Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, July 20, 2026 (part 10 of 14)

present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet approved local area baselines or thresholds. If they do not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds. Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed.

If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required. These recommendations should be adhered to and become part of the environmental document. Please refer to the DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage for the most recent guidance and screening levels.

2. DTSC recommends all imported soil/fill material be tested to ensure all COCs meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. Furthermore, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing soil/fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil/fill material, there should be documentation of the origins of the soil/fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil/fill material is suitable for the intended land use.

The sampling should include analysis based on the source of the soil/fill and knowledge of prior land use.

3. The City of Visalia should consider soil testing as mentioned in comment #1.

If, in the event any COC results are above DTSC residential screening levels, DTSC recommends the City of Visalia address the contaminations within the Project area through an Environmental Site Assessment and/or receive oversight from a self-certified local agency, DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. 1922
Jarred Olsen
May 12, 2026

Page 3 ends

Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact the relevant Regional Brownfield Coordinator for your Project.

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Clements Ranch Tentative Tract Map No. 5606. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via CEQA Review email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
1923
Jarred Olsen
May 12, 2026

Page 4 ends

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Jaymie L. Brauer
Principal Planner
QK, Inc. / Consulting Firm
[email protected]
Aman Kaur Narwal
Forward Planner
D.R. Horton / Project Applicant
[email protected]
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Analyst II
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-6

Figure 2-3 IV Project Site Location
1948
1949
1950
1951
SO. CAL. EDISON
2422 O.R. 693
35 33
34 OUTLOT C
29 30
32 31
43 44
37 38
39 40
41 42
63 62
61 60
59 58
57 64
36 OUTLOT D
86 85
84 83
82 81
80 79
74 68
75 69
76 70
77 71
78 72 OUTLOT F
73 89
87 OUTLOT E
45 46
47 48
49 50
56 55
54 53
52 51
17 16 15 14 13 20
21 19 18
22 26
25 24
23 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
98 99 100 101 104 105 106 107 108
95 92
93 94
97 96
91 121
120
119
116
118
117
113 112 111 110 109
115

OUTLOT K
114
122
123
124
125
127 128 129 130

OUTLOT J
139
136
135
134
138
131
133
132

OUTLOT G
211 140 141 142 143 144 145 146
197
205
204
203
202
209
201
208
200
207
199
206
198
210 212
215 218
219
217
220
216
222 221
213 214
224 223 OUTLOT O OUTLOT P
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
181 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170
190
189
196
188
195
187
194
186
193
185
192
184
191
183
256
248
255
247
254
246
253
245
252
244
251
243
250
257
249
226
234
227
235
228
236
229
237
230
238
231
239
232
240
233
241
225 258
287
279
286
278
285
277
284
291
283
290
282
289
281
288
280
264
272
265
273
266
274
267
260
268
261
269
262
270
263
271
259 292

OUTLOT S
90 126
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ

SUNNYSIDE AVENUE

SOUTH LOVERS LANE
APN
127-020-038
APN
127-020-034
APN
127-020-039

OUTLOT N

OUTLOT L

OUTLOT M
28 27

OUTLOT A

OUTLOT B

TEMPORARY TURNAROUND EASEMENT
(SEE NOTE)
169

OUTLOT R

OUTLOT Q
242 275 276
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ

REMAINDER
APN
127-020-022

OUTLOT H

OUTLOT I
D.N.
2025-0024224
(PARCEL 2)
182
137 TEMPORARY ACCESS FOR GARBAGE EASEMENT (SEE NOTE)
67 66
103
88 65
102

OUTLOT T

OVERALL BOUNDARY CLEMENTS RANCH

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

N SOUTH MCAULIFF STREET SOUTH LOVERS LANE

EAST WALNUT AVENUE
N ROAD 148

EAST CHERRY AVENUE
AVENUE 280 ROAD 128
Ó
SHEET 1 OF 3
1952
27 28
35 33
34 29
30 32
31 17 16 15 14 13 9 8 7 6 5 2 1
21 19
18 22
26 25
24 23
12 11 10 4 3
20 43
44 37
45 38
46 39
47 40
48 41
49 42
50 63
56 62
55 61
54 60
53 59
52 58
57 51
64 36
86 85
68 69
70 71
72 89
87 84
83 82
81 80
79 74
75 76
77 78
73 95
92 93
94 97
96 91 121
120
119
100 101
98 99
116
118
117
115
109
108 107
111 110
106
112
105
113
104
114
139
136
137
135
134
138
131
133
132
130
122
123
124
125
127 128 129

OUTLOT G

OUTLOT D

OUTLOT C

OUTLOT J

OUTLOT K
126
90 OUTLOT EOUTLOT F
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ STREET B

STREET C

STREET A

STREET A STREET D STREET E STREET G

STEET F STREET H STREET H

SUNNYSIDE AVENUE

SOUTH LOVERS LANE
APN
127-020-038
APN
127-020-034 DIRT ROAD DIRT ROAD DIRT ROAD DIRT ROAD

OUTLOT L

OUTLOT B

OUTLOT A
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
APN
127-020-022

OUTLOT H

OUTLOT I
D.N.
2025-0024224
(PARCEL 2)
209 210 211 212 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 REMAINDER
66 67
103
88 65
102

CLEMENTS RANCH

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
N
SEE SHEET 3
SHEET 2 OF 3
1953
S LOVERS LN 211
197
205
204
203
202
209
201
208
200
207
199
206
198 210212
142 143 144 145 146 140
141
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
287
279
286
278
285
277
284
291
283
290
282
289
281
288
280
264
272
265
273
266
274
267
260
268
261
269
262
270
263
271
259
292
256
248
255
247
254
246
253
245
252
244
251
243
250
257
249
226
234
227
235
228
236
229
237
230
238
231
239
232
240
233
241
225 258 215218 219 217 220 216 222221 213214 224223
181 180 179 178 177 176
190
189
196
188
195
187
194
186
193
185
192
184
191
183
174 173 172 171 170 175 OUTLOT OOUTLOT P

OUTLOT S STREET J STREET L STREET H

STREET I

STREET K

STREET L

STREET M

SUNNYSIDE AVENUE DIRT ROAD DIRT ROAD

DIRT ROAD DIRT ROAD

OUTLOT M OUTLOT N

STREET N (PUBLIC STREET)

TEMPORARY TURNAROUND EASEMENT

OUTLOT Q
242 275 276

OUTLOT R
169
REMAINDER 182
17 16 15 14 20 19 18 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 139 138 137 136 STREET H

OUTLOT T

OUTLOT T STREET J STREET L STREET H
287
286
285
264
265
266
253
252
251
157
158
159
230
231
232

TEMPORARY ACCESS FOR GARBAGE EASEMENT

CLEMENTS RANCH

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
N
SEE SHEET 2
SHEET 3 OF 3
N
1954
SO. CAL. EDISON
2422 O.R. 693 SOUTH LOVERS LANE
D.N.
2024-0040168
APN
127-020-038
D.N.
2024-0040167
APN
127-020-034 D.N. 2024-0040166 APN 127-020-039

EAST CALDWELL AVENUE

EAST SUNNYSIDE
AVENUE

EAST K AVENUE
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
PARCEL 4

REMAINDER
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
D.N.
2025-0024224
APN
127-020-032 (PTN)
Δ

N SOUTH MCAULIFF STREET SOUTH LOVERS LANE

EAST WALNUT AVENUE
N ROAD 148 EAST CHERRY AVENUE
AVENUE 280 ROAD 128
1955
SO. CAL. EDISON 2422 O.R. 693 12 11 10 9 8 17 16 15 14 13 22 21 20 19 18 24 23 LOT A LONDON AVENUE 103 462 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20 21222324252627 28293031323435 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5152535455565758596061 6364 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 798081828384858687888990 91 92 93 94 95 97 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 114 113 112 111 110 115 117118119120121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 138 137 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 182 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 183184185186187188189190191 192193194 195196197 291 290 289 288 287 286 285 259 258 257 256 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276277278279280281282283284 252253 254255 251 250 249 248 247 246 245 244 243 241 242 240239238237236235234233 232231230229228227 202 199 198 203204205206207208209 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 224 223 222 221 220 219 225 226 200201 33 116 96181 62 98 109 139 210 292 ℄℄ ℄ SO. CAL. EDISON 2422 O.R. 693 CHERRY AVENUEEVERGREEN STREET 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 22 21 20 19 18 17 24 2325 37 36 26 35 27 34 28 33 29 32 30 13 31 12 1 11 2 10 3 9 4 8 5 7 6 20 21 19 22 18 23 17 24 16 25 15 26 14 27 43 44 42 45 41 46 40 47 39 48 60 51 59 52 58 53 57 54 56 55 41 28 40 29 39 30 38 31 37 32 36 33 35 34 49 48 50 47 51 46 52 45 53 44 54 43 55 42 68 67 69 66 70 65 71 64 72 63 38 49 50 61 62 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 84 83 82 81 85 86 87 88 89 80 79 90 78 91 77 92 76 93 75 94 74 95 73 96 72 97 71 98 70 99 69 10068 10167 10266 10365 10464 10563 LOT A

LOT B LOT C
LOT D

LEAH STREET

SIMON STREET

TEAKWOOD STREET

LEBEC STREET

MANZANITA STREET

MCAULIFF STREET

LEAH STREET

SIMON STREET

TEAKWOOD STREET

LEBEC STREET

MANZANITA STREET
MCAULIFF STREET LONDON AVENUE 1 88 89 44 45 43 42
LOT G

LOT F LOT C
LOT B
LOT A LOT E OWNER: Harold Dean Clements SUBDIVIDER: D.R Horton, America's Builder 419 W. Murray Avenue Visalia, CA 93231 (559) 636-9850 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 127-020-020 and 127-020-021 SITE ADDRESS: Southeast Corner of East K Avenue and South of Lovers Lane SITE AREA: Net (+/- 50.1 AC.) Gross (+/- 75.0 AC.) PROPOSED ZONING: R-1-5 AND R-M-2 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: Residential Low, Residential Medium, and Residential High Density and Conservation EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: Residential Low, Residential Medium, andResidential High Density and Conservation EXISTING ZONING: AE20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-Acre Minimum) (Tulare County) East Caldwell Avenue
Lovers Lane East K Avenue 1,908+ SQ. FT. 38'X72' LOTS MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL LOTS (140-153) (169-181) (209-292) 5,000 + SQ. FT. 50'X100' LOTS LOW RESIDENTIAL LOTS (1-139) N Ó 2,926+ SQ. FT. 38'X77' LOTS MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL LOTS (154-168) (182-208) 1956
1957
2-42 VISALIA GENERAL PLAN
dictate housing types or unit mixes precisely;
they also must be capable of addressing the needs
of the community at various stages of the plan’s
realization and be flexible enough to respond to
market conditions.

Development Parameters for New
Neighborhoods
The General Plan’s development policies provide for
flexibility within a general framework for land use,
open space, and community facilities. Site planning policies set forth the basic parameters for more detailed master planning and development agreements. These development parameters include the general scale, character and mix of uses, as well as the overall density/intensity of development. The density/
intensity ranges specified will support the traffic circulation and infrastructure investments that would be required. Also included is guidance for development of parks and open space systems and integration of creeks and trails into new development. This topic is addressed briefly in this section, and treated with greater detail in the Parks, Schools, Community
Facilities, and Utilities Element.

These parameters establish the basic character of new
neighborhoods in Visalia, addressing street and block
patterns, community infrastructure, open space, civic
sites and other elements of the “public realm” that set the framework for private development.

With this in mind, objectives for new residential
development are to:
• Encourage compact development that is
pedestrian in scale and sensitive to the
environmental characteristics of the planning
area.
• Allow sufficient density and intensity to enable
new development to be self-sufficient, paying for
all required infrastructure, community facilities,
and open space.
• Ensure an interconnected local street and
pedestrian circulation network that serves the
needs of pedestrians, bicycles, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation, and that functionally and physically integrates the various
land use activities within the community and to
surrounding neighborhoods.
• Provide for a range of housing types and prices
within new neighborhoods to ensure that the
needs of all economic segments of the community
are met and the overall development can support
the costs of required infrastructure and allow
developers flexibility in meeting housing needs.
• Provide amenities for all residents, with open
space, parks, activity centers, and recreational
opportunities, including shared use of school
lands.
• Provide additional revenues (sales tax, property
tax, impact fees, enterprise fees, etc.) that
would support all services within the area to
be developed and also contribute to the City’s
General Fund, resulting in a net fiscal benefit for
the community at-large.

These six statements establish the ground rules for
detailed master planning to be undertaken by the
development community following General Plan
adoption. To ensure that Visalia attracts high qualA system of open space and trails can link neighborhoods and other destinations.
1958
2-43

LAND USE
OCTOBER 2014
ity residential development and that desired land use
intensities are attained, a minimum overall level of
development and target density moving forward (5.3
units per gross acre) is established as a planning con- cept. Sites for schools, parks, and other special places and community amenities also will be needed. The
specific requirements for these elements are presented
in the following sections.

Site Planning Policies and Principles
Specific site planning policies and principles are
designed to guide physical planning for new neigh-
borhoods.

LAND USE MIX, DENSITY AND INTENSITY
The land use mix envisioned overall for new neigh-
borhoods in Visalia is shown in Table 2-7. The ranges
indicated—the minimum and maximum levels of
development for each type of land use—are intended
to allow for flexibility in master planning in response to market conditions, infrastructure costs, and site
planning policies. An option for alternative compli-
ance for the residential development land use alloca-
tions is also shown. This would allow for some addi-
tional flexibility by enabling the goal of a diversified housing mix to be met by a combination of housing
types rather than a combination of different residen-
tial densities.

STREET GRID AND BLOCK STRUCTURE
The size and pattern of blocks and the planning of
streets and pedestrian systems adjacent to roadways
is one of the most important aspects of community
design. A grid system of blocks and a hierarchy of
streets—from parkways, to connector and collec-
tor streets, to alleys, that are designed properly—can
truly become an intuitive orientation and naviga-
tional device.

Within new neighborhoods, streets and pedestrian
systems should be designed to minimize conflicts
with the clear goal of pedestrian safety. The generous
use of street trees can both define the new commu-
nity’s character and provide a comfortable microcli-
mate for pedestrian movement through the commu-
nity. Street trees can also mitigate wind, absorb air
pollution, and counteract the emission of greenhouse
gases. Street trees shade sidewalks, one of the most
important public spaces in a residential community,
and are necessary in Visalia’s climate. The street grid and block structure for Visalia should be designed to
create a comfortable environment for fostering both
social interaction and movement.

The following site planning principles are intended
to guide detailed planning and ensure it is consistent
with the overall vision and development framework. • Create compact development and facilitate connectivity and pedestrian accessibility by
limiting block size, with standards such as the
following (which may be varied during site plan
review, as long as public benefits are provided): ° Maximum length: 500 feet, except for blocks with single-family residential uses that may
be up to 600 feet long (750 feet with a midblock pedestrian connection); ° Maximum ratio of block length to width: 2:1
for blocks with mixed-use development on
them; none for single-family only blocks.
• Include a centrally located neighborhood
center, school or park within each residential
1959
2-44 VISALIA GENERAL PLAN
neighborhood that will serve as a focal point for
the surrounding neighborhood, and will include
neighborhood-serving stores and convenience
retail.
• Make all streets and alleys connect to other streets
and alleys to form a continuous vehicular and
pedestrian network. Local, internal streets should
be narrow and designed with traffic calming
features to control speed.
• Limit use of dead-end streets, such as cul-de-sacs,
to no more than 15 percent of the total length of
local residential streets.
• Use street trees for shading, orientation and “place
making,” creating a framework for an “urban
forest.”
Following General Plan adoption, the City may allow
flexibility through a planned development process
or master planning for new neighborhoods. At that
point, the City will approve proposed details about
the location of various land uses, open spaces and
linkages. In a planned development, the configuration of land use and local streets need not match precisely the Land Use Diagram in the General Plan, provided that the overall density/intensity targets are met.

Objectives
LU-O-19 Ensure adequate land area is available for
future housing needs, enabling an average
citywide gross density of 5.3 dwelling units
per acre of new residential development.

LU-O-20 Allow sufficient density and intensity to
enable new development to support all
required infrastructure, community facilities and open space.

LU-O-21 Preserve and enhance the character of residential neighborhoods while facilitating infill development.

LU-O-22 Create inclusive, compact neighborhoods
with well-integrated single-family and
multi-family residential development and
activity nodes featuring schools, neighborhood parks, and neighborhood commercial areas.

LU-O-23 Provide a range of housing types and
prices within new neighborhoods to meet
the needs of all segments of the community.

LU-O-24 Enable multifamily developments that
are accessible to major transportation and
transit routes.

LU-O-25 Create an open space system that links
neighborhoods, complements adjacent
land uses, and serves multiple needs.

See also objectives and policies for the open
space system in the Conservation and Open
Space Element.

Policies
LU-P-47 Ensure that new neighborhoods meet land
use mix standards established in Table
2-7 of the General Plan. The ranges indicated—the minimum and maximum levThe Medium and High Density Residential designations allow for a wide variety of housing types and design.
1960
Resolution No. 2026-46
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-46

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA,

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2025-04, ANNEXATION NO. 2025-04, CLEMENTS RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5606, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2025-24 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2026050300) WHEREAS, the Project consists of General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04, Annexation No. 2025-04, Clements Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 (collectively, the "Project"); and; and,
WHEREAS, the City is the Lead Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2026050300) in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the proposed MND was circulated for public review in accordance with CEQA, and all notices required by law were provided; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study, MND, MMRP, technical reports, public comments, staff report, testimony received during the public hearing, and the entire administrative record prior to taking action on the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Visalia as follows:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds:

A. An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063.

B. Based upon the Initial Study, the City prepared a MND and MMRP in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c) and 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 through 15075.

C. The proposed MND (State Clearinghouse No. 2026050300) was circulated for public review for the period of May 7, 2026 through June 6, 2026, in accordance with CEQA. Notice of Intent to Adopt the MND was provided in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, including filing with the Tulare County Clerk, submission to the State Clearinghouse, distribution to responsible and trustee agencies, and other notice required by law. 1961
Resolution No. 2026-46
D. The City Council has considered the MND, MMRP, all comments received during the public review period, all comments received during the public hearing, and the entire administrative record.

E. The Initial Study, MND, and MMRP reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Visalia.

F. The mitigation measures identified in the MND have been incorporated into the Project through the MMRP and will avoid or reduce all potentially significant environmental effects to a less-than-significant level.

G. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the Project, as mitigated, may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Initial Study and MND prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04, Annexation No. 2025-04, Clements Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 (State Clearinghouse No. 2026050300).

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the MMRP prepared for the Project. All mitigation measures contained therein shall be implemented and monitored in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

SECTION 5. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record upon which this Resolution is based include, but are not limited to, the Initial Study, MND, MMRP, technical studies, staff reports, written comments, oral testimony, and all other documents comprising the administrative record for the Project.

The record of proceedings is maintained by the Planning and Community Preservation Department, City of Visalia, 315 East Acequia Avenue, Visalia, California 93291. The Planning and Community Preservation Director, or designee, is the custodian of the record.

SECTION 6. The Planning and Community Preservation Director is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the Tulare County Clerk within five (5) working days following project approval pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15075.

SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED: July 20, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2026-46 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on July 20, 2026.

Dated:July 20, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
1962
Resolution No. 2026-46
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
1963
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-47

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF CLEMENTS RANCH SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5606, A REQUEST BY D.R. HORTON TO SUBDIVIDE PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 78.11 ACRES INTO 292 LOTS

FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, WITH ADDITIONAL LOTS FOR PRIVATE

STREETS, UTILITIES, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, TRAILS, AND PARKS, AND AN APPROXIMATELY 20.81-ACRE DESIGNATED REMAINDER, TO BE LOCATED IN PROPOSED R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE), R-M-2 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 3,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), R-M-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 1,200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), AND QP (QUASI-PUBLIC ZONE). THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE

NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH LOVERS LANE AND EAST CALDWELL AVENUE (APNS: 127-020-020 AND -021)
WHEREAS, Clements Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 (“Subdivision”) is a request by D.R. Horton to subdivide parcels totaling approximately 78.11 acres into 292 lots for single-family residential use, with additional lots for private streets, utilities, landscaping, lighting, trails, and parks, and an approximately 20.81-acre designated remainder, to be located in proposed R-1 (Single-family residential zone), R-M-2 (Multifamily residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone).

The project site is located north of the northeast corner of South Lovers Lane and East Caldwell Avenue (APNs: APN: 127-020-020 and -021); and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approved Clements Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606; and
WHEREAS, the applicant timely appealed the Planning Commission's decision pursuant to Section 17.02.145 of the Visalia Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a de novo public hearing on July 20, 2026, considered the entire administrative record, including the Planning Commission staff report, the appeal, the City Council staff report, public testimony, and all evidence presented; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2026-46, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and found that no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Visalia:

1. Independently finds that Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 satisfies the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the Visalia Municipal Code. 1964
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-47

2. Finds that the issues raised in the appeal concerning Planning Commission Condition No. 7(a) have been independently considered by the City Council.

3. Finds that construction of frontage improvements concurrent with development of the first phase is a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area pursuant to Government Code section 66424.6(a)(2)(B), and that Planning Commission Condition No. 7(a) is appropriate for the reasons set forth in the City Council staff report and evidence presented at the public hearing.

4. The Planning Commission's approval is confirmed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 is approved subject to the Planning Commission Conditions of Approval dated June 8, 2026.

PASSED AND ADOPTED: July 20, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2026-47 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on July 20, 2026.

Dated: July 21, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy
City Clerk
1965
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-48

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2025-13, A REQUEST BY D.R. HORTON TO SUBDIVIDE PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 78.11 ACRES INTO FOUR PARCELS AND AN APPROXIMATELY 20.81 DESIGNATED REMAINDER, TO BE LOCATED IN PROPOSED R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE), R-M-2 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 3,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), R-M-3 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 1,200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), AND QP (QUASI-PUBLIC ZONE). THE PROJECT SITE IS

LOCATED NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH LOVERS LANE AND

EAST CALDWELL AVENUE
APNS: 127-020-020 AND -021
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13 (“Subdivision”) is a request by D.R.

Horton to subdivide parcels totaling approximately 78.11 acres into four parcels and an approximately 20.81 designated remainder, to be located in proposed R-1 (Single-family residential zone), R-M-2 (Multi-family residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone). The project site is located north of the northeast corner of Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue (APNs: APN: 127-020-020 and -021); and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13; and WHEREAS, the applicant timely appealed the Planning Commission's decision pursuant to Section 17.02.145 of the Visalia Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a de novo public hearing on July 20, 2026, considered the entire administrative record, including the Planning Commission staff report, the appeal, the City Council staff report, public testimony, and all evidence presented; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2026-46, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and found that no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, NOW, that the City Council:

1. Finds that Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13 satisfies the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the Visalia Municipal Code.

2. Finds that the issues raised in the appeal concerning Planning Commission Condition No. 2 have been independently considered by the City Council. 1966
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-48

3. Finds that construction of frontage improvements concurrent with development of the first phase is a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area pursuant to Government Code section 66424.6(a)(2)(B), and that Planning Commission Condition No. 2 is appropriate for the reasons set forth in the City Council staff report and evidence presented at the public hearing.

4. Confirms the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13, subject to the Planning Commission Conditions of Approval dated June 8, 2026.

PASSED AND ADOPTED: July 20, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2026-48 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on July 20, 2026.

Dated: July 21, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy
City Clerk
1967
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-49

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2025-24, A REQUEST BY D.R. HORTON TO ALLOW A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON A ±15.3-ACRE PORTION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 127-020-021 CONSISTING OF 153 SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, PRIVATE STREETS, TWO GATED ENTRIES,

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING LOTS, AND PARK AREAS, TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A PROPOSED R-M-2 ZONE
(APN: 127-020-021)
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24, is a request by D.R. Horton to allow a planned unit development on a ±15.3-acre portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 127-020-021 consisting of 153 single-family residential units, private streets, two gated entries, landscaping and lighting lots, and park areas, to be located within an R-M-2 zone proposed under Annexation No. 2025-04; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24; and
WHEREAS, the applicant timely appealed the Planning Commission's decision pursuant to Section 17.02.145 of the Visalia Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a de novo public hearing on July 20, 2026, considered the entire administrative record, including the Planning Commission staff report, the appeal, the City Council staff report, public testimony, and all evidence presented; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2026-46, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and found that no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia:

1. Finds that the proposed location of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the applicable zoning district. The proposed Planned Residential Development is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan and implements the purposes and intent of Chapter 17.26 of the Visalia Municipal Code by providing a coordinated residential development with private streets, common open space, and integrated pedestrian circulation.

2. Finds that the proposed location of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24, together with the Conditions of Approval, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In particular, the City Council has independently considered the issues raised in the 1968
Resolution No. 2026-49
appeal concerning Planning Commission Condition No. 7(j) requiring sidewalks within the Planned Residential Development. Although previous Planned Residential Developments have not consistently required sidewalks throughout private street systems, the City Council finds that sidewalks throughout the proposed development are appropriate because they provide a continuous and accessible pedestrian circulation system, further the pedestrian circulation objectives of Section 17.26.040(F)(3) of the Visalia Municipal Code, and can be accommodated within the applicant's proposed private street design without materially affecting the subdivision layout. The City Council further finds that previous discretionary approvals do not establish mandatory development standards for future Planned Residential Developments and do not preclude the City Council from imposing conditions that better implement the City's adopted planning policies and objectives.

3. Confirms the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24, subject to the Conditions of Approval dated June 8, 2026.

I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2026-49 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on July 20, 2026.

Dated: July 21, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy
City Clerk
1969
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia Administration
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 26-0019 Agenda Date: 7/20/2026 Agenda #: 3.

Agenda Item Wording:

Consideration of General Plan amendment, prezone ordinance adoption, and annexation - A public hearing and consideration for the following actions requested by D.R. Horton related to the project located on ±78.11 acres on the east side of South Lovers Lane Avenue, north of Caldwell Avenue (APN: 127-020-020 and -021):

1. Adoption of Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04, and Annexation/Prezone No. 2025-04 (Resolution No. 2026-46);

2. Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04, a request to reconfigure the land use designations on the parcels, in addition to amending the Circulation Element to realign the “K” Avenue Collector alignment to follow the Sunnyside Avenue alignment between Lovers Lane and Road 148 (Resolution No. 2026-50);

3. Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No. 2025-04, consisting of:
a. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 2026-07, a request to prezone the subject property to R-1 (Single-Family Residential zone), R-M-2 (Multi-family residential zone - 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone - 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone) to be consistent with the land use designation changes proposed in General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04; and, b. A request to annex said parcels into the City limits of Visalia and detach from County Service Area No. 1 and the Consolidated Water District and authorizing the City Manager to sign and enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement (Resolution No. 2026-51).

Agenda Date: 07/20/2026
Prepared by:

Jarred Olsen, Principal Planner, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> (559) 713-4449
Paul Bernal, Planning and Community Preservation Director, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, (559) 713-4025
Department Recommendation:

The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions, consistent with the staff recommendation made to Planning Commission on March 23, 2026:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-50, approving General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04, which does the following:
i. Reconfigures the land uses on the subject property; and ii. Amends the Circulation Element to realign the “K” Avenue Collector alignment to follow the Sunnyside Avenue alignment between Lovers Lane and Road 148.

Visalia City Council Page 1 of 5 Printed on 7/16/2026
powered by Legistar™1970
File #: 26-0019 Agenda Date: 7/20/2026 Agenda #: 3.

2. Introduce for first reading Ordinance No. 2026-07 prezoning the subject property to R-1, R-M2, R-M-3, and QP, which shall become operative upon the effective date of Annexation No. 2025-04.

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-51, initiating proceedings for Annexation No. 2025-04 which will complete the following:
i. Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No. 2025-04 a request by D.R. Horton to annex approximately 78.11 acres into the City Limits of Visalia; and ii. Authorize the detachment from County Service Area No. 1 and Consolidated Water District; and
iii. Authorize the City Manager to sign and enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement.

It is standard practice for staff to recommend the upholding of a Planning Commission action.

Furthermore, if approved by the City Council, staff will file the annexation application with LAFCo.

The recommendation to land use and zoning designations will facilitate the development of the Clements Ranch subdivision.

Summary:

D.R. Horton has filed entitlement applications for two parcels totaling ±78.11 acres, located outside of City Limits and within the Tier II urban development boundary, on the east side of Lovers Lane just north of Caldwell Avenue. The project site is currently a mix of fallowed and farmed land listed as prime farmland/farmland of statewide importance. Entitlements for this project are described further below.

General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 seeks to reconfigure the land use designations on the property to align with their proposed development. Additionally, D.R. Horton is seeking to amend the circulation diagram of the Circulation Element to realign the “K” Avenue collector currently shown as a straight-through from Lovers Lane to where the SCE Rector Substation is located (see Exhibit A collector street realignment, and Attachment A of Resolution No. 2026-50 for proposed land use reconfiguration).

Annexation No. 2025-04 is a request to prezone these parcels consistent with their proposed land use designations and annex them into the Visalia City Limits. Because the property is currently outside the City limits, approval of the General Plan Amendment, prezoning, and annexation each require separate legislative actions. The proposed prezoning is required by Government Code section 56375(a)(7) as a condition of annexation and will become operative upon the effective date of Annexation No. 2025-04. The annexation itself is subject to approval by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission.

Background Discussion:

General Plan Amendment, Reconfiguration of Land Uses
The applicant proposes to reconfigure the existing land uses on the subject property to create more squared off land use designations (see Attachment A of Resolution No. 2026-50). The Medium Density Residential portion of the property is proposed to be relocated to the northeast corner of the property, and the High Density Residential portion to the northwest. Low Density Residential is proposed on the south side of the proposed Sunnyside Avenue alignment. The existing configuration of the High Density Residential land use is flag shaped and does not realistically represent a developable area. Squaring off the shape would result in a more developable site. Staff supports the Visalia City Council Page 2 of 5 Printed on 7/16/2026
powered by Legistar™1971
File #: 26-0019 Agenda Date: 7/20/2026 Agenda #: 3.
developable area. Squaring off the shape would result in a more developable site. Staff supports the reconfiguration as it continues to locate the more intensive land uses along major streets. For purposes of the No net loss provisions of the Housing Crisis Act, the proposed configuration of general plan land use designations would not reduce residential capacity. While staff supports the reconfiguration of land use designations, staff request that the Tentative Subdivision Map record a notice on lots abutting or adjacent to the High Density Residential land use a disclosure notice to inform potential buyers of this high density residential land use designation and the expected development which will accommodate multi-family development when a land use entitlement is brought forth for approval.

General Plan Amendment, “K” Avenue Collector Realignment The “K” Avenue Collector alignment as depicted in the General Plan’s Circulation Element carries the Collector along the San Joaquin Railroad line, terminating at Road 148. However, upon further review, the SCE Rector Substation is regrettably located in the future “K” Avenue alignment. Given the unlikelihood that SCE would relocate an important and consequently prohibitively expensive piece of infrastructure, both staff and Planning Commission concur and support the applicant’s request to designate Sunnyside Avenue as the new “Collector” alignment further south. As depicted in the aerial photograph (Exhibit A), a residence is located at the eastern edge of the Sunnyside alignment, nearest Road 148. While these alignments are schematic in nature and do not represent the “locked-in” final alignment, staff felt that the proposed realignment was enough of a departure to warrant an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element.

Annexation and Prezone
The subject property is not located in the Visalia City Limits. In order for the City to apply its land use jurisdictional rules and regulations, the land must be annexed into City limits and assigned zoning designation(s). The Annexation is supported on the basis that the proposed uses would be consistent with Visalia General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-P-21, which allows for the annexation and development of residential land to occur within the Tier II Urban Development Boundary when it is consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, as it is proposed to be amended. The site will be prezoned to R-1, R-M-2, R-M-3, and QP, consistent with the subject property’s proposed General Plan land use designations (as determined by Table 42 of the Housing Element), and the exhibit can be found in Attachment “A” of Ordinance No. 2026-07. The City supports the annexation as the City has capacity to serve the Project and represents a logical expansion of City limits. Since the property would be served by City services, the City would request that the property be detached from County Service Area No. 1 and the Consolidated Water District.

General Plan Consistency with Land Use Element Policies The project is consistent with Visalia General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-P-21, which states that the city should “Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”. The proposed site is within the County of Tulare and is adjacent to and consistent with existing developed residential sites to the north and west. Existing utility infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, and stormwater) can be provided to accommodate the project at buildout.

Furthermore, the site is located within the Tier II Urban Development Boundary (UDB), which allows for immediate development of a project site upon its successful annexation. Note the City of Visalia Visalia City Council Page 3 of 5 Printed on 7/16/2026
powered by Legistar™1972
File #: 26-0019 Agenda Date: 7/20/2026 Agenda #: 3.
met General Plan residential land use thresholds for expansion into the Tier 2 UDB in July 2021.

The project is also consistent with Policies LU-P-55 and LU-P-56. These policies allow for residential development consistent with the Low and Medium Density Residential designations at a density range between 2 to 10 and 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre, respectively. The proposed development will be developed at residential densities consistent with these land use designations and their respective zoning districts. These policies are intended to facilitate “single-family detached housing” and “small-lot single family”. The proposal meets the intent of the policy, providing a development compatible with residential areas to the north and west, with lot sizes comparable to surrounding lots, at a location that transitions smoothly with agricultural areas to the south and east.

Planning Commission Public Hearing
The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on June 8, 2026, to consider the general plan amendment, prezone, and annexation. The only public comment received was from D.R. Horton. The Planning Commission was unanimous in their recommendation that City Council approve the general plan amendment, prezone, and annexation.

Fiscal Impact including annual maintenance and operating costs: Approval of these entitlements does not, by itself, result in a direct fiscal impact to the City. Should the Clements Ranch subdivision ultimately be developed, future development would be subject to applicable impact fees, assessments, and ongoing municipal service obligations.

Prior Council Action: On June 18, 2026, D.R. Horton filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Clements Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24, with respect to conditions regarding curb, gutter, sidewalk, and related frontage improvements along Lovers Lane and sidewalks within the proposed gated subdivision. The appeal was noticed for public hearing on the July 20, 2026, City Council agenda.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

1. I move to approve Resolution No. 2026-46, adopting Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04, and Annexation/Prezone No. 2025-04.

2. I move to approve Resolution No. 2026-50, approving General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04.

3. I move to introduce the first reading of Ordinance No. 2026-07 for Prezone No. 2025-04.

4. I move to approve Resolution No. 2026-51, to initiate proceedings for Annexation No. 2025-04, authorizing the detachment of property from County Service Area No. 1 and Consolidated Water District, and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Visalia and the property owners.

Alternatives: The City Council may, in lieu of the recommended motion specified above, consider any of the following alternatives:

1. Deny the General Plan Amendment and Annexation;

2. Refer the matter back to Planning Commission; or,

3. Continue the matter to a future City Council hearing.

CEQA Review: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project. Following the required 30-day public review period, the City Council adopted the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program by Resolution No. 2026-46, finding that implementation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce all potentially significant environmental impacts to Visalia City Council Page 4 of 5 Printed on 7/16/2026
powered by Legistar™1973
File #: 26-0019 Agenda Date: 7/20/2026 Agenda #: 3.
of the identified mitigation measures would reduce all potentially significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Deadline for Action: 07/20/2026
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A - Proposed Circulation Element Changes

2. Resolution No. 2026-46 - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

3. Resolution No. 2026-50 - General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04

4. Ordinance No. 2026-07 - Prezone Exhibit

5. Resolution No. 2026-51 - Annexation No. 2025-04

6. Planning Commission Staff Report - June 8, 2026
Strategic Goal: Indicates which City Strategic Goal(s) this item supports. Check all that apply. ☒
Economic
Vitality
☐
Organizational
Excellence
☐
Fiscal
Strength
☒
Infrastructure &
Growth
☒
Quality of
Life
Visalia City Council Page 5 of 5 Printed on 7/16/2026
powered by Legistar™1974
The future alignment of “K” Avenue, depicted above in the dashed red line, runs through SCE-owned property. The proposed realignment is shown as a dash orange line. These alignments are schematic in nature and do not represent the final alignment. The project site is shaded blue.
1975
Resolution No. 2026-46
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-46

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA,

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Visalia as follows:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds:

A. An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063.

B. Based upon the Initial Study, the City prepared a MND and MMRP in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c) and 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 through 15075.

C. The proposed MND (State Clearinghouse No. 2026050300) was circulated for public review for the period of May 7, 2026 through June 6, 2026, in accordance with CEQA. Notice of Intent to Adopt the MND was provided in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, including filing with the Tulare County Clerk, submission to the State Clearinghouse, distribution to responsible and trustee agencies, and other notice required by law. 1976
Resolution No. 2026-46
D. The City Council has considered the MND, MMRP, all comments received during the public review period, all comments received during the public hearing, and the entire administrative record.

E. The Initial Study, MND, and MMRP reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Visalia.

G. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the Project, as mitigated, may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED: July 20, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

Dated:July 20, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
1977
Resolution No. 2026-46
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
1978
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-50
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-50

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2025-04, A REQUEST BY D.R. HORTON TO RECONFIGURE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 127-020-020 AND 127-020-021 AND TO REALIGN THE “K” AVENUE

COLLECTOR ALIGNMENT TO SUNNYSIDE AVENUE BETWEEN LOVERS LANE AND ROAD 148
(APN: 127-020-020 and 127-020-021)
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 is a request by D.R. Horton to reconfigure the land use designations on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 127-020-020 and 127-020-021 as depicted in Attachment “A” and to realign the “K” Avenue Collector alignment to Sunnyside Avenue between Lovers Lane and Road 148; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on June 8, 2026 and recommended that City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing on July 20, 2026; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2026-46, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and found that no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia considered the general plan amendment in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.54.070 and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council:

1. Finds that General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 is internally consistent with the General Plan and furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.

The City Council further finds that the amendment is in the public interest, is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. Approves General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 as depicted in Attachment "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

3. Amends the Circulation Element to relocate the “K” Avenue Collector alignment between Lovers Lane and Road 148 to the Sunnyside Avenue alignment.

4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED: July 20, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF VISALIA )
1979
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-50
I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2026-50 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on July 20, 2026.

