Attachment 8 – August 12, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report — Visalia City Council, September 16, 2024

REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION

HEARING DATE: August 12, 2024 (Continued from July 22, 2024)

PROJECT PLANNER: Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner
Phone No.: (559) 713-4443
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Annexation No. 2024-01: A request by San Joaquin Valley Homes to annex two parcels totaling approximately 59.13-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 site area), which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Low Density.

Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597: A request by San Joaquin Valley Homes to subdivide two parcels totaling approximately 59.13-acres into 225 lots for single-family residential use and additional outlots for landscaping and a neighborhood park, to be located within the R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum site area) zone.

Project Location: The project site is located west of South Roeben Street, approximately 650 feet south of West Tulare Avenue (APNs: 087-010-006, 008).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Annexation No. 2024-01
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Annexation No. 2024-01, as conditioned, based on the findings in Revised Resolution No. 2024-

08. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan.

Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597
Staff recommends approval of the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Revised Resolution No. 2024-07. 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.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend approval of Annexation No. 2024-01, based on the findings and conditions in Revised Resolution No. 2024-08.

I move to approve Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, based on the findings and conditions in Revised Resolution No. 2024-07.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 22, 2024
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 22, 2024, for Annexation No. 2024- 01 and Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597. After receiving the staff presentation and public testimony from the applicant and neighboring property owners, the Planning Commission continued the item to the August 12, 2024, meeting. The decision to continue the item was due to information provided during the public hearing from property owners within the Savannah Heights subdivision to the south. The property owners raised concerns about what would occur to a five- foot-wide strip of land under their ownership, as it is located between an existing block wall and the southern boundary of the Elliott Subdivision site.

The property owners stated that development of the Elliott Subdivision would infringe on their property and requested clarification on how the “5 foot wide by 1,197 foot long” strip of land under their ownership would be maintained and protected from possible trespassing. The Planning Commission directed staff to conduct research on the Savannah Heights subdivision to determine how the five-foot block wall offset from property line came to be, and directed the project applicant (San Joaquin Valley Homes) to reach out to affected property owners to devise potential solutions to address their concerns.

Savannah Heights Subdivision Map
On April 12, 1993, the Visalia Planning Commission approved the Savannah Heights Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditional Use Permit No. 1993-10. These projects were a request to develop a 53-lot single-family residential subdivision at a density of two dwelling units per acre in the former R-A (Rural Agricultural) zone. The Savannah Heights subdivision is located north of West Walnut Avenue, between South Shirk Street and South Roeben Street, just south of the proposed Elliott Subdivision. As part of the analysis for the Savannah Heights project (see the 1993 staff report in Exhibit “L”), concerns were noted about potential impacts from the property to the north (i.e. the future Elliott Subdivision site), as it was in agricultural production at the time. To mitigate impacts from farming operations on the future Savannah Heights residential development, three conditions of approval were applied to create a buffer between the future residential uses and existing agricultural uses. The conditions were as follows:
• Application of a 50-foot-wide non-habitable rear setback area along the northern portion of the six lots adjacent to the agricultural parcel to the north. • Installation of a 6-foot, 8-inch-tall block wall along the northern edge of the six lots adjacent to the agricultural parcel to the north, setback five feet behind the northern property boundary “…to provide turning areas for farm equipment,” and planting of a tree row inside the wall. The report notes that this wall “…would be maintained by the individual homeowners.”
• Attachment of a “Right to Farm” notice to the Final Subdivision Map and property deeds.

The agricultural buffer measures are included as Conditions of Approval Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the Savannah Heights Planning Commission resolution (see Exhibit “K”). The block wall and 5-foot buffer are depicted in the Savannah Heights plans in Exhibit “J”. Please note that the report does not provide information on how the agricultural buffer measures originated. The report and exhibits also do not indicate what would occur to the block wall and 5-foot “buffer area” upon development of the property to the north.

Meeting with Savannah Heights Property Owners
On July 26, 2024, San Joaquin Valley Homes (SJVH) staff hand delivered letters to the property owners of the six Savannah Heights properties affected by the five foot buffer area. The letter (attached as Exhibit “H”) invited the property owners to an onsite meeting on July 30, 2024 to discuss options formulated by SJVH to address the issue. SJVH staff proposed two possible solutions, listed below as follows:
• Facilitation of a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) by SJVH to incorporate the five-foot area from each affected parcel into the Elliott Subdivision project site. Fees associated with the LLA (estimated at $20,000) would be paid by SJVH and would go towards preparation and recordation of the LLAs; or
• Construction of a new 6-foot, 8-inch tall block wall along the property line shared between the Elliott Subdivision site and the six Savannah Heights lots, with construction costs to be shared by all parties involved. Costs for removal of the existing block wall would be at the expense of the Savannah Heights property owners. Based on current estimates provided by SJVH, the cost of constructing a block wall is approximately $100 per linear foot. With each site containing an approximately 200-foot-long rear property boundary, the total cost per parcel would be approximately $20,000. SJVH would provide the Savannah Heights homeowners with two bids for construction of the wall, after which SJVH would collect $10,000 from each property owner for the walls construction. SJVH would provide Savannah Heights homeowners up to six months to pay the $10,000 amount to SJVH.

The applicant provided a block wall cost breakdown for each of the six lots as noted in the table below:

Savannah
Heights
Property
Owner
Wall Length
(LF)
Cost ($/LF) Total Cost Proposed Owner
Share
SJVH Cost
Tenn 245 110 $26,950 $10,000 $16,950
Schouten 197 110 $21,670 $10,000 $11,670
Swanson 189 110 $20,790 $10,000 $10,790
Baldwin 189 110 $20,790 $10,000 $10,790
Jongsma 196 110 $21,560 $10,000 $11,560
Brown 185 110 $20,350 $10,000 $10,350
Both options provided by SJVH would require unified cooperation from all six affected property owners in order to create an orderly shared boundary. A summary of the July 30, 2024 meeting is provided in Exhibit “I”. Per the information provided by SJVH staff, five out of the six affected property owners attended the meeting. Responses to the proffered solutions from SJVH were mixed, with a majority of the attendees requesting SJVH be solely responsible for the full cost to construct a new block wall on the shared property boundary. SJVH notes that the cost to construct a new block wall would be approximately $132,110, and that requiring SJVH to pay the full amount on its own would pose an unreasonable burden to development of the subdivision. Staff has noted a block wall is not required between single-family residential developments under state building code or the Visalia Municipal Code and this would be an additional expense. The e-mail states that alternative proposals from the Savannah Heights property owners would be entertained by SJVH. However, per SJVH staff no alternative proposals have been received as of the release of this staff report.

Conclusions
Staff notes that the applicant appears to have made a good faith effort to find a solution to remove the five-foot strip of land that is located between an existing block wall and the southern boundary of the Elliott Subdivision site. In spite of these efforts, the applicant was unable to forge a consensus amongst the affected property owners. Staff further notes that neither the applicant nor the City can compel the affected Savannah Heights property owners to cooperate with the applicant. The City also cannot legally require SJVH to acquire properties it does not own in order to facilitate removal of the five-foot strip of property owned by the Savannah Heights property owners, especially when the property owners do not wish to participate. There is also no codified development standard within the Visalia Municipal Code that requires a block wall to be constructed between R-1-5 zoned sites. Lastly, staff’s research into the development requirements for the Savannah Heights subdivision determined that no remedy was ever provided to remove the five-foot offset of the block wall from the shared property line, once development of the former agricultural site (i.e. the Elliott Subdivision site) occurred.

As a result staff concludes that no additional conditions should be applied to the Elliott Subdivision to address the five-foot offset area abutting the project site, except for Condition No. 9 of Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, which requires that a seven-foot-tall block wall be installed along the shared property boundaries between the proposed park and adjacent residential properties (Outlot E and Lot 1 of the Elliott Subdivision, Lots 44 and 45 of Savannah Heights Subdivision Unit 3, and property located at 1627 South Roeben Street). This condition is recommended to prevent impacts from use of the park on surrounding properties. Legally, the applicant/subdivider can construct a new fence on the property line shared with the six Savannah Heights property owners affected by the five-foot buffer area. The five-foot buffer areas owned by the six Savannah Heights property owners will be required to be maintained by those same property owners.

A revised resolution noting the continuance is included with this report. Additional public comment is also included in the “Public Comment Letters” exhibit provided by Jim and Carmen Martinez, owners of property within Tulare County jurisdiction, just southwest of the project site. Otherwise, the analysis and project conditions as contained within the July 22, 2024, Planning Commission staff report and revised resolutions for Annexation No. 2024-01 and Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, remain unchanged.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, San Joaquin Valley Homes, has filed entitlement applications for the development of a 225-lot single-family residential subdivision, on 59.13 acres across two parcels located outside of City Limits, within the Tier II urban development boundary. The project site is primarily vacant, with a Valley Oak grove at the northwestern corner, and corn planted at the southwestern corner. Though the project site is not currently within an agricultural preserve, it is designated as Prime Farmland. Entitlements for this project consist of an annexation and tentative subdivision map.

Annexation No. 2024-01 is a request to annex the 59.13 acres into the Visalia City Limits (see Exhibit “B”). Upon annexation, the zoning designation for the project site will be R-1-5 (Single- Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area), as dictated by the Visalia General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.

Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 is a request to subdivide the 59.13 acres into a 225-lot single-family residential subdivision (see Exhibit “A”), to be developed in two phases (Exhibit “C”). The density of the subdivision will be 3.8 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the density range of the Low Density Residential General Plan land use classification, which notes density between 2 to 10 units per acre. The development will be serviced by 60-foot wide public local streets containing full improvements (curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, sidewalks, and streetlights), sewer lines, storm drainage, and other public infrastructure, utilities, and services (i.e., electricity and water). The development will also include a 4.15-acre neighborhood park (Outlot E on Exhibit “A”), at the southeast corner of the subdivision, encompassing the existing Persian Ditch. The park will be built by the developer and maintained by the City of Visalia Parks and Recreation Department. Park improvements are to be reimbursed by the Parks and Recreation Department. The operational statement in Exhibit “G” incorrectly states that the park will be maintained via a Landscape and Lighting District.

Additional improvements proposed include installation of a temporary stormwater basin (to be removed with development of Phase 2), and public street improvements to South Roeben Street and West Tulare Avenue, both Collector Streets which will be widened to 42 feet within the boundaries of the subdivision, and South Shirk Street, a Minor Arterial roadway which will be widened to 55 feet on the east side, again within the boundaries of the subdivision. Lastly, improvements will be conducted to the Persian Ditch, to include the widening of existing service roads to 12 feet on each side and installation of six-foot-tall chain link fencing.

Primary access to Phase I of the subdivision will initially be from South Roeben Avenue and West Tulare Avenue, which will connect to South Shirk Street to the west. Upon completion of Phase 2 a second permanent access will be provided along South Shirk Street and a second access will be provided along West Tulare Avenue. Improvements along these major streets include construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, block walls (where lots do not front onto major 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 5 lettered outlots to be dedicated to the City of Visalia. The outlots will function as landscaping lots with block walls (Outlots A through D) and a neighborhood park (Outlot E). The outlots account for approximately 4.8 acres of the total 59.13-acre development.

The applicant has not provided floor plans or elevations for the development. However, the operational statement notes that subdivision will consist of a mix of single and two-story homes, ranging in size from 1,735 square feet to 2,855 square feet. Lots will average 8,082 square feet, ranging in size from 6,376 square feet to 12,774 square feet.

The parcel is surrounded by the Savannah Heights subdivision to the south, the Copper Creek subdivision to the east, and agricultural uses to the north and west. The project site, and areas to the north, 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 Low Density Future City Zoning: R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 5,000 square foot lot size) zone
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North: Tulare County jurisdiction, AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) /
Undeveloped agricultural land
South: Tulare County jurisdiction, PD R-A 43 (Planned
Development, Rural Residential, One-Acre
Minimum Site Area), R-1-20 (Single-Family
Residential, minimum 20,000 square foot lot
size) / Savannah Heights subdivision, rural
residences.

East: R-1-5 / Cooper Creek subdivision
West: Tulare County jurisdiction, AE-20 /
Undeveloped agricultural land, rural
residences.

