5. Initial Study_Negative Declaration No. 2021-49 — Visalia City Council, June 20, 2022

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title : Annexation No. 2021 -03, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022 -01 and Higgins Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5585
Project Description: Annexation No. 2021-03 is a request by Quest Equity , LLC, to annex one parcel totaling

32.35-acres into the City limits of Visalia, and to detach said parcel from Tulare County Service Area No. 1 .

The Higgins Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5585 is a request to subdivide the 32.35-acre parcel into a 174-lot single-family residential subdivision with additional landscape and lighting district lots. A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 2022-01) has also been submitted in order to facilitate financing and split the phasing of the project into two phases. The project will include the construction of local streets within the subdivis ion, connection to Cherry Avenue to the north and Lovers Lane to the west. Frontage street improvements will also be required along both streets along with right of way dedications . These types of improvements include construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the installation of park strip landscaping and streetlights throughout the subdivision. The subdivision is anticipated to provide vehicular connectivity to a future subdivision to the east of the subject site.

The development of the property, if approved, will create additional housing units in the southeast portion of the City at a density of 5.29 dwelling units to the gross acre which is consistent with the land use designation of Residential Low Density.

Project Location: The project site is located on the southeast corner of the S. Lovers Lane and Cherry Avenue intersection within the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare (APN: 127-030-018).

Project Facts: Refer to Initial Study for project facts, plans and policies, and discussion of environmental effects.

Attachments:
• Initial Study,
• Environmental Checklist,
• Location Map, Subdivision Map

DECLARATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:

This project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:
(a) The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below se lf-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
(b) The project does not have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
(c) The project does not have environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
(d) The environmental effects of the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

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

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

APPROVED
Brandon Smith, AICP
Environmental Coordinator

By: ______________________________
Date Approved: ________________
Review Period: 20 days
April 12, 2022
Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

INITIAL STUDY
I. GENERAL
A. Project Name and Description:

Annexation No. 2021-03 is a request by Quest Equity, LLC, to annex one parcel totaling 32.35-acres into the City limits of Visalia, and to detach said parcel from Tulare County Service Area No. 1.

Higgins Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5585 is a request to subdivide the 32.35-acre parcel into a 174-lot single -family residential subdivision with additional land scape and lighting district lots. A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 2022-01) has also been submitted in order to facilitate financing and split the phasing of the project into two phases. The project will include the construction of local streets within the subdivision, connection to Cherry Avenue to the north and Lovers Lane to the west. Frontage street improvements will also be required along both streets. These types of improvements include construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the installation of park strip landscaping and streetlights throughout the subdivision. The subdivision is anticipated to provide vehicular connectivity to a future subdivision to the east of the subject site.

Project Location: The project site is located on the southeast corner of the S. Lovers Lane and Cherry Avenue intersection within the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare (APN: 127-030-018).

B. Identification of the Environmental Setting:

The 32.35-acre project site is part of the County and is surrounded by a residential subdivision to the north, undeveloped lots to the south and east and a church to the west. The subject property is currently undeveloped with no structures onsite and has a canal along the east and a portion of the south that is operated and maintained by the Tulare Irrigation District. The site is abutting Union Pacific railroad tracks along the south of the site. In addition, the area to the east is largely fallow, with a mix of row crops to the south.

The development of the site with the 174-lot single -family residential subdivision will extend local streets, infrastructure improvements, utilities, right -of-way improvements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found to the north of the surrounding area . The project will include the construction of local streets within the subdivision, connection to Cherry Avenue to the north and Lovers Lane to the west. Street frontage improvements along both Cherry Avenue and Lovers Lane will be included as well. These types of improvements include construction of curb, gutter , sidewalks, and the installation of park strip landscaping and streetlights throughout the subdivision . The project site is bounded by East Cherry Avenue to the north and South Lovers Lane to the west. Cherry Avenue is designated as a local roadway, and Lovers Lane is designated as a minor arterial.

The area surrounding the subject property is predominately developed with single -family homes to the north and west while the south and east remains undeveloped.

