Visalia City Council and Visalia Planning Commission
August 19, 2025

Visalia Convention Center
303 E. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
Visalia City Council
Visalia City Council and Visalia
Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda - Final
Dinner at 5:30 PM6:00 PMTuesday, August 19, 2025

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
VISALIA CONVENTION CENTER - 303 E. Acequia

CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL JOINT MEETING

PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time for members of the public to comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the meeting body. We ask that you keep your comments brief and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome. We cannot legally discuss or take official action on items that are introduced today. In fairness to all who wish to speak, each speaker from the public will be allowed three minutes. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

SPECIAL SESSION ITEMS

1. Discussion on Residential land and housing inventories within Tier I, and Tier II, and discussion of Land Use Policy LU-P-21 analysis regarding movement to and development of Tier III lands. 25-0362

2. Updates to City regulations and zoning districts that allow emergency shelters, in fulfillment of General Plan Housing Element Implementation Program 5.2 and Assembly Bill 2339.
25-0363

3. Updates to City regulations and zoning districts to allow for a mix of dwelling types and sizes, including limited promotion of missing middle-density housing types, and to the public hearing requirements related to parcel maps and large multi-family uses, in fulfillment of General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs 2.7 and 3.17.
25-0364

ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Live streaming and recording of this meeting will not be available.

1 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 25-0362 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Discussion on Residential land and housing inventories within Tier I, and Tier II, and discussion of Land Use Policy LU-P-21 analysis regarding movement to and development of Tier III lands.

Prepared by:

Josh Dan, Senior Planner, (559)713-4003, [email protected] Paul Bernal, Planning and Community Preservation Director, (559) 713-4025, [email protected]
Department Recommendation: That the City Council and Planning Commission receive the staff report and presentation providing an overview of the following items:

1. Update on the Residential permit totals and remaining inventory of residential lands within Tier I and Tier II Urban Growth Boundaries.

2. Anticipated date that the Tier III threshold will be met for residential uses.

3. Analysis of Land Use Policy LU-P-21 regarding the potential impacts on moving properties from Tier II to Tier III for the purpose of development outside of current established thresholds.

Summary:

Residential development activity in Visalia - following the nationwide economic downturn of mid-2010 - has remained consistent. This is evident based on the number of residential permits issued (see Attachment “I”,City of Visalia Building Permits Issued 2010 - May 2025 attachment). This has been proven in the permitting records for residential activity, which staff has tracked since the adoption of the 2014 General Plan Update. The 2014 General Plan Update utilizes a simplified methodology for expansion between growth tiers based on issuance of a specified number of units permitted for new dwelling units or new nonresidential floor area. This methodology was ultimately chosen for its simplicity of using one type of criteria that could be easily tracked and reported on a regular basis so that the City could monitor the pace of growth and prepare for the next growth boundary expansion.

General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-21 is the policy that defines how expansion between growth boundaries shall occur. This policy specifies that building permits are to be counted starting from the date of April 1, 2010. Staff is providing an update of the residential development within both Tier I and Tier II since the expansion into Tier II. This report will provide context on both the number of subdivision maps and multi-family developments approved, and development potential for residential vacant land uses within the balance of both Tier I and Tier II development areas that will contribute to the eventual opening of Tier III for residential development considerations.

Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 1 of 8
powered by Legistar™
2 File #: 25-0362 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 1.

Background Discussion:

The City’s adopted growth management plan is implemented and managed through the Growth Boundary Tiers (i.e. Tiers I, II, and III) and has served residents and the development community in offering a smart growth pattern, while preventing sprawl and unnecessary burdens on infrastructure and circulation. On July 19, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-38 memorializing the exact date Tier II residential land use thresholds were reached. At that time, other land use classifications (with the exception of the regional retail land use) had already attained their threshold requirements and the main focus was on the residential land uses. The Tier II Residential land use threshold required 5,850 units to be issued from April 1, 2010, which was achieved on July 1, 2021.

Staff is now providing a subsequent update of permits issued, known acreages of undeveloped residential lands remaining within Tiers I and II, subject to current residential development activity, and lastly, the potential estimated time until Policy LU-P-21’s permit threshold of 12,800 units is achieved for expansion into Tier III for residential development.

Single-Family Residential (SFR) Totals - Tiers I and II Since expanding to Tier II, the city has issued a total of 1,778 single-family permits during that timeframe (July 2021 to August 2025). Current residential development activity in Tiers I and II remain robust.

Achievement of reaching the permit issuance threshold from Tier I to Tier II did not equate to the full buildout of all residential lands in Tier I. In fact, there remains:
· In Tier I, approximately ±260-acres of undeveloped single-family residential land with a development potential for approximately ±1,170 SFR lots (see Table 1-1). · Table 1-1: Available Acreage and Development Potential (Tier I) Land Use Acres Number of Lots / Units
Single Family Residential 260-ac 1,170 lots*
*The figure provided is an approximation using the development density of 4.5 units/acre at traditional standard street widths. · In Tier II, approximately ±1,216-acres of undeveloped single-family residential land with a development potential for approximately ±5,472 SFR lots (see Table 1-2). · Table 1-2: Available Acreage and Development Potential (Tier II) Land Use Acres Number of Lots / Units
Single Family Residential 1,216-ac 5,472 lots*
*The figure provided is an approximation using the development density of 4.5 units/acre at traditional standard street widths.

Together, Tier I and Tier II have a development potential of ±6,642 SFR units upon undeveloped lands. In addition to undeveloped sites, there are several entitled residential subdivision projects that have been approved and/or are going through the approval process in each Tier boundary that have yet to be fully developed to completion.

The following is a summary of existing single-family entitlements within Tiers I and II (data has been updated through July 1, 2025):

Approved Tentative and Final Map Lot Totals: Approved Tentative Maps are subdivisions that have received all discretionary approvals but a Final Map has not recorded, whereas Final Maps are where one or more phases or the entire subdivision is recorded and the recorded map contains lots where Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 2 of 8
powered by Legistar™
3 File #: 25-0362 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 1.
one or more phases or the entire subdivision is recorded and the recorded map contains lots where building permits have not been issued yet.
§ Active Tentative Maps: 22
· Lot Totals: 2,382
§ Recorded Final Maps (phased and/or whole): 45
· Unbuilt lots: 592
Table 1-3 below lists tentative maps for subdivisions in Tier II that are pending approval or have received final approval and are awaiting final map recordation.

Table 1-3 Tier II Residential Projects
Entitlement TSM # Status Location Total Units
Carlton Acres 5590 Approved Shirk, Riggin, Akers,
Kibler
375
Pratt Family Ranch 5583 Approved Pratt, Mooney,
Riverway
247
Shepherds Ranch I (10
acres) Shepherds Ranch II
(40 acres)
5581 5589 Approved Shirk, Clancy, Pershing241
Higgins Ranch 5585 Approved Lovers & Cherry 174
Crandell / Belissa 5587 Approved Demaree & Riverway 309 Barr & Wood 5588 Approved Whitendale & Roeben136
Pearl Woods 5591 Approved McAuliff & Cherry 274
Elliot 5597 Approved Tulare & Shirk 224
Cameron Ranch 5598 Approved Ben Maddox &
Caldwell
178
Ritchie Ranch 5600 Pending
approval
Riverway & Demaree 320
Pratt Family Ranch (T3)5605 Pending
approval
NW Mooney & Pratt 293
Blankenship 5602 Approved;
pending
annexation
Santa Fe & Caldwell 203
Total Units: 2,974
Multi-Family Residential (MFR) Totals - Tiers I and II
Similar to the analysis for single-family residential above, the city has issued permits for a total of 1,745 multi-family units since Tier II was opened in July 2021. Since the April 1, 2010, baseline date in Policy LU-P-21, there have been permits for 1,745 multi-family units issued. In addition to multi- family projects approved, there are still approximately 230 acres of undeveloped multi-family residential land in Tier I with an approximate development potential, based on density minimums and maximums, anywhere between 2,745 units and 5,230 units, respectively (see Table 2-1 below for breakdown of land uses acreages and density ranges for medium and high density land uses).

Table 2-1: Available Acreage and Development Potential (Tier I) Land Use Acres Number of Units
Multi-Family Residential Minimum Density
(MDR:10 & HDR:15)
Maximum Density (MDR:15
& HDR:35)
Medium Density
Residential (R-
M-2 Zoning)
141-ac 1,410 units** 2,115 units***
High Density
Residential (R-
M-3 Zoning)
89-ac 1,335 units** 3,115 units***
TOTAL- 230-ac 2,745 Units 5,230 Units
Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 3 of 8
powered by Legistar™
4 File #: 25-0362 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 1.Table 2-1: Available Acreage and Development Potential (Tier I) Land Use Acres Number of Units
Multi-Family Residential Minimum Density
(MDR:10 & HDR:15)
Maximum Density (MDR:15
& HDR:35)
Medium Density
Residential (R-
M-2 Zoning)
141-ac 1,410 units** 2,115 units***
High Density
Residential (R-
M-3 Zoning)
89-ac 1,335 units** 3,115 units***
TOTAL- 230-ac 2,745 Units 5,230 Units
**Unit totals are a reflection of the density range for residential medium density land use (10 to 15 units per acre). ***Unit totals are a reflection of the density range for residential high density land use (15 & 35 units per acre).

In Tier II, there is also approximately 285-acres of undeveloped multi-family residential land. The approximate development potential, based on density minimums and maximums, is anywhere between 2,850 units and 5,230 units, respectively (see Table 2-2 below for breakdown of land uses acreages and density ranges for medium and high density land uses).

Table 2-2: Available Acreage and Development Potential (Tier II) Land Use Acres Number of Units
Multi-Family Residential Minimum Density
(MDR:10 & HDR:15)
Maximum Density (MDR:15
& HDR:35)
Medium Density
Residential (R-
M-2 Zoning)
193-ac 1,930 units** 2,895 units***
High Density
Residential (R-
M-3 Zoning)
92-ac 920 units** 3,220 units**
TOTAL- 285-ac 2,850 Units 5,230 Units
**Unit totals are a reflection of the density range for residential medium density land use (10 to 15 units per acre). ***Unit totals are a reflection of the density range for residential high density land use (15 & 35 units per acre).

Together, Tier I and Tier II have a development potential of 5,595 minimum density MFR units and 10,460 maximum density MFR units upon undeveloped lands. Again, several entitled residential projects exist in each Tier Boundary and have yet to be fully developed to completion.

The following tables below (Tables 2-3 and 2-4) are a list of entitled multi-family projects in Tiers I and II with permits submitted and under construction or yet to be constructed:

Table 2-3: Multi-Family
Residential Projects Under
Construction
Short
Name
LOCATION Total #
Dwelling Units
in Project
CUP NO. Linked
Tentati
ve
Subdiv
ision
Map
No.

Planning
Commission
Approval Date
Year(s) Permits
Issued
Year(s)
Permits
Finaled

1. Emerald CreekSouth side of
Noble Avenue,
approximately 1/3
mile east of
McAuliff Street
18 2004-41 5453 - Emerald
Creek
08/23/2004 2025 (7
units)

2. East Haven Southwest corner
of Tulare Avenue
and Pinkham
Street.
14 2016-13 TPM 2016-0507/25/2016 2021, 2022,
2025 (all
units)

3. Santa Fe
Duplexes
1402-1416 S
Santa Fe St
12 N/A N/A N/A 2024 (all
units)

4. Demaree /
Houston
Apartments
Southwest corner
of Demaree and
Houston
243 2022-21 N/A 01/09/2023 2024 (all
units)

5. Rancho
Colegio
Court & Glendale,
SE Corner
80 N/A N/A N/A 2024 (all
units)

6. Village at
Shannon
Pkwy.

Apartments
Northeast corner
of Court Street
and Shannon
Pkwy.
216 2020-02 N/A 10/26/2020 2022 / 2023
(all units)

7. Reserve at
Ritchie Ranch
Southeast and
northeast corners
of Sedona
Avenue and
Akers Street
219 2020-21 N/A 12/14/2020 2022 (all
units)
2025 (80
units)

8. 1834 E.

Houston Ave.
1834 E. Houston
Ave.
22 N/A N/A N/A 2019 / 2021
(all units)
Total
Units: 824
Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 4 of 8
powered by Legistar™
5 File #: 25-0362 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 1.

Table 2-3: Multi-Family
Residential Projects Under
Construction
Short
Name
LOCATION Total #
Dwelling Units
in Project
CUP NO. Linked
Tentati
ve
Subdiv
ision
Map
No.

Planning
Commission
Approval Date
Year(s) Permits
Issued
Year(s)
Permits
Finaled

1. Emerald CreekSouth side of
Noble Avenue,
approximately 1/3
mile east of
McAuliff Street
18 2004-41 5453 - Emerald
Creek
08/23/2004 2025 (7
units)

2. East Haven Southwest corner
of Tulare Avenue
and Pinkham
Street.
14 2016-13 TPM 2016-0507/25/2016 2021, 2022,
2025 (all
units)

3. Santa Fe
Duplexes
1402-1416 S
Santa Fe St
12 N/A N/A N/A 2024 (all
units)

4. Demaree /
Houston
Apartments
Southwest corner
of Demaree and
Houston
243 2022-21 N/A 01/09/2023 2024 (all
units)

5. Rancho
Colegio
Court & Glendale,
SE Corner
80 N/A N/A N/A 2024 (all
units)

6. Village at
Shannon
Pkwy.

Apartments
Northeast corner
of Court Street
and Shannon
Pkwy.
216 2020-02 N/A 10/26/2020 2022 / 2023
(all units)

7. Reserve at
Ritchie Ranch
Southeast and
northeast corners
of Sedona
Avenue and
Akers Street
219 2020-21 N/A 12/14/2020 2022 (all
units)
2025 (80
units)

8. 1834 E.

Houston Ave.
1834 E. Houston
Ave.
22 N/A N/A N/A 2019 / 2021
(all units)
Total
Units: 824
Table 2-4: Multi-Family Residential Projects
Yet to be Built
Short
Name
LOCATION Number of
Dwelling Units
CUP NO. Linked
Tentative
Map
Planning
Commissio
n Approval
Date
Status

1. N. West Street
Triplex
405 N. West
Street Triplex
3 2024-46 N/A 05/27/2025 Entitled; awaiting
permit submittal

2. Stonebrook /
Cameron
Apartments
NW Stonebrook
& Cameron
276 2024-02 N/A 03/25/2024 Entitled; awaiting
permit submittal

3. Oak Place Multi
-Family
Community
SE Linwood &
Coburn
168 2023-22 5587 -
Belissa
11/13/2023 Entitled; awaiting
permit submittal

4. Caldwell /
Lovers
Apartments
NW Lovers Lane
& Caldwell
342 2022-25 N/A 01/23/2023 Entitled; awaiting
permit submittal

5. K / Ben Maddox
Apartments
SW Ben Maddox
& K.
292 2022-23 N/A 01/09/2023 Entitled; awaiting
permit submittal

6. Orchard Walk
Townhomes
NE Court &
Riggin
234 2022-09 N/A 06/27/2022 Entitled. Permits in
2022, none issued
to date.

7. Lovers-Tulare
Apartments
NE Lovers Lane
& Tulare
32 2020-10 N/A 07/27/2020 Entitled. No
permits issued to
date.

8. Bungalow 144
Apts. (Quail
River)
SE Walnut &
Lovers Lane
146 2005-32 5495 - Quail
River
10/24/2005
(10/10/2022)
Entitled. Permits in
2022, none issued
to date.