Environmental Review: Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024- 05 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257)
Special Districts: None
Site Plan Review: SPR No. 2023-131

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

SIMILAR AND ADJACENT PROJECTS
On June 26, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approve Annexation No. 2022-03, and approved Barr & Wood Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5588, Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-02, located at the northwest corner of South Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue. The project was a request to annex and subdivide a 69.35-acre parcel into 136-lots, with private streets and a pocket park for residential use consistent with the R-1-20 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 two parcels totaling 59.13-acres in a manner that is consistent with residential neighborhoods in the area. Furthermore, staff recommends approval of Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 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 two parcels that are 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 moderate and above moderate-income levels.

Annexation
The project proponents have filed an application to initiate the annexation of the 59.13-acre project site into the Visalia City Limits. Annexation is required 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-1-5 classification, consistent with the subject sites General Plan land use designation of 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 Map 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 has included this requirement as Condition No. 4 for Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597.

Survey of Adjacent Properties
Staff conducted a pre-consultation meeting with LAFCO on February 28, 2024 to discuss the annexation of the project site. During the meeting LAFCO staff directed the City to conduct an annexation survey of all registered voters associated with seven properties located south of the project site, east of South Shirk Street, between the project site and West Walnut Avenue. All seven properties are outside Visalia City Limits. The intent of the survey was to determine whether there would be support to include the seven properties in the annexation request.

Staff queried the Tulare County Registrar of Voters, who provided mailing information for 16 registered voters associated with the seven properties. The survey was mailed on May 13, 2024.

Out of the 16 people surveyed, 12 responded in opposition to the request (75%). The other four people surveyed did not respond. As such, the seven properties are not included in the annexation request.

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 south 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 II UDB in July 2021.

The project is also consistent with Policy LU-P-55. The policy allows for residential development consistent with the Low-Density Residential designation at a density range between 2 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed development will be developed at a residential density of 3.8 units per acre, consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation and R-1-5 zoning district. The policy is intended to facilitate “...single-family detached housing with densities typical of single-family subdivisions.” The proposal meets the intent of the policy, providing a development with single family residences, with lot sizes and densities compatible with residential areas to the south and east. The development is also situated at a location that transitions smoothly with agricultural areas to the north and west.

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.

The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and single-family residential development standards. The lots proposed for the Elliott subdivision

1 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).
meet density standards for the Low-Density Residential land use designation and will be compatible with surrounding developed residential areas. Furthermore, the subdivision will develop a network of local streets and improve adjacent Collector and Arterial public roadways, thereby facilitating increased street connectivity to accommodate future growth areas.

Traffic Impact Analysis
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the proposed project (ref.: Traffic Study: Elliott Tentative Subdivision. Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers, December 2023, Updated June 2024). The purpose of the study is to analyze traffic conditions and operational issues related to the development of the subdivision and its projected level of service (LOS) at opening year and the five-year horizon, and to analyze the corresponding environmental impact as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The TIA analyzed existing and proposed intersections within a half-mile radius of the project site.

The existing and new intersections studied are as follows:

Road 92/Shirk Street & State Route 198 Eastbound
Ramps
Roeben Street & Walnut Avenue
Road 92/Shirk Street & State Route 198 Westbound
Ramps
Street 3 and Tulare Avenue
Road 92/Shirk Street & Tulare Avenue Street 6 and Tulare Avenue Road 92/Shirk Street & Walnut Avenue Avenue 4 and Shirk Street Roeben Street & Tulare Avenue Avenue 6 and Roeben Street The TIA determined that the proposed project would cause unacceptable LOS at three separate intersections by 2033. Affected intersections and the improvements needed to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the vicinity of the project are identified below:

Intersection Improvements Required by 2028
Shirk Street and S tate Route 198,
westbound ramps Signal
Shirk Street and S tate Route 198,
eastbound ramps Signal
Shirk Street and Walnut Avenue Signal
The project will pay its fair share of traffic impact fees to support payment of the traffic signals.

This is a required mitigation measure and is included as Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, Condition No. 12. With fair share payments, there will be a less than significant impact from the project on existing or proposed intersections.

Please note: improvements to the cited intersections above are part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP is a plan that identifies and funds improvements of significant city infrastructure and facilities. Improvements to the Shirk Street and State Route 198 signals are identified within the “Shirk Street & SR 198 Operational Improvements” CIP. The project will signalize both the west and eastbound on/off ramps at the State Route 198 and Shirk Street interchange. Funding for the complete project is expected to be received by the end of this year with construction projected to begin by the Fall of 2025.

Improvements to the Shirk Street and Walnut Avenue signal are identified in the “Shirk St & Walnut Ave Traffic Signal” project, which will be funded through multiple CIPs as the project is intended to improve additional infrastructure outside of the street intersection. This project is estimated to begin construction in January 2026.

City of Visalia Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation impacts are analyzed in California CEQA documents. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the metric for impact determination. As a result of the final rulemaking surrounding SB 743 (effective date July 1, 2020), the City of Visalia adopted VMT thresholds and guidelines (City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, LSA, Adopted March 15, 2021) to address the shift from delay‐based LOS CEQA traffic analyses to VMT CEQA traffic analyses.

The adopted guidelines provide details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed VMT analysis. Screening thresholds include:

1. Land development projects within a 0.5-miles of a Transit Priority Area.

2. Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet.

3. Residential, office, and mixed‐use projects within low‐VMT generating areas.

4. 100 percent affordable housing projects.

5. Projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and generating fewer than 1,000 daily trips.

6. Institutional/Government and public service uses.

A land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.

The project will result in the addition of 225 single-family residential units, resulting in an increase of population for the City of Visalia. A rise in population for the area would result in an increased amount of VMT being produced. However, by using the City of Visalia online VMT screening application, the project was determined to be in TAZ 1358. Utilizing the “VMT Per Capita” metric due to the residential nature of the project, the average VMT was determined to be 8.61 miles per capita. The average VMT per capita for Tulare County is 11.9. Using 84 percent of existing regional VMT, the City’s threshold for residential projects is 10.0 VMT per capita. Therefore, the project is determined to be in a low VMT zone, meeting the criteria for screening threshold No. 3 identified above. As a result, the project will result in a less than significant transportation impact.

Street Improvements
The developer of the subdivision will be required to construct major street improvements along South Roeben Street, West Tulare Avenue, and South Shirk Street. Improvements along the subdivision frontage for these major streets include widening of Roeben, Tulare, and Shirk to their ultimate right-of-way design, and extension of Tulare further westward.

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 travel lanes with full frontage improvements.

West Tulare Avenue: Is a designated 84-foot-wide collector roadway that will require a 42-foot dedication of the street. Construction will occur along the northern boundary of the project site to

accommodate two travel lanes and frontage improvements on the development side. Tulare Avenue will provide a connection between South Shirk Street to Street 6. Please note, the off-site connection of Tulare Avenue to South Roeben Street shall not occur with this project. There is a 19-acre parcel adjacent to the project to the east. When this 19-acre parcel is proposed for residential development, the completion of the Tulare Avenue alignment between Roeben and Street 6 will occur.

South Shirk Street: Is a designated 110-foot-wide arterial roadway.

The project will require an additional dedication of right of way to allow for the widening of Shirk Street up to a total of 55 feet 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.

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 new utilities that will service the residential subdivision will be placed underground, except for the large Southern California Edison distribution/transmission power poles along the South Shirk Street alignment that are within the boundaries of the project site. These poles are required to be relocated by the developer.

Per the Phasing Plan in Exhibit “C”, widening of Roeben Street and Tulare Avenue shall take place during the first phase of development, with the remaining improvements to Shirk Street occurring in Phase II.

Local Streets: All local streets will be developed per the City’s 60-foot-wide local street standard, except for the northern 600 feet of Street 6, which is proposed for a width of approximately 30 feet due to its location adjacent to a separate parcel. Per the Engineering Division Site Plan Review comments, the width of Street 6 must be a minimum 60 feet. As such, staff recommends inclusion of Condition No. 6 for Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 requiring compliance with all standards of the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Division, in particular as it relates to the width of Street 6. With the inclusion of Condition No. 6, the proposed local streets shall provide adequate access to Roeben Street, Tulare Avenue, and Shirk Street and will serve to improve circulation for the general area.

Development Standards
The Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 will be developed with setbacks and lot sizes in accordance with the codified standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance for R-1-5 zoned properties. The subdivision does not propose the utilization of small lots or private streets with this single-family residential subdivision.

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

Minimum
Lot Area Front Side Street
Side Rear
5,000 sq. ft.
15-ft. to
habitable space.
22-ft. to garage,
except on
curvilinear lots
20-ft. to garage.
5-ft. 10-ft.
25-ft. City standard rear yard setbacks are
25 feet with allowance for one-story
structure to go to 20-feet subject to open
space requirements.

The development standards are included as Condition No. 3 of Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597.

Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts
A Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) will be required for the long-term maintenance of the out lots, which include blocks walls, streetlights, and landscaping amenities. The block walls along the major street frontages will be typical City standard block walls. The block wall height shall be reduced to three feet where the block wall runs adjacent to the front yard setback along the front yard areas of the following residential lots: Lots 49, 50, 63, 64, 105, and 135. Staff has included Condition No. 8 to require the stepped down walls.

Staff notes that Lot 1 of the Elliott subdivision and three residential lots to the south abut the proposed 4.15-acre neighborhood park. In order to prevent impacts from usage of the park on the existing and future residences, staff recommends the inclusion of Condition No. 9, requiring placement of a seven-foot-tall block wall along the property boundaries shared between the residential lots and park, except within the 15-foot front yard setback areas of applicable lots, in which a three-foot-tall block wall shall be placed. These walls shall also be maintained by the Lighting and Landscape District.

Agricultural Preservation Ordinance
The 59.13-acre project site is in the City’s Tier II urban development boundary and is designated as Prime Farmland as defined per the Tulare County Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

As a result, development of this site is subject to the City’s recently adopted Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO). The purpose and intent of the APO 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 Elliott Subdivision, the preserved land obligation shall be calculated at a ratio of one acre of preserved land for each acre of converted land. Converted land acreage shall be calculated by determining the applicable project acreage less the acreage of exclusions. In addition, the preserved land obligation, as established in Visalia Municipal Code (VMC) Section 18.04.070(A), shall be preserved through acquisition of an agricultural easement in accordance with VMC Section 18.04.080, unless eligible for payment of an in-lieu fee in accordance with VMC Section

18.04.090.

The preserved land obligation shall be satisfied prior to issuance of any permit directly authorizing or resulting in disturbance to the project site. Compliance with the APO is achieved when either the approved agricultural conservation easement has been recorded or the applicant has remitted the approved in-lieu fee to the qualified entity.

Airport Land Use
The proposed project is located approximately 0.95 miles east 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, Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, Condition No. 7 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.

Infrastructure
The project will require improvements to the following infrastructure:
• Water Service: Staff has included Condition No. 5 for Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 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 master planned trunk line within South Shirk Street. The sewer lines will be sized 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. A sewer analysis, which is included in the attached Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, has been prepared for the site. After a thorough review of the analysis by the City of Visalia Public Works Department, it has been determined that the Wastewater Treatment Facility possesses the capacity to effectively accommodate this development.
• Storm Drainage: Per the Phasing Plan in Exhibit “C”, Phase 1 of the subdivision will incorporate a temporary stormwater basin over Lots 37 through 43, and Lots 186 and 187.

Per Engineering Division’s Site Plan Review comments, the temporary basin shall be maintained onsite until the completion of a future regional stormwater basin for the entire future growth area. Compliance with this requirement shall be enforced via Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map, Condition No. 14. Compliance with Engineering Division’s Site Plan Review requirements is also included as Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, Condition No. 1.
• Canal/Park: The Persian Ditch bisects Outlot E, which is planned for a 4.15-acre neighborhood park. As part of the development, the applicant proposes installation of 12- foot-wide access roads along both sides of the Persian Ditch, with 6-foot-tall chain link fencing with privacy slats added to prevent access. Site Plan Review comments from the Engineering Division note that access roads for the ditch shall be a minimum 15 feet wide.

The Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, Condition No. 10 is included requiring the applicant to coordinate with the Persian Ditch Company and comply with any requirements to conduct the proposed improvements.

In addition to the above, Site Plan Review comments from the Engineering Division indicate that the widening of South Roeben Street will necessitate culvert improvements to the Persian Ditch, where it intersects with South Roeben Street. Improvements shall include installation of a culvert crossing, headwall relocation, sidewalk, access drive approaches for maintenance, fencing, and gates. This is included as Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, Condition No. 1.

Outlot for Park
The project delineates Outlot E for use as a 4.15-acre neighborhood park, located at the southeast corner of the project site, adjacent to South Roeben Street. Per the Landscape Plan in Exhibit “F” and Operational Statement in Exhibit “G” no park amenities are identified currently. Staff recommends the inclusion of Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, Condition No. 13, requiring the applicant to consult and work with the Parks and Recreation Department and comply with all requirements for development of the park, which will include designing and installing amenities for the future park.

Valley Oak Tree Preservation
The proposal will involve the removal of an existing Valley Oak tree grove at the northwest corner of the project site and within the South Shirk Street right of way. Site Plan Review comments received from both the Engineering Division, and City of Visalia Urban Forestry Division, require the applicant comply with the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Visalia Municipal Code Chapter

12.24) if the trees are to be removed. This has been included as Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, Condition No. 11.

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 map.

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

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

The site is physically suitable for the proposed
map and its affiliated development plan, which
is designated as Low Density Residential and
developed at a density of 3.8 units per acre.

This is included as recommended Finding No. 3
of the Tentative Subdivision Map.

(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

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

The proposed design and improvements of the
map has 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 Map.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health
problems.

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

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

Public Comment
Three public comment letters were received from property owners immediately south of the project site, two who reside in County jurisdiction and one within City jurisdiction. Their comment contests that the subdivision project will increase traffic volumes on Shirk Street and Roeben Street, will increase the presence of unhoused individuals in the area due to the proposed park, and will destroy existing habitats for wildlife residing in the area, including Grey Foxes, Great Horned Owls, Barn Owls, Possums, Skunks, and Peacocks.

Staff notes that both a TIA and Biological Study have been conducted by the applicant as part of this project, and are included in the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration attached to this report. Mitigation measures identified in the studies have been incorporated into the project via Condition No. 12 and are considered adequate to address any potential impacts. Specifically, the TIA states that impacts to traffic will be alleviated by the payment of fees for the future signalization of affected street intersections. Animals noted in the comment letter where not identified in the Biological Study as species that appear on any threatened or endangered listing. The Biological Study notes that impacts could potentially occur to the nesting and foraging habitat for the Swainson Hawk and Nuttall’s woodpecker, should they reside onsite, and provides mitigation to protect such habitats during subdivision development.

Staff also notes that as a result of annexation the proposed park will benefit from City services, including regular maintenance by Parks and Recreation Department staff, and availability of emergency services from the Police and Fire Departments. Given the above, staff believes that the comments in the letters have been adequately addressed.

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. 2024-05 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257) disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts to the following resources:
• One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Transportation to reduce impacts to traffic and circulation.
• Four (4) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources to reduce impacts of the Project to special-status wildlife species.
• Four (4) mitigation measures pertaining to Cultural Resources to reduce the impacts of the Project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction.
• Three (3) 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 Clearinghouse for the Initial Study began on June 27, 2024, and ended on July 17, 2024. Mitigation measures as included as Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, Condition No. 12.

The City of Visalia received two comment letters in response to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration from Caltrans and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

Both letters are included with the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. Comments from Caltrans have been adequately addressed in the TIA. To address the comments raised in DTSC’s letter, Condition Nos. 12.a and 12.b are recommended for incorporation in the conditions of approval for the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 as follows:
a. That prior to site disturbance, the developer/homebuilder shall consult with a qualified hazardous substance professional to determine whether the applicant should obtain soil samples to test for contaminants of concern (COCs), in particular Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If suggested to be performed, the developer/homebuilder shall have the qualified hazardous substances professional perform the soil sampling per Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties from DTSC. The developer/homebuilder shall provide the Planning and Community Preservation Director with a copy of all correspondence between the developer/homebuilder and the qualified hazardous substances professional that details the required direction/recommendation on soil samples to test for COCs/OCPs. The City shall require the developer to comply with specified direction/recommendation as required prior to any further site disturbance.
b. All imported soil and fill material shall be tested to ensure that any contaminants are with DTSC’s and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs).

Based on the letter and the inclusion of the additional project conditions as noted above, the City concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration are still applicable. No other formal comments were received as of the publication of this report.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
Annexation No. 2024-01

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 59.13-acres of AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre) County zone district to an R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential, 5,000 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. 2024-05 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257), 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.

Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597

The 59.13-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 225-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 Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, 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 Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 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 local street pattern that will serve the subject site and the future development of vacant parcels located to the north and west of the subject site.

consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The 59.13-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 225-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21.

The development of the site with a 225-lot single-family residential subdivision will improve arterial and collector streets (South Roeben Street, West Tulare Avenue, and South Shirk Street), and extend 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 3.8 units per acre, which is consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and the R-1-5 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. 2024-05 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257), 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.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Annexation No. 2024-01

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 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. 2024-08. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.

Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597

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. 2023- 131 incorporated herein by reference.

2. That the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”.

3. That setbacks for the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 shall be as follows:

Minimum
Lot Area Front Side Street
Side Rear
5,000 sq. ft.
15-ft. to habitable
space. 22-ft. to
garage, except on
curvilinear lots
20-ft. to garage.
5-ft. 10-ft.
25-ft. City standard rear yard setbacks are 25
feet with allowance for one-story structure to
go to 20-feet subject to open space
requirements.

4. That approval of the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2024-01, 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. 2024-01.

5. 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.

6. That the applicant shall consult with City of Visalia Engineering Development Division and Traffic Engineering Division and comply with any requirements for adequate design and improvement of the proposed local, collection, and arterial streets. The applicant shall redesign Street 6 to comply with the 60-foot width requirement for local streets.

7. 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. 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.

8. That the block walls located within the Landscape and Lighting District lots shall transition to three-foot height within the 15-foot front yard setback areas of the adjoining residential lots identified as Lots 49, 50, 63, 64, 105, and 135.

9. That a seven-foot-tall block wall shall be installed along the shared boundaries of Outlot E, Elliott Subdivision Lot 1, Savannah Heights Unit 3 Subdivision Lots 44 and 45 (1617 and 1618 South Jacques Court), and 1627 South Roeben Street (APN: 087-442-040). For Elliott Subdivision Lot 1, the block wall shall transition to a three-foot-tall block wall within the 15-foot front yard setback area. The walls shall also be maintained by the Lighting and Landscape District for the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597.

10. The applicant shall coordinate with the Persian Ditch Company and shall comply with all its requirements for the installation of improvements to the Persian Ditch within the project site.

11. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 12.24 (Oak Tree Preservation), for the removal of any Valley Oak trees from the project site.

12. That the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and its mitigation measures adopted with the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-05 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257) and all conditions of the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, including the following conditions in response to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) comment letter be met during construction and upon final occupancy and ongoing operation of the project:
a. That prior to site disturbance, the developer/homebuilder shall consult with a qualified hazardous substance professional to determine whether the applicant should obtain soil samples to test for contaminants of concern (COCs), in particular Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If suggested to be performed, the developer/homebuilder shall have the qualified hazardous substances professional perform the soil sampling per Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties from DTSC. The developer/homebuilder shall provide the Planning and Community Preservation Director with a copy of all correspondence between the developer/homebuilder and the qualified hazardous substances professional that details the required direction/recommendation on soil samples to test for COCs/OCPs.

The City shall require the developer to comply with specified direction/recommendation as required prior to any further site disturbance.
b. All imported soil and fill material shall be tested to ensure that any contaminants are with DTSC’s and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs).

13. That the applicant shall consult with the City of Visalia Parks and Recreation Department and shall comply with all requirements for development of the park on Outlot E, which will include designing and installing amenities for the future park.

14. That the temporary stormwater basin located on Lots 37 through 43, and Lots 186 and 187, shall be maintained onsite until a permanent regional ponding basin is established to service the development.

15. That the project be developed in substantial compliance with all improvements depicted and described in Exhibits “A” through “G”.

16. That the developer shall inform and have future homeowners of the Elliott subdivision sign and acknowledge Tulare County’s “Right to Farm” Ordinance. This informs future residential owners that the farming operations located to the north and west, which are located in Tulare County, are protected and cannot be declared a nuisance if operating in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards.

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

APPEAL INFORMATION
Annexation No. 2024-01
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.

Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597
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.

Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Revised Resolution No. 2024-08 – Annexation No. 2024-01 - Attachment “A” – Annexation Area
- Attachment “B” – Annexation Agreement
• Revised Resolution No. 2024-07 – Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 • Exhibit "A" – Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 • Exhibit “B” – Annexation Area
• Exhibit “C” – Phasing Plan
• Exhibit “D” – Atypical Lot Plan
• Exhibit “E” – Street Cross Sections Plan
• Exhibit “F” – Landscape Plan
• Exhibit “G” – Operational Statement
• Exhibit “H” – July 26, 2024 Letter from San Joaquin Valley Homes to Savannah Heights Property Owners
• Exhibit “I” – August 1, 2024 E-mail from San Joaquin Valley Homes Summarizing July 30, 2024 Meeting with Savannah Heights Property Owners.
• Exhibit “J” – Savannah Heights Tentative Subdivision Map Exhibits • Exhibit “K” – Planning Commission Resolution No. 1993-34 (Savannah Heights Tentative Subdivision Map)
• Exhibit “L” – Planning Commission Staff Report, Savannah Heights Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditional Use Permit No. 1993-10
• Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-05 • Department of Toxic Substances Control (SJVAPCD) Comment Letter, July 3, 2024 • Caltrans Comment Letters, July 16, 2024, June 13, 2024, and March 22, 2024 • Public Comment Letters (July 22 and August 12, 2024)
• Site Plan Review Item No. 2023-131
• General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map

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

General Plan Land Use Policies:

LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. The General Plan Land Use Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary I (UDB I) shares its boundaries with the 2012 city limits. The Urban Development Boundary II (UDB II) defines the urbanizable area within which a full range of urban services will need to be extended in the first phase of anticipated growth with a target buildout population of 178,000. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines full buildout of the General Plan with a target buildout population of 210,000. Each growth ring enables the City to expand in all four quadrants, reinforcing a concentric growth pattern.

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

Visalia Municipal Code
Chapter 17.12
R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE

17.12.010 Purpose and intent.

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

17.12.015 Applicability.

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

17.12.020 Permitted uses.

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

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

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

17.12.070.

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

O. In the R-1-20 zone only, the breeding, hatching, raising and fattening of birds, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters, other small animals and fowl, on a domestic noncommercial scale, provided that there shall not be less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of site area for each fowl or animal and provided that no structure housing poultry or small animals shall be closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line, closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any dwelling on the site, or closer than fifty (50) feet to any other dwelling; P. In the R-1-20 zone only, the raising of livestock, except pigs of any kind, subject to the exception of not more than two cows, two horses, four sheep or four goats for each site, shall be permitted; provided, that there be no limitation on the number of livestock permitted on a site with an area of ten acres or more and provided that no stable be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any dwelling on the site or closer than one hundred (100) feet to any other dwelling;

17.12.030 Accessory uses.

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

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

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

17.32.035.

17.12.040 Conditional uses.

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

A. Planned development subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.26;

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

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

17.12.050 Site area.

The minimum site area shall be as follows:

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

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

17.12.060 One dwelling unit per site.

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

17.12.070 Replacement and expansion of legally existing multiple family units.

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

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

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

17.28.050.

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

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

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

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

17.12.080 Front yard.

A. The minimum front yard shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Front Yard
R-1-5 Fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty-two (22) feet for front- loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cochere. A Porte Cochere with less than twenty-two (22) feet of setback from property line shall not be counted as covered parking, and garages on such sites shall not be the subject of a garage conversion.

