale Avenue, and South Shirk Street. Improvements along the subdivision frontage for these major streets include improving the West Whitendale Avenue/South Roeben Street intersection and widening Roeben, Whitendale, and Shirk to their ultimate right-ofway design.
Intersection Improvements
Per Engineering Division Site Plan Review Comments, the applicant shall be required to adjust the subdivision map as necessary to rectify an alignment inconsistency at the Whitendale/Roeben intersection, which may pose issues for the southeast corner of the subdivision. Condition No. 8 of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 requires consultation with City staff and compliance with City of Visalia requirements for the design of the intersection prior to recordation of the Final Map. Note that the applicant has included a note on Exhibit “A”, stating that area from Lot 5 and the adjacent landscape lot can be utilized in the event that additional square footage is needed to accommodate intersection improvements.
Street Widening
South Roeben Street is a designated 84-foot-wide collector roadway. The project will require a 42-foot dedication and widening of the street along the eastern boundary of the project site to accommodate two additional travel lanes. West Whitendale Avenue is also a designated 84-footwide collector roadway that will similarly require a 42-foot dedication and widening of the street.
Widening will occur along the southern boundary of the project site to accommodate two additional travel lanes, with the potential for a street median if sufficient right-of-way is available. Finally, South Shirk Street is a designated 110-foot-wide arterial road way. The project will require a 55- foot dedication and widening of the street along the western boundary of the project site, to accommodate two travel lanes, with the potential for a street median if sufficient right-of-way is available. Furthermore, per Site Plan Review comments from Engineering Division staff, the project proponent will be required to conduct additional widening of South Shirk Street, north of the Barr & Wood Subdivision, to be placed along the east side of South Shirk Street up to West Walnut Avenue. The requirement to buildout the additional street improvements will complete the east side of South Shirk Street. Note that this additional improvements outside the boundary of the proposed subdivision will be fully reimbursed to the developer.
Improvements along the right of way within the boundaries of the subdivision map shall include curb, gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, a block wall, and landscaping. All improvements will be maintained by the HOA proposed for the subdivision. All new utilities that will service the residential subdivision will be placed underground, including all existing power poles along the Whitendale Avenue alignment that are within the boundaries of the project site. Per the Phasing Plan in Exhibit “D”, widening of Roeben Street shall take place during the first phase of development, with the remaining improvements to Whitendale Avenue and Shirk Road occurring in Phase II.
Local Streets
The subdivision proposes a circular set of private streets that will be maintained by the HOA. The streets will be 48 feet wide for the internal private road that will service much of the development, and a 36-foot-wide internal private road that will serve lots surrounding the central park. The streets will provide access to both Roeben Street and Shirk Street via a 50-foot-wide gated 1027
access. Due to the private nature of the development, South Jacques Street, a local street within the adjacent subdivision which terminates at the northern end of the project site, will not connect to any of the proposed private streets. It currently contains a wood barrier and chain link fencing.
Per Exhibit “E” and Site Plan Review requirements from the Engineering Division, the terminus will be improved with a wrought iron fence and cross walk.
The street connections proposed with the subdivision, while not providing additional local street connections for public use, will serve to improve circulation for the general area through the extension of Whitendale Avenue and connection with Shirk Street.
Outlots for Park, Basin, and Canal
The project delineates four outlots (Lots F, K, L, and M) for use as a central park, basin, and canal.
Details for each outlot are as follows:
• Park: A 3.7 acre “recessed park / open space” will be located at the center of the subdivision and will function as the main focal point / community area for the neighborhood.
The park will contain a number of amenities for private use by residents. Trail and street lots (Outlots D, E, G, H, I, J, and N) will lead directly to the park. • Canal: The existing Persian Ditch runs along the eastern portion of the project site. Outlots L and K (22,332 square feet and 13,913 square feet, respectively) will serve as lots to contain the canal. The lots will be approximately 48 feet wide to accommodate the placement of 12 food wide maintenance roads on either side of the canal. Areas of Outlots L and K that are adjacent to residential lots will be separated by wood fencing. • Basin: Lot K would consist of a 69,855 square foot permanent stormwater basin, located at the southwest corner of the project site, where Whitendale and Shirk intersect. The basin will be designed to capture storm runoff from the private development, and will have the ability to recharge ground water from surface runoff, minimizing runoff into local creeks and channels. Additional runoff from the Roeben, Whitendale, and Shirk right-of-ways will be addressed via the developer providing a temporary easement within the private basin to collect public road runoff. The temporary easement would be released upon completion of a City master plan basin in the area.
Infrastructure
The project will require improvements to the following infrastructure:
• Water Service: Staff has included Condition No. 7 for Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, and Condition No. 11 for Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 which 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 City of Visalia’s draft Sewer Master Plan also indicates the need for installation of a sewer trunk line within South Shirk Street. The sewer system will be sized in order to service the entire subdivision.
The developer will be required to coordinate with City staff on design and construction requirements for the sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer master plan for the entire development will be required to be submitted for review prior to approval of any portion of the system.
• Storm Drainage: Per the Phasing Plan in Exhibit “D”, Phase 1 of the subdivision will incorporate a temporary stormwater basin over Lots 23 and 24. Upon completion of the subdivision, the applicant proposes that the development be served by a 1.6-acre 1028
permanent stormwater basin for storm water drainage located at the southwest corner of the project site.
• Canal: Extension of West Whitendale Avenue westward will necessitate the installation of a culvert for the Persian Ditch, which traverses the Whitendale alignment. Site Plan Review comments from the Engineering Division require coordination with the City, Persian Ditch Company, and property owner to the south for installation of the culvert.
Infrastructure improvements are codified via Condition No. 1 of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, Condition No. 2 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, and Condition No. 1 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02.
Building Elevations/Floor Plans
Building elevations and floor plans for the development are included in Exhibits “F” and “G”. Per the submittal, the applicant will be providing single story residences, with 2,515 square feet to 3,507 square feet of livable space. Five floor plans are provided, with three to four bedrooms, each with three distinct design types to choose from. The proposed street facing façades will feature various forms of architectural ornamentation depending on the style chosen, such as batten siding, shutters, mission tile roofing, shingle siding, wood railings, glazed tile over doorways, brick/stone veneers, and metal awnings. The number of plan options provided and architectural detail incorporated support the applicants assertion that the development is unique and provides additional amenities above what is normally proposed. Consistency with the exterior elevations will be enforced through the Building Permit process.
Fencing
The applicant has provided a diagram depicting proposed fencing for the subdivision (see Exhibit “E”). Per the exhibit, block walls will be placed along Roeben Street, Whitendale Avenue, and Shirk Street, with additional block walls along the street side yard of corner lots. Wrought iron fencing will be placed at the two gated entries, at the intersection of the Persian Ditch and the main interior access road, and at the terminus of Jacques Street to the north, adjacent to the Persian Ditch. Decorative four-foot-tall vinyl split rail fencing will be placed along the front property boundaries of the interior lots facing the outer ring road. Lastly six-foot-tall wood privacy fencing will be installed on the boundaries between lots, and on boundaries adjacent to the Persian Ditch.
Subdivision Map Act
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 findings in response to this Government Code section are included in the recommended findings for the approval of the tentative subdivision and tentative parcel map.
GC Section 66474 Finding Analysis
1029
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans as specified in
Section 65451.
The proposed 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 and Tentative Parcel Maps.
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 and
Tentative Parcel Maps. 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 Very Low Density Residential and
developed at a density of 1.96 units per acre. This
is included as recommended Finding No. 3 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed
maps and their affiliated development plan, which
is designated as Very Low Density Residential. This
is included as recommended Finding No. 4 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.
(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 improvements of the
maps have not been found likely to cause
environmental damage or substantially 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. 8 of the Tentative
Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.
(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 public health problems. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 2 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.
(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 maps 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 and Tentative Parcel Maps.
Public Comment
1030
Public comment was received from a resident of the subdivision to the north, requesting improvements to the terminus of Jacques Street, where it meets with the Persian Ditch. Currently the terminus contains a wood barrier and a chain link fence. The resident requested that the applicant provide a block wall in place of the chain link fence.
Per Exhibit “E”, the applicant proposes placement of a six-foot-tall wrought iron fence at the terminus of Jacques Street. Placement of the wrought iron fencing will represent an aesthetic improvement over existing fencing and will continue to prevent access to the Persian Ditch. The Visalia Municipal Code does not include any requirements for the placement of block walls on the boundary between single family residential zones. As such, staff believes that the proposal for wrought iron fencing at this location is appropriate.
No other public comment has been received as of the publication of this report.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts to the following resources:
• Four mitigation measures pertaining to Cultural Resources and Tribal and Cultural Resources to reduce the impacts of the Project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction. Measures also address the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe’s concerns regarding Tribal history and knowledge of the area.
• Three mitigation measures pertaining to Hydrology and Water Quality to address impacts to surface and groundwater resources.
A 20-day review and comment period through the State Clearing House for the Initial Study began on June 1, 2023, and ended on June 20, 2023.
The City received one comment letter in response to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for this project. The letter was received from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and is included with the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Upon City’s review, the letter does not raise any concerns regarding the conclusions reached by environmental assessment. The letter does contain several comments and guidance to ensure that the project is meeting all applicable rules, regulations, and requirements. Based on the letter, the City concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration are still applicable and that no additional conditions of approval are necessary for the project. The letter has been shared with the developer.
No other formal comments were received as of the publication of this report. Consequently, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project is recommended for adoption.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
Annexation No. 2022-03
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 69.35-acres of AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre) County zone district to an R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, 20,000 1031
square foot minimum site area) 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18, 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 or wildlife or their habitat.
Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02
1. That the proposed location and layout of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, their improvements and design, and the conditions under which they will be maintained are consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The 69.35-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 136-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21 of the General Plan. Policy LU-P-21 allows for the “annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”.
2. That the proposed Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 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, an arterial street, and two collector streets.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map. The Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, 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 an arterial, collector, and private local street pattern that will serve the subject site and the future development of vacant parcels located to the south and west of the subject site.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision and tentative parcel maps and the project’s density, which is consistent with the underlying Very Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed location and layout of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The 69.35-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 136-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21.
5. That the proposed Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, 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 136-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards for major streets. The development of the site with a 1032
136-lot single-family residential subdivision will improve arterial and collector streets (South Roeben Street, West Whitendale Avenue, and South Shirk Road), and extend private local streets, infrastructure improvements, utilities, right-of-way improvements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found in the area.
6. The proposed location of the tentative subdivision map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The proposed location of the subdivision is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. Multiple General Plan policies identify the implementation of development standards to ensure that new single-family residential development will contribute to positive land use compatibility. The size of the property combined with the number of residential lots proposed is consistent and compatible with existing surrounding residential development.
The proposed project will result in the creation of a new single-family residential development at a density of 1.96 units per acre, which is consistent with General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential and the R-1-20 zoning designation that will be applied to the site when annexed into the city limits.
7. The Housing Accountability Act (GC section 66589.5) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact. There is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and development standards.
8. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
1. That the proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. That the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the project is consistent with the required findings of Zoning Ordinance Section 17.38.110:
a. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The proposed modifications to the R-1-20 zone standards result in buildable lots, as conditioned, that will be fully functional without undue intrusion or conflict with adjacent residences, and which are consistent with the development pattern and residential density of the surrounding area. The 1.96 units per acre density range of the development is in keeping with the Very Low-Density Residential land use designation and assists in maximizing the lands usage.
Setback and lot width reductions maintain typical residential standards, while providing additional area as usable open space, exceeding the requirements of Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.26 (Planned Development). Furthermore, private streets and 1033
infrastructure to be installed shall maintain adequate circulation throughout the site, while supporting implementation of walking trail amenities.
b. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed tentative subdivision map will be compatible with adjacent residential land uses and will improve circulation in the area via improvements to adjacent arterial and collector streets. Potential impacts from the proximity of the Visalia Airport have been addressed via conditions of approval.
c. That the proposed project is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance The project specifically supports General Plan Land Use policies related to efficient land use absorption (Policy LU-P-21, LU-P-54).
3. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18, 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 or wildlife or their habitat.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Annexation No. 2022-03
1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned R-1-20 (Single Family Residential, 20,000 square foot minimum site area), 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 PreAnnexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” of Resolution No. 2022-18. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.
Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588
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. 2020- 193 incorporated herein by reference.
2. That the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”.
3. That the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall contain lots averaging 15,139 square feet in size, ranging from 11,592 square feet to 25,592 square feet in size.
4. That setbacks for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No 5588 shall be as follows:
SETBACK STANDARDS
Front Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard Rear Yard Street Side Yard (Garage) EXISTING R-1-20 SETBACKS 35 10 20 25 22
PROPOSED SETBACKS 30 5 10 25 22
5. That the minimum lot width for lots for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall be 85 feet, as measured from a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.
6. That approval of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2022-03, placing the project site within the corporate limits of 1034
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. 2022-03.
7. That prior to the issuance of any residential building permit on the site, the applicant / developer shall obtain and provide the City with a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company.
8. That the applicant shall consult with City of Visalia staff and comply with any requirements for adequate design and improvement of the West Whitendale Avenue and South Roeben Street intersection prior to recordation of the subdivision map.
9. Prior to recordation of the final map for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, the proponent shall form a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) for the administration and maintenance of all private streets, parks, common areas, and related private infrastructure, identified in Exhibit “A” as Lots A through N.
10.That the applicant shall comply with the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan and noise requirements therein prior to issuance of a building permit for the tentative subdivision map.
11.That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 are hereby incorporated as conditions of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588.
12.That the project be developed in substantial compliance with all improvements depicted and described in Exhibits “A” through “J”.
13.That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06
1. That the planned residential development be prepared in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”, which incorporates a total of 136 single-family residential units and related public and private infrastructure.
2. That the planned residential development be developed in substantial compliance with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review Committee as set forth under Site Plan Review No. 2020-193 incorporated herein by reference.
3. That the project be developed in substantial compliance with all improvements depicted and described in Exhibits “A” through “J”.
4. That Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall be approved, and that requirements of the use permit which relate to this map shall be fulfilled.
5. That the timeline for the lapse of this Conditional Use Permit shall be tied to the timeline for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588.
6. That the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall contain lots averaging 15,139 square feet in size, ranging from 11,592 square feet to 25,592 square feet in size.
7. That setbacks for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No 5588 shall be as follows:
SETBACK STANDARDS
Front Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard Rear Yard Street Side Yard (Garage) EXISTING R-1-20 SETBACKS 35 10 20 25 22
1035
PROPOSED SETBACKS 30 5 10 25 22
8. That the minimum lot width for lots for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall be 85 feet, as measured from a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.
9. Prior to recordation of the final map for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, the proponent shall form a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) for the administration and maintenance of all private streets, parks, common areas, and related private infrastructure, identified in Exhibit “A” as Lots A through N.
10.That the applicant shall comply with the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan and noise requirements therein prior to issuance of a building permit for the tentative subdivision map.
11.That prior to the issuance of any residential building permit on the site, the applicant / developer shall obtain and provide the City with a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company.
12.That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 are hereby incorporated as conditions of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588.
13.That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02
1. That the tentative parcel 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. 2020-193 incorporated herein by reference.
2. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 be prepared in substantial compliance with Exhibit “C”.
3. That approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2022-03, 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. 2022-03.
4. That all other federal, state and city codes, ordinances and laws be met. 1036
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.
Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02
According to the City of Visalia Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.28.080, 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 North Santa Fe St., Visalia, CA. 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. 1037
Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2022-18 – Annexation No. 2022-03
- Attachment “A” – Annexation Area
- Attachment “B” – Annexation Agreement
• Resolution No. 2022-17 – Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 • Resolution No. 2022-15 – Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 • Resolution No. 2022-16 – Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 • Exhibit "A" – Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 • Exhibit “B” – Annexation Area
• Exhibit “C” – Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02
• Exhibit “D” – Phasing Plan
• Exhibit “E” – Details/Fencing Plan
• Exhibit “F” – Building Elevations
• Exhibit “G” – Floor Plans
• Exhibit “H” – Project Narrative
• Exhibit “I” – Landscape Plan
• Exhibit “J” – Street Lighting Plan
• Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Comment Letter, June 21, 2023 • Site Plan Review Item No. 2020-193
• General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map
1038
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-21:Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) and the Urban Growth Boundary (Tier III) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, according to the following phasing thresholds: • “Tier II”: Tier II supports a target buildout population of approximately 178,000. The expansion criteria for land in Tier II is that land would only become available for development when building permits have been issued in Tier I at the following levels, starting from April 1, 2010:
Residential: after permits for 5,850 housing units have been issued.
LU-P-54:Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Very Low Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram and create opportunities for residential dwellings at 0.1 to 2 units per gross acre, providing for single-family detached housing on large lots and a rural residential transition to surrounding agricultural areas.
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;
1039
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;
1040
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.
1041
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 frontloading 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:
1042
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.
1043
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)
1044
Resolution No. 2022-18
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-18
A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
VISALIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION NO. 2022-03
AND DETACHMENT OF PROPERTY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA
NO. 1, PERTAINING TO ONE PARCEL TOTALING 69.35-ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS OF VISALIA. UPON ANNEXATION, THE SITE SHALL BE ZONED R-1-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20,000 SQUARE
FOOT MINIMUM), WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE
PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SOUTH ROEBEN STREET AND WEST WHITENDALE AVENUE (APN:
119-022-041).
WHEREAS, the project proponents approve to initiate proceedings for annexation to said city of territory described on the attached legal description and annexation map 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 June 26, 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) The annexation will 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) The annexation will 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 is uninhabited; 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 June 26, 2023, and found it to be consistent with the General Plan; and 1045
Resolution No. 2022-18
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts; 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 proposed Annexation, which will re-designate 69.35-acres of AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre) County zone district to an R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, 20,000 square foot minimum site area) 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18, 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 or wildlife or their habitat.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 prepared for Annexation No. 2022-03, Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 R-1-20 (Single Family Residential, 20,000 square foot minimum site area), 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. 2022-18. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.
1046
S00° 25' 59"E
674.95'± N89° 53' 53"E 661.09'± S89° 52' 06"W 2664.72'± N89° 53' 59"E 2003.01'± APN 119-680-021 Annexation 2005-16 N00° 24' 35"W 1322.05'±
S00° 26' 27"E 645.66'± APN 119-680-022 APN 119-680-023 APN 119-680-024 APN 119-680-025 APN 119-680-026 APN 119-680-028 APN 119-680-027 APN 119-680-029 APN 119-680-001APN 119-680-002 APN 119-680-003 APN 119-680-004 APN 119-680-005 ROEBEN RANCH (RM 39-99) APN 119-022-041 REMAINDER ROEBEN RANCH (RM 39-99) APN 119-620-029 APN 119-620-030 APN 119-620-028 APN 119-620-032 APN 119-620-020 APN 119-620-031APN 119-620-022 APN 119-620-023 APN 119-620-021 APN 119-620-025 APN 119-670-046 APN 119-620-024 APN 119-670-044 APN 119-670-042 APN 119-670-045Annexation 94-06 APN 119-670-043 OAK MEADOW 4 (RM 40-7) OAK MEADOW 5 VALLEY OAK (RM 41-10) (RM 42-83) APN 119-230-002 WEST 1/4 COR. SEC. 3-19/24 CENTER SEC. 3-19/24 20.00' 20.00' Annexation 88-03
6 2
4 3
1 5
APN 119-021-033
S. ROEBEN RD.
S. SHIRK RD. VICINITY MAP LEGEND EXISTING CITY LIMITS PROPOSED CITY LIMITS COURSE NUMBER NORTH 300' 0' 300' ANNEXATION NO. 2022-___ SITE DATA APN: 119-021-033, 119-022-041 AREA: 70.6 AC. ± A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 4-19/24, MDB&M AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 3-19/24, MDB&M # HWY. 198 GOSHEN AVE. CALDWELL AVE. WALNUT AVE.
AKERS RD.
DEMAREE ST.
SHIRK RD. SUBJECT AREA
1047
1 of 9
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
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ (hereinafter “Owners”):
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owners are the record owners of a portion of property, currently located in the unincorporated area of the County 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, Owners desires to have the Property annexed to the City and to have the Property zoned as R-1-20 (Single Family Residential, 20,000 square foot minimum site area), which would permit the Property to be used for Ver Low Density Residential use; and
WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 69.35 acres, and no electors reside thereon; and
WHEREAS, proper applications have been filed with the City for approval of the annexation, tentative subdivision map, tentative parcel map, and conditional uses as may be required for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has, by a resolution requesting initiation of proceedings to annex territory (“Resolution”) adopted on __________________, initiated proceedings to annex the Property; and
WHEREAS, finding adoption of Resolution No. ___________________ 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, Owners 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.
1048
2 of 9
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 increase by town of 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 Owners.
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 conditions 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. Owners 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 Agreement shall constitute a waiver 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 purpose of this Agreement is to spell out additional conditions to which Owners will be subject following annexation and prior to development within the City due to the burden placed on City by Owners 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 increasing development is contributing to this serious 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 water replenishment activities with the Kaweah Delta Water 1049
3 of 9
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, including development of the Property (the “Water Acquisition Policy”). Therefore, Owners 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 thereto), Owners will comply with the Water Acquisition 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 with potable water in amount sufficient to meet Owners 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 Owners comply with the Water Acquisition Policy in a manner consistent with this subsection II(A). Owners agree that it shall identify all water rights which, to the best of Owners knowledge, have been used by Owners or its agents 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 convey such rights, if any, to City. City shall cooperate with Owners 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. Owners further agrees that City shall have first right of refusal in acquiring upon mutually acceptable terms any water rights that Owners own that may be in addition to those required to meet Owners obligations under the Water Acquisition Policy. City agrees that water rights need not be conveyed and in lieu fees shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of a building permit covering the Property and, in the event Owners apply to City for its approval of multiple building permits covering the Property, City agrees such water rights conveyance or fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each building permit, with conveyance of water rights or payment to be made on a per building permit basis upon City’s issuance of each building permit 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.
Owners agree that, at the time LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owners will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee in an amount equal to 1050
4 of 9
$427 per acre and no post-annexation permit or 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 building permits covering the Property and, in the event Owners apply to City for its approval of multiple building permits covering the Property, City agrees such fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each building permit, with payment to be made on a per building permit basis upon City’s issuance of each building permit covering the Property. Owners satisfaction of its obligations under this Section II(B) will satisfy any and all of Owners obligations related 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 Property, to be submitted to LAFCO along with City’s annexation 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 each 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 annexation proceedings 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 provision included herewith shall survive 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 obligation of this Agreement by either party, the other party 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, resolutions, rules or policies frozen by this Agreement.
V. INDEMNIFICATION
Owners agree to indemnify and hold harmless City and the City’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability, claims, 1051
5 of 9
causes of actions, and demands, including 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 annexation of Owners property, or which are in any manner connected with the City’s enforcement of this Agreement. Owners further agree 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, which arise out of or are in any 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 binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, transferees, successors and assigns of the parties 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 this Agreement without 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 Owners, as the case may be, three (3) business days after deposit in the United States Mail, postage fully prepaid, addressed to the respective parties as follows:
To the City: City Manager
City of Visalia
220 N. Santa Fe Street
Visalia, CA 93291
With Copy to: Kenneth J. Richardson
City Attorney
Peltzer & Richardson
3746 West Mineral King
Visalia, CA 93291
To Owners: _________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
1052
6 of 9
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
e. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the City and Owners 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 modified without 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 Intended. Except as provided 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 fully incorporated by reference and are integral parts of this 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 other 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 material benefit of the Agreement to either party is lost, the 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 this Agreement by any party shall not constitute a continuing 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 and any questions arising hereunder shall be 1053
7 of 9
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 commences 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, court costs and arbitration costs incurred 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 Owners and that Owners are not an agent of City. City and Owners hereby renounce 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 City and Owners joint venturers 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 challenges regarding the annexation, riots, floods, earthquakes, 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 the ability of either party to perform its obligations 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 time.
p. Further Assurances. The parties 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 transactions set forth herein.
q. Recordation of Agreement; 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 counterparts are combined, shall constitute a single agreement.
r. Future Development Impact Fees. The Owners hereby acknowledge that the City may, from time to time, adopt additional development impact fees at some time in the future after annexation of the Property. The Owners hereby agree that, in the event that the City adopts an ordinance imposing a development impact fee, in accordance with applicable legal requirements, prior to issuance of a vesting project approval for development of any portion of the Property, Owners will be subject to the 1054
8 of 9
requirements of such citywide development impact fee program to the extent applicable at the time Owners seek a vesting project approval for a project on the Property. This provision is not intended to retroactively subject the Property to additional annexation-related fees that may be adopted in the future.
s. Prezoning. City agrees to promptly process and, after City completes and adopts its environmental review, consider Owners application to prezone the Property, as required by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act’s prezoning requirements. The Single Family Residential, 20,000 square foot minimum lot size (R-1-20) zoning designation is the adopted prezoning for the Property, in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapter
17.12 and Section 17.06.050(A), which section states that all territory which is annexed into the City shall be classified to the zone as indicated on the Visalia General Plan land use map, as adopted by the City (the “Prezoning”). The Single Family Residential, 20,000 square foot minimum lot size zoning designation permits residential land uses, as specified by the City of Visalia Municipal Code. Upon execution of this Agreement, City shall use its best efforts to (i) promptly complete its environmental review of the Project and consider its adoption thereof, and (ii) complete its preparation of the proposed prezoning contemplated by this subsection II(E) and consider its approval thereof. If City approves the prezoning contemplated by this subsection II(E), the terms and conditions of such prezoning shall be included in City’s application to LAFCO for the annexation of the Property to City, which application shall promptly be submitted to LAFCO by City.
t. Development Impact Fees: The Owners shall pay all applicable development impact fees for any subsequent development on the Property at the time that building permits are issued, or prior to issuance of final occupancy, if applicable, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, or as may be required by ordinance. A list and amount of development impact fees can be located in the City’s current version of the Development Fee Schedule.