Total Units: 1,493
Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 5 of 8
powered by Legistar™
6 File #: 25-0362 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 1.

Table 2-4: Multi-Family Residential Projects
Yet to be Built
Short
Name
LOCATION Number of
Dwelling Units
CUP NO. Linked
Tentative
Map
Planning
Commissio
n Approval
Date
Status

1. N. West Street
Triplex
405 N. West
Street Triplex
3 2024-46 N/A 05/27/2025 Entitled; awaiting
permit submittal

2. Stonebrook /
Cameron
Apartments
NW Stonebrook
& Cameron
276 2024-02 N/A 03/25/2024 Entitled; awaiting
permit submittal

3. Oak Place Multi
-Family
Community
SE Linwood &
Coburn
168 2023-22 5587 -
Belissa
11/13/2023 Entitled; awaiting
permit submittal

4. Caldwell /
Lovers
Apartments
NW Lovers Lane
& Caldwell
342 2022-25 N/A 01/23/2023 Entitled; awaiting
permit submittal

5. K / Ben Maddox
Apartments
SW Ben Maddox
& K.
292 2022-23 N/A 01/09/2023 Entitled; awaiting
permit submittal

6. Orchard Walk
Townhomes
NE Court &
Riggin
234 2022-09 N/A 06/27/2022 Entitled. Permits in
2022, none issued
to date.

7. Lovers-Tulare
Apartments
NE Lovers Lane
& Tulare
32 2020-10 N/A 07/27/2020 Entitled. No
permits issued to
date.

8. Bungalow 144
Apts. (Quail
River)
SE Walnut &
Lovers Lane
146 2005-32 5495 - Quail
River
10/24/2005
(10/10/2022)
Entitled. Permits in
2022, none issued
to date.

Total Units: 1,493
Potential Timeframe for Tier III Residential Threshold
Residential Tier III Development Boundary may only be achieved when 12,800 overall residential units are issued between Tiers I and II (LU-P-21) starting from April 1, 2010. The City has issued 8,806 permits for residential units through July 2025, with 2,938 of those residential permits issued between July 2021 and July 2025, a result of Tier II lands being now eligible for residential development. As a result of residential permit issuance between these two tiers, there are still 3,994 permits that must be issued before the Tier III threshold is satisfied. Since 2010, the city has averaged issuance of 550 units (single-family and multi-family combined) per year. Based on this average, the city is on track to achieve the threshold metric of 12,800 units issued in approximately

7.14 years, which would be sometime in 2032.

However, based on the uptick in approved lots from the projects described in the staff report above, there is the potential that the Tier III permit issuance threshold could be achieved much sooner. This potential is based upon the number of projects that have yet to begin construction and based on other undeveloped lands in both Tiers I and II (i.e. 260 + 1,216 acres) that may come forward with new residential projects, which will continue to add to the future residential permit threshold totals.

When considering those opportunities along with the approved and under construction projects (i.e., 2,974 SFR units + 2,317 MFR units), the potential residential permits in the Tier I and II areas far exceed the 3,994 units needing to be issued, as required by LU-P-21, to achieve the Tier III threshold of 12,800 units issued.

Review of Land Use Policy LU-P-21
This General Plan Land Use Element policy has served Visalia well because it encourages the orderly development of land in order to manage extension of services and maintain current levels of service for existing development (see Exhibit “C”, for full text). Visalia’s historically effective concentric growth pattern remains staff’s preferred methodology to limit sprawl which burdens infrastructure and emergency services like police and fire.

Staff has recently been presented with inquiries from developers regarding development submittals in the Tier III boundary hoping to utilize the italicized segment of LU-P-21 to circumvent waiting for the Tier III threshold to meet its permit issuance metric. Predominately this portion of the phrasing states:
“To complement residential neighborhood development, the City also may allow small annexations for sites less than 30 acres in size that are contiguous to the City limits to allow for efficient development of a neighborhood, commercial area or employment center, provided no General Plan amendment is required and infrastructure is available or can be extended at no cost to the City.

Triggers for proceeding from Tier I and Tier II to Tier III may be modified based on subsequent direction from the City Council.”
Staff has responded to these development submittals that are seeking to capitalize on the “italicized” text above, which has resulted in submitting development proposals through the City’s Site Plan Review (SPR) and/or the County’sProject Review Committee (PRC) processes (see Exhibits “E”and Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 6 of 8
powered by Legistar™
7 File #: 25-0362 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 1.

Review (SPR) and/or the County’sProject Review Committee (PRC) processes (see Exhibits “E”and “F”). The recent residential subdivision submittal to the County’s PRC process detailed the development of a 127-lot subdivision located at the southwest corner of West Visalia Parkway and the future South County Center Street alignment (Tier III land). The submittal proposed to be entitled and permitted through the County and would not meet the City’sland use policy as noted above including Midvalley Avenue not built to through-street dimension, site circulation, compliant curb returns, superblock connectivity to existing neighborhoods, too many local road connections to South County Center Street which is identified in the Circulation Element as a Collector roadway, and lack of required signalization of the Visalia Parkway and County Center intersection, among many other things outlined in staff’s letter of opposition to the County’s PRC request (see exhibit “F”).

Staff’s interpretation, based on the italicized portions of policy, was intended for alternative consideration where this type of development request could be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that the small development would complete out and interconnect an existing neighborhood or commercial area thereby allowing for efficient development throughout the area.

The City’sposition has long been to “hold-the-line”and follow Policy LU-P-21’sexplicit threshold metrics subject to available land inventory. As shown earlier in the report above, there is ample land inventory in Tiers I and II to meet and exceed the Tier III threshold metric.

Furthermore, by continuing to use the adopted growth management plan established in the General Plan, exemplified by the use of Visalia Parkway as the southern delineation for the Tier I and II Growth Boundaries, the City fulfills the following 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.

LU-P-28: Continue to use natural and man-made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the City’sUrban Growth Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines.

LU-P-42: Develop scenic corridor and gateway guidelines that will maintain the agricultural character of Visalia at its urban fringe.

Staff supports continued efforts to proceed with the established boundaries, and proven growth management policies of the General Plan. The adopted growth management plan is perfected through the Growth Boundary Tiers and has served the residents and development community in offering a smart growth pattern, while preventing sprawl and unnecessary burdens on infrastructure and circulation.

Staff’s recommendation is that LU-P-21 policy continued to be applied as adopted and that development south of Visalia Parkway is premature due to both the existing approved projects that have either started construction and/or not started construction and the undeveloped land inventory still available for development opportunities to support continued development in a logical manner in both Tiers I and II.

Fiscal Impact: N/A
Prior Council Action: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 7 of 8
powered by Legistar™
8 File #: 25-0362 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 1.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

That the City Council and Planning Commission receive the staff report and presentation providing an overview and support staff’s interpretation of LU-P-21.

Environmental Assessment Status: No environmental assessment required at this time. The adoption of any ordinance changes will require environmental documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to be completed by City staff.

CEQA Review: N/A
Deadline for Action: 8/19/2025
Attachments:

Exhibit “A” - Tier I & II - Current Projects Going Through Entitlement Exhibit “B” - Multi-Family - Current and To Be Built
Exhibit “C” - General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-21 (full text) Exhibit “D” - City of Visalia Building Permits Issued 2010 - July 2025 Exhibit “E” - Tulare County PRC submittal 2025-028
Exhibit “F” - COV Planning Division Response to PRC submittal 2025-028 Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 8 of 8
powered by Legistar™
9 Hwy99
Betty
Ave 312
Ave 320
Am
erican
Rd
60 Ave 298
Rd
63 Hwy99
Goshen
Am
erican
Ave 304
Ave 308 Ave 308
Hwy 198
Rd
64 Rd
76 Rd 68
Rd
68 Rd
68 Ave 280
Roeben
Kelsey
Riggin
Kibler Kibler
Ferguson
Ave 320
Shirk
Plaza
Sunnyview
Shirk
Roeben
Roeben
Goshen
Kelsey
Kelsey
Plaza
Plaza
Hurley Hurley
Doe
Ferguson
Rd
88 Hwy 198 Clancy
Hwy99
Noble
Valley Oaks Golf
Course
Visalia Municipal
Airport (Vis)
Caldwell
Walnut
Rd
92 Roeben
Ave 272
Shirk
Ave 276
Ave 280
Linwood
Akers
Riggin
CountyCenterDem
aree
Dem
aree
M
ooney
Shannon
Riverway
Pratt
Ave 320
Rd 108
M
ooney
M
ooney
W
oodland
Hwy 198
Hurley
Tulare
Houston
CountyCenter
CountyCenter
CountyCenter
Mineral King Mineral King
Chinowth
Dem
aree
Main
Linwood
Linwood
Ferguson
Goshen
Akers
Visalia Country Club
Whitendale
Visalia
Walnut
Caldwell
Linwood
M
ooney
CountyCenter
Rd
100
Ave 272
Dem
aree
Akers
Cameron
Rd
108
Ave 276
La Joya
M
ooney
St Johns
Rd
124
Rd
132
Riggin Riggin
Ave 320
Dinuba
Shannon
Riverway
Riverway Sports Park
Pinkham
Center
Giddings
Giddings
Ben
M
addox
Ben
M
addox
Ben
M
addox
St Johns
Cain
Cain
Burke
Burke
Burke
Conyer
Conyer
Mineral King
Tulare Tulare
Houston Houston Houston
Murray
Main
Santa
Fe
Santa
Fe
Santa
Fe
Jacob
Dinuba
Locust
Divisadero
Court
Court
Court
Ferguson
W
illis
Goshen
Redwood
Caldwell Caldwell
Walnut
BenM
addoxK
Santa
Fe
Whitendale
Cameron
Ave 271
Court
Giddings
Ave 272
Ave 272
Pinkham
W
est
Visalia
Mooney Grove Park
Rd
124
Ave 264
Ave 320
Rd
144
Rd
148
St Johns
St Johns
LoversLane
LoversLane
Noble
McAuliff
Mc Auliff
M
cAuliff
Rd
152
Rd
152
Houston
Mineral King Mineral King
Visalia
Ave 296
Rd
156
Mill Creek
Tulare
Ivanhoe
Ave 292
Goshen
Cutler Park
St Johns Riverway
Park
Golden West
Caldwell
Walnut Ave 288
Rd
140
LoversLane
Ave 272 Ave 272
Rd
148
M
cAuliff
Rd
156
K
Ave 280
O a k e s D i t c h
S a i
n t J o h n s R i v e r
J
e
n
n
i
n
g
s
D
i
t
c
h
U
p h i l l
D i t c
h
Watson Ditch
D e e p C r e e k
Matthews Ditch
C a m e r o n C r e e k
North Fork Persian Ditch
Persian Ditch
Modoc Ditch
Mill Creek Ditch
Tulare Irrigation Cannal
S o u t h F o r k P e r s i a n D i t c h
Packwood Creek
E v a n s D i t c h
M i l l C r e e k
Giddings
Court
Walnut
Dinuba
Riggin
Mooney
DemareeLinwood
K
M
c
A
u
l
i
f
f
Tulare
Ben Maddox
Tulare
Riggin
Mineral King
Houston
Court
Main
Akers
Walnut
Goshen
Noble
St Johns
Mooney
Houston
Chinowth
Shirk
Ben Maddox
Noble
Caldwell
Goshen
Ferguson
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Ave 288
Murray
Hwy 99
Neeley
Houston
Caldwell
Lovers Lane
Court
Shannon
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
West
Woodland
Burke
Acequia
Linwood
Rd 140
Chinowth
Ave 272
Mineral King
Linwood
Hall
Demaree
Hurley
American
Whitendale
Burke
Mooney
Akers
Mc Auliff
Locust
West
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
Houston
Chinowth
Pinkham
County Center
Lovers Lane
Roeben
Cain
Willis
Burke
Santa Fe
Roeben
S t J o h n s
Riggin
Divisadero
Court
Campus
Akers
Center
Hwy 198
Bridge
Conyer
Cain
2nd
Ferguson
Demaree
Pratt
Mineral King
Hurley
Ave 308
3rd
Jacob
Kelsey
Ferguson
Visalia
Shannon
Riverway
M i l l C
r e
e
k
Doe
American
Ave 280
Rd 132
Plaza
Rd 63
M
i l l
C
r e
e
k
Caldwell
Ave 312
Visalia
Cameron
Ave 308
Rd 148
Walnut
Goshen
Kelsey
Rd 124
Shirk
Riverway
Rd 108
Rd 64
Visalia
Rd 68
Sunnyview
Ave 272
Ave 271
Noble
Goshen
Ave 320
Mooney
Betty
Ave 320
Ivanhoe
Rd 86
Rd 148
Rd 76
Rd 108
Rd 156
Clancy
Plaza
Kibler
Ave 298
Rd 100
Ave 304
Ave 296
Ave 292
Rd 152
Rd 88
Rd 144
Plaza
Noble
Rd 148
Rd 124
Ave 264
Ave 280
Ave 320 Ave 320
Ave 320Kibler
Ave 276
Ave 272
Rd 68
Rd 68
Rd 60
Ave 280
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet
Legend
10 Betty
Ave 312
Ave 320
Am
erican
Hwy99
Goshen
Am
erican
Ave 308
Hwy 198
Rd
76 Rd 68
Rd
68 Rd
68 Ave 280
Roeben
Kelsey
Riggin
Kibler Kibler
Ferguson
Ave 320
Shirk
Plaza
Sunnyview
Shirk
Roeben
Roeben
Goshen
Kelsey
Kelsey
Plaza
Plaza
Hurley Hurley
Doe
Ferguson
Rd
88 Hwy 198 Clancy
Hwy99
Noble
Valley Oaks Golf
Course
Visalia Municipal
Airport (Vis)
Caldwell
Walnut
Rd
92 Roeben
Ave 272
Shirk
Ave 276
Ave 280
Linwood
Akers
Riggin
CountyCenter
Dem
aree
Dem
aree
M
ooney
Shannon
Riverway
Pratt
Ave 320
Rd 108
M
ooney
M
ooney
W
oodland
Hwy 198
Hurley
Tulare
Houston
Noble
CountyCenter
CountyCenter
CountyCenter
Mineral King Mineral King
Chinowth
Dem
aree
Main
Linwood
Linwood
Ferguson
Goshen
Akers
Visalia Country Club
Whitendale
Visalia
Walnut
Caldwell
Linwood
M
ooney
CountyCenter
Rd
100
Ave 272
Dem
aree
Akers
Cameron
Rd
108
Ave 276
La Joya
M
ooney
St Johns
Rd
124
Rd
132
Riggin Riggin
Ave 320
Dinuba
Shannon
Riverway
Riverway Sports Park
Pinkham
Center
Giddings
Giddings
Ben
M
addox
Ben
M
addox
Ben
M
addox
St Johns
Cain
Cain
Burke
Burke
Burke
Conyer
Conyer
Mineral King
Tulare Tulare
Houston Houston Houston
Murray
Main
Acequia
Santa
Fe
Santa
Fe
Santa
Fe
Jacob
Noble
Dinuba
Locust
Divisadero
Court
Court
Court
Ferguson
W
illis
Goshen
Redwood
Caldwell Caldwell
Walnut
BenM
addoxK
Santa
Fe
Whitendale
Cameron
Ave 271
Court
Giddings
Ave 272
Ave 272
Pinkham
W
est
Visalia
Mooney Grove Park
Rd
124
Ave 264
Ave 320
Rd
144
Rd
148
St Johns
St Johns
LoversLane
LoversLane
Noble
McAuliff
Mc Auliff
M
cAuliff
Rd
152
Rd
152
Houston
Mineral King Mineral King
Visalia
Ave 296
Rd
156
Mill Creek
Tulare
Ivanhoe
Ave 292
Goshen
Cutler Park
St Johns Riverway
Park
Golden West
Caldwell
Walnut Ave 288
Rd
140
LoversLane
Ave 272 Ave 272
Rd
148
M
cAuliff
Rd
156
K
Ave 280
Oakes Ditch
S a i n t
J o h n
s
R
i v e r
J
e
n
n
i
n
g
s
D
i
t
c
h
U
p h i l l D
i t c h
Watson Ditch
D e e p C r e e k
Matthews Ditch
C a m e r o n C r e e k
North Fork Persian Ditch
Persian Ditch
Mill Creek Ditch
Modoc Ditch
Tulare Irrigation Cannal
South Fork Persian Ditch
Packwood Creek
E v a n s D i t c h
M i l l C r e e k
Giddings
Court
Mooney
Walnut
Dinuba
Riggin
DemareeLinwood
K
M
c
A
u
l
i
f
f
Tulare
Ben Maddox
Tulare
Riggin
Mineral King
Houston
Court
Main
Akers
Walnut
Goshen
Noble
St Johns
PinkhamMooney
Demaree
Houston
Shirk
Chinowth
Ben Maddox
Noble
Caldwell
Goshen
Ferguson
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Ave 288
Murray
H
w
y
9 9
Neeley
Houston
Caldwell
Lovers Lane
Court
Shannon
H w y 1 9 8
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
West
Woodland
Burke
Acequia
Ave 304
Linwood
Rd 140
K
Chinowth
Ave 272
Mineral King
Linwood
Hall
Giddings
Demaree
Hurley
American
Whitendale
Burke
Mooney
Cameron
Akers
Mc Auliff
Locust
West
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
Houston
Chinowth
Pinkham
County Center
Lovers Lane
Roeben
Cain
Willis
Burke
Santa Fe
Roeben
S t J o h n s
Rd 108
Riggin
Divisadero
Court
Campus
Akers
Center
Bridge
Conyer
Cain
2nd
M i n e r a l K i n g
Ferguson
Demaree
Pratt
Mineral King
Hurley
Ave 308
3rd
Jacob
Kelsey
Ferguson
Visalia
Shannon
Riverway
M
i l l
C r e e k
Doe
American
Ave 280
Rd 132
Plaza
M
i l l
C
r e
e
k
Caldwell
Ave 312
Visalia
Cameron
Rd 148
Conyer
Walnut
Goshen
Kelsey
Rd 124
Shirk
Riverway
Visalia
Sunnyview
Ave 272
Ave 271
M i n e r a l K i n g
Noble
Goshen
Mooney
Betty
Ave 320
Ivanhoe
Rd 86
Rd 148
Rd 76
Rd 108
Rd 156
Clancy
Plaza
Kibler
Rd 100
Ave 296
Ave 292
Rd 152
Rd 88
Rd 144
Plaza
Noble
Rd 148
Rd 124
Ave 264
Ave 280
Ave 320 Ave 320
Ave 320Kibler
Ave 276
Ave 272
Rd 68
Ave 280
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
0 2,500 5,0001,250 Feet
Legend
11 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; and Commercial: after permits for 480,000 square feet of commercial space on designated Commercial Mixed Use, Downtown Mixed Use, Office, and Service Commercial land have been issued.