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

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

17.12.090 Side yards.

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

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

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

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

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

F. The placement of any mechanical equipment, including but not limited to, pool/spa equipment and evaporative coolers shall not be permitted in the five-foot side yard within the buildable area of the lot, or within five feet of rear/side property lines that are adjacent to the required side yard on adjoining lots. This provision shall not apply to street side yards on corner lots, nor shall it prohibit the surface mounting of utility meters and/or the placement of fixtures and utility lines as approved by the building and planning divisions.

17.12.100 Rear yard.

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

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

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

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

17.12.110 Height of structures.

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

17.12.120 Off-street parking.

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

17.12.130 Fences, walls and hedges.

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

17.36.030.

17.12.135 Lot area less than 5,000 square feet.

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

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

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

3. Streets shall be constructed to public street standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution No. 2024-08
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-08

A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION NO. 2024-01 AND DETACHMENT OF PROPERTY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 1, PERTAINING TO TWO PARCELS TOTALING 59.13 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS OF VISALIA. UPON ANNEXATION, THE SITE SHALL BE ZONED R-1-5 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM), WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROJECT SITE LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH ROEBEN STREET, APPROXIMATELY 650 FEET SOUTH OF WEST TULARE AVENUE (APNS: 087-010-006, 008).

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

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after a duly published notice, did hold a public hearing on July 22, 2024, and

WHEREAS, during the July 22, 2024, Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission requested that the project be continued to the August 12, 2024 Planning Commission meeting to provide staff and the project applicant with time to address concerns raised by the public regarding a five-foot-wide strip of land located between an existing block wall on six lots within the Savannah Heights Subdivision and the southern property boundary of the project site; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice did hold a public hearing before said Commission on August 12, 2024; and

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

Resolution No. 2024-08
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 July 22, 2024 , and found it to be consistent with the General Plan; and

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

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

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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-05 for Annexation No. 2024-01 that was prepared 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-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 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 Resolution No. 2024-08
annexation. The draft Pre-Annexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” of Resolution No. 2024-08. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.

S89° 59' 49"E 1,322.32'±
S0° 09' 41"E 659.33'±
S89° 59' 45"E 1,322.55'±
N0° 10' 51"W 1,318.70'±
N89° 59' 53"W 2,644.20'±
S0° 08' 31"E 659.30'±
20'
20'324 S. SANTA FE, STE. AVISALIA, CA 93292TEL: 559.802.3052FAX: 559.802.3215www.4-creeks.com 500'
500'
NW COR. SW1/4 SECT. 34-18/24POINT OF BEGINNING
EXHIBIT "B"LEGEND
ANNEXATION BOUNDARYEXISTING CITY LIMITS ANNEXATION NO. 2024-___THAT PORTION OF SECTION 34. T. 18S., R. 24 E., M.D.B.&M., IN THECOUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OFCALIFORNIACITY OF VISALIA - EFFECTIVE:

HWY 198
HWY 198
ROAD 92

ROBEN STREET

TULARE COUNTY

TULARE COUNTYCITY OF VISALIA

CITY OF VISALIA

NORTHVICINITY MAPNO SCALE

CITY LIMITS

SUBJECT PROPERTY
APN: 087-440-036APN: 087-440-035APN: 087-440-030
APN: 087-440-029APN: 087-440-024APN: 087-440-023APN: 087-440-040APN: 087-410-041APN: 087-410-040APN: 087-400-081APN: 087-400-080APN: 087-400-018APN: 087-400-001 APN: 087-010-005
APN: 087-010-008
APN: 087-010-075APN: 087-010-039APN: 087-440-001

TULARE COUNTY
APN: 081-060-018

ROEBEN ST

CITY OF VISALIA

TULARE COUNTY

TULARE COUNTY
APN: 087-050-035TULARE AVEAKERS STREET
APN: 087-010-006
ROAD 92
12 34 5
6NW1/4 SW1/4 SECT. 34-18/24
S1/2 NE1/4 SW1/4SECT. 34-18/24
N. LINE OF SW1/4
E. LINE OFNW1/4 OF SW1/4N. LINE OF S1/2 OFNE1/4 OF SW1/4 E. LINE OF SW1/4
S. LINE OF N1/2OF SW1/4W. LINE OF SW1/4
AREA: 59.74 ac.
±
TULARE AVE.

ONLY ONE SHEET

EXHIBIT “A”

CITY OF VISALIA
ANNEXATION NO. 2024-______

That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter and that portion of the South Half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 18 South, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the County of Tulare, State of California, being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 18 South, Range 24 East;

1. Thence South 89°59’45” East, along the North line of said Southwest quarter, 1322.55 feet more or less, to the Northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of said Southwest quarter;

2. Thence South 0°09’41” East, along the East line of the Northwest quarter of said Southwest quarter, 659.33 feet more or less, to the North line of the South half of the Northeast quarter of said Southwest quarter;

3. Thence South 89°59’49” East, along last said North line, 1322.32 feet more or less, to a line parallel with and 20 feet West of East line of said Southwest quarter, and existing City Limit line, being the West right-of-way line of Roeben Street;

4. Thence South 0°08’31” East, along said parallel line, and existing City Limit line, and said right-of-way line, 659.30 feet more or less, to the South line of the North half of said Southwest quarter;

5. Thence North 89°59’53” West, along said South line, and along the existing City Limit line and the Westerly prolongation thereof, 2644.20 feet more or less, to the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of said Southwest quarter;

6. Thence North 0°10’51” West, along the West line of said Southwest quarter, 1318.70 feet more or less, to the Northwest Corner of said Southwest quarter and the Point of Beginning; Consisting of 59.74 acres more or less.
1 of 9

Pre-Annexation Agreement

This Pre -Annexation Agreement (”Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of _________, 20___, by and among the City of Visalia, a charter law city (“City’) and Margaret Kenyon Elliott, (hereinafter “Owners”):

RECITALS

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

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

WHEREAS, Owner s desires to have the Property annexed to the City and to have the Propert y zoned as R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum), which would permit the Property to be used for Residential Low Density use; and

WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 59.13 acres, and no electors reside thereon; and

WHEREAS, proper applications have been filed with the City for approval of the annexation and tentative subdivision map as may be required for the P roperty; and

WHEREAS, the City has, by a resolution requesting initiation of proceedings to annex territory (“Resolution”) adopted on _________, 20__, initiated proceedings to annex the Property; and

WHEREAS, finding adoption of Resolution No. 20__-_____ 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.

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

2 of 9
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. Owner s 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 Owner s 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 se rve the community’s needs. City’s Council is actively engaged in water replenishment activities with the Kaweah Delta Water 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 3 of 9
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). Owner s agree that it shall identify all water righ ts 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 Owner s in valuing such water rights for the purposes of determining the amount of offset to be applied against the in-lieu fee as required pursuant of the Water Acquisition Policy. Owner s further agrees that City shall have first right of refusal in acquiring upon mutually acceptable terms any water rights that Owner s own that may be in addition to those required to meet Owner s 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), Owner s will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee in an amount equal to $495 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 Owner s apply to City for its approval of multiple 4 of 9
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) wi ll satisfy any and all of Owner s 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, 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 t he City’s 5 of 9
enforcement of this Agreement. Owner s 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 part ies hereto. The terms and conditions stated herein shall constitute covenants running with the land.

b. Assignment. Neither party shall assign, delegate or transfer their rights and duties in 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 Owner: Margaret Kenyon Elliott
16479 EFM 837
Frankston, TX 75763

San Joaquin Valley Homes
Attn: Steven Macias
5607 Avenida de los Robles
Visalia, CA 93291

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

6 of 9
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 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 Owner s and that Owners are not an agent of City. City and Owners hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture 7 of 9
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 Owner s 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 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 R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) zoning designation is the adopted prezonings for the Property, in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapter s 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 R-1-5 8 of 9
(Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) 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.

/////

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: ________________________________ ______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________

RESOLUTION NO 2024-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING ELLIOTT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5597: A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE TWO PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 59.13-ACRES INTO 225

LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND ADDITIONAL OUTLOTS FOR

LANDSCAPING AND A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE R- 1-5 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA) ZONE. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH ROEBEN STREET, APPROXIMATELY 650 FEET SOUTH OF WEST TULARE AVENUE (APNS: 087-010- 006, 008)

WHEREAS, Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 is a request to to subdivide two parcels totaling approximately 59.13 -acres into 225 lots for single -family residential use and additional outlots for landscaping and a neighborhood park . The project site is located west of South Roeben Street, approximately 650 feet south of West Tulare Avenue (APNs: 087-010-006, 008); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice held a public hearing before said Commission on July 22, 2024; and

WHEREAS, during the July 22, 2024 , Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission requested that the project be continued to the August 12, 2024 Planning Commission meeting to provide staff and the project applicant with time to address concerns raised by the public regarding a five -foot-wide strip of land located between an existing block wall on six lots within the Savannah Heights Subdivision and the southern property boundary of the project site; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice did hold a public hearing before said Commission on August 12, 2024; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the tentative subdivision map in accordance with Chapter 16.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Visalia , based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-05 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257) for Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 that was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

Resolution No. 2024-07

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

1. That the proposed location and layout of the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, its improvements and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained are consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The 59.13-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 225-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”.

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.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map and the project’s density, which is consistent with the underlying Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed location and layout of the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, 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 59.13-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 225-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21.

5. That the proposed Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, the 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 225-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards for major streets. The development of the site Resolution No. 2024-07
with a 225-lot single-family residential subdivision will improve arterial and collector streets (South Roeben Street, West Tulare Avenue, and South Shirk Street), and extend 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.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 on the real property hereinabove 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:

Resolution No. 2024-07

2. That the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”.

3. That setbacks for the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 shall be as follows:

Minimum
Lot Area Front Side Street Side Rear
5,000 sq.
ft.
15-ft. to habitable
space. 22-ft. to
garage, except on
curvilinear lots
20-ft. to garage.
5-ft. 10-ft.
25-ft. City standard rear yard
setbacks are 25 feet with allowance
for one-story structure to go to 20-
feet subject to open space
requirements.

9. That a seven-foot-tall block wall shall be installed along the shared boundaries of Outlot E, Elliott Subdivision Lot 1, Savannah Heights Unit 3 Subdivision Lots 44 and 45 (1617 and 1618 South Jacques Court), and 1627 South Roeben Street (APN:
087-442-040). For Elliott Subdivision Lot 1, the block wall shall transition to a three- foot-tall block wall within the 15-foot front yard setback area. The walls shall also be maintained by the Lighting and Landscape District for the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597.

Resolution No. 2024-07

10. The applicant shall coordinate with the Persian Ditch Company and shall comply with all its requirements for the installation of improvements to the Persian Ditch within the project site.

11. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of Visalia Municipal Code Chapter

12.24 (Oak Tree Preservation), for the removal of any Valley Oak trees from the project site.

12. That the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and its mitigation measures adopted with the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-05 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257) and all conditions of the Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597, including the following conditions in response to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) comment letter be met during construction and upon final occupancy and ongoing operation of the project:
• That prior to site disturbance, the developer/homebuilder shall consult with a qualified hazardous substance professional to determine whether the applicant should obtain soil samples to test for contaminants of concern (COCs), in particular Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If suggested to be performed, the developer/homebuilder shall have the qualified hazardous substances professional perform the soil sampling per Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties from DTSC. The developer/homebuilder shall provide the Planning and Community Preservation Director with a copy of all correspondence between the developer/homebuilder and the qualified hazardous substances professional that details the required direction/recommendation on soil samples to test for COCs/OCPs. The City shall require the developer to comply with specified direction/recommendation as required prior to any further site disturbance.
• All imported soil and fill material shall be tested to ensure that any contaminants are with DTSC’s and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs).

15. That the project be developed in substantial compliance with all improvements depicted and described in Exhibits “A” through “G”.

16. That the developer shall inform and have future homeowners of the Elliott subdivision sign and acknowledge Tulare County’s “Right to Farm” Ordinance. This informs future residential owners that the farming operations located to the north and west, which are located in Tulare County, are protected and cannot be declared a Resolution No. 2024-07
nuisance if operating in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards.