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
1055
9 of 9
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
OWNERS
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ ______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ ______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ ______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ ______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
F:\Client Files\Visalia, City of, 700\701-00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\701-01 Planning\Memos & Correspondence\Model Annexation Agreement 10-1-04.doc 1056
Resolution No. 2022-17
RESOLUTION NO 2022-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
VISALIA APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5588, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 69.35 ACRES INTO A 136-LOT SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. THE 69.35 ACRES ARE PROPOSED TO BE ZONED R-1-20 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE) UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF VISALIA. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH ROEBEN STREET AND WEST
WHITENDALE AVENUE (APN: 119-022-041).
WHEREAS, Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 is a request to subdivide 69.35 acres into a 136-lot single-family residential subdivision. The project is pre-zoned R-1-20 (Single Family Residential, 20,000 square foot minimum site area) and is located at the northwest corner of South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue (APN: 119-022-041); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on June 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 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 environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 was prepared for Annexation No. 2022-03, Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 06 consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia makes the following specific findings based on the evidence presented:
1. That the proposed location and layout of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, their improvements and design, and the conditions under which they will be maintained are consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The 69.35- acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 136-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21 of the General Plan. Policy LU-P-21 allows for the “annexation and development of residential, commercial, 1057
Resolution No. 2022-17
regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”.
2. That the proposed Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 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, an arterial street, and two collector streets.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map. The Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, 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 an arterial, collector, and private local street pattern that will serve the subject site and the future development of vacant parcels located to the south and west of the subject site.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision and tentative parcel maps and the project’s density, which is consistent with the underlying Very Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed location and layout of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance.
The 69.35-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 136-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21.
5. That the proposed Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, 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 136-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards for major streets. The development of the site with a 136-lot single-family residential subdivision will improve arterial and collector streets (South Roeben Street, West Whitendale Avenue, and South Shirk Road), and extend private local streets, infrastructure improvements, utilities, right-of-way improvements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found in the area.
6. The proposed location of the tentative subdivision map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
The proposed location of the subdivision is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. Multiple General Plan policies identify the implementation of development standards to ensure that new single-family residential development will contribute to positive land use compatibility. The size of the property combined with the number of residential lots proposed is consistent and compatible with existing surrounding residential development.
1058
Resolution No. 2022-17
The proposed project will result in the creation of a new single-family residential development at a density of 1.96 units per acre, which is consistent with General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential and the R-1-20 zoning designation that will be applied to the site when annexed into the city limits.
7. The Housing Accountability Act (GC section 66589.5) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact. There is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and development standards.
8. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
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 Section 16.16.110 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, 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. 2020-193 incorporated herein by reference.
2. That the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”.
3. That the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall contain lots averaging 15,139 square feet in size, ranging from 11,592 square feet to 25,592 square feet in size.
4. That setbacks for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No 5588 shall be as follows:
SETBACK STANDARDS
Front
Yard
Side Yard Street
Side
Yard
Rear
Yard
Street Side
Yard (Garage)
EXISTING R-1-20 SETBACKS 35 10 20 25 22
PROPOSED SETBACKS 30 5 10 25 22
1059
Resolution No. 2022-17
5. That the minimum lot width for lots for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall be 85 feet, as measured from a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.
6. That approval of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2022-03, 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. 2022-03.
7. That prior to the issuance of any residential building permit on the site, the applicant / developer shall obtain and provide the City with a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company.
8. That the applicant shall consult with City of Visalia staff and comply with any requirements for adequate design and improvement of the West Whitendale Avenue and South Roeben Street intersection prior to recordation of the subdivision map.
9. Prior to recordation of the final map for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, the proponent shall form a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) for the administration and maintenance of all private streets, parks, common areas, and related private infrastructure, identified in Exhibit “A” as Lots A through N.
10.That the applicant shall comply with the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan and noise requirements therein prior to issuance of a building permit for the tentative subdivision map.
11.That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 are hereby incorporated as conditions of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588.
12.That the project be developed in substantial compliance with all improvements depicted and described in Exhibits “A” through “J”.
13.That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met. 1060
Resolution No. 2022-15
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2022-06: A REQUEST BY WOODSIDE HOMES TO ALLOW A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON A 69.35- ACRE PARCEL CONSISTING OF 136 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS,
PRIVATE STREETS, TWO GATED ENTRIES, LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LOTS, AND A POCKET PARK, TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1-20 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MINIMUM 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE) ZONE. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH ROEBEN STREET AND WEST WHITENDALE AVENUE (APN: 119-022-041).
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 is a request by Woodside Homes to allow a planned unit development on a 69.35-acre parcel consisting of 136 single-family residential lots, private streets, two gated entries, landscaping and lighting district lots, and a pocket park, to be located within the R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone. The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue (APN: 119- 022-041); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice did hold a public hearing before said Commission on June 26, 2023; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, as conditioned, to be in accordance with Chapter 17.26.10 of the Zoning 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 environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 was prepared for Annexation No. 2022-03, Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia makes the following specific findings based on the evidence presented:
1. That the proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. That the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the project is consistent with the required findings of Zoning Ordinance Section 17.38.110:
a. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the 1061
Resolution No. 2022-15
site is located. The proposed modifications to the R-1-20 zone standards result in buildable lots, as conditioned, that will be fully functional without undue intrusion or conflict with adjacent residences, and which are consistent with the development pattern and residential density of the surrounding area. The 1.96 units per acre density range of the development is in keeping with the Very Low-Density Residential land use designation and assists in maximizing the lands usage. Setback and lot width reductions maintain typical residential standards, while providing additional area as usable open space, exceeding the requirements of Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.26 (Planned Development).
Furthermore, private streets and infrastructure to be installed shall maintain adequate circulation throughout the site, while supporting implementation of walking trail amenities.
b. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed tentative subdivision map will be compatible with adjacent residential land uses and will improve circulation in the area via improvements to adjacent arterial and collector streets. Potential impacts from the proximity of the Visalia Airport have been addressed via conditions of approval.
c. That the proposed project is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance The project specifically supports General Plan Land Use policies related to efficient land use absorption (Policy LU-P-21, LU-P-54).
3. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 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 or wildlife or their habitat.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit on the real property here described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provisions of Section 17.26.10 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the planned residential development be prepared in substantial compliance with Exhibit “A”, which incorporates a total of 136 single-family residential units and related public and private infrastructure.
2. That the planned residential development be developed in substantial compliance with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review Committee as set forth under Site Plan Review No. 2020-193 incorporated herein by reference.
3. That the project be developed in substantial compliance with all improvements depicted and described in Exhibits “A” through “J”.
4. That Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall be approved, and that requirements of the use permit which relate to this map shall be fulfilled. 1062
Resolution No. 2022-15
5. That the timeline for the lapse of this Conditional Use Permit shall be tied to the timeline for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588.
6. That the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall contain lots averaging 15,139 square feet in size, ranging from 11,592 square feet to 25,592 square feet in size.
7. That setbacks for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No 5588 shall be as follows:
SETBACK STANDARDS
Front
Yard
Side Yard Street
Side
Yard
Rear
Yard
Street Side
Yard
(Garage)
EXISTING R-1-20
SETBACKS
35 10 20 25 22
PROPOSED SETBACKS 30 5 10 25 22
8. That the minimum lot width for lots for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 shall be 85 feet, as measured from a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.
9. Prior to recordation of the final map for the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, the proponent shall form a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) for the administration and maintenance of all private streets, parks, common areas, and related private infrastructure, identified in Exhibit “A” as Lots A through N.
10.That the applicant shall comply with the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan and noise requirements therein prior to issuance of a building permit for the tentative subdivision map.
11.That prior to the issuance of any residential building permit on the site, the applicant / developer shall obtain and provide the City with a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company.
12.That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 are hereby incorporated as conditions of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588.
13.That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met. 1063
Resolution No. 2022-16
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
VISALIA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-02, A
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 69.35 ACRE SITE INTO THREE PARCELS FOR PHASING AND FINANCIING PURPOSES IN THE R-1-20 (SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA) ZONE DISTRICT. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH ROEBEN STREET AND WEST
WHITENDALE AVENUE (APN: 119-022-041).
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, is a request to subdivide a 69.35- acre site into three parcels for phasing and financing purposes in the R-1-20 (SingleFamily Residential, 20,000 square foot minimum site area) zone district. The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue (APN: 119-022-041); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice scheduled a public hearing before said commission on June 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, as conditioned, in accordance with Section 16.28.070 of the Visalia Municipal Code 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 environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 was prepared for Annexation No. 2022-03, Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2022- 06 consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia makes the following specific findings based on the evidence presented:
1. That the proposed location and layout of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, their improvements and design, and the conditions under which they will be maintained are consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The 69.35- acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 136-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21 of the General Plan. Policy LU-P-21 allows for the “annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”. 1064
Resolution No. 2022-16
2. That the proposed Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 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, an arterial street, and two collector streets.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map. The Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, 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 an arterial, collector, and private local street pattern that will serve the subject site and the future development of vacant parcels located to the south and west of the subject site.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision and tentative parcel maps and the project’s density, which is consistent with the underlying Very Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed location and layout of the Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance.
The 69.35-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 136-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21.
5. That the proposed Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, 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 136-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards for major streets. The development of the site with a 136-lot single-family residential subdivision will improve arterial and collector streets (South Roeben Street, West Whitendale Avenue, and South Shirk Road), and extend private local streets, infrastructure improvements, utilities, right-of-way improvements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found in the area.
6. The proposed location of the tentative subdivision map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
The proposed location of the subdivision is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. Multiple General Plan policies identify the implementation of development standards to ensure that new single-family residential development will contribute to positive land use compatibility. The size of the property combined with the number of residential lots proposed is consistent and compatible with existing surrounding residential development.
The proposed project will result in the creation of a new single-family residential development at a density of 1.96 units per acre, which is consistent with General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential and the R-1-20 zoning 1065
Resolution No. 2022-16
designation that will be applied to the site when annexed into the city limits.
7. The Housing Accountability Act (GC section 66589.5) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact. There is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and development standards.
8. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approved the parcel map on the real property herein above described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provision of Section 16.28.070 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the tentative parcel 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. 2020-193 incorporated herein by reference.
2. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 be prepared in substantial compliance with Exhibit “C”.
3. That approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2022-03, 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 PreAnnexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2022-03.
4. That all other federal, state and city codes, ordinances and laws be met. 1066
W. WHITENDALE AVE.
S. SHIRK RD. / ROAD 92
S. ROEBEN ST. 42' LOT F RECESSED PARK / OPEN SPACE 3.7 ACRES 43'55' 10' PROPOSED GATED ENTRY PROPOSED GATED ENTRY 36' 50' 84' PHASE 1 TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ACCESS (20') 42' 31' 10' 20' MEDIAN ISLAND R35' R30' R30' R30' R30' 50' ALIGNMENT TO UTILIZE LANDSCAPE LOT ON NORTHEAST CORNER OF S ROEBEN & WHITENDALE. IMPACTS TO LOT 5 SQUARE FOOTAGES MAY OCCUR WITH FINAL DESIGN OF INTERSECTION. PRECISE ALIGNMENT TO BE DETERMINED DURING CIVIL DESIGN PERMANENT STORMWATER BASIN DEPTH: 12' SLOPE: 3:1 15867 S.F. 66 7331 S.F. LOT A 12321 S.F. 28 19248 S.F. LOT E 12325 S.F. 27 12325 S.F. 26 12325 S.F. 71 12325 S.F. 72 14940 S.F. 73 17900 S.F. 74 14523 S.F. 30 13504 S.F. 31 13895 S.F. 29 13925 S.F. 67 13775 S.F. 68 13775 S.F. 69 13078 S.F. 70 15583 S.F. 6414974 S.F. 63 14967 S.F. 62 16418 S.F. 59 14983 S.F. 61 15334 S.F. 60 14500 S.F. 58 14500 S.F. 25 12325 S.F. 131 12325 S.F. 130 12325 S.F. 129 12309 S.F. 128 12325 S.F. 127 12325 S.F. 126 13614 S.F. 125 14594 S.F. 124 14689 S.F. 123 14775 S.F. 122 14836 S.F. 12114751 S.F. 34 14618 S.F. 33 14211 S.F. 32 16570 S.F. 75 16274 S.F. 76 14463 S.F. 77 15570 S.F. 78 14472 S.F. 79 13775 S.F. 80 14505 S.F. 81 12205 S.F. LOT D 12325 S.F. 82 12325 S.F. 83 12325 S.F. 84 14699 S.F. 85 16435 S.F. 86 18518 S.F. 8716229 S.F. 65 13989 S.F. 132 16517 S.F. 88 13408 S.F. 135 13408 S.F. 136 13408 S.F. 134 13408 S.F. 133 5908 S.F. LOT H 3372 S.F. LOT I 13999 S.F. 9 16176 S.F. 814603 S.F. 7 15193 S.F. 6 13647 S.F. 5 13207 S.F. 4 13844 S.F. 3 15078 S.F. 2 16580 S.F. 1 13913 S.F. LOT M 17032 S.F. 14 23366 S.F. 13 16891 S.F. 1213891 S.F. 11 15060 S.F. 10 13556 S.F. 46 16419 S.F. 4716788 S.F. 48 13689 S.F. 49 13194 S.F. 50 16588 S.F. 51 18309 S.F. 53 13313 S.F. 54 13235 S.F. 55 13235 S.F. 56 13235 S.F. 57 13235 S.F. 24 13475 S.F. 15 943 S.F. LOT C 22514 S.F. 43 22181 S.F. 452200 S.F. LOT J 15893 S.F. 44 13200 S.F. 89 15993 S.F. 90 19378 S.F. 100 14049 S.F. 101 13494 S.F. 102 13483 S.F. 103 13479 S.F. 104 13475 S.F. 105 13471 S.F. 106 13467 S.F. 107 13463 S.F. 108 13660 S.F. 109 16032 S.F. 110 16909 S.F. 111 13395 S.F. 112 12494 S.F. 113 17643 S.F. 114 15901 S.F. 115 21261 S.F. 116 18020 S.F. 11722488 S.F. 15397 S.F. 118 119 19952 S.F. 12019311 S.F. 35 18252 S.F. 36 17680 S.F. 37 12222 S.F. 38 16330 S.F. 39 18228 S.F. 40 18617 S.F. 41 17351 S.F. 42 22332 S.F. LOT L 68' 145' 77' 77' 145' 63' 22' 145' 63' 22'144' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 20' 64'
145' 63' 22' 37' 144' 72' 34' 79' 65' 149' 79' 145' 119' 145' 65' 111' 13' 136' 45' 29' 145' 4' 84' 32' 145' 95' 145' 80' 15'145' 95'
145' 85' 10'145' 90'
145' 90'
145' 136' 13' 126' 145' 77' 81' 145' 124' 145' 77' 145' 124' 145' 84' 146' 124' 145' 32' 80'
145' 109'
145' 4' 77' 145' 124' 146' 15' 85'
145' 100'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 15' 70'
145' 85'
145' 25' 60'
145' 78' 31' 145' 30' 13' 36' 145' 120' 145' 79' 145' 120' 30' 50' 145' 81' 4' 141' 121' 141' 4' 81' 145' 121' 145' 76' 5' 145' 120' 145' 81' 145' 118' 74' 120' 145' 5'144' 56' 28' 127' 74' 81' 81' 145' 71' 144' 76' 81' 50' 142' 72' 145' 30' 79' 36' 144' 72' 142' 60' 30' 13'
145' 91' 6'144' 70' 25'
145' 95'
145' 85' 15'
145' 100'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 25' 56' 47' 143' 50' 26' 145' 26' 73' 55' 143' 76' 143' 143' 18' 73' 87' 128' 27' 66' 148' 77' 81' 145' 66' 25' 85' 145' 56' 25' 145' 145' 137' 5' 140' 87' 145' 110' 145' 73' 145' 110' 145' 18' 55' 110' 145' 73' 145' 57' 160' 62'41' 185'
74'
24' 72' 20' 190'
81' 31' 41' 157'
86' 205'
25' 144' 90'
25' 26'
36'175'
18' 41' 30' 177'
46' 26' 196' 67'
53' 38' 81' 117' 4' 50'
8' 180' 29' 68' 181' 42' 53' 88' 282'
23' 73' 181' 160' 119'
23' 217' 170'
12' 32' 36' 5'
82' 172'
76'
106'
76' 126' 28' 162'
93' 18' 183' 183' 134' 150' 80' 80' 150' 109' 144' 80' 144' 97' 80' 156' 118' 189' 80' 186' 138' 160' 62' 24'
160' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 134'
3' 85' 180' 105'
235' 112'
194' 206'
159' 32' 51'
78' 90'
194' 96'
159' 160'
77' 28' 81' 160' 51'
74' 160' 70' 131' 20' 188' 70'
164' 90'
164' 91'
151' 90'
151' 27' 63'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 6' 84'
157' 121'
157' 73' 182' 75' 50' 65' 101' 169' 77' 94' 141' 70' 31' 29' 148' 75' 94' 12' 48' 157' 175' 50' 161' 103' 51' 161'
116' 161' 43' 184'
196' 184' 15' 48' 131' 179' 16' 172' 26' 84'
29' 79' 144' 144' 75' 217' 179' 16' 217' 93'
78' 206'
90'
90' 23' 202' 91' 122' 85'
62' 122' 96'
90' 153' 43' 32' 175'
120' 85'
90' 120' 85'
216' 85'
5' 216' 85'
214' 85'
214' 88'
192' 19789 S.F. 52 80' 189' 57' 72' 186' 80' R35' 12817 S.F. 91 11806 S.F. 92 15208 S.F. 9312041 S.F. 94 16106 S.F. 95 11592 S.F. 96 17391 S.F. 97 13823 S.F. 98 17692 S.F. 99 104' 160' 75' 134' 70' 81' 27' 99' 134' 63' 29' 14' 44' 130'
150' 51' 104' 99' 10' 121'
22' 141' 130' 59' 93'
109' 121' 44' 142' 128' 46' 146' 158' 146' 47' 11' 96' 143' 20' 164' 96' 30' 79' 30' 87' 144' 143' 80' 188' 13235 S.F. 23 13235 S.F. 22 13236 S.F. 21 16711 S.F. 20 20393 S.F. 19 25592 S.F. 18 85' 0' 156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 10' 75'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 124' 170' 85' 170' 141'213' 75' 88' 207' 19440 S.F. 17 13776 S.F. 16 97' 207' 53' 68' 162' 42' 49' 80' 144' 76' 162' 29' 4' 90' 36823 S.F. LOT B 69855 S.F. LOT K
76' 162' 85' 80' 186'
156'
156'
156'
156'
156'
156'
156' 170' 213' 181' 217'
98' 48'
25' 89' 26' 66' 44' 86' 97' 50' 14' 144' 97' 156' 189' 4236 S.F. LOT G 29' 85' 10' EXISTING DITCH EASEMENT EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED EXISTING UTILITY POLE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED 66' 66' 42' 42' 62' 47' GATE IN BLOCK WALL TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO STORMWATER BASIN AUGUSTA CIRCLE
JACQUES CIRCLE
EL CAJON COURT BARR CIRCLE EVERGREEN AVENUE
BOISE CIRCLE CURIE CIRCLE CHERRY AVENUE 345182 S.F. LOT N Plan 2 Plan 1 Plan 5 Plan 3 Plan 4 20' MEDIAN ISLAND 13200 S.F. 13' 5' 126' 28' 28' 20' MEDIAN ISLAND 50' 3372 S.F. LOT I 2200 S.F. LOT J 38' 81' 159' 32' 51'
78'
159' EVERGREEN AVENUE Plan 2 ENGINEER/PLANNER: 4-CREEKS INC. APN: 119-022-041 ACREAGE: 69.35 ± PROPOSED LOTS: 136 FLOOD ZONE: X EXISTING ZONING: R-1-20 PREZONE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON WATER: CAL WATER TELEPHONE: AT&T REFUSE DISPOSAL: CITY OF VISALIA NATURAL GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS EXISTING USE: AE-20 PROPOSED USE: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: LOTS: 136 GROSS ACREAGE: 69.35 GROSS DENSITY: 1.96 DU/AC NET ACREAGE: 48.72 NET DENSITY: 2.79 DU/AC PROPOSED SETBACKS (MINIMUM): FRONT YARD: 30' SIDE YARD: 5' CORNER LOTS: 10' (22' GARAGE STREET SIDE) REAR YARD: 25' SHORT SIDE OR 20' LONG SIDE OUTLOTS LOT A: LANDSCAPE DEDICATION, 7331 SQFT LOT B: LANDSCAPE DEDICATION, 36,823 SQFT LOT C: LANDSCAPE DEDICATION, 943 SQFT LOT D: PATHWAY TO PARK, 12,205 SQFT LOT E: PATHWAY TO PARK, 19,248 SQFT LOT F: RECESSED PARK / OPEN SPACE, 3.7 ACRES LOT G: LANDSCAPE DEDICATION, 4,236 SQFT LOT H: LANDSCAPE DEDICATION, 5,908 SQFT LOT I: LANDSCAPE DEDICATION, 3,372 SQFT LOT J: LANDSCAPE DEDICATION, 2,200 SQFT LOT K: STORMWATER BASIN, 1.6 ACRES LOT L: CANAL, 22,332 SQFT LOT M: CANAL, 13,913 SQFT LOT N: PRIVATE STREETS, 79.2 ACRESMAY 2023 BARR-WOOD SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREPARED BY: FAX: 559.802.3215 TEL: 559.802.3052 VISALIA, CA 93292 324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A NORTH P.O. BOX 7593 100' 0' 100' VICINITY MAP
S SHIRK RD./ RD 92 PROJECT SITE BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 24 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF VISALIA, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA WEST GATE ENTRY EAST GATE ENTRY SCALE 1" = 40' SCALE 1" = 40' W WHITENDALE 1067
S00° 25' 59"E
674.95'± N89° 53' 53"E 661.09'± S89° 52' 06"W 2664.72'± N89° 53' 59"E 2003.01'± APN 119-680-021 Annexation 2005-16 N00° 24' 35"W 1322.05'±
S00° 26' 27"E 645.66'± APN 119-680-022 APN 119-680-023 APN 119-680-024 APN 119-680-025 APN 119-680-026 APN 119-680-028 APN 119-680-027 APN 119-680-029 APN 119-680-001APN 119-680-002 APN 119-680-003 APN 119-680-004 APN 119-680-005 ROEBEN RANCH (RM 39-99) APN 119-022-041 REMAINDER ROEBEN RANCH (RM 39-99) APN 119-620-029 APN 119-620-030 APN 119-620-028 APN 119-620-032 APN 119-620-020 APN 119-620-031APN 119-620-022 APN 119-620-023 APN 119-620-021 APN 119-620-025 APN 119-670-046 APN 119-620-024 APN 119-670-044 APN 119-670-042 APN 119-670-045Annexation 94-06 APN 119-670-043 OAK MEADOW 4 (RM 40-7) OAK MEADOW 5 VALLEY OAK (RM 41-10) (RM 42-83) APN 119-230-002 WEST 1/4 COR. SEC. 3-19/24 CENTER SEC. 3-19/24 20.00' 20.00' Annexation 88-03
6 2
4 3
1 5
APN 119-021-033
S. ROEBEN RD.
S. SHIRK RD. VICINITY MAP LEGEND EXISTING CITY LIMITS PROPOSED CITY LIMITS COURSE NUMBER NORTH 300' 0' 300' ANNEXATION NO. 2022-___ SITE DATA APN: 119-021-033, 119-022-041 AREA: 70.6 AC. ± A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 4-19/24, MDB&M AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 3-19/24, MDB&M # HWY. 198 GOSHEN AVE. CALDWELL AVE. WALNUT AVE.
AKERS RD.
DEMAREE ST.