Regional Retail: New Regional Retail areas in the Tier II Growth Boundary shall be eligible for urban development upon satisfactory demonstration that the following criteria have been met:

1. Existing Regional Retail Commercial zoned land south of Caldwell Avenue. that was undeveloped as of the date of adoption of the General Plan has received at least 922,383sq.ft. of commercial building permits [formula: 121 acres @43,560sq. ft. per gross acre = 5,270,760sq.ft. x .25 (assumed FAR for Regional Retail development) x 0.7 (recommended flex factor)]

2. The uses and tenants proposed for the area will substantially further the community’s goal of providing high level regional retail goods and services.

3. That there is sufficient roadway capacity and adequate public facilities and infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development.

The regional retail zone classification shall provide for permitted and conditional uses that are of a regional draw only. Uses that are not exclusively of a regional draw may be allowed where a finding is made that such uses are ancillary or associated with the regional uses. Uses of a neighborhood or convenience level draw only shall not be permitted. • “Tier III”: Tier III comprises full buildout of the General Plan. The expansion criteria for land in Tier III is that land would only become available for development when building permits have been issued in Tier I and Tier II at the following levels, starting from April 1, 2010:
12 Residential: after permits for 12,800 housing units have been issued.

Commercial: after permits for 960,000 square feet of commercial space space on designated Commercial Mixed Use, Downtown Mixed Use, Office, and Service Commercial land have been issued; and
Industrial: after permits for 2,800,000 square feet of commercial space space on designated Industrial, Light Industrial, and Business Research Park land have been issued.

To complement residential neighborhood development, the City also may allow small annexations for sites less than 30 acres in size that are contiguous to the City limits to allow for efficient development of a neighborhood, commercial area or employment center, provided no General Plan amendment is required and infrastructure is available or can be extended at no cost to the City.

Triggers for proceeding from Tier I and Tier II to Tier III may be modified based on subsequent direction from the City Council.

Annexations are subject to review against regulations and policies in the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 and the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Policy and Procedure Manual regarding development and inventory of existing vacant land designated for urban uses in the city limits.
13 Permits Issued 2010 – 2025

218
279
252
429
435
615
705
553
578
699
607
840
1251
347
597
401
218
497
749
1178
1613
2228
2933
3486
4064
4763
5370
6210
7461
7808
8405
8806
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

YEARLY TOTALS &

RUNNING TOTAL
(TIER III THRESHOLD = 12,800 ISSUED PERMITS)
Yearly Totals Running Total
216
269
252
429
415
509
575
483
504
638
601
636
560
335
270
369
2 10
0 0
20 106
130
70 74
61 6
204
691
12 327
32 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

YEARLY TOTALS

SINGLE -FAM & MULTI -FAM
Single-Fam Multi-Fam
14 PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE

CONSULTATION AND FACT SHEET
Project Number: PRC 25-028 Today’s Date: May 20, 2025
Applicant/Address: Smee Homes, 444 N. Prospect Suite A, Porterville, CA 93257
Phone: (559) 788-0525
Email: [email protected]
Property Owner: Michael L. Keener, Allen and Sharon Wilson Trust, Cathy Fox
Microsoft Teams Virtual PRC Meeting
Meeting Date: June 12, 2025
Please Respond by June 6, 2025
Agent: N/A
Planner: Mr. Sandy Roper Email: [email protected] Phone: (559) 624-7101 Consultation List:

Vanesa Sandoval, Public Works/Eng. Michael Washam, Associate Director Kevin Bangsund, Environmental Health Aaron R. Bock, Assistant Director Hector Ramos Jr., Code Compliance Gary Mills, Chief Environmental Planner Mark Phillips, Fire Department Kevin Sullivan, Building Division Jason Garcia-LoBue, CALUP Alida Verduzco Silva, Economic Development Manager Other (City, Town Council, etc.): Javier Cisneros, Economic Development City of Visalia, Tulare County Farm Bureau, RWQCB & SJVAPCD Project Description: The request is to change the zoning from the AE -20 (Exclusive Agricultural – 20 Acre Minimum Parcel Size ) Zone to the R -1 (One Family) Zone and subdivide 29.79 acres into 127 lots (ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to 12,500 square feet). The north and east sides of the Project are contiguous with the boundary of the City of Visalia. The Project site is located within the Visalia Urban Area Boundary (“UAB”).

The Project site is within the Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) for the City of Visalia. Figure 2-2 (Land Use Diagram) of the Visalia General Plan shows that Project site is within the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation.

Figure 2-3 of the Visalia General Plan shows that Project site is within Urban Growth Boundary Tier 3. If the City of Visalia requires annexation, then all applications would be processed by the City of Visalia instead of the County.

I
f the City of Visalia does not require annexation, the n a Zone Change (PZC) and Tentative Subdivision Map (“TSM”) Application would need to be submitted to Tulare County . The TSM would need to be approved by the Tulare County Planning Commission and the PZC would need to be approved by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors. PZC filing fees and Tentative Subdivision Map (“TSM”) filing fees to subdivide the property depend on the number of parcels proposed and are as follows:
• The
re is an initial deposit of $6,451 for PZC. If the initial deposit for the PZC is depleted, then there is an additional charge of $115 per hour.
• There is an initial deposit of $ 11,422 for a TSM with more than 100 parcels, plus $17 per parcel over 100 parcels. The TSM for the proposed 127 lot subdivision would have an initial deposit of $ 11,881 [$11,422 + (27 X $17) = $ 11,881]. If the initial deposit for the TSM is depleted, then there is an additional charge of $115 per hour.

Please note that there is an additional charge of $669 for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and $1,085 for any exceptions that are requested. In addition to the fees listed above, the following fees would also need to be submitted with the applications when they are filed:
15 • $58 to file the CEQA Notice of Determination for the Project. • $150 to Record the TSM Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission. • $3,043 for the Initial Deposit for County Preparation of MND. If the initial deposit is depleted, then the applicant is billed $115.00 per hour for the preparation of the MND. If a consultant prepares t he M
ND, then there is an Initial Deposit of $2,743 for the Environmental Planning Division to peer review the consultant prepared MND. If the initial deposit is depleted, then the applicant is bill ed $115.00 per hour for the preparation of the MND.
• 2,698.75 for the 2025 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Fee for a MND. Please note that if the Project is approved in 2026, then the difference between the 2025 CDFW Fee and the 2 026 C
DFW Fee would need to be paid prior to recording the TSM. CDFW Fees change each year on January 1st.

The processing time for applications that are categorically exempt from environmental review is approximately 3 months from the date of submittal. However, since this project will require the preparation of a MND by either a consultant or the Tulare County Resource Management Agency Environmental Planning Division, if the City of Visalia does not require annexation, the processing time will depend on how long it takes to prepare the MND.

Location: Located on the southwest corner of Visalia Parkway and South Center Drive, in the unincorporated area of Tulare County (APN: 121-610-001).

General Plan Designation and
Consistency Finding
The Project site is located within the Visalia Urban Area Boundary and the Land Use Designation is “Valley Agriculture.”
The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy PF -4.19 because the Rural Valley Lands Plan (RLVP) is only advisory within County Adopted City Urban Area Boundaries (CACUABs).

PF-4.21 states that as an exception to the County policies that the RLVP is only advisory within CACUABS, the County may work with an individual city to provide that the requirements of the RLVP will apply to applications for special use permits, variances, or divisions of land within a CACUAB except in those areas that overlap with a County UDB, an HDB, or Corridor Plan area. The City of Visalia is being sent a copy of this Consultation and Fact Sheet to give them the opportunity to comment on PRC 25- 028 and participate in the PRC meeting.

It is noted that the County has a severe shortage of housing within the Unincorporated portions of the County under the 2012 General Plan Update (2030) and cannot meet the requirements of the Housing Element Update’s (2023) housing attainment goals for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”).

Regional Housing Needs Assessment: The current RHNA, adopted on December 12, 2023, is the sixth Housing Element cycle and covers a 8 .5- year projection period (June 30, 20 23 – December 15, 203 1). The Tulare County RHNA recommends that the County provide land use and zoning for approximately 9,243 units in the unincorporated portion of the County (1,155 units per year over the 8.5-year RHNA planning period).

Staff Comment: This Project’s 127 single- family dwelling units will provide approximately 1.37% of the projected housing need for the County by December 15, 2031.

The proposed Project is consistent with the following applicable Tulare County General Plan Policies; (a) PF- 1.3 Land Uses in UDBs/HDBs; (b) LU-3.1 Residential Developments; (c) LU-1.10 Roadway Access; (d) ERM-

5.2 Park Amenities; (e) ERM -5.3 Park Dedication Requirements; (f) ERM -

5.5 Collocated Facilities; (g) ERM-5.6 Location and Size Criteria for Parks; 16 (h) Housing Guiding Principle 1.1; (i) Housing Guiding Principle 2.2; (j) Housing Policy 2.21; (k) TC -1.2 County Improvement Standards; (l) AG -

1.14 Right-to-Farm Noticing; (m) WR -3.3 Adequate Water Availability; (n) PFS-1.4 Standards of Approval; (o) PFS -2.4 Water Connections; (p) PFS -

3.2 Adequate Capacity; and (q) PFS-3.3 New Development Requirements.

Plan Area and Boundary Type: The project site is located within the Visalia UAB.

Development subject to MOU
with city?
Development of the project site is subject to a MOU with the City of Visalia.

Entitlement, Zoning Designation
and Consistency Finding:

The Project site is in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural – 20 Acre Minimum Parcel Size) Zone and if the Board of Supervisors approves a Zone Change to R-1, then the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Section 6.F. of the Tulare County Zoning Ordinance (TCZO) requires every main building shall have a lot area of not less than six thousand (6,000) square feet per family. An Exceptions Application, to allow lot areas of less than 6,000 square feet , will need to be submitted along with the TSM Application since the subdivision proposes to create 127 parcels ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to 12,500 square feet.

The next step following the PRC meeting would be to submit an Application for a Zone Change and a Tentative Subdivision Map to Tulare County, if the City of Visalia doesn’t require annexation.

Agricultural Preserve/Contract? The property is not restricted by a California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) Contract.

Preliminary Environmental
Review Determination:

An environmental review document [Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)] is required to be prepared in order to be consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

Subdivision Ordinance/
State Map Act Consistency:

A Tentative Subdivision Map would be required to be approved by the Planning Commission and a final map would be required to record in order to comply with the Subdivision Map Act. Section 7- 01-2645 of the Tulare County Subdivision Ordinance allows (1) Lot Exceptions for area, frontage, width, depth, width to depth ratio and (2) Road Exceptions for width (graded), width (paved), radius of curvature, cul -de-sac length, radius of cul-de-sac paved or graded, design speed, and other road exceptions. Any Exception may be granted subject to any reasonable conditions, which are deemed necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Tulare County Subdivision Ordinance (reference Section 7- 01-2645). Creating parcels that are less than 6,000 square feet in size would require the approval of a Lot Exception for area.

Other Facts: (history of site,
flood zone, airport, hazard
zones, water test for wells, etc.

Approximately the eastern 23.52 acres of the Project site are within Zone X (0.2 percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard) as shown on the National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number 06107C093 7E, for Community Number 065066 (Tulare County Unincorporated Areas), dated June 16, 2009. Construction of buildings within a Zone X (0.2 percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard) requires no specific flood mitigation measures; however, it is recommended that all finished floor levels be elevated one (1) foot above adjacent natural ground.

Approximately the western 6.27 acres of the P roject site are within Zone AE (Special Flood Hazard Area) as shown on the National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number 06107C0937E, for Community Number 065066 (Tulare County Unincorporated Areas), dated June 16, 2009. An elevation certificate and associated flood hazard mitigation measures will be required on all proposed buildings within a FEMA Zone A. The subject parcel is located in a federally identified Special Flood Hazard Area as depicted on said plat.