Dated: July 21, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
1980
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-50
Attachment “A”
1981
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-07
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-07

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA PREZONING ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 127-020-020 AND 127-020-021 TO R-1 (SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE), R-M-2 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 3,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), R-M-3 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 1,200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), AND QP (QUASI-PUBLIC ZONE) (APNS 127-020-020 and 127-020-021)
WHEREAS, Annexation No. 2025-04 is a request by D.R. Horton to prezone Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 127-020-020 and 127-020-021 (“subject property”) to R-1 (Single-family residential zone), R-M-2 (Multi-family residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone) (APN: 127-020-020 and -021), as depicted in Attachment “A”; and
WHEREAS, Table 42 of the Housing Element identifies R-1-5 (now R-1), R-M-2, and R-M-3 zones as being consistent with the Low, Medium, and Density Residential land use designations of the General Plan, respectively; and WHEREAS, the QP (Quasi-Public) zone is consistent with the Conservation and Parks and Recreation land use designations of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 proposed to align the General Plan land use designations of the subject property to correspond with Annexation No. 2025-04; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 56375(a)(7) requires, as a condition to annexation, that a city prezone of the territory to be annexed or present evidence satisfactory to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) that the existing development entitlements on the territory are consistent with the city's general plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City's Municipal Code and State Planning and Zoning Law, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia is authorized to review and make recommendations to the City Council of the City of Visalia for actions related to the establishment of land use and zone designations on behalf of the City, including General Plan Amendments, changes of zone, and prezoning actions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on June 8, 2026, and considered Annexation No. 2025-04 to be in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapters 17.02,

17.06, and 17.44 and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 2026-33 recommending that the City Council approve an Ordinance for Annexation No. 2025-04; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2026-49, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project and found that no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required; and 1982
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-07
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten (10) days published notice, held a first reading and public hearing of this Ordinance on July 20, 2026; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia finds Annexation No. 2025-04 to be in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapters 17.02, 17.06, and 17.44 and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Visalia as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds:

1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act.

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

3. That the proposed Prezone will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

4. That the proposed Prezone would result in zoning and land uses that suitably buffer and provide an efficient transition between the existing commercial, agricultural, and residential zoning and uses surrounding the site.

5. The site is physically suitable (including ability to meet requested zoning regulations, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land uses.

6. The City Council finds that the proposed prezoning is required to achieve the objectives of Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.02.020, complies with Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.44, and establishes zoning classifications consistent with the General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04.

SECTION 2. Upon the effective date of Annexation No. 2025-04, the Official Zoning Map of the City of Visalia is hereby amended to prezone Assessor's Parcel Numbers 127-020-020 and 127-020-021 as depicted in Attachment "A." SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. The prezoning established herein shall become operative only upon the effective date of Annexation No. 2025-04.
1983
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-07
PASSED AND ADOPTED: BRETT TAYLOR, MAYOR
ATTEST: ___________________________

LESLIE CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK APPROVED BY CITY ATTORNEY
___________________________

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Ordinance 2026-07 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on July 20, 2026, and certify a summary of this ordinance will be published in the Visalia Times Delta.

Dated: July 21, 2026 LESLIE CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
1984
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-07
ATTACHMENT “A”

PREZONING MAP
1985
Resolution No. 2026-51
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-51

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA, APPROVING OF ANNEXATION NO. 2025-04, ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION

REQUESTING THE TULARE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

TO ANNEX CERTAIN PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF VISALIA AND DETACH THE PROPERTY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 1 AND CONSOLIDATED WATER

DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT (APN: 127-020-020 and -021)
WHEREAS, Annexation No. 2025-04 is a request by D.R. Horton to prezone Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 127-020-020 and 127-020-021 (“subject property”) to R-1 (Single-family residential zone), R-M-2 (Multi-family residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone) (APN: 127-020-020 and -021); and WHEREAS, Table 42 of the Housing Element identifies R-1-5 (now R-1), R-M-2, and R-M-3 zones as being consistent with the Low, Medium, and Density Residential land use designations of the General Plan, respectively; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 proposed to align the General Plan land use designations of the subject property to correspond with Annexation No. 2025-04; and
WHEREAS, Annexation No. 2025-04 is a request by D.R. Horton to annex the subject property into City limits and detach from County Service Area No. 1 and the Consolidated Water District; and
WHEREAS, the proponent desires to annex the subject property and adjacent rights-of-way to the City of Visalia for the following reasons:
1) the annexation will contribute to and facilitate orderly growth and development of both the City and the territory proposed to be annexed; 2) the annexation will facilitate and contribute to the proper and orderly layout, design and construction of streets, gutters, sanitary and storm sewers and drainage facilities, both within the City and within the territory proposed to be annexed; and
3) the annexation will provide and facilitate proper overall planning and zoning of lands and subdivision of lands in said City and said territory in a manner most conducive of the welfare of said City and said territory; and WHEREAS, this proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the subject property proposed to be annexed is uninhabited; and 1986
Resolution No. 2026-51
WHEREAS, the subject property proposed to be annexed is located in Voting District 3 as identified in the Election District Map adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-11; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing on July 20, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia considered Annexation No. 2025-04 in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.44.070 and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia:

1. Finds that Annexation No. 2025-04 is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2025- 04, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. Finds the territory is uninhabited and contiguous to the City and is located within the City’s adopted Sphere of Influence.

3. Finds annexation will promote orderly growth and development and facilitate the efficient provision of municipal services.

4. Finds that the parcels will be annexed into Voting District 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.

5. Adopts the Resolution of Application requesting that the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission initiate proceedings to annex the subject territory to the City and detach it from County Service Area No. 1 and Consolidated Water District.

6. Authorizes City Manager to execute the Pre-Annexation Agreement substantially in the form attached as Attachment "A," subject to minor, non-substantive revisions approved by the City Attorney.

7. Directs the Planning and Community Preservation Director to transmit the Resolution of Application and all required materials to LAFCo and take all actions necessary to effectuate the annexation.

8. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1987
Resolution No. 2026-51
PASSED AND ADOPTED: July 20, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF VISALIA )
I, Leslie B. Caviglia, City Clerk of the City of Visalia, certify the foregoing is the full and true Resolution 2026-51 passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Visalia at a regular meeting held on July 20, 2026.

Dated: July 21, 2026 LESLIE B. CAVIGLIA, CITY CLERK
By Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
1988
Resolution No. 2026-51
ATTACHMENT “A”
Pre-Annexation Agreement
This Pre-Annexation Agreement (”Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ______________, by and among the City of Visalia, a charter law city (“City’) and _______________________, (hereinafter “Owner”):

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owners are the record owners of the property, currently located in the unincorporated area of the County of Tulare, legally described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is adjacent to and contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City, but is not situated within the limits of any municipality; and WHEREAS, Owner desires to have the Property annexed to the City and to have the Property zoned as R-1 (Single-family residential zone), R-M-2 (Multi-family residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone); and WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 78.11 acres, and no electors reside thereon; and
WHEREAS, proper applications have been filed with the City for approval of the annexation and for the legal subdivision of the lot, as may be required for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has, by a resolution requesting initiation of proceedings to annex territory (“Resolution”) adopted on _________________, initiated proceedings to annex the Property; and
WHEREAS, in certain annexation proceedings Williamson Act issues arise which require indemnification of the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), in said event, City requires indemnification from Developer; and WHEREAS, Finding No. __ of Resolution No. _________ initiating annexation requires entry into this Annexation Agreement prior to the City submitting an application to the Local Area Formation Commission to commence the proposed annexation; and WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that during the term of this Agreement the Property will be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations of the City, as they may be amended from time to time, as well as state and federal statutes and regulations, as they may be amended.
1989
Resolution No. 2026-51
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by its police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and is entering into this Agreement and executing such authority for said purpose; and
WHEREAS, nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by town of any tax, fee, or charge.

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

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

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

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

II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION; PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT Generally, each party to this Agreement is benefited and burdened by detachment from the County and annexation to the City. Owner will obtain a variety of services from City and City will obtain additional tax revenues. City has adopted ordinances, regulations, and policies concerning design, improvement, construction, development and use of property within the City. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by City of any tax or fee. The purpose of this Agreement is to spell out additional conditions to which Owner will be subject following annexation and prior to development within the City due to the burden placed on City by Owner’s desired annexation:

A. Water Acquisition Policy: Although City’s current water service provider, California Water Service, continues to issue will-serve letters, City’s Council is aware of the steadily decreasing level of water in the City’s underground water aquifers and has determined that increasing development is contributing to this serious problem.

Therefore, City’s Council has studied the issue and investigated possible solutions in order that it may continue to assure citizens that there will be water available to serve the community’s needs. City’s Council is actively engaged in water replenishment activities with the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and it has adopted a policy, as set forth in Chapter 16.54 of the Visalia Municipal Code, which requires annexation applicants to convey title to water rights to City upon annexation and/or to pay a fee to City (pursuant to an adopted fee schedule) so that City may acquire water for groundwater replenishment and storage in order to serve new development that comes with annexation, including development of the 1990
Resolution No. 2026-51
Property (the “Water Acquisition Policy”). Therefore, Owner agrees that, at the time that LAFCo issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to either (i) convey to City those water rights vested in the Property, if any, (ii) agree to pay City a fee in lieu thereof, (iii) agree to some combination of an in lieu fee payment and water right conveyance, or (iv) to comply by any other method allowed by the Water Acquisition Policy, provided that such agreement includes a condition precedent requiring City’s water supplier to agree to serve the Property with potable water in amount sufficient to meet Owner’s reasonably anticipated total water demand for the Property, as determined by a valid water supply assessment prepared pursuant to California Water Code § 10910 et seq. No postannexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued by City unless and until Owner complies with the Water Acquisition Policy in a manner consistent with this subsection II(A). Owner agrees that it shall identify all water rights which, to the best of Owner’s knowledge, have been used by Owner or its agents in connection with the Property, regardless of whether they are considered “vested” in the Property, and shall comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to convey such rights, if any, to City.

City shall cooperate with Owner in valuing such water rights for the purposes of determining the amount of offset to be applied against the in lieu fee as required pursuant of the Water Acquisition Policy. Owner further agrees that City shall have first right of refusal in acquiring upon mutually acceptable terms any water rights that Owner owns that may be in addition to those required to meet Owner’s obligations under the Water Acquisition Policy. City agrees that water rights need not be conveyed and in lieu fees shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more parcel maps or final subdivision maps covering the Property and, in the event Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such water rights conveyance or fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each final subdivision map, with conveyance of water rights or payment to be made on a per map basis upon City’s issuance of each final subdivision map covering the Property.

B. General Plan Maintenance Fee: On June 21, 2004, the City adopted (by Resolution 2004-63, as corrected) a General Plan Maintenance Fee. Owner agrees that, at the time LAFCo issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee in an amount equal to $427 per acre and no post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued unless and until said agreement is executed. City agrees that such fee shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more final subdivision maps covering the Property and, in the event Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each final subdivision map, with payment to be made on a per map basis upon City’s issuance of each final subdivision map covering the Property. Owner’s satisfaction 1991
Resolution No. 2026-51
of its obligations under this Section II(B) will satisfy any and all of Owner’s obligations related to and arising under the General Plan Maintenance Fee.

C. Plan For Providing Services. The parties agree to cooperate in, and to take such actions as may be necessary to ensure, the diligent preparation of a Plan For Providing Services to the Property, to be submitted to LAFCo along with City’s annexation application, in accordance with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requirements.

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

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

IV. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT
In the event of breach or default of any term, condition, covenant or obligation of this Agreement by either party, the other party may exercise any rights available at law or in equity, including an action for specific performance or other injunctive relief, and all such remedies shall be cumulative. This Agreement shall be enforceable, unless lawfully terminated or cancelled, by any party to the Agreement or any party’s successor in interest, notwithstanding any subsequent changes in any applicable law adopted by the City which alters or amends the laws, ordinances, resolutions, rules or policies frozen by this Agreement.

V. INDEMNIFICATION
Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City and the City’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability, claims, causes of actions, and demands, including attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation, or with any other action annexation or other action determined necessary or desirable by the City in order to effectuate the annexation of Owner’s property, or which are in any manner connected with the City’s enforcement of this Agreement. Owner further agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against or at the City’s option to pay the attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation.
1992
Resolution No. 2026-51
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Binding Effect/Covenants to Run With Land. The Parties hereto agree to be bound by this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, transferees, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The terms and conditions stated herein shall constitute covenants running with the land.
b. Assignment. Neither party shall assign, delegate or transfer their rights and duties in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party. c. Authorized Signatory. The individuals executing this Agreement, by their signature hereto, declare that they are authorized to, and have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. d. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be effective upon personal delivery to City, or Owner, as the case may be, three (3) business days after deposit in the United States Mail, postage fully prepaid, addressed to the respective parties as follows:

To the City: City Manager
City of Visalia
220 N. Santa Fe Street
Visalia, CA 93292
With Copy to: Kenneth J. Richardson
City Attorney
Peltzer & Richardson
3746 West Mineral King Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
To Owner: __________________________
__________________________
__________________________
Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
e. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the City and Owner as to its subject matter and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or affect.
f. Amendment. No part of this Agreement may be modified without the written consent of both parties.
g. Headings. Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions under the heading.
1993
Resolution No. 2026-51
h. No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. Except as provided herein, the parties of this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy.
i. Exhibits and Recitals. The recitals and any exhibits to this Agreement are fully incorporated by reference and are integral parts of this Agreement. j. Conflict With Laws or Regulations/Severability. This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing this subject, the conflicting provision(s) shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a material benefit of the Agreement to either party is lost, the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the effected party. In all other cases, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. k. Waiver. A waiver of any breech of this Agreement by any party shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breech of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
l. Choice of Law - Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any questions arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. Venue for any legal action arising from or in connection with this Agreement or the Property shall be in Tulare County, California. m. Attorneys Fees. In the event either party commences any action, arbitration or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court or arbitrator, shall be entitled to recovery of its reasonable fees and costs, including attorneys fees, court costs and arbitration costs incurred in the action brought thereon.
n. No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that Owner is not an agent of City. City and Owner hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection therewith shall be construed as making City and Owner joint venturers or partners. o. Excusable Delays; Extension of Time of Performance. In the event of delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, war, terrorism, lockouts, third-party litigation or other legal challenges regarding the annexation, riots, floods, earthquakes, epidemic, quarantine, freight embargoes, failure of contractors to perform, or other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the parties and which cause substantially interferes with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, then the time for performance of any such obligation shall be extended for such period of time as the cause of such delay shall exist but in any event not longer than for such period of time. p. Further Assurances. The parties will execute and deliver, upon demand by the other party, such further documents, instruments and conveyances, and shall take 1994
Resolution No. 2026-51
such further actions as such other party may request from time to time to document the transactions set forth herein.
q. Recordation of Agreement; Counterparts. This Agreement, or an abstract of its material terms and conditions shall be recorded by either party in the Official Records of the Tulare County Recorder. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, when all counterparts are combined, shall constitute a single agreement.
/////
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth next to their signature.

CITY
Date: ____________ By: ____________________________
Leslie Caviglia, City Manager
Attest:

Date: ____________ By: ____________________________
Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

Date: ____________ By: ____________________________
Kenneth J. Richardson,
City Attorney
OWNER
Date: ____________ By: ___________________________
_______________________________
1995

REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING

COMMISSION
HEARING DATE: June 8, 2026
PROJECT PLANNER: Jarred Olsen, AICP, Principal Planner
Phone No.: (559) 713-4449
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: D.R. Horton requests the following entitlements on a ±78.11-acre site located on the east side of South Lovers Lane Avenue, north of Caldwell Avenue (APN: 127- 020-020 and -021):

General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04: A request to reconfigure the land use designations on the subject property to accommodate the land use entitlements described below, in addition to amending the Circulation Element to realign the “K” Avenue Collector alignment to follow the Sunnyside Avenue alignment.

Annexation No. 2025-02: A request to prezone portions of the site R-1 (SingleFamily Residential zone), R-M-2 (Multi-family residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone) to be consistent with the proposed land use designation changes proposed in General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04, and annex the subject property into City limits.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24: A request to allow a planned unit development on a ±15.3-acre portion of the site consisting of 153 single-family residential units, private streets, two gated entries, landscaping and lighting district lots, and park areas, to be located within the proposed R-M-2 zone.

Clements Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606: A request to subdivide parcels totaling ±78.11 acres into 292 lots for single-family residential uses and additional lots for private streets, utilities, landscaping, lighting, trails, and parks, to be located within the proposed R-1, R-M-2, and QP zones. A ±20.81-acre designated remainder is also proposed.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13: A request to subdivide the subject property into four parcels for phasing and financing purposes, and a ±20.81-acre designated remainder.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve, as conditioned, the following entitlements based on the findings in their respective resolutions below, based on the conclusion that the requests are consistent with the Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance:
• General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04; Resolution No. 2026-32 • Annexation No. 2025-04; Resolution No. 2026-33
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve, as conditions, the following entitlements based on the findings in their respective resolutions below, based on the conclusion 1996
that the requests are consistent with the Visalia General Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as proposed:
• Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24; Resolution No. 2026-34 • Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606; Resolution No. 2026-35 • Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13; Resolution No. 2026-36

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend that the City Council approve the following entitlements, based on the findings and conditions found in their respective resolutions:
• General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04; Resolution No. 2026-32 • Annexation No. 2025-04; Resolution No. 2026-33
I move to approve the following entitlements, based on the findings and conditions found in their respective resolutions:
• Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24; Resolution No. 2026-34 • Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606; Resolution No. 2026-35 • Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13; Resolution No. 2026-36

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
D.R. Horton has filed entitlement applications for the development of a 292-lot single-family residential subdivision, on ±34.51 acres of two parcels totaling ±78.11 acres, located outside of City Limits and within the Tier II urban development boundary. The project site is currently a mix of fallowed and farmed land listed as prime farmland/farmland of statewide importance.

Entitlements for this project are described further below.

Annexation No. 2025-04 is a request to prezone these parcels consistent with their proposed land use designations and annex them into the Visalia City Limits.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 is a request to establish a Planned Residential Development consisting of single-family residences and private streets and establishing the following development standards, deviating from those of the applicable R-M-2 zone (all below are expressed in minimums):

R-M-2 As Proposed
Minimum Lot Area 3,000 sq. ft. 2,675 sq. ft.

Front Yard Setback, to Living Space 15 feet 7 feet
Front Yard Setback, to Garage 22 feet 12 feet
Side Yard, Interior 5 feet 4 feet
Side Yard, Steet Side 10 feet 10 feet
Rear Yard 15 feet 5 to 10 feet
Lot Width N/A 38 feet
1997
R-M-2 As Proposed
Lot Depth N/A 72 to 77 feet
The Planned Residential Development proposes private, gated streets at a width of 48.66 feet, with rolled curbs delineating the residential space from the private road. No sidewalks are proposed. This width will allow for curbside parking for guests. The City standards for a local road, curb-to-curb is 40 feet. In exchange for reduced setbacks and lot area, and in accordance with the Planned Residential Development standards, a minimum of five (5) percent of the private residential area is set aside for park space, which is proposed to be dispersed throughout the private residential area near each corner. Planned Residential Developments are required to provide the floor plans and elevations of the development within the proposed area. These can be found under Attachments “A” and “B” of Resolution No. 2026-34.

Clements Ranch Subdivision Map No. 5606 is a request to subdivide the ±78.11-acre parcels into a 292-lot single-family residential subdivision (see Attachment “A” of Resolution No. 2026-35). The density of the subdivision will be consistent with the density ranges of the Low and Medium Density Residential General Plan land use classifications, which notes density between 2 to 10 units per acre and 10 to 15 units per acre, respectively. The subdivision will be constructed with both public and private streets, with private streets, landscape outlots, walking trails, a neighborhood park, and additional amenities. Infrastructure and amenities in the portion with private streets are conditioned to be maintained by a homeowner’s association (HOA). The private nature of a portion of the subdivision, in addition to deviation from Visalia Municipal Code standards for lots within the R-M-2 zone, would be enabled by the Planned Residential Development proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 and discussed above. A ±20.81-acre designated remainder is proposed where the subject property would be zoned R-M-3. No development is proposed on the designated remainder.

Lastly, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13 is proposed to subdivide the project site into four parcels and a ±20.81-acre designated remainder (see Attachment “A” of Resolution No. 2026-36).

The proposed configuration of these parcels are intended to allow the developer to purchase the land from the seller in phases and individually develop each portion of the tentative subdivision map.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Plan Land
Use Designation:

Existing Proposed
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Conservation
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Conservation
Parks and Recreation
Proposed City
Zoning:

R-1 (Single-family residential zone); R-M-2 (Multi-family residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area); R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area); QP (Quasi-public zone) Surrounding Zoning
and Land Use: North:

R-1-5 / Higgins Ranch and Pearl Woods residential
subdivisions
1998
South:

Tulare County jurisdiction, AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20 Acre Minimum) / Farmland
East:

Tulare County jurisdiction, AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20 Acre Minimum) / Farmland
West:

R-1-5, R-M-3, C-MU / Sequoia Vista apartments, Park Place subdivision, vacant land
Environmental
Review:

An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.

Special Districts: None
Site Plan Review: SPR No. 2025-013

NEARBY AND RELATED PROJECTS
On May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approve Annexation No. 2021-03, and approved Higgins Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5585 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-01, which was a request to subdivide a 32.35-acre parcel into 174-lots for residential uses.

On June 12, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approve Annexation No. 2022-05, and approved the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07, which proposed to subdivide a 67.70-acre parcel into 273-lots for residential uses.

PROJECT EVALUATION
General Plan Amendment, Reconfiguration of Land Uses
The applicant proposes to reconfigure the existing land uses on the subject property to create more squared off land use designations. The Medium Density Residential portion of the property is proposed to be relocated to the northeast corner of the property, and the High Density Residential portion to the northwest. Low Density Residential is proposed on the south side of the proposed Sunnyside Avenue alignment. The existing configuration of the High Density Residential land use is flag shaped and does not realistically represent a developable area. Squaring off the shape would result in a more developable site. Staff supports the reconfiguration as it continues to locate the more intensive land uses along major streets. For purposes of the No Net Loss provisions of the Housing Crisis Act, the proposed configuration of general plan land use designations would not reduce residential capacity. While staff supports the reconfiguration of land use designations, staff request that the Tentative Subdivision Map record a notice on lots abutting or adjacent to the High Density Residential land use a disclosure notice to inform potential buyers of this high density residential land use designation and the expected development which will accommodate multi-family development when a land use entitlement is brought forth for approval.
1999
Existing Land Use Designations Proposed Land Use Designations As depicted above, the land use designation changes provide a more logical shapes and transitions, which would result in a superior land use configuration. Park and Recreation space is proposed alongside Cameron Creek. 2000
General Plan Amendment, “K” Avenue Collector Realignment The “K” Avenue Collector alignment as depicted in the General Plan’s Circulation Element carries the Collector along the San Joaquin Railroad line, terminating at Road 148. However, upon further review, the SCE Rector Substation is regrettably located in the future K Avenue alignment. Given that the likelihood of SCE or the City agreeing to relocate an important and consequently prohibitively expensive piece of infrastructure, staff concurs on the applicant’s request to propose an alignment which intends to carry the collector along the future Sunnyside Avenue alignment further south. As depicted in the aerial photograph below, a residence is located at the eastern edge of the Sunnyside alignment, nearest Road 148. While these alignments are schematic in nature and do not represent the “locked-in” final alignment, staff felt that the proposed realignment was enough of a departure to warrant an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element.

The future alignment of “K” Avenue, depicted above in the dashed red line, runs through SCE-owned property. The proposed realignment is shown as a dash orange line. These alignments are schematic in nature and do not represent the final alignment.

Annexation and Prezone
The subject property is currently not located in the Visalia City Limits. In order for the City to apply its land use jurisdictional rules and regulations, the land must be annexed into City limits and assigned zoning designation(s). The Annexation is supported on the basis that the proposed uses would be consistent with Visalia General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-P-21, which allows for the annexation and development of residential land to occur within the Tier II Urban Development Boundary when it is consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, as it is proposed to be amended. The site will be pre-zoned to R-1, R-M-2, R-M-3, and QP, consistent with the subject property’s proposed General Plan land use designations (as determined by Table 42 of the Housing Element). The City supports the annexation as the City has capacity to serve the Project and represents a logical expansion of City limits. 2001
The proposed zoning of the subject property coincides with the land use designations proposed under General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04.
2002
General Plan Consistency
Land Use Element Policies
The project is consistent with Visalia General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-P-21, which states that the city should “Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”. The proposed site is within the County of Tulare and is adjacent to and consistent with existing developed residential sites to the north and west. Existing utility infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, and stormwater) can be provided to accommodate the project at buildout. Furthermore, the site is located within the Tier II Urban Development Boundary (UDB), which allows for immediate development of a project site upon its successful annexation. Note the City of Visalia met General Plan residential land use thresholds for expansion into the Tier 2 UDB in July 2021.

The project is also consistent with Policies LU-P-55 and LU-P-56. These policies allow for residential development consistent with the Low and Medium Density Residential designations at a density range between 2 to 10 and 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre, respectively. The proposed development will be developed at residential densities consistent with these land use designations and their respective zoning districts. These policies are intended to facilitate “singlefamily detached housing” and “small-lot single family”. The proposal meets the intent of the policy, providing a development compatible with residential areas to the north and west, with lot sizes comparable to surrounding lots, at a location that transitions smoothly with agricultural areas to the south and east.

Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 66589.5) The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards, including design review, if they were in effect at the time that the housing development application was deemed complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and that there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact. 1 This
project requires legislative approval of the General Plan Amendment and to prezone the site to establish zoning for the site. Therefore, the provisions of the HAA do not apply to this project.

With approval of the attached Conditional Use Permit/Planned Residential Development, the project is considered to be consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and single-family residential development standards, should the General Plan Amendment and Prezone are approved. The lots proposed for the Clements Ranch subdivision meet density standards for the Low and Medium Density Residential land use designations.

Furthermore, the subdivision will develop a private network of local streets and improve adjacent Collector and Arterial public roadways, thereby facilitating increased street connectivity to accommodate future growth areas.

Prime Farmland
The subject property is designated prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined per the Tulare County Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. As such, the project site is subject to the City’s Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO). Payment of fees or proof of acquisition of an agricultural conservation easement pursuant to the requirements of the APO will be required prior to development of each phase or the designated remainder. 1 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).
2003
Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24
The project proposes to subdivide the R-M-2 area into parcels smaller than the minimum specified in the zoning ordinance, in addition to reduced setbacks, located within private, gated streets.

Setbacks and Open Space
These requests require the approval of a Planned Residential Development, which are processed as a Conditional Use Permit. In exchange for reduced setbacks and lot areas, the proposal is providing a sufficient amount of open space to comply with the City’s requirements for Planned Residential Developments, and these open space areas are dispersed throughout the development. Staff is requesting a condition regarding development standards of these park spaces. Staff however is requesting that the minimum rear yard setback is increased throughout the entirety of the Planned Residential Development to ten (10) feet. This is consistent with the Pratt Family Ranch subdivision.

Parking and Sidewalks
Staff is requiring that dwelling unit parking be located in a garage, given that each lot’s proposed front yard setback is insufficient to accommodate a vehicle. The private right-of-way width at 48.66 feet is sufficient to accommodate on-street parking, and is also of sufficient width to also provide sidewalks, which the proposal does not. Consistent with other private subdivisions in Visalia, including the Barr-Wood subdivision now being developed at Roeben and Whitendale, staff is requesting a condition that sidewalks be installed on at least one side of the private street.

Solid Waste and Homeowner’s Associations
Solid waste expressed concerns that solid waste collection will be made difficult, as requested a condition that the streets be signed to indicate “No Parking on Solid Waste Collection Days”.

Private streets require an entity to own and maintain the private infrastructure, which includes the sewer mains, roads, gates, fences, landscaping, and open space. Formation of a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) is required, and the conditions indicate the responsibilities that the HOA will be required to conduct. Parking restrictions, such as during solid waste collection days, will be a responsibility of the HOA to enforce. The conditions also allow, but not require, the City to enforce the provisions of the HOA in the event of failure to adequately maintain the private improvements or their reserve fund. This will ensure that the goal of a private subdivision is maintained and the likelihood of the HOA requesting the City take over responsibility is greatly reduced.

Building Elevations/Floor Plans
Building elevations and floor plans for the Planned Residential Development are included in Exhibits “C” and “D”. Per the submittal, the applicant will be providing three floor plans of twostory residences, ranging from 1,380 to 1,775 square feet of livable space, each with three architectural styles and three to four bedrooms. The proposed street facing façades will feature various forms of architectural ornamentation depending on the style chosen, such as batten siding, shutters, mission tile roofing, shingle siding, wood railings, glazed tile over doorways, brick/stone veneers, and metal awnings. These floorplans and elevations are similar to those found in the Jacobglen area found in Pratt Family Ranch subdivision. Consistency with the exterior elevations will be enforced through the Building Permit process. Objective Design Standards for single-family residential developments are only applicable in R-S zones, and thus compliance with these standards were not determined.
2004
Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606
This subdivision proposes a total of 292 lots, with a mix of outlots for park space, trails, a CalWater well site, and other amenities. Subdivision of the private gated area discussed above will be enabled by the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24.

The project will be required to dedicate both sides of Sunnyside Avenue, and this road will generally serve as the main access point into both the north and south side of the subdivision.

The south side, which accommodates the zoning-compliant lots, also contains creek-adjacent park space and a regional-serving stormwater basin. This area contains a couple of long cul-desacs, which are necessitated by the distance from the Lovers Lane and Caldwell intersection and the subdivision’s articulation next to the creek. Pedestrian access will be made available to the trail from each cul-de-sac. The subdivision will also be required to construct its frontage improvements along Lovers Lane, helping to connect this subdivision to other parts of Visalia.

The subdivision map proposes a ±20.81-acre designated remainder, which is where the proposed High Density Residential land use designation would be located. This area will be encumbered with the future relocation and undergrounding of the Tulare Irrigation Canal, at the request of Tulare Irrigation District. A notice will be required to be recorded on the designated remainder to inform future buyers of this requirement.

Designated Remainder
Designated remainders are treated differently in the Subdivision Ordinance. Typically, improvements are required for all lots; however, designated remainders are generally excepted from this requirement. The City may however require fulfillment of construction requirements along the designated remainder within a reasonable time following approval of the final map and prior to issuance of a permit for the development of the remainder parcel, but one of the following findings must be made:

1. The fulfillment of the construction requirements is necessary for reasons of public health and safety; or

2. The required construction is a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area.

Staff does not believe the requirements are necessary for reasons of public health and safety purposes. However, staff would request the Planning Commission make the following findings with respect to orderly development, which includes:

1. Orderly Development. The required frontage improvements along the designated remainder are necessary to ensure the orderly and logical development of the area. The designated remainder is an integral part of the urbanizing area and will be bordered by public improvements constructed as part of the subdivision. Completion of the frontage improvements will promote continuity of the transportation, utility, drainage, and pedestrian networks and prevent fragmented infrastructure patterns.

2. Prevention of Leapfrog Development. Deferral of frontage improvements until development of the designated remainder would create the potential for incomplete public infrastructure and leapfrog development patterns inconsistent with the General Plan and the City's orderly growth objectives. Requiring the improvements before approval of a subsequent final map ensures that urban infrastructure is extended in a coordinated manner.

3. Reasonable Relationship to the Subdivision. The required improvements, including street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, traffic-control devices, and related public 2005
not accepted for dedication, the subdivider would be able to use this site as another residential lot.
• Storm Drainage: A storm drainage basin is proposed at the southern end of the development, nearest Cameron Creek. This drainage basin will be sized to serve the development and the designated remainder.
• Cameron Creek: The public portion of the residential subdivision abuts Cameron Creek.

Portions of the Creek are dedicated to the City, and a trail would be constructed.

Connection points to the trail would be provided from the residential subdivision. A concept of this trail can be found attached to this report.
• Public Park: A public park, approximately 1.4 acres in area, is proposed at the southeast end of the subdivision, adjacent to Cameron Creek. This park would be maintained by a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District for the public street area of the subdivision. • Mid-Block Pedestrian Connections: Midway through Streets “B”, “D”, “E”, as well as “A” and “C”, 10-foot wide pedestrian connections are proposed. While these are proposed to be dedicated to the City and would be maintained by a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, these are quite narrow and not conducive to travelling through. Staff recommends that these be widened to 15 feet to accommodate a five-foot wide sidewalk flanked on each side by a five-foot wide landscaping strip. Staff’s proposed width is consistent with that found in Phase 1 of Carleton Acres, cul-de-sac connections in the Blankenship subdivision, and the Pratt Family Ranch Tier 3 subdivision. • Canal: The existing Tulare Irrigation Canal bisects the proposed designated remainder at an odd angle. Tulare Irrigation District requests that this canal be undergrounded and relocated, but sees it not necessary to do so with the proposed development. A condition is proposed to record a notice on the designated remainder to inform future developers of this requirement.

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

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

Staff has reviewed the seven findings for a cause of denial and finds that none of the findings can be made for the proposed tentative subdivision map. The seven findings and staff’s analysis are below. Recommended findings in response to this Government Code section are included in the recommended findings in the resolution for the approval of the tentative subdivision map.

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

The proposed tentative subdivision map
have been found to be consistent with the
City’s General Plan, should the proposed
General Plan Amendment be approved.
2006
improvements, are reasonably related to the impacts and development pattern created by the subdivision and are necessary to integrate the subdivision with the surrounding public infrastructure system. The regional stormwater basin is sized to accommodate the designated remainder and its frontage improvements. Construction of the improvements will reduce the fragmented nature of the pedestrian network and allow residents of the subdivision to visit other areas.

4. The Timing Requirement is Reasonable. Requiring construction of the frontage improvements with the first phase of development a reasonable opportunity for implementation while ensuring that the improvements are completed within a timeframe that supports orderly urban development and avoids indefinite postponement.

5. No Unfair Burden. The requirement does not impose an unreasonable burden because the subdivider may utilize improvement agreements, security instruments, reimbursement agreements, benefit districts, or other mechanisms authorized by law to allocate costs among benefitting properties and future development.

These findings are made in the resolution prepared for the Tentative Subdivision Map.

The City has required improvements along designated remainders in the past, specifically Pheasant Ridge Unit No. 7, Phase 1, where the senior residential development currently exists at the southeast corner of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13
This parcel map proposes a designated remainder, which is a portion of the site set aside for future subdivision. Although staff had concerns that the approval of this tentative parcel map and future recording of the final parcel map would preclude the City from requiring the construction of frontage improvements along the designated remainder of the tentative parcel map due to the language in Section 66411.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, staff concludes that the findings to impose improvements along the designated remainder for the Clements Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606, which include the construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the designated remainder, are addressed and conditioned as part of the subdivision map. In addition, some of the parcels proposed would be landlocked; staff is therefore requesting that a condition be placed that requires access and utility easements to reach each parcel.

Infrastructure
The project will require improvements to the following infrastructure:
• Major Streets: Both Lovers Lane and Sunnyside Avenue would be constructed to their Engineering standard widths, and 10-foot wide landscape outlots would be constructed where residences abutting those streets. A six-foot tall block wall would delineate the residential space from the major street to provide noise attenuation and safety from higher speeds associated with major streets.
• Water and Sanitary Sewer Service: The subdivision will be required to extend water and sewer mains to and throughout the subdivision. The developer will be required to coordinate with City staff on design and construction requirements for the sanitary sewer.

The sanitary sewer master plan for the entire development will be required to be submitted for review prior to approval of any portion of the system. A condition is placed on the tentative subdivision map requires that prior to recordation of Final Map that the subdivider obtains a valid, current Will Serve letter from the California Water Service. Outlot C is proposed to be dedicated to California Water Service for a future well site. If this outlot is 2007
GC Section 66474 Finding Analysis
(b) That the design or improvement of the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.

The proposed design and improvements of
the subdivision have been found to be
consistent with the City’s General Plan.

There are no specific plans applicable to the
proposed maps.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the
type of development.

The site is physically suitable for the
proposed maps and its affiliated
development plan. While a portion of the site
is located in a 100-year floodplain, the
development would raise the finished floor
elevation to or above the base flood
elevation, in conformance with the City’s
Floodplain Management Regulations.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.

The site is physically suitable for the
proposed maps and their affiliated
development plan, which is designated as
Low and Medium Density Residential. The
subdivision is located on relatively flat land
and is required to connect to City sewer
services. Therefore, there are no concerns
regarding site suitability with respect to the
subdivision’s proposed density.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat.

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

The proposed design of the map has been
found to not cause serious public health
problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type
of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.

There are no existing public access
easements on the subject property, therefore
the subdivision design or its improvements
would not conflict with such easements.
2008
Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts to the following resources:
• Four mitigation measures pertaining to Agricultural, Biological, Cultural, Geological, Hazards, Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources to reduce the impacts of the Project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction. Measures also address the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe’s concerns regarding Tribal history and knowledge of the area. Biological impacts are proposed to be mitigated through preconstruction surveys. Hazards relate to unknown underground storage or septic tanks.

The project will be required to pay its fair share of traffic impact mitigation.

A Water Supply Assessment was prepared by the California Water Service and found that the water purveyor will have adequate capacity to serve the project and the zoning of the designated remainder.

Public Comment
This hearing and the initial study was noticed on May 8, 2026, providing the general public and nearby property owners and residents a 30-day review and comment period.

No public comment was received as of the publication of this report.

With respect to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for this project, the City received one comment letter(s) from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and is attached to this report.

Responses were prepared by the consultant who prepared the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, which are attached to this report. Staff concurs with the consultant’s response, that the existing site conditions, as well as existing regulations, would address all concerns stated in DTSC’s letter. Staff finds that the environmental document does not need to be recirculated.

No other formal comments were received as of the publication of this report. Consequently, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project is recommended for adoption.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04
None.

Annexation No. 2025-04
The applicant(s) enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The draft Pre-Annexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” and is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24

1. Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 shall apply to the area depicted in Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 as Lots 140 through 292 and Outlots M through T (“PRD Area”).

2. Annexation No. 2025-04 shall be approved, the PRD Area be prezoned to R-M-2, and the subject property annexed into City limits.
2009

3. The PRD Area shall be developed in substantial conformance with Exhibit “A” and the comments and conditions of Site Plan Review No. 2025-013-1-1-1-1, incorporated herein by reference.

4. That the project be developed in substantial conformance with all improvements depicted and described in Exhibits “A” through “C”.

5. Subdivision of the PRD Area shall not occur unless Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 is approved.

6. Prior to the issuance of any residential building permit on the site, a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company shall be provided to the Building Official.

7. The PRD Area shall comply with the development standards of the R-M-2 zone district, with the following exceptions:
a. Minimum Lot Width: 38 feet, as measured from a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.
b. Minimum Interior Side Yard: 4 feet
c. Minimum Corner Side Yard: 10 feet
d. Minimum Front Yard, to Living Space: 7 feet
e. Minimum Front Yard, to Garage: 12 feet
f. Minimum Lot Depth: 72 feet
g. Minimum Rear Yard: 10 feet
h. Dwelling Unit Parking. Each dwelling shall have a minimum of two (2) parking spaces, both of which shall be in a garage.
i. Guest Parking. Parking for guests shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) space for every four (4) dwelling units. Curbside parking within the private streets is acceptable. j. Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one (1) side of each street and be a minimum width of five (5) feet. Sidewalks and ramps shall comply with the City of Visalia City Engineering Division Design and Improvement Standards.
k. Solid Waste. Private streets shall be signed to indicate no parking on solid waste collection days.
l. Usable Open Space.
i. Usable open space shall be provided at a minimum of five (5) percent of the net site area of the planned residential development area. The outlots shall be restricted for park and recreation purposes. Useable common open space shall exclude areas designated for parking, including surface parking, carports, or garages. Each usable open space area shall have a minimum dimension of 10 feet and provide seating.
ii. A minimum of 60 percent of the common useable open space shall be provided as landscaped green area (not hardscaped).
2010
iii. A minimum of four (4) passive or active recreation amenities covering a minimum of 17,250 square feet shall be provided. Passive recreation refers to recreational activities that require minimal to no facilities or development to perform such activities and include, but are not limited to, community gardens, outdoor gathering/seating area, picnic/barbeque area, pet area/dog park, courtyard/plaza. All passive recreational amenity area shall be a minimum of 200 square feet unless otherwise stated. Active recreation refers to recreational activities that require specific facilities or equipment to perform such activities.