The surrounding uses, Zoning, and General Plan are as follows:

General Plan Zoning Existing uses
North: Residential Low
Density
R-1-5 (Single-family
residential, 5,000
sq. ft. min. site
area)
Single Family Residential Subdivision
South: Residential Low
Density,
Residential
AE-20 (Agricultural
Exclusive 20-acre)
County Zoning
Undeveloped and Agricultural Use
Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

Medium Density
East: Residential Low
Density
AE-20 (Agricultural
Exclusive 20-acre)
County Zoning
Undeveloped and Agricultural Use
West: Residential Low
Density
R-1-5 (Single-family
residential, 5,000
sq. ft. min. site
area)
Lovers Lane, Church property & Single
family Residential

Fire and police protection services, street maintenance of public streets, refuse collection, and wastewater treatment will be provided by the City of Visalia upon annexation and development of the area.

C. Plans and Policies:

The General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the site as Residential Low Density. The annexation will facilitate the development of the site with single -family residential units consistent with the residential development pattern in the surrounding area.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified for this project that can not be mitigated to a less than significant impact . The City of Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance contain s policies and regulations that are designed to mitigate impacts to a level of non-significance.

III. MITIGATION MEASURES
There are no mitigation measures for this project.

IV. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
No mitigation is required for this project to reduce significance.

V. PROJECT COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONES AND PLANS
The project is compatible with the General Plan , Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as the project relates to surrounding properties.

VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are hereby incorporated into this Negative Declaration and Initial Study by reference:
• Visalia General Plan Update. Dyett & Bhatia, October 2014. • Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-38 (Certifying the Visalia General Plan Update) passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, June 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, March 2014.
• Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-37 (Certifying the EIR for the Visalia General Plan Update) passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia Municipal Code, including Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance). • California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
• City of Visalia, California, Climate Action Plan, Draft Final. Strategic Energy Innovations, December 2013.

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

• Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-36 (Certifying the Visalia Climate Action Plan) passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• City of Visalia Storm Water Master Plan. Boyle Engineering Corporation, September 1994. • City of Visalia Sewer System Master Plan. City of Visalia, 1994. • City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Update. City of Visalia, March 2017. • 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Visalia District. California Water Service Company, June 2016.

VI. NAME OF PERSON WHO PREPARED INITIAL STUDY

_________________________ ____________________________
Rafael Garcia Brandon Smith, AICP
Senior Planner Environmental Coordinator

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
NAME OF PROPONENT: Quest Equity/Greg Nunley NAME OF AGENT: Darlene Mata Address of Proponent: 1878 N. Mooney Blvd. Address of Agent: 6145 W. Cherry Ct.

Tulare, CA 93274 Visalia, CA 93277
Telephone Number: (559) 799-6993 Telephone Number: (559) 799-2942 Date of Review January 12, 2022 Lead Agency: City of Visalia

The following checklist is used to determine if the proposed project could potentially have a significant effect on the envir onment.

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

I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, w ould the project:
2 a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
2 c) 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?
2 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. 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 f orest 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:
2 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use? 2 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
1 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))?
1 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
2 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment whi ch, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be re lied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
2 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
2 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the pro ject region is non - attainment under applicable federal or stat e ambient air quality standard?
2 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
2 d) Result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
2 a) Have a substantial adverse 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
2 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural c ommunity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
2 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
2 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?
1 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Name of Proposal Annexation No. 2021-03, Higgins Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5585 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-01 Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

2 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?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
2 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 15064.5?
2 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15064.5?
2 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
2 a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
2 b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial advers e effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1 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.
1 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
1 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1 iv) Landslides?
1 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 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?
1 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
1 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
1 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
2 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
2 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the em issions of greenhouse gases?

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
1 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
1 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?
1 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous m aterials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
1 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
1 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
1 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
2 a) Violate any water quality standards of waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
2 b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
2 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
2 i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; 2 ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or offsite; or
2 iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 2 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
2 e) Conflict with or obstruct impl ementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
1 a) Physically divide an established community?
1 b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
1 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
1 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
2 a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
1 b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
1 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two mile s of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
1 a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
1 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
1 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physicall y altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1 i) Fire protection?
1 ii) Police protection?
1 iii) Schools?
1 iv) Parks?
1 v) Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:
1 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreati onal facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
1 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

XVII. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Would the project:
1 a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
2 b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
1 c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1 d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1 a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local registe r of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
1 b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
2 a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
2 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to service the project and reasonable foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
1 c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
1 d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
1 e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
1 a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
1 c) Require the install ation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
1 d) Expose peo ple or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
2 a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a p lant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
2 b) Does the project have impacts that ar e individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
2 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly?
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code;
Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05,
21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public
Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147
Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v.