SHIRK RD. SUBJECT AREA
1068
CITY OF VISALIA
ANNEXATION NO. 2022-____
That portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 3 and the Northeast quarter of Section 4, of Township 19 South, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the County of Tulare, State of California, described as follows:
Beginning at Center of said Section 3, and Existing City Limit line; Course 1: Thence South 89⁰52’06” West departing from said City Limit Line along the South line of said Northwest and Northeast quarters, 2664.72 feet more or less, to the West Right of Way line of Shirk Road;
Course 2: Thence North 00⁰24’35” West, along said West Right of Way line, 1322.05 feet, more or less, to said Existing City Limit line;
Course 3: Thence North 89⁰53’59” East, along said Existing City Limit line, 2003.01 feet, more or less, to an angle point in said Existing City Limit line; Course 4: Thence South 00⁰25’59” East, along said Existing City Limit line, 674.95 feet, more or less, to an angle point in said Existing City Limit line; Course 5: Thence North 89⁰53’53” East, along said Existing City Limit line, 661.09 feet, more or less, to the East line of said Northwest quarter of Section 3 and an angle point in said Existing City Limit line;
Course 6: Thence South 00⁰26’27” East, along said East and Existing City Limit line, 645.66 feet, more or less, to said Center of Section 3 and the Point of Beginning; (Consisting of 70.6 acres more or less)
1069
101 300.93 SURVEY CONTROL 102 300.29 CUT-X 103 298.83 CUT-X 104 300.16 SURVEY CONTROL 107 298.19 SPIKE 110 299.07 SURVEY CONTROL 113 299.48 SURVEY CONTROL 115 300.40 SURVEY CONTROL 116 300.60 SURVEY CONTROL UP IW R R RSP R R IW UPSP UPSP SPPP GUY 297.09 FL PIPE296.23 FL PIPE GUYPP PP PPGUYIWUP SP BOL BOLWV R R WVGUY PP 299.05 CR PP UP 299.21 CR LTE GUY GUY R 299.04 CR 299.01 R CR SP 12" PP WV VP 8" BOL GUY PP TREETREE TREE 299.01 CR PP 298.94 CR 299.01 CR PP 298.86 CR 299.06 CR PP298.99 CR 299.07 CR PP PP 299.15 CR PP299.16 CR PP299.20 CR 299.03 CR 299.08 CR 299.07 CR PP BOL BOL R R R R BOL RBOL R R R R 117 300.13 BRASS DISC 118 299.90 SURVEY CONTROL 119 300.58 120 301.10 SURVEY CONTROL 121 300.40 SURVEY CONTROL 122 299.47 BRASS DISC125 301.80 MAG NAIL LTE 298.82 CR CRDI 298.02 WV DI E LTE GUY PP WV FH 300.27 CR WVWM CRWM LTEWV TREE 300.60 CR 300.38 CR 300.30 CR WV FHWV LTE EE 299.68 CR WV 300.14 CR 300.16 CR300.36 CRWM WM 300.03 CR LTE 300.07 CR WV WV GUYPPGUY EE WV VP R R R R R R R R PPGUY PP PP R R R R R R PP R R R R R R PP R R R R R R R R WVRBOL GUY PP R R R R 298.25 FL PIPE IW PP R R R R VP 6" PP R R R GUY GUYPPR R R (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH
(E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH
(E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR
IRR IRR
IRR IRR
(E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SD (E) SS (E) SS
S. ROEBEN ST. 42' 84' 42'
SHIRK/ROAD 92 42' IOD TO THE CITY OF VISALIA 55' IOD TO CITY OF VISALIA W. WHITENDALE AVE. 817189 S.F. PARCEL 3 1928' 494' 170' 13'13'10'12'52' 145' 73' 73' 73' 73' 56' 608' 49' 79' 80' 81' 81' 149' 48' 216' 16' 484' 1081396 S.F. PARCEL 2 81' 81' 80' 79' 56' 608' 49' 73' 73' 73' 145' 73' 12' 52' 10' 13' 170' 13' 760' 37' 886'
166' 70'
197' 421' 72' 79' 65' 52' 74' 81' 81' 941282 S.F. PARCEL 1 619' 191' 16' 15' 216' 11' 5' 48' 149' 81' 81' 74' 52' 65' 79' 72' 421' 197' 70'
166' 1548' 58' 33' 116' 463'
484' ENGINEER/PLANNER: 4-CREEKS INC. APN: 119-022-041 ACREAGE: 69.35 ± PROPOSED LOTS: 3 FLOOD ZONE: X EXISTING ZONING: R-1-20 PREZONE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON WATER: CAL WATER TELEPHONE: AT&T REFUSE DISPOSAL: CITY OF VISALIA NATURAL GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS EXISTING USE: AE-20 PROPOSED USE: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PHASING: PHASE 1: PARCEL 1 PHASE 2: PARCEL 2 PHASE 3: PARCEL 3 STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY S ROEBEN STREET: AVAILABLE ROW SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE 42' FROM CENTERLINE. W WHITENDALE AVE: 42' IOD TO CITY OF VISALIA ON NORTH SIDE OF STREET TO CREATE 42' TOTAL ROW FROM CENTERLINE. SHIRK/ROAD 92: 55' IOD TO THE CITY OF VISALIA ON EAST SIDE OF STREET TO CREATE 55' TOTAL ROW FROM CENTERLINE. APRIL 2023 BARR-WOOD SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREPARED BY: FAX: 559.802.3215 TEL: 559.802.3052 VISALIA, CA 93292 324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A NORTH P.O. BOX 7593 100' 0' 100' W WHITENDALE VICINITY MAP S SHIRK RD./ RD 92 PROJECT SITE BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 24 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF VISALIA, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1070
W. WHITENDALE AVE.
S. SHIRK RD. / ROAD 92 LOT F RECESSED PARK / OPEN SPACE 3.7 ACRES 43'55' 10' PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 36' 84' PHASE 1 TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ACCESS (20') 42' 31' 10' 20' MEDIAN ISLAND PERMANENT STORMWATER BASIN DEPTH: 12' SLOPE: 3:1 15867 S.F. 66 7331 S.F. LOT A 12321 S.F. 28 19248 S.F. LOT E 12325 S.F. 27 12325 S.F. 26 12325 S.F. 71 12325 S.F. 72 14940 S.F. 73 17900 S.F. 74 14523 S.F. 30 13504 S.F. 31 13895 S.F. 29 13925 S.F. 67 13775 S.F. 68 13775 S.F. 69 13078 S.F. 70 15583 S.F. 6414974 S.F. 63 14967 S.F. 62 16418 S.F. 59 14983 S.F. 61 15334 S.F. 60 14500 S.F. 58 14500 S.F. 25 12325 S.F. 131 12325 S.F. 130 12325 S.F. 129 12309 S.F. 128 12325 S.F. 127 12325 S.F. 126 13614 S.F. 125 14594 S.F. 124 14689 S.F. 123 14775 S.F. 122 14836 S.F. 12114751 S.F. 34 14618 S.F. 33 14211 S.F. 32 16570 S.F. 75 16274 S.F. 76 14463 S.F. 77 15570 S.F. 78 14472 S.F. 79 13775 S.F. 80 14505 S.F. 81 12205 S.F. LOT D 12325 S.F. 82 12325 S.F. 83 12325 S.F. 84 14699 S.F. 85 16435 S.F. 86 18518 S.F. 8716229 S.F. 65 13989 S.F. 132 16517 S.F. 88 13408 S.F. 135 13408 S.F. 136 13408 S.F. 134 13408 S.F. 133 5908 S.F. LOT H 3372 S.F. LOT I 13999 S.F. 9 16176 S.F. 814603 S.F. 7 15193 S.F. 6 13647 S.F. 5 13207 S.F. 4 13844 S.F. 3 15078 S.F. 2 16580 S.F. 1 13913 S.F. LOT M 17032 S.F. 14 23366 S.F. 13 16891 S.F. 1213891 S.F. 11 15060 S.F. 10 13556 S.F. 46 16419 S.F. 4716788 S.F. 48 13689 S.F. 49 13194 S.F. 50 16588 S.F. 51 18309 S.F. 53 13313 S.F. 54 13235 S.F. 55 13235 S.F. 56 13235 S.F. 57 13235 S.F. 24 13475 S.F. 15 943 S.F. LOT C 22514 S.F. 43 22181 S.F. 452200 S.F. LOT J 15893 S.F. 44 13200 S.F. 89 15993 S.F. 90 19378 S.F. 100 14049 S.F. 101 13494 S.F. 102 13483 S.F. 103 13479 S.F. 104 13475 S.F. 105 13471 S.F. 106 13467 S.F. 107 13463 S.F. 108 13660 S.F. 109 16032 S.F. 110 16909 S.F. 111 13395 S.F. 112 12494 S.F. 113 17643 S.F. 114 15901 S.F. 115 21261 S.F. 116 18020 S.F. 11722488 S.F. 15397 S.F. 118 119 19952 S.F. 12019311 S.F. 35 18252 S.F. 36 17680 S.F. 37 12222 S.F. 3816330 S.F. 39 18228 S.F. 40 18617 S.F. 41 17351 S.F. 42 22332 S.F. LOT L 68' 145' 77' 77' 145' 63' 22' 145' 63' 22'144' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 20' 64'
145' 63' 22' 37' 144' 72' 34' 79' 65' 149' 79' 145' 119' 145' 65' 111' 13' 136' 45' 29' 145' 4' 84' 32' 145' 95' 145' 80' 15'145' 95'
145' 85' 10'145' 90'
145' 90'
145' 136' 13' 126' 145' 77' 81' 145' 124' 145' 77' 145' 124' 145' 84' 146' 124' 145' 32' 80'
145' 109'
145' 4' 77' 145' 124' 146' 15' 85'
145' 100'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 15' 70'
145' 85'
145' 25' 60'
145' 78' 31' 145' 30' 13' 36' 145' 120' 145' 79' 145' 120' 30' 50' 145' 81' 4' 141' 121' 141' 4' 81' 145' 121' 145' 76' 5' 145' 120' 145' 81' 145' 118' 74' 120' 145' 5'144' 56' 28' 127' 74' 81' 81' 145' 71' 144' 76' 81' 50' 142' 72' 145' 30' 79' 36' 144' 72' 142' 60' 30' 13'
145' 91' 6'144' 70' 25'
145' 95'
145' 85' 15'
145' 100'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 85'
145' 25' 56' 47' 143' 50' 26' 145' 26' 73' 55' 143' 76' 143' 143' 18' 73' 87' 128' 27' 66' 148' 77' 81' 145' 66' 25' 85' 145' 56' 25' 145' 145' 137' 5' 140' 87' 145' 110' 145' 73' 145' 110' 145' 18' 55' 110' 145' 73' 145' 57' 160' 62'41' 185'
74'
24' 72' 20' 190'
81' 31' 41' 157'
86' 205'
25' 144' 90'
25' 26'
36'175'
18' 41' 30' 177'
46' 26' 196' 67'
53' 38' 81' 117' 4' 50'
8' 180' 29' 68' 181' 42' 53' 88' 282'
23' 73' 181' 160' 119'
23' 217' 170'
12' 32' 36' 5'
82' 172'
76'
106'
76' 126' 28' 162'
93' 18' 183' 183' 134' 150' 80' 80' 150' 109' 144' 80' 144' 97' 80' 156' 118' 189' 80' 186' 138' 160' 62' 24'
160' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 134'
3' 85' 180' 105'
235' 112'
194' 206'
159' 32' 51'
78' 90'
194' 96'
159' 160'
77' 28' 81' 160' 51'
74' 160' 70' 131' 20' 188' 70'
164' 90'
164' 91'
151' 90'
151' 27' 63'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 90'
150' 6' 84'
157' 121'
157' 73' 182' 75' 50' 65' 101' 169' 77' 94' 141' 70' 31' 29' 148' 75' 94' 12' 48' 157' 175' 50' 161' 103' 51' 161' 116' 161' 43' 184'
196' 184' 15' 48' 131' 179' 16' 172' 26' 84'
29' 79' 144' 144' 75' 217' 179' 16' 217' 93'
78' 206'
90'
90' 23' 202' 91' 122' 85'
62' 122' 96'
90' 153' 43' 32' 175'
120' 85'
90' 120' 85'
216' 85'
5' 216' 85'
214' 85'
214' 88'
192' 19789 S.F. 52 80' 189' 57' 72' 186' 80' 12817 S.F. 91 11806 S.F. 92 15208 S.F. 9312041 S.F. 94 16106 S.F. 95 11592 S.F. 96 17391 S.F. 97 13823 S.F. 98 17692 S.F. 99 104' 160' 75' 134' 70' 81' 27' 99' 134' 63' 29' 14' 44' 130'
150' 51' 104' 99' 10' 121'
22' 141' 130' 59' 93'
109' 121' 44' 142' 128' 46' 146' 158' 146' 47' 11' 96' 143' 20' 164' 96' 30' 79' 30' 87' 144' 143' 80' 188' TEMPORARY STORMWATER BASIN (CONCEPTUAL) 13235 S.F. 23 13235 S.F. 22 13236 S.F. 21 16711 S.F. 20 20393 S.F. 19 25592 S.F. 18 85' 0' 156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 10' 75'
156' 85'
156' 85'
156' 124' 170' 85' 170' 141'213' 75' 88' 207' 19440 S.F. 17 13776 S.F. 16 97' 207' 53' 68' 162' 42' 49' 80' 144' 76' 162' 29' 4' 90' 36823 S.F. LOT B 69855 S.F. LOT K
76' 162' 85' 80' 186'
156'
156'
156'
156'
156'
156'
156' 170' 213' 181' 217'
98' 48'
25' 89' 26' 66' 44' 86' 97' 50' 14' 144' 97' 156' 189' 4236 S.F. LOT G 29' 85' 66' 66' 42' 42' 62' 47'
PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS
TO EXTEND TO SHIRK &
WALNUTINTERSECTION
AUGUSTA CIRCLE
JACQUES CIRCLE
EL CAJON COURT BARR CIRCLE EVERGREEN AVENUE
BOISE CIRCLE CURIE CIRCLE CHERRY AVENUE 345182 S.F. LOT N PHASING PLAN: PHASE 1: LOTS 1-45 (PHASE 1 TO INCLUDE 20' TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ACCESS ON LOT 24 AND TEMPORARY STORMWATER BASIN ON LOTS 23 & 24) PHASE 2: LOT 46-89 PHASE 3: LOTS 90-136 MAY 2022 BARR-WOOD SUBDIVISION PHASING PLAN PREPARED BY: FAX: 559.802.3215 TEL: 559.802.3052 VISALIA, CA 93292 324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A NORTH P.O. BOX 7593 100' 0' 100' BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 24 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF VISALIA, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1071
DRIVE THRU (TYPICAL) 5' 2' 4' 19'-20' 9' 25'-30' 12' VAN 9' CAR NO PARKING 19' VAN 6 1010 88 66 7
VAN FUTURE EXPANSION ALDI ±20,473 SF 25' LOADING 76'
LOADING
LOADING LOADING LOADING 30' 75' 75'75' 30' 75'30' PREPARED BY: FAX: 559.802.3215 TEL: 559.802.3052 VISALIA, CA 93292 324 S. SANTA FE ST., STE. A P.O. BOX 7593 PROJECT LOCATION BARR-WOOD SUBDIVISION DETAILS BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 24 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF VISALIA, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA VINYL SPLIT RAIL FENCE LOTS I AND J: PATHWAYS TO INTERIOR PARK CANAL ON SITE TYPICAL INTERNAL PRIVATE ROAD INTERNAL LOOP STREET AND PATH GATED ENTRYWAY VINYL FENCING INTERIOR PARK CHANDELIER TREES STREET CROSS SECTIONS BLOCK WALL 1072
W. WHITENDALE AVE.
S. SHIRK RD. / ROAD 92
S. ROEBEN ST. LOT F RECESSED PARK / OPEN SPACE 3.7 ACRES PROPOSED GATED ENTRY PROPOSED GATED ENTRY R35' 10' EXISTING DITCH EASEMENT GATE IN BLOCK WALL TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO DITCH CURIE AVENUE FRANKLIN AVENUE EVERGREEN CT
NEWTON CIRCLE
GALILEO CIRCLE CARVER CIRCLE GATE IN BLOCK WALL TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO BASIN WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND SIDEWALK CROSS CONNECTION AT STREET STUB PEDESTRIAN GATE PEDESTRIAN GATE WROUGHT IRON FENCE WITH GATE FOR DITCH ACCESS GATE FOR DITCH ACCESS VINYL SPLIT RAIL FENCE BLOCK WALL LEGEND WOOD PRIVACY FENCE EXISTING WOOD FENCE WROUGHT IRON FENCE VINYL SPLIT RAIL FENCE HEIGHT: 4' WOOD PRIVACY FENCE HEIGHT: 6' BLOCK WALL (EXTERIOR FACIING) HEIGHT: 6' C:\Users\elliek\Downloads\fzGzQDL.jpg BLOCK WALL (INTERIOR FACING) HEIGHT: 6' WROUGHT IRON FENCE HEIGHT: 6' JUNE 2023 BARR-WOOD SUBDIVISION FENCING PLAN PREPARED BY: FAX: 559.802.3215 TEL: 559.802.3052 VISALIA, CA 93292 324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A NORTH P.O. BOX 7593 100' 0' 100' BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 24 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF VISALIA, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA *DEPICTED FENCE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL. ACTUAL FENCE MATERIALS AND SPECIFICATIONS TBD DURING CIVIL DESIGN. 1073
STREETSCAPE
5 - FARMHOUSE 4 - MODERN EUROPEAN 2 - CRAFTSMAN
1 - FARMHOUSE 3 - SANTA BARBARA 1 - MODERN EUROPEAN 2 - SANTA BARBARA 4 - FARMHOUSE 5 - CRAFTSMAN 3 - FARMHOUSE 1 - SANTA BARBARA 2 - MODERN EUROPEAN 3 - CRAFTSMAN 5 - SANTA BARBARA 4 - CRAFTSMAN
SW VISALIA
WOODSIDE HOMES
Visalia, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 8, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1074
PLAN 1 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
FARMHOUSE
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR.
BLDG. HGHT. 10'-1"
20'-8"
COMPOSITE ROOF METAL ROOF LAP SIDING
BOARD AND BATTEN
BRICK VENEER ADDRESS PLACARD
COMPOSITE TRIM
COMPOSITE
SHUTTER
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1075
PLAN 1 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16 = 1'-0"
MODERN EUROPEAN
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR. 10'-1"
20'-8"
BLDG. HGHT.
COMPOSITE ROOF METAL ROOF LAP SIDING
STUCCO
STONE VENEER
STUCCO
CONTROL JOINT
6" PROJECTION
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1076
PLAN 1 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SANTA BARBARA
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR. 10'-1"
18'-1"
BLDG. HGHT.
MISSION TILE
ROOF WROUGHT IRON
OVER OPENING
DECORATIVE STUCCO
RECESS
DECORATIVE STUCCO
GLAZED TILE
AWING ON
WROUGHT IRON
STUCCO OVER
FRAMED WING WALL
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1077
PLAN 2 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
CRAFTSMAN
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR.
BLDG. HGHT. 10'-1"
18'-9"
COMPOSITE ROOF SHINGLE BRACKET
SIDING
STUCCO COMPOSITE TRIM
BRICK VENEER
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1078
PLAN 2 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16 = 1'-0"
SANTA BARBARA
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR. 10'-1"
19'-5"
BLDG. HGHT.
MISSION TILE ROOF DEORATIVE STUCCO
RECESS
DECORATIVE GLAZED
TILE
STUCCO TRIM WOOD BEAM
AND BRACKET
STUCCO OVER
WOOD FRAME
BUILD OUT
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1079
PLAN 2 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MODERN EUROPEAN
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR. 10'-1"
20'-11"
BLDG. HGHT.
LAP SIDING STONE VENEER COMPOSITE ROOF
STUCCO CONTROL
JOINT
STUCCO OVER
WOOD FRAME
PROJECTION
ADDRESS PLACARD
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1080
PLAN 3 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
CRAFTSMAN
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR.
BLDG. HGHT. 10'-1"
21'-5"
STONE VENEER
WITH STUCCO CAP
LAP/ SHINGLE
SIDING
COMPOSITE
BRACKET
COMPOSITE ROOF BOARD AND BATTEN
VENT
COMPOSITE WOOD
TRIM
STUCCO
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1081
PLAN 3 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16 = 1'-0"
SANTA BARBARA
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR. 10'-1"
21'-2"
BLDG. HGHT.
MISSION TILE ROOF
EXPOSED RAFTER
TAILS - 3x6
STUCCO TRIM
STUCCO
WROUGHT IRON
OVER OPENING
DECORATIVE
STUCCO
RECESS
WOOD BEAM
AND BRACKET
AWNING
DECORATIVE
STUCCO FOAM
EAVE
STUCCO +1"
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1082
PLAN 3 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
FARMHOUSE
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR. 10'-1"
22'-3"
BLDG. HGHT.
STUCCO COMPOSITE BOARD AND BATTEN COMPOSITE ROOF
WOOD BRACKET
BRICK VENEER DECORATIVE LIGHTING COMPOSITE WOOD
TRIM
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1083
PLAN 4 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
CRAFTSMAN
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR. 10'-1"
21'-11"
BLDG. HGHT.
BOARD AND BATTEN
VENT
COMPOSITE WOOD
BRACKET
COMPOSITE
ROOF
SHINGLE SIDING
COMPOSITE WOOD
COLUMN ON STONE
VENEER BASE
COMPOSITE WOOD STONE VENEER
TRIM
WOOD RAILING
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1084
PLAN 4 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16 = 1'-0"
modern european
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR.
BLDG. HGHT. 10'-1"
23'-9"
METAL STUCCO
ROOF
STUCCO COMPOSITE ROOF
CONTROL
JOINT
LAP SIDING
STUCCO CAP STONE VENEER
STUCCO OVER
WOOD FRAME
PROJECTION 6"
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1085
PLAN 4 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
FARMHOUSE
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR.
BLDG. HGHT. 10'-1"
27'-0"
COMPOSITE WOOD COMPOSITE ROOF
BRACKET
COMPOSITE SHUTTER
"BARN LOOK"
ROUGH SAWN WOOD RAILING
WOOD POSTS
BRICK VENEER COMPOSITE TRIM
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1086
PLAN 5 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
CRAFTSMAN
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR.
BLDG. HGHT. 10'-1"
21'-5"
3'-0"
COMPOSITE ROOF COMPOSITE WOOD SHINGLE SIDING
BRACKET AND TRIM
COMPOSITE WOOD
SHUTTER
COMPOSITE BRICK VENEER
WOOD TRIM
STUCCO
STUCCO
PLATE
TYP.
PLATE
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1087
PLAN 5 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16 = 1'-0"
SANTA BARBARA
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR.
BLDG. HGHT. 10'-1"
21'-4"
MISSION TILE ROOF
STUCCO
DECORATIVE STUCCO TRIM
GLAZED TILE
DECORATIVE
LIGHTING
WOOD BEAM
AND BRACKET
AWNING
5'-0"
PLATE
TYP.
PLATE
@ ENTRY
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1088
PLAN 5 - ELEVATIONS
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
FARMHOUSE
left
REAR
front
right
GRADE
FIRST FLR.
BLDG. HGHT. 10'-1"
24'-0"
2'-0"
PLATE
TYP.
PLATE
METAL ROOF COMPOSITE ROOF BOARD AND
BATTEN
COMPOSITE WOOD
"BARN" SHUTTERS
COMPOSITE WOOD
BRACKET
ROUGH SAWN
POSTS
COMPOSITE WOOD
TRIM
STUCCO
Folsom, CA
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
VISALIA, CA
May 3, 2023 | SF230159.00
BSBDESIGN.COM
1089
FRONT SETBACK
25' - 0". 75' - 0"
REAR SETBACK
25' - 0"
125'- 0".
80' - 0"
REQ. SETBACK
7' - 6"
SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0" 60' - 0"
SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
REQ. SETBACK
7' - 6"
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0".
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0"
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
BEDROOM
10' - 0" CLG
COVERED
PATIO
10' - 0" CLG
DINING 10' - 0" CLG KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
GREAT
ROOM
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
W.I.C.
10' - 0" CLG
3-CAR
GARAGE
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM 3
COVERED
PORCH
10' - 0" CLG
ENTRY
10' - 0" CLG
POWDER
10' - 0" CLG
BATH 2
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 2
10' - 0" CLG
O.E.
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM 2
10' - 0" CLG
LAUNDRY
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
BATH
15' - 10" x 15' - 0"
43' - 4" x 10' - 0"
36' - 5" x 21' - 0"
32' - 6" x 20' - 8"
12' - 0" x 13' - 9"
11' - 10" x 13' - 0"
10' - 0" CLG
W.C.
16080 OGD
8080 OGD
3080
3080
2680
2680 2680
(2) 3080
3080
3080
3080
3080
3080
3080
3080
10' - 0" CLG
CLEANING
CLOSET
OPTIONAL
VAULTED CEILING
5S - 18"d
12080 XXO MSD (TEMP)
STEP UP
STEP DN
(+18" SEAT)
LAV LAV
W/C
W/C
PED
LAV LAV
W/C
42x60
SHOWER
REF
DBL SINK w/
DISP
WH
3050 SH 3050 SH
2040 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH 4050 FX
3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH
5050 XO 5050 XO 5050 XO
2040 SH
9' - 0" CLG 9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
DUAL ACCESS BASKET CABINET
16' - 8" 43' - 4"
18' - 8" 9' - 0" 10' - 10" 21' - 6"
1' - 4" 6' - 0" 23' - 0" 24' - 6" 10' - 0" 10' - 2"
3080
3080
6080 BP
OPT FLUSH THRESHOLD
3050 SH
36x60
TUB/SHOWER
9'-6" TRAY CEILING, TYP 9'-6" TRAY CEILING, TYP 10' - 0" CLG 10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
PANTRY
3080
9' - 0" CLG
2040 SH
May 03, 2023 | SF230159.00 BSBDESIGN.COM
Fresno, California
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations(i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
Plan 1
Visalia, California
60'Wx75'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Main Floor Plan
MAIN FLOOR LIVABLE 2515 SFLIVABLE 2515 SF3-CAR GARAGE 769 SFCOVERED PATIO 433 SFPORCH 72 SFNON-LIVABLE 1274 SFELEVATION A 3789 SF 1090
10' - 0" CLG
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
O.E.