Active recreational amenities include, but are not limited to, playground/tot lot, sports court/field, fitness area, swimming pool, clubhouse with kitchen, community room. All active recreational amenity areas shall be a minimum of 500 square feet unless otherwise stated.
iv. Playgrounds/tot lots, if provided, shall be located in an area with direct visibility from a minimum of three dwelling units to allow for casual surveillance. v. Recreation improvements may be credited against the development fee if wholly complies with VMC § 12.36.090.

8. Outlots M and N shall be constructed with a six-foot tall block wall abutting the residential lots, as measured from highest adjacent grade, and landscaped in accordance with the City of Visalia Landscape Standard Specifications.

9. Outlot S, if not accepted by SCE for dedication, shall be incorporated into the subdivision.

10.Homeowner’s Association. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall establish a legally formed homeowners’ association (“HOA”) responsible for the ownership, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and perpetual upkeep of all private improvements and common areas within the PRD Area, including, but not limited to, private streets, gated entry features, landscaping, irrigation systems, private storm drainage facilities, lighting, walls, recreational facilities, signage, and all other privately maintained improvements identified by the City Engineer or Planning and Community Preservation Director.

1. 11.Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”). The HOA governing documents shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and shall include provisions requiring the HOA to:
a. Maintain all private improvements and common areas in a safe, functional, clean, and attractive condition;
b. Levy and collect regular assessments from property owners in amounts sufficient to fund routine operation and maintenance costs and reasonably anticipated repair and replacement costs.
c. Adjust assessments as necessary to maintain reserve funding levels adequate to meet projected replacement obligations over the life cycle of the maintained improvements; d. Enforce all parking restrictions applicable within the subdivision’s private streets and common areas, including restrictions necessary to maintain emergency vehicle access, roadway maneuverability, and solid waste collection service operations. The CC&Rs 2011
shall specifically authorize the HOA to prohibit or restrict on-street parking on designated solid waste collection days and during designated collection hours where necessary to ensure unobstructed access for refuse and recycling vehicles; e. Include enforcement mechanisms sufficient to ensure compliance with parking restrictions, including, but not limited to, notice procedures, fines, towing authority to the extent permitted by law, and other lawful enforcement remedies; f. Grant the City the right, but not the obligation, to enforce the maintenance and assessment provisions of the HOA documents in the event the HOA fails to adequately maintain the subdivision’s private improvements or reserve funding program. g. The CC&Rs shall provide that the maintenance, repair, and replacement obligations of the HOA shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors, heirs, and assigns. h. All applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met.

Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606

1. General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 and Annexation No. 2025-04 shall be approved.

2. The subject property shall be annexed into City limits within two (2) years of tentative subdivision map approval.

3. The tentative subdivision map shall be developed in substantial conformance with Exhibit “A” and the comments and conditions of Site Plan Review No. 2025-013-1-1-1-1, incorporated herein by reference.

4. Prior to the issuance of any residential building permit on the site, a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company shall be provided to the Building Official.

5. Mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Clements Ranch subdivision shall be implemented.

6. The Project proponent shall pay their fair share cost for intersection improvements and roadway segment improvements as indicated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration or the City’s adopted transportation impact fee, whichever is greater, prior to final inspection.

7. Designated Remainder
a. Within one (1) year of filing a final map and with the development of the first phase, right-of-way and frontage improvements (street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, traffic-control devices, and related public improvements) along the designated remainder’s public street frontages shall be dedicated in fee to the City and constructed in accordance with City standards.
b. Notices shall be recorded on the designated remainder stating that at time of development of the designated remainder:
i. That the Tulare Irrigation Ditch shall be undergrounded and relocated pursuant to the standards and requirements of Tulare Irrigation District; and, ii. That compliance with the City’s Agricultural Land Preservation Program will be required.

8. Gated Private Street PRD Area
a. Prior to acceptance of a Final Map of the PRD Area, Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 shall be approved.
2012
b. The Expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 shall cause the PRD Area portion of Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 to be null and void. c. Outlots M, N, O, P, Q, R, and T shall not be offered or accepted for dedication and shall be conveyed to the Homeowner’s Association described under Condition (m) of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24.
d. Outlots M and N shall be constructed with a six-foot tall block wall abutting the residential lots, as measured from highest adjacent grade. e. Outlots O, P, Q, and R in total shall equal to or greater than five (5) percent of the net lot area of the PRD Area and shall be restricted for park and recreation purposes.

Legal documents shall be recorded that run with the land in favor of the future property owners of the property. Park and recreation outlots shall be developed with passive and/or recreational facilities of which can be selected from the list provided in VMC § 12.36.090. Recreation improvements may be credited against the development fee if wholly complies with VMC § 12.36.090. f. An exception to the lot depth standard for Lot 183 is granted pursuant to VMC §

16.04.050 if development of Lot 183 occurs prior to development of the Designated Remainder. This exception shall result in the minimum exception needed to allow the proposed development.
g. Phased development of the PRD Area shall provided sufficient turnaround space for solid waste and emergency vehicles. Temporary easements shall be granted to the City until at such time a subsequent phase is developed that renders the temporary easement unnecessary. Temporary easements shall be designed based on a vehicle turning template of City vehicles.
h. Outlot S, if not accepted by SCE for dedication, shall be incorporated into the subdivision. The City will not accept dedication of Outlot S.

9. Standard R-1 Subdivision
a. Development of this area shall comply with the requirements of the R-1 zone district and Objective Design Standards. Compliance will be determined prior to building permit issuance.
b. Outlot C shall be incorporated into the subdivision as a numbered lot if the outlot is offered for dedication but not accepted by California Water Service. c. Outlots A, B, D, G, H, I, J, and L shall be constructed by the developer in accordance with City standards and specifications and dedicated in fee to the City. d. Outlots E, F, and K shall be removed or have a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet and be constructed with a six (6) foot tall concrete masonry wall, measured from the highest adjacent grade.

10.Signage. The PRD Area and Non-PRD Area shall each be considered separate residential subdivision for purposes of determining the number of entrance signs allowed under VMC § 17.48.090 subdiv. (H).

11.Lots within the subdivision adjacent to, or across the street from, the High Density Residential designated remainder shall be recorded with a notice identifying that these parcels are located adjacent to a High Density Residential land use, which permit the development of high density multi-family development, including up to four stories.

12.That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met. 2013
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13

1. General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 and Annexation No. 2025-04 shall be approved.

2. Comply with all conditions per Resolution No. 2026-35 with respect to the frontage improvements along the designated Remainder.

3. The subject property shall be annexed into City limits prior to acceptance of a final parcel map.

4. Notices shall be recorded on the designated remainder stating that at time of development of the designated remainder:
a. that the Tulare Irrigation Ditch shall be undergrounded and relocated pursuant to the standards and requirements of Tulare Irrigation District; and, b. that compliance with the City’s Agricultural Land Preservation Program will be required.

5. Access and utility easements shall be provided to each parcel from the public right-of-way.

Parcels that can accommodate more than 30 dwelling units shall be provided with two access points.

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

APPEAL INFORMATION
General Plan Amendment and Annexation
For the General Plan Amendment and Annexation, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory only and cannot be appealed. The final decision will be made by the Visalia City Council following a public hearing.

Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606, Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13
According to the City of Visalia Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.28.080, and Zoning Ordinance Section 17.02.145, an appeal to the City Council may be submitted within ten days following the date of a decision by the Planning Commission. An appeal with applicable fees shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 North Santa Fe St., Visalia, CA. The appeal shall specify errors or abuses of discretion by the Planning Commission, or decisions not supported by the evidence in the record. The appeal form can be found on the City’s website www.visalia.gov or from the City Clerk.
2014
Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2026-32 – General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 • - Attachment “A” – Proposed Land Use Changes
• Resolution No. 2026-33 – Annexation No. 2025-04
• - Attachment “A” – Proposed Zoning Districts
• Resolution No. 2026-34 – Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 • - Attachment “A” – Site Plan
• - Attachment “B” – Floor Plans and Elevations
• Resolution No. 2026-35 – Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 • - Attachment “A” – Tentative Subdivision Map
• Resolution No. 2026-36 – Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13 • - Attachment “A” – Tentative Parcel Map
• Landscape Concept for Cameron Creek Trail
• Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Department of Toxics and Substances Control (DTSC) Comment Letter, May 12, 2026 • Response to Comments
• Site Plan Review No. 2025-013-1-1-1-1
• Aerial and Location Map
2015

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

General Plan Land Use Policies:

LU-P-21:Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) and the Urban Growth Boundary (Tier III) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, according to the following phasing thresholds: • “Tier II”: Tier II supports a target buildout population of approximately 178,000. The expansion criteria for land in Tier II is that land would only become available for development when building permits have been issued in Tier I at the following levels, starting from April 1, 2010:

Residential: after permits for 5,850 housing units have been issued.

LU-P-55:Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Low Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram for development at 2 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre, facilitating new planned neighborhoods and infill development in established areas.

LU-P-56:Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Medium Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram for development at 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre.

Zoning Ordinance Chapter for R-1 Zone
Chapter 17.12

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE

17.12.010 Purpose and intent.

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

17.12.015 Applicability.

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

17.12.020 Permitted uses.

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

A. One-family dwellings on a lot with the minimum site area as specified in Section 17.12.050, including lots with lot area of between 3,600 and 4,999 square feet if developed in accordance with Sections 17.12.140A. and B.;
B. Raising of fruit and nut trees, vegetables and horticultural specialties; 2016
C. Accessory structures located on the same site with a permitted use including private garages and carports, one guest house, storehouses, garden structures, green houses, recreation room and hobby shops;
D. Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests; provided, that no swimming pool or accessory mechanical equipment shall be located in a required front yard or in a required side yard;
E. Temporary subdivision sales offices;
F. Licensed day care for a maximum of fourteen (14) children in addition to the residing family; G. Twenty-four (24) hour residential care facilities or foster homes, for a maximum of six individuals in addition to the residing family;
H. Signs subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.48;
I. The keeping of household pets, subject to the definition of household pets set forth in Section

17.04.030;
J. Senior citizen residential developments, meeting city standards and having a density in the Low Density Residential range of two (2) to ten (10) housing units per acre; K. Adult day care up to twelve (12) persons in addition to the residing family; L. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner; M. Legally existing multiple family units, and expansion or reconstruction as provided in Section 17.12.070;
N. Transitional housing or supportive housing as those terms are defined in Section 17.04.030; O. In the R-1-20 zone only, the breeding, hatching, raising and fattening of birds, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters, other small animals and fowl, on a domestic noncommercial scale, provided that there shall not be less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of site area for each fowl or animal and provided that no structure housing poultry or small animals shall be closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line, closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any dwelling on the site, or closer than fifty (50) feet to any other dwelling;
P. In the R-1-20 zone only, the raising of livestock, except pigs of any kind, subject to the exception of not more than two cows, two horses, four sheep or four goats for each site, shall be permitted; provided, that there be no limitation on the number of livestock permitted on a site with an area of ten acres or more and provided that no stable be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any dwelling on the site or closer than one hundred (100) feet to any other dwelling; Q. Employee housing as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 17008.

17.12.030 Accessory uses.

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

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

C. Cottage food operations that meet all the requirements contained in Health and Safety Code Section 113758 and those stated in Section 17.32.035.

D. Accessory dwelling units as specified in Chapter 17.14. 2017

17.12.040 Conditional uses.

In the R-S 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. A planned development is required to create lots having less than 3,600 square feet lot area, in accordance with Section

17.12.140C. A planned development is not necessary to accompany the processing of a tentative parcel map if meeting the development criteria set forth in Section 17.26.090; B. Public and quasi-public uses of an educational or religious type including public and parochial elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools and colleges; nursery schools, licensed day care facilities for more than fourteen (14) children; churches, parsonages and other religious institutions;
C. Public and private charitable institutions, general hospitals, sanitariums, nursing and convalescent homes, and hospices; not including specialized hospitals, sanitariums, or nursing, rest and convalescent homes including care for acute psychiatric, drug addiction or alcoholism cases;
D. Public uses of an administrative, recreational, public service or cultural type including city, county, state or federal administrative centers and courts, libraries, museums, art galleries, police and fire stations, ambulance service and other public building, structures and facilities; public playgrounds, parks and community centers;
E. Electric distribution substations;
F. Gas regulator stations;
G. Public service pumping stations, i.e., community water service wells; H. Communications equipment buildings;
I. Planned neighborhood commercial center subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.26; J. Mobile home parks in conformance with Section 17.32.040 and having a density in the Low Density Residential range of two (2) to ten (10) housing units per acre; K. Residential developments utilizing private streets in which the net lot area (lot area not including street area) meets or exceeds the site area prescribed by this article and in which the private streets are designed and constructed to meet or exceed public street standards; L. Adult day care in excess of twelve (12) persons;
M. Large residential care facility subject to the provisions in Section 17.32.145; N. Residential structures and accessory buildings totaling more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet;
O. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner.

17.12.050 Site area.

The minimum site area shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Site Area
R-1, unless developed in accordance with Section 17.12.140 5,000 square feet R-1-12.5 12,500 square feet
2018
R-1-20 20,000 square feet
A. Each site shall have not less than forty (40) feet of frontage on the public street. The minimum width shall be as follows:

Zone Interior Lot Corner Lot
R-1, unless developed
in accordance with Section 17.12.140 50 feet 60 feet
R-1-12.5 90 feet 100 feet
R-1-20 100 feet 110 feet
B. Minimum width for corner lot on a side on cul-de-sac shall be eighty (80) feet, when there is no landscape lot between the corner lot and the right of way.

17.12.060 Number of dwelling units per site.

In the R-S single-family residential zone, not more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be located on each site, notwithstanding Chapter 17.14 pertaining to accessory dwelling units, and notwithstanding California Government Code § 65852.21(a) which allows two (2) residential units on a site.

17.12.070 Replacement and expansion of legally existing multiple family units.

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. All rights established under Sections 17.12.020 and 17.12.070 shall be null and void one hundred eighty (180) days after the date that the unit(s) are destroyed (or rendered uninhabitable), unless a building permit has been obtained and diligent pursuit of construction has commenced.

The approval of a site plan review permit does not constitute compliance with this requirement.

17.12.080 Front yard.

A. The minimum front yard shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Front Yard
2019
R-1-5 Unless developed in accordance with Section 17.12.140, fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty-two (22) feet for front-loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cochere. A Porte Cochere with less than twenty-two (22) feet of setback from property line shall not be counted as covered parking, and garages on such sites shall not be the subject of a garage conversion.

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

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

17.12.090 Side yards.

A. Unless developed in accordance with Section 17.12.140, the minimum side yard shall be five feet in the R-1-5 and R-1-12.5 zone subject to the exception that on the street side of a corner lot the side yard shall be not less than ten feet and twenty-two (22) feet for front loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cocheres.

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

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

D. On corner lots, all front-loading garage doors or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cochere, shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet from the nearest public improvement or sidewalk. A porte cochere with less than twenty- two (22) feet of setback from property line shall not be counted as covered parking, and garages on such sites shall not be the subject of a garage conversion.

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

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

17.12.100 Rear yard.

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

A. On a corner or reverse corner lot the rear yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet on the narrow side or twenty (20) feet on the long side of the lot. The decision as to whether the short side or long side is used as the rear yard area shall be left to the applicant's discretion as long as a 2020
minimum area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of usable rear yard area is maintained. The remaining side yard to be a minimum of five feet.

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

C. Main structures may encroach up to five feet into a required rear yard area provided that such encroachment does not exceed one story and that a usable, open, rear yard area of at least one thousand two hundred and fifty (1,250) square feet shall be maintained.

17.12.110 Height of structures.

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

17.12.120 Off-street parking.

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

17.12.130 Fences, walls and hedges.

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

17.12.140 Lot area less than 5,000 square feet.

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

1. The development's overall density is consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan density range of two (2) to ten (10) dwelling units per gross acre.

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

3. Streets shall be constructed to public street standards.

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

5. The development is consistent with all objective design standards as referenced in Section

17.12.160 (Objective Design Standards).

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

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

2. The minimum lot width shall be forty-six (46) feet for interior lots and fifty-one (51) feet for corner lots.
2021

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

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

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

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

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

8. Lots shall provide a minimum usable open space area of three hundred (300) square feet.

The open space shall have a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet.

C. Lots less having a lot area of 3,600 square feet, or lots between 3,600 and 4,999 square feet that do not meet all the standards in Subsections A and B of Section 17.12.140 may be approved through the planned development permit process per Chapter 17.26.

17.12.160 Objective design standards.

Project proponents of single-family residential developments that are subject to approval by the site plan review staff or the planning commission are required to adhere to the objective design standards as specified by Resolution No. 2025-30 of the Visalia City Council passed on May 5, 2025, and may be subsequently amended by resolution. The purpose of the standards are to provide proponents with a clear understanding of the city's expectations for all residential project design and streamline the construction of housing units by reducing subjectivity in the entitlement process. Before the issuance of a building permit for each primary dwelling unit, the project proponent shall demonstrate each unit's compliance with the objective design standards, utilizing any forms approved by the city for determining compliance.

Chapter 17.16

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES

17.16.015 Applicability.

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

17.16.020 Permitted uses.

In the R-M multi-family residential zones, the following uses are permitted by right:

A. Existing one-family dwellings;
B. Multi-family dwellings up to eighty (80) dwelling units per site; C. Fruit, vegetable and horticultural husbandry;
D. Swimming pools used only by residents on the site and their guests, provided that no swimming pool or accessory mechanical equipment shall be located in a required front yard or in a required side yard;
E. Temporary subdivision sales offices;
F. Licensed day care for a maximum of fourteen (14) children in addition to the residing family, situated within an existing single-family dwelling;
2022
G. Twenty-four (24) hour care facilities or foster homes for a maximum of six individuals in addition to the residing family;
H. Signs subject to the provision of Chapter 17.48;
I. The keeping of household pets, subject to the definition of household pets set forth in Section

17.04.030;
J. Adult day care for a maximum of twelve (12) individuals in addition to the residing family, situated within an existing single-family dwelling;
K. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner; L. Transitional housing or supportive housing as those terms are defined in Section 17.04.030; M. Single-room occupancy (SRO), as follows:

1. Up to fifteen (15) units per gross acre in the R-M-2 zone district;

2. Up to thirty-five (35) units per gross acre in the R-M-3 zone district.

N. Senior citizen residential developments, meeting city standards and having a density in the Medium Density Residential range of ten (10) to fifteen (15) housing units per acre in the R-M-2 zone district or having a density in the High Density Residential range of fifteen (15) to thirty-five (35) housing units per acre in the R-M-3 zone district; O. Employee housing as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 17008.

17.16.030 Accessory uses.

In the R-M multi-family residential zone, accessory uses include:

A. Home occupations subject to the provisions of Section 17.32.030; B. Accessory buildings subject to the provisions of Section 17.16.090B; C. Cottage food operations that meet all the requirements contained in Health and Safety Code Section 113758 and those stated in Section 17.32.035;
D. Accessory dwelling units as specified in Chapter 17.14.

17.16.040 Conditional uses.

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

A. Public and quasi-public uses of an educational or religious type including public and parochial elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools and colleges; nursery schools, licensed day care facilities for more than fourteen (14) children; churches, parsonages and other religious institutions;
B. Public and private charitable institutions; general hospitals, sanitariums, nursing and convalescent homes, and hospices; including specialized hospitals, sanitariums, or nursing, rest and convalescent homes including care for acute psychiatric, drug addiction or alcoholism cases; C. Public uses of an administrative, recreational, public service or cultural type including city, county, state or federal administrative centers and courts, libraries, museums, art galleries, police and fire stations and other public buildings, structures and facilities; public playgrounds, parks and community centers;
2023
D. In the R-M-3 zone only, an open air public or private parking lot, subject to all provisions of Section 17.34.030, excluding trucks over 3/4 ton;
E. Electric distribution substations;
F. Gas regulator stations;
G. Public service pumping stations and/or elevated or underground tanks; H. Communication equipment buildings;
I. Mobile home parks, meeting regulations specified in Section 17.32.040 and having a density in the Medium Density Residential range of ten (10) to fifteen (15) housing units per acre in the R-M-2 zone district or having a density in the High Density Residential range of fifteen (15) to thirty-five (35) housing units per acre in the R-M-3 zone district; J. More than eighty (80) units per site;
K. Boarding houses and residential motels;
L. Large residential care facility subject to the provisions in Section 17.32.145; M. Adult day care in excess of twelve (12) individuals; N. Planned developments may utilize the provisions of Chapter 17.26; O. New one-family dwelling, meeting density identified in the general plan land use element designations;
P. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner; Q. Residential developments utilizing private streets in which the net lot area (lot area not including street area) meets or exceeds the site area prescribed by this chapter and in which the private streets are designed and constructed to meet or exceed public street standards; R. Residential structures up to four stories in height in the R-M-3 Zone District when the proposed structure is adjacent to an R-S Zone District.

17.16.050 Site area and configuration.

A. The minimum site area shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet, unless the site is created as part of a planned development or is part of a development containing new one-family dwelling units in accordance with Subsection O. of Section 17.16.040.

17.16.060 Site area per dwelling unit and per structure.

The minimum site area per dwelling unit shall be three thousand (3,000) square feet in the RM-2 zone and one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the R-M-3 zone.

17.16.070 Front yard.

A. The minimum front yard shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Front Yard
R-M-2 15 feet
R-M-3 15 feet
2024
B. On a site situated between sites improved with buildings, the minimum front yard may be the average depth of the front yards on the improved site adjoining the side lines of the site but need not exceed the minimum front yard specified above.

C. All garage doors facing the front property line shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet from the nearest public improvement or sidewalk.

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

17.16.090 Rear yard.

The minimum rear yard for a permitted use shall be fifteen (15) feet in the R-M-3 zone and twenty-five (25) feet in the R-M-2 zone, subject to the following exceptions:

17.16.090
A. On a corner or reverse corner lot in R-M-2 zone the rear yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet on the narrow side or twenty (20) feet on the long side of the lot. The decision as to whether the short side or long side is used as the rear yard area shall be left to the applicant's discretion, as long as a minimum area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of usable rear yard area is maintained.

B. Accessory structures not exceeding twelve (12) feet in height may be located in the required rear yard, but not closer than three feet to any lot line; provided, that on a reversed corner lot an accessory structure shall be located not closer to the rear property line than the required side yard on the adjoining key lot and not closer to the side property line adjoining the street than the required front yard on the adjoining key lot. In placing accessory structures in a required rear yard a usable, open, rear yard area of at least one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet shall be maintained.

C. Exceptions to the rear yard setback can be granted for multiple family units that have their rear yard abutting an alley. The exception may be granted if the rear yard area is to be used for parking. Through the site plan review process, consistency with this section may be determined for permitting purposes subject to the provisions of Section 17.28.050.

17.16.100 Height of structures.

The maximum height of structures shall be thirty-five (35) feet or three (3) stories whichever is taller in the R-M-2 zone. The maximum height shall be four (4) stories in the R-M-3 zone. Where an R-M-2 or R-M-3 site adjoins an R-S site, the second and subsequent stories shall be designed to limit visibility from the second and third story to the R-S site. Structures specified under Section 17.16.090(B) shall be exempt.

17.16.110 Off-street parking.

Off-street parking shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.34.

17.16.120 Fences, walls and hedges.

Fences, walls and hedges shall be subject to the provisions of Section 17.36.040. 2025

17.16.130 Trash enclosures.

Enclosures for trash receptacles are permitted that comply with the specifications and requirements of Section 17.32.010 and that are approved by the site plan review staff.

Enclosures within the front yard setback are permitted for multiple family dwelling units when deemed necessary by city staff because no other appropriate location for an enclosure exists on the property.

17.16.140 Site plan review.

A site plan review permit must be obtained for all developments other than a single-family residence in R-M zones, subject to the requirements and procedures of Chapter 17.28.

17.16.150 Open space and recreational areas.

Any multiple family project approved under a conditional use permit or site plan review permit shall dedicate at least five (5) percent of the site to open, common, usable space and/or recreational facilities for use by tenants as a part of that plan. The calculated space shall not include setback areas adjacent to a street. Shared open space could include parks, playgrounds, sports courts, swimming pools, gardens, and covered patios or gazebos open on at least three (3) sides. Further, the calculated space shall not include enclosed meeting or community rooms. The specific size, location and use shall be approved as a part of the conditional use permit.

17.16.160 Screening.

All parking areas adjacent to public streets and R-S sites shall be screened from view subject to the requirements and procedures of Chapter 17.28.

Chapter 17.26

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

17.26.010 Purpose and intent.

The purpose and intent of the Planned Development regulations contained in this chapter is to provide for land development consisting of a related group of residential housing types or commercial uses, including but not limited to, attached or detached single-family housing, cluster housing, patio homes, town houses, apartments, condominiums or cooperatives or any combination thereof and including related open spaces and community services consisting of recreational, commercial and offices, infrastructure, maintenance and operational facilities essential to the development, all comprehensively planned. Such land development normally requires deviation from the normal zoning regulations and standards regarding lot size, yard requirements, bulk and structural coverage in an effort to maximize the benefits accruing to the citizens of Visalia.

17.26.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter the following definitions shall apply:
"Density bonus" means dwelling unit increases based on project amenities provided as part of a planned development.
"Dwelling unit" means one or more habitable rooms, designed for or used by one family for living and sleeping purposes and having only one kitchen or kitchenette. Dwelling unit can include 2026
various types including, but not limited to, attached or detached single-family homes, cluster homes, patio homes, town houses, condominiums, apartments, or cooperatives. "Environment, natural" means the physical condition of a proposed PD site prior to proposed development; including, but not limited to, natural features such as waterways, vegetation, topographical features, and animal life.
"Homeowner's association" means an incorporated entity formed under applicable laws and including all properties within a planned development. Such association normally maintains and administers the common open space associated with a planned development. "Lot or parcel net area" means the land area contained within the boundary of a lot or parcel.

Land within public or private streets or property held in common for a particular development amenity is not considered as "net lot area."
"Maintenance district" means an assessment district formed under applicable laws that pays for maintaining dedicated or private open space facilities. "Neighborhood commercial center" means a convenience shopping complex providing services within a neighborhood and meeting applicable ordinance and general plan requirements. "Open space" means the area within a planned development not occupied with structures, driveways or parking and storage areas.
"Open space, common" means the area within a planned development under the control and ownership of a homeowner's association. Common open space may include recreation facilities, access and parking, paths, and storage areas.
"Open space, usable" means the area within a planned development that is deemed suitable for use by the residents of the PD; not including parking areas, private patios, required building separations, parking and access, or storage areas.
"Parking, guest" means designated off-street parking areas within a planned development reserved for guest or visitor parking.
"Parking, required" means off-street parking areas within a planned development to be used for long-term storage of resident vehicles, recreational vehicles, boats and trailers. "Planned development" means a development that includes a mix of land uses and that requires a deviation from normal zoning standards regarding lot size, yard requirements, bulk and structural coverage and is subject to provisions of this chapter. "Planned residential development" means a planned development consisting of residential uses only and subject to the provisions of this chapter.
"Planned unit development" means a planned development including two, or more, of the following uses: residential, commercial, professional office, quasi-public, and industrial. "Recreation facility" means an area within a planned development that includes recreational installations for common use. Such installations normally include such things as a swimming pool, recreation building, patio areas, tot lots, and exercise areas. "Site area, gross" means the total horizontal area included within the property lines of a proposed planned development after dedication of required right-of-way and open space areas. 2027

17.26.030 Location.

A planned development may be located in residential, commercial or industrial zone upon approval of necessary permits required under this chapter. Planned residential developments and planned unit developments may be located only in appropriate zones as follows:

1. A planned residential development may be allowed in any residential zone.

2. A planned unit development with commercial/industrial uses may be located where those uses are allowed in the underlying zone.

17.26.040 Development standards.

The following is a list of development standards considered to be necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this chapter:

A. Site Area.

1. The minimum site area for a planned residential development shall be one acre of gross site area.

2. The minimum site area for a planned unit development with residential uses shall be ten acres.

3. The minimum site area for a planned unit development without residential uses shall be five acres.

4. The minimum site area for a planned unit development with only industrial uses shall be twenty (20) acres.

5. Parcels smaller than the minimums stated above may be considered if the planning commission finds there are unique circumstances (shape, natural features, location, etc.) that would deprive the land owner of development potential consistent with other properties classified in the same underlying zone.

B. Density. The average number of dwelling units per net area shall not exceed the maximum density prescribed by the site area regulations or the site area per dwelling in which the planned unit development is located, subject to a density bonus that may be granted by the city council upon recommendation by the planning commission. A density bonus may be granted as part of a planned development based on the following guidelines:

Percent of Net Site in Area Percent of
Usable Open Space Density Bonus
6% to 10% 6%
11% to 20% 10%
21% to 25% 16%
Over 25% 20%
C. Usable Open Space. Usable open space shall be provided for all planned developments that include residential uses, except as provided in this section. Such open space shall include a minimum of five percent of the net site area of the residential portion of a planned development.

The requirement for mandatory usable open space may be waived in developments wherein the net lot area of each lot meets or exceeds minimum standard in the underlying zone classification.

D. Site Design Criteria.
2028

1. Location of proposed uses and their relationship to each other with a planned development shall be consistent with general plan policies and ordinance requirements.

2. The natural environment of a site is to be considered as part of the design criteria. Such features as natural ponding areas, waterways, natural habitats, and mature vegetation are to be considered.

3. If a planned development is located adjacent to a major arterial street, or other existing possible land use conflict, adequate buffering shall be included in the plan.

E. Landscaping and Structural Coverage. Landscaping provided within a planned development shall conform to the general standards imposed by the underlying zone. Additional landscaping may be required as part of a planned development due to unusual circumstances.

F. Circulation.

1. Vehicle circulation shall be based on a street pattern as outlined within the circulation element of the general plan. Use of private streets and variations to normal city street standards are encouraged.

2. There shall be no direct vehicle access from individual lots onto major arterial streets.

3. Pedestrian access and bicycle paths should be incorporated within planned developments.

Such paths and bikeways to be separated from vehicle streets when possible.

G. Parking.

1. Required parking shall conform with the existing parking standards required under the zoning ordinance.

2. Guest parking and storage parking shall be encouraged and may be required in planned development.

3. All parking shall be screened from adjacent public right-of-way. Such screening may include dense plantings, fences, landscaped berms, or grade separation.

4. Parking clusters shall be provided rather than large (single) parking areas.

H. Trash Enclosures.

1. Trash enclosures shall be provided as specified by the city solid waste department.

2. Such enclosures shall be screened from view from adjacent structures and roadways and be provided with solid gates.

17.26.050 Application procedures.

The following procedures specify the process for review of a planned development.

A. Pre-Application Review. Pre-application review shall be a two-step process including a mandatory meeting with the planning department and submittal of a concept plan to the site plan review staff. Such pre-application review shall include, but is not limited to, the following elements:

1. Site area and location;

2. Land use relationships within and outside the proposed site;

3. Circulation and access;

4. Environmental features;

5. Open space and project amenities;
2029

6. Available and needed public improvements and facilities.

B. Application Process. After completing the pre-application review process the owner, or agent, shall file an application for a planned development. Such application submittal shall be processed as a conditional use permit and shall require a site plan review permit. An application for planned development is not necessary to accompany the processing of a tentative parcel map if meeting the development criteria set forth in Section 17.26.090. The city planner shall determine the extent of development detail required as part of the application submittal. Such details may include, but is not limited to, the following:

1. Legal description and boundary survey map of the exterior boundaries of land to be developed;

2. A topographic map indicating anticipated grading or fill areas, groupings of existing trees, and other natural features;

3. For residential development:
a. The number and type of dwelling units. This may be stated as a range of maximum and minimum number of units by type,
b. The approximate total population anticipated in the entire development, c. The proposed standards of height, open space, structural coverage, pedestrian and traffic circulation, and density within use areas;

4. For nonresidential uses:
a. Types of uses proposed within the entire area,
b. Anticipated employment base which may be stated as a range, c. Methods proposed to control possible land use conflicts and environmental impacts, d. The proposed structure heights, open space buffering, circulation, and parking/loading, e. Pertinent social or economic characteristics of the development such as school enrollment, residence, employment, etc.;

5. A preliminary utilities report;

6. The location, area, and type of sites proposed for open space, recreational facilities, and public facilities;

7. The anticipated timing for each phase, if any, of the development.

17.26.060 Exceptions.

Exceptions to the design criteria specified in Section 17.26.040 may be modified by the city council upon recommendation by the planning commission based on unique circumstances.

Such exceptions shall be reviewed by the site plan review staff for comment prior to planning commission recommendation.

17.26.070 Amendments.

Minor amendments to an approved planned development may be granted by the planning commission upon recommendation of the site plan review staff. Major amendments shall be processed as an amendment to a conditional use permit with required public hearings. Major amendments include, but are not limited to, the following:
2030
A. Changes in residential density;
B. Changes in land use relationships;
C. Changes in the location and/or scope of open space;
D. Changes in circulation patterns;
E. Other changes as determined by the planning commission upon request.

17.26.080 Timing.

Once granted, a planned development approval shall be valid for a period of two years.

Extensions may be granted by the planning commission for one year periods, not to exceed three such extensions.
2031
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-32
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-32

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA,

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2025-04, A REQUEST BY D.R. HORTON TO RECONFIGURE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 127-020-020 AND 127-020-021 AS DEPICTED IN ATTACHMENT “A” AND TO REALIGN THE “K” AVENUE COLLECTOR ALIGNMENT TO SUNNYSIDE AVENUE BETWEEN LOVERS LANE AND ROAD 148
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 is a request by D.R. Horton to reconfigure the land use designations on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 127-020-020 and 127-020-021 as depicted in Attachment “A” and to realign the “K” Avenue Collector alignment to Sunnyside Avenue between Lovers Lane and Road 148; and WHEREAS, the proposed project was evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project and, following a 30-day circulation of the document for public review, the City of Visalia found that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study prepared for the project disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on June 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia considered the general plan amendment in accordance with Section 17.54.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 that was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. Find that General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

3. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04, as depicted in Attachment “A”, on the real property described herein, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.54.070.

4. Amend the Circulation Element to relocate the “K” Avenue Collector alignment between Lovers Lane and Road 148 to the Sunnyside Avenue alignment. 2032
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-32
Attachment “A”
2033
Resolution No. 2026-33
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-33

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION NO. 2025-04, A REQUEST BY D.R.

HORTON TO PREZONE ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 127-020-020 AND 127- 020-021 (“SUBJECT PROPERTY”) TO R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE), R-M-2 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 3,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), R-M-3 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 1,200 SQUARE FOOT

MINIMUM SITE AREA), AND QP (QUASI-PUBLIC ZONE)
APN: 127-020-020 AND -021
WHEREAS, Annexation No. 2025-04 is a request by D.R. Horton to prezone Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 127-020-020 and 127-020-021 (“subject property”) to R-1 (Single-family residential zone), R-M-2 (Multi-family residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone) (APN: 127-020-020 and -021), as depicted in Attachment “A”; and
WHEREAS, Table 42 of the Housing Element identifies R-1-5 (now R-1), R-M-2, and R-M-3 zones as being consistent with the Low, Medium, and Density Residential land use designations of the General Plan, respectively; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 proposed to align the General Plan land use designations of the subject property to correspond with Annexation No. 2025-04; and
WHEREAS, Annexation No. 2025-04 is a request by D.R. Horton to annex the subject property into City limits and detach from County Service Area No. 1; and WHEREAS, the proponent desires to annex the subject property and adjacent rights-of-way to the City of Visalia for the following reasons:
1) the annexation will contribute to and facilitate orderly growth and development of both the City and the territory proposed to be annexed; 2) the annexation will facilitate and contribute to the proper and orderly layout, design and construction of streets, gutters, sanitary and storm sewers and drainage facilities, both within the City and within the territory proposed to be annexed; and
3) the annexation will provide and facilitate proper overall planning and zoning of lands and subdivision of lands in said City and said territory in a manner most conducive of the welfare of said City and said territory; and WHEREAS, this proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the subject property proposed to be annexed is uninhabited; and 2034
Resolution No. 2026-33
WHEREAS, the subject property proposed to be annexed is located in Voting District 3 as identified in the Election District Map adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-11; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts; and
WHERAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Subdivision, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on June 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia considered Annexation No. 2025-04 in accordance with Section 17.44.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. 2025- 04 that was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. Find that Annexation No. 2025-04 is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, if General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 is approved, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

3. Approve Annexation No. 2025-04, as depicted in Attachment “A”, on the real property described herein, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.54.070.

4. Prezone the Project Site to R-1 (Single-family residential zone), R-M-2 (Multifamily residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone), as depicted in Attachment “A”.

5. Find that Annexation No. 2025-04 is consistent with the sphere of influence for the City.

6. That the parcels will be annexed into Voting District 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.

7. Approve a Resolution of Application requesting that the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission take proceedings to annex the Project Site into City limits and to detach from County Service Area No. 1. 2035
Resolution No. 2026-33

8. Require a condition that the applicant(s) enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The draft Pre-Annexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” and is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.
2036
Resolution No. 2026-33
ATTACHMENT “A”
2037
Resolution No. 2026-33
ATTACHMENT “B”
Pre-Annexation Agreement
This Pre-Annexation Agreement (”Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ______________, by and among the City of Visalia, a charter law city (“City’) and _______________________, (hereinafter “Owner”):

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owners are the record owners of the property, currently located in the unincorporated area of the County of Tulare, legally described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is adjacent to and contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City, but is not situated within the limits of any municipality; and WHEREAS, Owner desires to have the Property annexed to the City and to have the Property zoned as R-1 (Single-family residential zone), R-M-2 (Multi-family residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone); and WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 78.11 acres, and no electors reside thereon; and
WHEREAS, proper applications have been filed with the City for approval of the annexation and for the legal subdivision of the lot, as may be required for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has, by a resolution requesting initiation of proceedings to annex territory (“Resolution”) adopted on _________________, initiated proceedings to annex the Property; and
WHEREAS, in certain annexation proceedings Williamson Act issues arise which require indemnification of the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), in said event, City requires indemnification from Developer; and WHEREAS, Finding No. __ of Resolution No. _________ initiating annexation requires entry into this Annexation Agreement prior to the City submitting an application to the Local Area Formation Commission to commence the proposed annexation; and WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that during the term of this Agreement the Property will be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations of the City, as they may be amended from time to time, as well as state and federal statutes and regulations, as they may be amended.
2038
Resolution No. 2026-33
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by its police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and is entering into this Agreement and executing such authority for said purpose; and
WHEREAS, nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by town of any tax, fee, or charge.