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

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

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

I. AESTHETICS
a. This project will not adversely affect the view of any scenic vistas. The Sierra Nevada mountain range may be
considered a scenic vista, but views of the range will not be adversely impacted or significantly by the project.

The proposed project is new resi dential subdivision which will meet City standards for setbacks, landscaping and
height restrictions. The development of the project site with residences will be consistent with the RLD
(Residential Low Density) Land Use Designation and R -1- 5 zoning district.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple polices that together work to reduce the potential for impacts to the development of land as designated by the General Plan.

With implementation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts to land use development consistent
with the General Plan will be less than significant.
b. There are no scenic resources on the site and no state scenic highway designations within the project vicinity. c. The proposed project includes a residential subdivision that will be aesthetically consistent with surrounding
development and with General Plan policies. Furthermore, the City has development standards related to
landscaping and other amenities that will ensure that the visual character of the area is enhanced and not
degraded. Thus, the project would not substantially
degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings.
d. The project will create new sources of light that are typical of re sidential development. The City has development
standards that require that light be directed and/or
shielded so it does not fall upon adjacent properties.

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a. The project is located on property that is identified as Prime Farmland on ma ps prepared by the California
Natural Resources Agency, Department of Conservation ,
and will involve the conversion of the property to non - agricultural use.

The Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) has already considered the enviro nmental
impacts of the conversion of properties within the Planning Area, which includes the subject property, into non -
agriculture uses. Overall, the General Plan results in the conversion of over 14,000 acres of Important Farmland to urban uses, which is considered significant and
unavoidable. Aside from preventing development
altogether the conversion of Important Farmland to urban uses cannot be directly mitigated. However, the General Plan contains multiple polices that together work to limit conversion only to the extent needed to accommodate
long-term growth. The General Plan policies identified
under Impact 3.5 -1 of the EIR serve as the mitigation, which assists in reducing the severity of the impact to the extent possible while still achieving the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a certain amount of growth to
occur within the Planning Area. These policies include the implementation of a three -tier growth boundary system
that assists in protecting open space around the City
fringe and maintaini ng compact development within the
City limits.

Because there is still a significant impact to loss of
agricultural resources after conversion of properties within the General Plan Planning Area to non-agricultural uses, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously
adopted with the Visalia General Plan Update EIR.

The development of 32.35 acres for a proposed 174-lot
single-family residential subdivision is within the Urban Development Tier 2 Boundary. Development of residential lands in Tier 2 may occur , subject to the site being
annexed into the City of Visalia . The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21 of the General
Plan. Policy LU -P-21 states; “ 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...”
b. The project site , if approved and annexed , will facilitate the development of the site with 174 residential lots which is consistent with the urban development pattern in the area. In addition, the proposed urban land use and zoning designations will not conflict with an y existing Williamson Act contract.
c. There is no forest land or timberland currently located on the site, nor does the site conflict with a zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland
Production.
d. There is no forest or tim berland currently located on the site.
e. The proposed 174-lot single-family residential subdivision will result in conversion of Prime F armland to a non - agricultural use as the site is currently undeveloped with rows of walnut trees. However, the Visalia General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has alread y
considered the environmental impacts of the conversion of properties within the Planning Area, which includes the subject property, into non -agriculture uses. T he City’s General Plan supports residential development within Tier 2, subject to the site being annexed into the City of Visalia.

The proposed development is consistent with the
surrounding area to the north and west. By supporting the annexation and subdivision of this site for Low Density Residential development, the site can be developed in a manner that facilitates housing units within the City’s Tier 2 Urban Development Boundary. The proposed project is
consistent with Land Use Policy LU -P-21 of the General Plan. Policy LU -P-21 states; “ 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...”
Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

III. AIR QUALITY
a. The project site is locate d in an area that is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The project in itself does not disrupt implementation of the San Joaquin Regional Air Quality
Management Plan and will therefore be a less than
significant impact.
b. Tulare County is designated non -attainment for certain federal ozone and state ozone levels. The project will result in a net increase of criteria pollutants. Development under the General Plan will result in increases of
construction and operation -related criteria pollutant
impacts, which are considered significant and
unavoidable. General Plan policies identified under
Impacts 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3 serve as the mitigation that assists in reducing the severity of the impact to the extent possible while still achieving the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a certain amount of growth to occur within the Planning Area.