3080 REF
DBL SINK w/
DISP
5050 XO
2040 SH
9' - 0" CLG
10' - 0" CLG
WFH
10' - 0" CLG
PANTRY
2040 SH
2040 SH
HIDDEN
ACCESS
TO WFH
5S - 16"d
5S - 16"d
May 03, 2023 | SF230159.00 BSBDESIGN.COM
Fresno, California
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations(i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
Plan 1
Visalia, California
60'Wx75'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Optional Work From Home
1091
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0". 75' - 0"
REAR SETBACK
25' - 0"
125'- 0".
80' - 0"
REQ. SETBACK
7' - 6"
SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0" 60' - 0"
SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
REQ. SETBACK
7' - 6"
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0".
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0"
10' - 6" 64' - 6"
72' - 6" 2' - 6" 10' - 0" CLG PANTRY
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C.
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C.
10' - 0" CLG
BATH 2
10' - 0" CLG
POWDER 10' - 0" CLG
ENTRY
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM 2
10' - 0" CLG
1-CAR
GARAGE
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM 3
10' - 0" CLG
GAME ROOM
10' - 0" CLG
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
GREAT ROOM
10' - 0" CLG
COVERED
PATIO
10' - 0" CLG
DINING
10' - 0" CLG
HOME
MANAGEMENT
10' - 0" CLG
2-CAR
GARAGE
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
SUITE
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
BATH
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
W.I.C.
10' - 0" CLG
LAUNDRY
10' - 0" CLG
COVERED
PORCH
12' - 5" x 9' - 6"
18' - 1" x 19' - 2"
17' - 11" x 11' - 6"
17' - 7" x 14' - 3"
11' - 5" x 12' - 0" 11' - 8" x 11' - 10"
22' - 4" x 10' - 1"
8' - 11" x 6' - 0"
19' - 0" x 14' - 0"
7' - 0" x 9' - 4"
21' - 10" x 22' - 1"
10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
21' - 6" 18' - 6" 20' - 0"
23' - 0" 5' - 6" 9' - 0" 22' - 6"
12080 OXXO SGD (TEMP)
6080 SGD (TEMP)
3050 SH 3050 SH
3080
2040 SH
3080
3080
3050 SH
2680
26803080
3080 SC
3050 SH
8080 OGD
3050 SH
(2) 3080
3080 SC
3080
OPT. 3080 SC
16080 OGD
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH
6050 XO
3080
5080 BP
3080
10' - 0" CLG
OWNER'S
ENTRY
3050 SH
3050 FX 3050 FX 3050 FX
STEP UP
STEP DN
2050 SH 2050 SH
3080
3080
2040 SH
2040 SH
42x60
SHOWER
BENCH +18"
LAV
FREESTANDING
TUB
LAV
W/C
LAUNDRY
SINK
WH
PED
W/C
LAV W/C
36x60
TUB/SHOWER
1R1S
REF
RANGE w/
MICRO ABV
SGL SINK w/
DISP
DBL SINK w/
DISP
REF
BAR SINK
BBQ
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
5S - 18"d
5S - 18"d
OPT FLUSH THRESHOLD
10' - 0" CLG
CLOSET 2
3080
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
May 03, 2023 | SF230159.00 BSBDESIGN.COM
Fresno, California
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations(i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
Plan 2
Visalia, California
60'Wx75'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Main Floor Plan
MAIN FLOOR LIVABLE 2963 SFLIVABLE 2963 SF3-CAR GARAGE 25 SFCOVERED PATIO 25 SFPORCH 25 SFNON-LIVABLE 75 SFELEVATION A 3038 SF 1092
10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
6080 SGD (TEMP)
3050 SH
2040 SH
10' - 0" CLG
HEARTH
ROOM
8' - 7" x 8' - 10"
3050 SH
10' - 0" CLG
COVERED
PATIO
17' - 11" x 11' - 6"
15080 OXXO SGD (TEMP)
9080 SGD (TEMP)
10' - 0" CLG
HOME
MANAGEMENT
10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
2040 SH
2040 SH
3080
5' - 11" x 9' - 1"
30803080
LAV
11' - 5" x 10' - 11"
11' - 5" x 10' - 1"
2680
2680
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
10' - 0" CLG
HALL 3
10' - 0" CLG
ENSUITE 4
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM 3
10' - 0" CLG
BATH 3 10' - 0" CLG
CLEANING
STORAGE
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C.
3080
W/C LAV
36x60
SHOWER
3080
30803080
LAV
5S - 18"d REF
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C.
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C.
2680
2680
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
3050 SH
3050 SH
(2) 2680 9' - 1" CLG
DEN
11' - 5" x 14' - 3"
3080
11' - 5" x 11' - 10"
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM 3
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C.
10' - 0" CLG
SLEEP
15' - 5" x 12' - 0"
2680
2680
3050 SH
1R1S
1R1S
3080
3080
16' - 4" x 10' - 3"
10' - 0" CLG
BATH 2
LAV
W/C
36x60
TUB/SHOWER
10' - 0" CLG
ADU
LIVING
ROOM
3080 SC
4080 BARN
1R1S
30803080
LAV
5S - 18"d REF
10' - 0" CLG
HALL 3
30803080
LAV
5S - 18"d REF
11' - 5" x 13' - 1"
11' - 5" x 13' - 1"
2680
2680
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
10' - 0" CLG
HALL 3
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM 4
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM 3
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C.
3080
3080
May 03, 2023 | SF230159.00 BSBDESIGN.COM
Fresno, California
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations(i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
Plan 2
Visalia, California
60'Wx75'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Optional Hearth Room
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Optional Corner Slider
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Optional EnclosedHome Management
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Ensuite Option
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Den Option
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ADU Option
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Bedroom 4 Option
1093
FRONT SETBACK
25' - 0". 75' - 0"
REAR SETBACK
25' - 0"
125'- 0".
80' - 0"
REQ. SETBACK
7' - 6"
SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0" 60' - 0"
SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
REQ. SETBACK
7' - 6"
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0".
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0"
2' - 0" 20' - 6" 10' - 0" 42' - 6"
18' - 6" 26' - 6" 15' - 0"
6' - 0" 12' - 6" 9' - 0" 10' - 0" 22' - 6"
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM
2 10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM
3 10' - 0" CLG
GAME
ROOM
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
SUITE
10' - 0" CLG
BATH 2
10' - 0" CLG
BATH 3
10' - 0" CLG
POWDER
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
BATH
10' - 0" CLG
HALL 1
10' - 0" CLG
HALL 2
10' - 0" CLG
FOYER
10' - 0" CLG
OWNER'S
ENTRY
10' - 0" CLG
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
3-CAR
GARAGE
10' - 0" CLG
LAUNDRY
LINEN
10' - 0" CLG
PANTRY
COATS
COVERED
PORCH
COVERED
PATIO
10' - 0" CLG
LIVING
ROOM 10' - 0" CLG
FLEX
H.M.C.
10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
CLEANING
CLOSET
10' - 0" CLG
STORAGE
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 2
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
W.I.C. 1
9' - 0" CLG
3080
3080
3080
(2) 2680 BARN
6080 SGD (TEMP)
3080 BARN
2680
16080 OGD
3080 SC
3080 SC
(2) 3080
3080
3080
9' - 0" CLG 9' - 0" CLG
3080
3080
9' - 0" CLG 2480
9' - 0" CLG
3080
8080 BP
9' - 0" CLG
3080
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH
2020 FX
3050 FX
6050 XO
6050 XO
12080 SGD (TEMP)
3080
3050 FX 3050 FX
3080
3050 SH
10' - 0" CLG
DINING
31' - 10" x 26' - 7"
17' - 6" x 11' - 7"
11' - 7" x 12' - 7"
26' - 7" x 28' - 11"
17' - 6" x 15' - 6"
14' - 0" x 13' - 4"
9' - 8" x 10' - 3"
26' - 5" x 9' - 6"
3050 SH 3050 SH
8080 OGD
BENCH +18"
STEP UP
STEP DN
(2) 2080
3050 SH
9' - 0" CLG
36x60
SHOWER
LAV
PED
DBL SINK w/
DISP
LAV
36x60
TUB/SHOWER
LAV
DBL SINK w/
DISP
36x60
SHOWER
W/C LAV
W/C
W/C
LAUNDRY
SINK
DBL SINK w/
DISP
W/C
FREESTANDING
TUB
36x60
TUB/SHOWER
42x60
SHOWER
3060 SH 3060 SH
OPTIONAL TRAY CEILING
OPTIONAL FIREPLACE
LAV
OPT FLUSH THRESHOLD
2680
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM 4
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 4
11' - 6" x 12' - 1"
3050 SH 3050 SH
36"x36"
MIN.
OPTIONAL
CABINETS
WH
May 03, 2023 | SF230159.00 BSBDESIGN.COM
Fresno, California
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations(i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
Plan 3
Visalia, California
60'Wx75'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Main Floor Plan
MAIN FLOOR LIVABLE 3139 SFLIVABLE 3139 SF3-CAR GARAGE 767 SFCOVERED PORCH 90 SFCOVERED PATIO 252 SFOPTIONAL COURTYARD 80 SFNON-LIVABLE 1189 SFELEVATION A 4328 SF 1094
MINIMUM CLEARANCE
LINEN2680
3080
3050 SH
2020 FX
10' - 0" CLG
CASITA
BATH
3080 SC
10' - 0" CLG
CASITA
BEDROOM
10' - 0" CLG
CASITA W.I.C.10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 4
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM
4 11' - 7" x 12' - 7"
3080
3080
36x60
TUB/SHOWER
W/C
LAV
3050 SH 3050 SH
3080
2680
10' - 0" CLG
HALL 1
10' - 0" CLG
HALL 1
LINEN2680
3080
3050 SH
2020 FX
10' - 0" CLG
WFH
10' - 0" CLG
STORAGE 11' - 6" x 11' - 1"
3080
3080 SC
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM
4 11' - 7" x 12' - 7"
3080
3080
3080
W/C
2680
LINEN
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 4
10' - 0" CLG
POWDER
PED
10' - 0" CLG
PANTRY
CLEANING
CLOSET
(2) 2080
3050 SH
DBL SINK w/
DISP
9' - 0" CLG
10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
WH
10' - 0" CLG
FLEX
H.M.C.
(2) 2680 BARN
6080 SGD (TEMP)
9' - 8" x 10' - 3"
COURTYARD
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
BATH
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
W.I.C. 1
LINLIN
3080
3080
W/C
COFFEE BAR
May 03, 2023 | SF230159.00 BSBDESIGN.COM
Fresno, California
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations(i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
Plan 3
Visalia, California
60'Wx75'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Casita Option
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
WFH Option
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Expanded Morning Kitchen
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Courtyard Option
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Coffee Bar Option
1095
FRONT SETBACK
25' - 0". 72' - 0"
REAR SETBACK
28' - 0"
125'- 0".
80' - 0"
REQ. SETBACK
7' - 6"
SIDE SETBACK
7' - 6" 65' - 0"
SIDE SETBACK
7' - 6"
REQ. SETBACK
7' - 6"
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0".
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0"
10' - 0" CLG
SUITE 2
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM
3 10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM
4 10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
SUITE 10' - 0" CLG
BATH 2
10' - 0" CLG
BATH 3
10' - 0" CLG
POWDER
10' - 0" CLG
PRIMARY
BATH
10' - 0" CLG
10' - 0" CLG
10' - 0" CLG
ENTRY
SLOPED CLG
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
3-CAR
GARAGE
10' - 0" CLG
LAUNDRY
10' - 0" CLG
PANTRY
10' - 0" CLG
COVERED
PORCH
10' - 0" CLG
COVERED
PATIO
10' - 0" CLG
MUD ROOM
GREAT ROOM
?
10' - 0" CLG
DINING
10' - 0" CLG
FLEX
10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 5
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 4
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 3
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 1
15' - 0" x 18' - 0" 12' - 0" x 13' - 5" 12' - 8" x 13' - 8" 10' - 6" x 14' - 11"
17' - 0" x 14' - 0"
11' - 0" x 13' - 0"
32' - 6" x 22' - 5"
20' - 7" x 19' - 1"
2680
3080
3080
3080
12080 XXO MSD (TEMP)
8080 SGD (TEMP)
3080
3680 SC
3080 SC
3080
9080 OGD 16080 OGD
3080 SC
3080
3080
3080
3080
3080
36x60
SHOWER
42x72
SHOWER
W/C
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
LAV LAV W/C
36x60
TUB/SHOWER
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
W/C PED
5S - 16"d
D W
RANGE w/
MICRO ABV
DBL SINK w/
DISP D/W D/W
W/C
LAV
REF
1R1S
1R1S
5060 XO 2040 SH 6060 XO 6060 XO
2020 FX 2020 FX 4050 FX
3060 SH
3060 FX
2050 SH 5060 XO
OPT. REF
2680
2020 FX
LAV
3080
3080
11' - 0" x 12' - 1"
BENCH +18"
WH
10' - 0" CLG
3060 SH
9'-0" CLG9'-0" CLG
9'-0" CLG
LAV
MAKE UP
VAULTED
STEP UP
STEP DN
OPT FLUSH THRESHOLD
2680
10' - 0" CLG
CLEANING
CLOSET
10' - 0" CLG
COATS
10' - 0" CLG
LINEN
2680
9'-0" CLG9'-0" CLG
HIDDEN ACCESS TO DIRTY KITCHEN/ WINE ROOM
LINEN
3690 DWO
3690 DWO
3690 DWO
3190 DWO
3190 DWO
11190 DWO
May 03, 2023 | SF230159.00 BSBDESIGN.COM
Fresno, California
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations(i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
Plan 4
Visalia, California
65'Wx72'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Main Floor Plan
MAIN FLOOR LIVABLE 3353 SFLIVABLE 3353 SF3-CAR GARAGE 793 SFCOVERED PORCH 87 SFCOVERED PATIO 237 SFNON-LIVABLE 1117 SFELEVATION A 4470 SF 1096
10' - 0" CLG
SLOPED CLG
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
3-CAR
GARAGE
10' - 0" CLG
LAUNDRY 10' - 0" CLG
MUD ROOM
10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 3
2680
3080 3080 SC 36x60 SHOWER
RANGE w/
MICRO ABV
DBL SINK w/
DISP D/W D/W
REF
1R1S
1R1S
OPT. REF
WH
HIDDEN ACCESS TO DIRTY KITCHEN/ WINE ROOM
10' - 0" CLG
SPEAKEASY
3080
5060 XO 2050 SH 2050 SH 3080
10' - 0" CLG
SLOPED CLG
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
3-CAR
GARAGE
10' - 0" CLG
MUD ROOM
10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 3
2680
3080 3080 SC 36x60 SHOWER
RANGE w/
MICRO ABV
DBL SINK w/
DISP D/W D/W
REF
1R1S
1R1S
OPT. REF
WH
OPTIONAL DOG WASH
3080
3080
2050 SH 2050 SH 2050 SH 10' - 0" CLG UTILITY ROOM
May 03, 2023 | SF230159.00 BSBDESIGN.COM
Fresno, California
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations(i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
Plan 4
Visalia, California
60'Wx72'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Optional Speakeasy
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Optional Utility Room
1097
FRONT SETBACK
25' - 0". 75' - 0"
REAR SETBACK
25' - 0"
125'- 0".
80' - 0"
REQ. SETBACK
7' - 6"
SIDE SETBACK
7' - 6" 65' - 0"
SIDE SETBACK
7' - 6"
REQ. SETBACK
7' - 6"
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0".
REQ. SETBACK
25' - 0"
10' - 0" CLG
OWNER'S
SUITE
10' - 0" CLG
COVERED
PATIO
10' - 0" CLG
GREAT
ROOM
10' - 0" CLG
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
2 -CAR
GARAGE
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM
4 10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 1
10' - 0" CLG
OWNER'S
BATH
10' - 0" CLG
LAUNDRY
10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
BATH 3
10' - 0" CLG
DINING
10' - 0" CLG
WFH /
CASITA
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM
2 10' - 0" CLG
BATH 4
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 2
10' - 0" CLG
BATH 2
10' - 0" CLG
CLEANING
CLOSET
10' - 0" CLG
W.C.
10' - 0" CLG
LINEN
10' - 0" CLG
ENTRY
12080 DBL 2X BI-FOLD (TEMP)
3080
2680
3080
2680
(2) 3080
3080
3080
3080
3080
3080
20' - 10" x 22' - 1"
12' - 9" x 12' - 7"
23' - 6" x 15' - 0" 11' - 3" x 12' - 0"
9' - 5" x 12' - 7"
11' - 2" x 13' - 0"
11' - 0" x 13' - 0"
25' - 11" x 18' - 2"
21' - 3" 4' - 0" 19' - 9" 8' - 0" 12' - 0"
24' - 6" 26' - 0 1/2" 14' - 5 1/2"
3060 SH
WH
9' - 0" CLG
2680
3080
16080 OGD
(2) 1680
(2) 1680
9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
6080 BP
9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
OPT.
DOG
WASH
3080
STEP UP
STEP DN
2680
2680
FREESTANDING
TUB
DBL SINK w/
DISP
WH
(+18" SEAT)
42x60
SHOWER
30x60
TUB/SHOWER
W/C
W/C
W/C
FREESTANDING
TUB
LAV
LAV
LAVLAV
DBL SINK w/
DISP
WH
BAR SINK
(+18" SEAT)
LAV
10' - 0" CLG
W.I.C. 4
10' - 0" CLG
OWNER'S
ENTRY 1
9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH 2040 SH
2040 SH 2050 SH
5050 XO
2650 SH 2650 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH
OPT FLUSH THRESHOLD
OPT. 3080
36x60
TUB/SHOWER
10' - 0" CLG
COURTYARD
8080 SGD (TEMP)
OPTIONAL TRAY CEILING
OPTIONAL TRAY CEILING
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S1R1S
RANGE w/
MICRO ABV
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
3060 SH
3050 SH
BBQ
9' - 0" CLG
10' - 0" CLG.9' - 6" CLG.
9' - 6" CLG.
3080
10' - 0" CLG
1 -CAR
GARAGE
10' - 0" CLG
BEDROOM
3 10' - 0" CLG
OWNER'S
ENTRY 2
8080 OGD
5050 XO
3080
3080
9' - 0" CLG
LAV W/C
36x60
SHOWER
18' - 11" x 11' - 3"
10' - 0" CLG
PANTRY
10' - 0" CLG
CLOSET 3
10' - 0" CLG
COATS 10' - 0" CLG
POWDER
3080
W/C
PED
2880
3080
3080
2680
May 03, 2023 | SF230159.00 BSBDESIGN.COM
Fresno, California
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations(i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
Plan 5
Visalia, California
65'Wx75'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Main Floor Plan
MAIN FLOOR LIVABLE 3507 SFLIVABLE 3507 SF2-CAR GARAGE 486 SF1-CAR GARAGE 228 SFCOVERED PATIO 260 SFCOVERED PORCH 48 SFNON-LIVABLE 1022 SFELEVATION A 4529 SF 1098
10' - 0" CLG
MORNING
KITCHEN
10' - 0" CLG
BATH 3
10' - 0" CLG
CLEANING
CLOSET
10' - 0" CLG
ENTRY
(2) 3080
12' - 9" x 12' - 7"
9' - 0" CLG
9' - 0" CLG
3050 SH
10' - 0" CLG.
3080
10' - 0" CLG
LIVING
ROOM
10' - 0" CLG
SLEEPING
10' - 0" CLG
COATS
3080
3080 SC
4080 BARN
36x60
SHOWER
W/C
LAV
17' - 0" x 11' - 1"
5050 XO
10' - 0" CLG
CLOSET 3
10' - 0" CLG
COATS
10' - 0" CLG
POWDER
10' - 0" CLG
PANTRY
May 03, 2023 | SF230159.00 BSBDESIGN.COM
Fresno, California
The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations(i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2023 BSB Design, Inc.
SW VISALIA
Plan 5
Visalia, California
60'Wx75'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Optional ADU
1099
Project Narrative: Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Goal
To provide a slower-paced, walkable community that supports social interactions between neighbors and has a high-end feel for the elite buyers in Visalia.
Description
Amenities will include walking pathways, split rail fences, community gates, and large parks with signature trees.
The larger park is 3.7 acres and lies within the heart of the community. This park will be a grand offering, featuring mature oak trees adorned with accent lights throughout its canopy, providing an exceptional backdrop for socializing, relaxation and community gathering. Play equipment and play areas will be specifically selected to fit the space aesthetically, offering amenities for families that will be used frequently, but without negative impacts of noise to the surrounding homes and park users using the space. Other features considered include natural play elements such as boulders and logs, as well as a small amphitheater for outdoor neighborhood movie nights and gatherings. This space will be a focal point for the community, anchoring the many lifestyle features being provided to homeowners within the neighborhood.
The walking and jogging trail that loops within the community is intended to be a highly impactful, memorable feature. The 8’ concrete pathway will be well landscaped on both sides as it loops around the heart of the community, offering the opportunity for homeowners to engage in healthy and highly social activities for the entire family. The pathway connects to the park at several entry points to ensure connectivity and flow within the community.
The pathway will be bordered by a split rail fence placed at the front of the lots of the interior loop road, which along with the concrete trail and landscaping, will be maintained by the homeowner’s association for continuity and assured aesthetics throughout. 1100
The pathway is approximately three-quarters of a mile around the exterior loop, and approximately one mile if your route includes the trail through the center of the loop. Our vision for this lifestyle amenity would include community events centered around the park and trail system, including 5k runs and walking events, maximizing a sense of community unlike any other in the City.
Deviations from R-1-20 Standards
Deviations from R-1-20 standards, including reduced setbacks and reduced minimum site area, are proposed for the Project. Setback deviations are requested to allow the lots to accommodate large homes to meet the needs of high-end buyers in Visalia. A reduction in minimum site area is proposed to facilitate the highly walkable, sociable neighborhood envisioned by the developer. The proposed deviations from R-1-20 standards are summarized in the table below. The additional space created by this deviation is necessary to provide the generous park space and other amenities proposed by the project.
Proposed Deviations from R-1-20 Standards
R-1-20 Standards Proposed Project
Minimum Site Area 20,000 SF 11,592 SF
Front Yard 35 feet 30 feet
Side Yard 10 feet 5 feet
Street Side Yard 20 feet 10 feet
Rear Yard 25 feet 25 feet
Minimum Site Width 100 feet 85 feet
1101
EXHIBIT I
1102
UP IWSP IW UPSP SP SPPP GUY
GUY
PP
PP
PP
GUY
IWUP SP BOLWV
WV
GUY PP UP PP
GUY
GUY
SP 12" PP BOL WVGUY PP TREETREE
TREE
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
BOL BOL BOL
LTE
DI 298.02
WV DI
E LTE
GUY PP
WV
FHWVWM
WM LTE
WV TREE
WV FHWV LTE
E
E
WV
WM
WM
LTE
WV
WV
GUYPPGUY
EE
WV
PP
GUY PP
PP PP PP BOL WV GUY PP
IW
PP PP GUY GUYPP
(E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH
(E) E OH (E) E OH
(E) E OH
(E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH
(E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH
IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR
IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR
IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR
IRR IRR IRR IRR
(E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SD
(E) SS (E) SS
W. WHITENDALE AVE.
S. SHIRK RD. / ROAD 92
S. ROEBEN ST.
42'
LOT F
RECESSED PARK / OPEN SPACE
3.7 ACRES
43'
55'
10'
PROPOSED
GATED ENTRY
PROPOSED
GATED ENTRY
36'
50'
84'
PHASE 1
TEMPORARY
EMERGENCY
ACCESS (20')
42' 31' 10'
20'
MEDIAN ISLAND
R35'
R30'
R30'
R30'
R30'
50'
ALIGNMENT TO UTILIZE LANDSCAPE
LOT ON NORTHEAST CORNER OF S
ROEBEN & WHITENDALE. PRECISE
ALIGNMENT TO BE DETERMINED
DURING CIVIL DESIGN
PERMANENT STORMWATER BASIN
DEPTH: 12'
SLOPE: 3:1
15867 S.F.
66 7331 S.F.
LOT A
12321 S.F.
28 19248 S.F.
LOT E
12325 S.F.
27 12325 S.F.
26 12325 S.F.
71 12325 S.F.
72 14940 S.F.
73 17900 S.F.
74 14523 S.F.
30 13504 S.F.
31 13895 S.F.
29 13925 S.F.
67 13775 S.F.
68 13775 S.F.
69 13078 S.F.
70 15583 S.F.
64 14974 S.F.
63 14967 S.F.
62 16418 S.F.
59 14983 S.F.
61 15334 S.F.
60 14500 S.F.
58 14500 S.F.
25 12325 S.F.
131
12325 S.F.
130
12325 S.F.
129
12309 S.F.
128
12325 S.F.
127
12325 S.F.
126
13614 S.F.
125
14594 S.F.
124
14689 S.F.
123
14775 S.F.
122
14836 S.F.
121
14751 S.F.
34 14618 S.F.
33 14211 S.F.
32 16570 S.F.
75 16274 S.F.
76 14463 S.F.
77 15570 S.F.
78 14472 S.F.
79 13775 S.F.
80 14505 S.F.
81 12205 S.F.
LOT D
12325 S.F.
82 12325 S.F.
83 12325 S.F.
84 14699 S.F.
85 16435 S.F.
86 18518 S.F.
87 16229 S.F.
65 13989 S.F.
132
16517 S.F.
88 13408 S.F.
135
13408 S.F.
136
13408 S.F.
134
13408 S.F.
133
5908 S.F.
LOT H
3372 S.F.
LOT I
13999 S.F.
9 16176 S.F.