Individual site plan approval is required for any parcel located within or partially within a special flood hazard area prior to the issuance of any permits. The location of a structure within the special flood hazard area 17 shall require compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the special provisions of the Tulare County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.

• Soils on the northeast 2.9 acres of the Project site are Grangeville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes [Class Wet I and Class Dry IV c] Prime, which is rated moderate for sewage disposal with a low shrink- swell potential.
• Soils on the southeast 12.4 acres of the Project site are Tagus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes [Class Wet I and Class Dry IV c] Prime, which is rated moderate for sewage disposal with a low shrink-swell potential. • Soils on the remaining portion of the Project site are Nord fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes [Class Wet I and Class Dry IVc] Prime, which is rated severe for sewage disposal with a low shrink -swell potential.
• Visalia Unified School District – Area 7.
• A1602205 Building Permit for water line connection for crop irrigation.

Please review this proposal and forward electronically any comments and/or recommendations, along with any suggested development requirements, conditions of approval, design criteria, and/or improvement standards that you feel are necessary and/or relevant to this proposal prior to June 6, 2025, so that the information can be included for discussion at the PRC meeting.

Attachments: Application
Operational Statement
Site Plan
APN Map
Aerial Image
PRC 25-028 Firmette
PRC 25-028 Soil Report
LAFCO – Mura Map – City of Visalia
Visalia General Plan Figure 2-2 Land Use Diagram
Visalia General Plan Figure 2-3 Proposed Development Footprint by Tier

TULARE COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Reed Schenke, Director

Sandy Roper, Chief Planner
Special Projects Division
Economic Development and Planning Branch

May 20, 2025
Date
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 PRC 25-028 (Smee Homes)
The request is to change the zoning from the
AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural – 20 Acre Minimum
Parcel Size) Zone to the R-1 (One Family) Zone
and subdivide 29.79 acres into 127 lots (ranging
in size from 5,000 square feet to 12,500 square
feet). Located on the southwest corner of Visalia
Parkway and South Center Drive, in the
unincorporated area of Tulare County
(APN: 121-610-001).
2000 ft
N➤➤
N
27 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 5/20/2025 at 10:54 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
119°19'47"W 36°17'34"N
119°19'10"W 36°17'5"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
28 United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Tulare County,
W
estern Part,
California
PRC 25-028
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
May 19, 2025 29
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that af
fect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the ef fects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey
.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS W
eb Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color
, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 30
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's T
ARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 31
Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Tulare County, Western Part, California..........................................................13 122—Grangeville sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................13 130—Nord fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes..................................... 14 137—Tagus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.....................................................16 References............................................................................................................18 4 32
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations af
fecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography
, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology
, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. T
o construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color
, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 33
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides suf ficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color ,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. V
alues for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under dif
ferent uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity
. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 34
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately .

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 35
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 36
9 Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4018260 4018340 4018420 4018500 4018580 4018660 4018740 4018820 4018260 4018340 4018420 4018500 4018580 4018660 4018740 4018820 290990 291070 291 150 291230 291310 291390 291470
290990 291070 291 150 291230 291310 291390
36° 17' 31'' N
119° 19' 38'' W
36° 17' 31'' N
119° 19' 19'' W
36° 17' 11'' N
119° 19' 38'' W
36° 17' 11'' N
119° 19' 19'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 45 90 180 270
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,120 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
37 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below
.

Soil Survey Area: Tulare County, Western Part, California Survey Area Data: Version 18, Aug 30, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger
.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 16, 2022—May 30, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably dif
fers from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
10 38
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 122 Grangeville sandy loam,
drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes

2.9 10.2%
130 Nord fine sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes

12.8 45.5%
137 Tagus loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes

12.4 44.3%
Totals for Area of Interest 28.1 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however
, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not af
fect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or Custom Soil Resource Report
11 39
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides suf
ficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for dif
ferences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity
, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that af
fects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undif
ferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An
association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately . The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 40
Tulare County, Western Part, California
122—Grangeville sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp4s
Elevation: 190 to 400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Grangeville and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Grangeville
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granitic rock sources Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 16 inches: sandy loam
Bg - 16 to 27 inches: sandy loam
2C - 27 to 67 inches: stratified loamy sand to silt loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 4.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 41
Minor Components
Yettem
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Tujunga
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Grangeville, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: Yes
Nord
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
130—Nord fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp51
Elevation: 190 to 520 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Nord and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Custom Soil Resource Report
14 42
Description of Nord
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from mixed
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 11 inches: fine sandy loam
C1 - 11 to 38 inches: stratified sandy loam to loam
C2 - 38 to 50 inches: stratified loamy coarse sand to coarse sandy loam 2Btb - 50 to 72 inches: stratified sandy loam to silt loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 4 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 10.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Grangeville, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: Yes
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Tujunga
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 43
Tagus
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Akers
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Colpien
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
137—Tagus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp58
Elevation: 230 to 400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Tagus and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Tagus
Setting
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granitic rock sources Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 17 inches: loam
Bk1 - 17 to 40 inches: loam
Bk2 - 40 to 63 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 44
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 12.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Tujunga
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Grangeville
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Colpien
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
17 45
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www
.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www
.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, W etlands
Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. W
aterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 18 46
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www
.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
19 47
48 49
50 51
315 E. Acequia Ave. • Visalia, CA 93291 P 559.713.4359 E [email protected] W visalia.gov

Planning & Community Preservation Department
Planning Division

June 5, 2025

Mr. Sandy Roper, Chief Planner
Special Projects Division
Economic Development & Planning
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency
5961 S. Mooney Boulevard
Visalia, CA 93277

RE: City of Visalia comments and opposition to PRC 25-028: A request by Smee Homes, Inc. to Rezone 29.79 Acres from AE-20 to R-1 and Subdivide Site into 127 Lots.

Dear Mr. Roper,
Thank you for forwarding the PRC 2 5-028 materials regarding the potential rezone of a

29.79-acre site from AE -20 (Exclusive Agricultural – 20 Acre Minimum Parcel Siz e) to R-1 (One Family) and associated Tentative Subdivision Map requesting to subdivide said project site into a 127 lot single -family residential subdivision on property located on the south side of West Visalia Parkway, just south of the County Center /Visalia Parkway intersection (APN: 121-610-001).

The project site (APN: 121-610-001), and as noted in the PRC documentation, is located within the City’s Planning Area Boundary and Urban Development Boundary Growth Tier 3 and has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential as identified in the City’s 2030 General Plan. The site is eligible to be annexed into the City of Visalia only after the threshold to permit residential development in Tier 3 has been met. The City continually monitors its progress toward meeting the Tier 3 threshold and anticipates that the threshold will be met in the next several years. Urbanized development under the County purview undermines the ideology of the City’s growth boundaries and would foster urban development that lacks adequately p lanned city -grade sewer infrastructure/facilities to accommodate this development’s request.

As stated in previous comment letters issued by the City of Visalia related to the County’s processing of land use entitlements within our SOI and urban development growth boundaries, the City of Visalia expresses our formal opposition to this project and Tulare County’s continued consideration of urban -scale development in areas that undermine the City of Visalia’s General Plan. Urbanization of areas that are not ready for this type of development promotes leapfrog development, contributing to sprawl, increased vehicle miles traveled, and environmental degradation. The City of Visalia strongly supports the principles of smart growth, sustainable land use, and coordinated regional planning efforts. Supporting entitl ements to facilitate u rban-scale development within the City’s General Plan urban development boundary area weakens these principles and presents significant long-term challenges when efforts are made to undermine the City’s General Plan policies regarding concentric growth and the City’s monetary resources related to the City’s Capital Improvement Program that help in the coordination of major infrastructure needs throughout the entire city.
52 315 E. Acequia Ave. • Visalia, CA 93291 P 559.713.4359 E [email protected] W visalia.gov

Planning & Community Preservation Department
Planning Division

Approval of this request would result in inefficient provisions for adequate urban services, including water, sewer, law enforcement, fire protection, and transportation infrastructure, which are best provided by incorporated cities that are structured and resourced for these demands. It is also the City of Visalia’ s understanding that the use of on -site septic systems will be needed to accommodate this residential development, as the City would not support connection to the City’s wastewater treatment plan t via a request for an Extraterritorial Sewer Agreement , which is seen as an effort to circumvent the City’s General Plan land use policies and regulations. The City of Visalia has several concerns with the use of on-site septic systems being used for a residential d evelopment of this caliber given that the primary source of drinking water for Visalia residents comes from ground water, and the use of septic systems needed to accommodate this residential development could potentially lead to ground water quality issues for the area in the future.

The City of Visalia requests Tulare County staff to uphold their commitment to sound planning practices by not supporting this request, and to direct the property owner to seek development under the City of Visalia where services and infrastructure exist and where residents have access to a full range of public resources. Staff contends there are suitable alternative sites in the current Urban Development Growth Tier 2 boundary to facilitate similar residential development. Seeking residential development in the Tier 2 boundary maintains consistency with the City’s land use standards to prevent leapfrog development.

If this project is to proceed further, the City of Visalia hereby requests to be included in the distribution of all pertinent public hearing notices and/or actions related to this project.

A City representative will be present during the proceedings to assist as appropriate.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 713-4025, for any follow-up coordination in this matter.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Regards,

Paul Bernal, Director
Planning and Community Preservation Department
City of Visalia

cc:

Visalia City Council – via e-mail
Leslie Caviglia, City Manager – via e-mail
John Lollis, Assistant City Manager – via e-mail
Ken Richardson, City Attorney - via e-mail
James Koontz, City Attorney - via e-mail
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner – via e-mail

Attachment: Project Review Consultation Notice
53 + P J O U
. F F U J O H
P G
U I F
$ J U Z
$ P V O D J M
B O E
1 M B O O J O H
$ P N N J T T J P O

City of Visalia
August 19, 2025
54 City of Visalia
Discussion on:

1. Residential land and housing
inventories in Tiers I & II, and,

2. Discussion of LU-P-21 regarding
movement to and development of Tier III
lands.
55 Permit totals and
expansion-
• Growth Boundaries historically
used.
• Methodology simplified in 2014
to permit tracking.
• Ability to track readily.

SUMMARY
General Plan Land Use
Policy: LU-P-21 -
• Established Tier thresholds.
• Started April 1, 2010.
• Focus of report - Residential lands
threshold.

Discussion Topics:
56  The City has long adopted growth management plans implementing and managing growth through “Growth Boundary Tiers” (i.e. Tiers I, II, and III).  This has served residents and the development community by offering a smart growth pattern, while preventing sprawl and unnecessary burdens on infrastructure and circulation.
 On July 19, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-38 memorializing the exact date Tier II residential land use thresholds were reached.  All other land uses, except regional retail.
 Residential threshold required 5,850 units; achieved on July 1, 2021.  Staff is now providing a subsequent update of:
 Permits issued,
 Known acreages of undeveloped residential lands in Tiers I and II, and,  Estimated time until Tier III threshold of 12,800 units is achieved (Policy LU-P-21)

BACKGROUND
57  7,061 SFR permits issued since records kept per LU-P-21 (April 2010)  1,778 SRF permits issued since Tier expansion (Jul. 2021 – Aug. 2025)  Expansion to Tier II did not equate to build out of Tier I.

TIERS I& II - Single-Family Residential (SFR)
58 TIERS I& II - Single-Family Residential (SFR)
Table 1-3 Tier II Residential Projects
Entitlement TSM # Status Location Total Units
Carlton Acres 5590 Approved Shirk, Riggin, Akers, Kibler 375 Pratt Family Ranch
5583 Approved Pratt, Mooney, Riverway 247
Shepherds Ranch I (10 acres)
Shepherds Ranch II (40 acres)
5581
5589
Approved Shirk, Clancy, Pershing 241
Higgins Ranch
5585 Approved Lovers & Cherry 174
Crandell / Belissa
5587 Approved Demaree & Riverway 309
Barr & Wood
5588 Approved Whitendale & Roeben 136
Pearl Woods
5591 Approved McAuliff & Cherry 274
Elliot 5597 Approved Tulare & Shirk 224
Cameron Ranch 5598 Approved Ben Maddox & Caldwell 178
Ritchie Ranch 5600 Pending approval Riverway & Demaree 320 Pratt Family Ranch (T3) 5605 Pending approval NW Mooney & Pratt 293
Blankenship 5602 Approved; pending
annexation Santa Fe & Caldwell 203
Total Units: 2,974
59 N
60  1,745 MFR permits issued since records kept per LU-P-21 (April 2010)  1,160 MRF permits issued since Tier expansion (Jul. 2021 – Aug. 2025) TIERS I& II - Multi-Family Residential (MFR)
Development in MFR Zones
Citywide:
 824 units under construction
 1,493 units to be constructed
 Tiers I & II have development
potential of 5,595 – 10,460
units (min.–max. density)
61 N
62  Residential Tier III Development Boundary achieved only when 12,800 units are issued between Tiers I and II (LU-P-21).
 8,806 permits for residential units through July 2025, with 2,938 of those residential permits issued between July 2021 and July 2025, a result of Tier II lands being now eligible for residential development.
 There are still 3,994 permits that must be issued before the Tier III threshold is satisfied.
 Since 2010, the city has averaged issuance of 550 units (SFR and MFR combined) per year.
 Based on this average, the city is on track to achieve the threshold metric of 12,800 units issued in approximately 7.14 years, which would be sometime in 2032.

TIER III TIMEFRAME
63  The uptick in approved lots identify that there is sufficient development to achieve the Tier III threshold much sooner.
 The potential is based upon the number of projects that have yet to begin construction and based on other undeveloped lands in both Tiers I and II:
 Which will continue to add to the future residential permit threshold totals (i.e. 260 + 1,216 acres).
 Consideration of those opportunities along with the approved and under construction projects (i.e., 2,974 SFR units + 2,317 MFR units) add to total.  Potential residential permits in the Tier I and II far exceed the 3,994 units needing to be issued (per LU-P-21), to achieve the Tier III threshold of 12,800 units issued.

TIER III TIMEFRAME
64 QUESTIONS
65  This General Plan Land Use Element policy has served Visalia well.  Encouraged the orderly development of land to:
 Manage extension of services, and,
 Maintain current levels of service for existing development.  Visalia’s historically effective concentric growth pattern remains staff’s preferred methodology to limit sprawl which burdens infrastructure and emergency services like police and fire.
 Staff has recently been presented with inquiries from developers regarding development submittals in the Tier III boundary hoping to utilize the italicized segment of LU-P-21 to circumvent waiting for the Tier III threshold to meet its permit issuance metric.

Review of LU-P-21
66 Predominately this portion of the phrasing states:
“To complement residential neighborhood development, the City also may allow small annexations for sites less than 30 acres in size that are contiguous to the City limits to allow for efficient development of a neighborhood, commercial area or employment center, provided no General Plan amendment is required and infrastructure is available or can be extended at no cost to the City.

Triggers for proceeding from Tier I and Tier II to Tier III may be modified based on subsequent direction from the City Council.”
 Staff have responded to development proposals intending to capitalize on the above italicized text via City’s SPR and County’s PRC processes.  The City’s position has long been to “hold-the-line” and follow Policy LU-P-21’s explicit threshold metrics subject to available land inventory.