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

TEMP. POND(ACCOUNTS FOR 80 AC OF SFR)(FUTURE LOTS 37-43, 186-187)VREQ'D.9.73 AC-FTVPROP.11 AC-FTDEPTH10'SLOPE3:1 PHASE 183 UNITS
60'40'20'
60'40'20'
60'60'40'20'
APN 087-010-005NOT A PART
7061 S.F.147 7060 S.F.1447060 S.F.137
14'108' 108'14'55'
60'
60'
60'
14'108'65'
60'
60'
60'
24'30'60'60'60'60'60'60'
65'
7579 S.F.146118'
108'14'55'7619 S.F.150118'
7618 S.F.145118'
55'14' 108'7578 S.F.14165'118'
7578 S.F.136118'
65'108'14'55'7618 S.F.140118'
65'
7061 S.F.149
60'7061 S.F.14860'
60'
60' 60'
7060 S.F.142
60'
65'
60'
7060 S.F.143
60'
55' 55'
7060 S.F.1397060 S.F.138
6763 S.F.26859 S.F.3
118' 118' 118'
114'6859 S.F.4114'
118' 118' 118'
114'6859 S.F.5114'
60' 60' 60' 60'
6859 S.F.66859 S.F.76859 S.F.860'60'114'114'114' 60'60'60'60'60' 65'118'55' 118'65'118'55'
118' 118' 118'
114'114'114'114'
62'62'62'62'62'62'62'
14'
OUTLOT A7111 S.F.

PARK (OUTLOT E)4.15 AC
PHASE 2142 UNITS
7599 S.F.197
7637 S.F.196
10849 S.F.57
60'
60'16'24'22'42' 46' 21'24'17'60'60'60'
7600 S.F.1927668 S.F.1937668 S.F.1947668 S.F.195
7637 S.F.2017668 S.F.2007668 S.F.1997668 S.F.198 6480 S.F.99 6987 S.F.93
40'
6987 S.F.102
60'
60'
36'
60'
42'
24'
7033 S.F.926719 S.F.916330 S.F.90
71'
62'
8737 S.F.73
6989 S.F.8171'
61'
46'
55'
6480 S.F.80 60'
60'
14'
6480 S.F.7971'
14'81'99'
99'
6480 S.F.78
14'41'
65'
14'
6480 S.F.7771'
71'
98'
65'60'
14'
6310 S.F.76
55'
24'
6951 S.F.8298'71'
14'
60'6480 S.F.83
60'
60'
27'
6480 S.F.84
71'
55'
60'6480 S.F.8560'
60'
52'
6480 S.F.86
71'
61'
98'
62'
6321 S.F.87
24'
99'
12007 S.F.8914'
62'
6912 S.F.216
6912 S.F.211
14'
65'
71' 98'
63'
55'
60'
60'30'
71'
54'
30'147'62'
71'
54'
60'
52'
71'
62'
60'
23'
60'
15'
6376 S.F.50
71'
71'
62'
60'
24'
19' 96'
6480 S.F.51
51'
60'
60'
6369 S.F.63
61'
71'
16'
14'
60'
6480 S.F.62 13'
60'
60'
6480 S.F.61
71'
24'
42'
60'46'
6518 S.F.60
108'108'
108'108'
108'
98'
109'
108' 108' 108'
108' 108' 108'
108'
108' 108'108'6480 S.F.59
14'
98'
63'15'
14'
6255 S.F.58
14'40'
60'141'
6518 S.F.52
108'98'
14'
108'
108' 108'
60'118'
40'
108'
99'
109'
108' 108'
108' 108'
60'60'97'
108'
108'
6480 S.F.53
60'
139'
108'6480 S.F.54
61'
71'
22'
118'
60'
60'6244 S.F.55
99'60'60'108'
108'
108'
108'
71'
61'
108'
108' 108' 60'
60'
109'
101'
97'108' 108'
108' 108' 98'
97'
97'
108'
108'108'
108'
9756 S.F.56 95'
19'46'149'
7944 S.F.88132'
11480 S.F.7460'60'
4'
9'
8'
TEMP. TURNAROUND
TEMP. TURNAROUND
42'
60'40'20'
60'40'20'
60'40'20'
60'40'20'
60'40'20'
60'40'20' 40'20'60'40'20'
60'40'20'60'40'20'60'40'20'60'40'20'
60'40'20'
60'40'20'
55'65'
20' EXIST. ACCESSEASEMENT42'
APN 087-010-039NOT A PART APN 087-010-075NOT A PARTAPN 087-010-038NOT A PART ZONE "X"ZONE "AE"
ZONE "X"ZONE "AE"OUTLOT B12328 S.F.

OUTLOT C7783 S.F.

OUTLOT D852 S.F.
10'
105'14'
495'26'
493'
27'90'14'96'19'46'60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
139'
14'141'60'60'60'60'60'46'19'
95'14'
89'
28'
60'60'60'
15'593'27'89'
14'95'19' 62' 147'30'
10'66'
115'
74'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60' 60'
6897 S.F.1357079 S.F.106 12774 S.F.120
7061 S.F.1546500 S.F.1576500 S.F.166
6500 S.F.1726500 S.F.1756500 S.F.1846500 S.F.187
60'60'60'60'60'65'
105'
60'
60'
60'
60'30'
108'14'55'
60'
60'
60'
65'
60'
60'
60'
106'60'60'60'
14'98'65'
60'
60'
60'
98'14'55'
60'
60'
60'
14'98'65'
60'
60'
60'
98'14'55'
60'
60'
60'
14'98'65'
60'
60'
60'
98'14'55'
60'
60'
60'
7064 S.F.21109'6550 S.F.22109'6138 S.F.2399'
109'
10090 S.F.17
126'68'8'60'60'60'60'
464'
28'346'14'
272'
24'
56'
126' 374'
6953 S.F.20108'
60'60'
6480 S.F.19
22'
108'6103 S.F.1898' 7578 S.F.113118'7618 S.F.114118'
7619 S.F.155118'
55'14' 108'7579 S.F.151118'65'
7406 S.F.130115'14'55'
6973 S.F.156108'
60'
65'
7011 S.F.167108'
60'
55'6973 S.F.1627011 S.F.161
6973 S.F.1687010 S.F.179
7010 S.F.1736973 S.F.1746973 S.F.186
60'
65'7011 S.F.185 55'
7010 S.F.191
55'65'
60'
6973 S.F.180
60'
60'
6500 S.F.181
55'
60'
55'
60'
65'
6500 S.F.182
6500 S.F.183
55'
6500 S.F.190
6500 S.F.189
6500 S.F.18860'
6500 S.F.178
60'
60'
65'
60'
60' 6500 S.F.177 60'
60'
60'60'
6500 S.F.176
60'60'
65'
60' 6500 S.F.169
6500 S.F.170
6500 S.F.171
60'
6500 S.F.163
55'65'
6500 S.F.164
65'
108'
108'
108'
60'108'
108'
108'60' 108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
6500 S.F.165
108'60'
60'
108'
108'
108'
60'108'60'108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
6500 S.F.160108'
65'
6500 S.F.159108'60'6500 S.F.158 60'
7060 S.F.112
60'
60'7060 S.F.111118'
7060 S.F.110
55'14'
118'60'108'
118'
7060 S.F.109
108'65'
118'
60'
7060 S.F.108
60'
60'
118'
60'
7060 S.F.10760'
60'
118'
62'
7060 S.F.1157060 S.F.1167060 S.F.1177018 S.F.118
118'
60'
147'30'
118'
118'
30'60'
60'
60'
7061 S.F.1527061 S.F.153
6930 S.F.1316930 S.F.1326930 S.F.1336930 S.F.13460'51'14' 6470 S.F.1
60'
60'
145'
35'24'
60'
60'
118'
115'115'115'
24'16'
118'
60'
106'40'40'
115'
60'60'60'60'
60'
6859 S.F.9
55'14'
114'6859 S.F.10
65'
114'6859 S.F.11157' 60' 114'6859 S.F.1260'60'114'6859 S.F.13 60'6860 S.F.14114'6685 S.F.15104'114'60'60'60'9829 S.F.40 108' 118'
118'
115' 115'95'
108'55'
108'
108'
108'55'
108'
108'
108'
65'
108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
118'
118'
118'
118'
118'
118'
115'115'115'
114'114'114'
65'118'
10328 S.F.2499'
11066 S.F.25167' 10659 S.F.16163' 60'104'6854 S.F.267000 S.F.277000 S.F.287000 S.F.297000 S.F.307000 S.F.317000 S.F.327001 S.F.33 117'60'60' 106'117' 117'117'117'7001 S.F.34117' 117'117'117'7001 S.F.35117'7001 S.F.36117'7001 S.F.37117'6915 S.F.38108' 117'117'117'117'117'117' 7912 S.F.42
60'
60'
46'
60'60' 161'
7630 S.F.41
145'
60'
60'
124'
7944 S.F.39129'
65'99'
108'
112'
60'
55'
60'0'24'38'
40'40'14'24'24'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'31'24'7'41'42' 98'
41'24'51'
60'
60'60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'60'60'
3'55'14' 98'98' 14' 14' 98'98' 14'14' 98'98' 14'
60'
60'
55'

POWER POLE

POWER POLE
PERSIAN DITCH TO REMAIN. SEECROSS SECTIONS FOR FENCING/ACCESS ROAD DETAILS.

FENCE LINE ENCROACHES INTOPROPERTY, DEVELOPER TO ADDRESSAT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTIONTEMP. POND TO BECONSTRUCTED W/ PHASE 1 7444 S.F.129
24'54'41' 36' 7130 S.F.12824' 62'62'62' 7130 S.F.127
62'62'7130 S.F.126
62'62'7130 S.F.125
55'115'115'7130 S.F.124
65'108'
115' 115'7130 S.F.123 115'
14'55'
115'115'7130 S.F.122
60'
60'
115'6736 S.F.121
60'37'
105'105' 115'115'115'
11201 S.F.119
151' 55'14'105'
112'
30'30'
4'
6988 S.F.225108'
14'
98'
65'64'64'64'64'
14'98'
65'64'64'64'64'64'
6951 S.F.202
64'64'64'108'
6952 S.F.21464' 64'
108'
6989 S.F.213
64'
108'
6912 S.F.2246912 S.F.2236912 S.F.2226912 S.F.2216912 S.F.2206912 S.F.2196912 S.F.2186912 S.F.2176912 S.F.21564'64'65' 98'14'55'64'64'64'
64'64'64'65'
98'
14'55'64'64'64'64'64'64'64'64'64'64'55' 108'108'108'108'108'108'108'108'108' 6912 S.F.2036912 S.F.2046912 S.F.2056912 S.F.2066912 S.F.2076912 S.F.2086912 S.F.2096912 S.F.2106912 S.F.21264'64'64'64'64'64'64'55'108'108'108'108'108'108'108'108'108' 55'
108' 108'108'108'108'108'108'108'108'108'108'
60'40'20'
6412 S.F.49108'
102'
6480 S.F.48
19'96'96'19'46'
108'6480 S.F.47
60'
60'108'6480 S.F.46
14'
60'
60'108'6480 S.F.45
90'
60'
60'
108'6480 S.F.44
27'
74'
115'
108'6480 S.F.43665'
66'59'
108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
6480 S.F.104
7036 S.F.72107'6480 S.F.103
6421 S.F.105
108'60'
60'
65'
99'
108'
108'
108'
108'
BOL
GUYGUY
BOL
BOL
SP
SP
SP
SP
SPSP
300.53TOE
300.31TOE
300.69TOE
300.77TOE
300.72TOE
PP
VP
VP
VP
VP
X
XX
XXX
XX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X

X X XXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
(E) SD (E) SD (E) SD
(E) SD
(E) SD(E) SD(E) SD(E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS
(E) SS(E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W 8682 S.F.101108'
60'
81'
60'
11286 S.F.7555'
97'160'
6642 S.F.94108'
60'
60'
60'60'
6642 S.F.95
46'14'65'
108'6804 S.F.96
60'
63'
98' 108'6480 S.F.97
62'
108'6480 S.F.98
62'
108'
14'98'
6480 S.F.100
65'
108'
108'
108'
108'
108'
12451 S.F.7097'6378 S.F.6961'61'61'
6513 S.F.64108'6588 S.F.6561'47'19' 108'6588 S.F.6695'61' 108'6588 S.F.6761'61' 108'6588 S.F.6861' 108'108' 108'108' 10679 S.F.71140'61'61'13'
AVENUE 6
STREET 8
STREET 1
AVENUE 1
AVENUE 2
AVENUE 3
AVENUE 5
AVENUE 4
AVENUE 7
AVENUE 8 AVENUE 8
STREET 2STREET 4STREET 5
STREET 7 STREET 9
STREET 6
STREET 5
STREET 3