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

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

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

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

Therefore, City’s Council has studied the issue and investigated possible solutions in order that it may continue to assure citizens that there will be water available to serve the community’s needs. City’s Council is actively engaged in water replenishment activities with the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and it has adopted a policy, as set forth in Chapter 16.54 of the Visalia Municipal Code, which requires annexation applicants to convey title to water rights to City upon annexation and/or to pay a fee to City (pursuant to an adopted fee schedule) so that City may acquire water for groundwater replenishment and storage in order to serve new development that comes with annexation, including development of the 2039
Resolution No. 2026-33
Property (the “Water Acquisition Policy”). Therefore, Owner agrees that, at the time that LAFCo issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to either (i) convey to City those water rights vested in the Property, if any, (ii) agree to pay City a fee in lieu thereof, (iii) agree to some combination of an in lieu fee payment and water right conveyance, or (iv) to comply by any other method allowed by the Water Acquisition Policy, provided that such agreement includes a condition precedent requiring City’s water supplier to agree to serve the Property with potable water in amount sufficient to meet Owner’s reasonably anticipated total water demand for the Property, as determined by a valid water supply assessment prepared pursuant to California Water Code § 10910 et seq. No postannexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued by City unless and until Owner complies with the Water Acquisition Policy in a manner consistent with this subsection II(A). Owner agrees that it shall identify all water rights which, to the best of Owner’s knowledge, have been used by Owner or its agents in connection with the Property, regardless of whether they are considered “vested” in the Property, and shall comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to convey such rights, if any, to City.

B. General Plan Maintenance Fee: On June 21, 2004, the City adopted (by Resolution 2004-63, as corrected) a General Plan Maintenance Fee. Owner agrees that, at the time LAFCo issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee in an amount equal to $427 per acre and no post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued unless and until said agreement is executed. City agrees that such fee shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more final subdivision maps covering the Property and, in the event Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each final subdivision map, with payment to be made on a per map basis upon City’s issuance of each final subdivision map covering the Property. Owner’s satisfaction 2040
Resolution No. 2026-33
of its obligations under this Section II(B) will satisfy any and all of Owner’s obligations related to and arising under the General Plan Maintenance Fee.

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

V. INDEMNIFICATION
Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City and the City’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability, claims, causes of actions, and demands, including attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation, or with any other action annexation or other action determined necessary or desirable by the City in order to effectuate the annexation of Owner’s property, or which are in any manner connected with the City’s enforcement of this Agreement. Owner further agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against or at the City’s option to pay the attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation.
2041
Resolution No. 2026-33
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Binding Effect/Covenants to Run With Land. The Parties hereto agree to be bound by this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, transferees, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The terms and conditions stated herein shall constitute covenants running with the land.
b. Assignment. Neither party shall assign, delegate or transfer their rights and duties in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party. c. Authorized Signatory. The individuals executing this Agreement, by their signature hereto, declare that they are authorized to, and have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. d. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be effective upon personal delivery to City, or Owner, as the case may be, three (3) business days after deposit in the United States Mail, postage fully prepaid, addressed to the respective parties as follows:

To the City: City Manager
City of Visalia
220 N. Santa Fe Street
Visalia, CA 93292
With Copy to: Kenneth J. Richardson
City Attorney
Peltzer & Richardson
3746 West Mineral King Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
To Owner: __________________________
__________________________
__________________________
Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
e. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the City and Owner as to its subject matter and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or affect.
f. Amendment. No part of this Agreement may be modified without the written consent of both parties.
g. Headings. Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions under the heading.
2042
Resolution No. 2026-33
h. No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. Except as provided herein, the parties of this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy.
i. Exhibits and Recitals. The recitals and any exhibits to this Agreement are fully incorporated by reference and are integral parts of this Agreement. j. Conflict With Laws or Regulations/Severability. This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing this subject, the conflicting provision(s) shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a material benefit of the Agreement to either party is lost, the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the effected party. In all other cases, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. k. Waiver. A waiver of any breech of this Agreement by any party shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breech of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
l. Choice of Law - Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any questions arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. Venue for any legal action arising from or in connection with this Agreement or the Property shall be in Tulare County, California. m. Attorneys Fees. In the event either party commences any action, arbitration or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court or arbitrator, shall be entitled to recovery of its reasonable fees and costs, including attorneys fees, court costs and arbitration costs incurred in the action brought thereon.
n. No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that Owner is not an agent of City. City and Owner hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection therewith shall be construed as making City and Owner joint venturers or partners. o. Excusable Delays; Extension of Time of Performance. In the event of delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, war, terrorism, lockouts, third-party litigation or other legal challenges regarding the annexation, riots, floods, earthquakes, epidemic, quarantine, freight embargoes, failure of contractors to perform, or other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the parties and which cause substantially interferes with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, then the time for performance of any such obligation shall be extended for such period of time as the cause of such delay shall exist but in any event not longer than for such period of time. p. Further Assurances. The parties will execute and deliver, upon demand by the other party, such further documents, instruments and conveyances, and shall take 2043
Resolution No. 2026-33
such further actions as such other party may request from time to time to document the transactions set forth herein.
q. Recordation of Agreement; Counterparts. This Agreement, or an abstract of its material terms and conditions shall be recorded by either party in the Official Records of the Tulare County Recorder. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, when all counterparts are combined, shall constitute a single agreement.
/////
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth next to their signature.

CITY
Date: ____________ By: ____________________________
Leslie Caviglia, City Manager
Attest:

Date: ____________ By: ____________________________
Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

Date: ____________ By: ____________________________
Kenneth J. Richardson,
City Attorney
OWNER
Date: ____________ By: ___________________________
_______________________________
2044
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-34

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2025-24, A REQUEST BY D.R.

HORTON TO ALLOW A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON A ±15.3-ACRE PORTION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 127-020-021 CONSISTING OF 153

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, PRIVATE STREETS, TWO GATED ENTRIES,

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING LOTS, AND PARK AREAS, TO BE LOCATED WITHIN AN R-M-2 ZONE PROPOSED UNDER ANNEXATION NO. 2025-04.

WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24, is a request by D.R. Horton to allow a planned unit development on a ±15.3-acre portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 127-020-021 consisting of 153 single-family residential units, private streets, two gated entries, landscaping and lighting lots, and park areas, to be located within an R-M-2 zone proposed under Annexation No. 2025-04 (see Attachments "A" and "B"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice did hold a public hearing before said Commission on June 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the Conditional Use Permit to be in accordance with Chapter 17.38.110 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project was evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project and, following a 30-day circulation of the document for public review, the City of Visalia found that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts, subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission makes the following specific findings based on the evidence presented:

1. The approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, if General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 and Annexation No. 2025-04 are approved.

3. If Annexation No. 2025-04 is approved, the proposed location of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. 2045
Resolution No. 2026-34

4. The proposed location of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

5. The Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves the Conditional Use Permit on the real property here described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provisions of Visalia Municipal Code Section 17.38.110, subject to the following conditions:

1. Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 shall apply to the area depicted in Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 as Lots 140 through 292 and Outlots M through T (“PRD Area”).

2. Annexation No. 2025-04 shall be approved, the PRD Area be prezoned to R-M-2, and the subject property annexed into City limits.

3. The PRD Area shall be developed in substantial conformance with Attachment “A” and the comments and conditions of Site Plan Review No. 2025-013-1-1-1-1, incorporated herein by reference.

4. That the project be developed in substantial conformance with all improvements depicted and described in Attachments “A” and “B”.

5. Subdivision of the PRD Area shall not occur unless Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 is approved.

6. Prior to the issuance of any residential building permit on the site, a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company shall be provided to the Building Official.

7. The PRD Area shall comply with the development standards of the R-M-2 zone district, with the following exceptions:
a. Minimum Lot Width: 38 feet, as measured from a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.
b. Minimum Interior Side Yard: 4 feet
c. Minimum Corner Side Yard: 10 feet
d. Minimum Front Yard, to Living Space: 7 feet
e. Minimum Front Yard, to Garage: 12 feet
f. Minimum Lot Depth: 72 feet
g. Minimum Rear Yard: 10 feet
h. Dwelling Unit Parking. Each dwelling shall have a minimum of two (2) parking spaces, both of which shall be in a garage.
2046
Resolution No. 2026-34
i. Guest Parking. Parking for guests shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) space for every four (4) dwelling units. Curbside parking within the private streets is acceptable.
j. Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one (1) side of each street and be a minimum width of five (5) feet. Sidewalks and ramps shall comply with the City of Visalia City Engineering Division Design and Improvement Standards. k. Solid Waste. Private streets shall be signed to indicate no parking on solid waste collection days.
l. Usable Open Space.
i. Usable open space shall be provided at a minimum of five (5) percent of the net site area of the planned residential development area. The outlots shall be restricted for park and recreation purposes. Useable common open space shall exclude areas designated for parking, including surface parking, carports, or garages. Each usable open space area shall have a minimum dimension of 10 feet and provide seating. ii. A minimum of 60 percent of the common useable open space shall be provided as landscaped green area (not hardscaped).
iii. A minimum of four (4) passive or active recreation amenities covering a minimum of 17,250 square feet shall be provided. Passive recreation refers to recreational activities that require minimal to no facilities or development to perform such activities and include, but are not limited to, community gardens, outdoor gathering/seating area, picnic/barbeque area, pet area/dog park, courtyard/plaza. All passive recreational amenity area shall be a minimum of 200 square feet unless otherwise stated. Active recreation refers to recreational activities that require specific facilities or equipment to perform such activities. Active recreational amenities include, but are not limited to, playground/tot lot, sports court/field, fitness area, swimming pool, clubhouse with kitchen, community room. All active recreational amenity areas shall be a minimum of 500 square feet unless otherwise stated.
iv. Playgrounds/tot lots, if provided, shall be located in an area with direct visibility from a minimum of three dwelling units to allow for casual surveillance.
v. Recreation improvements may be credited against the development fee if wholly complies with VMC § 12.36.090.
2047
Resolution No. 2026-34

9. Outlot S, if not accepted by SCE for dedication, shall be incorporated into the subdivision.

11.Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”). The HOA governing documents shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and shall include provisions requiring the HOA to:
a. Maintain all private improvements and common areas in a safe, functional, clean, and attractive condition;
b. Levy and collect regular assessments from property owners in amounts sufficient to fund routine operation and maintenance costs and reasonably anticipated repair and replacement costs.
c. Adjust assessments as necessary to maintain reserve funding levels adequate to meet projected replacement obligations over the life cycle of the maintained improvements;
d. Enforce all parking restrictions applicable within the subdivision’s private streets and common areas, including restrictions necessary to maintain emergency vehicle access, roadway maneuverability, and solid waste collection service operations. The CC&Rs shall specifically authorize the HOA to prohibit or restrict on-street parking on designated solid waste collection days and during designated collection hours where necessary to ensure unobstructed access for refuse and recycling vehicles;
e. Include enforcement mechanisms sufficient to ensure compliance with parking restrictions, including, but not limited to, notice procedures, fines, towing authority to the extent permitted by law, and other lawful enforcement remedies;
f. Grant the City the right, but not the obligation, to enforce the maintenance and assessment provisions of the HOA documents in the event the HOA fails to 2048
Resolution No. 2026-34
adequately maintain the subdivision’s private improvements or reserve funding program.
g. The CC&Rs shall provide that the maintenance, repair, and replacement obligations of the HOA shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors, heirs, and assigns.

12.All applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met. 2049
SO. CAL. EDISON 2422 O.R. 693 12 11 10 9 8 17 16 15 14 13 22 21 20 19 18 24 23 LOT A LONDON AVENUE 103 462 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20 21222324252627 28293031323435 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5152535455565758596061 6364 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 798081828384858687888990 91 92 93 94 95 97 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 114 113 112 111 110 115 117118119120121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 138 137 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 182 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 183184185186187188189190191 192193194 195196197 291 290 289 288 287 286 285 259 258 257 256 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276277278279280281282283284 252253 254255 251 250 249 248 247 246 245 244 243 241 242 240239238237236235234233 232231230229228227 202 199 198 203204205206207208209 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 224 223 222 221 220 219 225 226 200201 33 116 96181 62 98 109 139 210 292 ℄℄ ℄ SO. CAL. EDISON 2422 O.R. 693 CHERRY AVENUEEVERGREEN STREET 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 22 21 20 19 18 17 24 2325 37 36 26 35 27 34 28 33 29 32 30 13 31 12 1 11 2 10 3 9 4 8 5 7 6 20 21 19 22 18 23 17 24 16 25 15 26 14 27 43 44 42 45 41 46 40 47 39 48 60 51 59 52 58 53 57 54 56 55 41 28 40 29 39 30 38 31 37 32 36 33 35 34 49 48 50 47 51 46 52 45 53 44 54 43 55 42 68 67 69 66 70 65 71 64 72 63 38 49 50 61 62 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 84 83 82 81 85 86 87 88 89 80 79 90 78 91 77 92 76 93 75 94 74 95 73 96 72 97 71 98 70 99 69 10068 10167 10266 10365 10464 10563 LOT A

LOT B LOT C
LOT D

LEAH STREET

SIMON STREET

TEAKWOOD STREET

LEBEC STREET

MANZANITA STREET

MCAULIFF STREET

LEAH STREET

SIMON STREET

TEAKWOOD STREET

LEBEC STREET

MANZANITA STREET
MCAULIFF STREET LONDON AVENUE 1 88 89 44 45 43 42
LOT G

LOT F LOT C
LOT B
LOT A LOT E OWNER: Harold Dean Clements SUBDIVIDER: D.R Horton, America's Builder 419 W. Murray Avenue Visalia, CA 93231 (559) 636-9850 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 127-020-020 and 127-020-021 SITE ADDRESS: Southeast Corner of East K Avenue and South of Lovers Lane SITE AREA: Net (+/- 50.1 AC.) Gross (+/- 75.0 AC.) PROPOSED ZONING: R-1-5 AND R-M-2 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: Residential Low, Residential Medium, and Residential High Density and Conservation EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: Residential Low, Residential Medium, andResidential High Density and Conservation EXISTING ZONING: AE20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-Acre Minimum) (Tulare County) East Caldwell Avenue
Lovers Lane East K Avenue 1,908+ SQ. FT. 38'X72' LOTS MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL LOTS (140-153) (169-181) (209-292) 5,000 + SQ. FT. 50'X100' LOTS LOW RESIDENTIAL LOTS (1-139) N Ó 2,926+ SQ. FT. 38'X77' LOTS MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL LOTS (154-168) (182-208) ATTACHMENT "A" 2050
BATH 1 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL W.I.C. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET SERV. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 2040 SH3050 SH 26 68 BATH 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL
30 68
26 68 5068 BI-PASS
28 68
30 68 DN15R 28 68
F.M.T.

F.M.T. F.M.T. BDRM. 1 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 3 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET 5068 BI-PASS 2040 SH 26 68 26 68 3050 SH 24'-0"
33'-6"
9'-6" 28'-0"
39'-0"
5'-6" 3050 SH 3050 SH 7'-0" 21'-0" COVERED ENTRY 8'-1" STUCCO CLG. CONC. 20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE 16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR ENTRY CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 2 BAY GARAGE CONC. 30 SC 68 UP15R PANTRY CLG. HGT. 8'-1" GREAT VINYL ROOM CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 6068 TEMP. GL. SLIDER EAT-IN KITCHEN CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 26 68 3050 SH 3030 SH
W/H 26 68 26 SC 68 POWDER CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 26 68
24'-0"
39'-0"
39'-0"
20'-8" 18'-4" 28'-0"
6'-0" 9'-0" 7'-0" 21'-0" HEAT DETECTOR Upper Floor - 831 SF PLAN 1.1378 Lower Floor - 541 SF C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK 1,372 SF 3 Bdrm | 2.5 Bath 2 Bay Garage 8' | 8' Plates 1.0 1A | Americana Attachment "B" 2051
W.I.C. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET SERV. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 2040 SH 26 68
30 68
26 68 5068 BI-PASS
28 68
30 68 DN15R 28 68
F.M.T.

F.M.T. BDRM. 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 3 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET 5068 BI-PASS 26 68 3050 SH 9'-6" 5'-6" 7'-0" 21'-0" 3050 SH COVERED ENTRY 8'-1" STUCCO CLG. CONC. 20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE 16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR ENTRY CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 2 BAY GARAGE CONC. 30 SC 68 UP15R
W/H 26 68 26 SC 68 POWDER CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 26 68
6'-0" 9'-0" 7'-0" 21'-0" COVERED ENTRY 8'-1" STUCCO CLG. CONC. 20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE 16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR ENTRY CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 2 BAY GARAGE CONC. 30 SC 68 UP15R
W/H 26 68 26 SC 68 POWDER CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 26 68
6'-0" 9'-0" 7'-0" 21'-0" W.I.C. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET SERV. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 2040 SH 26 68
30 68
26 68 5068 BI-PASS
28 68
30 68 DN15R 28 68
F.M.T.

F.M.T. BDRM. 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 3 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET 5068 BI-PASS 26 68 9'-6" 4'-6" 7'-0" 10'-4" 3050 SH 3050 SH 10'-8"1'-0" PLAN 1.1378 C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK 1,372 SF 3 Bdrm | 2.5 Bath 2 Bay Garage 8' | 8' Plates 1.0 1B | Farmhouse 1C | Craftsman 2052
4:12
4:12 4:12 RIDGE
RIDGE 4:12
4:12VALLEY VALLEY 4:12 4:12 6:12 RIDGE
RIDGE

VALLEY VALLEY
HIP HIP 4:12
6:12 6:12
6:12
6:12
4:12
4:12 6:12 R V H 4:12 4:12 RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY VALLEY 4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK PLAN 1.1378 Roof Plans 1.2 0 4 8 16 Composition Roof Eave 12" / Rake 12" Eave 12" / Rake 12" Eave 12" / Rake 12" 1A | Americana 1B | Farmhouse 1C | Craftsman
Composition Roof Composition Roof
2053
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Front Elevations 1C | Craftsman 1A | Americana PLAN 1.1378 1B | Farmhouse 1.3
2054
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK 1C | Craftsman 1A | Americana PLAN 1.1378 Front Elevations 1B | Farmhouse 1.3 STUCCO FINISH 2x6 WOOD FASCIA STUCCO FINISH 2x6 WOOD FASCIA 2x6 WOOD FASCIA STUCCO FINISH STUCCO OVER FOAM ADDRESS LIGHT ADDRESS LIGHT ADDRESS LIGHT STUCCO OVER FOAM FOAM OUTLOOKER W/ KNEE BRACE METAL SECTIONAL METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR GARAGE DOOR COMPOSITION ROOF METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR WOOD POST FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATTEN STONE VENEER OVER STUCCO COLUMN WAINSCOT OVER STUCCO COLUMN STUCCO OVER FOAM FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATTEN COMPOSITION ROOF COMPOSITION ROOF 2055
3'-0"
±23'-212" TOP OF TILE
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0" 7'-0" N.G.
7'-0" 6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1" 1'-7"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1" 2'-0"
6'-8"
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Building Elevations 1.4 Right Rear Left Front PLAN 1A | AMERICANA 2056
7'-0" 7'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
±25'-3" TOP OF TILE N.G.
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0" 6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
6'-8"
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Building Elevations 1.5 Right Rear Left Front PLAN 1B | FARMHOUSE 2057
7'-0" 7'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
±23'-212" TOP OF TILE
6'-8"
7'-0" N.G.
2'-10"
7'-0" 6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
2'-10"
6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Building Elevations 1.6 Right Rear Left Front PLAN 1C | CRAFTSMAN 2058
20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE 2 BAY GARAGE CONC.
30 SC 68 16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR TEMP. GL. 2040 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH 6068 TEMP. GL. SLIDER 2668 UP 15R ENTRY VOL. CLG. VINYL POWDER CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL GREAT ROOM CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 26 68 EAT-IN KITCHEN CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL PANTRY CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL CLG. BREAK LINE 3030 SH PORCH 8'-1" STUCCO CLG. CONC. 26 SC 68 W/H
23'-2" 14'-10" 3'-6"
41'-6" 30'-0"
35'-6" 10'-7" 19'-5"6'-0" 30'-0"
41'-6" 26 68F.M.T. DN15R
FX 2040 SERV. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL F.M.T.
30 68
30 68
26 68 26 68 28 68 F.M.T.
26 68W.I.C. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BATH 1 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 5068 BI-PASS 5068 BI-PASSBATH 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 3050 SH 2630 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH BDRM. 1 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 3 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET LOFT CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET OPEN TO BELOW 3050 SH 11P 35'-6" 30'-0" 19'-4" 10'-8"
38'-0"
2'-6" 3050 FX 3050 SH C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Upper Floor - 946 SF PLAN 2.1583 Lower Floor - 632 SF 1,578 SF 3 Bdrm | 2.5 Bath | Loft 2 Bay Garage 8' | 8' Plates 2.0 2A | Americana 2059
20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE 2 BAY GARAGE CONC.
30 SC 68 16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR TEMP. GL. 2040 SH 2668 UP 15R ENTRY VOL. CLG. VINYL POWDER CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL CLG. BREAK LINE PORCH 8'-1" STUCCO CLG. CONC. 26 SC 68 W/H 10'-7" 19'-5"
6'-0" 26 68F.M.T. DN15R
FX 2040 SERV. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL
30 68
26 68 26 68 28 68 F.M.T.
26 68W.I.C. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET 5068 BI-PASS 5068 BI-PASSBATH 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL BDRM. 3 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET OPEN TO BELOW 3050 SH 3050 FX 3050 SH 19'-4" 10'-8" 2'-6"
20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE 2 BAY GARAGE CONC.
30 SC 68 16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR TEMP. GL. 2040 SH 2668 UP 15R ENTRY VOL. CLG. VINYL POWDER CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL CLG. BREAK LINE PORCH 8'-1" STUCCO CLG. CONC. 26 SC 68 W/H 10'-7" 19'-5"
6'-0" 26 68F.M.T. DN15R
FX 2040 SERV. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL
30 68
26 68 26 68 28 68 F.M.T.
26 68W.I.C. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET 5068 BI-PASS 5068 BI-PASSBATH 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL BDRM. 3 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET OPEN TO BELOW 3050 SH 3050 FX 3050 SH 10'-8" 10'-8" 1'-6" 8'-8"1'-0"
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK PLAN 2.1583 1,578 SF 3 Bdrm | 2.5 Bath | Loft 2 Bay Garage 8' | 8' Plates 2.0 2B | Farmhouse 2C | Craftsman 2060
4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 RIDGE
RIDGE VALLEY VALLEY 4:12 RIDGE
RIDGE 4:12
6:12
6:12
VALLEY VALLEY 4:12 4:12 4:12
RIDGE
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12

RIDGE R
4:124:12 C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK PLAN 2.1583 Roof Plans 2A | Americana Eave 12" / Rake 12" Eave 12" / Rake 12" Eave 12" / Rake 12" 2B | Farmhouse 2C | Craftsman 2.2 0 4 8 16 Composition Roof Composition Roof Composition Roof 2061
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Front Elevations 2C | Craftsman 2A | Americana PLAN 2.1583 2B | Farmhouse 2.3
2062
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK 2C | Craftsman 2A | Americana PLAN 2.1583 Front Elevations 2B | Farmhouse 2.3 STUCCO FINISH 2x6 WOOD FASCIA FOAM OUTLOOKER STUCCO FINISH 2x6 WOOD FASCIA STUCCO FINISH STUCCO OVER FOAM CORBEL WOOD POST ADDRESS LIGHT ADDRESS LIGHT STUCCO FINISH STUCCO OVER SHAPED STUCCO OVER FOAM METAL SECTIONAL METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR GARAGE DOOR COMPOSITION ROOF COMPOSITION ROOF METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR FIBER CEMENT BOARD AND BATTENS STUCCO OVER FOAM STONE VENEER OVER STUCCO COLUMN STUCCO OVER FOAM COMPOSITION ROOF 2X6 WOOD FASCIA FIBER CEMENT BOARD AND BATTENS ADDRESS LIGHT FOAM TRIM STUCCO WAINSCOT 2063
±25'-112" TOP OF TILE
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0" 7'-0"
6'-8"
3'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0" 6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0"
7'-0" EQ. EQ.
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0"
6'-8"
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Building Elevations 2.4 Right Rear Left Front PLAN 2A | AMERICANA 2064
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
±25'-0" TOP OF TILE
7'-0"
7'-0"
6'-8"
10"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0" 6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0"
7'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
6'-8"
7'-0"
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK PLAN 2B | FARMHOUSE Building Elevations 2.5 Right Rear Left Front 2065
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
±24'-212" TOP OF TILE
6'-8"
7'-0" 7'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0" 6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0"
2'-10" 4'-2"
7'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
6'-8"
4'-2" 2'-10"
7'-0"
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK PLAN 2C | CRAFTSMAN Building Elevations 2.6 Right Rear Left Front 2066
UP PORCH 8'-1" STUCCO CLG. CONC. PWDR 9'-1" CLG. VINYL 20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE GREAT ROOM CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL DINING CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL ENTRY CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 15R KITCHEN CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL PANTRY CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 2 BAY GARAGE CONC. 26 68 6068 TEMP. GL. SLIDER 26 SC 68 26 68
30 SC 68 16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR 3030 SH
F.M.T. 3050 SH W/H 26 68
41'-0" 2'-0" 30'-0"
23'-3" 17'-9" 30'-0" 11'-0" 19'-0"
43'-0" DN 15R
BI-PASS 5068
BI-PASS 5068 BATH 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL BDRM. 1 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPETW.I.C. CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 3 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 4 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET SERVICE CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL LOFT CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL BATH 1 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL F.M.T.

F.M.T. F.M.T. F.M.T.
26 68
26 68
26 68 5068 BI-PASS
30 68
30 68 26 68
26 68 28 68
26 68 2040 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH 2040 FX
FX 20
TEMP. GL.
40 30'-0" 5'-312" 13'-8"
43'-0"
38'-6" 3'-6"
43'-0"
3'-6" 32'-8" 30'-0"5'-10" 1'-0" 3050 SH 3050 SH
1'-0" 11'-012" C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Upper Floor - 1,062 SF PLAN 3.1775 Lower Floor - 713 SF 1775 SF 4 Bdrm|2.5 Bath Loft 2 Bay Garage 8' | 8' Plates 3.0 3A | Americana 2067
UP PORCH 8'-1" STUCCO CLG. CONC. PWDR 9'-1" CLG. VINYL 20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE ENTRY CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 15R 2 BAY GARAGE CONC. 26 SC 68 26 68
30 SC 68 16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
F.M.T.

W/H
26 68
4'-6" 11'-0" 19'-0" DN 15R
BI-PASS 5068
BI-PASS 5068 BATH 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL BDRM. 2 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 3 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET BDRM. 4 CLG. HGT. 8'-1" CARPET SERVICE CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL LOFT CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL F.M.T.

F.M.T.
26 68
26 68
26 68 5068 BI-PASS
30 26 68 28 68
26 68
3050 SH 2040 FX
FX 20
TEMP. GL.
40 13'-8" 11'-012"
1'-0"
3'-6" 5'-10" 5'-312"
3'-6" 3050 SH 3050 SH
1'-0" UP PORCH 8'-1" STUCCO CLG. CONC. PWDR 9'-1" CLG. VINYL 20'-0"x20'-O" CLEAR SPACE ENTRY CLG. HGT. 8'-1" VINYL 15R 2 BAY GARAGE CONC. 26 SC 68 26 68
30 SC 68 16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
F.M.T.

F.M.T.
26 68
26 68
26 68 5068 BI-PASS
30 26 68 28 68
26 68
3050 SH 2040 FX
FX 20
TEMP. GL.
40 5'-4" 5'-412"
3'-6"
3'-6"
5'-10" 1'-0" 5'-312" 3050 SH 3050 SH 14'-0"
1'-0"
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK PLAN 3.1775 1775 SF 4 Bdrm|2.5 Bath Loft 2 Bay Garage 8' | 8' Plates 3.1 3B | Farmhouse 3C | Craftsman 2068

VALLEY RIDGE
RIDGE

VALLEYR
RIDGE
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 VALLEY RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
RIDGE
6:12
6:12 5:12 5:12
6:12
6:12
6:12
6" 6:12 VALLEY RIDGE
RIDGE

VALLEYR
4:12 3:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12 3:12 C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK PLAN 3.1775 Roof Plans Composition Roof Eave 12" / Rake 12" Eave 12" / Rake 12" Eave 12" / Rake 12" 3.2 0 4 8 16 3A | Americana 3B | Farmhouse 3C | Craftsman Composition Roof Composition Roof 2069
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Front Elevations PLAN 3.1775 3.3 3C | Craftsman 3A | Americana
3B | Farmhouse
2070
2x6 WOOD FASCIA 2x6 WOOD FASCIA 2x6 WOOD FASCIA STUCCO FINISH STUCCO OVER FOAM WOOD POST STUCCO OVER FOAM ADDRESS LIGHT ADDRESS LIGHT ADDRESS LIGHT STUCCO FINISH WOOD TRIM STUCCO OVER FOAM STUCCO OVER FOAM C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK PLAN 3.1775 Front Elevations FOAM OUTLOOKER W/ KNEE BRACE 3.3 METAL SECTIONAL METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR GARAGE DOOR METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR STUCCO OVER FOAM FIBER CEMENT BOARD AND BATTENS STONE VENEER OVER STUCCO COLUMN WAINSCOT OVER STUCCO COLUMN 3C | Craftsman 3A | Americana 3B | Farmhouse COMPOSITION ROOF STUCCO FINISH FIBER CEMENT BOARD AND BATTENS COMPOSITION ROOF COMPOSITION ROOF 2071
1'-0"
+STD. HEEL
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1" TOP OF TILE
±24'-7" N.G.
7'-0"
2'-6"
7'-6"
6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0" 6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
1'-0"
+STD. HEEL LINE OF POWDER FLOOR 9'1" PLATE AT POWDER ONLY 7'-1014" 1'-234"
7'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0"
1'-0"
+STD. HEEL
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Building Elevations 3.4 Right Rear Left Front PLAN 3A | AMERICANA 2072
1'-0"
+STD. HEEL
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1" TOP OF TILE
±25'-1112" N.G.
7'-0" 7'-6"
6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0" 6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1" LINE OF POWDER FLOOR 9'1" PLATE AT POWDER ONLY 7'-1014" 1'-234"
7'-0"
1'-0"
+STD. HEEL
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0"
1'-0"
+STD. HEEL
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Building Elevations 3.5 Right Rear Left Front PLAN 3B | FARMHOUSE 2073
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1" TOP OF TILE
±24'-7" N.G.
7'-0"
4'-2" 2'-10"
7'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
7'-0" 6'-8"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1" LINE OF POWDER FLOOR 9'1" PLATE AT POWDER ONLY 1'-234" 7'-1034"
2'-10" 4'-2"
7'-0"
8'-1" 8'-1"
8'-1" 8'-1"
2'-10"
7'-0"
7'-0"
4'-2"
C 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2024026| 03-27-25 0 2 4 8 - TULARE, CA BLACKLINES SET WILD OAK Building Elevations 3.6 Right Rear Left Front PLAN 3C | CRAFTSMAN 2074
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-35

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CLEMENTS RANCH SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5606, A REQUEST BY D.R. HORTON TO SUBDIVIDE PARCELS TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 78.11 ACRES INTO 292 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL USE, WITH ADDITIONAL LOTS FOR PRIVATE STREETS, UTILITIES, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, TRAILS, AND PARKS, AND AN APPROXIMATELY 20.81 DESIGNATED REMAINDER, TO BE LOCATED IN PROPOSED R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE), R-M-2 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 3,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), R-M-3 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 1,200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), AND QP (QUASI-PUBLIC ZONE). THE

PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH

LOVERS LANE AND EAST CALDWELL AVENUE
(APNS: 127-020-020 AND -021)
WHEREAS, Clements Ranch Subdivision Map No. 5606 (“Subdivision”) is a request by D.R. Horton to subdivide parcels totaling approximately 78.11 acres into 292 lots for single-family residential use, with additional lots for private streets, utilities, landscaping, lighting, trails, and parks, and an approximately 20.81 designated remainder, to be located in proposed R-1 (Single-family residential zone), R-M-2 (Multifamily residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone).

The project site is located north of the northeast corner of South Lovers Lane and East Caldwell Avenue (APNs: APN: 127-020-020 and -021) (see Attachment “A”); and WHEREAS, the Subdivision requires approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 to be consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivision requires to be prezoned R-1, R-M-2, R-M-3, and QP and annexed into City limits, consistent with the Annexation No. 2025-04 proposal; and WHEREAS, the Subdivision requires approval of a Planned Residential Development, proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice held a public hearing before said Commission on June 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the Subdivision in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 16.16, based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts; and
2075
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-35
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Subdivision, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

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

1. The proposed subdivision have been found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, should the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 be approved. There are no specific plans applicable to the proposed maps.

2. The proposed design and improvements of the subdivision have been found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, should the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 be approved. Staff have reviewed the subdivision to be consistent with City standards, where applicable. There are no specific plans applicable to the proposed maps.

3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed map and its affiliated development plan. While a portion of the site is located in a 100-year floodplain, the development would raise the finished floor elevation to or above the base flood elevation, in conformance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations.

4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed maps and their affiliated development plan, which is designated as Low and Medium Density Residential. The subdivision is located on relatively flat land and is required to connect to City sewer services. Therefore, there are no concerns regarding site suitability with respect to the subdivision’s proposed density.

5. The proposed design and improvements of the maps have not been found likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, subject to the implementation of mitigation measures as proposed under the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project.

6. The proposed subdivision, its improvements and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed tentative subdivision map will be compatible with adjacent land uses. The project site is bordered by existing residential development, and arterial/collector streets.

7. There are no existing public access easements on the subject property, therefore the subdivision design or its improvements would not conflict with such easements.

8. The proposed subdivision is not subject to any of the following:
a. A contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5), including an easement entered into pursuant to Section 51256. 2076
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-35
b. An open-space easement entered into pursuant to the Open-Space Easement Act of 1974 (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5.)
c. An agricultural conservation easement entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 10260) of Division 10.2 of the Public Resources Code.
d. A conservation easement entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 815) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code.

10.That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia requires frontage improvements along the designated remainder based on the following specific findings and based on the evidence presented:

1. Requiring the subdivider to construct frontage improvements along the proposal designated remainder is a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area.

2. The designated remainder is an integral part of the urbanizing area and will be bordered by public improvements constructed as part of the subdivision.

Completion of the frontage improvements will promote continuity of the transportation, utility, drainage, and pedestrian networks and prevent fragmented infrastructure patterns.

3. Deferral of frontage improvements until development of the designated remainder would create the potential for incomplete public infrastructure and leapfrog development patterns inconsistent with the General Plan and the City's orderly growth objectives. Requiring the improvements before approval of a subsequent final map ensures that urban infrastructure is extended in a coordinated manner.

4. The required improvements, including street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, traffic-control devices, and related public improvements, are reasonably related to the impacts and development pattern created by the subdivision and are necessary to integrate the subdivision with the surrounding public infrastructure system. The regional stormwater basin is sized to accommodate the designated remainder and its frontage improvements.

Construction of the improvements will reduce the fragmented nature of the pedestrian network and allow residents of the subdivision to visit other areas. 2077
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-35

5. Requiring construction of the frontage improvements with the first phase of development, provides a reasonable opportunity for implementation while ensuring that the improvements are completed within a timeframe that supports orderly urban development and avoids indefinite postponement.

6. The requirement does not impose an unreasonable burden because the subdivider may utilize improvement agreements, security instruments, reimbursement agreements, area of benefit districts, or other mechanisms authorized by law to allocate costs among benefitting properties and future development.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Subdivision on the real property hereinabove described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provisions of Visalia Municipal Code Section 16.16.110, subject to the following conditions:

1. General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 and Annexation No. 2025-04 shall be approved.

2. The subject property shall be annexed into City limits within two (2) years of tentative subdivision map approval.

4. Prior to the issuance of any residential building permit on the site, a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company shall be provided to the Building Official.

5. Mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Clements Ranch subdivision shall be implemented.

7. Designated Remainder
a. Within one (1) year of filing a final map and with the development of the first phase, right-of-way and frontage improvements (street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, traffic-control devices, and related public improvements) along the designated remainder’s public street frontages shall be dedicated in fee to the City and constructed in accordance with City standards.
b. Notices shall be recorded on the designated remainder stating that at time of development of the designated remainder:
i. That the Tulare Irrigation Ditch shall be undergrounded and relocated pursuant to the standards and requirements of Tulare Irrigation District; and,
2078
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-35
ii. That compliance with the City’s Agricultural Land Preservation Program will be required.

8. Gated Private Street PRD Area
a. Prior to acceptance of a Final Map of the PRD Area, Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 shall be approved.
b. The Expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24 shall cause the PRD Area portion of Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 to be null and void. c. Outlots M, N, O, P, Q, R, and T shall not be offered or accepted for dedication and shall be conveyed to the Homeowner’s Association described under Condition (m) of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-24. d. Outlots M and N shall be constructed with a six-foot tall block wall abutting the residential lots, as measured from highest adjacent grade. e. Outlots O, P, Q, and R in total shall equal to or greater than five (5) percent of the net lot area of the PRD Area and shall be restricted for park and recreation purposes. Legal documents shall be recorded that run with the land in favor of the future property owners of the property. Park and recreation outlots shall be developed with passive and/or recreational facilities of which can be selected from the list provided in VMC § 12.36.090.

Recreation improvements may be credited against the development fee if wholly complies with VMC § 12.36.090.
f. An exception to the lot depth standard for Lot 183 is granted pursuant to VMC § 16.04.050 if development of Lot 183 occurs prior to development of the Designated Remainder. This exception shall result in the minimum exception needed to allow the proposed development.
g. Phased development of the PRD Area shall provided sufficient turnaround space for solid waste and emergency vehicles. Temporary easements shall be granted to the City until at such time a subsequent phase is developed that renders the temporary easement unnecessary. Temporary easements shall be designed based on a vehicle turning template of City vehicles. h. Outlot S, if not accepted by SCE for dedication, shall be incorporated into the subdivision. The City will not accept dedication of Outlot S.