Review of LU-P-21
67  As shown earlier in the presentation, there is ample land inventory in Tiers I and II to meet and exceed the Tier III threshold metric.
 By continuing to use the adopted growth management plan in the GP, as exemplified using Visalia Parkway as the southern delineation for the Tier I and II Growth Boundaries, the City fulfills the following 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.  LU-P-28: Continue to use natural and man-made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines.
 LU-P-42: Develop scenic corridor and gateway guidelines that will maintain the agricultural character of Visalia at its urban fringe.

Review of LU-P-21
68  Staff supports continued efforts to proceed with the established boundaries, and proven growth management policies of the GP because:
 Adopted growth management plan is perfected through Growth Boundary Tiers,  Has served the residents and development community by offering a smart growth pattern, preventing sprawl and unnecessary burdens on infrastructure and circulation.
 Staff hold that the explicit thresholds of policy LU-P-21 continue to be applied and that movement to or processing of Tier III projects remain premature since:
 Existing approved projects and the undeveloped land inventory continue to provide development in a logical manner in both Tiers I and II Review of LU-P-21
69 5IBOL ZPV
2025
City of Visalia - Planning Division
70 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 25-0363 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Updates to City regulations and zoning districts that allow emergency shelters, in fulfillment of General Plan Housing Element Implementation Program 5.2 and Assembly Bill 2339.

Prepared by:

Brandon Smith, Principal Planner, (559) 713-4636, [email protected] Paul Bernal, Planning and Community Preservation Director, (559) 713-4025, [email protected]
Department Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission consider the information provided in the staff report and provide comments and guidance as directed.

Recommendations provided by the City Council will be used as a basis for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to confirm one or more new zone districts where emergency shelters are permitted “by- right”.

Summary:

Assembly Bill (AB) 2339, passed in 2022 (see Attachment 1 for full text), places new requirements on the regulation of emergency shelters and requires cities to identify one or more zones allowing residential uses, including mixed uses, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use permit (CUP) or other discretionary permit and that are suitable for residential uses.

The identified zoning designation(s) shall include “sufficientsites”meeting the requirements of having sufficient site capacity, which is assessed based upon the City’s count of persons experiencing homelessness from the most recent point-in-time count.

The bill also limits the types of standards that shelters shall be subject to, such as maximum number of beds, length of stay, parking, and provisions of security and onsite management.

When defining a zoning designation where emergency shelters are allowed by-right, a City shall identify a zone that contains:
· vacant sites zoned for residential use, or
· a zone that contains vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development. This latter option can only be selected if it can demonstrate that the designation is located near amenities and services, which may include:
o health care,
o transportation,
o retail,
o employment, and
Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™
71 File #: 25-0363 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 2.
o social services.

Before the passage of AB 2339, the City identified the Light Industrial (I-L) zone as the one zone that allows emergency shelters as a permitted use; however, it is not located near all the amenities and services listed above. Because Visalia’scode does not comply with this new legislation, one or more new zones must be identified.

Assembly Bill 2339 is tied to the state’shousing element legislation; in fact, the new code section (Government Code 65583(a)(4)) is tucked in with the list of required contents of a housing element.

Therefore, when Visalia adopted its 6th cycle Housing Element in 2023, an implementation program (Program 5.2) was included to update the Zoning Ordinance to comply with this code section by the end of 2025.

For background purposes, emergency shelters and low barrier navigation centers are defined as follows:
"Emergency shelter" means housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. "Low barrier navigation center" shall have the same meaning as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 65660, specifically a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. "Low barrier" means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to, the following.

1. The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth.

2. Pets.

3. The storage of possessions.

4. Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms.

Prior Zoning Text Update by City Council for Emergency Shelters and LBNC:

In 2021, in response to the prior 5th cycle Housing Element update, City staff processed a Zoning Text Amendment to consider additional zoning districts or locations for the permitted ‘by-right’or conditionally allowed use of emergency shelters and low barrier navigation centers and develop performance standards for these uses.

The City Council and Planning Commission held a work session to discuss these matters and to provide direction on potential updates to the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Text Amendment, adopted April 18, 2022, resulted in the adoption of new performance standards for both uses; however, no new zones were selected other than retaining the I-L zone as the required zone where emergency shelters would be permitted by-right, though the Service Commercial and Commercial Mixed Use zones were added as zones where emergency shelters are subject to the CUP process.

Since the new law under AB 2339 limits the types of standards that emergency shelters (which by Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™
72 File #: 25-0363 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 2.

Since the new law under AB 2339 limits the types of standards that emergency shelters (which by definition includes navigation centers) shall be subject to, certain standards from the 2022 Zoning Text Amendment must be revised or removed.

Current Allowed Locations of Emergency Shelters and Navigation Centers:

The current allowed locations for both uses are as follows:
| Permitted | Conditionally Allowed
Emergency Shelters | - Light Industrial | - Service Commercial | | - Commercial Mixed Use
| | - Quasi-Public
Low Barrier | - Downtown Mixed Use | - All other Commercial, Navigation Centers | - Commercial Mixed Use| - Office, and Industrial Zones | | - Quasi-Public
Zoning and Capacity Analysis of Emergency Shelters:
a) Sufficient Sites Capacity. Government Code Sections 65583(a)(4)(I) and (a)(4)(J)(7) state that the zoning designation where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use shall have sufficient sites, assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in -time count conducted before the start of the planning period.

Visalia had a point-in-time count of 434 persons in 2023 (reference: Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance 2023 P.I.T. count report, page 47. Accessed at https://www.kthomelessalliance.org/pit).

State law further states that the number of persons that can be accommodated on any site shall be demonstrated by dividing the square footage of the site by a minimum of 200 square feet per person.

This would translate to a site or combined sites having a minimum area of 86,800 square feet (434 * 200), or 1.99 acres. For reference, Visalia Navigation Center (3525 N. Court Street) accommodates 100 persons within a 19,883 square foot building on a 2.91-acre site.

As shown in the table below, most of Visalia’snon-residential zones have more than ample vacant land (i.e. 40 or more acres). The Downtown Mixed Use (D-MU) zone only has 3 acres of undeveloped land, which is one acre above the minimum area. The Office Conversion (O-C zone) has no vacant land.

C-N C-R C-S C-MU D-MU O-PA O-C BRP I-L I QP
# Acres Vacant
Land
40 114 97 237 3 42 0 87 88 1370 90
Scores 0-
none
1-low 2-
med
3-high
Source: City Council Item Transmittal: Update on Remaining Acreage in Tier 1. 4/6/2020.Tables 2, 2-2, 3, and 4; GIS layer “Parcels_Dev_Undev_2020” (for QP zone)
b) Zoning Analysis. Government Code Sections 65583(a)(4)(H) states that the zone designation(s) where emergency shelters are allowed by-right shall contain vacant sites zoned for residential use, or vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development that can demonstrate that the designation is located near certain types of amenities and services. The following is a brief analysis of Visalia’szones for residential and nonresidential use for exploring which zones could Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™
73 File #: 25-0363 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 2.
comply with state law.

Visalia’sthree residential zones, R-1-5, R-M-2, and R-M-3, all have more than ample vacant land and are therefore eligible for being zones where emergency shelters may be allowed by-right. While the residential zones are viable in the city and meet state law requirement, the sites’proximity to existing residents have the potential to impact the most people and could lead to impacts upon established neighborhoods if an emergency shelter is not properly managed.

Regarding Visalia’s non-residential zones, staff has analyzed the availability of amenities and services in each zone. It should be noted that state law says the zoning designation “may include” these five types of amenities and services, or that “the local government will provide free transportation to services or offer services onsite”. The table below illustrates the suitability of each amenity / service in each zone, scored on a level of 0 to 3, and provides a grand total, with 15 being the highest possible score for a zone. Attachment 2 contains references and listings of providers that were the basis of the rankings.

C-N C-R C-S C-MU D-MU O-PA O-C BRP I-L I QP
Health Care 0 1 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 2
Transportation 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 2
Retail 2 3 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Employment 1 3 2 2 3 2 0 1 1 3 1
Social Services 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 1
TOTAL 5 9 3 12 13 9 2 2 2 5 6
Scores: 0=none 1=low 2=med 3=high
As illustrated above, the Commercial Mixed Use (C-MU) and Downtown Mixed Use (D-MU) zones rank among the highest and are the only zones which contain all types of amenities and services. As previously noted, the D-MU zone only scarcely meets the vacant land requirement. The Regional Commercial (C-R) and Office Professional / Administrative (O-PA) zones rank the next highest.

While these zones respectively do not offer social services or retail, the City could make the case that these zones include a strong presence of all but one of the listed amenities and services, and that all have transportation which can be used to access the balance of the services.

The following zones would not be suitable for the reasons described:
· Neighborhood Commercial: Does not contain or is within proximity of any health care or social services, and is in proximity to only a limited number of businesses/employment centers, including Walmart and Save Mart.
· Service Commercial: Does not contain or is within proximity of any health care, retail, or social services, and has no transit service east of Ben Maddox Way. · Office Conversion: Has no available vacant land; does not contain or is within proximity of any health care, retail, employment, or social services.
· Business Research Park: Does not contain or is within proximity of any health care, retail, or Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™
74 File #: 25-0363 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 2.
social services.
· Light Industrial & Industrial: Does not contain or is within proximity of any health care, retail, or social services, and has limited transit services within the industrial park. · Quasi-Public: Does not contain or is within proximity of any retail, and has limited access to employment and social services.

Recommend Changes to Performance Standards:

Housing Element Implementation Program 5.2 list out the specific revision which need to be made to the City’s regulations pertaining to Emergency Shelters in order to become compliant with Government Code section 65583(a)(4), as amended by AB 2339. These are listed below together with the specific changes that will be made to the Municipal Code in a forthcoming Zoning Text Amendment. Changes to City of Visalia Municipal Code, as specified by underline & italics for additions and strikeout for deletions.
• Amend the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters by-right (without conditional or other discretionary permit) with appropriate development standards in a zone that allows residential uses, is in proximity to transportation and services, and contains sufficient capacity to meet the need identified in the annual PIT count; provide capacity analysis compliant with State law. (Compliance with GC §65583(a)(4)(C) and §65583(a)(7))
See the Zoning and Capacity Analysis.
• Amend the Zoning Code to expand the definition of emergency shelter to include interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care. (Compliance with GC §65583(a)(4)(C)) Changes are recommended to Chapter 17.04 Definitions as follows:
"Emergency shelter" means housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. For purposes of this definition, “emergencyshelter”shall include other interim interventions, including, but not limited to, a navigation center, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care. •Amend parking standards to require only the number of spaces sufficient for all staff working in the facility and no more than what is required of residential and commercial uses in the same zone. (Compliance with GC §65583(a)(4)(B)(ii))
Changes are recommended to Section 17.32.130(D)(2) as follows. The code would be changed to require one (1) vehicle parking space per employee. Bicycle parking provisions would remain unchanged.

D. Standards for permitted by-right uses. The standards in this subsection must apply to any emergency shelter that is a use permitted by-right. These standards shall be used as guidelines for any emergency shelter that is a use conditionally allowed in other zones, wherein a deviation from any such standard may be requested and considered as part of an application for conditional use permit.

1. Beds. The maximum number of beds for an emergency shelter as a use permitted by- Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™
75 File #: 25-0363 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 2.

1. Beds. The maximum number of beds for an emergency shelter as a use permitted by- right is one hundred (100).

2. Parking. One (1) vehicle parking space shall be provided per ten (10) beds and one (1) parking space shall be provided per employee. Up to five (5) visitor spaces shall be provided for service providers based on the actual need as determined by the city. The City Planner has the authority to require an extra one (1) vehicle parking space per ten (10) beds for emergency shelters established in response to a natural or man-made disaster. A covered and secured area for bicycle parking shall be provided for use by staff and clients; commensurate with demonstrated need, but no less than a minimum of eight (8) bike parking spaces. •Amend the Zoning Code to reduce the minimum proximity to other emergency shelters, schools, or low barrier navigation centers to 300 feet. (Compliance with GC §65583(a)(4)(B)(v)) Changes are recommended to Section 17.32.130(C)(1) and (C)(2) as follows. This results in the distance being reduced from the current regulation of a 1,000-foot separation. The site development standard regarding distances from a front property line of any existing dwelling unit has also been removed.

C. Site development standards. The following standards are applicable to any permitted by right or conditionally allowed emergency shelter.

1. An emergency shelter may not be located closer than one thousand (1,000) three hundred (300) feet to a school (a school is herein defined as an existing or planned public or parochial elementary school, middle school, high school, or licensed day care facility) or another emergency shelter or low barrier navigation center.

2. An emergency shelter may not be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to the front property line of any existing dwelling unit.
•Amend the Zoning Code to remove the requirement that shelters incorporate a seven-foot perimeter wall on any sides abutting residential uses. (Compliance with GC §65583(a)(4)(B), since this requirement is not on the list of allowable objective standards that local governments can impose.) Changes are recommended to Section 17.32.130(C)(3) as follows. The entire section will be removed.

3. An emergency shelter shall incorporate a seven (7) foot height perimeter wall constructed of concrete block, brick or stucco if the shelter is adjacent to any dwelling units.

The perimeter wall is only required on sides abutting residential uses.

Required Update to Navigation Centers:

In 2019, Assembly Bill (AB) 101 became law in California and specifically mandated low barrier navigation centers (LBNCs; generally speaking, a service-oriented shelter) to be permitted-by-right in mixed use zones and in non-residential zones permitting multi-family housing. Thus, under state law, two mixed zone districts in Visalia permit LBNCs by-right: Downtown Mixed Use and Commercial Mixed Use.

Staff interpreted in the 2021 ZTA that since the City allows multi-family residential uses in any non- residential zone with a CUP, LBNCs by extension would be conditionally permitted in these zones (i.e. all Commercial, Office, and Industrial zones). However, upon review of the current Housing Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™
76 File #: 25-0363 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 2.
(i.e. all Commercial, Office, and Industrial zones). However, upon review of the current Housing Element, it was determined that LBNCs must be allowed “by-right”in these zones as well. Therefore, the current Housing Element includes Implementation Program No. 5.8 to amend all nonresidential zones to allow LBNCs by-right.

An alternative path toward compliance with State law with regard to LNBCs would be to amend the Zoning Ordinance’sZone Use Table to change one or more non-residential zones from allowing multi -family residential uses with a CUP to not allowed. This type of approach may have some impact on City practice since in the last 20+ years there have been a few requests (e.g. once every two years) for multi-family residential uses in non-residential zones. Zone districts that have the recipient of CUPs for multi-family uses have been the Downtown Mixed Use zone, Commercial Mixed Use zone, Regional Commercial zone, Neighborhood Commercial zone, and Office Professional/Administrative zone. By comparison, there has historically only been one request to allow a LBNC in the City (i.e.

Visalia Navigation Center, which located in the Commercial Mixed Use where by State law must be a permitted use. It should be further noted that three non-commercial zones - Downtown Mixed Use, Commercial Mixed Use, and Regional Commercial - contain sites on the Housing Element “RHNA” site inventory.

Next Steps:

Recommendations and direction provided to staff will be used as a basis for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to revise the zone district(s) where emergency shelters and low barrier navigation centers will be permitted by-right and/or conditionally allowed will be formally noticed and heard as a public hearing item before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I recommend that staff proceed with initiating a Zone Text Amendment that would allow emergency shelters to be permitted by-right in the (per Council Direction) zone.