S ROEBEN ST

S SHIRK RD
STREET 3

W TULARE AVE

SECTION LINE

SECTION LINE
EXIST. ROAD
EXIST. ROAD
EXIST. ROAD
EXIST. ROAD
EXIST. PARCEL LINE
PREPARED FOR:SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY HOMES5607 AVENIDA DE LOS ROBLESVISALIA, CA 93291ACREAGE59.13 AC 225 UNITS

ELLIOT PROPERTY
LEGENDAPN: 087-010-006, 087-010-008ZONING:AGRICULTUREGENERAL PLAN:LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALFLOOD ZONE:AE & XELECTRICITY:SOUTHEN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANYWATER:CALWATERTELEPHONE:AT&TNATURAL GAS:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANYEXISTING USE:VACANTPROP. USE:LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALPROP. MAINTENANCE:CITY OF VISALIALANDSCAPE SETBACK LOTMIN. 7' BLOCK WALL6' CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ PRIVACY SLATSPHASE LINETYPICAL LOT SIZES:6480 SF MIN. LOTS± (60' X 108' TYP.) (225 UNITS)*OUTLOTS A-E TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF VISALIAUTILITIES:SEWER:SHIRK RD - EXIST. 6"ROEBEN ST - EXIST. 8"STORM DRAIN:TEMP. RETENTION BASIN TO MAINTAIN ALL ON-SITE DRAINAGEOVERHEAD POWER:ROEBEN ST (3 DISTRIBUTION, TO BE UNDERGROUNDED)SHIRK (5 TRANSMISSION, TO BE RELOCATED) PREPARED BY: 4CREEKS, INC.324 S. SANTA FE ST., STE. AVISALIA ,CA 93292

W TULARE AVE

PROPERTYLIMITS

S SHIRK RD S ROEBEN ST
PREPARED BY:324 S. SANTA FE, STE. AVISALIA, CA 93292TEL: 559.802.3052FAX: 559.802.3215www.4-creeks.com VICINITY MAPSCALE: 1"=1500'
NORTH
0'100' 100'PAGE 1 OF 4

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
June 18, 2024
S89° 59' 49"E 1,322.32'±
S0° 09' 41"E 659.33'±
S89° 59' 45"E 1,322.55'±
N0° 10' 51"W 1,318.70'±
N89° 59' 53"W 2,644.20'±
S0° 08' 31"E 659.30'±
20'
20'324 S. SANTA FE, STE. AVISALIA, CA 93292TEL: 559.802.3052FAX: 559.802.3215www.4-creeks.com 500'
500'
NW COR. SW1/4 SECT. 34-18/24POINT OF BEGINNING
EXHIBIT "B"LEGEND
ANNEXATION BOUNDARYEXISTING CITY LIMITS ANNEXATION NO. 2024-___THAT PORTION OF SECTION 34. T. 18S., R. 24 E., M.D.B.&M., IN THECOUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OFCALIFORNIACITY OF VISALIA - EFFECTIVE:

HWY 198
HWY 198
ROAD 92

ROBEN STREET

TULARE COUNTY

TULARE COUNTYCITY OF VISALIA

CITY OF VISALIA

NORTHVICINITY MAPNO SCALE

CITY LIMITS

TULARE COUNTY
APN: 081-060-018

ROEBEN ST

CITY OF VISALIA

TULARE COUNTY

ONLY ONE SHEET

EXHIBIT “A”

CITY OF VISALIA
ANNEXATION NO. 2024-______

Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 18 South, Range 24 East;

1. Thence South 89°59’45” East, along the North line of said Southwest quarter, 1322.55 feet more or less, to the Northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of said Southwest quarter;

TEMP. POND(ACCOUNTS FOR 80 AC OF SFR)(FUTURE LOTS 37-43, 186-187)VREQ'D.9.73 AC-FTVPROP.11 AC-FTDEPTH10'SLOPE3:1 PHASE 183 UNITS
APN 087-010-005NOT A PARTPHASE 2142 UNITS
APN 087-010-039NOT A PART APN 087-010-075NOT A PARTAPN 087-010-038NOT A PART ZONE "X"ZONE "AE"
ZONE "X"ZONE "AE"
TEMP. POND TO BECONSTRUCTED W/ PHASE 1
BOL
GUYGUY
BOL
BOL
SP
SP
SP
SP
SPSP
300.53TOE
300.31TOE
300.69TOE
300.77TOE
300.72TOE
PP
VP
VP
VP
VP
X
XX
XXX
XX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X

X X XXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
(E) SD (E) SD (E) SD
(E) SD
(E) SD(E) SD(E) SD(E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS
(E) SS(E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W AVENUE 6
STREET 8
STREET 1
AVENUE 1
AVENUE 2
AVENUE 3
AVENUE 5
AVENUE 4
AVENUE 7
AVENUE 8 AVENUE 8
STREET 2STREET 4STREET 5
STREET 7 STREET 9
STREET 6
STREET 5
STREET 3

S ROEBEN ST

S SHIRK RD
STREET 3

W TULARE AVE

SECTION LINE

SECTION LINE
PREPARED FOR:SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY HOMES5607 AVENIDA DE LOS ROBLESVISALIA, CA 93291ACREAGE59.13 AC 225 UNITS

W TULARE AVE

PROPERTYLIMITS

S SHIRK RD S ROEBEN ST
PREPARED BY:324 S. SANTA FE, STE. AVISALIA, CA 93292TEL: 559.802.3052FAX: 559.802.3215www.4-creeks.com VICINITY MAPSCALE: 1"=1500'
NORTH
0'100' 100'PAGE 2 OF 4

PHASING EXHIBIT
June 18, 2024
APN 087-010-005NOT A PART
APN 087-010-039NOT A PART APN 087-010-075NOT A PARTAPN 087-010-038NOT A PART BOL
GUYGUY
BOL
BOL
SP
SP
SP
SP
SPSP
300.53TOE
300.31TOE
300.69TOE
300.77TOE
300.72TOE
PP
VP
VP
VP
VP
X
XX
XXX
XX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X

X X XXX

S ROEBEN ST

S SHIRK RD
STREET 3

W TULARE AVE

SECTION LINE

SECTION LINE
PREPARED FOR:SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY HOMES5607 AVENIDA DE LOS ROBLESVISALIA, CA 93291ACREAGE59.13 AC 225 UNITS

W TULARE AVE

PROPERTYLIMITS

S SHIRK RD S ROEBEN ST
2380 (1-STORY)
50'
70'
50'
2266 (1-STORY)2855 (2-STORY)
50'
70'63'
2105 (1-STORY)
50'
61'
48'
1930 (1-STORY)
48'
58'
2'
1735 (1-STORY)
50'
49'
1590 (1-STORY)
50'
50' PREPARED BY:324 S. SANTA FE, STE. AVISALIA, CA 93292TEL: 559.802.3052FAX: 559.802.3215www.4-creeks.com VICINITY MAPSCALE: 1"=1500'
NORTH
0'100' 100'PAGE 3 OF 4

ATYPICAL LOT EXHIBIT
June 18, 2024

W TULARE AVE

PROPERTYLIMITS

S SHIRK RD S ROEBEN ST
PREPARED FOR:SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY HOMES5607 AVENIDA DE LOS ROBLESVISALIA, CA 93291ACREAGE59.13 AC 225 UNITS

20.0' 20.0'5'

R/WCLR/W
CITY STD. CURB& GUTTERCITY STD.SIDEWALK
60'
5' 5'5'
CL

31.0'31.0' 5.0'6.0'10.0'LANDSCAPE LOT5.0'6.0'10.0'LANDSCAPE LOT CITY STD. PAVEMENTSECTION
CITY STD. CURB& GUTTER
CITY STD.SIDEWALK CITY STD. CURB& GUTTER
CITY STD.SIDEWALK

84.0'R/W R/W
INSTALL 7'BLOCK WALL INSTALL 7'BLOCK WALL
CL

30.0'30.0' 5.0'7.0'10.0'LANDSCAPE LOT5.0'7.0'10.0'LANDSCAPE LOT CITY STD. PAVEMENTSECTION
CITY STD. CURB& GUTTER
CITY STD.SIDEWALK CITY STD. CURB& GUTTER
CITY STD.SIDEWALK

26.0'110.0'R/W R/W
INSTALL 7'BLOCK WALL INSTALL 7'BLOCK WALL

CLCLDITCHEASEMENT

2.5' 2.5'6.0' 6.0' 12.0'ACCESS ROAD15.0'ACCES ROAD3.0' 3.0'23.5'26.5'25.0' 25.0'

5.0'

50.0'

EASEMENT LINE EASEMENT LINE
6' CITY STD. CHAINLINK FENCING W/PRIVACY SLATS6' CITY STD. CHAINLINK FENCING W/PRIVACY SLATS VICINITY MAPSCALE: 1"=1500' June 18, 2024
NORTH
0'100' 100' PREPARED BY:324 S. SANTA FE, STE. AVISALIA, CA 93292TEL: 559.802.3052FAX: 559.802.3215www.4-creeks.com

TYPICAL INTERNAL
PAGE 4 OF 4

TUARE AVE & ROEBEN ST

SHIRK RD

PERSIAN DITCH

CROSS SECTIONS
F
L
O
O
D

Z
O
N
E

A
E
F
L
O
O
D

Z
O
N
E

X
N
O
T

P
A
R
T
P
H
A
S
E

2 P
H
A
S
E

1 N
O
T

P
A
R
T
N
O
T

P
A
R
T
S

R
O
E
B
E
N

S
T
R
E
E
T
S

S
H
I
R
K

R
O
A
D
E
L
L
I
O
T
T

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
P
N
T
O
T
A
L

A
R
E
A
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G

Z
O
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

L
A
N
D

U
S
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L

L
O
T

S
I
Z
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L

L
O
T

S
I
Z
E
T
O
T
A
L

L
O
T
S
P
H
A
S
I
N
G

P
H
A
S
E

1 P
H
A
S
E

2 P
E
R
S
I
A
N

D
I
T
C
H
C
H
A
I
N

L
I
N
K

F
E
N
C
I
N
G
A
C
C
E
S
S

R
O
A
D
C
I
T
Y

O
F

V
I
S
A
L
I
A
0 8
7 -
0 1
0 -
0 0
6 ,

0 8
7 -
0 1
0 -
0 0
8 5
9 .
1 3

A
C
A
G
R
I
C
U
L
T
U
R
E
L
O
W

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
L
O
W

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
6 ,
4 8
0 S
F

(
6 0
’

1 0
8 ’
)
6 ,
4 8
0 S
F

(
6 0
’

1 0
8 ’
)
2 2
5 8
3 U
N
I
T
S
1 4
2 U
N
I
T
S
P
A
R
K
4 .
1 5

A
C
1 ’
‘
=
1 0
0 ’
W

T
U
L
A
R
E

R
O
A
D

Elliott Subdivision
Project Narrative

APPLICANT/DEVELOPER:

San Joaquin Valley Homes
Contact Person: Nicolas Peters
5607 Avenida de los Robles
Visalia, California 93291
(559) 732-2660

PROJECT OBJECTIVE:

Elliott Subdivision proposes low-density single-family homes and a 4.15-acre park on 59.13 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area.

DESCRIPTION:

Elliott Subdivision will feature 225 single -family residential units, with an average lot size of 8,082 SF. The lot sizes range from a minimum of 6,376 SF to a maximum of 12,774 SF.

• Phase 1: Includes Lots 1-83 with 1- and 2-story homes ranging from 1,735 to 2,855 SF. • Phase 2: Includes Lots 84 -225 with 1 -story homes ranging from 1,735 to 2,105 SF, excluding Lots 90-100 and Lot 152, which will have 2-story homes ranging from 1,735 to 2,855 SF.