9. Standard R-1 Subdivision
a. Development of this area shall comply with the requirements of the R-1 zone district and Objective Design Standards. Compliance will be determined prior to building permit issuance.
b. Outlot C shall be incorporated into the subdivision as a numbered lot if the outlot is offered for dedication but not accepted by California Water Service. c. Outlots A, B, D, G, H, I, J, and L shall be constructed by the developer in accordance with City standards and specifications and dedicated in fee to the City.
2079
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-35
d. Outlots E, F, and K shall be removed or have a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet and be constructed with a six (6) foot tall concrete masonry wall, measured from the highest adjacent grade.

12.That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met. 2080
SO. CAL. EDISON
2422 O.R. 693
35 33
34 OUTLOT C
29 30
32 31
43 44
37 38
39 40
41 42
63 62
61 60
59 58
57 64
36 OUTLOT D
86 85
84 83
82 81
80 79
74 68
75 69
76 70
77 71
78 72 OUTLOT F
73 89
87 OUTLOT E
45 46
47 48
49 50
56 55
54 53
52 51
17 16 15 14 13 20
21 19 18
22 26
25 24
23 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
98 99 100 101 104 105 106 107 108
95 92
93 94
97 96
91 121
120
119
116
118
117
113 112 111 110 109
115

OUTLOT K
114
122
123
124
125
127 128 129 130

OUTLOT J
139
136
135
134
138
131
133
132

OUTLOT S
90 126
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ

SUNNYSIDE AVENUE

SOUTH LOVERS LANE
APN
127-020-038
APN
127-020-034
APN
127-020-039

OUTLOT N

OUTLOT L

OUTLOT M
28 27

OUTLOT A

OUTLOT B

TEMPORARY TURNAROUND EASEMENT
(SEE NOTE)
169

OUTLOT R

OUTLOT Q
242 275 276
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ

REMAINDER
APN
127-020-022

OUTLOT H

OUTLOT I
D.N.
2025-0024224
(PARCEL 2)
182
137 TEMPORARY ACCESS FOR GARBAGE EASEMENT (SEE NOTE)
67 66
103
88 65
102

OUTLOT T

OVERALL BOUNDARY CLEMENTS RANCH

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

N SOUTH MCAULIFF STREET SOUTH LOVERS LANE

EAST WALNUT AVENUE
N ROAD 148

EAST CHERRY AVENUE
AVENUE 280 ROAD 128
Ó
SHEET 1 OF 3
ATTACHMENT "A"
2081
27 28
35 33
34 29
30 32
31 17 16 15 14 13 9 8 7 6 5 2 1
21 19
18 22
26 25
24 23
12 11 10 4 3
20 43
44 37
45 38
46 39
47 40
48 41
49 42
50 63
56 62
55 61
54 60
53 59
52 58
57 51
64 36
86 85
68 69
70 71
72 89
87 84
83 82
81 80
79 74
75 76
77 78
73 95
92 93
94 97
96 91 121
120
119
100 101
98 99
116
118
117
115
109
108 107
111 110
106
112
105
113
104
114
139
136
137
135
134
138
131
133
132
130
122
123
124
125
127 128 129

OUTLOT G

OUTLOT D

OUTLOT C

OUTLOT J

OUTLOT K
126
90 OUTLOT EOUTLOT F
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ STREET B

STREET C

STREET A

STREET A STREET D STREET E STREET G

STEET F STREET H STREET H

SUNNYSIDE AVENUE

SOUTH LOVERS LANE
APN
127-020-038
APN
127-020-034 DIRT ROAD DIRT ROAD DIRT ROAD DIRT ROAD

OUTLOT L

OUTLOT B

OUTLOT A
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
APN
127-020-022

OUTLOT H

OUTLOT I
D.N.
2025-0024224
(PARCEL 2)
209 210 211 212 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 REMAINDER
66 67
103
88 65
102

CLEMENTS RANCH

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
N
SEE SHEET 3
SHEET 2 OF 3
2082
S LOVERS LN 211
197
205
204
203
202
209
201
208
200
207
199
206
198 210212
142 143 144 145 146 140
141
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
287
279
286
278
285
277
284
291
283
290
282
289
281
288
280
264
272
265
273
266
274
267
260
268
261
269
262
270
263
271
259
292
256
248
255
247
254
246
253
245
252
244
251
243
250
257
249
226
234
227
235
228
236
229
237
230
238
231
239
232
240
233
241
225 258 215218 219 217 220 216 222221 213214 224223
181 180 179 178 177 176
190
189
196
188
195
187
194
186
193
185
192
184
191
183
174 173 172 171 170 175 OUTLOT OOUTLOT P

OUTLOT S STREET J STREET L STREET H

STREET I

STREET K

STREET L

STREET M

SUNNYSIDE AVENUE DIRT ROAD DIRT ROAD

DIRT ROAD DIRT ROAD

OUTLOT M OUTLOT N

STREET N (PUBLIC STREET)

TEMPORARY TURNAROUND EASEMENT

OUTLOT Q
242 275 276

OUTLOT R
169
REMAINDER 182
17 16 15 14 20 19 18 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 139 138 137 136 STREET H

OUTLOT T

OUTLOT T STREET J STREET L STREET H
287
286
285
264
265
266
253
252
251
157
158
159
230
231
232

TEMPORARY ACCESS FOR GARBAGE EASEMENT

CLEMENTS RANCH

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
N
SEE SHEET 2
SHEET 3 OF 3
N
2083
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-36

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2025-13, A REQUEST BY D.R. HORTON TO SUBDIVIDE PARCELS TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 78.11 ACRES INTO FOUR PARCELS AND AN APPROXIMATELY

20.81 DESIGNATED REMAINDER (SEE ATTACHMENT “A”), TO BE LOCATED IN PROPOSED R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE), R-M-2 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 3,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), R-M-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE – 1,200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE AREA), AND QP (QUASI-PUBLIC ZONE). THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE

NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH LOVERS LANE AND EAST CALDWELL AVENUE APNS: APN: 127-020-020 AND -021
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2025-13 (“Subdivision”) is a request by D.R.

Horton to subdivide parcels totaling approximately 78.11 acres into four parcels and an approximately 20.81 designated remainder (see Attachment “A”), to be located in proposed R-1 (Single-family residential zone), R-M-2 (Multi-family residential zone – 3,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-3 (Multi-family residential zone – 1,200 square foot minimum site area), and QP (Quasi-public zone). The project site is located north of the northeast corner of Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue (APNs: APN: 127-020-020 and -021); and
WHEREAS, the Subdivision requires approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 to be consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Subdivision requires to be prezoned R-1, R-M-2, R-M-3, and QP and annexed into City limits, consistent with the Annexation No. 2025-04 proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice held a public hearing before said Commission on June 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the Subdivision in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 16.16, based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts; and
WHERAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Subdivision, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
2084
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-36
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia approves the Subdivision based on the following specific findings and based on the evidence presented:

1. The proposed subdivision have been found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, should the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 be approved.

There are no specific plans applicable to the proposed maps.

7. There are no existing public access easements on the subject property, therefore the subdivision design or its improvements would not conflict with such easements.

8. The proposed subdivision is not subject to any of the following:
a. A contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5), including an easement entered into pursuant to Section 51256.
b. An open-space easement entered into pursuant to the Open-Space Easement Act of 1974 (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5.)
2085
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-36
c. An agricultural conservation easement entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 10260) of Division 10.2 of the Public Resources Code.
d. A conservation easement entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 815) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code.

9. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

1. Requiring the subdivider to construct frontage improvements along the proposal designated remainder is a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area.

2. The designated remainder is an integral part of the urbanizing area and will be bordered by public improvements constructed as part of the subdivision.

Completion of the frontage improvements will promote continuity of the transportation, utility, drainage, and pedestrian networks and prevent fragmented infrastructure patterns.

Construction of the improvements will reduce the fragmented nature of the pedestrian network and allow residents of the subdivision to visit other areas.

1. General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04 and Annexation No. 2025-04 shall be approved.
2086
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-36

2. Comply with all conditions per Resolution No. 2026-35 with respect to the frontage improvements along the designated Remainder.

3. The subject property shall be annexed into City limits prior to acceptance of a final parcel map.

5. Access and utility easements shall be provided to each parcel from the public rightof-way. Parcels that can accommodate more than 30 dwelling units shall be provided with two access points.

6. That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met. 2087
SO. CAL. EDISON
2422 O.R. 693 SOUTH LOVERS LANE
D.N.
2024-0040168
APN
127-020-038
D.N.
2024-0040167
APN
127-020-034 D.N. 2024-0040166 APN 127-020-039

EAST CALDWELL AVENUE

EAST SUNNYSIDE
AVENUE

EAST K AVENUE
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
PARCEL 4

REMAINDER
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
D.N.
2025-0024224
APN
127-020-032 (PTN)
Δ

N SOUTH MCAULIFF STREET SOUTH LOVERS LANE

EAST WALNUT AVENUE
N ROAD 148 EAST CHERRY AVENUE
AVENUE 280 ROAD 128
ATTACHMENT "A"
2088
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
34 35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 115
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127 128 129 130
131
33 116
96 62

OUTLOT F

OUTLOT E
(BASIN)

OUTLOT A
(WELL SITE)

OUTLOT B

OUTLOT C OUTLOT D

E CALDWELL AVE S LOVERS LN
APN
127-020-038
APN
127-020-034
APN
127-020-022
D.N.
2025-0024224
(PARCEL 2)

CENTERLINE OF CAMERON CREEK
N

LANDSCAPE CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR CAMERON CREEK OUTLOTS
NOVEMBER 4, 2025

SEATING AREA

CONNECTION TO STREET

SEATING AREA
PROJ # 240208

SEATING AREA
Landscape Concept for Cameron Creek
2089

INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CLEMENTS RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 5606
Prepared for:

City of Visalia
Planning and Community Preservation Department
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact Person: Jarred Olsen, AICP
Phone: (559) 713-4449
Consultant :
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Contact: Jaymie Brauer
Phone: (661) 616-2600
May 2026
Project #240208
~±-
v -VIS-AL-IA
2090

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
This is to advise that the City of Visalia has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project identified below that is scheduled to be held at the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia meeting on June 8, 2026.

PLEASE BE ADVISED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia will consider a recommendation to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration at its meeting to be held on June 8, 2026. Presentations will be made at approximately 7:00 p.m. Action on items on the Commission’s agenda will occur after the presentations. The meeting will be held at the Visalia Council Chambers, 707 W. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, California 93291.

Project Name
Clements Ranch Tentative Tract Map No. 5606
Project Location
The Project site is located within an area of unincorporated Tulare County, southeast of the City of Visalia (City), adjacent to the City limits. The site consists of two separate Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), 127-020-20 and 127-020-21, with a combined approximately 78 acres of land. The Project site area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Development Boundary (UDB) – Tier II. The site is currently zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum) by Tulare County and designated as Residential Low, Residential Medium, Residential High Density, and Conservation by the City General Plan.

The Project is within Section 3, Township 19S, Range 25E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M), of the Visalia U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quad Map. The site is generally bound by Union Pacific Railroad to the north, Road 148 to the east, East Caldwell Avenue (Avenue 280) to the south, and South Lovers Lane (Road 140) to the west. The surrounding land uses are generally agricultural land to the north, east, and south, and mixed-density residential tracts to the west.

Project Description
The Project site consists of approximately 370 multi-family high-density units, 153 singlefamily medium-density units in a gated community with a Homeowners Association (HOA), and 139 single-family low-density units in a non-gated community, for a total of approximately 662 units.

The Project site area will have three phases of buildout:
• TD 1 – Phase 1: Development of lots 1-78, outlots A-E, G-I, and L, Sunnyside Avenue and Streets A, B, E, and C
2091
• TD 1 – Phase 2: Development of lots 140-158, 197-231, 252-265, 286-292, and outlots O and P
• TD 2 – Phase 1: Development of lots 79-189, outlots F, J-K, and Streets A, C, E-H • TD 2 – Phase 2: Development of lots 159-196, 232-251, 266-285, and outlots Q, R, and T
There is no proposed development of the multi-family units at this time; however, this area is considered Phase 3.

On- and off-site improvements include circulation roads, interior local streets, curbs, gutters, sound barriers, sidewalks, streetlights, neighborhood connections to walking trail, open spaces, landscaping, a water well to be maintained by the City of Visalia, and stormwater basins. All streets are to be offered for dedication for public street purposes. All residential units will be equipped with 450-watt solar panels, utilize all electric appliances, and will be EV-ready (pre-wired during construction to allow for installation of an EV residential charger in the future). The multi-family portion of the Project will realign and underground the Tulare Irrigation Canal.

Outlots will be utilized and dedicated as follows:
• Outlots A, B, E, F, and J-L: Dedicated to the City of Visalia for open space, pedestrian, and public landscaping
• Outlots D and H: Dedicated to the City of Visalia for trail purposes • Outlot C: For a water well that will be maintained by the City of Visalia • Outlot G: Stormwater basin to be dedicated to the City of Visalia • Outlot I: Dedicated to Tulare County Irrigation District • Outlots M-R and T: Maintained by private HOA
• Outlot S: To be deeded to Southern California Edison (SCE) Water will be provided by the California Water Service Company, and sewer will be provided by the City.

Discretionary Actions:

The following discretionary actions are required for the Project:
• Annexation into the City of Visalia (Annexation No. 2025-02) • Annexation approval by Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) • General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 2025-04) to modify existing General Plan designations to optimize the residential development on the parcel and amend Figure 4-1 of the Circulation Element
• Prezone to R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential), R-M-2 (Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential), R-M-3 (Multi-Family Residential) and QP (Quasi-Public) • Tentative Tract Map No. 5606
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) (CUP No. 2025- 24)
2092
The Project site would be prezoned as R-1-5, R-M-2, R-M-3, and QP. The General Plan Amendment would modify the existing General Plan designations to optimize the residential development on the parcel and amend the Visalia Circulation Element to remove the “K” Avenue new one-mile-long, two-lane collector from Lovers Lane to Road 248, as referenced in Figure 4-1 Roadway Classifications and Table 4-5 Planned Circulation Improvements of the City’s General Plan. There is an SCE substation approximately 0.50 miles east of the Project site that would not allow for the extension of “K” Avenue. A new Sunnyside Avenue, one-mile-long, two-lane collector from the Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue intersection to Road 248, is to be added to Figure 4-1 and Table 4-5. The CUP/PUD will allow certain deviations of the Visalia Municipal Code standards to develop single-family homes within the Medium-Density land use/R-M-2 designation, allow for reduced setbacks, street sizes, and parcel sizes for the medium-density parcels.

Construction:

Construction of the residential development would occur over a maximum of 18 to 24 months. It is anticipated that the following pieces of equipment would be used during construction activities:
• Roller
• Loaded trucks
• Excavator
• Generator
• Service truck
• Air compressor
The document and documents referenced in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review at the City of Visalia Planning Division, 315 East Acequia Avenue, Visalia, California 93291, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., and at the website:
https://www.visalia.gov/277/California-Environmental-Quality-Act-CEQ As mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public review period for this document will be 30 days (CEQA Section 15073[b]). The public review period begins on May 8, 2026, and ends on June 7, 2026. For further information, please contact Jarred Olsen, Principal Planner, at (559) 713-4449 or [email protected]. 2093
Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................iv Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 - Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 - California Environmental Quality Act............................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 - Impact Terminology............................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 - Document Organization and Contents............................................................................................ 1-2

1.5 - Incorporated by Reference.................................................................................................................. 1-2 SECTION 2 - Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 - Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 - Project Location....................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 - Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.4 - Proposed Project..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 SECTION 3 - Initial Study ......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 - Environmental Checklist...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................ 3-6

3.3 - Determination .......................................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.4 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................ 3-8

3.4.1 - Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 3-10

3.4.2 - Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................................... 3-14

3.4.3 - Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 3-19

3.4.4 - Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-31

3.4.5 - Cultural Resources............................................................................................................. 3-45

3.4.6 - Energy..................................................................................................................................... 3-50

3.4.7 - Geology and Soils................................................................................................................ 3-52

3.4.8 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................. 3-59

3.4.9 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................... 3-64

3.4.10 - Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................... 3-71

3.4.11 - Land Use and Planning.................................................................................................. 3-85

3.4.12 - Mineral Resources........................................................................................................... 3-88

3.4.13 - Noise..................................................................................................................................... 3-90

3.4.14 - Population and Housing................................................................................................ 3-95

3.4.15 - Public Services.................................................................................................................. 3-97

3.4.16 - Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 3-103

3.4.17 - Transportation and Traffic ....................................................................................... 3-105 2094
Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page ii

3.4.18 - Tribal Cultural Resources.......................................................................................... 3-122

3.4.19 - Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................... 3-124

3.4.20 - Wildfire............................................................................................................................. 3-130

3.4.21 - Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................... 3-133 SECTION 4 - List of Preparers ................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 - Lead Agency – City of Visalia .............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 - QK.................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 SECTION 5 - References ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 SECTION 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ....................................................... 6-1 List of Appendices
A – Air Quality Impacts Analysis
B – Biological Resource Evaluation
C – Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
D – Traffic Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis E – Water Supply Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location ....................................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-2 City Limits and Sphere of Influence..................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3 Project Site Location.................................................................................................................. 2-6 Figure 2-4 Residential Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-5 Existing Land Use Designations ............................................................................................ 2-8 Figure 2-6 Proposed Land Use Designations ......................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-7 Existing Zoning ......................................................................................................................... 2-10 Figure 2-8 Proposed Zoning ...................................................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 3.4.10-1 FEMA Flood Hazard Zone ........................................................................................... 3-84 List of Tables
Table 3.4.3-1 SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance .............................................................. 3-21 Table 3.4.3-2 Short-Term Project Emissions ...................................................................................... 3-22 Table 3.4.3-3 Post-Project Max Year (Operational Emissions).................................................... 3-23 Table 3.4.3-4 Predicted Ambient Air Quality Impacts..................................................................... 3-24 Table 3.4.3-5 Comparison of Maximum Modeled Project Impact with Significant Thresholds ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-24 2095
Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page iii
Table 3.4.3-6 2030 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Tulare County and SJVAB .................................................................................................................................................................. 3-26 Table 3.4.3-7 Sensitive Receptors Located < One Mile from Project........................................ 3-26 Table 3.4.3-8 Measures of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants ............................................. 3-27 Table 3.4.3-9 Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP................................................... 3-28 Table 3.4.3-10 Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources........................................................ 3-29 Table 3.4.4-1 Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA.................... 3-33 Table 3.4.4-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA............... 3-34 Table 3.4.5-1 Project Distance from Historic Sites ........................................................................... 3-45 Table 3.4.8-1 Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)........................................................ 3-59 Table 3.4.10-1 Estimated Annual Proposed Project Water Demand (AFY)............................ 3-75 Table 3.4.10-2 Projected Normal Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY).............................. 3-76 Table 3.4.10-3 Projected Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY) ........................ 3-77 Table 3.4.10-4 Projected Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY).................... 3-78 Table 3.4.17-1 Project Trip Generation Estimate........................................................................... 3-109 Table 3.4.17-2 Existing Intersection LOS Results........................................................................... 3-110 Table 3.4.17-3 Opening Year No Project Intersection LOS Results ......................................... 3-112 Table 3.4.17-4 Opening Year (2028) Plus Phases 1 & 2 LOS Intersection Results ........... 3-113 Table 3.4.17-5 Cumulative 5-Year No Project Intersection LOS Results............................... 3-114 Table 3.4.17-6 Cumulative 5-Year Plus Phases 1 & 2 Intersection LOS Results................. 3-116 Table 3.4.17-7 Cumulative 5-Year Plus Project Buildout Intersection LOS Results ......... 3-117 Table 3.4.17-8 Single-Family Residential Fair Share of Future Roadway Improvements.............................................................................................................................................. 3-118 Table 3.4.17-9 Multi-Family Residential Fair Share of Future Roadway Improvements............................................................................................................................................. 3-118 2096
Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
AE-20 Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum
AFY acre-feet per year
APNS Assessor Parcel Numbers
APS Alternative Planning Strategy
AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plans
AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis
AQP air quality plan
BAU business as usual
BMPs best management practices
BSA Biological Survey Area
C&D Construction and Demolition
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Cal Water California Water Service Company
CalGEM California Geologic Energy Management Division
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CGC California Government Code
City City of Visalia
CNDDB California and California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CWC California Water Code
dB decibel
District Visalia Water District
DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level
DOC Department of Conservation
DOF Department of Finance
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DU dwelling unit
EDD Employment Development Department
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ETGSA Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency
2097
Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page v
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
Gpd gallons per day
GSAs Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HARP Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
HI hazard index
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HOA Homeowners Association
IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management
IS Initial Study
ISO Insurance Services Office
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
ITP Incidental Take Permit
KDWCD Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MDB&M Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 ozone
Pb lead
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less PMI point of maximum impact
PPD persons per day
PSD prevention of significant deterioration
PUD Planned Unit Development
QP Quasi-Public
2098
Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page vi
R-1-5 Single-Family Residential
R-M-2 Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential
R-M-3 Multi-Family Residential
ROG reactive organic gases
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCE Southern California Edison
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SIL Significant Impact Levels
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SOI Sphere of Influence
SOx sulfur oxides
SR State Route
SRAs State Responsibility Areas
SSJVIC South San Joaquin Valley Information Center
SWMA Consolidated Waste Management Authority
SWMP Storm Water Master Plan
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TCAG Tulare County Association of Governments
TCRTA Tulare County Regional Transportation Agency
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TOD Transit Oriented Design
TTM Tentative Tract Map
UBC Uniform Building Code
UDB Urban Development Boundary
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground storage tank
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VFD Visalia Fire Department
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VPD Visalia Police Department
VUSD Visalia Unified School District
WCP Water Conservation Plant
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WUI Wildland Urban Interface
2099
Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 1

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
As Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Visalia reviewed the Project described below to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment because of its development. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, “[s]ignificant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2
• TD 2 – Phase 2: Development of lots 159-196, 232-251, 266-285, and outlots Q, R, and T
There is no proposed development of the multi-family units at this time; however, this area is considered Phase 3.

Discretionary Actions:

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3
development on the parcel and amend the Visalia Circulation Element to remove the “K” Avenue new one-mile-long, two-lane collector from Lovers Lane to Road 248, as referenced in Figure 4-1 Roadway Classifications and Table 4-5 Planned Circulation Improvements of the City’s General Plan. There is an SCE substation approximately 0.50 miles east of the Project site that would not allow for the extension of “K” Avenue. A new Sunnyside Avenue, one-mile-long, two-lane collector from the Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue intersection to Road 248, is to be added to Figure 4-1 and Table 4-5. The CUP/PUD will allow certain deviations of the Visalia Municipal Code standards to develop single-family homes within the Medium-Density land use/R-M-2 designation, allow for reduced setbacks, street sizes, and parcel sizes for the medium-density parcels.

Construction:

Construction of the residential development would occur over a maximum of 18 to 24 months. It is anticipated that the following pieces of equipment would be used during construction activities:
• Roller
• Loaded trucks
• Excavator
• Generator
• Service truck
• Air compressor
Mailing Address and Phone Number of Contact Person
Jarred Olsen, AICP – Principal Planner
City of Visalia, Planning and Community Preservation Department 315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 713-4449
Email: [email protected]
Findings
As Lead Agency, the City of Visalia finds that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) or Initial Study (IS) (see Section 3 - Environmental Checklist) identified one or more potentially significant effects on the environment, but revisions to the Project have been made before the release of this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or mitigation measures would be implemented that reduce all potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels.

The Lead Agency further finds that there is no substantial evidence that this Project would have a significant effect on the environment.
2102
Mitigated Negative Declaration

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 4
Mitigation Measures Included in the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant Effects
MM AG-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall mitigate impacts for loss of up to 78 acres of Prime Farmland on the Project site at a 1:1 ratio.

The amount of land requiring mitigation shall correspond to the amount of land associated with the issuance of the grading or building permit, or for residential land associated with a subdivision map, the amount of land associated with the subdivision map. The Project proponent shall implement one or more of the following measures to mitigate the loss:

Payment of in-lieu fees, mitigation banks, fee title acquisition, and/or conservation easements on land(s) within the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California, specifically within Kern County, Tulare County, Kings County, Fresno County, or Madera County. The City shall require, at a minimum, evidence that the preserved land has an adequate water supply, agricultural zoning, evidence of land encumbrance documentation, documentation that the easement/regulations are permanent and monitored, and documentation that the mitigation strategy is appropriately endowed. This mitigation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The Project proponent, at its election, may mitigate for the loss of agricultural land through compliance with the Agricultural Mitigation Program that is adopted by the City in lieu of mitigating on a 1:1 ratio.

MM AG-2: In order to reduce potential conflicts between urban and agricultural uses, the following measures shall be implemented:
a. Potential residents shall be notified about possible exposure to agricultural chemicals at the time of purchase/lease of property within the development. b. A Right-to-Farm Covenant shall be recorded on each residential tract map or be made a condition of each tract map to protect continued agricultural practices in the area. c. Potential residents shall be informed of the Right-to-Farm Covenant at the time of purchase/lease of property within the development.

MM BIO-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits or ground disturbance, a preconstruction clearance survey of the Project footprint shall be conducted for special-status wildlife species and nesting migratory birds and raptors. The survey shall occur no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities. If construction is delayed beyond 30 days from the time of the survey or there is a lapse in construction of more than 30 days, then another survey shall be conducted. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist with adequate training and prior experience conducting surveys for special-status wildlife species. If no special-status species are observed, no further action is warranted. If dens or burrows that could support special-status species and/or nesting birds and raptors are discovered during the pre-construction survey, appropriate avoidance buffers shall be established. If no special-status species are observed on or near the Project site, no further surveys are required. A report outlining the results of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

MM BIO-2: If construction is planned during the nesting season for migratory birds (February 15 to August 31) and nesting birds are identified during the preconstruction 2103
Mitigated Negative Declaration

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 5
survey, an active Swainson’s hawk nest shall be avoided by 0.5 miles, other raptor nests shall be avoided by 500 feet, and all other migratory bird nests shall be avoided by 250 feet.

Avoidance buffers may be reduced if a qualified biological monitor determines that encroachment into the buffer area is not affecting nest building, the rearing of young, or otherwise affecting the breeding behaviors of the resident birds. Because nesting birds can establish new nests or produce a second or even third clutch at any time during the nesting season, nesting bird surveys shall be repeated every 30 days as construction activities are occurring throughout the nesting season. If no nesting birds are observed on or near the Project site, no further surveys are required.

MM BIO-3: A Worker Environmental Awareness Program shall be developed and implemented for all personnel who could access the site prior to commencing any disturbance activities. The program shall consist of an on-site or center presentation that will describe the locations and types of sensitive plant, wildlife, and sensitive natural communities (collectively, “Biological Resources”) on and near the site, an overview of the laws and regulations governing the protection of Biological Resources, the reasons for protecting the Biological Resources, the specific protection and avoidance measures that are applicable to the site, and the identity of designated points of contact should questions or issues arise, including the qualified biologist. The program shall provide training to recognize, avoid, and report to applicable qualified biologists any Biological Resources on the site.
a. The Worker Environmental Awareness Program shall emphasize the need to avoid contact with on-site wildlife and avoid entry into areas where Biological Resources have been identified based on pre-disturbance field surveys, and to implement the buffer avoidance or other protection measures established by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or required by the Biological Resource mitigation measures. The training shall emphasize the importance of not feeding or domesticating wildlife and the need to avoid any trash, micro-trash, or potential food waste on-site, except in animal-proof containers emptied daily, to avoid attracting or causing adverse impacts to special-status wildlife.
b. All on-site personnel must sign a statement verifying that they have completed the Worker Environmental Awareness Program and that they understand and agree to implement the biological requirements for the worksite. If signed employee statements are not available, documentation may be provided by Worker Environmental Awareness Program training records, which shall be kept by the applicant for a minimum of five years. Each applicant shall maintain a list of all persons who have completed the training program and shall provide the list to the County or to State and federal wildlife agency representatives upon request.

MM BIO-4: If protected or special-status species are identified on the Project site during preconstruction surveys, protective buffers shall be used, where effective in the opinion of the qualified biologist. These measures are created to avoid any unauthorized incidental take of these species and to minimize any incidental take. Protective buffers shall be delineated using brightly colored stakes and/or flagging or similar materials and remain until 2104
Mitigated Negative Declaration

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 6
construction activities are complete, at which time of completion, the buffers must be removed. Protective buffers shall be established around active dens and/or burrows of special-status animal species or populations of special-status plant species to avoid unauthorized take of Protected Species as listed in the table below. The protective buffer distance shall be increased if required to avoid unauthorized incidental take of any Protected Species as determined by a qualified biologist. Protective buffer distances and other avoidance measures that may be implemented to avoid impacts to Protected Species or Sensitive Species must be consistent with the USFWS and/or the CDFW requirements and shall be implemented and overseen by a qualified biologist.

Disturbance Buffers for Sensitive Resources
Sensitive Resource Buffer Zone from Disturbance (feet)
Potential San Joaquin kit fox den 50
Known San Joaquin kit fox den 100
Natal San Joaquin kit fox den 500
Atypical San Joaquin kit fox den 50
Rodent burrows 50
Special-status bird species' active nests 500 feet to 0.5 miles, depending on species and sight line
American badger: Non-maternity dens 50
American badger: Maternity dens 200
MM BIO-5: If Project activities must occur during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (February 15 to September 31), pre-activity surveys shall be conducted for Swainson’s hawk nests in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (CDFG, 2000). The surveys shall be conducted on the Project site plus a 0.5-mile buffer. To meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys shall be conducted during at least two survey periods prior to the start of construction. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the methodology outlined in existing protocols and should be phased with the construction of the Project.

If no Swainson’s hawk nests are found, no further action is required.

MM BIO-6: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5 miles of active construction, a qualified biologist shall complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest. The assessment shall consider the type of construction activities, the location of construction relative to the nest, the visibility of construction activities from the nest location, and other existing disturbances in the area that are not related to construction activities of this Project. Based on this assessment, the biologist shall determine if construction activities can proceed and the level of nest monitoring required. Construction activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest, but depending upon conditions at the site, this distance may be reduced. Full-time monitoring to evaluate the effects of construction activities on nesting Swainson’s hawks may be required. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop work if it is 2105
Mitigated Negative Declaration

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 7
determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may need to be increased depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

MM BIO-7: If burrows that could support the burrowing owl species are discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey conducted under MM BIO-1, the avoidance buffers outlined below shall be established, and burrow monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012). No work would occur within these buffers. If occupied burrowing owl burrows cannot be avoided by the appropriate buffer below, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) issued by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) to authorize "take" that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, may be required before any work within the buffer.

Location Time of Year Level of Disturbance
Low Med High
Nesting sites April 1 -Aug 15 200 m* 500 m 500 m
Nesting sites Aug 16 – Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m
Nesting sites Oct 16- Mar 31 50 m 100 m 500 m
*Meters (m)
MM BIO-8: Occupied American badger dens detected during pre-disturbance surveys shall be flagged, and ground-disturbing activities shall be avoided within 50 feet of the den.

Maternity dens shall be avoided, and a minimum 200-foot buffer from disturbance shall be maintained during the pup-rearing season (February 15 through July 1). Maternity dens shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible in the opinion of a qualified biologist. If an active maternity den is proposed to be disturbed, the qualified biologist shall consult with the CDFW to identify any appropriate additional minimization measures that the qualified biologist determines, with the wildlife agencies, can actually be implemented based on field conditions. All such measures shall be implemented for Project activities.

MM BIO-9: The following additional measures shall be implemented during construction to avoid and minimize potential significant adverse impacts to protected and sensitive species:
a. All vehicles shall observe a 15-mile-per-hour speed limit in all areas of disturbance and on unpaved roads unless otherwise posted. Off-road traffic outside of designated access routes is prohibited. Speed limit signs shall be posted in visible locations at the point of site entry and at regular intervals on all unpaved access roads. b. All disturbance activities, except emergency situations or drilling that may require continuous operations, shall only occur during daylight hours. Nighttime disturbance activity for drilling purposes shall use directed lighting and shielding methods and comply with applicable lighting mitigation measures.
c. All food-related trash items and all forms of micro trash, such as wrappers, cans, bottles, bottle tops, and food scraps, shall be disposed of in closed, animal-proof containers and removed daily from the site.
2106
Mitigated Negative Declaration

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 8
d. Excavations, spoil piles, access roadways, and parking and staging areas shall be subject to dust control as set forth in the dust control mitigation measures. e. The use of herbicides for vegetation control shall be restricted to those approved by the USFWS and the CDFW. No rodenticides shall be used on any site unless approved by the USWFS and the CDFW, and shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and State and federal laws and regulations. For split estates, no herbicides for vegetation control may occur in Tier 2 areas without surface owner approval.
f. No plants or wildlife shall be collected, taken, or removed from the site or any adjacent locations except as necessary for Project-related vegetation removal or wildlife relocation by a qualified biologist and subject to all applicable permits and authorizations.
g. All open trenches or excavations shall be covered at the end of each workday to prevent wildlife entrapment. If an excavation is too large to cover, escape ramps shall be installed at an incline ratio of no greater than 2:1. All trenches and pipes shall be inspected for the presence of wildlife each day prior to the commencement of work. h. To enable San Joaquin kit foxes and other wildlife to pass through the Project site, any perimeter fencing shall include a four- to eight-inch opening between the fence mesh and the ground, or the fence shall be raised four inches above the ground except for blunt-nosed leopard lizard exclusion fencing. The bottom of the fence fabric shall be knuckled (wrapped back to form a smooth edge) to protect wildlife. i. All vertical tubes used in Project construction and chain link fencing poles shall be temporarily or permanently capped to avoid the entrapment and death of specialstatus wildlife and birds. All pipes 1.5 inches or greater in diameter stored overnight on a Project location must have end caps or other physical barriers that prevent wildlife from entering the pipe.
j. All dead or injured special-status wildlife shall be left in place and reported to the USFWS and the CDFW within 48 hours of discovery for rescue or salvage. Discovery of State or federal listed species that are injured or dead shall also be managed consistent with regulatory requirements, including being reported immediately via telephone and within 24 hours in writing, and with a copy to the lead agency. k. During pre-construction surveys, the qualified biologist shall delineate previously disturbed areas to be used by the applicant to minimize the amount of new disturbance.
l. No vehicles or construction equipment shall be parked within a wetland or waterbody/dry wash.
m. Tracked vehicles and other construction equipment must be washed or maintained to be weed-free prior to entering and working within areas of a new disturbance. n. All washing of trucks, paint, equipment, or similar activities should occur in areas where runoff is fully contained for collection and off-site disposal. Wash water may not be discharged from the site and shall be located at least 100 feet from any water body or sensitive Biological Resources.
2107
Mitigated Negative Declaration

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 9
o. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil storage areas) at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries or waterbody, except where the adjacent upland consists of cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. p. All areas that must be avoided as a result of the pre-disturbance surveys and areas where new disturbance will occur shall be clearly delineated by fencing or staking and flagging and/or rope or cord.
q. No pets shall be allowed on any site.
r. No smoking may occur except in designated areas.

MM BIO-10: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the Project proponent/developer shall conduct a delineation of the Tulare Irrigation Canal and prepare an Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ARDR). The ARDR shall be submitted with a formal notification to the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If no comments or requests for additional permitting are received by the agencies, no further action is necessary. A copy of all correspondence shall be submitted to the lead agency.

If a regulatory agency comments or requests additional permitting, the following actions may be taken. A copy of all correspondence and subsequent permitting and/or reports shall be made available to the Lead Agency. The report shall include information as shown below, as a plan if necessary, and shall outline compliance with the following:
a. Delineation of all jurisdictional features at the project site. Potential jurisdictional features within the project boundary identified in the jurisdictional delineation report may be shown in plan form.
b. If the Project has a potential to directly or indirectly impact jurisdictional aquatic resources, a formal aquatic resource delineation of these areas shall be performed by a qualified professional to determine the extent of agency jurisdiction and permits/authorizations from the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) shall be obtained prior to disturbance to jurisdictional features.

If it is determined that drainage is jurisdictional and cannot be avoided, the Project proponent shall obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, a Section 404 permit from USACE, and a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 from the CDFW, if required, prior to impacting any waters.

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 10
compensatory mitigation shall take place either on-site or at an appropriate off-site location.
c. Any material/spoils generated from project activities containing hazardous materials shall be located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from storm water run-off using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls, covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate. Protection measures should follow project-specific criteria as developed in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Protection Plan (SWPPP). d. Equipment containing hazardous liquid materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and at least 50 feet outside the delineated boundary of jurisdictional water features.
e. Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely. The contaminated area shall be cleaned, and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified.

MM CUL-1: In the event that prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered during construction in connection with an individual-specific development proposal, all construction activities associated therewith within 100 feet of the find shall halt, and the City of Visalia and an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be notified by the relevant applicant. Prehistoric archaeological materials may include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery or as soon thereafter as is reasonable and commercially practicable. If it is determined that the construction associated with the subject individual-specific development proposal could significantly damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified Archaeologist shall prepare, and the relevant applicant shall implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Visalia. Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the proposed Project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts 2109
Mitigated Negative Declaration

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 11
and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

MM CUL-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the NAHC, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the County Coroner.

MM GEO-1: If any paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbance activities, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010), can evaluate the find and make recommendations regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or another appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources.

If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided to ensure no adverse effects, or such effects must be mitigated. Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

MM HAZ-1: In the event that unknown underground storage tank(s) or a septic system are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work in that area shall cease. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Tulare County Environmental Health Division shall be contacted to determine what appropriate remediation may be required and to identify the appropriate requirements and approvals.

A report of all communication and the determination made by the SWRCB and the County Health Division shall be submitted to the City.

MM TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant/developer responsible for the construction of the Single-Family Residential Development will pay their pro-rate fair share percentage of 3.1 percent.
2110
Mitigated Negative Declaration

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 12
MM TRA-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant/developer responsible for the construction of the Multi-Family Residential Development will pay their pro-rata fair share percentage of 2.4 percent. If at the time of development of the MultiFamily phase the unit count is less than 375, the developer may submit a revised TIA showing the appropriate pro-rate fair share percentage for the reduced number of units. 2111
Introduction

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 1-1
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Overview
The proposed Project will develop a mixed-use residential subdivision (TTM 5606) on an approximately 78-acre site with a total of approximately 662 units (370 multi-family highdensity units, 153 single-family medium-density units in a gated community with a Homeowners Association (HOA), and 139 single-family low-density units in a non-gated community) in an area of unincorporated Tulare County, southeast of the City of Visalia (City), adjacent to the City limits. The Project will require the approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, General Plan Amendment (GPA), Annexation, Prezone, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Figure 2-1 is a map of the regional location, Figure 2-2 shows the Project site location in relation to the City limits and Sphere of Influence (SOI), and Figure 2-3 shows the Project site location. Figure 2-4 shows the residential area site plan.