The project is required to adhere to requirements
administered by the SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to a
level of compliance consistent with the District’s grading regulations. Compliance with the SJVAPCD’s rules and
regulations will reduce potential impacts associated with air quality standard violations to a less than significant level.

In addition, development of the project will be subject to the SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review (Rule 9510)
procedures that became effective on March 1, 2006. The Applicant will be required to obtain permits demonstrating compliance with Rule 9510, or payment of mitigatio n fees to the SJVAPCD.
c. Tulare County is designated non -attainment for certain federal ozone and state ozone levels. The project will result in a net increase of criteria pollutants. This site was evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update EIR for
conversion into urban development. Development under
the General Plan will result in increases of construction and operation-related criteria pollutant im pacts, which are considered significant and unavoidable. General Plan policies identified under Impacts 3.3 -1, 3.3 -2, and 3.3 -3 serve as the mitigation which assists in reducing the
severity of the impact to the extent possible while still achieving the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a
certain amount of growth to occur within the Planning
Area.

The project is required to adhere to requirements
administered by the SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to a
level of compliance consistent with the District’s g rading regulations. Compliance with the SJVAPCD’s rules and
regulations will reduce potential impacts associated with air quality standard violations to a less than significant level.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The site has no known species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regula tions, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The project would therefore not have a
substantial adverse effect on a sensitive, candidate, or special species.

In addition, staff conducted an on -site visit to the site to observe biological conditions and did not observe any
evidence or symptoms that would suggest the presence of a sensitive, candidate, or special species.

Citywide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmen tal Impact Report (EIR).

The EIR concluded that certain special -status species or their habitats may be directly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning
Area. This may be through the removal of or disturbance to habitat. Such effects would be considered significant.

However, the General Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.8 -1 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on special -status species likely to occur in the Planni ng Area. With
implementation of these policies, impacts on special -
status species will be less than significant.
b. The project is not located within an identified sensitive riparian habitat or other natural community.

Citywide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The EIR concluded that certain sensitive natural
communities may be directly or indirectly affected by
future development within the General Plan Pl anning
Area, particularly valley oak woodlands and valley oak
riparian woodlands. Such effects would be considered
significant. However, the General Plan contains multiple polices, identified under Impact 3.8 -2 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on
woodlands located within in the Planning Area. With
implementation of these policies, impacts on woodlands
will be less than significant.

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

c. The project is not located within or adjacent to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Citywide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The EIR concluded that certain protected wetlands and
other waters may be directly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning Area. Such effects would be considered significant. However, the
General Plan contains multiple polices, identified under Impact 3.8-3 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on wetlands and other waters located within in the Planning Area. With implementation of these policies, impacts on wetlands will be less than significant. d. Citywide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The EIR concluded that the movement of wildlife species may be directly or indirectly affected by future
development within the General Plan Planning . Such
effects would be considered significant. However, the
General Plan contains multiple polices, identified under Impact 3.8-4 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on wildlife movement corridors
located within in the Plann ing Area. With implementation of these policies, impacts on wildlife movement corridors will be less than significant.
e. The City has a municipal ordinance in place to protect valley oak trees. All existing valley oak trees on the project site will be under the jurisdiction of this ordinance. Any oak trees to be removed from the site are subject to the
jurisdiction of the municipal ordinance.

There are no Valley Oak trees onsite.
f. There are no local or regional hab itat conservation plans for the area.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. There are no known historical resources located within the project area. If some potentially historical or cultural resource is unearthed during development all work should cease until a qualified pr ofessional archaeologist can evaluate the finding and make necessary mitigation
recommendations.
b. There are no known archaeological resources located
within the project area. If some archaeological resource is unearthed during development all work should c ease until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate the finding and make necessary mitigation recommendations.
c. There are no known human remains buried in the project vicinity. If human remains are unearthed during
development all work should cease until the proper
authorities are notified and a qualified professional
archaeologist can evaluate the finding and make any
necessary mitigation recommendations. In the event that potentially significant cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities associated with project preparation, construction, or completion, work shall halt in that area until a qualified Native American Tribal observer, archeologist, or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate
treatment measures in consultation with Tulare County
Museum, Coroner, and other appropriate agencies and
interested parties.