Attachments:

1. Full text of Assembly Bill 2339

2. Reference sheet containing listings of providers and sources of information Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™
77 Attachment 1:

Sections of AB 2339 Pertaining to Emergency Shelters

Assembly Bill No. 2339
CHAPTER 654
An act to amend Sections 65583 and 65863 of the Government Code, relating to land use. [ Approved by Governor September 28, 2022. Filed with Secretary of State September 28, 2022. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2339, Bloom. Housing element: emergency shelters: regional housing need. (1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city that includes a housing element. Existing law requires that the housing element identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of a community. Existing law also requires that the housing element include an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels.

This bill would revise the requirements of the housing element, as described above, in connection with zoning designations that allow residential use, including mixed use, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The bill would delete language regarding emergency shelter standards structured in relation to residential and commercial developments and instead require that emergency shelters only be subject to specified written, objective standards. The bill would specify that emergency shelters for purposes of these provisions include other interim intervention, including, but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care.

The bill would require that identified zoning designations where emergency shelters are allowed to include sites that meet at least one of certain prescribed standards. In this regard, the bill would require those sites to be either (1) vacant and zoned for residential use; (2) vacant and zoned for nonresidential use if the local government can demonstrate how the sites are located near amenities and services that serve people experiencing homelessness; or (3) nonvacant if the site is suitable for use as a shelter in the current planning period, as specified. The bill would also authorize a local government to accommodate its need for emergency shelters on sites owned by the local government if it demonstrates that the sites will be made available for emergency shelter during the planning period, they are suitable for residential use, and the sites are located near amenities, as specified. The bill would require the identified zoning designations to include sufficient sites to accommodate the need for shelters, as specified. The bill would also require that the number of people experiencing homelessness that can be accommodated on each identified site under these provisions be demonstrated by dividing the square footage of the site by a minimum of 200 square feet per person, except as specified. 78 Attachment 1:

Sections of AB 2339 Pertaining to Emergency Shelters

(2) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city, county, or city and county to ensure that its housing element inventory, as described, or its housing element program to make sites available, as described, can accommodate its share of the regional housing need at all times throughout the planning period.

This bill would require each city, county, or city and county to ensure that its housing element inventory or its housing element program can accommodate its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need and any remaining unaccommodated portion of the regional housing need, as defined, from the prior planning period, at all times throughout the planning period.

Existing law also prohibits a city, county, or city and county from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential density to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, unless the city, county, or city and county makes specified written findings supported by substantial evidence.

The bill would instead prohibit a city, county, or city and county from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential density to a lower residential density for any parcel identified to meet its current share of the regional housing need or any unaccommodated portion of the regional housing need, as defined, from the prior planning period, unless the city, county, or city and county makes specified written findings supported by substantial evidence. (3) By imposing various new duties on local governments with regard to the administration of housing elements, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES

Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

79 Attachment 1:

Sections of AB 2339 Pertaining to Emergency Shelters

SECTION 1.

Section 65583 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65583.

The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The element shall contain all of the following:
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include all of the following:
(4) (A) The identification of one or more zoning designations that allow residential uses, including mixed uses, where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit and that are suitable for residential uses.

The identified zoning designations shall include sufficient sites meeting the requirements of subparagraph (H) with sufficient capacity, as described in subparagraph (I), to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7), except that each local government shall identify a zoning designation or designations that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter. If the local government cannot identify a zoning designation or designations with sufficient capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing element. The local government may identify additional zoning designations where emergency shelters are permitted with a conditional use permit. The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, development, and management standards that apply to emergency shelters are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. (B) Emergency shelters shall only be subject to the following written, objective standards:
(i) The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility.
(ii) Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. (iii) The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas.
80 Attachment 1:

Sections of AB 2339 Pertaining to Emergency Shelters

(iv) The provision of onsite management.
(v) The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart.
(vi) The length of stay.
(vii) Lighting.
(viii) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation. (C) For purposes of this paragraph, “emergency shelter” shall include other interim interventions, including, but not limited to, a navigation center, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care.
(D) The permit processing, development, and management standards applied under this paragraph shall not be deemed to be discretionary acts within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(E) If a local government has adopted written, objective standards pursuant to subparagraph (B), the local government shall include an analysis of the standards in the analysis of constraints pursuant to paragraph (5).
(F) A local government that can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the department, the existence of one or more emergency shelters either within its jurisdiction or pursuant to a multijurisdictional agreement that can accommodate that jurisdiction’s need and the needs of the other jurisdictions that are a part of the agreement for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) may comply with the zoning requirements of subparagraph (A) by identifying a zoning designation where new emergency shelters are allowed with a conditional use permit.
(G) A local government with an existing ordinance or ordinances that comply with this paragraph shall not be required to take additional action to identify zoning designations for emergency shelters. The housing element must only describe how existing ordinances, policies, and standards are consistent with the requirements of this paragraph.
(H) The zoning designation or designations where emergency shelters are allowed, as described in subparagraph (A), shall include sites that meet at least one of the following standards:
(i) Vacant sites zoned for residential use.
(ii) Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development, if the local government can demonstrate how the sites with this zoning designation that are being used to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1) are located near 81 Attachment 1:

Sections of AB 2339 Pertaining to Emergency Shelters

amenities and services that serve people experiencing homelessness, which may include,
• health care,
• transportation,
• retail,
• employment, and
• social services,
• or that the local government will provide free transportation to services or offer services onsite.
(iii) Nonvacant sites zoned for residential use or for nonresidential use that allow residential development that are suitable for use as a shelter in the current planning period, or which can be redeveloped for use as a shelter in the current planning period. A nonvacant site with an existing use shall be presumed to impede emergency shelter development absent an analysis based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. The analysis shall consider current market demand for the current uses, market conditions, and incentives or standards to encourage shelter development. (I) The zoning designation or designations shall have sufficient sites meeting the requirements of subparagraph (H) to accommodate the need for shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). The number of people experiencing homelessness that can be accommodated on any site shall be demonstrated by dividing the square footage of the site by a minimum of 200 square feet per person, unless the locality can demonstrate that one or more shelters were developed on sites that have fewer square feet per person during the prior planning period or the locality provides similar evidence to the department demonstrating that the site can accommodate more people experiencing homelessness. Any standard applied pursuant to this subparagraph is intended only for calculating site capacity pursuant to this section, and shall not be constructed as establishing a development standard applicable to the siting, development, or approval of a shelter.
(J) Notwithstanding subparagraph (H), a local government may accommodate the need for emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7) on sites owned by the local government if it demonstrates with substantial evidence that • the sites will be made available for emergency shelter during the planning period, • they are suitable for residential use, and
• the sites are located near amenities and services that serve people experiencing homelessness, which may include
o health care,
o transportation,
o retail,
82 Attachment 1:

Sections of AB 2339 Pertaining to Emergency Shelters

o employment, and
o social services, or
o that the local government will provide free transportation to services or offer services onsite.

(7) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period, the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go unused on an average monthly basis within a one-year period, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions. The need for emergency shelter may be reduced by the number of supportive housing units that are identified in an adopted 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness and that are either vacant or for which funding has been identified to allow construction during the planning period. An analysis of special housing needs by a city or county may include an analysis of the need for frequent user coordinated care housing services.

83 Attachment 2:

Reference sheet containing listing of providers and sources of information Health Care
Name Address Zone
Family HealthCare Network 400 East Oak Avenue D-MU
Visalia Medical Clinic 5400 West Hillsdale Avenue O-PA
Kaweah Health Hospital 400 West Mineral King Avenue D-MU United Health Center 4038 South Mooney Blvd C-R
Visalia Health Care Center 2611 North Dinuba Boulevard C-MU Kaweah Health Urgent Care 3600 West Flagstaff Avenue O-PA Kaweah Health Prompt Care 1110 South Ben Maddox Way C-MU Kaweah Health Urgent Care 1633 South Court Street O-PA
Kaweah Health South Acres Campus 820 South Akers Street O-PA Transportation
The City of Visalia transit map was utilized to determine the extent of each zone district covered by transit. https://www.visalia.city/depts/general_services/transit/bus_map_and_schedule_information/default.asp Retail
Refer to City of Visalia Zoning Map and Zone Use Table of the Zoning Ordinance Top Employers Number of Employees Zone
Tulare County 5,105 D-MU, O-PA
Kaweah Delta Medical Center 4,550 D-MU, O-PA
Visalia Unified School District 2,913 R, QP, O-PA
Visalia Mall 1,200 C-R
VF Outdoor 1,012 I
Walmart 840 C-MU, C-R, C-N
Graphic Packaging 757 I
College of the Sequoias 705 QP
City of Visalia 646 D-MU, C-S
UPS 600 I
Social Services
Name Address Zone
TulareWORKs (CalWORKs) 1845 North Dinuba Boulevard C-MU Child Welfare Services 6330 South Mooney Blvd., Ste. 104 C-MU Child Welfare Services 3346 West Mineral King Avenue O-PA Veterans Service Office 3348 West Mineral King Avenue O-PA Dept of Child Support Services 8040 West Doe Avenue I
Social Security Administration 1901 East Noble Avenue C-MU Family Services of Tulare County Various D-MU
First 5 Tulare County 816 West Acequia Avenue D-MU
84 + P J O U
. F F U J O H
P G
$ J U Z
$ P V O D J M
B O E
1 M B O O J O H
$ P N N J T T J P O
City of Visalia
August 19, 2025
Agenda Item 2: Emergency Shelters
85 Consider updates to City regulations and Zoning Districts, Provide guidance, as directed, to comply with AB 2339
Housing Element Program 5.2: Emergency Shelters
• Identify one or more permitted by-right zones that:
• Are suitable for residential uses
• Has sufficient sites capacity
• If non-residential zoning, is located near specified amenities and services
• Re-consider Visalia’s regulations / performance standards Currently Permitted in I-L; Conditional in C-S, C-MU, QP AGENDA ITEM #2
86 Emergency Shelters are currently:
• Permitted in I-L
• Conditionally Allowed in C-S, C-MU, QP
AGENDA ITEM #2
87 Identify one or more permitted by-right zones that:
• Are suitable for residential uses
All zones (Residential, Commercial, Office, Industrial) allow residential uses by right or by CUP
• Have sufficient sites capacity
Vacant land within the zone, with the amount based upon the Homeless Point-in-Time Count
• (For non-residential zones) Are located near specified amenities and services , which may include:
o health care,
o transportation,
o retail,
o employment
o social services

ZONING / CAPACITY ANALYSIS
88 Visalia’s zone designation must have 1.99 acres of sites based on:
• Visalia’s point-in time count of 434 persons
• Minimum of 200 square feet per person
• Equal to 86,800 square feet (1.99 acres)
Vacant Land:

Conclusion:
• All zones except Office Conversion have sufficient sites

SUFFICIENT SITES CAPACITY

C-N C-R C-S C-MU D-MU O-PA O-C BRP I-L I QP
# Acres Vacant Land 40 114 97 237 3 42 0 87 88 1370 90
89 Permitted-by-right Zoning designation(s) must be either:
• vacant sites zoned for residential use, or
• vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development that can demonstrate that the designation is located near certain types of amenities and services
Residential Zones:
• All three zones, R-1-5, R-M-2 & R-M-3 have ample vacant land • However, proximity to existing residents has potential to impact residents & neighborhoods if shelter is not properly managed

ZONING ANALYSIS
90 Non-Residential Zones:
• Best Suited: Commercial Mixed Use & Downtown Mixed Use • Next Best: Regional Commercial & Office
• Where C-R lacks social services & O-PA lacks retail, the City may advocate that these zones include a strong presence of all but one of the listed amenities and services & that all have transportation to access the balance of the services

ZONING ANALYSIS

C-N C-R C-S C-MU D-MU O-PA O-C BRP I-L I QP
Health Care 0 1 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 2
Transportation 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 2
Retail 2 3 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Employment 1 3 2 2 3 2 0 1 1 3 1
Social Services 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 1
TOTAL 5 9 3 12 13 9 2 2 2 5 6
Scores: 0=none 1=low 2=med 3=high
91 Program 5.2 lists revisions needing to be made to the City’s regulations to comply with GC 65583(a)(4) as amended by AB 2339
• Expand the definition of emergency shelter
• Require only parking spaces sufficient for staff workers, no more than what is required of residential & commercial uses in the same zone
• Reduce the minimum proximity to other emergency shelters, schools, or low barrier navigation centers [from 1,000 feet] to 300 feet
• Remove the requirement of a perimeter wall abutting residential uses (this requirement is not on the list of allowable objective standards that local governments can impose.)

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
92 • "Emergency shelter" means housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. • An emergency shelter shall include other interim interventions, including, but not limited to, a navigation center, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care • "Low barrier navigation center" means a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. "Low barrier" means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to, the following.

1. The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth.

2. Pets.

3. The storage of possessions.

4. Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms.

DEFINITIONS
93 Project Number
• Location Info
• Info
• Info
• Info

LOCATION DESCRIPTION

NAVIGATION CENTERS
Program 5.8 includes update to revise City Municipal Code to comply with Assembly Bill 101 (2019)
• AB 101 mandates LBNCs to be permitted-by-right in mixed use zones & non-residential zones permitting multi-family housing • ZTA will correct staff’s original interpretation, making LBNCs permitted-by-right in non-residential zones
Alternative path toward compliance
• As part of ZTA, change one or more non-residential zones from allowing multi-family by CUP to not allowed
• Drawback = Impacts City practice of granting CUP for multi-family uses in various zones
94 Get direction from Council
and Commission.

The recommendations will
be the basis for an
upcoming Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment
Public Hearings will be
noticed and scheduled to
Planning Commission by
November / December

NEXT STEPS
95 5IBOL ZPV
City of Visalia - Planning Division
96 97
98 99
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.

Agenda Item Wording:

Updates to City regulations and zoning districts to allow for a mix of dwelling types and sizes, including limited promotion of missing middle-density housing types, and to the public hearing requirements related to parcel maps and large multi-family uses, in fulfillment of General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs 2.7 and 3.17.

Prepared by:

Brandon Smith, Principal Planner, (559) 713-4636, [email protected] Paul Bernal, Planning and Community Preservation Director, (559) 713-4025, [email protected]
Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission consider the information provided in the report and provide comments and guidance as directed.

Recommendations provided by the City Council will be used as a basis for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to adopt revised residential development standards to encourage the development of housing types affordable to the local workforce, fulfillment of Housing Element Implementation Program 2.7 and 3.17.

Program 2.7 Missing Middle Housing:

Visalia’s Housing Element Program 2.7 directs the City to conduct an evaluation of existing development standards in the Zoning Ordinance to identify potential constraints and potential incentives towards development of “missingmiddle housing”. The program entails public outreach to local developers, property owners, and non-profit agencies, and adopting revised standards for such development in 2025.

Missing middle housing is characterized by a range of low to medium density range housing types, such as duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and cottage homes, located within residential neighborhoods and providing a more affordable alternative to the local workforce. They may also include a triplex or a fourplex on a single lot. Figure 1 below provides an illustration of unit types typically associated with missing middle housing. According to the National League of Cities ( <https://www.nlc.org/article/2024/01/23/what-is-missing-middle-housing/>), this housing supply is considered “missing” because such building types have often been illegal or difficult to build since the innovation of single-family zoning in the 1940s. Thus, much of the existing middle housing stock built prior to the 1940s is experiencing a decline in quality, safety, and accessibility. The target audience for missing middle housing can span from singles and young couples to baby boomers and retirees, who may not be willing to take on the cost and maintenance burden of a detached single-family home.

Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 1 of 11
powered by Legistar™
100
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.