The project includes a 4.15 -acre park (Outlot E) with the Persian Ditch fenced off within the park area. The park will be dedicated to the City of Visalia and maintained via a Landscape and Lighting District, with no proposed amenities at this time.

The project's existing land use designation under the City of Visalia General Plan is Residential Low Density. The current County of Tulare zoning designation is AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum site area), and the proposed zoning under city jurisdiction is R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum site area).

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS:

The project will include onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements, such as new and relocated utilities, new residential streets, and improvements to West Tulare Avenue, South Roeben Street, and South Shirk Road. A retention basin will be located in the southwest corner of the project site to manage all on-site drainage.

TYPICAL LOT SIZES: DENSITY:
6,480± SF minimum (60’ X 108’) 3.8 DU/AC

OUTLOT SIZES:

Outlot A - 7,111 SF
Outlot B – 12,328 SF
Outlot C – 7,783 SF
Outlot D – 852 SF
Outlot E – 4.15 AC

Outlots A-E To Be Dedicated to The City of Visalia

REQUIRED APPROVALS:
• Annexation into the City of Visalia
sanJoaquinVauev 5507AvenidadelosRobles
l_.llQ M S
Visalia,CA
559.732.2660
93291
July26,2024
DearNeighbors,
ihopethisletterfindsyouwell.MynameisStevenMacias,andlamtheEngineeringManagerforSanJoaquinValleyHomes(SJVH).WeareexcitedtobedevelopingtheElliottProject,locatedadjacenttoyourproperties,andwelookfon/vardtoworkingtogethertoaddressamatterthatwasdiscussedduringarecentCityofVisaliaPlanningCommissionhearingthatwasheldonMonday,July22nd.

Ithascometoourattentionthatyourblockwallsaresetbackfivefeetintoyourproperties,aconditionestablishedaspartoftheapprovedmaponApril26,1993(ConditionalUsePermitNo.9310).Specifically,section1bofthestaffevaluationstated,"Additionally,therewouldbea6-foot,8-inchblockwallalongthenorthedge,setbackfivefeetbehindthepropertylinetoprovideturningareasforfarmequipmentandatreerowinsidethewalltobuffertheresidentialuse." SJVHhasawell-establishedreputationforconstructingsuccessfulsubdivisionsintheCityofVisalia.Itisstandardcompanypracticetoinstallawoodfencealongourpropertylinewhereitabutsanexistingresidentialuse.Inthisinstance,installingawoodfencealongourpropertylinewouldresultinanapproximate5—footgapbetweenthenewwoodfenceandyourexistingblockwalls.Toaddressthismatter,weproposethefollowingoptionsforyourconsideration:

Option1:LotLineAdjustment-SJVHispreparedtofacilitatealotlineadjustmenttoincorporate thelandoutsideofyourblockwallintothelotswithintheElliottProject.SJVHwillpayallassociatedfeestoprepareandrecordthelotlineadjustments,estimatedat$20,000.

Option2:SharedCostforNewBlockWall-Weproposetosharethecostofconstructinganewsix—foot,eight-inchblockwallalongtheexistingpropertyboundary.Homeownerswouldhavetheoptiontoremovetheirsectionoftheexistingblockwall,therebyincorporatingtheadditionalareaintotheiryards.Basedoncurrentestimates,thecostofconstructingablockwallisapproximately$100 perlinearfoot.Witheachpropertyhavingapproximately200feetoffrontage,thetotalcostperpropertywouldbeapproximately$20,000.SJVHomeswillprovidetheHomeownerswithtwobidsforthewallconstruction.SJVHwillcollect$10,000fromeachpropertyownertopayfortheconstructionofthewall.SJVHomeswillallowHomeownersuptosixmonthstopaytheamounttoSJVH.

Shouldneitheroftheseoptionsbeacceptable,SJVHwillproceedwithinstallinganewwoodfenceatthepropertyline.Inthiscase,theHomeownerswillberesponsibleformaintainingtheareabetweenthenewwoodfenceandtheexistingblockwallbecauseoftheirownershipovertheproperty.

Werespectfullyrequestunanimousconsentamongthesixaffectedpropertyownersforthechosensolution.Unanimousconsentisnecessarybecausewebelieveacoordinatedapproachwillensurethemostaestheticallypleasingandpracticaloutcomeforallinvolved.

S
sanJOBQUinvalley 5607AvenidadeIosRobles
' IO M ES
Visalia,CA
559.732.2660
93291
Shouldthepropertyownersreachaunanimousdecisionononeoftheproposedoptions,wewillrequestthatallaffectedpartiessignanagreementpreparedbySJVH,priortothenextPlanningCommissionhearing.

Givenourtimeline,wekindlyaskforyourresponsebyAugust2,2024.SJVHomesplanstopresentourprojectatthenextPlanningCommissionhearingonAugust12,2024,andtheCitywillpreparethestaffreportroughlytwoweeksinadvanceofthehearing.Wearewillingtomeetwithpropertyownerson-siteonTuesday,July30,2024,at2:00pm,todiscussthismatterfurther.lfthereisanothertimethatworksbetterforallneighbors,pleaseletmeknowandwewilldoourbesttoaccommodateapreferredtimeortomeetwithneighborsindividually.

Wearecommittedtoworkingtogethertofindaresolutionthatbenefitseveryoneandensuresthecontinuedsuccessandharmonyofourcommunity.Shouldyouhaveanyquestionsorwishtodiscusstheseoptionsfurther,pleasedonothesitatetocontactmeat(559)786-0936.

Thankyouforyourattentiontothismatter.

Sincerely,
é
StevenJ.acias
EngineeringManager
SanJoaquinValleyHomes
C(559)786-0936
[email protected]

6'- 8' BLOCK WALL
i~5'
BLOCfiK WALL SETBACK FROM P/L //-- TALLDRiPIRRIGATIONTREE ROW W1TH
BUILDING S[ TBAC~
NON - INHA,~ IT,AI~.[ AREA
I
25o-.~.1
28 4000 sf TYt.

R-A
35' FRONT
12' SIDE
25' REAR
1I

CITY OF VlSALIA

STAFF REPORT
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 12, 1993 PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT PLANNER: CARL SCHLAUDT
SAVANNAH HEIGHTS TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93- 10

GENERAL INFORHATION

1. Applicant:

2. Requested Action:

3. Location:

4. General Plan Land Use/ Zoning:

Property Configuration & Area:

Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:

Environmental Review:

Special Districts:

Site Plan Review:

William Bogard Co.; California Planning
and Engineering - Agent.
a) Tentative subdivision map to divide 4
parcels into 53 lots for single family
residential development.
b) Conditional use permit to allow 2
dwelling units per acre in the RA zone.

North side of Walnut Avenue, between Shirk
and Roeben Streets; APN: 087- 010-46, 47,
and 63.

The proposed site is designated as Rural
Residential on the General Plan Land Use
Element, and is zoned RA.

The subject area is irregular in shape
with an approximate area of 35 acres.

North: Agricultural; County AE-20, PDRA.

South: Agricultural, Ponding Basin; RA and
County AE- 20.

East : Rural Residential; RA.

West : Rural Residential; RA.

Negative Declaration No. 93- 18.

West Visalia Specific Plan Area.

February ] 0, ] 993.

BACKGROUND EVALUATION

1. Description of the Project:

The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative subdivision map to divide approximately 35 acres into 53 single- family residential lots, for property located north of Walnut Avenue between Roeben and Shirk Streets. The project includes a conditional use permit to allow 2 dwelling units per acre in the RA zone. As shown in the site plan ( Exhibit " A"), the applicant is proposing a large lot subdivision with an average lot size of 1/2 acre. The project would be oriented around a new internal road system, including 4 cul- de-sacs, and would take primary access to Walnut Avenue via the proposed Savannah Street.

The subject site is currently vacant, fallow agricultural land. The site is bounded by rural residential homes to the west, agriculture and a storm water detention pond to the east, and a stone fruit orchard to the north. Persian Ditch runs along the east edge of the parcel. There are 2 large valley oak trees, which are indicated on the site plan within the area of Lots 9 and 15.

2. Related Plans & Policies:

General Plan Land Use Element
Land Use Element Policy 4. 1.17 provides for Rural Residential densities of up to 2 units per acre with a conditional use permit, in certain areas, including the west side of Roeben, between Tulare and Walnut. The policy also states:
a. Developments will not be permitted to have farm animals. b. Full development improvements shall be installed.

Co Development setbacks and buffering will ensure that there will be no conflicts with adjacent rural residential uses."
Land Use Element Policy No. 6. 1.4 states: " Utilize Rural Residential land uses as a buffer and transition between agricultural uses and urban development." Zoning Ordinance Section 7255 was amended in 1991 to provide for 2 dwelling units per acre in the RA zone through the conditional use permit process.

West Visalia Specific Plan
The project site has an Agricultural designation under the West Visalia Specific Plan. However, the Land Use Element update in 1991 changed the General Plan designation to Rural Residential.

STAFF EVALUATION
Evaluation
Staff supports the requested tentative subdivision map and conditional use permit based on consistency with the intent of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, and based on project compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2 a. General Plan and Zoninq Ordinance
The proposed parcels would be developed to RA standards, with lots ranging from approximately 20, 000 to 35, 000 square feet. The average lot size would be approximately 1/2 acre. Staff views the proposed subdivision as consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4. 1.17 and the Zoning Ordinance for 1/ 2-acre lots in the RA zone.
b. Aqricultural Buffer
To provide a buffer between this project and adjacent agricultural land uses to the north of the site, a 50- foot deep non- inhabitable rear setback area would be established along the north edge of lots adjacent to the agricultural use. This buffer, as shown in detail in Exhibit " B," would provide a distance separation of approximately 70 feet between the 2 land uses. Additionally, there would a 6- foot, 8- inch block wall along the north edge, setback 5 feet behind the property line ( to provide turning areas for farm equipment), and a tree row inside the wall to buffer the residential use. Finally, a " right- to- farm" notice would be attached to the final map and with each individual property deed upon sale of lots. Staff supports these measures as consistent with the Land Use Element intent to buffer and separate these land uses.

Staff referred this request to the Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner for comment. Dennis Hanes, staff biologist, discussed the project with staff and stated that the County does not object to the project and supports the proposed buffering measures as discussed above. Staff recommends that these measures be included as conditions of approval for this project. c. Density
As proposed, the lots along the north edge of the site would be larger. This is to provide a suitable building envelope to compensate for the non- habitable agricultural buffer. The average lot size for the entire project is 1/ 2-acre, or approximately 21, 780 square feet. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the minimum lot size on the final map be 20, 000 square feet to comply with the intent of the 1/ 2-acre RA designation. d. Access and Circulation
The Site Plan Review Committee is requiring that all lots adjacent to Walnut Avenue dedicate access rights onto Walnut to the City. The Committee is also requiring that Lot # 53 have its driveway as far north as possible, and Lot # 1 have its driveway as far west as possible to limit parking movements at the Vassar/ Savannah intersection.
e. Block Wall and Fences
The project includes a 6- foot, 8- inch block wall along the Walnut frontage and along the north edge of the site. The wall along Walnut would be set in a 10- foot wide area which would be dedicated to the city in fee- simple title and placed in a Landscaping and Lighting Act District for maintenance. The wall along the north side of the site would be placed 5 feet inside of the north property line, and would be maintained by the individual homeowners.

13. That the 50- foot wide portion of the Persian
tentative map, be dedicated to city.

14. That all other city codes and ordinances be met.

Ditch, as indicated on the
Conditional Use Permit No. 93- 10
Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 93- 10:

1. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

2. That the increase in density from I to 2 units per acre is consistent with Land Use Policy 4. 1.17 for Rural Residential development.

That the project includes measures which would provide buffering between the proposed residential land use and adjacent agricultural areas.

4. That the proposed project would be compatible with adjacent land uses.

5. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. o That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant, and Negative Declaration No. 93- 18 is hereby adopted.