8 14603 S.F.
7 15193 S.F.
6 13647 S.F.
5 13207 S.F.
4 13844 S.F.
3 15078 S.F.
2 16580 S.F.
1 13913 S.F.
LOT M
17032 S.F.
14 23366 S.F.
13 16891 S.F.
12 13891 S.F.
11 15060 S.F.
10 13556 S.F.
46 16419 S.F.
47 16788 S.F.
48 13689 S.F.
49 13194 S.F.
50 16588 S.F.
51 18309 S.F.
53 13313 S.F.
54 13235 S.F.
55 13235 S.F.
56 13235 S.F.
57 13235 S.F.
24 13475 S.F.
15 943 S.F.
LOT C
22514 S.F.
43 22181 S.F.
45 2200 S.F.
LOT J
15893 S.F.
44 13200 S.F.
89 15993 S.F.
90 19378 S.F.
100
14049 S.F.
101
13494 S.F.
102
13483 S.F.
103
13479 S.F.
104
13475 S.F.
105
13471 S.F.
106
13467 S.F.
107
13463 S.F.
108
13660 S.F.
109
16032 S.F.
110
16909 S.F.
111
13395 S.F.
112
12494 S.F.
113
17643 S.F.
114
15901 S.F.
115
21261 S.F.
116
18020 S.F.
117
22488 S.F.
15397 S.F. 118
119
19952 S.F.
120
19311 S.F.
35 18252 S.F.
36 17680 S.F.
37 12222 S.F.
38 16330 S.F.
39 18228 S.F.
40 18617 S.F.
41 17351 S.F.
42 22332 S.F.
LOT L
68'
145'
77'
77'
145'
63' 22'
145'
63' 22'
144'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
20' 64'
145'
63' 22' 37'
144'
72'
144'
34'
79'
65'
149'
79'
145'
119'
145'
65'
111'
13'
136'
45' 29'
145'
4' 84' 32'
145'
95'
145'
80' 15'
145'
95'
145'
85' 10'
145'
90'
145'
90'
145'
136' 13'
126'
145'
77'
81' 145'
124' 145' 77' 145'
124' 145' 84'
146'
124'
145'
32' 80'
145'
109'
145'
4'
77'
145'
124'
146'
15' 85'
145'
100'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
15' 70'
145'
85'
145'
25' 60'
145'
78' 31'
145'
30' 13' 36'
145'
120'
145'
79'
145'
120'
145'
30'
50'
145' 145'
81'
4'
141'
121'
141'
4'
81' 145'
121'
145'
76'
5' 145'
120'
145'
81'
145'
118'
74'
120'
145'
5'144'
56'
28'
127' 74'
81'
81' 145'
71'
144'
76'
81'
50'
142'
72' 145'
30'
79'
36'
144'
72'
142'
60' 30' 13'
145'
91' 6'
144'
70' 25'
145'
95'
145'
85' 15'
145'
100'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
85'
145'
25' 56' 47'
143'
50' 26'
145'
26'
73'
55'
143' 76'
143'
143'
18'
73'
87'
128' 27'
66'
148'
77'
81' 145'
66'
25' 85'
145'
56' 25'
145'
145'
137'
5' 140'
87'
145' 110'
145' 73'
145' 110'
145'
18'
55'
110'
145'
73'
145'
57' 160'
62' 41'
185'
74'
24'
72' 20' 190'
81' 31'
41'
157'
86'
205'
25'
144'
90'
25' 26'
36'
175'
18'
41'
30'
177'
46' 26'
196'
67'
53'
38' 81'
117'
4'
50'
8'
180' 29'
68'
181' 42' 53'
88'
282'
23'
73'
181' 160'
119'
23' 217'
170'
12' 32'
36' 5'
82'
172'
76'
106'
76'
126' 28'
162'
93'
18'
183'
183'
134' 150'
80'
80' 150'
109' 144' 80' 144'
97'
80'
156'
118'
189'
80'
186'
138'
160'
62' 24'
160'
85'
156'
85'
156'
85'
156'
85'
156'
85'
156'
85'
156'
85'
156'
85'
156'
85'
156'
134'
3'
85'
180'
105'
235'
112'
194'
206'
159'
32'
51'
78'
90'
194'
96'
159'
160'
77'
28'
81'
160' 51'
74'
160'
70'
131' 20'
188'
70'
164'
90'
164'
91'
151'
90'
151'
27' 63'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
90'
150'
6' 84'
157'
121'
157'
73'
182'
75'
50'
182'
65'
101'
169'
77'
94'
141'
70'
31'
29'
148'
75'
94'
12'
48'
157'
175'
157'
50'
161'
103'
161'
51' 161'
116'
161'
43'
184'
196'
184'
15' 48'
131'
179'
16'
172'
131'
26'
84'
29'
79' 144' 144'
75'
217'
179'
16' 217'
93'
78'
206'
90'
90' 23' 202'
91'
122' 85'
62'
122'
96'
90'
153'
43'
32'
175'
120'
85'
90' 120'
85'
216'
85'
5' 216'
85'
214'
85'
214'
88'
192'
19789 S.F.
52 80'
189'
57'
72'
186'
80'
R35'
12817 S.F.
91 11806 S.F.
92 15208 S.F.
93 12041 S.F.
94 16106 S.F.
95 11592 S.F.
96 17391 S.F. 97
13823 S.F.
98 17692 S.F.
99 104'
160' 75'
134'
70'
81'
27'
99'
134' 63'
29'
14' 44' 130'
150'
51'
104'
99'
10'
121'
22' 141'
130'
59'
93'
109'
121' 44'
142'
128'
142'
46'
146'
158'
146'
47' 11' 96'
143'
20'
164'
96'
30'
79'
30'
87'
144'
143'
144'
80'
188'
13235 S.F.
23 13235 S.F.
22 13236 S.F.
21 16711 S.F.
20 20393 S.F.
19 25592 S.F. 18
85'
0' 156'
85'
156'
85'
156'
85'
156'
10' 75'
156'
85'
156'
85'
156'
124'
170'
85'
170'
141'
213' 213'
75'
88'
207'
19440 S.F.
17 13776 S.F.
16 97'
207'
53'
68'
162'
42'
49'
80'
144' 76'
162'
29'
4' 90'
36823 S.F.
LOT B
69855 S.F.
LOT K
76'
162'
85'
80'
186'
156'
156'
156'
156'
156'
156'
156' 170' 213' 181'
217'
98'
48'
25'
89'
26' 66' 44' 86' 97'
50'
14'
144'
97'
156'
189'
4236 S.F.
LOT G
29'
85'
10' EXISTING DITCH EASEMENT
EXISTING UTILITYPOLE TO BEUNDERGROUNDED
EXISTING UTILITYPOLE TO BEUNDERGROUNDED
EXISTING UTILITYPOLE TO BEUNDERGROUNDED
EXISTING UTILITYPOLE TO BEUNDERGROUNDED
EXISTING UTILITYPOLE TO BEUNDERGROUNDED
EXISTING UTILITYPOLE TO BEUNDERGROUNDED
EXISTING UTILITY
POLE TO BE
UNDERGROUNDED
EXISTING UTILITYPOLE TO BEUNDERGROUNDED
EXISTING UTILITYPOLE TO BEUNDERGROUNDED
66'
66'
42'
42'
62'
47'
GATE IN BLOCK WALL
TO PROVIDE ACCESSTO STORMWATER
BASIN
BARR-WOOD SUBDIVISION
STREET LIGHT EXHIBIT
PREPARED BY:
FAX: 559.802.3215
TEL: 559.802.3052VISALIA, CA 93292
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
NORTH P.O. BOX 7593
100' 0' 100'
1103
Environmental Document No. 2022-18
City of Visalia Community Development
CITY OF VISALIA
315 E. ACEQUIA AVENUE
VISALIA, CA 93291
NOTICE OF A PROPOSED
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title:
Barr & Wood Subdivision – Annexation No. 2022-03, Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02 Project Description:
Annexation No. 2022-03: A request by Woodside Homes to annex one parcel totaling approximately
69.35-acres into the City Limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R-1-20 (SingleFamily Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size), which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Very Low Density.
Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588: A request by Woodside Homes to subdivide a 69.35-acre parcel into 136 lots for single-family residential use and additional lots for private streets, landscaping and lighting district lots, and a pocket park, to be located within the R1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06: A request by Woodside Homes to allow a planned unit development on a 69.35-acre parcel consisting of 136 single-family residential lots, private streets, two gated entries, landscaping and lighting district lots, and a pocket park, to be located within the R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02: A request by Woodside Homes to subdivide 69.35 acres into three parcels for phasing and financing purposes, to be located within the R-1-20 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot size) zone.
The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including but not limited to new and relocated utilities, new private and public residential streets, improvements of South Roeben Street and South Shirk Road, and the continuation and improvement of West Whitendale Avenue. The Project would require no demolition. The construction of the Project will be in three phases (Figure 3-5). Phase one will include 45 homes and the eastern site entrance, as well as a temporary emergency access road and storm drainage basin. The second phase will include 44 homes, the western site entrance, the stormwater drainage pond, and the central park. Phase three will include the remaining 47 homes.
Project Location: The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue (APN: 119-022-041).
Contact Person: Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner. Phone: (559) 713-4443. Email:
[email protected]
Time and Place of Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held before the Visalia Planning Commission on June 26, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 707 W.
Acequia Avenue, Visalia, California.
Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2388, the Environmental Coordinator of the City of Visalia has reviewed the proposed project described herein and has found that the project, with mitigation 1104
Environmental Document No. 2022-18
City of Visalia Community Development
measures, will not result in any significant effect upon the environment because of the reasons listed below:
Reasons for Mitigated Negative Declaration: Initial Study No. 2022-18 has identified environmental impact(s) that may occur because of the project; however, with the implementation of mitigation measures identified, impact(s) will be reduced to a level that is less than significant. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration will be accepted from June 1, 2023 to June 20, 2023.
Date: __5/31/2023______________ Signed: __________________________ Brandon Smith, AICP
Environmental Coordinator
City of Visalia
1105
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Barr-Wood Subdivision
April 2023
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Prepared By: Prepared For:
City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
1106
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Initial Study/MND Process 1-1
1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines 1-1
1.2 Initial Study 1-1
1.3 Environmental Checklist 1-2
1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration/Notice of Preparation 1-2
1.5 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-3
1.6 Intended Uses of the Environmental Assessment, Initial Study 1-3
1.7 Notice of Determination 1-3
1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart 1-4
Section 2: Project Description 2-1
2.1 Project Description & Purpose 2-1
2.2 Project Location 2-1
2.3 Other Permits and Approvals 2-2
Section 3: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-1
3.1 Purpose 3-1
3.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-2
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-8
3.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-11
3.5 Environmental Analysis 3-12
I. Aesthetics 3-12
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources 3-17
III. Air Quality 3-23
IV. Biological Resources 3-30
V. Cultural Resources 3-37
VI. Energy 3-42
VII. Geology and Soils 3-46
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-52
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-57
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 3-62
XI. Land Use and Planning 3-69
XII. Mineral Resources 3-74
XIII. Noise 3-75
XIV. Population and Housing 3-80
XV. Public Services 3-82
XVI. Parks and Recreation 3-86
XVII. Transportation 3-88
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 3-94
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 3-101
XX. Wildfire 3-106
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-108
3.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3-110
3.7 Supporting Information and Sources 3-115
1107
Section 4: List of Report Preparers 4-1
Appendices
Appendix A: CalEEMod Report
Appendix B: Biological Evaluation
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D: Energy Calculations
Appendix E: VMT Assessment
List of Figures
2-1 Regional Location 2-3
2-2 Vicinity Map 2-4
3-1 Vicinity Map 3-6
3-2 Site Plan 3-7
3-3 Tentative Parcel Map 3-8
3-4 Phasing Plan 3-9
3-5 Important Farmland Map 3-20
3-6 Soils Map 3-48
3-7 Distance to Schools and Airports 3-59
3-8 General Plan Land Use Designation 3-71
3-9 Zoning Map 3-72
3-10 Construction Related Noised Levels Based on Distance 3-78 3-11 Visalia Existing VMT per Capita 3-92
List of Tables
3-1 Important Farmland Developed Under General Plan 3-21 3-2 San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status 3-24
3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-26
3-4 SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants 3-27 3-5 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction 3-28 3-6 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Operations 3-28 3-7 Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site 3-33 3-8 SCE and State Average Power Resources 3-42
3-9 Fuel Use Generated by Construction Activities 3-44
3-10 Fuel Use Generated by Operational Activities 3-44
3-11 Greenhouse Gasses 3-52
3-12 Projected Operational GHG Compared to 2005 BAU 3-55 3-13 Project Consistency with Climate Action Plan Strategies 3-56 3-14 City of Visalia Noise Standards 3-76
3-15 Noise Levels of Noise-Generating Construction Equipment 3-77 3-16 Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment 3-78 3-17 Student Generation Rates 3-84
3-18 Proposed Project’s Trip Generation 3-90
1108
Section 1
Initial Study/Negative
Declaration Process
1109
1-1
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 1
CEQA Review Process
Project Title: Barr-Wood Subdivision
1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that the Lead Agency prepare an Initial Study to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment. All phases of the project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. The purposes of an Initial Study, as listed under Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, include:
(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration;
(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration; (3) Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
(a) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (b) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, (c) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, and
(d) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects.
(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment
(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
1.2 Initial Study
The Initial Study provided herein covers the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of 136 low density residential dwelling units on approximately 69.35 gross acres. The proposed project site is prezoned for R-1-20, and the General Plan designation is Very Low Density Residential. The City of Visalia will act as the Lead Agency for processing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
1110
1-2
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023
1.3 Environmental Checklist
The Lead Agency may use the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063(d)(3) and (f)] in preparation of an Initial Study to provide information for determination if there are significant effects of the project on the environment. A copy of the completed Environmental Checklist is set forth in Section Three.
1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration
The Lead Agency shall provide a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15072) to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies and the County Clerk within which the project is located, sufficiently prior to adoption by the Lead Agency of the Negative Declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period. The public review period (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105) shall not be less than 30 days when the Initial Study/Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse unless a shorter period, not less than 20 days, is approved by the State Clearinghouse.
Prior to approving the project, the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and shall adopt the proposed Negative Declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
The written and oral comments received during the public review period will be considered by The City of Visalia prior to adopting the Negative Declaration. Regardless of the type of CEQA document that must be prepared, the overall purpose of the CEQA process is to:
1) Assure that the environment and public health and safety are protected in the face of discretionary projects initiated by public agencies or private concerns; 2) Provide for full disclosure of the project’s environmental effects to the public, the agency decisionmakers who will approve or deny the project, and the responsible trustee agencies charged with managing resources (e.g. wildlife, air quality) that may be affected by the project; and 3) Provide a forum for public participation in the decision-making process pertaining to potential environmental effects.
According to Section 15070(a) a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
Less than significant impacts with mitigation measures have been identified.
The Environmental Checklist Discussion contained in Section Three of this document has determined that the environmental impacts of the project are less than significant with mitigation measures and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for adoption by the Lead Agency. 1111
1-3
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023
1.5 Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration The Lead Agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070) for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include the following:
(a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project. (b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map. (c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. (d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding. (e) Mitigation measures, if any.
1.6 Intended Uses of Initial Study/Negative Declaration documents The Initial Study/Negative Declaration document is an informational document that is intended to inform decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable the public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency must balance any potential environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals. The City of Visalia, as Lead Agency, will make a determination, based on the environmental review for the Environmental Study, Initial Study and comments from the general public, if there are less than significant impacts from the proposed project and the requirements of CEQA can be met by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
1.7 Notice of Determination (NOD)
The Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination within five working days after deciding to approve the project. The Notice of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15075) shall include the following:
(1) An identification of the project including the project title as identified on the proposed negative declaration, its location, and the State Clearinghouse identification number for the proposed negative declaration if the notice of determination is filed with the State Clearinghouse. (2) A brief description of the project.
(3) The agency's name and the date on which the agency approved the project. (4) The determination of the agency that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. (5) A statement that a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration was adopted pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
(6) A statement indicating whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project, and whether a mitigation monitoring plan/program was adopted. (7) The address where a copy of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration may be examined.
(8) The identity of the person undertaking a project which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies or the identity of the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use from one or more public agencies.
1112
1-4
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023
1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart
1113
Section 2
Project Description
1114
2-1
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 2
Project Description
Project Title: Barr-Wood Subdivision
2.1 Project Description and Purpose
The Project proposes a 136-unit, low-density single-family development with a central park and walking trails on 69.35 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area. The Project site’s existing General Plan land use designation is Residential Very Low Density, which corresponds to a prezone of R-1-20 (singlefamily residential, 20,000 square feet minimum lot size). The project includes 136 homes, averaging 11,592 square feet per lot, a 3.7-acre recessed park with walking trails, and a drainage pond.
The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including new and relocated utilities, new residential streets, improvements of South Roeben Street and South Shirk Road, and the continuation and improvement of West Whitendale Avenue. The Project would require no demolition.
The construction of the Project will be in three phases (Figure 3-5). Phase one will include 45 homes and the eastern site entrance, as well as a temporary emergency access road and storm drainage basin. The second phase will include 44 homes, the western site entrance, the stormwater drainage pond, and the central park. Phase three will include the remaining 47 homes.
The Project will require annexation into the City of Visalia; however, it is within the Visalia Planning Area and borders existing single-family homes within City Limits. Along with the annexation, the Project plans on splitting the existing parcel into three parcels to coincide with the phased development of the Project (Figure 3-3).
The Project requires a conditional use permit for three reasons. First, the Project is planning for a minimum lot size of 11,592 square feet rather than the 20,000 square feet R-1-20 zone requires. The second reason is reduced front and side yard setbacks. The R-1-20 zone requires a minimum setback of 35 feet in the front and 10 feet on the sides. The Project is planning for setbacks of 30 feet and 5 feet, respectively. The third reason is the minimum width of the lots. The R-1-20 zone requires a minimum width of 100 feet on interior lots and 110 feet on corner lots. The Project plans for a minimum width of 85 feet, ranging to a maximum of 206 feet.
2.2 Project Location
The proposed project site is located within in the City of Visalia Planning Area within Tulare County. The site is West of South Roeben Street and East of South Shirk Road. The site is approximately 4 miles Southwest of the Visalia downtown. The Project involves construction on approximately 69.35 acres on APN 119-022-041. The site is topographically flat and is bounded by agricultural uses (Including a Dairy Farm) to the South and East, and single-family housing to the North and West. The site is zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) by Tulare County but is prezoned for R-1-20 (Single Family Residential, 20,000 Square Foot Minimum Site Area) by the City of Visalia pending annexation. The 1115
2-2
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 General Plan Designation is Very Low Density Residential. The site currently contains agricultural uses and vacant land.
2.3 Other Permits and Approvals
The following discretionary approvals are required from the City of Visalia for the proposed project:
• Tentative Subdivision Map
• Tentative Parcel Map
• Conditional Use Permit for Lot Sizes, Lot Widths, and Lot Setbacks • Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Annexation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD and will be required to comply with Rule VIII, 3135, 4101, and 9510. • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWPPP. The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB will require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent impacts related to stormwater because of project construction.
The following ministerial approvals are required from the City of Visalia for the proposed project:
• City of Visalia Building and Encroachment Permits
• Roadway Dedication of Shirk Road, Roeben Street, and Whitendale Avenue 1116
2-3
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map
1117
2-4
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 2-2. Vicinity Map
1118
Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts
1119
3-1
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project Title: Barr-Wood Subdivision
This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed construction and operation of 136-unit, low-density single-family development with a central park and walking trails on
69.35 gross acres within the City of Visalia. The City of Visalia will act as Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.
3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this environmental document is to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15002(a) of the CEQA Guidelines describes the basic purposes of CEQA as follows. (1) Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). According to Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
(a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment,or (b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects,but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposedmitigatednegative declaration and initialstudy are released for public reviewwould avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on theenvironment. 1120
3-2
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023
3.2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Project Title: Barr-Wood Subdivision
2. Lead Agency: City of Visalia, Planning and Development Department Contact Person: Cristobal Carrillo, Planning Division
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
Phone Number: (559) 713-4443
3. Applicant: Woodside Homes
9 River Park Place East, Suite 430
Fresno, CA 93720
Phone Number: (559)-437-5010
4. Project Location: The proposed project site is located within in the City of Visalia Planning Area within Tulare County. The site is West of South Roeben Street and East of South Shirk Road. The site is approximately 4 miles Southwest of the Visalia downtown. The Project involves construction on approximately 69.35 acres on APN 119-022-041. The site is topographically flat and is bounded by agricultural uses (Including a Dairy Farm) to the South and East, and single-family housing to the North and West. The site is zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) by Tulare County but is prezoned for R-1-20 (Single Family Residential, 20,000 Square Foot Minimum Site Area) by the City of Visalia pending annexation. The General Plan Designation is Very Low Density Residential. The site currently contains agricultural uses and vacant land.
5. General Plan Designation: The proposed project site is designated as Very Low Density Residential by the Visalia General Plan.
6. Zoning Designation: The site is zoned AE-20 by Tulare County but is prezoned for R-1-20 by the City of Visalia.
7. Project Description: The Project proposes a 136-unit, low-density single-family development with a central park and walking trails on 69.35 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area. The Project site’s existing General Plan land use designation is Residential Very Low Density, which corresponds to a prezone of R-1-20 (single-family residential, 20,000 square feet minimum lot size). The project includes 136 homes, averaging 11,592 square feet per lot, a 3.7-acre recessed park with walking trails, and a drainage pond.
The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including new and relocated utilities, new residential streets, improvements of South Roeben Street and South Shirk Road, and the continuation and improvement of West Whitendale Avenue. The Project will require no demolition. The construction of the Project will be in three phases (Figure 3-4). Phase one will include 45 homes and the eastern site entrance, as well as a temporary emergency access road and storm drainage basin. The second phase will include 44 homes, the western site entrance, the stormwater drainage pond, and the central park. Phase three will include the remaining 47 homes. 1121
3-3
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 The Project will require annexation into the City of Visalia; however, it is within the Visalia Planning Area and borders existing single-family homes within City Limits. Along with the annexation, the Project plans on splitting the existing parcel into three parcels to coincide with the phased development of the Project (Figure 3-3).
The Project requires a conditional use permit for three reasons. First, the Project is planning for a minimum lot size of 11,592 square feet rather than the 20,000 square feet R-1-20 zone requires. The second reason is reduced front and side yard setbacks. The R-1-20 zone requires a minimum setback of 35 feet in the front and 10 feet on the sides. The Project is planning for setbacks of 30 feet and 5 feet, respectively. The third reason is the minimum width of the lots. The R-1-20 zone requires a minimum width of 100 feet on interior lots and 110 feet on corner lots. The Project plans for a minimum width of 85 feet, ranging to a maximum of 206 feet.
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
North: Very Low Density Residential (Visalia General Plan, Visalia Planning Area), currently SingleFamily Housing.
South: Agricultural Use (Tulare County General Plan) currently agricultural use, including a dairy.
East: Low Density Residential (Visalia General Plan, Visalia Planning Area) currently Single-Family Housing.
West: Agriculture Use (Tulare County General Plan) currently agricultural use.
9. Required Approvals: The following discretionary approvals are required from the City of Visalia for the proposed project:
• Tentative Subdivision Map
• Tentative Parcel Map
• Conditional Use Permit for Lot Sizes, Lot Widths, and Lot Setbacks • Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Annexation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD and will be required to comply with Rule VIII, 3135, 4101, and 9510. • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWPPP. The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB will require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent impacts related to stormwater because of project construction.
The following ministerial approvals are required from the City of Visalia for the proposed project:
• City of Visalia Building and Encroachment Permits
• Roadway Dedication of Shirk Road, Roeben Street, and Whitendale Avenue
10. Native American Consultation: The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic 1122
3-4
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Native American tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Tulare County has several Rancherias.
The tribes that were formally noticed of this Project were the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, Tule River Indian Tribe, Kern Valley Indian Community, North Fork Mono Tribe, and the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. These Rancherias are not located within the City limits.
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
The Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe responded on behalf of the Tribe requesting an archaeological firm be hired to conduct a pre-construction survey, a records search with NAHC and CHRIS center, and monitoring of any ground disturbing activities due to concerns with the Project.
Additionally, the Tachi Yokut Tribe request to be put in contact with the archaeological firm hired so they can maintain updates about the Project.
11. Parking and access: Vehicular access to the project is available via S Shirk Road and S Roeben Street.
The project includes new streets and courts that provide full access to the project site. During construction, workers will utilize existing parking areas and/or temporary construction staging areas for parking of vehicles and equipment. Additionally, a temporary emergency access will be added during early construction.
12. Landscaping and Design: The landscape and design plans will be required during building permit and final map submittal for any areas maintained by a landscape and lighting district.
13. Utilities and Electrical Services: The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including new and relocated utilities. Water will be provided by Cal Water and sewer services will be provided by the City of Visalia via existing lines. A stormwater pond will be located in the Southwest corner of the site. During construction, a temporary stormwater basin will be utilized.
The Project would include improvement to the surrounding streets. The Right of Way (ROW) of S.
Roeben Street will be widened to 84’ and include a new center median. The Project will build out the western half of Roeben Street to include a sidewalk, bike lane, and landscaping. The ROW of S. Shirk Road will be widened to 110’, with the Project providing the eastern half of improvements. The eastern half of Shirk Street will include two lanes of traffic, a bike lane, a sidewalk, and landscaping.