The density and composition of missing middle housing can vary based on the setting of the community. Housing in a more urban and/or walkable area of the city could entail multi-unit and multi -story structures. Conversely, housing in existing single-family neighborhoods could entail smaller detached dwelling units or duplexes developed in a manner that maintains the neighborhood’s existing character. The latter example has to an extent been sanctioned in California through accessory dwelling units (ADUs), Senate Bill (SB) 9 ministerial duplexes, and SB 9 ministerial lot splits.

Visalia already has a track record of approving units through SB 9 and updating its ADU ordinance to be compatible with State law. Program 2.7 calls for the City to adopt revised standards to incentivize such development, particularly in “high resource, low-density, infill parcels”. High resource areas, while not defined in Program 2.7, could be inferred to, in the context of the Housing Element, as areas with positive economic, educational, and environmental outcomes, as considered by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).

In Visalia, the predominant housing product being constructed throughout the City are single-family detached houses - be it on traditional sized lots or in small lot subdivisions - followed by apartment- style multi-family residences. Only a small percentage of units being constructed are in other forms of housing, such as ADUs or duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes.

Following is a breakdown of units by housing type among permits issued between 2020 and 2024:

Residential Permit Category 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025* Single-Family Houses 599 632 540 317 236 349
Units in Structures with 5+ units 0 76 615 12 307 10
Units in Structures with 2-4 units 6 126 76 0 20 22
Accessory Dwelling Units 2 5 16 22 37 21
* 2025 is through August 1, 2025
Direction Sought on Missing Middle Housing
Based on the information as noted above, and to identify ways to establish provisions to implement Program 2.7, staff seeks direction and comments on whether the City of Visalia should consider expanding its range of building types in high resource, infill parts of the City. If directed to proceed, further direction is needed on which focus area the City of Visalia should seek to promote and/or allow for a greater mix of dwelling units and sizes. Two types of areas that could be considered for an expansion of unit types are described here:

1. Areas and neighborhoods that are more walkable and within close proximity to locally Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 2 of 11
powered by Legistar™
101
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.

1. Areas and neighborhoods that are more walkable and within close proximity to locally serving retail and transportation options, that have a zoning designation of R-1 and/or Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) and have traditional lot sizes (e.g. 5,000 to 10,000 square feet). (See Attachment 1 for map location.)
To incentivize parcels that are already in close proximity to retail and transit, the Council may consider allowing more diverse housing options such as duplexes, triplexes, courtyard buildings, and townhomes.

This example is the closest resemblance to the national concept that has been coined as “Missing Middle Housing”, defined as “house-scale buildings with multiple units in walkable neighborhoods”. (reference:<https://missingmiddlehousing.com/about-2/>) Attachment 1 is included for the intent to illustrate heavily travelled corridors with transit that provide access to locally serving retail. The areas shown in buffer represent a 100-foot buffer from transit lines. Residential-zoned parcels within these buffers, together with parcels within the Downtown Mixed Use zone containing residential uses, could be incentivized.

2. Infill areas with undeveloped or underdeveloped lots, that have a zoning designation of R-1-5 and have larger lot sizes (for example, 20,000 square feet and above). (See Attachment 2 for locations and clusters of R-1-5-zoned lots with >20,000 sq. ft.) To incentivize under-developed lots or vacant bypassed parcels, the Council may consider allowing, in limited cases, missing middle housing on larger-sized lots as a “by-right”use, without having to subdivide a lot. Large size lots frequently have surplus land that is vacant or is underdeveloped, thereby not being used to its highest and best potential. Planning staff has found that such lots are interspersed throughout the City, and in some circumstances already have more than one dwelling unit on them.

As shown on Attachment 2, infill sites that are undeveloped or underdeveloped are interspersed throughout the city, but more so in the northeast and southeast quadrants. Other sites are located in the vicinity of Walnut & Chinowth, Mineral King & Linwood, and Hurley north of Chinowth.

The code change would introduce opportunities for these lots to increase the number of dwelling units, while maintaining development within the range of the Low Density Residential land use designation (i.e., 2 to 10 dwelling units per acre).

Sites having a zoning of R-1-12.5 and R-1-20 would be excluded since these areas are predominantly developed as established neighborhoods and since their zoning intends for only one unit on larger lot sizes.

Missing middle housing types that could be considered for these lots could be one or more of the following: duplexes, triplexes, and cottage homes. A maximum unit count could be imposed based on site area (e.g. one unit for every 5,000 square feet, not to exceed 8 units per site).

If implemented, any new construction of missing middle housing would be subject to the City’s recently adopted objective design standards. Additionally, staff would recommend adding criteria to ensure that the construction of MMH is in areas that are best suited for meeting their objectives, such as affordability and accessibility. Units within gated communities generally do not fall into this context.

Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 3 of 11
powered by Legistar™
102
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.

Alternative: Zoning Ordinance Amendments to streamline Single-family Development As an alternative to Examples 1 and 2 above, direction could be provided to implementing amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that support and further streamline the types of units allowed in Visalia’sResidential (i.e., R-1-5, R-M-2 and R-M-3) and Mixed Use (i.e., D-MU and C-MU) zones, which already include ADUs, duplexes, small lots, and townhomes.

The suggested amendments below would be in keeping with the language of Housing Element Program 2.7, which states “the City shall evaluate zoning standards related to minimum lot size and width, maximum lot coverage, required setbacks, open space and landscaping requirements, and parking ratios”.

The following suggestions are crafted for and fit directly to Visalia’s Zoning Ordinance. The objectives of these ideas are:
· To provide more clarity on allowed unit types and the development standards within the R-1-5 residential zone.
· To further streamline the approval process of residential entitlements on more routine actions in the Residential and Mixed Use zones, when it can be found that there are no land use compatibility issues.
· To provide more options for units to meet setback requirements in the Residential zones, particularly on lots that are constrained by lot depth.

Where potential changes to the City’sMunicipal Code are shown, new/additions to text is specified by underline & italics while deletions are specified by strikeout.

1. Rename the “Single-family residential zone - 5,000 square foot minimum site area” (abbreviated as R-1-5) to the “Single-family residential zone” (abbreviated as R-1).

Clean up language in the R-1 Zone regulations to clearly state that lots under 5,000 square foot site area are permitted.

The literal name of the R-1-5 zone implies that all lots shall have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet; however, the R-1-5 zone clearly allows for lots below 5,000 square feet as well.

Section 17.12.135 allows for single-family residences without a minimum lot size. The City has seen many examples of this type of development, often in the form of planned unit developments.

All development within the R-1-5 zone must comply with General Plan Policy LU-P-55, which allows for development at 2 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre in the zone.

Removing the “-5”lot size qualifier from the R-1-5 zone name will help provide a clearer message that single-family residential or low density residential development meeting the density range (2 to 10 units per acres) is allowed in the zone.

The zone names for R-1-12.5 and R-1-20, which respectively require lot sizes with a minimum of 12,500 and 20,000 square feet, would remain unchanged.

Changes would be made to Sections 17.06.010, 17.12.020, 17.12.040, and 17.12.050 as follows.

17.06.010 Establishment of zone names.

Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 4 of 11
powered by Legistar™
103
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.

A.4. Single-family residential zone - 5,000 square foot minimum site area, abbreviated as R-1-5;

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, including lots with lot area of 3,600 square feet and above if developed in accordance with Sections 17.12.135(A) and (B);

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. Planned developments are required to create lots having a lot area of 3,600 square feet or less, in accordance with Section 17.12.135(C).;

17.12.050 Site area.

The minimum site area shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Site Area
R-1-5 5,000 square feet, unless developed in accordance with Section 17.12.135.

R-1-12.5 12,500 square feet
R-1-20 20,000 square feet

2. Work to remove Planned Unit Development / Conditional Use Permit requirements for simple lot splits.

Over the past several years, the Planning Division has processed an ample number of tentative parcel maps for oversized residential properties, splitting the property between 2 and 4 parcels.

Lot splits that include the creation of an access easement require a Planned Unit Development (PUD), processed as a conditional use permit entitlement. In cases where a PUD is only needed to establish an easement and not to create common lots or to request a deviation from setbacks, or creation of private streets, the PUD process may be seen as an unnecessary additional entitlement which adds cost and processing but has no other practical application for development standard deviations.

The City could consider waiving the PUD requirement for lot splits that result in the creation of parcels without public street frontage (i.e. landlocked parcels) and require no more than the establishment of an access easement for vehicular or pedestrian purposes. The access easement would be allowed in lieu of meeting the R-1-5 zoning designation requirement of a minimum 40-foot public street frontage requirement.

Alternately, the City could allow the parcel map “by-right” without a tentative parcel map requirement.

Changes would be made to Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.28.040 and Zoning Ordinance Section 17.12.040 if directed to proceed with these updates.

3. Reduce the Single-Family Residential Zone’s 25-foot rear yard setback requirement, or apply a reduced rear yard setback for lots located on the interior of a subdivision (i.e. not Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 5 of 11
powered by Legistar™
104
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.
on the perimeter adjacent to existing developments).

Current development trends in the region and state have seen residential homebuilders request subdivisions with smaller average lot sizes, together with residential plots that would necessitate setbacks below City standard requirements. Visalia’ssingle-family setback requirements have remained unchanged since 2004, when an Ordinance was approved to reduce the 25-foot front yard setback to 15 feet for living space and 22 feet for front-loading garages. The setbacks for side yards (5 feet) and rear yards (25 feet, or 20 feet for one-story structures meeting open space requirements) have been in place for several decades.

Many California jurisdictions have adopted ordinance updates for rear yard setbacks of less than 25 feet. Rear yard setbacks in nearby large cities include 5 feet in Tulare (5,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), 10 feet in Fresno (5,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), and 20 feet in Clovis (6,000 sq. ft. min. lot size). In addition, recent trends for cities to accommodate missing middle housing have seen further reductions in rear yard setback requirements.

The City could consider a reduction in the minimum rear yard setback requirement to easily facilitate standard production plans onto lots within subdivisions in Visalia. The City has often been challenged to find solutions for homebuilders that cannot fit one or more of their production plans on lots, typically located on shallower cul-de-sac or knuckle lots, or when a homebuilder acquires a previously approved subdivision. Being that the City has often processed Variance entitlements to overcome plot plans not able to meet setbacks, a reduction in the minimum rear yard setback requirement would reduce staff’s workload in processing Variance applications.

Furthermore, if there is concern regarding the interface of new residences with reduced rear yard setbacks that back onto the rear yards of established residences, the City could further consider applying a reduced rear yard setback only to lots that do not back onto existing residences. New subdivisions could utilize a reduced rear yard setback requirement, except for those lots on the perimeter of the subdivision adjacent to existing developments or major roadways (i.e., arterial and collector streets).

4. Remove the Conditional Use Permit requirement for Multi-Family Residential development less than two acres in site area.

The City of Visalia’sR-M zones allow multi-family dwellings as a use permitted by-right, currently up to 80 units per site. While sites may be developed with multi-family dwellings as such, the City’sdevelopment standards for the R-M zones state that the division of any R-M zoned property less than two acres shall be approved as a part of a conditional use permit.

This standard may be considered as a constraint towards the development of multi-family residential opportunities by imposing a discretionary process on a use that would otherwise be a permitted by-right use. Furthermore, the standard implies that the development of such uses may be limited to only larger sites. This constraint is identified in the City’s6th Cycle Housing Element, and Program 5.8 in the Housing Element commits the City to amend its Zoning Ordinance to overcome this constraint.

Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 6 of 11
powered by Legistar™
105
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.

Staff therefore recommends that the ordinance be revised and reduce the two acre requirement.

Changes would be made to Section 17.16.050 as follows.

17.16.050 Site area and configuration.

A. The division of (R-M) multi-family residential property less than two (2) acres shall be approved as part of a conditional use permit. The minimum site area shall be 6,000 square feet. One-family dwellings may be allowed with a site area less than 6,000 square feet subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.

5. Remove the Multi-Family Residential Zone’s development standard for a minimum 10- foot side yard that provides access to more than one dwelling unit.

Visalia’s setback requirement for side yards in the multi-family residential zone is 5 feet, per Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.080. The following excerpt (Subsection B) of this regulation requires a larger side yard (minimum 10 feet) in circumstances as follows:

B. Side yard providing access to more than one dwelling unit shall be not less than ten feet.

This subsection is intended to apply when a side yard contains a pedestrian walkway that leads to and provides direct access to two or more dwelling units located within the site.

The Planning Division has found that this subsection tends to be overlooked when staff reviews designs of multi-family residential developments. While the subsection is intended to provide a wider, and thus more appealing entry within the site, it can conversely be seen as unutilized space that serves no purpose for requiring a greater setback. The setback can further be seen as creating an unnecessary hardship towards smaller sized parcels (e.g. under one-half acre).

As seen in the adjoining illustration labeled as Figure 2, the multi-family units’pedestrian walkway that provides access to multiple units towards the rear would be required to be built at a minimum 10- Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 7 of 11
powered by Legistar™
106
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.
foot setback from property line, rather than the 5-foot setback that is currently depicted.

Changes would be made to Section 17.16.080 as follows.

17.16.080 Side yards.

A. The minimum side yard for a permitted or conditional use shall be five feet subject to the exception that on the street side of a corner lot the side yard shall be not less than ten feet.

B. Side yard providing access to more than one dwelling unit shall be not less than ten feet.

6. Consider reduced parking space requirements for residential uses meeting certain criteria.

In 2022, the California legislature signed into law Assembly Bill 2097 which prohibits jurisdictions from mandating parking for land use projects that are located within one-half mile of a major stop.

In this context, major transit stops are defined as any major transit stop located at the intersection of two or more bus routes with a frequency of service of 15 minutes or less. In Visalia, Transit Route 1 is the City’s only transit route which meets the criteria In compliance with state law, the City has refrained from imposing parking minimums within a half mile distance of Route 1, despite that Visalia’sZoning Ordinance currently has not been updated to align with the parking exemptions under AB 2097.

Staff recommends in favor of adding language within the City’sParking Facilities Chapter of the Ordinance to address that properties meeting criteria under AB 2097 shall be exempt from parking requirements.

If the Council recommends in favor of extending allowing missing middle housing types on large sized R-1 zoned lots, as described in Section C above, then parking requirements for housing on these lots could be reconsidered to require 1.5 parking spaces per unit rather than 2 spaces per unit, which matches the City’s requirement for multi-family residential uses.

7. In Mixed Use Zones (D-MU and C-MU), remove Conditional Use Permit requirement when adding units to a site with established housing units.

The Zoning Ordinance currently allows new or expansion of residential uses as a conditionally allowed use in all of the City’scommercial, office, and industrial ones, including the Downtown Mixed Use (D-MU) and Commercial Mixed Use (C-MU) zones. In 2022, in response to a Housing Element program to find creative ways to allow residential uses as permitted by-right in these zones, a Zoning Text Amendment was approved to allow residential units as a “mixeduse”in an existing building containing one or more commercial or office uses.

In the past 10 years, City staff has processed two Conditional Use Permits which have added a new residential unit to a property in the D-MU zone with existing legally established units. The locations of these CUPs were at 117 E. Main Street and 405 N. West Street. The requests were approved by Planning Commission without concern or protest. In response to these recent requests, and in response to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that encourage a mix of Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 8 of 11
powered by Legistar™
107
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.
requests, and in response to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that encourage a mix of commercial, service, office, and residential land uses, Staff recommends expanding the ability for sites with pre-established residential uses to add to the number of dwelling units on the site as a use permitted by-right, rather than with a CUP. The basis for removing the discretionary component is that there would be no new land uses being introduced to these sites with pre- established residential uses, and thus surrounding land uses are already conditioned to having existing residential uses. Staff would further recommend that residences be allowed by-right subject to maintaining the General Plan’s density range requirements.