1.2 - California Environmental Quality Act
The City of Visalia is the Lead Agency for this Project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 15000 et seq.). The Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) or Initial Study (IS) (see Section 3 – Initial Study) provides analysis that examines the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project. Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to prepare an IS to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is appropriate when an IS has been prepared, and a determination can be made that no significant environmental effects will occur because revisions to the Project have been made or mitigation measures will be implemented that reduce all potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. The content of an MND is the same as a Negative Declaration, with the addition of identified mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (see Section 6 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program).

Based on the IS, the Lead Agency has determined that the environmental review for the proposed application can be completed with an MND.

1.3 - Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts. • A finding of “no impact” is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the Project would not affect a topic area in any way.
• An impact is considered “less than significant” if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation. • An impact is considered “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the 2112
Introduction

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 1-2
environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments that have been agreed to by the applicant.
• An impact is considered “potentially significant” if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.

1.4 - Document Organization and Contents
The content and format of this IS/MND are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. The report contains the following sections:
• Section 1 – Introduction: This section provides an overview of CEQA requirements, intended uses of the IS/MND, document organization, and a list of regulations that have been incorporated by reference.
• Section 2– Project Description: This section describes the Project and provides data on the site’s location.
• Section 3 – Environmental Checklist: This section contains the evaluation of 21 different environmental resource factors contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Each environmental resource factor is analyzed to determine whether the proposed Project would have an impact. One of four findings is made, which include:
no impact, less-than-significant impact, less than significant with mitigation, or significant and unavoidable. If the evaluation results in a finding of significant and unavoidable impacts for any of the 21 environmental resource factors, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required.
• Section 4 – List of Preparers: This section identifies the individuals who prepared the IS/MND.
• Section 5 – References: This section contains a full list of references that were used in the preparation of this IS/MND.
• Section 6 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: This section contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

1.5 - Incorporated by Reference
The following documents and/or regulations are incorporated into this IS/MND by reference:
• City of Visalia General Plan Update (2014)
• City of Visalia Draft Environmental Impact Report (2014) • City of Visalia 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (2024) • City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (2013)
• City of Visalia Waterway & Trail Master Plan (2010)
• City of Visalia Municipal Code
• Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (2012) • Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2023) 2113
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-1
SECTION 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 - Introduction
The proposed Project is to develop a mixed-use residential subdivision (TTM 5606) on an approximately 78-acre site with a total of approximately 662 units on property within unincorporated Tulare County, southeast of the City of Visalia (City), adjacent to the City limits. The Project will require the approval of an Annexation, Tentative Subdivision Map, General Plan Amendment (GPA), Prezone, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for a Planned Unit Development (PUD).

Figure 2-1 shows the regional location, Figure 2-2 shows the Project site location in relation to the City limits and Sphere of Influence (SOI), and Figure 2-3 shows the Project site location. Figure 2-4 is TTM 5606.

2.2 - Project Location
The Project site is located within an area of unincorporated Tulare County, southeast of the City of Visalia (City), adjacent to the City limits. The site consists of two separate Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), 127-020-20 and 127-020-21, with a combined approximately 78 acres of land. The Project site area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Development Boundary (UDB) – Tier II. The site is currently zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum) by Tulare County and designated as Residential Low, Residential Medium, Residential High Density, and Conservation by the City General Plan.

2.3 - Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include agricultural development to the north and east, agriculture and single-family residential to the south, and multi-family and single-family residential to the west.

2.4 - Proposed Project
The Project site consists of approximately 370 multi-family high-density units, 153 singlefamily medium-density units in a gated community with a Homeowners Association (HOA), and 139 single-family low-density units in a non-gated community, for a total of approximately 662 units.

The Project site area will have three phases of buildout:
2114
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-2
• TD 1 – Phase 1: Development of lots 1-78, outlots A-E, G-I, and L, Sunnyside Avenue and Streets A, B, E, and C
• TD 1 – Phase 2: Development of lots 140-158, 197-231, 252-265, 286-292, and outlots O and P
• TD 2 – Phase 1: Development of lots 79-189, outlots F, J-K, and Streets A, C, E-H • TD 2 – Phase 2: Development of lots 159-196, 232-251, 266-285, and outlots Q, R, and T
There is no proposed development of the multi-family units at this time; however, this area is considered Phase 3.

Discretionary Actions:

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-3
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) (CUP No. 2025- 24)
The Project site would be prezoned as R-1-5, R-M-2, R-M-3, and QP. The General Plan Amendment would modify the existing General Plan designations to optimize the residential development on the parcel and amend the Visalia Circulation Element to remove the “K” Avenue new one-mile-long, two-lane collector from Lovers Lane to Road 248, as referenced in Figure 4-1 Roadway Classifications and Table 4-5 Planned Circulation Improvements of the City’s General Plan. There is an SCE substation approximately 0.50 miles east of the Project site that would not allow for the extension of “K” Avenue. A new Sunnyside Avenue, one-mile-long, two-lane collector from the Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue intersection to Road 248, is to be added to Figure 4-1 and Table 4-5. The CUP/PUD will allow certain deviations of the Visalia Municipal Code standards to develop single-family homes within the Medium-Density land use/R-M-2 designation, allow for reduced setbacks, street sizes, and parcel sizes for the medium-density parcels.

Construction:

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-4

Figure 2-1
Regional Location
Medford
0 D Tulare County
D State County Boundaries
--- State Boundary
0 Miles 100
I
0 Californ i a
Tulare
0 7.5
Visalia
0 Mojave
Desert
Los Angeles
-~ t
San Diego
J
Exete
0 Las Vegas 0
2117
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-5

Figure 2-2
City Limits and Sphere of Influence
Limits
phere of Influenc
Project Site
2118
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-6

Figure 2-3 IV Project Site Location
2119
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-7

Figure 2-4
Residential Site Plan
I I
l l
i ! I! , I I
, I
1,
I
L --.;:;;,;;c~L..:. ~--- ---

OVERALL BOUNDARY
I I
11 "'""'" I I
___ i I____ 11 ------ ---- --- ____ _l_ _ __ _ _ __ _ ____ _

CLEMENTS RANCH

TENTA T/VE SUBDIVISION MAP
.. ''\ ; , '. _·;.~~~,. , - ..t - _;; ,_:-.;,>,:., - •• ·aw,
' ,.::..,•~--··•:,...:·~:· -..., - ·'":,'
S\JBllMD51
~}j'j_;-- '
"!'!QeQff_OU'"!l,• •
·~-:~:1:>..·"""" .• •. • • --• •••• -~·• •• -~ .w - •
, v ·yp ~
~ .. w;.... ··· ·,
~-~-.:~.; ... , ......
2120
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-8

Figure 2-5
Existing Land Use Designations
E KAVE 0 600 Feet
CJ Public/Institutional
- Residential High Density
Commercial Neighborhood CJ Residential Low Density
- Conservation D Residential Medium Density
D Office □ Project Site
- Parks/Recreation
2121
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-9

Figure 2-6
Proposed Land Use Designations

E K AVE
Proposed General Plan Commercial Neighborhood
c:J Residential Low Density - Conservation
- Residential Medium Density c:J Office
- Residential High Density Parks/Recreation
- Conservation D Public/Institutional
- Parks/Recreation Iii Residential High Density
City of Visalia General Plan D Residential Low Density
c:J Commercial Mixed use D Residential Medium Density
~ Project Site
0 I
0 Feet 600
2122
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-10

Figure 2-7
Existing Zoning
i------E KAVE r~_..,
r-~
I l
p : ~
ffi ~ ~
!! i
:

City of Visalia Zoning County of Tulare Zoning
D C-MU Rural/Ag: AE-20
D R-1-5 Urban/Com: C-1
D R-M-2 D Project Site
0 R-M-3
o x
1W
0 2123
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-11