W. Whitendale Avenue, currently a dirt road, will be widened to an 84’ ROW, with the Project providing the northern half of improvements. The northern half of Whitendale will include new pavement for a travel lane, bike lane, and on-street parking. Additionally, the Project will add a sidewalk and landscaping.
1123
3-5
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Acronyms
BMP Best Management Practices
BAU Business as Usual
CAA Clean Air Act
CBC California Building Code
CCAP Climate Change Action Plan
CCR California Code of Regulation
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CRHR California Register of Historic Places
CWA California Water Act
DHS Department of Health Services
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FMMP Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
ISMND Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
ISR Indirect Source Review
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MEIR Master Environmental Impact Report
NOI Notice of Intent
ND Negative Declaration
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
ROW Right-of-Way
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCE Southern California Edison
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SSJVIC Southern San Joaquin Information Center
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
1124
3-6
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-1. Vicinity Map
1125
3-7
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-2: Site Plan
1126
3-8
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-3: Tentative Parcel Map
1127
3-9
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-5: Phasing Plan
1128
3-10
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023
3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “no Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites, in the parentheses following each question.
A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR if required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c) (3)(D).
In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following. • Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. • Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
• Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated.” Describe and mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
1129
3-11
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services Agriculture and Forest Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Transportation Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service System Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology and soils Population Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is requested. ________________________________ _5/31/2023____________
SIGNATURE
DATE
Brandon Smith__________________________ City of Visalia
PRINTED NAME AGENCY
1130
3-12
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023
3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identify mitigation measures, if applicable.
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resource Code
Section 210999, would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within state
scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Environmental Setting
Scenic Resources
Scenic resources include landscapes and features that are visually or aesthetically pleasing. They contribute positively to a distinct community or region. These resources produce a visual benefit upon communities. The City of Visalia has a visual character of a mix of rural and built environments. Visalia is surrounded by natural open space agricultural land, characterized by uses such as grazing, open space, and cultivated agriculture. Downtown Visalia is the physical, cultural, and economic center, with historical homes surrounding the downtown. St. John’s river flows along the North side of Visalia’s city limits, along with smaller creeks and ditches throughout the city. Valley Oak trees, both individually and in groves, also provide an important scenic feature and link to the natural setting of the San Joaquin Valley. The goal of Visalia’s General Plan regarding visual resources is to preserve and re-establish the city’s natural waterway system and Valley Oak tree groves with parks, conservation areas, and trailways.
Scenic Vistas
The Visalia General Plan identifies the Sierra Nevada mountains to the East and agricultural lands surrounding the city as scenic vistas surrounding Visalia. 1131
3-13
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Existing Visual Character
The following photos demonstrate the aesthetic character of the project area. As shown, the proposed project site area is in a relatively flat area characterized by agricultural uses.
Photo 1: Northwest Site Boundary (View Southeast) Source: Google Maps 2021 Photo 2: Southwest Site Boundary (View Northeast) Source: Google Maps 2021 Photo 3: Southeast Site Boundary (View Northwest) Source: Google Maps 2011 1132
3-14
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Regulatory Setting
Scenic Roadways
The California Scenic Highway Program was established in 1963 by the State Legislature for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through conservation strategies. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that have either been officially designated or are eligible for designation. State laws affiliated with governing the scenic highway program can be found in Sections 260-263 in The Street and Highways Code.
State Scenic Highways
According to the California Department of Transportation mapping of State Scenic Highways, the City of Visalia does not have officially designated State Scenic Highways, however the City has one eligible State Scenic Highway, a 44-mile stretch of State Route 198 from State Route 99 to Sequoia National Park. This is designated as a scenic corridor in the City’s General Plan This portion of the highway is approximately 1.3 miles North from the proposed site.
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to aesthetic resources that correlate to the proposedproject:
LU-P-28: Continue to use natural and man-made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the City’s Urban Area Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines.
LU-P-34: Work with Tulare County to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth boundaries and to promote the of use agricultural preserves, where they will promote orderly development.
LU-P-42: Develop scenic corridor and gateway guidelines that will maintain the agricultural character of Visalia at its urban fringe.
LU-P-72: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
OSC-P-13: In new neighborhoods that include waterways, improvement of the waterway corridor, including preservation and/or enhancement of natural features and development of a continuous waterway trail on at least one side, shall be required.
OSC-P-17: Require that new development along waterways maintain a visual orientation and active interface with waterways. Develop design guidelines to be used for review and approval of subdivision and development proposals to illustrate how this can be accomplished for different land uses in various geographic settings.
OSC-P-34: Enhance views and public access to Planning Area waterways and other significant features such as Valley Oak groves consistent with flood protection, irrigation water conveyance, habitat preservation and recreation planning policies.
1133
3-15
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Tulare County General Plan
The 2030 Tulare County General Plan contains following goals and policies related to aesthetic resources that correlate to the proposed project:
SL-1.1 Natural Landscapes: During review of discretionary approvals, including parcel and subdivision maps, the County shall as appropriate, require new development to not significantly impact or block views of Tulare County’s natural landscapes.
1. Be sited to minimize obstruction of views from public lands and rights-of-ways,
3. Screen parking areas from view,
4. Include landscaping that screens the development,
5. Limit the impact of new roadways and grading on natural settings, and
6. Include signage that is compatible and in character with the location and building design
SL-1.2 Working Landscapes: The County shall require that new non-agricultural structures and infrastructure located in or adjacent to croplands, orchards, vineyards, and open rangelands be sited so as to not obstruct important viewsheds and to be designed to reflect unique relationships with the landscape.
1. Referencing traditional agricultural building forms and materials,
2. Screening and breaking up parking and paving with landscaping, and
3. Minimizing light pollution and bright signage.
SL-3.2 Urban Expansion–Edges: The County shall design and plan the edges and interface of communities with working and natural landscapes to protect their scenic qualities by:
1. Maintaining urban separators between cities and communities,
2. Encouraging cities to master plan mixed-density neighborhoods at their edges, locating compatible lower density uses adjacent to working and natural landscapes, and
3. 3. Protecting important natural, cultural, and scenic resources located within areas that may be urbanized in the future
City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance
The Visalia Zoning Ordinance governs the distribution and intensity of land uses, sets the principles for evaluating development and guides the development and growth of the City. The Zoning Ordinance establishes specific development criteria for each zoning district (i.e., parking requirements, walls, fencing, setbacks, building height, etc.).
Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than SignificantImpact: A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada mountains to the East and agricultural lands surrounding the city are the primary scenic vista within this region.
The site is surrounded by agricultural uses and single-family homes, while the Sierra Nevada foothills are approximately 10 miles east of the project site. The project would obstruct some 1134
3-16
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 views of agricultural uses. However, the project would not significantly alter views overall from the surrounding community. There is a less than significant impact. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within state scenic highway? No Impact: There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways located in the City of Visalia or nearby the site. The proposed project would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway and there is no impact.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No Impact: The proposed project site is in an urbanized area within the City of Visalia. The materials, signage, fencing, landscaping, and building materials used in the construction of the project will be selected based on their ability to improve the overall visual character of the area.
The proposed project will comply with all applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. There is no impact.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in new lighting sources on the project site consistent with adjacent residential development. New lighting sources would include interior lighting from residences, street lighting, and security lighting. All street and landscape lighting will be consistent with the City’s lighting standards, which are developed to minimize impacts related to excessive light and glare. Although the project will introduce new light sources to the area, all lighting will be consistent with adjacent residential land uses and the City’s lighting standards. The impacts are less than significant.
1135
3-17
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in the
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to
non-forest use?
1136
3-18
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Environmental Setting
Central California is one of the world’s premier growing regions. Agriculture is an important economic resource for Visalia and the surrounding areas. 39,518 acres, or 65 percent, of the Visalia Planning Area is farmland, producing fruit and nut crops, vegetables, nursery products (trees), apiary products (honey), seed crops (cotton), industrial crops (timber), field crops (alfalfa, barley, corn), and livestock.
The proposed project site is located within the Visalia Planning Area. The proposed project site is not under Williamson Act Contract or a Farmland Security Zone contract. The proposed site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance under the Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).
The Site is within the Tier 2 Development Boundary and is designated for Very Low-Density Housing.
Nearby to the South and West are Prime Farmland and Confined Animal Enclosures. To the North and East are Urban and Built-up land.
Regulatory Setting
California Land Conservation Act of 1965
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, allows local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict the activities on specific parcels of land to agricultural or open space uses. The landowners benefit from the contract by receiving greatly reduced property tax assessments. The California Land Conservation Act is overseen by the California Department of Conservation; however local governments are responsible for determining specific allowed uses and enforcing the contract.
Right to Farm Ordinance
Tulare County adopted a “Right to Farm Ordinance,” to protect the rights of commercial farming operations, while promoting a “good neighbor policy” between these uses. Under this ordinance, property owners and residents are made aware that they may experience inconveniences due to commercial agricultural operations.
California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) The FMMP is implemented by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to conserve and protect agricultural lands within the State. Land is included in this program based on soil type, annual crop yields, and other factors that influence the quality of farmland. The FMMP mapping categories for the most important statewide farmland are as follows:
• Prime Farmland has the ideal physical and chemical composition for crop production. It has been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and can produce sustained yields. 51% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Prime Farmland. • Farmland of Statewide Importance has also been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and is only slightly poorer quality than Prime Farmland. 11% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. • Unique Farmland has been cropped in the four years prior to classification and does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance but has produced specific crops with high economic value. Less than 1% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Unique Farmland.
• Farmland of Local Importance encompasses farmland that does not meet the criteria for the previous three categories. These may lack irrigation, produce major crops, be zoned as 1137
3-19
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 agricultural, and/or support dairy. 2% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Farmland of Local Importance.
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to agricultural resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.
• LU-P-21: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the Tier II UDB and the Tier III Urban Growth Boundary consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, according to the stated phasing thresholds. • OSC-P-28: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping, and construction.
Tulare County General Plan
The 2030 Tulare County General Plan contains following goals related to agricultural resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• Promote the long-term preservation of productive and potentially productive agricultural lands and to accommodate agricultural-support services and agriculturally related activities that support the viability of agriculture and further the County’s economic development goals; • Support increased viability of agriculture production and promote high-value, employmentintensive, and diverse agricultural production, and processing in Tulare County; • Support the reasonable development and economic viability of animal confinement facilities. 1138
3-20
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-5: Important Farmlands Map
1139
3-21
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is currently occupied by agricultural land with field crops. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 69.35 acres of Farmland of Local Importance to non-agricultural uses.
The loss of Farmland of Local Importance on the Project site would result in the decrease of Important Farmland inventory in Visalia Planning Area. Visalia Planning Area currently has an Important Farmland inventory of 43,155 acres, 1,630 acres of which were categorized as Farmland of Local Importance. Implementation of the Project would convert 69.35 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, which would result in a .16 percent decrease in the total Important Farmland inventory of Visalia Planning Area and a 4.25 percent decrease in the Farmland of Local Importance inventory.
As shown in Table 3-1, the Visalia 2030 General Plan at full buildout plans to develop on 14,265 total acres of Important Farmland, of which 1,630 acres are Farmland of Local Importance. Most of the growth is planned to be adjacent to urbanized areas, which is much less disruptive to other agricultural uses countywide because it discourages the development of new rural neighborhoods or communities that would require the extension of infrastructure that would create growth-inducing impacts and potentially greater impacts to agricultural resources.
FMMP Designation Existing Planning
Area Total (Acres)
Planning Area Total at
General Plan Buildout
(Acres)
Change
Prime Farmland 33,991 21,501 -12,490 (-37%)
Farmland of Statewide Importance 7,353 6,954 -399 (-5%) Unique Farmland 181 137 -44 (-24%)
Farmland of Local Importance 1,630 298 -1,333 (-82%)
Important Farmland Total 43,155 28,890 -14,265 (-33%)
Table 3-1: Important Farmland Developed Under 2030 General Plan. Source: Visalia Planning Area General Plan EIR Although the proposed site is located on Farmland of Local Importance, the development is in accordance with the 2030 General Plan. The Site is within the Tier 2 Development Boundary and is designated as Very Low Density Residential by the General Plan. It is not designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project will follow all existing and proposed 2030 General Plan policies to reduce potential impacts. There is a less than significant impact. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? Less Than Significant Impact: The site is currently zoned for agriculture by Tulare County. However, it is within the Visalia Planning Area, Tier 2 Development Boundary and is expected to be annexed by the city. It currently has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential that would suit the proposed project. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. There is a less than significant impact.
1140
3-22
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
No Impact: The project site is not zoned for forest or timberland production. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact: No conversion of forestland, as defined under Public Resource Code or General Code, will occur as a result of the project and there would be no impacts. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above, new development including the project site would be focused in and around existing communities. This would prevent new infrastructure from interfering with surrounding farmland. The project does not include any features which could result in the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. There is a less than significant impact. 1141
3-23
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Environmental Setting
Air pollution is directly related to regional topography. Topographic features can either stimulate the movement of air or restrict air movement. California is divided into regional air basins based on topographic air drainage features. The proposed project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the East, Coastal Ranges to the West, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the South.
The mountain ranges surrounding the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) serve to restrict air movement and prevent the dispersal of pollution. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollution accumulation over time. As shown in the Table 3-2, the SJVAB is in nonattainment for several pollutant standards. The primary pollutants of concern in the San Joaquin Valley are ozone (O3) and PM10.
Pollutant Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal Standardf Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment PM 10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
PM 2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment a See 40 CFR Part 81 b See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210 c On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.
1142
3-24
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 d The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f Effective June 15, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.
Table 3-2. San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status; Source: SJVAPCD Valley Fever
Valley Fever is an illness caused by a fungus (Coccidioides immitis and C. posadasii) that grows in soils under certain conditions. Favorable conditions for the Valley Fever fungus include low rainfall, high summer temperatures, and moderate winter temperatures. In California, the counties with the highest incident of Valley Fever are Fresno, Kern and Kings counties. When soils are disturbed by wind or activities like construction and farming, Valley Fever fungal spores can become airborne. The spores present a potential health hazard when inhaled. Individuals in occupations such as construction, agriculture, and archaeology have a higher risk of exposure due to working in areas of disturbed soils which may have the Valley Fever fungus.
Regulatory Setting
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to air quality that correlate to the proposed project:
• AQ-P-2: Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule. • AQ-P-9: Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects
Federal Clean Air Act
The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and set deadlines for their attainment. The Clean Air Act identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to meet interim milestones. The U.S. EPA is the federal agency charged with administering the Act and other air quality-related legislation. EPA’s principal functions include setting NAAQS; establishing minimum national emission limits for major sources of pollution; and promulgating regulations. Under CAA, the NCCAB is identified as an attainment area for all pollutants.
California Clean Air Act
California Air Resources Board coordinates and oversees both state and federal air pollution control programs in California. As part of this responsibility, California Air Resources Board monitors existing air quality, establishes California Ambient Air Quality Standards, and limits allowable emissions from 1143
3-25
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 vehicular sources. Regulatory authority within established air basins is provided by air pollution control and management districts, which control stationary-source and most categories of areasource emissions and develop regional air quality plans. The project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
The state and federal standards for the criteria pollutants are presented in Section 8.4 of The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s 2015 “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts”. These standards are designed to protect public health and welfare. The “primary” standards have been established to protect the public health. The “secondary” standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soils, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of general welfare. The U.S. EPA revoked the national 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, and the annual PM10 standard on September 21, 2006, when a new PM2.5 24-hour standard was established.
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Ozone (03)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
-- Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet 8 Hour
Photometry 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
0.075
ppm (147
μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24 Hour 50 μg/m
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150
μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 --
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24 Hour
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
35 μg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
35 ppm
(40
mg/m3)
--
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10
mg/m3)
--
8 Hour
(Lake
Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) -- --
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) 8
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb
(188
μg/m3)
--
Gas Phase Annual
Chemiluminescence Arithmetic
Mean
0.030 ppm
(57 μg/m3)
53 ppb
(100
μg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb
(196
μg/m3)
-- Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3 Hour -- --
0.5 ppm
(1300
μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)
0.14 ppm
(for --
1144
3-26
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
certain
areas)9
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
--
0.030
ppm (for
certain
areas)9
--
Lead10,11
30 Day
Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic Absorption
-- --
High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic Absorption
Calendar
Quarter --
1.5 μg/m3
(for
certain
areas)11
Same as
Primary
Standard Rolling 3-
Month
Average
-- 0.15
μg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles12
8 Hour See footnote
12 Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance
through Filter Tape
No National Standard Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion
Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride10 24 Hour
0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.
8. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively.
9. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
10. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
11. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
12. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
1145
3-27
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Table 3-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards; Source: SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) The SJVAPCD is responsible for enforcing air quality standards in the project area. To meet state and federal air quality objectives, the SJVAPCD adopted the following thresholds of significance for projects:
Pollutant/Precursor
Construction
Emissions
Operational Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
Nox 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Table 3-4. SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants; Source: SJVAPCD The following SJVAPCD rules and regulations may apply to the proposed project:
• Rule 3135: Dust Control Plan Fee. All projects which include construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities as defined by Regulation VIII (Described below) are required to submit a Dust Control Plan and required fees to mitigate impacts related to dust.
• Rule 4101: Visible Emissions. District Rule 4101 prohibits visible emissions of air contaminants that are dark in color and/or have the potential to obstruct visibility. • Rule 9510: Indirect Source Review (ISR). This rule reduces the impact PM10 and NOX emissions from growth on the SJVB. This rule places application and emission reduction requirements on applicable development projects in order to reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite SJVAPCD administered projects, or a combination of the two. This project will submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application in accordance with Rule 9510’s requirements.
• Regulation VIII: Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Regulation VIII is composed of eight rules which together aim to limit PM10 emissions by reducing fugitive dust. These rules contain required management practices to limit PM10 emissions during construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities.
Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact: The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and would result in air pollutant emissions that are regulated by the air district during both its construction and operational phases. The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in the Visalia Planning Area into compliance with federal and state air 1146
3-28
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 quality standards. The Air District has Particulate Matter (PM) plans, Ozone Plans, and Carbon Monoxide Plans that serve as the clean air plan for the basin.
Together, these plans quantify the required emission reductions to meet federal and state air quality standards and provide strategies to meet these standards. The SJVAPCD adopted the Indirect Source Review (ISR) Rule in order to fulfill the District’s emission reduction commitments in its PM10 and Ozone (NOx) attainment plans and has since determined that implementation and compliance with ISR would reduce the cumulative PM10 and NOx impacts anticipated in the air quality plans to a less than significant level.
Construction Phase. Project construction would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. The construction related emissions from these activities were calculated using CalEEMod. The full CalEEMod Report can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-5 below, project construction related emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.
CO (tpy) ROG
(tpy)
SOx
(tpy)*
Nox
(tpy)
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
Emissions Generated
from Project
Construction
2.9256 2.3192 .00611 3.2874 1.0805 .5454
SJVAPCD Air Quality
Thresholds of
Significance
100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by CalEEMod.
Table 3-5. Projected Project Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction; Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod (v. 2020.4.0) Analysis (Appendix A) Operational Phase. Implementation of the proposed project would result in long-term emissions associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, as well as mobile emissions. Operational emissions from these factors were calculated using CalEEMod. The full CalEEMod report can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-6 below, the project’s operational emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.
CO (tpy) ROG
(tpy)
SOx
(tpy)*
Nox
(tpy)
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
Operational Emissions
(Dry Years) 13.2531 9.8945 .0242 .7699 2.3256 1.5697
SJVAPCD Air Quality
Thresholds of
Significance
100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by CalEEMod.
Table 3-6. Projected Project Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants related to Operations; Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod (v. 2020.4.0) Analysis (Appendix A) 1147
3-29
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Because the emissions from both construction and operation of the proposed project would be below the thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and there is no impact. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in the Visalia Planning Area into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The significance thresholds and rules developed by the SJVAPCD are designed to prevent projects from violating air quality standards or significantly contributing to existing air quality violations. As discussed above, neither construction-related emissions nor operation-related emissions will exceed thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. The project will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, which will further reduce the potential for any significant impacts related to air quality as a result of project implementation. Because these thresholds and regulations are designed to achieve and/or maintain federal and state air quality standards, and the project is compliant with these thresholds and regulations, the project will not violate an air quality standard or significantly contribute to an existing air quality violation. The impact is less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact: The single-family residences located to the North are the closest sensitive receptors. The project does not include any project components identified by the California Air Resources Board that could potentially impact any sensitive receptors. These include heavily traveled roads, distribution centers, fueling stations, and dry-cleaning operations. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact: The project will create temporary localized odors during project construction. The proposed project will not introduce a conflicting land use (surrounding land includes residential neighborhoods) to the area and will not have any component that would typically emit odors. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 1148
3-30
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through director removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion for this section originates from the Biological Resource Assessment that was prepared for this project by Soar Environmental Consulting to identify biological resources present or potentially present on the project site and assess the significance of project impacts on such resources per provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the state and federal endangered species acts (FESA and CESA respectively), California Fish and Game Code, and California Water Code. The research included the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory. The full document can be found in Appendix B.
Environmental Setting
The Project site is in the western portion of the Visalia Planning Area within the lower San Joaquin Valley, in the Central Valley of California. The Central Valley is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges 1149
3-31
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west. Like most of California, Visalia is considered a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the humidity is relatively low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and rarely exceed 70 degrees. On average, the Central Valley receives approximately 10 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and March.
The topography of the area is completely flat at approximately 300 feet elevation, vegetative ground cover was recently mowed. The proposed Project site is in a residential and agricultural interface environment just outside the western boundary of the City of Visalia. The proposed Project site is bounded by agricultural fields to the south and west, and single-family homesto the north and east. A canal runs north and south on the eastern portion of the site. The canal is surrounded by agricultural fields. No other natural water features occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. There were no signs of pooling water or vernal pool habitat within the Project site. There are no structures on the property, no trees or bushes that would provide adequate habitat for nesting birds, and there were no small mammal Burrows that would provide adequate refuge for San Joaquin kitfox. The soil on the proposed Project site is highly compacted. Few trees exist in the surrounding area. Powerlines run north and south along the western boundary of the site.
Prior to performing the habitat assessment, Soar Environmental conducted a records search for threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the Project area. The records search included a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory. A full list of special-status species with the potential to occur on the project site can be seen in Table 3-7.
No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed during the site reconnaissance. However, several bird species were observed flying and perched on trees in the area, although there is no suitable area for the birds to nest in the project area. While no special status species were observed, the Project Site contains potentially suitable habitat for the following species:
Species Name Species
Observed on
Project Site
Potential for Occurrence on Project Site
Amphibians
California red-legged frog
(Rana draytonii)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Birds
Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
No Low: Species known to
occur in the vicinity of the
site, and there is marginal
habitat onsite.
1150
3-32
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Fish
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Invertebrates
Conservancy fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta conservatio)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Mammals
Fisher
(Pekania pennanti)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Reptiles
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia sila)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
1151
3-33
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Plants Species
Observed on
Project Site
Suitable Habitat on Project Site
California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)
No Absent
Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
No Absent
Hoover’s spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri)
No Absent
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)
No Absent
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
No Absent
Succulent owl’s-clover
(Castilleja campestris ssp.
Succulenta)
No Absent
Table 3-7: Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site Regulatory Setting
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): defines an endangered species as “any species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species or subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 USC 703-712): FMBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Although the USFWS and its parent administration, the U.S. Department of the Interior, have traditionally interpreted the FMBTA as prohibiting incidental as well as intentional “take” of birds, a January 2018 legal opinion issued by the Department of the Interior now states that incidental take of migratory birds while engaging in otherwise lawful activities is permissible under the FMBTA. However, California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities.
Birds of Prey (CA Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5): Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are afforded additional protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs.
Clean Water Act: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of (1972) is to maintain, restore, and enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged and fill materials into “waters of the United States” (jurisdictional waters). Waters of the US including navigable waters of the 1152
3-34
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 United States, interstate waters, tidally influenced waters, and all other waters where the use, degradation, or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or that are adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA): prohibits the take of any state-listed threatened and endangered species. CESA defines take as “any action or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill any listed species.” If the proposed project results in a take of a listed species, a permit pursuant to Section 2080 of CESA is required from the CDFG.
City of Visalia Oak Tree Ordinance: The City of Visalia has an oak tree ordinance that protects valley oak trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 2 inches or greater. Under this ordinance, removal, or encroachment within the drip-line of or damage to valley oak trees is prohibited. Removal requires a permit from the city manager and mitigation either by replacement in-kind or payment of an in-lieu fee to be used for oak tree planting.
Visalia Planning Area General Plan: The Visalia Planning Area General Plan contains the following policies related to the preservation of biological resources that may be considered relevant to the proposed Project’s environmental review:
• OSC-P-8 Protect, restore, and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation along Planning Area waterways, including the St. Johns River; Mill, Packwood, and Cameron Creeks; and segments of other creeks and ditches where feasible, in conformance with the Parks and Open Space diagram of this General Plan.
• OSC-P-19 Establish easements or require dedication of land along waterways to protect natural habitat areas, allow maintenance operations and promote trails and bike paths. • OSC-P-26 Establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for control of invasive plant species where such plants could adversely impact wildlife habitat.
• OSC-P-27 Establish a “no net loss” standard for sensitive habitat acreage, including wetlands and vernal pools potentially affected by development.