Changes would be made to Section 17.16.080 as follows.

Housing Element Program 3.17 Planning for Large Sites
The State has established that parcels intended to support the development of units appropriate for lower-income households should be between 0.5 and 10 acres. It is possible and has been demonstrated by Visalia that parcels over 10 acres can be developed with lower-income households; however, affordable housing developers may face greater challenges on such sites such as being unable to finance the scale of a larger project. In Visalia’s current Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Sites Inventory, there are six sites over 10 acres in size that have either Low or Moderate Income Level unit requirements.

In response to “largesites”over 10 acres, Housing Element Implementation Program 3.17 commits the City to take measures to facilitate and remove constraints toward parceling these sites to appropriate sizes (0.5 and 10 acres).

The objectives to be achieved by this program, as stated in the program, are as follows:

By 2025, adopt incentives to encourage the development of large RHNA sites (over 10 acres) potentially including, but not limited to,
Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 9 of 11
powered by Legistar™
108
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.
· expedited approval of lot splits or creation of new parcels; · waiving of the public hearing requirement related to parcel maps; · waiving of the public hearing requirement related to approval of large multifamily uses (provided the project is affordable by deed-restriction), · additional density bonus, lot coverage, or allowable height; · and fee waivers, reductions, or deferral.

Staff Recommendation:

Staff recommends that from the above list of objectives to assist with the development of large sites, a Text Amendment (to Visalia Municipal Code Title 16 Subdivisions) be initiated to waive the public hearing requirement (i.e. allow ministerial processing) for parcel maps that propose to divide large (i.e. minimum 10 acre) sites into smaller parcels (minimum 0.5 acres). Parcel maps may have ministerial approvals if they contain an R-M-2 or R-M-3 zoning designation, or if they have RHNA site inventory unit requirement for Lower or Moderate Income Level. This type of request would be similar to the SB 9 urban lot split process that the State has enacted ministerial approvals for, and which the City of Visalia has developed a track record for approving.

Staff would further recommend that the City Council provide guidance on any further incentives to encourage the development of large sites.

Zoning Text Amendment for Program 5.8:

For informational purposes, staff is providing a heads up of an upcoming ZTA associated with Program 5.8 to adopt state requirements. No direction is being sought on these updates since they are mandated in order to comply with State law.

Visalia’sHousing Element Program 5.8 directs the City to process Municipal Code Updates for a variety of regulations in order to come into compliance with state law. Therefore, staff will also be processing a separate Zoning Text Amendment before the end of 2025 (as required by the Housing Element) to complete the municipal code updates.

For the purpose of providing advance notice and disclosure to the Council and Commission , the list of Municipal Code Updates as defined in Program 5.8 is included as Attachment “C”.

Next Steps:

Recommendations provided will be used as a basis for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to adopt revised residential development standards to encourage the development of housing types affordable to the local workforce, in fulfillment of Housing Element Implementation Program 2.7, and to adopt revised parcel map requirements for large sites, in fulfillment of Housing Element Implementation Program 3.17. The Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment will be formally noticed and heard as a public hearing item before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 10 of 11
powered by Legistar™
109
File #: 25-0364 Agenda Date: 8/19/2025 Agenda #: 3.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I recommend to provide direction to staff in preparation of an upcoming Zoning Text Amendment to implement Housing Element Programs 2.7 and 3.17.

Attachments:

1. City map illustrating areas and neighborhoods that are more walkable and within close proximity to locally serving retail and transportation options

2. City map illustrating undeveloped or underdeveloped lots that have a zoning designation of R- 1-5 and have larger lot sizes (>20,000 square feet)

3. Housing Element Implementation Program 5.8
Visalia City Council Printed on 8/14/2025Page 11 of 11
powered by Legistar™
110
Giddings
Mooney
Pinkham
Mooney
Ben Maddox
Walnut
Akers
Dinuba
Riggin
Mooney
Demaree
K
Tulare
B
e
n
M
a
d
d
o
x
Pinkham
Goshen
Houston
Mineral King
Main
Main
Walnut
Walnut
Tulare
S
t
J
o
h
n
s
Pinkham
Mooney
Shirk
Tulare
Mooney
Ben Maddox
Noble
Noble
Houston
Demaree
Caldwell
Goshen
Mooney
Dinuba
Ferguson
Court
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Giddings
Akers
Houston
Tulare
Caldwell
Tulare
Lovers Lane
Court
Court
Burke
Willis
Demaree
Main
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
Hwy 198
Burke
Walnut
Woodland
Court
Linwood
West
Mill Creek
Tulare
Acequia
Chinowth
Linwood
L
i
n
w
o
o
d
Woodland
K
Divisadero
Court
Hall
Giddings
Demaree
Locust
Court
Santa Fe
Ave 280
Mooney
Dinuba
Ferguson
Tulare
Akers
St Johns
Court
Shirk
Mc Auliff
Lovers Lane
Locust
S t J o h n s
W
e
s
t
County Center
H o u s t o n
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
L
i
n
w
o
o
d
C
h
i
n
o
w
t
h
Walnut
Main
Akers
Tulare
West
M
c
A
u
l
i
f
f
B
e
n
M
a
d
d
o
x
Pinkham
Mooney
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
Lovers Lane
Mooney
Walnut
W h i t e n d a l e
R
o
e
b
e
n
Whitendale
Court
Pinkham
Linwood
Santa Fe
Cain
Houston
Demaree
Chinowth
F e r g u s o n
Ben Maddox
Akers
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
C
o
u
r
t
S t J o h n s
Tulare
Lovers Lane
Jacob
Roeben
Walnut
Divisadero
Rd 148
Campus
Demaree
Dinuba
A
k
e
r
s
Tower
Hurley
Main
Demaree
Court
Court
Rd 144
Conyer
Bridge
Court
Whitendale
Conyer
W a l n u t
Woodland
Willis
Santa Fe
Bridge
Locust
Santa Fe
M
u
r r a y
Conyer
Willis
Center
Locust
Noble
Murray
Main
B
u
r
k
e
Burke
Center
M
c
A
u
l
i
f
f
2nd
Caldwell
K
R
o
e
b
e
n
M u r r a
y
Giddings
Mineral King
Giddings
Mineral King
Santa Fe
L
o
v
e
r
s
L
a
n
e
Cain
Locust
Court
Mooney
M i n e r a l K i n g
Roeben
Santa Fe
C a l d w e l l
Court
Hurley
County Center
Riggin
Court
Ben Maddox
Lovers Lane
Chinowth
Dinuba
Akers
Mc Auliff
3rd
3rd
Chinowth
Mineral King
Goshen
West
Goshen
Tulare
Jacob
F
e
r g
u
s
o
n
Visalia
Mineral King
F e r g u s o n
Houston
Plaza
M
i l l C
r e e k
Doe
L
o
v
e
r
s
L
a
n
e
Houston
Walnut
Burke
M
i l l
C
r e
e
k
Pinkham
Houston Mooney
Ben Maddox
Ferguson
Houston
Giddings
K
W h i t e n d a l e
C a l d w e l l
Riggin
Whitendale
Visalia
C a m e r o n
Tulare
Court
Tulare
Noble
Mooney
Rd 148
Mooney
Tulare
Mineral King
Goshen
Houston
Mineral King
Riggin
Demaree
Walnut
N o b l e
Walnut
Mooney
Akers
Noble
Caldwell
Mineral King
Akers
Shirk
Shirk
Rd 140
C a m e r o n
Shirk
Ben Maddox
Akers
County Center
Demaree
Rd 148
Ave 280
Caldwell
Ben Maddox
F e r g u s o n
Demaree
Visalia
Mineral King
Mooney
Visalia
Rd 108
Riggin
Main
Sunnyview
C
a m e r o n
Houston
Tulare
Mineral King
Noble
Tulare
Goshen
Noble
Whitendale
Goshen
Mc Auliff
Goshen
Rd 86
Riggin
Shirk
Rd 148
Rd 92
Rd 100
C a m p u s
Rd 132
Clancy
Riggin
Rd 88
Rd 148
Hwy 99
Noble
Ave 280
Ave 276
Goshen
Legend
Arterial-serving Transit
Routes (100-foot Buffer)
Local-serving Retail
Zones
C-MU Mixed Use
Commercial
C-N Neighborhood
Commercial
C-R Regional
Commercial
D-MU Mixed Use
Downtown
Attachment 1
Areas / Neighborhoods Walkable to
Local-serving Retail and Transit
µ
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
111
Giddings
Mooney
Pinkham
Court
Mooney
Ben Maddox
Walnut
Akers
Dinuba
Riggin
Mooney
Demaree
K
Tulare
B
e
n
M
a
d
d
o
x
Pinkham
Goshen
Houston
Mineral King
Main
Walnut
Walnut
Tulare
S
t
J
o
h
n
s
Pinkham
Mooney
Shirk
Tulare
Mooney
Ben Maddox
Noble Noble
Houston
Demaree
Caldwell
Goshen
Mooney
Ferguson
Court
Santa Fe
Rd 92
Giddings
Giddings
Hicks
Akers
Houston
Tulare
Caldwell
Tulare
Lovers Lane
Court
Court
Burke
Willis
Demaree
Main
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
Hwy 198
Burke
Walnut
Woodland
Court
Linwood
West
Mill Creek
Tulare
Acequia
ChinowthLinwood
L
i
n
w
o
o
d
Woodland
K
Divisadero
Court
Hall
Giddings
Demaree
Locust
Court
Santa Fe
Ave 280
Mooney
Dinuba
Ferguson
Tulare
Akers
St Johns
Court
Shirk
Mc Auliff
Lovers Lane
Locust
S t J o h n s
W
e
s
t
County Center
H o u s t o n
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
L
i
n
w
o
o
d
C
h
i
n
o
w
t
h
Walnut
Main
Akers
Tulare
West
M
c
A
u
l
i
f
f
B
e
n
M
a
d
d
o
x
Pinkham
Mooney
County Center
Lovers Lane
Mooney
Walnut
W h i t e n d a l e
R
o
e
b
e
n
W h i t e n d a l e
Court
Pinkham
Linwood
Santa Fe
Cain
Houston
Demaree
Chinowth
F e r g u s o n
Ben Maddox
Akers
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
C
o
u
r
t
S t J o h n s
Tulare
Lovers Lane
Jacob
Roeben
Walnut
Divisadero
Rd 148
Campus
Demaree
Dinuba
A
k
e
r
s
Tower
Hurley
Main
Demaree
Court
Court
Rd 144
Conyer
Bridge
Court
Whitendale
Main
Conyer
W a l n u t
Woodland
Willis
Santa Fe
Bridge
Locust
Santa Fe
Murray
Conyer Willis
Center
Locust
Noble
Murray
Main
B
u
r
k
e
Burke
Center
M
c
A
u
l
i
f
f
2nd
Caldwell
K
R
o
e
b
e
n
M u r r a
y
Giddings
Mineral King
Giddings
Mineral King
Santa Fe
L
o
v
e
r
s
L
a
n
e
Cain
Locust
Court
Mooney
M i n e r a l K i n g
Roeben
Santa Fe
C a l d w e l l
Court
Hurley
County Center
Riggin
Court
Ben Maddox
Lovers Lane
Chinowth
Dinuba
Akers
Mc Auliff
3rd
3rd
Chinowth
Mineral King
Goshen
West
Goshen
Tulare
Jacob
F
e
r g
u
s
o
n
Visalia
Mineral King
F e r g u s o n
Houston
Plaza
M
i l l C
r e e k
Doe
L
o
v
e
r
s
L
a
n
e
Houston
Walnut
Burke
M
i l l
C
r e
e
k
Pinkham
Houston Mooney
Ben Maddox
Ferguson
Houston
Giddings
K
W h i t e n d a l e
C a l d w e l l
Riggin
Whitendale
Visalia
C a m e r o n
Tulare
Court
Tulare
Noble
Mooney
Rd 148
Mooney
Tulare
Mineral King
Goshen
Houston
M i n e r a l K i n g
Riggin
Demaree
Walnut
N o b l e
Walnut
Mooney
Akers
Noble
Caldwell
Mineral King
Akers
Shirk
Shirk
Rd 140
C a m e r o n
Shirk
Ben Maddox
Akers
County Center
Demaree
Rd 148
Ave 280 Caldwell
Ben Maddox
F e r g u s o n
Demaree
Visalia
Mineral King
Mooney
Visalia
Rd 108
Riggin
Main
Sunnyview
C a m e r o n
Houston
Tulare
Mineral King
Noble
Tulare
Goshen
Noble
Whitendale
Goshen
Mc Auliff
Goshen
Rd 86
Riggin
Shirk
Rd 148
Rd 92
Rd 100
C a m p u s
Rd 132
Clancy
Riggin
Rd 88
Rd 148
Hwy 99
Noble
Ave 280
Ave 276
Goshen
Nearmap US
Legend
R-1-5 Zoned Sites
Exceeding 20,000
Square Feet
Attachment 2
R-1-5 Zoned Sites
Exceeding 20,000 Square Feet
µ
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
112
Attachment 3:

HE Program 5.8 Municipal Code Updates

HE Program 5.8 Municipal Code Updates
Implementation Program Actions Code Section
To remove constraints to a variety of housing types and ensure compliance with State law, the City shall amend the municipal code to:

 Allow Transitional and supportive housing by-right in the O-C zone. 17.25.030  Regarding emergency shelters, reduce development standards related to proximity to other emergency shelters, schools, and low barrier navigation centers to 300 feet, remove additional setback and perimeter wall requirements, and require only parking sufficient to meet the needs of facility employees but not more than what is required of residential or commercial uses in the same zone.

17.32.130
 Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by-right in all zones allowing residential uses, in compliance with State law.

The City will defer to State ADU and Junior ADU law until a compliant ADU Ordinance is adopted.

Completed
 Allow for at least two dwelling units per lot in all R-1 zones (R-1-20, R-1-12.5, and R-1- 5) consistent with SB 9.

Completed
 Provide streamlined ministerial review and a preliminary application process in compliance with SB 330 and SB 35.

N/A
 Permit large residential care facilities with objectivity and certainty in all residential zones, subject only to the same requirements of residential uses of similar form in the same zones.

New Sections

17.32.145,

17.32.147
 Adopt reduced parking standards for affordable multifamily developments and multifamily projects with small units (single-room occupancy, studio, and 1-bedroom units) of no more than one parking stall per unit.

17.34.020
 Permit low barrier navigations centers by right (without conditional use or other discretionary permit) in nonresidential zones permitting residential uses.

17.25.030
 Reduce lot size requirements in the R-M, C, C-MU, and D-MU zones (no more than one acre in the C-MU zone and no more than 20,000 square feet in the C and D-MU zones) to remove constraints to multifamily housing development and promote affordability.

17.16.050;

17.18.060;

17.18.070;

17.19.060
 Provide a ministerial process for approving reasonable accommodation requests, including objective findings for approval, limited to decision-making criteria regarding fundamental alteration of zoning and land use and financial and administrative burden. (New Program, consultant)
New Section

17.02 Article 4
Implementation Program Actions
Within two years of adoption of the Housing Element

113