Figure 2-8
Proposed Zoning
~=:::.:::.:::-_-=-=-=.=:E·:!::K-:1::.A~VsE::::=:=:::...u I D
Proposed Zoning
D C-N: Neighborhood Commerical
- QP: Quasi-Public
D R-1-5: Single Family Residential
- RM2: Multi-Family Residential
RM3: Multi-Family Residential
County of Tulare Zoning
Rural/Ag: AE-20
Urban/Com: C-1
~ Project Site
~~~ -- ~--:.......------ ----~
I
I
~
I
i
Cl)
I
0 Feet
6 ~
0 I
2124
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-1
SECTION 3 - INITIAL STUDY

3.1 - Environmental Checklist

1. Project Title:

Clements Ranch Tentative Tract Map No. 5606

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Visalia, Planning and Community Preservation Department 315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

City of Visalia, Planning and Community Preservation Department 315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact Person: Jarred Olsen, AICP, Principal Planner
Phone : (559) 713-4449

4. Project Location:

The Project site is located within an area of unincorporated Tulare County, southeast of the City of Visalia (City), adjacent to the City limits. The site consists of two separate Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), 127-020-20 and 127-020-21, with a combined approximately 78 acres of land. The Project site area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Development Boundary (UDB) – Tier II. The site is currently zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum) by Tulare County and designated as Residential Low, Residential Medium, Residential High Density, and Conservation by the City General Plan.

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:

D.R. Horton
Corine Demetreos
419 W. Murray
Visalia, CA 93291
2125
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-2

6. General Plan Designation:

Existing: City of Visalia
• Residential High Density
• Residential Medium Density
• Residential Low Density
• Conservation – Designated on Cameron Creek
Proposed: City of Visalia
• Residential High Density – Approximately 21.80 acres
• Residential Medium Density – Approximately 15.30 acres • Residential Low Density – Approximately 30.90 acres
• Conservation – Designated along Cameron Creek – No change

7. Zoning:

Existing: Tulare County – AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural Zone – 20 Acre Minimum) Proposed Prezoning: City of Visalia
• R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential) – Approximately 30.90 acres • R-M-2 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential)- 27.58 acres • R-M-3 (Multi-Family Residential) – Approximately 31.80 acres • QP (Quasi-Public) – Approximately 12.19 acres

8. Description of Project:

The Project site consists of approximately 370 multi-family high-density units, 153 single-family medium-density units in a gated community with a Homeowners Association (HOA), and 139 single-family low-density units in a non-gated community, for a total of approximately 662 units.

The Project site area will have three phases of buildout:
• TD 1 – Phase 1: Development of lots 1-78, outlots A-E, G-I, and L, Sunnyside Avenue and Streets A, B, E, and C
• TD 1 – Phase 2: Development of lots 140-158, 197-231, 252-265, 286-292, and outlots O and P
• TD 2 – Phase 1: Development of lots 79-189, outlots F, J-K, and Streets A, C, E-H • TD 2 – Phase 2: Development of lots 159-196, 232-251, 266-285, and outlots Q, R, and T
There is no proposed development of the multi-family units at this time; however, this area is considered Phase 3.
2126
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-3
On- and off-site improvements include circulation roads, interior local streets, curbs, gutters, sound barriers, sidewalks, streetlights, neighborhood connections to walking trail, open spaces, landscaping, a water well to be maintained by the City of Visalia, and stormwater basins. All streets are to be offered for dedication for public street purposes.

All residential units will be equipped with 450-watt solar panels, utilize all electric appliances, and will be EV-ready (pre-wired during construction to allow for installation of an EV residential charger in the future). The multi-family portion of the Project will realign and underground the Tulare Irrigation Canal.

Discretionary Actions:

The following discretionary actions are required for the Project:
• Annexation into the City of Visalia (Annexation No. 2025-02) • Annexation approval by Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) • General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 2025-04) to modify existing General Plan designations to optimize the residential development on the parcel and amend Figure 4-1 of the Circulation Element
• Prezone to R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential), R-M-2 (Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential), R-M-3 (Multi-Family Residential) and QP (Quasi-Public) • Tentative Tract Map No. 5606
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) (CUP No. 2025- 24)
The Project site would be prezoned as R-1-5, R-M-2, R-M-3, and QP. The General Plan Amendment would modify the existing General Plan designations to optimize the residential development on the parcel and amend the Visalia Circulation Element to remove the “K” Avenue new one-mile-long, two-lane collector from Lovers Lane to Road 248, as referenced in Figure 4-1 Roadway Classifications and Table 4-5 Planned Circulation Improvements of the City’s General Plan. There is an SCE substation approximately 0.50 miles east of the Project site that would not allow for the extension of “K” Avenue. A new Sunnyside Avenue, one-mile-long, two-lane collector from the 2127
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-4
Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue intersection to Road 248, is to be added to Figure 4-1 and Table 4-5. The CUP/PUD will allow certain deviations of the Visalia Municipal Code standards to develop single-family homes within the Medium-Density land use/R-M-2 designation, allow for reduced setbacks, street sizes, and parcel sizes for the mediumdensity parcels.

Construction:

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Surrounding land uses include agricultural development to the north and east, agriculture and single-family residential to the south, and multi-family and single-family residential to the west.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
• Tulare County LAFCo
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD)

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
On September 26, 2025, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and Government Code Section 65300 et seq, Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52, letters were sent to each of the Native American tribes within the geographic area as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (see Appendix C). The letters included a Project description and location maps. Tribal consultation under AB 52 and SB 18 closed on December 31, 2025.

NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and Project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce 2128
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-5
the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
2129
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-6

3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance

3.3 - Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (a) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
2130
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-7
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Jarred Olsen Principal Planner
Printed Name Title
□
May 7, 2026
2131
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-8

3.4 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a projectspecific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there is one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-Than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-thansignificant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
2132
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-9

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
2133
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-10
Discussion
Impact #3.4.1a – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The General Plan Draft EIR discusses views of the Sierra Nevada range, agricultural lands beyond the edges of the City, Valley Oak trees, and waterways as scenic resources in Visalia (City of Visalia, 2014b).

Views of the Sierra Nevada range are variable and dependent on weather and air quality conditions for the mountain range to be visible. The Project site is currently a mix of row crops and orchards, with no oak trees present. The Project would not substantially impede these existing views of the mountains from adjacent viewpoints because of the low-profile nature of the development and because of the lack of existing urban development adjacent to the site that currently has views of the mountains. The City of Visalia does not identify views of these features as required to be “protected.” Therefore, the Project has a less-thansignificant impact on scenic vistas.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.1 - AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the Project is in an
urbanized area, would the Project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
2134
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-11

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.1b - Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? See discussion in Impact #3.4.1a.

State Route (SR) 198 is designated as an eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it has not been adopted as a State Scenic Highway at this time. While the City has not requested official designation, it has evaluated the corridor in the Scenic Highways Element of the existing General Plan and has taken steps to preserve and enhance the corridor’s scenic quality (City of Visalia, 2014a). Additionally, it is approximately 1.50 miles north of the Project site and not visible from that roadway. Therefore, there will be no impacts related to a scenic highway.

The Project contains no native trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.1c - Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? As previously mentioned, the Project site area is within the City’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB) – Tier II, currently zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum) by Tulare County and designated as Residential Low, Residential Medium, Residential High Density, and Conservation by the City General Plan. The Project site is directly adjacent to an urbanized area, within the City’s UDB, and as such, would be considered urbanized. Once the General Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development are approved, the Project would be consistent with the applicable pre-zoning district regulations [R-1-5 (Single-Family 2135
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-12
Residential), R-M-2 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential), R-M-3 (Multi-family Residential), and QP (Quasi-Public)].

Furthermore, the Project design is subject to the City’s Design Guidelines adopted for the City’s General Plan that apply to site layout, building design, landscaping, interior street design, lighting, parking, and signage. Detailed architectural plans, color palettes, and building materials, as well as landscaping plans, will be submitted by the Project developer to the City of Visalia Planning and Community Preservation Department. The plans shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. In addition, landscaping easements will run along the trails and some roadways, and additional landscaping design will accompany the park spaces and bicycle and pedestrian use trails.

As discussed, the Project site is located within an urbanized area and is consistent with the pre-zoning district regulations and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.1d - Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Nighttime lighting is necessary to provide and maintain safe, secure, and attractive environments; however, these lights have the potential to produce spillover light and glare and waste energy, and if designed incorrectly, could be considered unattractive. Light that falls beyond the intended area is referred to as “light trespass.” Types of light trespass include spillover light and glare. Minimizing all these forms of obtrusive light is an important environmental consideration. A less obtrusive and well-designed energy-efficient fixture would face downward, emit the correct intensity of light for the use, and incorporate energy timers.

According to the General Plan, the construction of new buildings may result in nighttime light pollution or daytime glare, but identifies construction impacts as likely insignificant as a result of development. Municipal Code Section 8.36.050(C) prohibits construction equipment from operating between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and between the weekend hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., thereby reducing any potential light and glare impacts resulting from any construction activities that could occur. Section

17.30.015.G of the Visalia Zoning Ordinance regulates that no on-site lighting should directly or indirectly illuminate adjacent properties or the public street that provides access, and that the light and standards to be used will be approved by a Site Plan Review. 2136
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-13
The Project site is located in an area that is becoming increasingly urbanized and is subject to pre-existing exterior lighting from surrounding developments and existing street lighting.

The proposed Project would introduce new sources of light and glare to the area in the form of street lighting, nighttime vehicle lights, windows, and porch lights. However, new sources of light and glare associated with the Project would not be substantial in the context of existing lighting sources in the Project vicinity.

Development under the General Plan would include indoor lighting and outdoor lighting for safety purposes, but would generally not be out of character with the existing urban environment and would not rise to a level of being significant. The resulting light and glare produced by the Project would be similar to existing conditions. In addition, daytime glare would not be substantial because no highly reflective glass elements or building materials are proposed as part of the Project. During the entitlement process, the Project will be required to comply with the City’s policies pertaining to light and glare, and City staff will review lighting plans to ensure that lighting plans will minimize spill-over light on neighboring properties. Compliance with California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) standards and City development codes would address light and glare impacts to day- and night-time views resulting from the construction of the proposed Project.

Therefore, with the Project’s compliance with Municipal Code standards and General Plan policies for site lighting, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2137
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-14

Discussion
Impact #3.4.2a – Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? CEQA uses the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) categories of “Prime Farmland,”

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation, as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act Contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
2138
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-15
“Farmland of Statewide Importance,” and “Unique Farmland” to define “agricultural land” for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts (Public Resources Code Section 21060.1[a]). According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Important Farmland Finder, the entire Project site is classified as Prime Farmland (California Department of Conservation, 2022).

The Project site is currently within the boundaries of unincorporated Tulare County, and the Project is requesting the approval of annexation into the Visalia City boundaries for residential development. The site is currently under active agricultural cultivation.

The Project is within the City’s SOI and is within the UDB Tier II, which has been deemed as land to be converted from agricultural land to urban development by the City’s General Plan.

Once annexed, the Project would convert 78 acres of Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural land use. According to the City’s Draft EIR, there are 33,991 acres of Prime Farmland within the General Plan Planning Area, and at full buildout of the General Plan, there will be 21,501 acres of Prime Farmland (City of Visalia, 2014b). Given this, the Project would account for a

0.22 percent reduction in Prime Farmland under City jurisdiction.

The City’s Agricultural Land Preservation Program (Visalia Municipal Code 18.04.060), established through City Ordinance No. 2023-02, was created to implement Visalia General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-34 and applies to projects within the UDB Tiers II and III. The intent of the Agricultural Land Preservation Program is to establish a process for the required preservation of agricultural land through the acquisition of agricultural conservation easements or the payment of an in-lieu fee for projects subject to the provisions of this section. Because the Project includes more than 20 acres of converted important farmland, in-lieu payment of fees is not an available option to compensate for this loss. The Ordinance will require that an equivalent amount of agricultural land converted be preserved outside the urban development boundary and within the southern San Joaquin Valley, or that a project comply with regulations within the Ordinance that will cause an equivalent amount of agricultural land to be preserved. Additionally, the preserved agricultural land must demonstrate adequate water supply and agricultural zoning. Policy LU-P-34 notes that such a program shall, to the extent feasible and practicable, be integrated with the agricultural easement programs adopted by Tulare County and nearby cities.

Therefore, to ensure compliance with the applicable standards of Ordinance No. 2023-02, Mitigation Measure AG-1 has been incorporated, which will require Project compliance prior to the issuance of grading permits. Furthermore, implementation of this Project will support LU-P-21 and the General Plan designation for residential development. LU-P-20 states that residential development can occur in Tier II after 5,850 residential building permits have been issued. According to the most recent Housing Element, there was a total of 4,820 building permits (4,396 single-family dwellings and 424 multi-family units) issued as of 2019 (City of Visalia, 2024). The Project would be reviewed by City staff to ensure compliance with this General Plan policy prior to development. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1, the impacts of the Project would be less than significant.
2139
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-16

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM AG-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall mitigate impacts for loss of up to 78 acres of Prime Farmland on the Project site at a 1:1 ratio.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.2b – Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract?
See Impact #3.4.2a, above. The Project site is not subject to the existing Williamson Act Land Use contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51200 et seq. Therefore, there would be no conflict with a Williamson Act contract, and as such, the Project would have no impacts related to this subject area.

The County of Tulare currently classifies the Project site as being within the AE-20(Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum) zone district and has a General Plan designation of Low-, Medium-, and High-Density Residential and Conservation designated by the City. The Project proposes to annex into the City limits and pre-zone with two residential zoning districts (R1-5 and R-M-3) for low-, medium-, and high-density residential uses. Therefore, approval of the proposed Project would remedy any conflict with the existing County agricultural zoning.

However, in order to ensure that existing agricultural operations in the area can be maintained, a Right-to-Farm Covenant will be required, as identified in MM AG-2. After implementation of the recommended mitigation, the impact is determined to be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM AG-2: In order to reduce potential conflicts between urban and agricultural uses, the following measures shall be implemented:
2140
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-17
a. Potential residents shall be notified about possible exposure to agricultural chemicals at the time of purchase/lease of property within the development. b. A Right-to-Farm Covenant shall be recorded on each residential tract map or be made a condition of each tract map to protect continued agricultural practices in the area. c. Potential residents shall be informed of the Right-to-Farm Covenant at the time of purchase/lease of property within the development.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.2c – Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines forest land as land that can support 10- percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions and that allows for the management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Public Resources Code Section 4526 defines timberland as land other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for and capable of growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products. Government Code Section 51104 defines timberland zoned Timberland Production as an area that has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses.

The Project site is currently developed with row crop and orchard cultivation and does not contain any trees, so it is not considered forest land or timberland. The proposed Project will not conflict with any forest land or timberland production or result in any loss of forest land.

Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.2d – Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As discussed, Impact #3.4.2c, the Project area does not include forest land. Therefore, there would not be loss or conversion of forest land as a result of the Project. The Project would have no impact.
2141
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-18

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.2e – Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
See discussion in Impact #3.4.2a and #3.4.2b.

The proposed Project site is located in an area that is surrounded by agricultural uses to the north, east, and south, and low-density and high-density residential uses to the west. As previously noted, the Project site is within the City’s UDB – Tier II, currently zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum) by Tulare County and designated as Residential Low, Residential Medium, Residential High Density, and Conservation by the General Plan.

As mentioned in Impact #3.4.2a, once annexed, the Project would convert 78 acres of Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural land use, which would account for a 0.22 percent reduction in Prime Farmland expected under the City’s General Plan at buildout of the Plan. As discussed in Impact #3.4.2a, the Project is required to adhere to requirements of the City’s Agricultural Land Preservation Program (Ordinance No. 2023-02), which would require, prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall mitigate impacts for loss of up to 78 acres of Prime Farmland on the Project site at a 1:1 ratio.

Therefore, with implementation of MM AG-1, the Project’s conversion of 78 acres of Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM AG-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 2142
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-19

Discussion
The analysis in this section is largely based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) prepared for this Project (QK, 2025a), attached as Appendix A.

Impact #3.4.3a – Would the Project Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Plan Consistency
The AQIA was prepared pursuant to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (QK, 2025a). The Project area is located within Tulare County in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB or Basin). Tulare County is included among the eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD. The SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Project area. The SJVACPD, along with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), operates an air quality monitoring network that provides average concentrations of those pollutants for which State or federal agencies have established ambient air quality standards (AAQS).

CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistency between a proposed project and the

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.3 - AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the Project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
2143
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-20
applicable Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for the Project site (QK, 2025a). To accomplish this, CARB has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP:

1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed. The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARB.

2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The proposed Project is included in the employment increases projected in the Tulare County General Plan.

3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures. The proposed Project incorporates various policy and rulerequired implementation measures that will reduce related emissions.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, in order to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process, such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time.

As the growth represented by the proposed Project was anticipated by the Tulare County General Plan and incorporated into the AQAP, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:
• That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds.
• That the primary source of emissions from the Project would be motor vehicles, which would be licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into the CARB’s Tulare County Emissions Inventory.

Furthermore, the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Final Conformity Analysis demonstrates that the regional transportation expenditure plans (2022 Regional Transportation Plan and 2025 Federal Transportation Improvement Program) in the Tulare County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in the CARB’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for each area’s non-attainment pollutants [carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3) and particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10)]. The analysis uses the California Department of Finance (DOF) as the primary county-level forecasting reference for population growth and the California Employment Development Department (EDD), Info USA, and Woods & Poole for forecasting employment growth. Housing forecasts are based on DOF data for the base year and projected using a Planning Center Study from 2012 conducted by the SJVAPCD. 2144
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-21
The TCAG Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the Tulare County General Plan. Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the TCAG analysis. Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast.

Under the current City General Plan, the Project site is designated as Residential Low, Residential Medium, and Residential High Density and Conservation. As the Project site was prezoned for residential land uses, the Project’s growth was analyzed in the projected growth of the Final Conformity Analysis. Additionally, under current policies, after a GPA is approved, housing and employment assumptions can be updated to reflect the capacity changes. The proposed development does require an approval of the prezone; therefore, the existing growth forecast may be modified to reflect any necessary changes. Therefore, the Project will not be in conflict with the Final Conformity Analysis.

SJVAPCD’s specific CEQA air quality thresholds are presented in Table 3.4.3-1.

Table 3.4.3-1
SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Criteria
Pollutant
Operational Emissions
Construction
Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted
Equipment and Activities
NOx 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
SOx 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr
PM10 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
PM2.5 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr
Source: Appendix A.

Construction
Short-term emissions from the construction phases of the Project would have temporary impacts on air quality (QK, 2025a).

Table 3.4.3-2 presents the Project’s short-term emissions based on the anticipated construction period. As calculated with CalEEMod, the estimated short-term constructionrelated emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels during any given year and would, therefore, be less than significant.
2145
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-22
Table 3.4.3-2
Short-Term Project Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction - 2026 0.374 2.125 3.564 0.005 0.410 0.168 Construction – 2027 3.292 1.371 2.797 0.004 0.287 0.097 Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded for a Single
Year After Mitigation? No No No No No No
Source: (QK, 2025a)
Operational (post-construction)
Upon full buildout, long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile sources and area source emissions from residences. Operation of the Project site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The main source of PM10 emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site.

PM10, on its own and in combination with other pollutants, poses a health hazard. SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimize fugitive dust emissions.

The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):
• Rule 4102 – Nuisance – prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures that the area around the Project site will not be adversely impacted by such issues.
• Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions – a series of regulations to reduce and/or eliminate the generation of particulate matter (PM) that can adversely impact visibility as well as the health and safety of people on-site or in the vicinity of the Project.
o Rule 8011 – General Requirements – this rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions. o Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities – restricts generation of airborne dust and visibility impacts from these activities. Places limits on opacity and equipment operation under certain adverse weather conditions.
o Rule 8041 – Carryout and Trackout – requires that equipment and vehicles leaving the construction site control the amount of dirt, soil, or mud that is tracked off-site and onto public roadways. This helps eliminate or minimize dust generation and opacity degradation.
o Rule 8051 – Open Areas – limits fugitive dust from open areas, i.e., areas on a construction site that are not actively being constructed upon but may generate wind-blown dust.
2146
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-23
Project-related transportation activities from residents would generate mobile source reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), CO, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day, but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, and number of visitors. As the Project is not expected to generate an adverse change in current activity levels, substantial emissions are not anticipated. The default trip rates in CalEEMod were used along with an adjusted fleet mix to reflect the SJVAPCDapproved residential fleet mix for the year 2026.

The proposed Project is expected to generate operational emissions as shown in Table 3.4.3-

3. Table 3.4.3-3
Post-Project Max Year (Operational Emissions)
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Operational Emissions 7.50 3.24 23.61 0.04 3.83 1.04
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded After
Mitigation?
No No No No No No
Source: (QK, 2025a)
As shown in Table 3.4.3-3, operations-related emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, Project operational emissions impacts are less than significant. Based on these factors, the Project is consistent with the AQAP and, therefore, would result in a less-than-significant impact.

An ambient air quality analysis was also performed to determine if the proposed Project has the potential to impact ambient air quality through a violation of the AAQS or a substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality standard. The basis for the analysis is dispersion modeling and the Project’s long-term air quality impacts shown in Table 3.4.3-4.

Emissions were evaluated for each pollutant on a short-term (correlating to pollutant averaging period) and long-term (annual) basis, with the exception of CO, which was evaluated only for short-term exposures since there are no long-term significance thresholds for CO. The results of the air dispersion modeling, presented in Table 3.4.3-4, demonstrate that the maximum impacts attributable to the Project, when considered in addition to the existing background concentrations, are below the applicable AAQS for NOx, SOx, and CO. 2147
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-24
Table 3.4.3-4
Predicted Ambient Air Quality Impacts
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Background
(µg/m3)
Project
(µg/m3)
Project + Background
(µg/m3)
NAAQS
(µg/m3)
CAAQS
(µg/m3)
NO2 1-Hour 115.7 6.39 122.09 188.68 338
NO2 Annual 13.6 0.72 14.32 100 56
SO2 1-Hour 28.0 0.05 28.05 196 655
SO2 3-Hour 18.2 0.04 18.24 1,300 ---
SO2 24-Hour 5.8 0.02 5.82 365 105
CO 1-Hour 2,061 31.8 2,093 40,000 23,000
CO 8-Hour 1,718 22.3 1,740 10,000 10,000
PM10 24-Hour 172 0.73 172.7 150 50
PM10 Annual 25.8 0.19 25.99 --- 20
PM2.5 24-Hour 64.7 0.33 65.03 35 ---
PM2.5 Annual 12.9 0.09 12.99 12 12
If a project’s maximum impacts are below the District’s significant impact levels (SIL), the project is judged not to cause or contribute significantly to an AAQS or prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increment violation. A comparison of the proposed impact from the Project to the District SIL values is provided in Table 3.4.3-5.

Table 3.4.3-5
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Project Impact with Significant Thresholds Pollutant Averaging
Period
Predicted Concentration
(µg/m3)
SIL
(µg/m3)
PM10 24-Hour 0.73 10.4
PM10 Annual 0.19 2.08
PM2.5 24-Hour 0.33 2.5
PM2.5 Annual 0.09 0.63
Because the Project’s modelled PM10 and PM2.5 are below the SJVAPCD’s significance levels for 24-hour and annual concentrations, the Project’s contribution to potential violations of AAQS would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2148
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-25
Impact #3.4.3b – Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
SJVAPCD’s approach to assessing cumulative impacts dictates that a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to regional air quality would be considered potentially significant if the project’s impact would be individually significant (i.e., exceeds the SJVAPCD’s quantitative thresholds). For a project that would not individually cause a significant impact, the project’s contribution to any cumulative impact may be considered less than significant, provided that the project is consistent with all applicable regional air quality plans (AQPs).

As mentioned in Impact #3.4.3a, the SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Project area. The SJVACPD, along with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), operates an air quality monitoring network that provides average concentrations of those pollutants for which State or federal agencies have established AAQS.

SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for the determination of significance for both projectspecific and cumulative impacts. Air quality in SJVAB has improved over the past decades, which indicates that the single threshold is sufficient for assessing cumulative impacts.

Under the established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) criteria pollutants, SJVAB is classified as non-attainment/extreme for Ozone (8-hour) and non-attainment for PM10. Under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the SJVAB is classified as non-attainment/severe for Ozone (1-hour), non-attainment for Ozone (8-hour), and nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5 (QK, 2025a). As indicated in Tables 3.4.3-2 and 3.4.3-3, the proposed Project would generate less-than-significant impacts to criteria air pollutants; therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) (QK, 2025a).

Based on the analysis conducted, this Project is individually less than significant. The AQIA, however, also considered the impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered:
• Cumulative O3 Impacts (ROG and NOx) from numerous sources within the region, including transport from outside the region. O3 is formed through chemical reactions of ROG and NOx in the presence of sunlight.
• Cumulative CO Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions. • Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conduct grading or earthmoving activities at the same time. • Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors.

As shown in Table 3.4.3-6 below, the proposed Project would pose an inconsequential impact on regional O3 and PM10 formation. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional O3 and PM10 impacts. 2149
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-26
Table 3.4.3-6
2030 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Tulare County and SJVAB ROG NOX PM10
Proposed Project 7.50 3.24 3.83
Tulare County 20,325.0 8,346.1 14,756.6
SJVAB 104,380.5 38,036.3 99,271.2
Proposed Project Percent of Tulare County 0.037% 0.039% 0.026% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.007% 0.009% 0.004%
Tulare County Percent of SJVAB 19.47% 21.94% 14.86%
As discussed above, both construction and operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed SJVAPCD’s established emissions thresholds and significance thresholds for all CEQA air quality determinations. Therefore, this Project would not have a significant impact on the SJVAB. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS and would have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.3c – Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers (QK, 2025a). The nearest residential sensitive receptor to the proposed Project is located adjacent to portions of the Project’s sites. Table 3.4.3-7 lists the known non-residential sensitive receptors within one mile of the Project site.

Table 3.4.3-7
Sensitive Receptors Located < One Mile from Project
Receptor Type of Facility Distance from
Project (miles)
Direction
from Project
Blue Oak Academy School 0.71 E
Annie R Mitchell Elementary School School 0.46 NW
Janet’s Day Care Visalia Daycare 0.27 W
Little Rainbows Daycare Daycare 0.36 W
2150
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-27
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “From a health risk perspective, there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts:
• Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors.
• Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources.”
Descriptions of criteria air pollutants, typical sources, health effects, and recently documented pollutant levels for ozone (O3), suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, lead (Pb), and suspended sulfate in the Project vicinity can be found in Appendix A (QK, 2025a). Table 3.4.3- 8 presents the thresholds of significance used with toxic air contaminants when evaluating HAPs.

Table 3.4.3-8
Measures of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants
Agency Level Description
Significance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA

SJVAPCD
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million.

NonCarcinogens
Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1.0 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1.0 for
the Maximally Exposed Individual.

Source: (QK, 2025a)
The proposed Project would result in emissions of HAPs from construction activities and would be located near existing residents; therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed Project is required.

To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative estimate of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over the construction period for construction emissions.

Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices, which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure.

SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at 20 in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing 20 additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0.

All receptors were modeled with a two-year exposure to construction activities. 2151
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-28
The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of 20 in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively, for the proposed Project. The PMIs are identified by receptor location and risk and are provided in Table 3.4.3-9.

Table 3.4.3-9
Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP
Cancer Risk Chronic Hazard
Index
Construction 4.12E-06 2.41E-03
SJVAPCD Threshold 20.0E-06 1.0
Exceedance? No No
Receptor # 1479 1479
UTM Easting (m) 297503.33 297503.33
UTM Northing (m) 4019827.45 4019827.45
Note: UTM = Universal Transverse Mercator
As shown above in Table 3.4.3-9, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 4.12E-06. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 2.41E-03. Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer and chronic risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities.

The potential health risk attributable to the proposed Project is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions:
• Potential carcinogenic risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 20 in a million at each of the modeled receptors.
• The hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors. • The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk was not calculated since there is no acute risk associated with DPM emission; therefore, the proposed Project is considered below the significance level.

Therefore, the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.3d – Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
2152
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-29
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:

1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to be located near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate.

2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources” (QK, 2025a).

According to the GAMAQI, the District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 3.4.3-10 below, along with a reasonable distance from the source within which the degree of odors could possibly be significant. Because the Project’s anticipated land uses and activities are not listed as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors (QK, 2025a).

Table 3.4.3-10
Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Type of Facility Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facility 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shops) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: (QK, 2025a)
Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation.

Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds, nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.

Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.
2153
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-30

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2154
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-31

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species, or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
2155
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-32
This section’s analysis is substantiated by a Biological Resource Evaluation prepared for the Project (QK, 2025b), attached as Appendix B.

Discussion
Impact #3.4.4a – Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Project site includes two separate parcels, with over half of it being a recently mowed, irrigated agricultural field containing oats and a peach orchard.

Qualified biologists surveyed the Project site on June 16, 2025, for its biotic habitats, the plants and animals that occur in those habitats, and significant habitat values that may be protected by State and federal law. The survey consisted of meandering pedestrian transects spaced 50 to 100 feet apart throughout the Biological Survey Area (BSA), where accessible.

Areas with suitable habitat that could not be accessed, such as private residences or adjacent agricultural fields, were surveyed by use of high-power binoculars. Additionally, literature and database reviews were conducted, such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), to determine which sensitive biological resources have been recorded within the Project site (QK, 2025b).

The results of the database inquiries were reviewed to extract pertinent information on site conditions and evaluate the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur within or near the proposed Project site. Only those resources with the potential to be present and affected by the Project were included and considered in this document. The potential presence of natural communities and special-status species was based on distributional ranges overlapping the Project site and the presence of habitat and/or primary constituent habitat elements.

Special-Status Plant Species
There were 11 special-status plant species identified in the literature and database review that are known or have the potential to occur within the surrounding nine-quadrangles centered on the Project site (Table 3.4.4-1). None of the special-status plant species has historical records occurring on or overlapping the BSA or were observed during the site survey. Furthermore, it was observed that there is no suitable habitat for the 11 specialstatus plant species identified in literature and database reviews.

2156
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-33
Table 3.4.4-1
Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA Scientific Name Common Name Status
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata heartscale 1B.2
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis Earlimart orache 1B.2 Atriplex depressa brittlescale 1B.2
Atriplex minuscula lesser saltscale 1B.1
Atriplex persistens vernal pool smallscale 1B.2
Atriplex subtilis subtle orache 1B.2
Caulanthus californicus California jewelflower 1B.1
Delphinium recurvatum recurved larkspur 1B.2
Eryngium spinosepalum spiny-sepaled button-celery 1B.2
Euphorbia hooveri Hoover's spurge 1B.2
Helianthus winteri Winter's sunflower 1B.2
Lasthenia chrysantha alkali-sink goldfields 1B.1
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter's goldfields 1B.1 Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass 1B.1 Pseudobahia peirsonii San Joaquin adobe sunburst 1B.1
Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass 1B.2
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead 1B.2
Source: (QK, 2025b); CNDDB, 2025; CNPS, 2025; and USFWS, 2025 CRPR (California Rare Plant Rank):
1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

CRPR Threat Code Extension:
.1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) Special-Status Wildlife Species
Of the 22 special-status wildlife species identified in the literature and database review that are known or have the potential to occur within the BSA, four special-status wildlife species, Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing owl, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox, are determined to have the potential to occur within the BSA as a transient (Table 3.4.4-2).

Nesting birds and raptors have the potential to occur on or near the Project site and surrounding the BSA during the nesting season. Several suitable dens are located in the BSA that can be utilized by burrowing owl, American badger, or San Joaquin kit fox, and these species may be transient foragers at any time. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 listed below will eliminate or reduce Project impacts to special-status species to a less-thansignificant level. Any special-status species that uses the Project as a movement corridor or uses the multiple dens and burrows located on the Project site or vicinity may be directly or indirectly impacted by Project activities.

2157
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-34
Table 3.4.4-2
Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA Scientific Name Common Name Status
Invertebrates
Andrena macswaini An andrenid bee - , SSC
Bombus crotchii Crotch's bumble bee - , SSC
Bombus pensylvanicus American bumble bee - , SSC
Danaus Plexippus monarch butterfly FC, SSC
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT, SSC Lytta hoppingi Hopping's blister beetle FC, -
Aquatic Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp FT, SCC
Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE, SCC
Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella - , SSC Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense pop 1 California tiger salamander central California DPS FT, ST/SSC
Lithobates pipiens northern leopard frog - , SSC
Spea hammondii western spadefoot FC , SSC
Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata northwestern pond turtle - , SSC
Anniella pulchra Northern California legless lizard - , SSC Gambelia silus blunt-nosed leopard lizard FE, SSC
Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird - , ST/SSC
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl - , SSC
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk - , ST/SSC
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo FT, SE/SSC Gymnogyps californianus California Condor FE, SSC
Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike - , SSC
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat FE, SE
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Tipton kangaroo rat FE, SE Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat - , SSC Sorex ornatus relictus Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew FE, SSC Taxidea taxus American badger FE, SSC
Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE, ST
Source: (QK, 2025b); CNDDB, 2025; and USFWS, 2025
Abbreviations:

FC Federal Candidate
FE Federal Endangered Species
FT Federal Threatened Species
SFP Fully Protected Animal, CDFW
SE California Endangered Species
ST California Threatened Species
SSC California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern SCS California Candidate

2158
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-35
SWAINSON’S HAWK
The BSA provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). There are a few large trees located within the southwestern boundary of the BSA along Cameron Creek that could potentially support nesting raptors, including Swainson’s hawk, but no nests were observed during the survey. The BSA provides a suitable prey base along the boundaries where California ground squirrels are located. Agriculture within the BSA consists of a citrus orchard that is not considered foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.

The small portion of agricultural field contains a suitable foraging habitat, but of a very limited size. Agricultural fields located within 0.5 miles of the Project site contain suitable foraging habitat. The nearest CNDDB record (EONDX 41944) for nesting Swainson’s hawk is located approximately 6.5 miles southeast of the BSA in 2000. Two foraging Swainson’s hawks were observed in the BSA.

WESTERN BURROWING OWL
Western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) inhabit grassland, open bare ground, and utilize existing small mammal burrows, typically created by California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), for breeding and shelter. There was no diagnostic sign (e.g., whitewash, tracks, prey remains) of a burrowing owl observed, although appropriately sized small mammal burrows are present within the BSA. Burrowing owl may be present as transient foragers and may inhabit appropriately sized burrows at any time. No CNDDB records of the western burrowing owl are recorded within 10 miles of the BSA.

AMERICAN BADGER
The American badger (Taxidea taxus) may occur within the BSA. Several unoccupied burrows were observed with sign of badger digs in the BSA. The nearest CNDDB record (EONDX 56600) is four miles northeast of the BSA. This record is historical, with observations occurring in 1994; however, the records note that a small population is likely to still be surviving due to the large prey density. There were some potential dens that could have been dug by badgers; however, no other diagnostic sign (e.g., tracks, scat, prey remains) was observed.

SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX
The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is unlikely to be present within the BSA.

The nearest CNDDB record (EONDX 67933) is mapped generally within the southwest corner of the BSA and Project site. This record is historical, with the records of San Joaquin kit fox roadkill occurring between 1972 and 1975. The Project site lacks suitable habitat for the species due to the past and current levels of disturbance, and the surrounding BSA has been similarly degraded. No San Joaquin kit fox was observed during the survey, though suitably sized burrows were observed during the field survey. These burrows are likely enlarged California ground squirrel or badger digs.
2159
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-36
Furthermore, the active swallow nests under the bridges will not be directly impacted by the Project activities. Impacts by nearby construction activities will include noise, dust, and other human disturbances that may impact nesting behavior if the project occurs during the nesting season. No other nests were observed within the BSA. There is potential for birds to nest outside of the Project site, but nearby in the BSA in existing structures and trees in the future. If there are active nests present during Project activities, nests could be impacted by Project activities that interfere with normal breeding behaviors, which could discourage breeding or lead to nest abandonment or failure. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 listed below will eliminate or reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.

As outlined below, MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-9 require appropriate preconstruction clearance surveys of the Project and vicinity to confirm the presence or absence of special status species such as Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing owl, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox. MM BIO-1 would requires a pre-construction clearance survey no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction to survey for special-status species and/or nesting birds, MM BIO-2 requires parameters if construction is planned during nesting season, MM BIO-3 requires a worker environmental awareness program related to sensitive species, MM BIO-4 requires disturbance buffers for sensitive resources, MM BIO-5 through BIO-7 requires standard avoidance and minimization measures for western burrowing owl, American Badger and San Joaquin kit fox, and MM BIO-8 requires additional general measures to decrease impacts to protected and sensitive species.

Incorporation of MM BIO-1 through BIO-8 would reduce potential impacts to special status wildlife species, including American Badger and San Joaquin kit fox and nesting birds and raptors, including Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl, to a less-than-significant level and ensure compliance with State and federal laws protecting these species.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM BIO-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits or ground disturbance, a preconstruction clearance survey of the Project footprint shall be conducted for special-status wildlife species and nesting migratory birds and raptors. The survey shall occur no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities. If construction is delayed beyond 30 days from the time of the survey or there is a lapse in construction of more than 30 days, then another survey shall be conducted. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist with adequate training and prior experience conducting surveys for special-status wildlife species. If no special-status species are observed, no further action is warranted. If dens or burrows that could support special-status species and/or nesting birds and raptors are discovered during the pre-construction survey, appropriate avoidance buffers shall be established. If no special-status species are observed on or near the Project site, no further surveys are required. A report outlining the results of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

MM BIO-2: If construction is planned during the nesting season for migratory birds (February 15 to August 31) and nesting birds are identified during the preconstruction survey, an active Swainson’s hawk nest shall be avoided by 0.5 miles, other raptor nests shall 2160
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-37
be avoided by 500 feet, and all other migratory bird nests shall be avoided by 250 feet.

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-38
removed. Protective buffers shall be established around active dens and/or burrows of special-status animal species or populations of special-status plant species to avoid unauthorized take of Protected Species as listed in the table below. The protective buffer distance shall be increased if required to avoid unauthorized incidental take of any Protected Species as determined by a qualified biologist. Protective buffer distances and other avoidance measures that may be implemented to avoid impacts to Protected Species or Sensitive Species must be consistent with the USFWS and/or the CDFW requirements and shall be implemented and overseen by a qualified biologist.

If no Swainson’s hawk nests are found, no further action is required.

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-39
increased depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-40
e. The use of herbicides for vegetation control shall be restricted to those approved by the USFWS and the CDFW. No rodenticides shall be used on any site unless approved by the USWFS and the CDFW, and shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and State and federal laws and regulations. For split estates, no herbicides for vegetation control may occur in Tier 2 areas without surface owner approval.
f. No plants or wildlife shall be collected, taken, or removed from the site or any adjacent locations except as necessary for Project-related vegetation removal or wildlife relocation by a qualified biologist and subject to all applicable permits and authorizations.
g. All open trenches or excavations shall be covered at the end of each workday to prevent wildlife entrapment. If an excavation is too large to cover, escape ramps shall be installed at an incline ratio of no greater than 2:1. All trenches and pipes shall be inspected for the presence of wildlife each day prior to the commencement of work. h. To enable San Joaquin kit foxes and other wildlife to pass through the Project site, any perimeter fencing shall include a four- to eight-inch opening between the fence mesh and the ground, or the fence shall be raised four inches above the ground except for blunt-nosed leopard lizard exclusion fencing. The bottom of the fence fabric shall be knuckled (wrapped back to form a smooth edge) to protect wildlife. i. All vertical tubes used in Project construction and chain link fencing poles shall be temporarily or permanently capped to avoid the entrapment and death of specialstatus wildlife and birds. All pipes 1.5 inches or greater in diameter stored overnight on a Project location must have end caps or other physical barriers that prevent wildlife from entering the pipe.
j. All dead or injured special-status wildlife shall be left in place and reported to the USFWS and the CDFW within 48 hours of discovery for rescue or salvage. Discovery of State or federal listed species that are injured or dead shall also be managed consistent with regulatory requirements, including being reported immediately via telephone and within 24 hours in writing, and with a copy to the lead agency. k. During pre-construction surveys, the qualified biologist shall delineate previously disturbed areas to be used by the applicant to minimize the amount of new disturbance.
l. No vehicles or construction equipment shall be parked within a wetland or waterbody/dry wash.
m. Tracked vehicles and other construction equipment must be washed or maintained to be weed-free prior to entering and working within areas of a new disturbance. n. All washing of trucks, paint, equipment, or similar activities should occur in areas where runoff is fully contained for collection and off-site disposal. Wash water may not be discharged from the site and shall be located at least 100 feet from any water body or sensitive Biological Resources.
o. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil storage areas) at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries or waterbody, except where the adjacent upland consists of cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. 2164
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-41
p. All areas that must be avoided as a result of the pre-disturbance surveys and areas where new disturbance will occur shall be clearly delineated by fencing or staking and flagging and/or rope or cord.
q. No pets shall be allowed on any site.
r. No smoking may occur except in designated areas.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.4b – Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Sensitive natural communities are designated by various resource agencies, including the CDFW, USFWS, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, or are designated by local agencies through policies, ordinances, and regulations. Sensitive natural communities generally have important functions or values for plants and wildlife, or are recognized as declining in extent or distribution and warrant some level of protection.

As discussed in Impact #3.4.4b, literature results from the surrounding nine-quadrangle queries for the Project site identified four sensitive natural vegetation communities that may occur in the vicinity: Valley Sacaton Grassland, Valley Hardpan Vernal Pool, Valley Claypan Vernal Pool, and Great Valley Oak Riparian Forest (QK, 2025b). None of these natural communities was present within the BSA. There is no riparian habitat present within the BSA, and it does not provide habitat that would support these communities. Therefore, there would be no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.4c – Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Furthermore, there are no wetland or non-wetland water features known to exist on the Project site (QK, 2025b). The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identify two water features: the Tulare Irrigation Canal, which bisects the Project site, and Cameron Creek, which runs along the southerly boundary of the site. There will be no work conducted that would impact Cameron Creek. 2165
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-42
However, the Project will be required to underground the Tulare Irrigation Canal. No jurisdictional delineation of the canal was completed. A delineation meeting State and federal requirements would be conducted to determine if the canal meets the criteria for either federal or State jurisdiction. MM BIO-8 requires a delineation and a formal notification of the project to be submitted to the pertinent regulatory agencies prior to the issuance of grading permits. In the event drainage is jurisdictional, additional permitting with the appropriate regulatory agencies is also required prior to construction activities. With the implementation of MM BIO-10, the impact of the project related to water features would be less than significant.

Therefore, given the absence of natural communities and riparian habitat in the BSA, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

As discussed, the NHD and NWI identify two water features: the Tulare Irrigation Canal, which bisects the Project site, and Cameron Creek, which runs along the southerly boundary of the site (QK, 2025b). The Project is designed to completely avoid Cameron Creek, and this water feature will not be impacted. With implementation of MM BIO-10, potential impacts related to the undergrounding of the Tulare Irrigation Canal, as outlined below, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM BIO-10: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the Project proponent/developer shall conduct a delineation of the Tulare Irrigation Canal and prepare an Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ARDR). The ARDR shall be submitted with a formal notification to the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If no comments or requests for additional permitting are received by the agencies, no further action is necessary. A copy of all correspondence shall be submitted to the lead agency.

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-43
If it is determined that drainage is jurisdictional and cannot be avoided, the Project proponent shall obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, a Section 404 permit from USACE, and a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 from the CDFW, if required, prior to impacting any waters.

As part of these authorizations, compensatory mitigation may be required by the regulating agencies to offset the loss of aquatic resources. If so, and as part of the permit application process, a qualified professional shall draft a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address implementation and monitoring requirements under the permit to ensure that the Project would result in no net loss of habitat functions and values. The Plan shall contain, at a minimum, mitigation goals and objectives, mitigation location, a discussion of actions to be implemented to mitigate the impact, monitoring methods and performance criteria, extent of monitoring to be conducted, actions to be taken in the event that the mitigation is not successful, and reporting requirements. The Plan shall be approved by the appropriate regulating agencies, and compensatory mitigation shall take place either on-site or at an appropriate off-site location.
c. Any material/spoils generated from project activities containing hazardous materials shall be located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from storm water run-off using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls, covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate. Protection measures should follow project-specific criteria as developed in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Protection Plan (SWPPP). d. Equipment containing hazardous liquid materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and at least 50 feet outside the delineated boundary of jurisdictional water features.
e. Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely. The contaminated area shall be cleaned, and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified..

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.4d – Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Furthermore, the BSA is not within any designated wildlife linkage or movement corridors (QK, 2025b). The nearest wildlife movement corridor is located approximately 9.01 miles north of the BSA, and the nearest wildlife linkage area is approximately 20.13 miles to the southwest. The Project is situated within an area developed for urban and agricultural use and does not provide a linkage between suitable natural habitats for most wildlife species.

Due to the disturbed condition of the Project and the surrounding area, there is no substantial movement of wildlife onto or off the BSA. Therefore, the Project will result in 2167
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-44
less-than-significant impacts to fish or wildlife movement corridors, linkages, or nursery sites.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.4e – Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City’s Valley Oak Ordinance establishes policies for care, trimming, and removal of Valley Oaks. However, the Project does not contain or propose to remove any Valley Oaks, so the ordinance would not apply to this Project.

Therefore, there are no impacts on local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policies or ordinances.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.4f – Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
The Project is not within an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan, so there would be no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

2168
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-45

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion
The discussion below is based on a Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum completed for the Project (QK, 2025c), attached as Appendix C.

Impact #3.4.5a – Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? The City has adopted multiple policies for the protection and maintenance of historical resources in the City of Visalia, including the adoption of a Historic Preservation Ordinance, maintenance and update of a Local Register of Historic Places, and establishment of a Historic District. As identified in the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Visalia General Plan, there are four sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places (City of Visalia, 2014a). Table 3.4.5-1 below notes the four sites and their proximity to the Project site. As demonstrated in the table, the Project site is not located on or near the four sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Table 3.4.5-1
Project Distance from Historic Sites
Historic Sites Location Distance from Project Direction from Project Bank of Italy Building - 128
East Main Street

2.41 miles NW
Hyde House - 500 South
Court Street

2.23 miles NW
The Pioneer (statue) -
27000 South Mooney

2.80 miles SW
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
2169
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-46
Historic Sites Location Distance from Project Direction from Project Boulevard, in Mooney
Grove Park
U.S. Post Office, Visalia
Town Center Station - 111
West Acequia Street

2.42 miles SE
Source: (City of Visalia, 2014a)
A cultural resources records search was conducted by the South San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC), California State University, Bakersfield, for the Project. The purpose of the search was to determine whether any known cultural resources were located on or near the proposed Project that might be impacted by Project construction and/or activities. The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the proposed Project and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file.

The records search indicated that the Project had never been surveyed for cultural resources. One historic cultural resource, the Tulare Irrigation Canal (primary no. P-54- 005296), passes through the northwest corner of the Project. The canal was constructed sometime between 1889 and it appeared on the 1892 Thompson County Atlas. However, as shown in Table 3.4.5-1, this water feature is not identified as being a historic resource in the General Plan EIR (City of Visalia, 2014b). While it is historical in nature due to its age, the canal has been systematically altered over time as new subdivisions to the north and south were developed. Therefore, the canal lacks integrity or distinct architectural characteristics/master works to warrant protection as a cultural resource under CEQA (QK, 2025c). Rerouting the canal to go underground would be similar to what has been done along its route and would not be considered a significant impact.

Five cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the Project. Four historic and one prehistoric cultural resource have been recorded within one-half mile of the Project. The Project will not impact any of these identified cultural resources.

A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the NAHC. A response dated July 7, 2025, indicates negative results (see Appendix C). SB 18/AB 52 early tribal consultation letters were prepared and distributed by the City on September 26, 2025, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and Government Code Section 65300 et seq, Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52, letters were sent to each of the Native American tribes within the geographic area as identified by the NAHC (see Appendix C). The letters included a Project description and location maps. Tribal consultation under AB 52 and SB 18 closed on December 31, 2025. To date, no response has been received. Should the City receive communication with a tribal group, they will work in good faith to address any potential cultural resources concerns.
2170
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-47
If cultural resources are encountered during construction activities within any portion of the Project area, all work within 50 feet of the find should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. In order to account for unanticipated discoveries and the potential to impact previously undocumented or unknown resources, the following mitigation measures are recommended. With the implementation of MM CUL-1, impacts under this criterion would be less than significant with mitigation. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM CUL-1: In the event that prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered during construction in connection with an individual-specific development proposal, all construction activities associated therewith within 100 feet of the find shall halt, and the City of Visalia and an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be notified by the relevant applicant. Prehistoric archaeological materials may include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery or as soon thereafter as is reasonable and commercially practicable. If it is determined that the construction associated with the subject individual-specific development proposal could significantly damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified Archaeologist shall prepare, and the relevant applicant shall implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Visalia. Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim of targeting the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the proposed Project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 2171
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-48
Impact #3.4.5b – Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? According to the CEQA Guidelines, “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is a historical resource” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1)). Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2). No archaeological resources were identified on the Project site. However, due to the nominal amount of prehistoric archaeological information within the majority of the City, including the Project site, there is potential to impact prehistoric archaeological resources during grading and construction activities within previously undisturbed soils.

Compliance with MM CUL-1 requires that all work in the immediate vicinity of the find halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. With implementation of MM CUL-1, the Project's impact on unknown archaeological resources is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implementation of MM CUL-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.5c – Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There are no known cemeteries or burials on or near the Project. Although unlikely, subsurface construction activities, such as trenching and grading, associated with the proposed Project could potentially disturb previously undiscovered human burial sites.

Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. Although considered unlikely, subsurface construction activities could cause a potentially significant impact to previously undiscovered human burial sites. The cultural resources and Sacred Lands File records searches did not indicate the presence of human remains, burials, or cemeteries within or in the vicinity of the Project site. No human remains have been discovered at the Project site, and no burials or cemeteries are known to occur within the area of the site.

However, if human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work shall immediately cease within 100 feet of the find, and the Fresno County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains following the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.45(e)(1). If the remains are determined to be those of a Native American person, then the California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and Public Resources Code 5097.98 require that the County Coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. 2172
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-49
The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendant, who will be afforded the opportunity to recommend treatment of the ancestral human remains.

Implementation of MM CUL-2 would ensure that the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy previously unknown human remains. It is unlikely that the proposed Project would disturb any known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM CUL-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the NAHC, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the County Coroner.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

2173
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-50

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.6 - ENERGY
Would the Project:
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during Project construction
or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
Impact #3.4.6a – Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Construction
Energy usage would be required to construct the proposed Project. Construction would be short-term and temporary in nature. Construction activities include standard construction processes such as grading, paving, trenching, architectural coating, and building construction. There are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy-intensive than is used for comparable activities. The primary sources of energy for construction activities are diesel and gasoline (i.e., petroleum fuels). All construction equipment is required to conform to current emissions standards and related fuel efficiencies, including applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and California Energy Code Standards. Current regulations for construction equipment, heavy-duty equipment, and earthmoving equipment used in construction contribute to reductions in energy as well as reductions in pollutant emissions. California implemented its In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets regulations (off-road regulation) that apply to all self-propelled off-road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater and most two-engine vehicles. The Small Off-Road Engines Program was implemented by California to apply to categories of outdoor powered equipment and specialty vehicles often used in construction.
□ □ □
□ □ □
2174
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-51
Operation (post-construction)
Electrical energy for the City of Visalia is supplied by Southern California Edison, and the Project would utilize all electric ENERGY STAR appliances. According to the General Plan’s Draft EIR, the availability of electricity services is not expected to become an issue during General Plan implementation. Although the utilization of green building techniques in new structures can result in less energy demand (City of Visalia, 2014b). The Project and proposed residences will not utilize natural gas; all residential units will be equipped with 450-watt solar panels, utilize all electric appliances, and will be EV-ready (pre-wired during construction to allow for installation of EV residential charger in the future). Pre-wiring homes reduces the homeowners’ cost to retrofit the home in order to use an EV vehicle.

Furthermore, the Project will adhere to all applicable CBC in design, construction, and waste management. Construction associated with the Project would be required to comply with California’s Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, which also includes the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code and other applicable City development standards. Energy demand during the construction phase would result from the transportation of materials, construction equipment, and construction worker vehicle trips. Therefore, the Project is expected to comply with General Plan policies and State energy efficiency requirements and will have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.6b – Would the Project Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
See discussion above for 3.4.6a, above. The Project will not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy efficiency, given compliance with CBC and other applicable regulations, and will have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2175
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-52

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Is it located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18.1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems in areas where
sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
2176
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-53
Discussion
Impact #3.4.7a(i) – Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act) requires the delineation of zones along active faults in California. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to regulate development on or near active fault traces to reduce the hazard of fault rupture; however, surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within the Alquist-Priolo Zone. The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits the location of most structures for human occupancy across active fault traces. Within these zones, cities and counties must regulate certain development, which includes withholding permits until geologic investigations demonstrate that development sites are not threatened by future surface displacement. There are no designated Alquist-Priolo zones in the City of Visalia.

The Project site is identified in the City General Plan as being located within a seismically stable region of the State (City of Visalia, 2014b). While the southern San Joaquin Valley contains some small faults, the closest of these is 30 miles away, and none are known to be active. In comparison to many regions in California, Visalia exhibits relatively little tectonic activity. The major fault systems in the area include the San Andreas Fault, located 75 miles away from Visalia, and the Owens Valley Fault Group, located east of the Sierras and more than 125 miles away from the City. No active or potentially active faults are known to exist within the Planning Area. The San Andreas and Owens Valley fault systems would not be expected to cause surface fault rupture in the Project area and therefore have a less-thansignificant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.7a(ii) – Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Ground movement during an earthquake can vary depending on the overall moment magnitude, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of geologic material.

As a rule, the greater the earthquake magnitude and the closer the fault rupture to the site, the greater the intensity of ground shaking. However, different geologic materials respond 2177
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-54
differently to earthquake waves. The composition of underlying soils, even those relatively distant from faults, can intensify ground shaking.