And subject to the following conditions:

1. That all conditions of the Savannah Heights Tentative Subdivision Map shall apply.

2. That farm animals shall not be kept on any lot.
o That the approval term of this use permit shall run with the tentative subdivision map and shall be eligible to apply for time extensions in I year increments, concurrently with the tentative map. Said extensions shall not exceed 3 years in the aggregate.

Attachments:

Exhibit " A" - Site Plan
Exhibit " B" - Buffering Measures ( Site Plan Enlargement) Exhibit " C" - Air Pollution District Letter
Environmental Document
Location Sketch
c :\repocis\ savannah
6 6'- 8' BLOCK WALL
i~5'
BLOCfiK WALL SETBACK FROM P/L //-- TALLDRiPIRRIGATIONTREE ROW W1TH
BUILDING S[ TBAC~
NON - INHA,~ IT,AI~.[ AREA
I
25o-.~.1
28 4000 sf TYt.

R-A
35' FRONT
12' SIDE
25' REAR
1I

Savannah tteights Tentative Subdiv~ ion/ConditionalUsePermitNo. 93- 10 Wayne Virag
March 31, 1993

Page 2 ends

The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on this Negative Declaration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Joe O' Bannon at ( 805) 861- 3682.

ROBERT C. DOWELL

DISTRICT MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
By: Joe O' Bannon
Environmental Planner, Southern Region
APCO Refit: S$ 30071

Environmental Document # 93- 18
C: oss Reference @:

City of Visalia Planning Dept.

Savannah Heights Tentative Subdivision
Conditional Use Permit No. 93- 10.

Date: March 10, 1993.
and

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

INITIAL STUDY

GENERAL
A. Description of the Project
The applicant is requesting approval of the division of approximately 35 acres into 53 single- family residential parcels, for property located north of Walnut Avenue between Roeben and Shirk Streets. The project includes a
conditional use permit to provide for half- acre lot
development in the RA zone, as provide for in the Land Use Element. Primary access to the site would be from Walnut Avenue, an identified arterial.

B. Identification of the Environmental Settinq
The subject site is currently vacant. The site is bounded by rural residential homes to the west, agriculture and a storm water detention pond to the east, and a stone fruit orchard to the north. Two large oak trees exist within the project boundaries.

The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:

North:

South:

East :

West :

County; stone fruit orchard
County; agriculture
R- 1-6; row crops and residences
County; agriculture and residences
Related Plans and Policies
General Plan Land Use Element
The Visalia General Plan designates the site for rural
residential development.

Policy No. 4. 1.17. " Rural Residential areas shall be designated to provide opportunities for residential
dwellings in conjunction with small- scale farming and animal husbandry or in a semi- rural setting. Rural Residential development ( 6 persons per acre - up to 2 dwelling units per acre) shall be directed to areas where:
all urban services ( i. e., storm drainage, schools,
sidewalks, lighting) may not be required or available;
adjacent to agricultural areas where more intensive
future urban development is unlikely because of public
safety conflicts such as the airport protection area;
boundaries between dissimilar land uses ( i. e.,
industrial to residential in the northwest and
agriculture to residential in the southwest);
o in areas where the viability of large- scale
agriculture may be threatened due to the encroachment
of non- agricultural uses, and which do not warrant
designation to a higher density.

Densities of up to 2 units per acre may be permitted by conditional use permit...on the west side of Roeben Road between Tulare and Walnut, subject to the following
conditions:

Developments will not be permitted to have farm
animals.
b. Full development improvements shall be installed.

Development setbacks and buffering will ensure that
there will be no conflicts with adjacent rural
residential uses."
Policy No. 4. 1.7. " Ensure that natural and open space features such as Valley Oak trees and community waterways are treated as special site amenities which are to be
preserved and enhanced in conformity with the Open Space, Conservation, Recreation, and Parks Element."
Policy No. 6. 1.4. " Utilize Rural Residential land uses as a buffer and transition between agricultural uses and urban development."
Policy No. 6. 1.6. " Promote the preservation of permanent agricultural open space around the City by protecting viable agricultural operations and land in the airport and
wastewater treatment plant environs."
Conservation, Open Space, Recreation, and Parks Element The Conservation, Open Space, Recreation, and Parks Element to the General Plan ( COSRP) identifies the Persian Ditch, which abuts the subject property on the east, as a Community Waterway. As such, the development will be subject to the following COSRP policies:

Policy No. 1. 2.1. " Protect, and where necessary, restore and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian
vegetation along planning area waterways."

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT NO. 93- 18

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Name of Proponcnt: William Bogard Company
Addressol Proponent: 1500S. Mooney Blvd:

Visalia, CA 93277
Telephone Number: ( 209) 734 6262
Date of Review: March 10, 1993
Agency Requiring Checklist: city_ o.f_ Vi~ali~
Name of Proposal, (if applicable) Savannah Heights Te, ltative Subd_ ivisi_on./~ o~_d. it_i?na! [~_Permit_No. 93 10 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all " YES" answers are required on
attached sheets)

1. Earth.

Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in chm~ges
in geologic structures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief feait utes?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical feature .
e. Any increase h~ wind or water erosion
of soil, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay. inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mud slides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteratioa of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? X
PAGE I

3. Water
Will the proposal result in:

Changes in currents, or tbe course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh water9
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or tile rate and amount of
c Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?

4. Plant Life
Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any speciesor plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species or plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
PAGE2
X

5. Animal Life
Will the proposal result in:

Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species or animals ( birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare or
endangered species of animals?
Introduction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existh~g fish or
wildlife habitat?
Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?

7. Light & Glare.

Will the proposal produce new light or glare?

8. Land Use:
fll the proposal result in a substantial alteration
of the present or planned land use of an area?

9. Natural Resources.

Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable
natural resource?

10. Risk of Upset.

Will the proposalinvolve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances ( including, but not
limited to, off, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
X
X
X
X
PAGE3

11. Population.

Will the proposal alter the location,
I
distribution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?

12. Housing.

Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?

13. Transportation/ Circulation.

Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alteration to water- borne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?

14. Public Services.

Will thc proposal have an effect upon, or result
in a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?

15. Energy.

Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existhlg sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
X
X
X
X
X
x
PAGE4

16. Utilities.

Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?

17. Human Health.

Will the proposal resalt in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard ( excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?

18. Aeath~ies.

Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any
scenic vista or view open to the public, or will
the proposal result i~ the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view?

19. Recreation.

Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?

20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result ia adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a pre- historic or historic
building, structure or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
X
X
X
PAGE5

21. Mandator~ Findings o f Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaLning
levels, tbreatcn to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short- term, to the disadvantage of
long- term, environmental goals? ( A
short- term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definite
period of time while long- term impacts will
endure well into the future).
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( A project may impact on
two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
e. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, alther directly or
indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ATTACHMENT " A" D. DETERMINATION
To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.

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

I find that as a result of the proposedproject no new effects could occur, or new mitigation measures would be required that have not been addressed within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 90020160). The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Visalia Land Use Element ( Amendment No. 90 04) was certified by Resolution No. 91- 105 adopted on September 3, 1991. THE PROGRAM ENVIRO~qMENTALnIMff_
ACT REPORT WILL BE UTILIZED.

SIGNA~R~ ~/~
DATEI[
310/~/~

CITY OF VISALIA
X
AMD \ E:\ LOTD ATA \ PLANN ING\ CL MASTER WK 1
PAGE 6
ATTACHMENT " A"
Environmental Document//93-18
Savannah Heights Tentative Subdivision Map
and Conditional Use Permit No. 93-10
Earth
b. Disruption, compaction or overcovering of the soil? Exhibit " B", illustrates the topographic conditions of the subject site and surrounding area. Project development will require some movement of earth resulting in disruption and compaction of soils. Existing topography may also be altered to accommodate development; however, this is determined not to be significant. Compliance with city codes and ordinances will reduce impacts to an acceptable level.

Air
b. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality ? The proposal will facilitate only rural residential development as designated by the Visalia General Plan. During the construction phase of the project, grading activities may result in suspended dust particles, particularly under windy conditions. This short- term potential impact can be mitigated with on- site dust suppression measures, as recommended by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ( SJVAPCD).

The installation of fireplaces and barbecues is common for new residential development. These facilities may be deleterious to the air quality. The SJVAPCD recommends as mitigation measures, that EPA- certified, low- emitting fireplace inserts and/or wood stoves or natural gas fireplaces be utilized. It is further recommended that natural gas or electrical outlets to backyard areas of residences be provided to encourage the use of natural gas or electric barbecues.

Residential development is also considered an indirect source of automobile emissions. However, the number of additional vehicular trips generated by the project is not expected to significantly increase the current level of emissions on a local or regional basis.

Attached Exhibit " C" is an air quality analysis summary projection. This projection was developed through the use of AQUAT-3 ( URBEMIS3) computer modeling for air quality which is a recognized tool of the California Air Resources Board. This projection was based upon development of 53 single- family residences. Although the URBEMIS3 identified impact of the project's emissions is not expected to be significant when compared with the current total emissions in Visalia and the San Joaquin Valley, the potential long-term cumulative impact of this project and other growth- related projects is a further deterioration of local and regional air quality. In order to address the problem of deteriorating air quality, the California Air Resources Board has established ambient air quality standards which regional air pollution control districts are expected to attain with transportation control measures, such as ride- sharingand circulation improvements.

Water
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff?.

Rural residential development will increase the rate and amount of run- off.

Project design includes a temporary storm water detention pond for peak storm periods and a permanent storm drainage retention pond. Compliance with city development standards will reduce impacts to an acceptable level.

Plant Life
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
The site contains 35 acres of agricultural land. The loss of acreage has been determined to be insignificant as the project is a portion of a phased development and is designated for rural residential development and lies within the urban development boundary established in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

Animal Life
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? The Persian Ditch, which is an identified Community Waterway, abuts the subject property along the eastern property line. A 50- foot dedication to the City of Visalia along the Persian Ditch is a required mitigation measure for projects impacting Community Waterways. This area is to be utilized as a riparian development setback. Potential impacts are anticipated to be reduced to a level of being not significant.

Noise
a. Increases in exisHng noise levels?
Construction activities associated with residential development generally cause temporary increases in the ambient noise level which could periodically be severe if not properly mitigated. Because construction activities will be short- term and intermittent and are generated on weekdays between 7: 00 a. m. and 7: 00 p. m., the impacts are normally considered acceptable. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Although the project site is located within close proximity to the Visalia Municipal Airport area of influence, the site is not within the area of adopted Community Noise Equivalent Level ( CNEL) maximum for residential development.

ShirkRoadisatwolaneroadwithtelephonepolesontheeastsideoftheroadandverylargeoaktreesonbothsidesoftheroad(fromWalnutAvenuetoHighway198). Thereisalreadysomuchtrafficupanddownthisroadanditisgettingdangerous. Alargehomesubdivisionherewillevenmakethisproblemworse.RoebenwouldalsobecongestedwithCentralValleyChristianSchoolsbeingalreadyaroundthecorner(buses,parents,students,andstaff)andtheretirementsubdivision.WildlifecomingfromacrossShirk(easttofieldsthataresupposedtobewherenewhomedivisionisgoingin)willsufferdramaticallyandpossiblymakethemextinctinthisarea. ItisverycommonforustoseeaGreyFoxandcubsatdawn,dusk,andnight. Theywalkonthefencelineandcomeintomyyard.Theyarepartofthisenvironmentandecosystem.Also,manyGreatHornedandBarnOwlscomeoutandarevisibleatduskandnight. Peacocksarealsointhisarea,aswellasRedTailedHawksthatperchupintheoaktreesintheproposedopenfield. Weroutinelyseeopossums(possums)intheopenpropertyduringduskandnight. I’vealsoseenskunkswanderingintheopenfieldwherethesubdivisionissupposedtobegoingin.Whathappenstothiswildlifenow?Whoisgoingtolobbyforthem?Theywereherewaybeforeus. Wewouldhopethatyoutakeintoconsiderationtheirnaturalhabitat,whichiswherethissupposedsubdivisionisproposed.

Sincerely,
Jim&CarmenMartinez1548SouthShirkRoadVisalia,CA93277

Visalia City CouncilSeptember 16, 2024

Visalia City Council
September 16, 2024