• OSC-P-30 Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any discretionary development projects involving riparian habitat, wetlands, or special status species habitat. Early in the development review process, consult with California Department of Fish and Game, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies.
• OSC-P-31 Protect and enhance habitat for special status species, designated under state and federal law. Require protection of sensitive habitat areas and special status species in new development in the following order: 1) avoidance; 2) onsite mitigation, and 3) offsite mitigation. 1153
3-35
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Biological Resource Assessment conducted for the proposed Project found that the San Joaquin kit fox, Swainson’s hawk, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, and the Western yellowbilled cuckoo are special-status species with historical observations within five miles of the proposed Project site. Suitable habitat for these special status species is poor on and near the proposed Project site due to agricultural activity. CNDDB records indicate that the nearest and most recent occurrence of San Joaquin kit fox was approximately 4.1 miles northwest of the proposed Project site, the Swainsons’s hawk approximately 3 miles east, the Vernal pool fairy shrimp approximately 3 miles northwest, and the Western yellow-billed cuckoo approximately 4.3 miles northeast. However, due to habitat quality and proximity of historical occurrences, all of these species were found to be unlikely to occur within the vicinity of the Project site. Based on the findings of this assessment, the proposed development of this property is unlikely to adversely affect any special-status species and is likely to have no effect for CEQA considerations. Soar Environmental Consulting does not recommend any mitigation measures, however, if any of the special status species are observed during construction, they recommend stopping work immediately and contacting CDFW. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact: There are no CNDDB-designated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the proposed Project area or surrounding lands. The Visalia General Plan identifies Grasslands, Valley Oak Riparian Woodland, Valley Oak Woodland, Vernal Pools, and Wetlands as vegetation communities to protect. The nearest community is a Valley Oak Woodland approximately 0.3 miles north. The proposed Project site consists of agricultural fields. There would be no impact. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through director removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant Impact: A canal runs through the eastern portion of the site. However, the project will not affect the canal and leave a buffer surrounding the canal. There is less than significant impact.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project area is surrounded by cultivated agricultural lands, residential development, and paved roads. Therefore, the proposed Project area does not contain features that would be likely to function as a wildlife movement corridor. The San Joaquin kit fox, 1154
3-36
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Swainson’s hawk, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, and the Western yellow-billed cuckoo are the special status species with potential to exist within 5 miles of the site. Due to the level of agricultural activity, residential development of the surrounding area, lack of suitable habitat, and distance of other known occurrences from the site, occurrence of special status species within the vicinity of the proposed Project site is unlikely. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact: The proposed Project would comply with the goals and policies of the Visalia General Plan.
There are few trees on the site, but the project will follow the Visalia Tree Ordinance. There would be no impact.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact: There are no known habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) in the proposed Project area. There would be no impact. 1155
3-37
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
A Phase 1 cultural resources assessment for the Barr-Wood Subdivision was conducted by Taylored Archaeology (Appendix C). The Project proposes to construct 136 single family units and a 3.7-acre park.
The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Environmental Setting
The Project area is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory of the San Joaquin Valley and located between the Kings River and the north shore of Tulare Lake. The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts.
The Project area is likely within the Telamni Yokuts territory. The main village for this area was Waitatshuulul, which was approximately 3 miles east of the Project site along Packwood Creek.
The San Joaquin Valley did not experience contact with Europeans until the late 1700s. The earliest exploration of the San Joaquin Valley by Europeans was likely by the Spaniards when in the fall of 1772 a group known as the Catalonian Volunteers entered the valley through Tejon Pass in search of deserters from the Southern California Missions. However, the group only made it as far north as Buena Vista Lake in modern day Kern County before turning around due to the extensive swamps. Initial settlement within the valley by Europeans in the 1830s was largely either by trappers or horse thieves. With the end of the Mexican American War and the beginning of the gold rush in 1848, the San Joaquin Valley became more populated with ranchers and prospectors. By 1850, California became a state, and Tulare County was established in 1853. Visalia, founded in 1852, is one of the oldest cities in the Southern San Joaquin Valley.
During the first few decades, Visalia was a supply center for nearby gold rushes, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock and some agriculture.
Cultural Records Search
On May 20, 2022, Taylored Archaeology requested a cultural resource records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California. The purpose of this request was to identify any prehistoric or historical resources on or near the Project site that had been previously recorded within the Project boundary and a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area and identify and review prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the Project boundary. SSJVIC staff researched historical USGS topographic maps, reports of previous cultural resource investigations, archaeological site and survey base maps, cultural resource records (DPR forms) as well as listings of the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations 1156
3-38
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources. According to the SSJVIC records search, there has been two previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area. One is a literature review of the Project region and the second is a book on conflicts between Native Americans and California gold miners during the 1850s Gold Rush in Mariposa. Neither of these reports included archaeological surveys. There have been five cultural resource studies conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the project. There have been no cultural resources were previously recorded within the Project area. or within the 0.5-mile radius. Additionally, no recorded cultural resources are recorded within the Project There is two cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Both are historic-era, rural, single-family residences. In addition to the SSJVIC research, Taylored Archaeology further reviewed the cultural resources 0.5-miles from the Project boundary. Using Google Earth aerial maps, one of the historic homes was determined to have been demolished in 2021.
AB 52 Native American Consultation
Following AB 52, Native American Tribes that could potentially be impacted by the Project were contacted. The Tribes that were formally noticed of this Project were the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, Tule River Indian Tribe, Kern Valley Indian Community, North Fork Mono Tribe, and the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.
The Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe responded regarding their concerns. A representative of the Tribe stated “Due to Tribal history and knowledge of the project area, the Tribe has concerns and is requesting that an archaeological firm be hired to conduct a pre-construction survey, a records search with the NAHC and CHRIS center, and monitoring of any ground disturbing activities. We request to be put in contact with the archaeological firm hired so we can maintain updates about the project.” Regulatory Setting
In this report “cultural resources” are defined as prehistoric or historical archaeological sites as well as historical objects, buildings, or structures. In accordance with 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.4, “historical” in this report applies to cultural resources which are at least 50 years old. The significance or importance of a cultural resource is dependent upon whether the resource qualifies for inclusion at the local or state level in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or at the federal level in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are called “historical resources” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5[a]).
Under this statue the determination of eligibility is partially based on the consideration of the criteria of significance as defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3). Cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are deemed “historic properties.”
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act was adopted in 1966 to preserve historic and archeological sites in the United States. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation offices.
California Historic Register
The California Historic Register was developed as a program to identify, evaluate, register, and protect Historical Resources in California. Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically or archaeologically significant” (PRC §5020.1[j]). In addition, a resource included in a local 1157
3-39
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 register of historical resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with the state guidelines are also considered historic resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.
According to CEQA guidelines §15064.5 (a)(3), criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources includes the following:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Protection of cultural resources within California is additionally regulated by PRC §5097.5, which prohibits destruction, defacing, or removal of any historic or prehistoric cultural features on land under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to cultural resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• LU-P-48: Preserve established and distinctive neighborhoods throughout the City by maintaining appropriate zoning and development standards to achieve land use compatibility in terms of height, massing, and other characteristics; providing design guidelines for high-quality new development; supporting housing rehabilitation programs; and other means. • OSC-P-42: Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
o Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
o Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA);
o Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity (defined as areas identified according to the National Historic Preservation Act as part of the Section 106 process); and
o Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.
Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: A records search was conducted on behalf of the Applicant from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California, to determine if historical or archaeological sites had previously been recorded within the study area, if the project area had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initial study, and/or 1158
3-40
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 whether the region of the field project was known to contain archaeological sites and to thereby be archaeologically sensitive.
According to the SSJVIC records search, there has been two previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area. One is a literature review of the Project region and the second is a book on conflicts between Native Americans and California gold miners during the 1850s Gold Rush in Mariposa. Neither of these reports included archaeological surveys. There have been five cultural resource studies conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the project. There have been no cultural resources were previously recorded within the Project area. or within the 0.5-mile radius.
Additionally, no recorded cultural resources are recorded within the Project There is two cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Both are historic-era, rural, single-family residences. In addition to the SSJVIC research, Taylored Archaeology further reviewed the cultural resources 0.5-miles from the Project boundary. Using Google Earth aerial maps, one of the historic homes was determined to have been demolished in 2021.
Although no cultural resources were identified on the site, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL1 and CUL-2 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no known archaeological resources located within the project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that potential impact to unknown archeological resources will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no known human remains buried in the project vicinity. If human remains are unearthed during project construction, there is a potential for a significant impact. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 will ensure that impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead 1159
3-41
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Prior to the start of construction, an archaeological firm shall be hired to conduct a pre-construction survey and submit a comprehensive report to the lead agency for review and approval prior to the start of construction. This report should document the findings of the preconstruction survey and include an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on any identified archaeological resources. The plan should outline specific measures that will be implemented, such as construction phasing, site buffering, and artifact preservation, to protect the cultural resources, if any are discovered. To ensure compliance, the project approval should require that the archaeological survey report and the associated plan be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and that the survey and monitoring activities be conducted in accordance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. By requiring a comprehensive archaeological survey report and a detailed mitigation plan, the lead agency can ensure that any impacts to archaeological resources are avoided or minimized to the fullest extent possible.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: During any ground disturbing activities, an archaeological firm shall be hired to monitor the Project Site. The monitoring should be conducted by a qualified archaeologist with experience in the region and in compliance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. The monitoring should include regular site inspections to identify any archaeological resources that may have been uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. If any resources are identified, the monitoring should also include documentation, mapping, and analysis of the resources, as well as the development of a mitigation plan to address any potential impacts to the resources. 1160
3-42
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Setting
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity services to the City of Visalia. SCE serves approximately 15 million people in a 50,000 square-mile area of Central, Coastal, and Southern California.
SCE supplies electricity to its customers through a variety of renewable and nonrenewable sources. Table 3-8 below shows the proportion of each energy resource sold to California consumers by SCE in 2019 as compared to the statewide average.
Fuel Type SCE Power Mix California
Power Mix
Coal 0% 2.7%
Large Hydroelectric 7.9% 12.2%
Natural Gas 16.1% 37%
Nuclear 8.2% 9.3%
Other (Oil/Petroleum Coke/Waste Heat) 0.1% 0.2%
Unspecified Sources of Power1 32.6% 5.4%
Eligible
Renewables
Biomass 0.6% 2.5%
Geothermal 5.9% 4.9%
Small Hydro 1% 1.4%
Solar 16% 13.2%
Wind 11.5% 11.1%
Total Eligible
Renewable 35.1% 33.1%
1. "Unspecified sources of power" means electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.
Table 3-8. 2019 SCE and 2020 State power resources; Source: SCE; California Energy Commission SCE also offers Green Rate Options, which allow consumers to indirectly purchase up to 100% of their energy from renewable sources. To accomplish this, SCE purchases the renewable energy necessary to meet the needs of Green Rate participants from solar renewable developers. 1161
3-43
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) Company provides natural gas services to the project area. Natural gas is an energy source developed from fossil fuels composed primarily of methane (CH4). Approximately 45% of the natural gas burned in California is used for electricity generation, while 21% is consumed by the residential sector, 25% is consumed by the industrial sector, and 9% is consumed by the commercial sector.
Regulatory Setting
California Code of Regulations, Title 20
Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations establishes standards and requirements for appliance energy efficiency. The standards apply to a broad range of appliances sold in California.
California Code of Regulations, Title 24
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is a broad set of standards designed to address the energy efficiency of new and altered homes and commercial buildings. These standards regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Title 24 requirements are enforced locally by the City of Selma Building Department.
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
CalGreen is a mandatory green building code that sets minimum environmental standards for new buildings. It includes standards for volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting materials, water conservation, and construction waste recycling.
SB 100
SB 100, passed in 2018, set a deadline in 2045 for 100% of energy to be renewable. Additionally, by 2030, 60% of all energy must be renewable. California is targeting this goal through solar and other renewable sources.
AB 178
For California to meet its renewable goals, AB 178 was passed in 2018. AB 178 states that starting in 2020 all new low rise residential buildings must be built with solar power.
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to energy use that correlate to the proposed project:
• T-P-41: Integrate the bicycle transportation system into new development and infill redevelopment. Development shall provide short term bicycle parking and long-term bicycle storage facilities, such as bicycle racks, stocks, and rental bicycle lockers. Development also shall provide safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to high activity land uses such as schools, parks, shopping, employment, and entertainment centers. • T-P-53: Develop flexible parking requirements in the zoning ordinance for development proposals based on “best practices” and the proven potential to reduce parking demand.
Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 1162
3-44
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes the construction and operation of single-family housing. During project construction there would be an increase in energy consumption related to worker trips and operation of construction equipment. This increase in energy use would be temporary and limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Vehicle fuel consumption during project construction was estimated based on the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths, and the number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2023 gasoline/diesel MPG factors provided by the EMFAC2017. To simplify the estimation process, it was assumed that all worker vehicles used gasoline as a fuel source and all vendor vehicles used diesel as a fuel source.
Table 3-9, below, provides gasoline and diesel fuel used by construction and on-road sources during each phase of project construction.
Construction Phase # of
Days
Daily
Worker
Trips1
Daily
Vendor
Trips1
Daily
Hauling
Trips1
Total
Gasoline
Fuel Use
(gallons)2
Total Diesel
Fuel Use
(gallons)2
Site Preparation 40 18 0 0 7,799 0
Grading 110 20 0 0 33,871 0
Building Construction 1110 49 15 0 164,425 14,418
Paving 75 15 0 0 8,836 0
Architectural Coating 75 10 0 0 1,244 0
Total 1410 N/A N/A N/A 315,935 14,418
1. Data provided by CalEEMod (Appendix A)
2. See Appendix D
Table 3-9. On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated by Construction Activities. Source: CalEEMod(v. 2020.4.0); EMFAC2014 While construction of the proposed project will result in additional energy consumption, this energy use is not unnecessary or inefficient. This energy use is justified by the energy-efficient nature of the proposed project and would be limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Once construction is complete, the project is expected to achieve net zero energy consumption. The proposed project is subject to the California New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-2020. This plan establishes a goal for all residential buildings built after January 1, 2020, to be zero net energy. The California Energy Commission is responsible for the development and enforcement of specific strategies to achieve this goal. These strategies are implemented through Title 24, Part 6 of the California Building Code, which requires developers to include certain measures (including solar panels on all new residential buildings) to achieve required building efficiency standards.
Total Annual Operational VMT1 Annual Fuel Use
(Gasoline)
Annual Fuel Use
(Diesel)
Average MPG
2,771,614 Miles 106,191 Gallons 11,918 Gallons 23.5
1. Data Provided by CalEEMod
2. See Appendix D
Table 3-10. On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated by Operational Activities. Source CalEEMod (v. 2020.4.0); EMFAC2014
1163
3-45
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 During project operations, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in wasteful fuel consumption. This is due to the distance of the project site to the commercial, recreational, and denser residential uses, resulting in less of a reliance on personal vehicles.
Because construction-related energy use would be temporary and limited to the greatest extent feasible through consistency with Federal, State, and local policies related to energy conservation, and operation of the project will comply with all energy efficiency standards required under Title 24, Section 6, and these standards were specifically developed to achieve net zero energy for residential projects, it can be presumed that the project will achieve net zero energy. The project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The impact is less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact: The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed project will comply with all state and local policies related to energy efficiency and there is no impact. 1164
3-46
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning 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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct and indirect risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Environmental Setting
Geologic Stability and Seismic Activity
• Seismicity
The Visalia Planning Area has no known major fault systems within its boundaries. There are small faults in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, approximately 30 miles away, though none of them are known to be active. The greatest potential for seismic activity in Visalia Planning Area is posed by the San Andreas Fault, approximately 75 miles away from the site, or the Owens Valley Fault Group, which is located approximately 125 miles away from the project site.
1165
3-47
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 • Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby unconsolidated and/or near saturated soils lose cohesion and are converted to a fluid state as a result of severe vibratory motion. The relatively rapid loss of soil shear strength during strong earthquake shaking results in temporary, fluid-like behavior of the soil, which can result in landslides and lateral spreading.
Soil liquefaction causes ground failure that can damage roads, pipelines, underground cables, and buildings with shallow foundations. Liquefaction hazards may exist in and around wetland areas and creeks, though soil types are generally too coarse or too high in clay content, and not likely to be subject to sufficient acceleration to cause liquefaction. • Landslides
Landslides refer to a wide variety of processes that result in the downward and outward movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under gravitational influence. Landslides are caused by both natural and human-induced changes in slope stability and often accompany other natural hazard events, such as floods, wildfire, or earthquake. Due little elevation changes throughout the planning area, including the proposed project site, it is considered a low landslide hazard area.
• Subsidence
Land Subsidence refers to the vertical sinking of land because of either manmade or natural underground voids. Subsidence has occurred throughout the Central Valley because of groundwater, oil, and gas withdrawal. The Kaweah Subbasin that underlies the Planning Area is in an overdraft condition on an average long-term basis. According to the most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), groundwater elevations have declined up to 50 feet between 1990 and 2010. While groundwater recharge efforts are in progress, groundwater levels will continue to decline unless recharge is increased.
Soils Involved in Project
The proposed project involves construction on two soil types. The properties of the soil are described briefly below:
• Tagus loam: The Tagus series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock sources and has slopes of 0 to 2 percent. It is well drained; has negligible to low runoff; and has moderate permeability.
1166
3-48
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-6: Soils Map
1167
3-49
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Regulatory Setting
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment.
City of Visalia Municipal Code (California Building Code) The City of Visalia Municipal Code has incorporated and adopted the CBC, 2013 Edition, as promulgated by the California Building Standards Commission, which incorporates the adoption of the 2012 edition of the of the International Building Code, as amended with necessary California amendments and the 2012 International Building Code of the International Code Council.
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to geology and soilsthat correlate to the proposed project:
• OSC-P-28: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping, and construction.
Discussion
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning 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.
No Impact: Although the project is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity, the project site has a low chance of being affected by ground shaking from distant faults. The potential for strong seismic ground shaking on the project site is not a significant environmental concern due to the infrequent seismic activity of the area and distance to the faults. The project does not propose any components which could cause substantial adverse effects in the event of an earthquake. Additionally, the project has no potential to indirectly or directly cause the rupture of an earthquake fault. Therefore, there is no impact related to the risk of loss, injury or death involving a rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Impact: The project site is in an area of low seismic activity. The proposed project does not include any activities or components which could feasibly cause strong seismic ground shaking, either directly or indirectly. There is no impact.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1168
3-50
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 No Impact: The risk of liquification within the planning area outside of wetland areas is low because the soil types are generally unsuitable for liquefaction. The area’s low potential for seismic activity would further reduce the likelihood of liquefaction occurrence. Because the project site is within an area of low seismic activity, and the soils associated with the project area not suitable for liquefaction, there are no impacts.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact: The Planning Area of Visalia is considered at insignificant risk of small landslides.
Additionally, the project site is generally flat and there are no hill slopes in the area. No geologic landforms exist on or near the site that would result in a landslide event. As a result, there is very low potential for landslides. There would be no impact. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact: Because the project site is relatively flat, the potential for erosion islow.
However, construction-related activities and increased impermeable surfaces can increase the probability for erosion to occur. Construction-related impacts related to erosion will be temporary and subject to best management practices (BMPs) required by SWPPP, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction. Because impacts related to erosion would be temporary and limited to construction, and because required best management practices would prevent significant impacts related to erosion, the impact will remain less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Impact: The soils associated with the project site are considered stable and have a low capacity for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Because the project area is stable, and this project would not result in a substantial grade change to the topography to the point that it would increase the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, there is no impact.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact: The proposed project site is not in an area with expansive soils. Because the soils associated with the project do not exhibit shrink swell behavior, implementation of the project will pose no risk to life or property caused by expansive soils and there is no impact. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
1169
3-51
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 No Impact: The proposed project would not include the use of septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed buildings will tie into the Visalia’s existing sewer services.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no unique geologic features and no known paleontological resources located within the project area. However, there is always the possibility that paleontological resources may exist below the ground surface. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that any impacts resulting from project implementation remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Geological Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
1170
3-52
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Setting
Natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gases. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 34ºC cooler. However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.
The effect of greenhouse gasses on earth’s temperature is equivalent to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydro chlorofluorocarbons, and hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, sulfur, and hexafluoride. Some gases are more effective than others. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been calculated for each greenhouse gas to reflect how long it remains in the atmosphere, on average, and how strongly it absorbs energy. Gases with a higher GWP absorb more energy, per pound, than gases with a lower GWP, and thus contribute more to global warming. For example, one pound of methane is equivalent to twenty-one pounds of carbon dioxide.
GHGs as defined by AB 32 include the following gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHGs as defined by AB 32 are summarized in Table 3-11. Each gas's effect on climate change depends on three main factors. The first being the quantity of these gases are in the atmosphere, followed by how long they stay in the atmosphere and finally how strongly they impact global temperatures.
Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Methane (CH4)
Is a flammable gas and is the main
component of natural gas 12 years 21
Emitted during the production and
transport of coal, natural gas, and
oil. Methane emissions also result
from livestock and other
agricultural practices and by the
decay of organic waste in
municipal solid waste landfills.
1171
3-53
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Carbon dioxide
(CO2)
An odorless, colorless, natural
greenhouse gas.
30-95
years
1 Enters the atmosphere through
burning fossil fuels (coal, natural
gas, and oil), solid waste, trees and
wood products, and also as a
result of certain chemical
reactions (e.g., manufacture of
cement). Carbon dioxide is
removed from the atmosphere (or
"sequestered") when it is
absorbed by plants as part of the
biological carbon cycle.
Chlorofluorocarbons
Gases formed synthetically by
replacing all hydrogen atoms in
methane or ethane with chlorine
and/or fluorine atoms. They are
non-toxic nonflammable, insoluble
and chemically unreactive in the
troposphere (the level of air at the
earth’s surface).
55-140
years
3,800
to
8,100
Were synthesized in 1928 for use
as refrigerants, aerosol
propellants, and cleaning solvents.
They destroy stratospheric ozone.
Hydrofluorocarbons
A man-made greenhouse gas. It
was developed to replace ozonedepleting gases found in a variety of appliances. Composed of a
group of greenhouse gases
containing carbon, chlorine an at
least one hydrogen atom.
14 years 140 to
11,700
Powerful greenhouse gases that
are emitted from a variety of
industrial processes. Fluorinated
gases are sometimes used as
substitutes for stratospheric
ozone-depleting substances.
These gases are typically emitted
in smaller quantities, but because
they are potent greenhouse gases.
Nitrous oxide
(N2O)
Commonly known as laughing gas,
is a chemical compound with the
formula N2O. It is an oxide of
nitrogen. At room temperature, it
is a colorless, non-flammable gas,
with a slightly sweet odor and
taste. It is used in surgery and
dentistry for its anesthetic and
analgesic effects.
120
years
310
Emitted during agricultural and
industrial activities, as well as
during combustion of fossil fuels
and solid waste.
Prefluorocarbons
Has a stable molecular structure
and only breaks down by
ultraviolet rays about 60
kilometers above Earth’s surface.
50,000
years
6,500
to
9,200
Two main sources of prefluorocarbons are primary
aluminum production and
semiconductor manufacturing.
Sulfur
hexafluoride
An inorganic, odorless, colorless,
and nontoxic nonflammable gas.
3,200
years 23,900
This gas is manmade and used for
insulation in electric power
transmission equipment, in the
magnesium industry, in
semiconductor manufacturing and
as a tracer gas.
Table 3-11. Greenhouse Gasses; Source: EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1172
3-54
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Regarding the quantity of these gases are in the atmosphere, we first must establish the amount of the particular gas in the air, known as Concentration, or abundance, which are measured in parts per million, parts per billion and even parts per trillion. To put these measurements in more relatable terms, one part per million is equivalent to one drop of water diluted into about 13 gallons of water, roughly a full tank of gas in a compact car. Therefore, it can be assumed larger emission of greenhouse gases lead to a higher concentration in the atmosphere.
Each of the designated gases described above can reside in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, ranging from a few years to thousands of years. All these gases remain in the atmosphere long enough to become well mixed, meaning that the amount that is measured in the atmosphere is roughly the same all over the world regardless of the source of the emission.
Regulatory Setting
AB 32
AB 32 set the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. It directed the California Air Resources Board to begin developing discrete early actions to reduce greenhouse gases while also preparing a scoping plan to identify how best to reach the 2020 limit. The reduction measures to meet the 2020 target are to be adopted by the start of 2011.
SB 1078, SB 107, and Executive Order S-14-08
SB 1078, SB 107, and Executive Order S-14-08 require California to generate 20% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 then changes the 2017 deadline to 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 required that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
SJVAPCD adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) in August 2008. While the plan does not have regulatory powers, it directs SJVAPCD to develop guidance to assist District staff, valley businesses, land-use agencies, and other permitting agencies in addressing GHG emissions as part of the CEQA process.
City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Visalia’s draft 2013 CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory of municipal and community emissions, identification, and analysis of existing and proposed GHG reduction measures, and reduction targets to help Visalia work toward the State’s goal of an 80 percent reduction below baseline emissions by 2050. The plan sets 2020 and 2030 reduction targets, and includes reduction actions for energy, transportation, and waste and resource conservation.