VI. ENERGY
a. Development of the site will require the use of energy supply and infrastructure. However, the use of energy will be typical of that associated with residential development associated with the underlying zoning . Furthermore, the use is not considered the type of use or intensity that would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during construction or
operation. The project will be required to comply with
California Building Code Title 24 standards for energy
efficiency.

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

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

Therefore, the project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts involving
earthquakes.
b. The development of this site will require movement of topsoil. Existing City Engineering Division standards
require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted for review to the City to ensure that off - and on -site
improvements will be designed to meet City standards.
c. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unstable. Soils in the Visalia area have few limitations with regard to development. Due to low
clay content and limited topographic relief, soils in the Visalia area have low expansion characteristics.
d. Due to low clay content, soils in the Visalia area have an expansion index of 0 -20, which is defined as very low
potential expansion.
e. The project does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems since sanitary
sewer lines will be used for the disposal of wastewater at this location.
f. There are no known unique paleontological resources or geologic features located within the project area. In the event that potentially significant cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities associated with project preparation, construction, or completion, work shall halt in that area until a qualified Native American Tribal observer, archeologist, or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with
Tulare County Museum, Coroner, and other appropriate
agencies and interested parties.

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

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

The City has prepared and ado pted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which includes a baseline GHG emissions
inventories, reduction measures, and reduction targets
consistent with local and State goals. The CAP was
prepared concurrently with the Visalia General Plan
Update and its impacts ar e also evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update EIR.

The Visalia General Plan and the CAP both include
policies that aim to reduce the level of GHG emissions
emitted in association with buildout conditions under the General Plan. Although emissions wi ll be generated as a result of the project, implementation of the General Plan and CAP policies will result in fewer emissions than would be associated with a continuation of baseline conditions.

Thus, the impact to GHG emissions will be less than
significant.
b. The State of California has enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which included provisions for reducing the GHG emission levels to 1990 “baseline” levels by 2020 and to a level 80% below 1990 baseline
levels by 2050 . In addition, the State has enacted SB 32 which included provisions for reducing the GHG emission levels to a level 40% below 1990 baseline levels by 2030.

The proposed project will not impede the State’s ability to meet the GHG emission reduction targ ets under AB 32.

Current and probable future state and local GHG
reduction measures will continue to reduce the project’s contribution to climate change. As a result, the project will not contribute significantly, either individually or
cumulatively, to GHG emissions.

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. No hazardous materials are anticipated with the project. b. Construction activities associated with development of the project may include maintenance of on -site construction equipment that could lead to minor fuel and oil spills. The use and handling of any hazardous materials during
construction activities would occur in accordance with
applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws.

Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than
significant.
c. There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the project site; however, there is no reasonably foreseeable
condition or incident involving the project that could affect existing or proposed school sites within one -quarter mile of school sites.
d. The project area does not include any sites listed as hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code
Section 65692.5.
e. Tulare County’s adopted Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Plan shows the project area is located outside of all Airport Safety Hazard Zones. There are no restrictions for the proposed project related to Airport Zone requirements.

The project area is located approximately 6.5 miles from the Visalia Airport. The project site is not located in a flight path, collision safety zone, or noise threshold of the airport.
f. The project will not interfere with the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation
plan.
g. There are no wild lands within or near the project area.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Development projects associated with buildout under the Visalia General Plan are subject to regulations that serve to ensure that such projects do not violate water quality standards of waste discharge requirements. These
regulations include the Federal Cl ean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program. State regulations include the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
more specifically the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB ), of which the project site area falls within the jurisdiction of.

Adherence to these regulations results in projects
incorporating measures that reduce pollutants. The
project will be required to adhere to municipal wastewater requirements set by the Central Valley RWQCB and any
permits issued by the agency.

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

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.6 -2 and 3.9 -3 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potenti al for impacts to water quality. With implementation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts to water quality will be less than significant.
b. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies in the project vicinity. The pr oject will be served by a water main for domestic, irrigation, and fire protection use. The project area overlies the southern portion of the San Joaquin unit of the Central Valley groundwater
aquifer. The project will result in an increase of impervious surfaces on the project site, which might affect the amount of precipitation that is recharged to the aquifer. However, as the City of Visalia is already largely developed and covered by impervious surfaces, the increase of
impervious surfaces through this project will be small by comparison. The project therefore might affect the amount of precipitation that is recharged to the aquifer. The City of Visalia’s water conversation measures and explorations for surface water use over groundwater extraction wil l assist in offsetting the loss in groundwater recharge.
c.
i. The development of this site will require movement of topsoil. Existing City Engineering Division standards
require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted
for review to the City to ensure tha t off - and on -site improvements will be designed to meet City
standards.