The California Geological Survey and U.S. Geological Survey conduct a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis based on historic earthquakes, slip rates on major faults, and deformation throughout the region, and the potential for amplification of seismic waves by near-surface geologic materials. The resulting earthquake shaking potential is used in developing building code design values, estimating future earthquake losses, and prioritizing earthquake retrofit.

According to the City’s General Plan, the City experiences low levels of shaking, with less frequency, and is expected to damage only weaker masonry buildings. However, very infrequent earthquakes could still cause strong shaking, but with the implementation of Title 24 building requirements and City development standards, impacts would be minimal.

Therefore, Impacts would be less than significant related to seismic events.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.7a(iii) – Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
See discussion of Impact #3.4.7a(i) and (ii) above.

Liquefaction is defined as a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburdened pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. The possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. In order for liquefaction to occur, three criteria must be met: “low density,” coarsegrained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of less than about 50 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby large magnitude earthquakes. The General Plan Draft EIR states that no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in the Planning Area; however, the potential for liquefaction is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley in locations where the water table is high. Soils in the Visalia area have few limitations with regard to development. Due to low clay content and limited topographic relief, soils in the City have low expansion characteristics. Therefore, considering the Project is not near active faults, as discussed in Impact #3.4.7a(i) and (ii), and would comply with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.
2178
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-55

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.7a(iv) – Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? The Project site is currently under row crop and orchard cultivation, and is on relatively flat land, with no significant topological features. The Project site is designated as ‘Very Low Landslide Potential’ by the U.S. Landslide Inventory and Susceptibility Inventory (United States Geological Survey, 2025). Therefore, there is a very low to no likelihood of landslides occurring on the Project site, and impacts are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.7b – Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soil erosion occurs when soil is removed by wind and water at a greater rate than it is formed. Soil erosion removes the topsoil first and can continue to transport lower layers.

Future development and creation of new impervious surfaces also have the potential to contribute to increased stormwater runoff, which could make soil erosion more severe if stormwater is not handled properly. Soil erosion at construction sites can increase sedimentation in nearby streams and drainage channels.

Soil erosion can lead to sedimentation of watercourses, eventually having an adverse impact on water quality and aquatic life. Furthermore, once erosion occurs, it may be difficult for natural vegetation to reestablish itself. The loss of topsoil to erosion is detrimental to agriculture and other landscaping. The risk of erosion is greatly increased during grading and construction activities and agricultural practices, when soils are loosened and bare of vegetation. According to the General Plan Draft EIR, a soil’s “K factor” indicates its inherent susceptibility to erosion by water, without taking into consideration slope or groundcover factors (City of Visalia, 2014b). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69; the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to erosion by water. A majority of the Project site is located within an erosion susceptibility (Kw factor) designation of ‘Medium’(0.24 to 0.37), due to the proximity to Cameron Creek.

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project will disturb surface vegetation and soils and expose these disturbed areas to erosion by wind and water. To reduce the potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil during construction, the Project would comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit issued by the State of California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2179
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-56
(RWQCB). Under the NPDES, the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are required for construction activities that would disturb an area of one acre or more. A SWPPP must identify potential sources of erosion or sedimentation and identify and implement best management practices (BMPs) that ensure reduced erosion. Typical BMPs intended to control erosion include sandbags, silt fencing, street sweeping, etc. Any stockpiled soils would be watered and/or covered to prevent loss due to wind erosion as part of the SWPPP during construction.

The Project will comply with all the City’s grading requirements outlined in Title 24 and Appendix J of the California Building Code. The Project is not expected to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil with the incorporation of BMPs required under the SWPPP and grading requirements under the City’s development review.

Once constructed, the Project will have both impermeable surfaces and permeable surfaces.

Impermeable surfaces would include existing roadways, driveways, and structures.

Permeable surfaces would include open areas of the site and landscaped areas. The Project will incorporate permeable surfaces like landscaping areas, open space, and an approximately 1.50-acre stormwater basin (Outlot G) in the southeast corner of the Project site. Stormwater basins are intended to maintain stormwater on the site, reduce erosion, and allow stormwater to percolate for groundwater recharge. Overall, the development of the Project would not result in conditions where substantial surface soil would be exposed or lost due to wind and water erosion. Impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.7c – Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? See above discussions under Impact #3.4.7 (a)(i) through (iv) and (b). The Project will have a less-than-significant impact on existing State and local requirements and standards.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2180
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-57
Impact #3.4.7d – Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Expansive soils have the potential to shrink or swell significantly with changes in moisture content, which can limit the development capacity of an area. The type and amount of the silt and clay content in the soil will determine the amount of shrinkage or swelling associated with the various levels of water content. Soils comprised of sand and gravel are not expansive soils.

The General Plan identified approximately 2,840 acres that have a moderate “shrink-swell” potential in the Visalia Planning Area. There are areas located near the SR 99/198 interchange, north of the St. Johns River, and in the northwest near the intersection of Road 80 and Avenue 328 (City of Visalia, 2014a). The Project site is located outside identified moderate shrink-swell potential areas and is not anticipated to be susceptible to expansive soils. Adherence to the California Building Code and City development standards required would allow the Project to develop the site and would not be subject to risk involving expansive soils. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.7e – Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The Project proposes to connect to existing public infrastructure for sewer services, and no septic system is proposed. Development of the site will comply with required design standards for connection to existing public infrastructure. Therefore, the Project will have no impact as the Project will not develop an alternative wastewater disposal system.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.7f – Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
2181
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-58
Paleontological resources are the mineralized (fossilized) remains of prehistoric plant and animal life, exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves are found in geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried. Fossil remains are considered to be important as they provide indicators of the Earth’s chronology and history. These resources are afforded protection under CEQA and are considered to be limited and nonrenewable, and they provide invaluable scientific and educational data.

The Project site does not have any known paleontological resources or unique geologic features. There is no evidence that cultural resources of any type (including historical, archaeological, paleontological, or unique geologic features) exist on the Project site.

Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a buried site may exist in the area and be obscured by vegetation, fill, or other historical activities, leaving no surface evidence.

The adopted General Plan Policies OSC-O-11 and OSC-P-42 seek to preserve and protect paleontological resources that are known to occur or are found within the City. Although unlikely, if fossil remains are discovered during construction activities, the Project would implement MM GEO-1. With implementation, there would not be a significant impact on a unique geological or paleontological resource.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM GEO-1: If any paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbance activities, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010), can evaluate the find and make recommendations regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or another appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 2182
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-59

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.8 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the Project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
The analysis in this section are largely substantiated by the Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) prepared for this Project (QK, 2025a), attached as Appendix A.

Impact #3.4.8a – Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The proposed Project’s construction and operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (QK, 2025a). The Project’s GHG emissions are primarily from mobile source activities. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified as CO2e. Table 3.4.8-1 presents the Project’s annual GHG emissions.

Table 3.4.8-1
Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source CO2e
Total Construction Emissions 1,291
Annualized Construction Emissions1 43
Total Operational Emissions 5,721
Total Project Emissions 5,764
(QK, 2025a)
The SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine the significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU (business as usual, specific numerical threshold) (QK, 2025a). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining the BAU and projected □ □ □
□ □ □
2183
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-60
baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29 percent reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine the level of significance for GHG.

Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine the significance of using the project design features.

In the Court’s final ruling, it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:
• Lead agencies can use the comparison to the BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order to comply with statewide goals.
• Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less than significant. • Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans or apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies.

Neither the City nor Tulare County has developed specific thresholds for GHGs. In the decade after SJVAPCD adopted their Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, SB 32 requires that GHG emissions be 40 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, SB 100, which was signed by the Governor recently, requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B55-18, which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2009 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards, which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, the objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy, and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project level.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 3.4.8-1 are primarily for disclosure purposes. The Project’s largest contributors to GHG emissions are from electricity and exhaust from transportation fuels. Electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other programs (e.g., low-carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard). Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws, the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

The Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply chain. As such, each citizen of California (including those creating emissions of this Project) will have no choice but to 2184
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-61
purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market.

Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because energy purchases are from the California market. Thus, consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by higher-level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans, and the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.8b – Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Under AB 32, CARB must adopt regulations by January 1, 2011, to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the 1990 emission cap by 2020. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its initial Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap of CARB’s plans to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan.

SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO's regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, has provided each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. For the TCAG region, CARB set targets at a 13 percent per capita decrease in 2020 and a 16 percent per capita decrease in 2035 from a base year of 2005.

Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-30-15 requires MPOs to implement measures that will achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG emissions reduction targets.

As required by California law, city and county General Plans contain a Land Use Element that details the types and quantities of land uses that the city or county estimates will be needed for future growth and that designates locations for land uses to regulate growth. TCAG uses 2185
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-62
the growth projections and land use information in adopted General Plans to estimate future average daily trips and then VMT, which are then provided to SJVAPCD to estimate future emissions in the AQPs.

TCAG uses the growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans to estimate future average daily trips and then VMT, which are then provided to SJVAPCD to estimate future emissions in the AQPs. Existing and future pollutant emissions computed in the AQP are based on land uses from the area’s general plans. AQPs detail the control measures and emission reductions required for reaching attainment of the air standards. A project would be consistent with the SJVAPCD’s air quality plan(s) if the pollutants emitted from the construction and operation of the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality.

The Project is consistent with the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan upon approval of the General Plan Amendment, as the GPA would not add or remove the General Plan land uses currently designated, it would allow for the developer to shift the location of the existing map code designations to improve utilization of the Project site. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQP.

CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan, which will not conflict with these Plans. The current plan has identified new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s 2030 GHG limit. Furthermore, the City’s Climate Action Plan provides the strategies required to achieve the State’s 2030 mitigation targets (City of Visalia, 2013). Certain GHG emissions reduction measures can be incorporated into an individual project to contribute to the collective GHG reduction goals of the City. As discussed in Impact #3.4.6, the proposed Project will utilize ENERGY STAR appliances, not utilize natural gas, all residential units will be equipped with 450-watt solar panels, utilize all electric appliances, and will be EV-ready (pre-wired during construction to allow for installation of EV residential charger in the future). The Project is consistent with the City’s adopted CALGreen building standards and the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which includes but is not limited to incorporating low-flow lavatory faucets, kitchen faucets, toilets, and urinals, and low-water-use landscaping and highefficiency irrigation systems. The proposed Project includes a high-density residential neighborhood that is within 550 feet of a transit stop, and the Project will construct a Class II Bikeway along the Project’s frontage to Lovers Lane and a Class I Bikeway along the Project's frontage to Cameron Creek to increase the neighborhood's Transit Oriented Design (TOD) factors. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with all applicable GHG emissions reduction measures within the City’s Climate Action Plan.

Based on the assessment above, and the assessment discussed in Impact #3.4.8a, the Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The Project furthers the achievement of the County’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 2186
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-63

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2187
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-64

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment?
e. For a Project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the Project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the Project
area?
f. Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
Impact #3.4.9a – Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
2188
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-65
Project Construction
Construction of the Project would involve the temporary transport and use of minor quantities of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, paints, and solvents. The types and quantities of hazardous materials to be used and stored on-site would not be of a significant amount to create a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition. Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities will be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. The U.S. Department of Transportation and Caltrans regulate the transportation of hazardous materials. Any hazardous waste or debris that is generated during the construction of the proposed Project would be collected and transported away from the site and disposed of at an approved off-site landfill or other such facilities. In addition, sanitary waste generated during construction would be managed through portable toilets located at reasonably accessible on-site locations.

In addition to moving people, the roadway system in Visalia carries a substantial number of trucks moving goods. These routes are designed to allow truck traffic to pass through the City with minimal impact on residential neighborhoods, as well as local vehicular and pedestrian traffic (City of Visalia, 2014a). The City has not designated certain routes in the City as hazardous material routes. The Project is located and accessed via Lovers Lane, which is a designated truck route. Close proximity to a designated truck route could allow for quick access and reduced travel distance of temporary hazardous materials along designated truck routes. The VFD would respond to any hazardous materials incident, and additional fire department units would respond as necessary.

A review of the EnviroStor database and the Geotracker database did not identify any active or historic hazardous material site or hazardous material cleanup site on or within 1,000 feet of the Project site
State and local regulatory compliance would require that the use of hazardous materials in excess of certain thresholds (generally 55 gallons of liquid, 200 cubic feet of gas, and 500 pounds of solids) would require the preparation, submission, and receipt of approval of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The HMBP would contain detailed information, including an inventory of hazardous materials at the facility, emergency response plans and procedures in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous material, and safety training for employees. Any operation established on the Project site would be required to comply with an approved HMBP as per State requirements, and compliance would allow operational activities to result in a less-than-significant impact.

Operations
Once constructed, the use of such materials as paint, bleach, etc., is considered common for residential developments. Residential developments are unlikely to have hazardous materials stored or used in such quantities that would be considered a significant hazard.

The Project itself will not generate or use hazardous materials outside of Tulare County Environmental Health Department requirements.
2189
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-66
Based on the analysis above, Project construction and operation are not anticipated to result in significant impacts due to the transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.9b – Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
See the discussion on Impact #3.4.9a above.

A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the Project site was historically utilized for agricultural cultivation as early as 1994, including dwelling-type structures and smaller outbuildings located in the center of the Project site. Although the potential exists that environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides may have been historically applied to crops grown on the subject site, it is anticipated that residual pesticides/herbicides potentially located on-site will be dislocated and diluted as a result of the grading and trenching operations that will be conducted in connection with the planned residential development of the property. Typically, this does not result in concentrations reported above regulatory screening levels.

There are no historical records or indications that an underground storage tank (UST) is located on the Project site (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2025). Although there is no evidence of the presence of an underground storage tank, a very low possibility of an unregistered UST can exist due to the historical agricultural nature of the site. Should an unknown underground tank be found during construction activities, MM HAZ-1 requires the developer to stop work in that area and contact the State Water Resources Control Board and the Tulare County Environmental Health Division to discuss the next appropriate steps for the safe removal of the tank.

Per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database (Cortese List), the Project site is not located on or within 100 feet of a listed hazardous materials/waste facility (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2025).

There are no active California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) identified oil or gas fields on or within 1,000 feet of the Project site (CalGEM, 2025).

Consequently, the Project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. However, should an unknown UST or septic system be uncovered during construction of the Project, 2190
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-67
implementation of MM HAZ-1 would reduce impacts that could result in upset or accidental hazardous material spills, which would be less than significant. Furthermore, the contractor or developer would be required to adhere to associated local and State guidelines when removing the existing agricultural well, which are intended to prevent significant upset or accident from potentially hazardous materials.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM HAZ-1: In the event that unknown underground storage tank(s) or a septic system are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work in that area shall cease. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Tulare County Environmental Health Division shall be contacted to determine what appropriate remediation may be required and to identify the appropriate requirements and approvals.

A report of all communication and the determination made by the SWRCB and the County Health Division shall be submitted to the City.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.9c – Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The nearest school to the Project is Annie R. Mitchell Elementary School, located approximately 0.5 miles northwest. There are no schools, existing or proposed, within onequarter mile of the Project site. As noted in Impact #3.4.9a, above, construction activities for the Project could result in the temporary use of hazardous materials and or substances, such as lubricant and diesel fuel during construction. Exhaust from construction and related activities is expected to be minimal and not significant. All future construction-related activities as a result of the proposed Project would be subject to local, State, and federal laws related to emissions of hazardous materials and substances. However, construction of the Project would require implementation of BMPs when handling any hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Once constructed, the residential development is highly unlikely to generate hazardous materials over an established reporting threshold. Therefore, the Project would comply with State and local regulations for hazardous material handling and would have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2191
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-68
Impact #3.4.9d – Would the Project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? As discussed in Impact #3.4.9b, the DTSC EnviroStor database (Cortese List), the Project site is not located on or within 100 feet of a listed hazardous materials/waste facility (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2025).

As such, the Project site will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and therefore has no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.9e – Would the Project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area?
The Project site is located approximately 6.75 miles east of the Visalia Municipal Airport and, therefore, is not located within the Airport Influence Area or Safety Compatibility Zone as indicated in the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (Tulare County, 2012).

Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area from an airport within two miles of the Project.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.9f – Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The City of Visalia adopted their most recent Safety Element in February 2025. The purpose of the Safety Element is to identify natural and man-made public health and safety hazards within the City and to establish preventive and responsive policies and programs to mitigate their potential impacts. This Element addresses, among other things, emergency services. It also includes policies on natural hazards mitigation planning, in alignment with the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 2192
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-69
implementing regulations, and supports the County’s Multi- Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of Visalia, 2025a). The Emergency Operations Plan includes policies that would prevent new development from interfering with emergency response and evacuation plans.

The General Plan also provides guidance to City staff in the event of an extraordinary emergency situation associated with natural disasters and technological incidents. The Project would also comply with the appropriate local and State requirements regarding emergency response plans and access. The proposed Project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities.

Additionally, the proposed Project is required to adhere to the standards set forth in the City Municipal Code, which identifies the design standards for emergency access during both the Project’s construction and operational phases. The Project would also comply with the appropriate local and State requirements regarding emergency response plans and access.

The proposed Project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to continue to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities.

The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.9g – Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The risk of wildfires is on the rise in California and the Tulare County region. While the possibility of fire within the limits of Visalia is relatively low, the neighboring areas, especially those situated to the east of the City, are expected to experience an increase in risk as climate change exacerbates conditions like prolonged drought and extreme temperatures.

There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the vicinity of the Project site, and the Project site is not categorized as a “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by Cal Fire (Cal Fire, 2023). The closest location, designated as Moderate Fire Hazard Zone, is located eight miles east of the foothills adjacent to Exeter. The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is the zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development. It is the line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels (U.S. Fire Administration, 2022). The Project site is not located within the WUI (ESRI, Mark Gilbert, 2021). Furthermore, the Project areas are generally flat, and by implementing State and local fire code requirements, the Project would 2193
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-70
not exacerbate the risk of exposure of Project occupants to wildfire. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

2194
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-71

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the Project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the Project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would?
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to Project
inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
2195
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-72
Discussion
The discussion below is based, in part, on the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) completed for the Project, attached as Appendix E (Woodard & Curran, 2026).

Impact #3.4.10a – Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Construction
The proposed Project construction and groundbreaking activities have the potential to cause erosion, sedimentation, and discharge of construction debris from the Project site. Clearing of vegetation and grading activities, for example, could lead to exposed or stockpiled soils susceptible to peak stormwater runoff flows. Also, the compaction of soils by heavy equipment may minimally reduce the infiltration capacity of soils (exposed during construction) and increase runoff and erosion potential. The presence of significant amounts of raw materials for construction, including concrete and asphalt, may lead to stormwater runoff contamination. If uncontrolled, these materials could lead to water quality problems, including sediment-laden runoff, prohibited non-stormwater discharges, and ultimately the degradation of downstream receiving water bodies. Materials that could contribute to this impact include, but are not limited to, diesel fuel, gasoline, lubricant oils, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, transmission fluid, lubricant grease, cement slurry, and other fluids utilized by construction and maintenance vehicles and equipment. Motorized equipment could leak hazardous materials such as motor oil, transmission fluid, or antifreeze due to inadequate or improper maintenance, unnoticed or unrepaired damage, improper refueling, or operator error. To avoid impacts to water quality, the Project would disturb more than one acre and would be required to prepare a SWPPP and ensure implementation of BMPs that address potential issues related to soil erosion and contaminated runoff in local waterways during construction. Implementing BMPs for construction activities, such as the use of straw waddle sandbags, silt fencing, swales, street sweeping, etc., and adherence to local requirements related to storm drain construction and maintenance, will reduce stormwater runoff to a less-than-significant impact during construction activities.

Operation (post-construction)
Water quality could also be degraded by typical residential pollutants, such as lawn fertilizers, residential-grade pesticides, and detergents. During dry periods, impervious surfaces (i.e., hardscape surfaces such as foundations and buildings) can collect grease, oils, and other vehicle-related pollutants. During storm events, these pollutants can mix with stormwater and degrade downstream water quality. The Project will comply with all applicable local requirements related to storm drains and drainage improvement fees, such as Visalia Municipal Code Section 16.36.110, which requires, “Storm drains shall be installed as required by the city engineer, or as required by a specific adopted master storm drain plan,” (City of Visalia, 2025b). Compliance with the adopted City improvement standards would result in a less-than-significant impact on waste discharge requirements associated with the operation of the Project.
2196
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-73

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.10b – Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The Project site is located in the Visalia Water District (District) of the California Water Service Company (Cal Water). The District is located within the Mid-Kaweah and Tule Subbasins within the Greater San Joaquin Valley Kaweah Subbasin. Groundwater is the sole source of water supply for the Visalia District (Woodard & Curran, 2026).

Historically, the groundwater available to the Visalia District from the underlying Kaweah and Tule Subbasins has consistently met the District’s needs. Due to successful conservation efforts and response to the historic drought spanning water years 2012-2015, water demand (and thus District groundwater pumping volumes) were significantly lower from 2014 through 2019 (i.e., averaging 27,736 AFY) than they had been in the previous 10 years (i.e., averaging 32,502 AFY). Most groundwater pumping in the Kaweah Subbasin is for agricultural use. From a regional perspective, Visalia District pumping represents only a small fraction of total groundwater pumping. It is therefore likely that management of agricultural groundwater use, rather than Municipal and Industrial use, will be a much larger determining factor in maintaining groundwater sustainability in both the Kaweah and Tule Subbasins in the future. Given the District’s proven ability to meet historical and the absence of any indication from Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in the Tule or Kaweah Subbasins that urban pumping will be restricted under Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) implementation, it is reasonable to conclude that groundwater from the Subbasins will be sufficient to meet the District’s needs, including the proposed Project.

Although a significant amount of growth is projected in the Visalia District over the planning horizon (i.e., the District is projecting that service area population will increase by more than 50 percent over the next 25 years), as discussed in the District’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), it is anticipated that some land currently used for agricultural production will be converted to residential and nonresidential urban uses to accommodate future growth.

Irrigated agriculture typically uses more water on a per-acre basis than urban uses; thus, some future growth within the District will likely result in a net decrease in water use within the subbasins. Although the 2020 UWMP anticipates sufficient groundwater supply under all conditions for the District as a whole, given that the demands associated with the proposed Project were not included in the 2020 UWMP demand projections for the District, an analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater supply to meet Project demands is required pursuant to California Water Code (CWC) Section 10910(f)(5) and California Government Code (CGC) Section 66473.7(a)(2)(E).
2197
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-74
Proposed Project Water Supply and Demand Comparisons
The proposed Project site has historically been used for irrigated agricultural production, relying exclusively on groundwater pumped from the underlying Subbasin. A WSA was prepared for the Project (Appendix E), estimating the anticipated amount of water necessary for the proposed Project, and determining if there is sufficient water supply available to service the Project based on available data provided in Cal Water’s Visalia District 2020 UWMP. At full buildout, assumed to be 2030, the proposed Project is estimated to have a total water demand of approximately 209 AFY from the water uses described below in Table

3.4.10-1 (Woodard & Curran, 2026). Tables 3.4.10-2 through 3.4.10-4 demonstrate the District’s projected normal year water, single dry year and multiple dry year comparison of water supply and demand.
2198
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-75
Table 3.4.10-1
Estimated Annual Proposed Project Water Demand (AFY)
Water Use
Project Characteristics Demand
Factor Units GPD
Total Water Demand (AFY)
Area (SF) Area
(acres)
# of
Units 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
SingleFamily
Residential
1,964,556 45 292 409 GPD/unit 119,428 134 134 134 134 134 MultiFamily
Residential
949,608 22 370 148 GPD/unit 54,760 61 61 61 61 61
Landscape 152,460 4 N/A 2,784,414 Gallons/year N/A 9 9 9 9 9 Water Loss 6 6 6 6 6
Existing Site Demand* 0 0 0 0 0
Net Annual Water Demand 209 209 209 209 209
Source: (Woodard & Curran, 2026)
Notes: GPD = Gallons Per Day, values rounded, *The average historical agricultural demand associated with the Project site was calculated to be 264 AFY; as historical water demands were not supplied by Cal Water, the total Project demands do not consider existing site demands.

2199
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-76
Table 3.4.10-2
Projected Normal Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Supply 32,520 36,305 39,517 42,923 46,361
Visalia District
Demand
32,520 35,276 38,310 41,258 44,529
Clements Ranch
Demand
0 209 209 209 209
Other
Developments
0 821 999 1,456 1,623
Total Potable
Water Demand
Inclusive of
Project
32,520 36,305 39,517 42,923 46,361
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Supply Shortfall
(% of Demand)
None None None None None
Source: (Woodard & Curran, 2026)

2200
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-77
Table 3.4.10-3
Projected Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY) Start Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Supply 33,152 36,992 40,265 43,728 47,232
Visalia District
Demand
33,152 35,962 39,057 42,063 45,400
Clements Ranch
Demand
0 209 209 209 209
Other
Developments
0 821 999 1,456 1,623
Total Potable
Water Demand
Inclusive of
Project
33,152 36,992 40,265 43,728 47,232
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Supply Shortfall
(% of Demand)
None None None None None
Source: (Woodard & Curran, 2026)
2201
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-78
Table 3.4.10-4
Projected Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Supply 33,543 37,417 40,728 44,227 47,771
Visalia District
Demand
33,543 36,387 39,520 42,562 45,939
Clements Ranch
Demand
0 209 209 209 209
Other
Developments
0 821 999 1,456 1,623
Total Potable
Water Demand
Inclusive of
Project
33,543 37,417 40,728 44,227 47,771
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Supply Shortfall
(% of Demand)
None None None None None
Source: (Woodard & Curran, 2026)
2202
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-79
Conclusion
The District pumps groundwater within the jurisdictions of the Mid-Kaweah GSA, the Greater Kaweah GSA, and the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency (ETGSA).

Groundwater use is consistent with the applicable GSPs. As demonstrated in Tables 3.4.10-1 through 3.4.10-4, the WSA concludes that sufficient water supply is available to the District to meet all future demands associated with current and planned development within its service area, including demands of the proposed Project. The WSA prepared for this Project concludes that sufficient water supply is available to the District to meet all future demands associated with current and planned development within its service area, including those of the proposed Project. As demonstrated in Tables 3.4.10-1 through 3.4.10-4, the District is projected to continue meeting future water demands under normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions.

Furthermore, the City of Visalia has adopted green building standards and water-efficient landscaping ordinances consistent with previous versions of the CALGreen Building Standards Code and the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) (23 CCR 2.2.7 Section 490-495, 2025; CALGreen, 2022). Landscaping will also comply with AB 1572. As part of State requirements, all new developments within the City of Visalia must meet these efficiency standards. Accordingly, the proposed Project will incorporate low-flow lavatory faucets, kitchen faucets, toilets, and urinals in accordance with the CALGreen Code, and include low-water-use landscaping and high-efficiency irrigation systems to minimize outdoor water use in compliance with MWELO.

As concluded above, the proposed Project’s estimated water demand would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.10c(i) – Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
The existing drainage pattern of the site and area would be affected by Project development because of the increase in impervious surfaces at the site, such as residential rooftops, driveways, and sidewalks. As discussed in Impact #3.4.10a above, potential impacts on water quality from erosion and sedimentation are expected to be localized and temporary during 2203
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-80
construction. Outlot G will be developed as an approximately 2.5-acre stormwater basin that will be maintained by the City, which will retain stormwater on site and provide intentional pervious surfaces for it to percolate and recharge the groundwater aquifer.

The Project, as designed, complies with the City’s Open Space and Conservation Policy OSCP-23, which requires setbacks from Cameron Creek to protect riparian areas (City of Visalia, 2014a). The Project will not impact this waterway or the vegetation along the creek.

The Project does not propose to alter the course of a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The Project would connect to the existing City stormwater sewer infrastructure. The Project will comply with all applicable local building codes and regulations to minimize impacts during construction and post-construction. Construction-related erosion and sedimentation impacts due to soil disturbance would be less than significant after implementing a SWPPP and BMPs required by the NPDES, as well as City standards and requirements. Given this, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.10c(ii) – Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? See discussion in Impact #3.4.10c(i).

Ground‐disturbing activities related to Project construction, such as grading, excavation, placing fill, and trenching, could change existing surface drainage patterns and increase the potential for flooding, particularly during storm events. Regulatory mechanisms in place that would reduce the effects of construction activities on drainage patterns that would result in flooding on or off the construction site include compliance with the City’s grading plan check process and the NPDES Construction General Permit.

The potential for the construction of the proposed Project to alter existing drainage patterns would be minimized through compliance with the preparation of an SWPPP and the design and construction of an on-site stormwater basin. With the implementation of such measures, the Project would not substantially increase the amount of runoff to result in flooding on- or off-site. Development of the Project would include landscaping and open space, as well as lawns, which will allow stormwater to percolate back into the groundwater system in addition to the construction of City-compliant storm drain lines that would direct 2204
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-81
stormwater into the City’s existing system to reduce the rate of surface runoff and avoid flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.10c(iii) – Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? See Impact #3.4.7b and c and Impact #3.4.10a, c(i), and c(ii).

The Project would comply with all applicable State and City codes and regulations. The Project will construct a stormwater retention basin on-site to capture stormwater, and engineering calculations will support the storm drainage plan to ensure that the Project does not create or contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.10c(iv) – Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?
As discussed under Impact #3.4.10(a) through (c)(iii), Project construction activities could potentially alter the course of the existing drainage pattern on the site. The Project would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit by preparing a SWPPP to specify BMPs to prevent construction pollutants.
2205
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-82
As discussed in Impact #3.4.10c(i), Outlot G will be developed as approximately a 2.5-acre stormwater basin that will maintain stormwater on the site, and provide intentional pervious surfaces for runoff to recharge into the groundwater.

The majority of the Project site is located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 500-year flood hazard (0.2 percent chance flood hazard) zone, and a small portion of the southwest corner of the site is within Zone AE for Special Flood Hazard Area (Figure

3.4.10-1). Nevertheless, all structures within the Special Flood Hazard Area would be required to adhere to Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 15.60 (Floodplain Management Regulations) and California Building Code, which require structures to be built at or above base flood elevation, so as not to alter the mapped flood hazard area and reduce the risk of flooding to structures. Therefore, the Project Impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.10d – Would the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
The Project site is not located near the ocean or a steep topographic feature (i.e., mountain, hill, bluff, etc.). Tsunamis are waves generated in oceans from seismic activity. Due to the inland location of the site, tsunamis are not considered a hazard for the site. Therefore, there is no potential for the site to be inundated by a tsunami or mudflow.

A seiche is a wave generated by the periodic oscillation of a body of water whose period is a function of the resonant characteristics of the containing basin as controlled by its physical dimensions. The Project site is not adjacent to a large body of water that would be vulnerable to the development of a seiche. There is no potential for the inundation of the Project site by seiche.

According to the Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, dam failure is extremely unlikely (County of Tulare, 2023).

As noted above, the Project site is within the 500-year and AE flood hazard zones. The Project will comply with applicable local, State, and federal requirements for construction in a flood zone, thereby reducing the impacts of flooding. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to inundation by flood hazard, tsunami, seiche or mudflow. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.
2206
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-83

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.10e – Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? See Impact #3.4.10a regarding water quality.

Since the Project site is not within Cal Water District boundaries, the Project was not included in the 2020 UWMP demand projections for the District, and a WSA was prepared for this Project. The proposed Project water demands of 209 AFY represent less than one percent of the District's annual water demands. As demonstrated in Tables 3.4.10-1 through

3.4.10-4, the District is projected to continue meeting future water demands under normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions. Furthermore, as part of State requirements, from CALGreen and MWELO, all new developments within the City of Visalia must meet these efficiency standards. Accordingly, the proposed Project will incorporate low-flow lavatory faucets, kitchen faucets, toilets, and urinals in accordance with CALGreen Code, and include low-water-use landscaping and high-efficiency irrigation systems to minimize outdoor water use in compliance with MWELO.

Implementation of the General Plan policies, California Water Service’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD) 2010 Groundwater Management Plan and the City’s involvement with the KDWCD Integrated Regional Water Management Planning (IRWM) program, in addition to the City’s Stormwater Master Plan and Management Program and the Waterways and Trails Master Plan, will address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable and sustainable water supply for the Project’s future urban domestic and public safety consumptive purposes. The proposed Project is consistent with the Central Valley RWQCB and will comply with all applicable rules and regulations regarding water quality and groundwater management. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

2207
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-84
Figure 3.4.10-1
FEMA Flood Hazard Zone
National Flood Hazard La y e r Fl RMette ,,!ik,FEMA
~,'
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
B""'"""'P llmJ[l.,,y so"'"": us as Natirrna/ Mtp 2 Q.23' Legend
SPECIAL FLOOD I HAZA.RD A REAS

OTHER AREAS OF
FI.DOD HAZARD

OTHERAREAS
Without B.as• f'lood EleHtlon (81"1;'.) ~•A,Y, Jl.:119
with BR or Depth zo.1 ■ M, M,A.-.; w,AA
Regulator~ rloodwa,
o .2911- An nu.al c h.anee Flood H.1:r.11rd .. Are.as:
o1t94annualohan~ 11oxl with average depth less th...-. one foot or with dr.ain.ac• areas ofle:s:s than me square mile J',wt ■ ,c - ~~~~:ec;,::i~i~n:a1;: ::~~al
~ ~;::::~:=~u:s~z:.!:~d Risk due to
".,,, .""1 Are.a with f'lood Risk du• to LeH1e.z,:,,u, o 11a•c11111:1 Are,11 of Minim.al Flood H.azard z,a,.- Jl E:ffectiYe LOMR:s:

Area of undetermined flood Hazard zo),. o
GENERAL Channel .. C:ulYert .. orStorm Sewer
STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Levee;, Dike., or rloodw.al I
i
Cross:Sectlons with 1'N,Annu.a1Chanee
W.ater $ urf.aoe Eleu1tion
- coastal Ir .an:s:ec:t
- Base P'lood Eleution Line (8:FE) = Limit ofStud,
- Jurisdi.:=tion eoundar,
- c oa. :nal n .anseet easel ine
OTHER -- Pro1ileaaseline
FEATURES ___ H,drographic:f' .atur■
Di Cl t.al D• t-1 .CW.allabl,a
No OIClt.al D.at.a AHll.abl•
unmapped
The pin displ cJ¥ed on the map Is an approximate
point selected b' the user and does not represent
an authoritatiY e pro pert, I oc.ation.

This m.ap compiles- with f"EMA':s: st.and.ards for ti- us ■ o1 digital 1'ood maps i1it is not •oid .as desoribed below.

The b.a.sern.ap shown ccrnplles with FEMA1s bas.an.ap
aoourao, standards
The flood h.az.ard inform.ation Is deriYed direct I, kom th■ authoritatiYe Nf'H. web serYioes provided b' fl!:MA. This map was e:ported on e/1:2f202e: at 2:~e: PM and does not ret eot c h.ances or .amendments s ub:s:equent to this d.ate and time. Th e Nf'HL and el'fe:otiYe intlrmation ma, ohange or become super ■ d bl' new d.at.a c,.,iar time.

This map imac• is '-'Old if the one or more of the follow inc m.ap elements do not appear: b.asem.ap im.a-•r11., 1lood ;rone labels ~ legend_. scale bar,. map creation dMe.,. .:=ommuni t, ldentl 1iers,. l'IRM p.an lnumb•, ,and f'IRM • .,,.OtiYed,ate.M,ap im.a1&•s for unmapped and unmodernized areas oann ~ be w:ed tlr reO,ilator, purpos:es. 2208
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-85

Discussion
Impact #3.4.11a – Would the Project physically divide an established community? The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.

The Project site is surrounded by agricultural uses on the north, east, and south sides and a mix of high-density and low-density housing types to the west. The Project site is located directly east of the City limits, within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary – Tier II, and has residential General Plan designations (Low-, Medium-, and High-Density Residential) by the City General Plan. The proposed mixed-density housing development is a logical progression of urban development anticipated by the City, and would be compatible with housing development to the west. The Project proposes to convert existing agricultural land to residential use, so the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. Furthermore, residential development on the Project site has been planned for by the City’s General Plan and would not divide an established community. The Project is not being built in a pre-existing community area, and would not create any physical barrier between an established community. These improvements would not affect connectivity and would not divide an established community. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the Project:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
□ □ □
□ □ □
2209
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-86

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.11b – Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to land use that correlate to the proposed Project:
• LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. • LU-P-21: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the Tier II UGB and the Tier III Urban Growth Boundary consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, according to the following phasing thresholds:
o Tier II: The expansion criteria for land in Tier II to become available for annexation and development are that such annexation and development shall only occur if it does not result in excess of a 10-year supply of undeveloped residential land within the new Tier I. This is intended to be consistent with LAFCo policies discouraging residential annexations exceeding a 10-year housing inventory. Thus, the ‘‘inner’’ tier is distinguished from the GPURC-recommended Tier I in that it is not based on projected capacity and need, but rather on a requirement to be able to demonstrate that less than a 10-year inventory of residential land exists.
• LU-P-40: Use Mill, Packwood, and Cameron Creeks and other waterways as natural amenities and links between neighborhoods.
• LU-P-47: Establish criteria and standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation networks within new subdivisions and non-residential development. • LU-P-58: Ensure that natural and open space features, such as Valley Oak trees and community waterways, are treated as special site amenities as part of any residential development.
• LU-P-71: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures. • OSC-P-23: Where no urban development exists, maintain a minimum riparian habitat development setback from the discernible top of the bank—50 feet for both sides of the Mill, Packwood and Cameron Creek corridors and 25 feet for both sides of Modoc, Persian and Mill Creek Ditches—provided that where riparian trees are located within 100 feet of the discernible top of the banks of the Creek corridors and 50 from the banks for the ditches, the setback shall be wide enough to include five feet outside 2210
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-87
the drip line of such trees. Restore and enhance the area within the setback with native vegetation.

As proposed, the Project will be consistent with all relevant General Plan goals, objectives, and policies for Land Use. The Project accomplishes compliance with the General Plan policies listed above through compliance with phased growth thresholds for the UDB, comply with City circulation standards for new subdivisions, designing the Project to include buffers from the Tulare Irrigation Ditch and Cameron Creek in order to protect and highlight the natural features of the waterways and ensure compliance of all applicable local standards for noise related construction activities. Considering the Project would comply with all applicable General Plan policies, city and state regulations, the Project would have a lessthan-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

2211
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-88

Discussion
Impact #3.4.12a – Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Surface mining in California is regulated through the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), a State law adopted in 1975 to address the dual goals of protecting the State’s need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, while protecting public and environmental health. SMARA requires that all cities incorporate into their general plans mapped mineral resource designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board.

The Visalia Planning Area contains three former sand and gravel mines, but no currently operating mines and no designated Mineral Resource Zones (City of Visalia, 2014b).

According to CalGEM, there are no active, inactive, or capped oil wells located within the Project site, and it is not within a recognized oilfield. The Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. Therefore, there would be no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

Impact #3.4.12b – Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less–thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.12 - MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
□ □ □
□ □ □
2212
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-89
See discussion in Impact #3.4.12a, which discusses Project compliance with relevant elements of the General Plan.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

2213
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-90
Discussion
Impact #3.4.13a – Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the allencompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. The City establishes land use compatibility standards and noise policies in the Safety and Noise Chapter of the City’s General Plan. The following Policies are relevant to the proposed Project:
• N-O-1: Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for present and future residents of Visalia.
• N-O-2: Protect the City’s economic base by preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise-producing industries, railroads, airports, and other sources.
• N-O-3: Protect noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities from encroachment of and exposure to excessive levels of noise.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.13 - NOISE
Would the Project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the Project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a Project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
2214
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-91
• N-P-2: Promote the use of noise attenuation measures to improve the acoustic environment inside residences where existing single-family residential development is located in a noise-impacted environment, such as along an arterial street or adjacent to a noise-producing use.
• N-P-3: Establish performance standards for noise reduction for new housing that may be exposed to community noise levels above 65 dB Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)/Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), as shown on the Noise Contour Maps, based on the target acceptable noise levels for outdoor activity levels and interior spaces in Tables 8-2 and 8-3 [of the Noise Element of the General Plan]. Noise mitigation measures that may be considered to achieve these noise level targets include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Construct façades with substantial weight and insulation. o Use sound-rated windows with enhanced noise reduction for primary sleeping and activity areas.
o Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas.
o Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers.
o Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic, and gable ends. o Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions.
o Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level standards may be approved, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. • N-P-4: Where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise-generating land uses (including roadways, railroads and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 8-2 and 8-3 [of the Noise Element of the General Plan], require a noise study to determine impacts and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 8-2 and 8- 3 as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means. Noise mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to:
o Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment.
o Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. o Retain fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers. o Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows. o Use open space, building orientation and design, landscaping, and running water to mask sounds.
o Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.
o Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along State highways and arterials when 2215
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-92
compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer's responsibility, with no City funding.
• N-P-5: Continue to enforce applicable State Noise Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code, Title 24) and Uniform Building Code (UBC) noise requirements. • N-P-7: Use the land use compatibility zone guidelines contained in the Airport Master Plan or more current information on airport noise to assess noise compatibility of airport operation with proposed land uses.

The Project will comply with all applicable City General Plan Policies, such as those notated above, through demonstrating compliance with local and State regulations, such as the Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.36), the Project site being located a considerable distance from incompatible uses and sensitive receptors, construction of sound barriers along Lovers Lane (adjacent arterial street) and compliance with applicable State Noise Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code, Title 24) and UBC noise requirements in order to reduce noise impacts to future residences in the proposed subdivision.

Construction Noise
During Project construction, heavy equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would increase ambient noise levels when in use. Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how it is operated, and how well it is maintained. Noise exposure at any single point outside the Project work area would also vary depending upon the proximity of equipment activities to that point. The nearest existing sensitive uses (single-family and multi-family residential subdivisions) are located approximately 120 feet away from where construction activities could occur within the Project area.

It is possible that Project construction equipment could result in short-term increases over ambient maximum noise levels at nearby existing residential uses, but would remain within the limits defined by the City of Visalia Noise Ordinance. Pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.050(C), the operation of construction equipment, including jackhammers, portable generators, pneumatic equipment, trenchers, or other such equipment, shall not be operated on the Project site between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and between the weekend hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.

Furthermore, a majority of the street frontages on Lovers Lane have existing sound barrier walls and vegetative screening materials, such as trees and shrubs, which could help reduce the temporary increase in sound levels experienced during the 18-24 months construction period.

Operations Noise
Once construction is complete, operational noise will be minimal and limited to usual noises exhibited from residential neighborhoods, which would be required to be within the limits outlined by the City’s Noise Ordinance.
2216
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-93
Therefore, through compliance with local and State noise standards, the temporary increase in noise levels caused by construction activities would be considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.13b – Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
See discussion in Impact #3.4.13a.

Groundborne vibrations or noise levels would increase during the temporary 18-24-month construction period. Pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Section 8.36.050(C), the operation of construction equipment, including jackhammers, portable generators, pneumatic equipment, trenchers, or other such equipment, shall not be operated on the Project site between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and between the weekend hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. Therefore, on-site construction within the Project area is not expected to result in excessive groundborne vibration levels at nearby existing sensitive uses. Given the Project’s compliance with local regulations and the temporary nature of construction, there will not be long-term generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; therefore, this impact is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.13c – Would the Project result in a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? Would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
The Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Project is located approximately 6.80 miles east of Visalia Municipal Airport, which is not within the airport influence area as identified in the Tulare County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (County of Tulare, 2012). The ALUCP guides local jurisdictions in determining appropriate compatible land uses with detailed findings and policies. The General Plan, other City land use plans, and all City land use decisions must be compatible with the adopted ALUCP. The ALUCP includes CNEL noise contours based on projected airport and aircraft 2217
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-94
operations, and the Project site is outside of the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. Therefore, there would be no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

2218
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-95

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less- than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial population unplanned
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

Discussion
Impact #3.4.14a – Would the Project induce substantial population unplanned growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Population forecasts adopted by the City’s General Plan indicate growth for the City population of 210,000 people by 2030, with an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent (City of Visalia, 2014b). As of 2020, the total population of the City of Visalia is 141,384 people, and the average of 2.94 persons per household (City of Visalia, 2024). Given that the Project proposes 662 units, the Project would generate approximately 1,946.28 persons. The General Plan designation is Low-, Medium-, and High-Density Residential, which the Project will be compatible with once the General Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development are approved.

As noted previously, the City General Plan has designated the Project site for future urban uses under the Urban Growth Development Tier II. General Plan Policy LU-P-21 outlines that the expansion criteria for land in Tier II to become available for annexation and development is that such annexation and development shall only occur if it does not result in excess of a 10-year supply of undeveloped residential land within the new Tier I. This is intended to be consistent with LAFCo policies discouraging residential annexations exceeding a 10-year housing inventory (City of Visalia, 2014b). The City determined in 2023 that additional residential capacity was needed in Tier II.

The Project will comply with all applicable General Plan policies, and the Project will undergo review by City staff to ensure compliance. Given that the Project proposes to develop in areas where planned residential growth is anticipated in the General Plan, the Project would not □ □ □
□ □ □
2219
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-96
likely induce substantial unplanned population growth. Implementation of this Project will support the General Plan designation for future growth of residential land. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.14b – Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Project site is currently undeveloped agricultural land under row crop and orchard cultivation.

Construction of the Project would likely be completed by construction workers residing in the City or the surrounding area, which would not require new housing. The Project will not result in the displacement of any persons as there are no habitable residential units on the Project site. As such, no impact associated with the displacement of housing or people would occur, and there would be no impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

2220
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-97

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or to other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?

Discussion
Impact #3.4.15a(i) – Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services - Fire Protection? The City Fire Department (VFD) Fire Station 56 is approximately one mile north of the Project site.

Prior to the issuance of any building permits related to future development of the site, the developer will be required to pay development impact fees. A portion of those funds will be specifically earmarked for the use of the VFD to maintain an adequate level of service within its service boundary. The entire Project, whether submitted in phases or not, will be subject to review by the City Engineering, Public Works, and Fire Department in order to determine whether the Project's infrastructure design is in compliance with City policies for development. The Project’s water system will be reviewed to verify that the system can □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
2221
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-98
supply the required fire flow for fire protection purposes. The establishment of gallons-perminute requirements for fire flow shall be based on the review of the VFD.

An Insurance Services Office (ISO) is a private company that inspects and ranks fire departments across the country to help insurance companies determine premiums for homeowners in the areas they serve. The ISO collects and analyzes firefighting capability information on nearly 46,000 areas and rates departments on fire suppression ability, water availability, and communications. ISO's methodology, known as the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, assigns a class rating on a scale of 1 to 10, with Class 1 given to exemplary fire departments and Class 10 to departments that do not meet minimum criteria (City of Visalia, 2014b). The General Plan, adopted in 2014, states that the VFD had an ISO rating of 4 (City of Visalia, 2014b). In 2021, the Annual Report produced by the Visalia Fire Department stated that the VFD rating was 3, showing improvements in Visalia’s ability to be prepared for a fire response.

As previously stated, the Project is within the Tier II UDB, which is an area planned for future residential growth. Furthermore, the Project will be required to adhere to any conditions/policies pertaining to the construction of infrastructure needed for the Fire Department to provide an adequate level of fire protection service and pay development impact fees; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.15a(ii) – Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services – Police Protection? The City of Visalia Police Department (VPD) Station is approximately 2.60 miles northwest of the Project site. The VPD provides police protection in the City and collaborates with other law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s office on crime prevention. According to the General Plan, adopted in 2014, the VFD has 143 sworn officers working out of two districts (City of Visalia, 2014b). According to the VFD 2023 Annual Report, there was an increase to 167 sworn officers working out of two districts (Visalia Police Department, 2023). Police headquarters is at 303 South Johnson Street in Downtown Visalia, adjacent to City Hall West. In 2007, the Department opened two substations and shifted to district-based operations. The District 1 substation, serving northern Visalia, is located at 204 Northwest 3rd Avenue, near Lincoln Oval. District 2, at 4100 South County Center Drive, serves the southern part of the city.
2222
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-99
As previously stated, the Project is within the Tier II UDB, which is an area planned for future residential growth. Furthermore, the Project will be required to adhere to any conditions/policies pertaining to the construction of infrastructure needed for the Police Department to provide an adequate level of fire protection service and pay development impact fees; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.15a(iii) – Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services – Schools? Visalia Unified School District (VUSD or District) provides public education from kindergarten through 12th grade in the Planning Area. According to VUSD, the Project site is within the boundaries of Annie R. Mitchell Elementary School (approximately 0.46 miles northwest), Divisadero Middle School (approximately 2.75 miles northwest), and Mt.

Whitney High School (approximately 2.25 miles northwest) (Visalia Unified School District, 2025). Additionally, Blue Oak Academy, which is a public charter school, is located 0.71 miles east of the Project site.

The City’s 2023-2031 Certified Housing Element notes that there were 2.94 persons per household (City of Visalia, 2024). Assuming a two-parent household, the remaining .94 individuals are assumed to be school-age children. Given that the Project is estimating the development of 662 units, the Project would account for approximately 622.28 students who would utilize school services within the City.

In 2024, the VUSD developed a Facilities Plan that proposed school boundary changes to reduce the utilization of overutilized schools. This Plan considered future planned growth near schools in its development (Visalia Unified School District, 2024). As a result of boundary changes, Annie R Mitchell Elementary School’s projected 2027-28 utilization rate was reduced from 119.9 percent to 83.5 percent, while both Divisadero Middle School and Mt. Whitney High School would remain below full utilization for 2027-28 at a utilization rate of 69.6 percent and 92.6 percent, respectively.

The Project will be subject to school impact fees to mitigate any impacts on school facilities.

Given that the designated schools are projected to have utilization rates under capacity, the developer would need to pay school impact fees to help support future growth of schools, and the Project site area is in a planned residential growth area of the General Plan. Through 2223
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-100
local funding, the school district is in a position to accommodate planned population growth for the foreseeable future through the payment and use of developer impact fees. Per Government Code Section 65996, impacts to school facilities are mitigated by Level 1, 2, and 3 developer fee legislative provisions. The Project developer will pay appropriate impact fees at the time of building permits. Therefore, with implementation of standard local requirements for development Projects related to school fees, the Project does not require new or physically altered school facilities to address the increase in the student population associated with the Project. Impacts are considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.15a(iv) – Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services – Parks? The City’s park standard for neighborhood and community parks in the General Plan is 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents (City of Visalia, 2014a). The buildout of the General Plan Land Use Diagram would result in approximately 85,000 new residents in Visalia, with a total population of about 210,000. To meet the General Plan parks standard, the additional population would require an additional 430 acres of parkland. There are three parks within a mile radius of the Project site (Neighborhood Park, Cherry Meadow Park, and Majestic Park). Parkland is designated directly east of the Project site, which may allow for park development in the future.

As discussed in Impact #3.4.14a, the Project would generate approximately 1,946.28 persons. This would mean that the Project would be required to provide approximately 9.73 acres of open space for recreational purposes (.005 acres per resident x 1,946.28 residents).

The Project includes 0.80 acres in open space within the medium-density gated community and 2.73 acres in open space and trail connections in the non-gated low-density single-family neighborhood. The Project’s development of open space and trail connections could be used for recreational purposes, which would support the City’s residents per park acres ratio in the UDB areas.

Furthermore, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of a new dwelling unit, as defined by Chapter 12.36 (Park and Recreation Development Fees) of the City Municipal Code, or recordation of a final map or parcel map, where applicable, a fee shall be paid to the City for the purpose of constructing park and recreation facilities (City of Visalia, 2025b). Payment of development fees will help the City meet their parkland ratio. 2224
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-101
Given the intentional design to add open space features to the proposed Project to support the City’s resident-to-parkland ratio and the requirement to pay development fees for parks, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.15a(v) – Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services – Other Public Facilities?
See Impact #3.4.15a(i) through (iv) above.

Community facilities are the network of public and private institutions that support the civic, social, and health needs of the population. They offer a variety of recreational, artistic, and educational programs and special events. The City also provides animal control services, refuse pick-up (via an agreement with Tulare County Resource Management Agency and Consolidated Waste Management Authority), and drainage management (City of Visalia, 2014b). These services receive funds allocated through the General Fund, usage fees, penalties, or impact fees.

The closest library (Tulare County Library) is located approximately 2.60 miles northwest of the Project site. The nearest healthcare centers (Kaweah Health Medical Clinic and Apria Healthcare) are located 1.40 and 1.70 miles northwest of the Project site, respectively. The nearest hospital (Kaweah Delta Hospital) is 2.20 miles northwest of the Project site.

As discussed in Impact #3.4.14a, the Project proposes to develop in areas where planned residential growth is anticipated in the General Plan. Development fees will be paid to offset the increased demand for public services such as animal control, libraries, and other government facilities. The proposed Project would support the General Plan designation for future growth of residential land in the UDB and would be required to offset the increased demand through the payment of development impact fees; therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact as a result of this criterion.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation measures are required.
2225
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-102

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

2226
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-103

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.16 - RECREATION
Would the Project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?

Discussion
Impact #3.4.16a – Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
See discussion in Impact #3.4.15a(iv) regarding parks.

There are three parks within a mile radius of the Project site (Neighborhood Park, Cherry Meadow Park, and Majestic Park). The Project proposes to develop open space and trail connections to serve future residences of the subdivision, and would be required to pay development impact fees to offset the planned growth of the proposed Project.

According to the City’s Waterways and Trails Master Plan, the St. Johns River, Mill, Packwood, and Cameron Creeks are part of the community’s heritage and provide habitat to many species of flora and fauna, and available irrigation water to adjacent farmlands. The preservation and restoration of these waterways for public recreation, habitat, and community enjoyment is a high priority (City of Visalia , 2010). The Project site includes portions of the Cameron Creek Segment 3 trail, which is a preferred Class I Bike trail. Any trail construction or alterations would conform to design criteria in the City’s Waterways and Trails Master Plan and Municipal Code.

Given this discussion, there would be a less-than-significant impact on existing neighborhood parks, regional parks, or other recreational facilities.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation measures are required.
□ □ □
□ □ □
2227
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-104

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.16b – Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
See Section 2 – Project Description, the proposed Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment; therefore, no impact is anticipated.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be no impact.

2228
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-105
Discussion
The analysis in this section is substantiated a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) completed for the Project (JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc., 2026) and a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (VRPA Technologies, Inc., 2026), attached as Appendix D.

Impact #3.4.17a – Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Transit System
Visalia Transit and Tulare County Regional Transportation Agency (TCRTA) are the transit operators in this area of the City of Visalia. Visalia Transit has one transit route that operates in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. Route 9 operates on 45-minute intervals between 6:00 a.m. and 8:45 p.m. on weekdays and on 90-minute intervals between 8:00 a.m. and 6:15 p.m. on weekends. The nearest stop to the proposed Project site is located on the east side of Ben Maddox Way, approximately 550 feet north of Walnut Avenue. Retention of the existing and expansion of future transit routes are dependent on transit ridership demand and available funding.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.17 - TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Would the Project:
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision
(b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
2229
Initial Study

Visalia City CouncilJuly 20, 2026

Visalia City Council
July 20, 2026