City of Visalia Climate Change Initiatives
In January 2007, Visalia’s mayor signed the “Cool Cities” pledge, part of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. By entering into this agreement, the City has adopted the goal of reducing citywide GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. As detailed in the CAP, this goal was subsequently expanded in response to ARB’s recommended reduction target of 15% below the 2005 baseline, and the City added a 2030 mitigation target to correlate with the 2030 General Plan Update and the goal of achieving an 80% reduction by 2050.
1173
3-55
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Less Than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD does not provide numeric thresholds to assess the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the SJVAPCD “Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA” states that projects which achieve a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to Business as Usual (BAU) would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG. “Business as usual” (BAU) conditions are defined based on the year 2005 building energy efficiency, average vehicle emissions, and electricity energy conditions. The BAU conditions assume no improvements in energy efficiency, fuel efficiency, or renewable energy generation beyond that existing today. The 2005 BAU conditions were estimated using CalEEMod.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in long-term greenhouse gas emissions associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, as well as mobile emissions. The GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (Appendix A).
C02
(MT/Year)
CH4
(MT/Year)
N20
(MT/Year)
CO2e
(MT/Year)
Operational Emissions 1,393 2.04 0.06 1,461
2005 BAU 2,131 2.17 0.16 2,378
% Reduction From BAU 39%
Table 3-12: Projected Project Operational GHG Emissions Compared to 2005 BAU; Source: (CalEEMod, V.2020.4.0) The project’s operational GHG are estimated to be 917 CO2e MT lower than the 2005 BAU. This is a reduction of 39%, more than the 29% threshold. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact: The SJVAPCD states that individual and cumulative GHG emissions are considered less than significant if a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program with within the geographic area in which the project is located. The City of Visalia Climate Action Plan meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would not be considered a significant impact if the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Strategy. Table 3-13, below, evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable measures, both existing and proposed, in the GHG reduction plan.
1174
3-56
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency with Strategy
2. Increase in Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Installations: Consistent. The proposed project would involve solar panels on the new homes.
7. Urban Forestry: Requirement for all new development to have street trees, require shade over at least 25%
of area in city pocket parks.
Consistent. The proposed project plans to
provide trees on all local roads and
included in the improvements on existing
roads.
10. Bicycle Path Plan: Consistent. The proposed project includes improvements with bike paths or parkways
on Roeben St., Whitendale Ave., and Shirk
Rd.
11. Infill and High-Density Development Consistent. The proposed project has denser residential housing consistent with
the 2030 General Plan.
Table 3-13. Project Consistency with Climate Action Plan Strategies.
As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Visalia Climate Action Plan.
The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and Local rules pertaining to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and the project will implement Best Performance Standards developed by the SJVAPCD. The project will not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation developed to reduce GHG emissions. There is no impact.
1175
3-57
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard or
excessive noise to the public or the environment?
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 safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Setting
The proposed project site is located approximately .63 miles West of the nearest school (El Diamante High School) and approximately 0.97 miles southeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport).
The terminal of Airport is approximately 1.77 miles away; however, the runway is 0.97 miles from the Project Site.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Envirostor was used to identify any sites known to be associated with releases of hazardous materials or wastes within the project area. This research confirmed that the project would not be located on or nearby a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Regulatory Setting
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] §9601 et seq.).
1176
3-58
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Act) authorizes the President to respond to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets and enforces Occupational Safety and Health Standardsto assure safe working conditions. OSHA provides training, outreach, education, and compliance assistance to promote safe workplaces. The proposed Project would be subject to OSHA requirements during construction, operation, and maintenance.
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.).
The Toxic Substance Control Act was enacted by Congress in 1976 and authorizes the EPA to regulate any chemical substances determined to cause an unreasonable risk to public health or the environment.
Hazardous Waste Control Law, Title 26.
The Hazardous Waste Control Law creates hazardous waste management program requirements. The law is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which contains requirements for the following aspects of hazardous waste management:
• Identification and classification;
• Generation and transportation;
• Design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; • Treatment standards;
• Operation of facilities and staff training; and
• Closure of facilities and liability requirements.
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11.
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations contains regulations for the identification and classification of hazardous wastes. The CCR defines a waste as hazardous if it has any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity.
California Emergency Services Act
The California Emergency Services Act created a multi-agency emergency response plan for the state of California. The Act coordinates various agencies, including CalEPA, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, regional water quality control boards, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.
1177
3-59
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-7: Distance to Schools and Airports
1178
3-60
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact: Project construction activities may involve the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. During construction, the contractor will use fuel trucks to refuel onsite equipment and may use paints and solvents to a limited degree. The storage, transport, and use of these materials will comply with Local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements. There is the potential for small leaks due to refueling of construction equipment, however standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the SWPPP will reduce the potential for the release of construction related fuels and other hazardous materials by controlling runoff from the site and requiring proper disposal or recycling of hazardous materials. The impact is less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact: There is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could result in release of hazardous materials into the environment, other than any potential accidental releases of standard fuels, solvents, or chemicals encountered during typical construction of a residential subdivision. Should an accidental hazardous release occur or should the project encounter hazardous soils, existing regulations for handling hazardous materials require coordination with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal. Therefore, potential impacts are less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact: The project is located approximately .63 milesfrom an existing middle school. The project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than insignificant amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of structures and landscaping. The project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials or waste. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact: The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
There would be no impact.
1179
3-61
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 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 safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located approximately 1.77 miles Southeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport). However, according to the Airport Master plan, the project site would not be impacted by the airport. Noise contours developed for 2019 show that the airport would produce less than 65 dB. All land uses located outside of the 65 dB contours are considered less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. There is a less than significant impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: The City’s design and environmental review procedures shall ensure compliance with emergency response and evacuation plans. In addition, the site plan will be reviewed by the Fire Department per standard City procedure to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on emergency evacuation. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact: The land surrounding the project site is developed with urban uses and farmlands which are not considered to be wildlands. Additionally, the City of Visalia General Plan finds that fire hazards within the Planning Area, including the proposed project site, have low frequency, limited extent, limited magnitude, and low significance. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there is no impact. 1180
3-62
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise sustainably
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
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 impervious surfaces, in a manner, which
would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
(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; or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk the
release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater movement plan?
Environmental Setting
Surface Water
Visalia is in the center of the Kaweah River Delta System, resulting in many rivers and creeks flowing through the city. The St. Johns River is the City’s primary surface water feature. Other significant surface water features include Modoc Ditch, Mill Creek Ditch, Mill Creek, Tulare Irrigation District (TID) Canal, Packwood Creek, Cameron Creek, Deep Creek, Evans Creek, Persian Ditch, and several other local ditches. These receive a significant amount of water during the rainy season and help drain stormwater.
Groundwater
Groundwater in Tulare County is present in valley deposits of alluvium that are several thousand feet thick and occurs in both confined and unconfined conditions. The creeks in Visalia are tied to the groundwater system. The creeks lose water in the winter while they feed the groundwater, and gain water in the summer when the groundwater feeds the creeks. The depth to groundwater varies significantly throughout the valley floor area of Tulare County. In the area around Visalia, depth to 1181
3-63
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 groundwater varies from about 120 feet below ground surface along the western portion of the city to approximately 100 feet below ground surface to the east, as measured in spring 2010. Groundwater levels measured in the city have declined since the 1940s, from approximately 30 feet below ground surface in 1940 to 120 feet below ground surface in 2010. Water quality of the groundwater that underlies the Planning Area is excellent for domestic and agricultural uses. This is most likely due to the abundant snowmelt that originates in the Sierra Nevada. Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water for the planning area residents.
Stormwater Drainage
The City, in conjunction with Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and Tulare Irrigation District, operates and maintains a vast municipal storm drainage system that consists of drainage channels, 23 detention and retention basins, 33 pump stations and 250 miles of pipe. Stormwater from the project site will be collected and conveyed to an on-site stormwater basin.
Regulatory Setting
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is enforced by the U.S. EPA and was developed in 1972 to regulate discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Act made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is obtained.
National Flood Insurance Act
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from, and mitigating against disasters. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA is responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and administering programs that aid with mitigating future damages from natural hazards.
California Water Quality Porter-Cologne Act
California’s primary statute leading water quality and water pollution concerns with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (PorterCologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and each of the nine Regional Water Quality Boards (RWQCB) power to protect water quality and further develop the Clean Water Act within California. The applicable RWQCB for the proposed project is the Central Valley RWQCB.
Central Valley RWQCB
The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB requires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the project is greater than one acre, a NPDES Permit and SWPPP will be required.
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to hydrology and water quality that correlate to the proposed project:
1182
3-64
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 • PSCU-P-59: Require new developments to incorporate floodwater detention basins into project designs where consistent with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater Recharge Plan. • PSCU-P-60: Control urban and stormwater runoff and point and non-point discharge of pollutants.
As part of the City’s Stormwater Management Program, adopt and implement a Stormwater Management Ordinance to minimize stormwater runoff rates and volumes, control water pollution, and maximize groundwater recharge. New development will be required to include Low Impact Development features that reduce impermeable surface areas and increase infiltration.
Such features may include, but are not limited to:
o Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
o Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
o Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
o Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
o On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration; and
o Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.
• PSCU-P-46: Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks, streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance’s requirements. The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
o Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping;
o Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of cool-season turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks);
o Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; o Requiring automatic irrigation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weather-based or other self-adjusting technology; o Promoting the use of recycled water; and
o Minimizing overspray and runoff.
Discussion
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant with Mitigation: The project will result in less than significant impacts to water quality due to potentially polluted runoff generated during construction activities. Construction may include excavation, grading, and other earthwork across most of the 69.35-acre project site. During storm events, exposed construction areas across the project site may cause runoff to carry pollutants, 1183
3-65
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 such a chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris. Implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for the project. A SWPPP identifies all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the project site and identifies best management practices (BMPs) related to stormwater runoff. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD1 and HYD-2 will ensure impacts remain less than significant with mitigation. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact: Water services will be provided by the Cal Water, Visalia District, upon development. The District currently produces about 27 million gallons of local groundwater per day from 75 active wells and delivers it to customers through more than 519 miles of pipeline. The District delivers water to residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers. Residential customers account for most of the District’s service connections and 69 percent of its water uses.
Non-residential water uses account for 28 percent of total demand, while distribution system losses account for 3 percent. The system produced 30,152 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater in 2020. The available water supply is expected to supply the projected population. The system has a capacity to pump 100,829 acre-feet per year (afy), all from groundwater. The projected demand is expected to 35,276 AF in 2030, 38,310 AF in 2035, and 41,258 AF in 2040.
Using average per-person water use in Visalia (183 gallons; 2020 Urban Water Management Plan) and the average household size in Visalia (2.99 persons; US Census Bureau), water demand for the proposed 136-unit residential development is estimated to be approximately 74,415 gallons of water daily, or about 83-acre feet per year. With an expected increase of 5,124 AF from 2020 to 2030, there will be enough water supply for the proposed project. The most water-intensive aspect of the Project (Very Low-Density Residential homes) is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation.
As such, the Project would not affect groundwater supplies beyond what has already been analyzed in the most current General Plan EIR or Urban Water Management Plan.
The project would result in nearly full development of the site, which would convert approximately
69.35 acres from pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces. However, this would not significantly interfere with groundwater recharge because all stormwaters would be collected and diverted to a new stormwater basin located on the Southwest area of the project site for groundwater recharge.
Because the addition of impervious surfaces would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and the project would not utilize groundwater resources beyond what has been previously analyzed in the Visalia Planning Area General Plan EIR or the Urban Water Management Plan, the impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project 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 impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1184
3-66
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces and alter existing drainage patterns on the 69.35-acre project site which would have the potential to result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The disturbance of soils during construction could cause erosion, resulting in temporary construction impacts. However, this impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which include mandated erosion control measures, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction (Mitigation Measure HYD-1). The Project proponent will also be required to prepare drainage plans (Mitigation Measure HYD-2) and a Development Maintenance Manual (Mitigation Measure HYD-3) to ensure that existing drainage patterns are maintained during project operations and that that the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The impact is less than significant with implementation of these mitigation measures.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces on the 69.35-acre project site which would have the potential to increase surface runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-site. This impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2, which requires the project to submit drainage plans to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The drainage plans will include BMPs to ensure runoff from the project will not result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
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? Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces and alter existing drainage patterns on the 69.35-acre project site which would have the potential to impact existing stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project would contain a storm drainage basin to collect all runoff from the site.
The disturbance of soils during construction could cause erosion, resulting in temporary construction impacts. However, this impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which include mandated erosion control measures, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction (Mitigation Measure HYD-1). During project operations, the proposed impervious surfaces, including roads, building pads, and parking areas, would collect automobile derived pollutants such as oils, greases, rubber, and heavy metals. This could contribute to point source and non-point source pollution if these pollutants were transported into waterways during storm events.
The Project proponent will be required to prepare drainage plans (Mitigation Measure HYD-2) and a Development Maintenance Manual (Mitigation Measure HYD-3) to ensure that the project would not 1185
3-67
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 overwhelm the planned stormwater drainage basin or result in discharges of polluted runoff into local waterways. The impact is less than significant with implementation of these mitigation measures. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant with Mitigation: The Project site is generally flat and no significant grading or leveling will be required. The proposed project site is not in proximity to a stream or river and will not alter the course of a stream or river. According to National Flood Hazard mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the proposed project is in an X flood zone, which has a 0.2% chance of flooding every year.
The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces on the 69.35-acre project site which could affect drainage and flood patterns. This impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2, which requires the project to submit drainage plans to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The drainage plans will include BMPs to ensure the project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
d) Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact: The proposed project is located inland and not near an ocean or large body of water, therefore, would not be affected by a tsunami. The proposed project is in a relatively flat area and would not be impacted by inundation related to mudflow. Since the project is in an area that is not susceptible to inundation, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
As such, there is no impact.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact: The project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Central Valley RWQCB. The project will comply with all applicable rules and regulations regarding water quality and groundwater management and there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any clearing, grading, or excavation, the Applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the Project site to the California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit. • Prior to issuance of grading permits for Phase 1 the Applicant shall submit a copy of the NOI to the City.
• The City shall review noticing documentation prior to approval of the grading permit. City monitoring staff will inspect the site during construction for compliance.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: The Applicant shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45 days prior to the start of 1186
3-68
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the Project site in excess of one (1) acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than one acre but is part of the Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres. The SWPPP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to storm water and shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. The following BMP methods shall include, but would not be limited to:
• Dust control measures will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite activities to control fugitive dust;
• A routine monitoring plan will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite erosion and sedimentation control measures;
• Provisional detention basins, straw bales, erosion control blankets, mulching, silt fencing, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers will be used;
• Soil stockpiles and graded slopes will be covered after two weeks of inactivity and 24 hours prior to and during extreme weather conditions; and,
• BMPs will be strictly followed to prevent spills and discharges of pollutants onsite,such as material storage, trash disposal, construction entrances, etc.
Mitigation Measure HYD-3: A Development Maintenance Manual for the Project shall include comprehensive procedures for maintenance and operations of any stormwater facilities to ensure longterm operation and maintenance of post-construction stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require that stormwater BMP devices be inspected, cleaned, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance conditions. The manual shall require that devices be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e., mid-October) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., mid-May). The manual shall also require that all devices be checked after major storm events. The Development Maintenance Manual shall include the following:
• Runoff shall be directed away from trash and loading dock areas; • Bins shall be lined or otherwise constructed to reduce leaking of liquid wastes; • Trash and loading dock areas shall be screened or walled to minimize offsite transport of trash; and,
• Impervious berms, trench catch basin, drop inlets, or overflow containment structures nearby docks and trash areas shall be installed to minimize the potential for leaks, spills, or wash down water to enter the drainage system.
1187
3-69
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Environmental Setting
The proposed project site is in the Visalia Planning Area, just outside of the city limits. The site is approximately 4 miles Southwest of the Visalia downtown. The site is currently zoned as AE-20 by the County of Tulare but is prezoned for R-1-20 by the City of Visalia after annexation. The site is designated as Very Low Density Residential by the Visalia General Plan. The Project does not need rezoning or General Plan Amendments.
The site currently contains agriculture uses. The site is topographically flat and is bounded by agricultural uses (Including a dairy) to the South and West, and single-family residential to the North and East.
Regulatory Setting
Visalia General Plan
The proposed project site is designated as Very Low Density Residential. • The Very Low-Density Residential designation provides single family detached housing on large lots. Residential densities are typical of rural residential environments. The typical residential density for this designation ranges from 0.1 to two housing units per gross acre. Buildout is assumed at two units per gross acre.
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to land use that correlate to the proposed project:
• LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.
• 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-28: Continue to use natural and man-made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the city’s Urban Area Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines. • LU-P-71: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
1188
3-70
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 • LU-P-47: Establish criteria and standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation networks within new subdivisions and non-residential development.
City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance
The proposed project site is prezoned for R-1-20. The Project will not comply with the R-1-20 zoning code for three reasons and will require a requires a conditional use permit. First, the Project is planning for a minimum lot size of 11,592 square feet rather than the 20,000 square feet R-1-20 zone requires. The second reason is reduced front and side yard setbacks. The R-1-20 zone requires a minimum setback of 35 feet in the front and 10 feet on the sides. The Project is planning for setbacks of 30 feet and 5 feet, respectively. The third reason is the minimum width of the lots. The R-1-20 zone requires a minimum width of 100 feet on interior lots and 110 feet on corner lots, as measured from the middle of the lot. The Project plans for a minimum width of 85 feet, ranging to a maximum of 206 feet.
R-1 zoning is intended 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 lowdensity residential use. 1189
3-71
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-8: General Plan Land Use Designation
1190
3-72
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-9: Zoning Map
1191
3-73
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact: The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. The proposed project site is designated for Very Low Density Residential by the Visalia General Plan and the project is consistent with this land use designation. The project would continue to operate as the same designation following project implementation. There is no impact. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact: The project site is located on land designated for residential use. The proposed project does not conflict with this land use, or any other policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is no impact. 1192
3-74
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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 lands use plan?
Environmental Setting
Tulare County contains mineral resources of sand, gravel, and crushed stone, found in alluvial deposits and hard rock quarries. Most of this mining takes place along rivers and at the base of the Sierra foothills.
However, the Visalia Planning Area currently contains three former sand and gravel mines, but no currently operating mines and no designated Mineral Resource Zones.
Regulatory Setting
California State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The California State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act was adopted in 1975 to regulate surface mining to prevent adverse environmental impacts and to preserve the state’s mineral resources. The Act is enforced by the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Mine Reclamation.
Discussion
a) Would the project 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?
No Impact: The project site has no known mineral resources that would be of a value to the region and the residents of the state, therefore the proposed project would not result in the loss of impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other lands use plan? No Impact: There are no known mineral resources of importance to the region and the project site is not designated under the City’s or County’s General Plan as an important mineral resource recovery site. For that reason, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact. 1193
3-75
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permeant increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
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, within
two miles of public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Environmental Setting
Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is the variation in air pressure that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur at least 20 times per second, they can be detected by the human ear. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz).
Ambient noise is the “background” noise of an environment. Ambient noise levels on the proposed project site are primarily due to agricultural activities and traffic. Construction activities usually result in an increase in sound above ambient noise levels.
Vibration is seismic waves that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the earth.
Operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile driving and other impacts devices such as pavement breakers create this vibration.
Sensitive Receptors
Noise level allowances for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Residences, hotels/motels, hospitals, schools, and libraries are some of the most sensitive land uses to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise level allowances than most commercial or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance. The nearest sensitive receptor is the Wildhorse Subdivision that borders the Southeast border of the site.
Regulatory Setting
City of Visalia Noise Ordinance
The City of Visalia Noise Ordinance provides noise level standards for land use compatibility. Exterior and interior noise levels may not exceed any of the categorical noise level standards shown in Table 1194
3-76
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 3-14. The standards are shown in A-weighted decibels (dBA). For Single Family Residential, the exterior noise during the daytime is to be below 70 dBA, and the indoor noise during the daytime is to be below 55 dBA.
Table 3-14: City of Visalia Noise Standards. Source: City of Visalia Noise Ordinance City of Visalia General Plan
The current noise element of the City’s General Plan establishes goals and policies intended to limit community exposure to excessive noise levels. Visalia’s current General Plan identifies noise sources such as roadways, rails, and airports within the city and includes land use compatibility guidelines. • N-P-3: Establish performance standards for noise reduction for new housing that may be exposed to community noise levels above 65 dB DNL/CNEL, as shown on the Noise Contour Maps, based on the target acceptable noise levels for outdoor activity levels and interior spaces in Tables 8-2 and 8-3. Noise mitigation measures that may be considered to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
o Construct façades with substantial weight and insulation; o Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; o Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas; o Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
o Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attics, and gable ends; o Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions.
Discussion
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permeant increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact: Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 66 months and will involve temporary noise sources in the vicinity of the project. The average noise levels generated by construction equipment that will likely be used in the proposed project are provided in Table 3-15. 1195
3-77
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 The nearest residence and sensitive receptor are the single-family homes surrounding the site. The City requires that mitigation measures be implemented if noise levels exceed 70 dB in sensitive outdoor areas or if interior noise levels exceed 55 dB. As shown in Figure 3-10, it was found that a residence must be at least 250 feet from construction in the exterior and 100 feet from construction in the interior to avoid noise levels exceeding these thresholds.
With the project bordering another residential community, a noise disturbance is unavoidable. However, the construction would comply with Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 to ensure that the construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Measures such as maintaining minimum setback distances between construction equipment and receptors, only having construction during weekday daytime hours, and noise barriers would be implemented to avoid significant construction noise impacts.
Long term noise levels resulting from the project would be produced by single family residential homes, which are not normally associated with high operational noise levels. Because noise generated during project construction would be intermittent, short term, and would not exceed the thresholds established by the Visalia Noise Ordinance for sensitive receptors and the project does not propose uses that would typically generate high noise levels, the impact is less than significant.
Type of
Equipment
Exterior
Lmax at 50
feet (dBA)
Tractors 84
Loaders 80
Backhoes 80
Excavators 85
Generator
Sets 82
Air
Compressors 80
Rubber Tired
Dozers 85
Forklifts 75
Welders 73
Graders 85
Scrapers 85
Cranes 85
Paving
Equipment 85
Rollers 85
Table 3-15. Noise levels of noise-generating construction equipment at various distances. Source: FHA Construction Noise Handbook (dBA at 50 feet). Noise levels beyond 50 feet were estimated using the inverse square law based on given values for dBA at 50 feet
1196
3-78
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-10: Construction Related Noise Levels Based on Distance from Construction Equipment. Interior Noise=Assume 25 dB Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact: Although project operations would not include uses or activities that typically generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, project construction could introduce temporary groundborne vibration to the project site and the surrounding area.
Sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are provided in Table 3-16.
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration
Level (LV) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range)
0.644 (typical)
112
104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range
0.170 typical
105
93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill (slurry wall) 0.008 in soil
0.017 in rock
66 75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Table 3-16. Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018.
The primary source of vibration during project construction would likely be from a bulldozer (tractor), which would generate 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet with an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB. Vibration from the bulldozer would be intermittent and not a source of continual vibration.
There are no adopted City standards or thresholds of significance for vibration. The evaluation of potential impacts related to construction vibration levels is based on the published data in the 2018 1197
3-79
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 FTA Guidelines. At 25 feet, the buildings most susceptible to vibration could be impacted at .12 inch/second. Because vibrations generated by project construction would not exceed 0.12 inch/second, the impact is less than significant.
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, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located approximately 1.77 miles Southeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport). However, according to the Airport Master plan, the project site would not be impacted by the airport. Noise contours developed for 2019 show that the airport would produce less than 65 dB. All land uses located outside of the 65 dB contours are considered less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. There is a less than significant impact. 1198
3-80
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Environmental Setting
The United States Census Bureau stated the population in the City of Visalia to be 141,214 as of April 2020.
This is an increase from the 2010 census, which counted the population in the City of Visalia to be 124,442.
Factors that influence population growth in Visalia include job availability, housing availability, and the capacity of proposed and existing infrastructure.
Regulatory Setting
The City of Visalia population size is controlled by the development code and Housing Element of the General Plan. These documents regulate the number of dwelling units per acre allowed on various land uses and establish minimum and maximum lot sizes, which has a direct impact on the City’s population size.
City of Visalia 2003 General Plan Housing Element
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to population and housing that correlate to the proposed project:
• LU-P-50: Provide development standards to ensure residential development is not negatively affected by adjacent non-residential land uses.
• U-P-71: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
Discussion
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact: The United States Census Bureau stated the population in the City of Visalia to be 141,214 as of April 2020. The project proposes to construct 136 new single family residential units. The US 1199
3-81
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Census Bureau states that the City’s average household size is 2.99 persons. Based on this average household size, the anticipated population increase because of the proposed project is 407 persons.
The construction of housing at this location would not be unplanned, as the Visalia General Plan designated the proposed project site for very low density residential. Additionally, the city is planning for more businesses, services, and infrastructure to accommodate the new population. Overall, the project will not constitute an unplanned increase in growth and population. There is no impact. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact: There project would not displace any existing housing. There is one existing house on the site which will be removed. Overall, this will increase the amount of available housing in the community. There is No Impact.
1200
3-82
Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable serve ratios, response times
of other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
Environmental Setting
Fire
Visalia and project site is served by The Visalia Fire Department (VFD), which operates 5 fire stations within the City of Visalia. The VFD will continue to provide fire protection services to the proposed project site following project implementation. VFD Fire Station #53 is the nearest fire station to the site, approximately .77 miles to the Northeast.