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

ii. Development of the site will create additional
impervious surfaces. However, existing and planned
improvements to storm water drainage facilities as
required through the Visalia Ge neral Plan policies will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.

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

Furthermore, the project will be required to meet the
City’s improvement standards for directing storm
water runoff to a temporary basin. The subdivis ion
will be designed to ultimately tie into the future storm drain basin. A capital improvement project is
currently under design for a regional storm drain
master plan in the area.
d. The project area is located sufficiently inland and distant from bodies of water, and outside potentially hazardous areas for seiches and tsunamis. The site is also relatively flat, which will contribute to the lack of impacts by mudflow occurrence. Therefore , there will be no impact related to these hazards.
e. Development of the site has the potential to affect
drainage patterns in the short term due to erosion and
sedimentation during construction activities and in the long term through the expansion of impervious surfaces. The City’s existing standards may require the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the SWRCB’s General
Construction Permit process, which would address
erosion control measures.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.6 -1 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for erosion. With
implementation of these policies and the existing City
standards, impacts to erosion will be less than significant.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The project will not physically divide an established community. The proposed project is to be developed on
land designated for residential development. The project site is surrounded is bordered by roadways on two sides and undeveloped land on the south and east . The
General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the
unincorporated areas to the south and east as Residential Low Density and Residential Medium Density. The project site has a County Zoning designation of AE -20 (Exclusive Agriculture) and when annexed into the City of Visalia, the pre-zoning for the project site will be R -1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum lot area) which is consistent with the Gener al Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Low Density.

The project entails annexing 32.35 acres of property to facilitate the subdivision of the project site into a 174-lot single-family residential development, with local street connection throughout th e subdivision. The development will help facilitate additional residential units within the Tier 2 Urban Growth Boundary . The proposed subdivision is
compatible with the adjacent residential uses to the north and west.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.1-2 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts to the development of land as designated by the General Plan. With
implementation of these policies and the existing City
standards, impacts to land use development consistent
with the General Plan will be less than significant.
b. The project site is within the Urban Development Tier 2 Boundary. Development of lands in Tier 2 may occur if it does not result in an excess of a 10-year supply of
undeveloped residential land within Tier I . The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU -P-21 of the General Plan. Policy LU -P-21 states; “ 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 project as a whole does not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation of the City of Visalia. The site’s General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Low
Density, and the pre-zoning designation of Single-family Residential (R-1-5), is consistent with each other based on the underlying allowed land uses and density ranges as identified in Table 9 -1 “Consistency between the Plan and Zoning” of the General Plan. The City of Visalia’s Zoning Ordinance allows for single-family residences as permitted uses in their respective zones.

The proposed project will be consistent with the Land Use Element of the Gener al Plan, including Policy LU-P-55 for Residential Low Density development, and consistent with the standards pursuant to the Visalia Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) Chapters 17.12.

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

XIII. NOISE
a. The project will result in noise generation typical of urban development, but not in excess of standards established in the City of Visalia’s General Plan or Noise Ordinance.

The Visalia Noise Element and City Ordinance contain
criterion for acceptable noise levels inside and outside residential living spaces. This standard is 65 dB DNL for outdoor activity areas associated with res idences and 45 dB DNL for indoor areas.

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

Ambient noise levels will increase beyond current levels as a result of the project; however, these levels will be typical of noise levels associated with urban development and not in excess of standards established in the City of Visalia’s General Plan or Noise Ordinance. The City’s
standards for setbacks and construction of fences or walls along major streets and between residential uses reduce noise levels to a level that is less than significant. Noise associated with the establishment of new residential uses was previously evaluated with the General Plan for the
conversion of land to urban uses.

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

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. The project will not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth that is in excess of that planned in the General Plan.
b. Development of the site will not displace any housing or people on the site. The area being developed is currently vacant land.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a.
i. Current fire protection facilities are located at the Visalia Station 56, located approximately one-quarter mile north of the property, and can adequately serve the site
without a need for alteration. Impact fees will be paid to mitigate the project’s proportionate impact on these
facilities.
ii. Current police protection facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration. Impact fees will be paid to mitigate the project’s proportionate impact on
these facilities.
iii. The project w ill generate additional dwelling units, for which existing schools in the area may accommodate.
iv. Current park facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration. Impact fees will be paid to mitigate the project’s proportionate impact on these
facilities.
v. Other public facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration.

XVI. RECREATION
a. The proposed project does not include recreational
facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities within the a rea that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
b. The proposed project does not include recreational
facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities within the area that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. Development and operation of the project is not
anticipated to conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness of the
City’s circulation system. The project will result in an increase in traffic levels on arterial and collector roadways, although the City of Visalia’s Circulation Element has been prepared to address this increase in traffic.
b. Development of the site will result in increased traffic in the area, but will not cause a substantial increase in traffic on the city’s existing circulation pattern.

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

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

For the metric measuring VMT per capita, a map of the
City of Visalia, produced by Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), provides areas with 84% or less
average VMT per trip di stance, or 16% below the regional average. In the subject site’s TAZ, the current average trip distance experienced is 8.75 miles and the regional
average is 11.9 miles . Based on this determination, it is presumed that the project will have a less than significant transportation impact
c. There are no planned geometric designs associated with the project that are considered hazardous.
d. The project will not result in inadequate emergency
access.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscap e, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Na tive American tribe.
a. The site is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
b. The site has been determined to not be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Further, the EIR (SCH 2010041078) for the 2014 General Plan update included a thorough review of sacred lands files through the Cali fornia Native American Heritage Commission.

The sacred lands file did not contain any known cultural resources information for the Visalia Planning Area.

Additionally, invitations for early consultation were sent to local tribes with a historic presence in the Visalia Planning Area. No responses were received from the letters that were mailed out.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. The project will be connecting to existing City sanitary sewer lines, consistent with the City Se wer Master Plan.

The Visalia wastewater treatment plant has a current rated capacity of 22 million gallons per day, but currently treats an average daily maximum month flow of 12.5 million
gallons per day. With the completed project, the plant has more th an sufficient capacity to accommodate impacts
associated with the proposed project. The proposed
project will therefore not cause significant environmental impacts.

The project site will be accommodated by an extension of the City’s sanitary sewer li nes. As part of the project, existing sanitary sewer main s will be extended across
Cherry Avenue . Usage of these lines is consistent with the City Sewer System Master Plan. These improvements
will not cause significant environmental impacts.
b. California Water Service Company has determined that there are sufficient water supplies to support the site, and that service can be extended to the site.
c. The City has determined that there is adequate capacity existing to serve the site’s projected wastewater treatment demands at the City wastewater treatment plant.
d. Current solid waste disposal facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration.
e. The project will be able to meet the applicable regulations for solid waste. Removal of debris fr om construction will be subject to the City’s waste disposal requirements.

XX. WILDFIRE
a. The project is located on a site that surrounded by existing development to the north and west, however, the sites to the south and the east are currently undeveloped . The site will be further served by multiple points of access. In the event of an emergency response, coordination would
be made with the City’s Engineering, Police, and Fire
Divisions to ensure that adequate access to and from the site is maintained.
b. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unstable. Therefore, the site is not in a location that is likely to exacerbate wildfire risks.
c. The project is located on a site that surrounded by existing development to the north and west, however, the sites to the south and the east are currently undeveloped. The
proposed development will require the installation and
maintenance of associated infrastructure; however the
infrastructure would be typical of residential development and would be developed to the standards of the
underlying responsible agencies.
d. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unstable. Therefore, the site is not in a location that would expose persons or structures t o
significant risks of flooding or landslides.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The project will not affect the habitat of a fish or wildlife species or a plant or animal community. This site was
evaluated in the Program EIR (SCH No. 2010041078) for
the City of Visalia ’s Genera Plan Update for conversion to urban use. The City adopted mitigation measures for
conversion to urban development. Where effects were still determined to be significant a statement of overriding
considerations was made.
b. This site was evaluated in the Program EIR ( SCH No. 2010041078) for the City of Visalia General Plan Update for the area’s conversion to urban use. The City adopted mitigation measures for conversion to urban development.

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

Environmental Document No. 2021-49
City of Visalia Community Development

DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________
Brandon Smith, AICP Date
Environmental Coordinator
April 12, 2022
Type text here
April 12, 2022

Visalia City CouncilJune 20, 2022

Visalia City Council
June 20, 2022