Environmental Review Document Shepherds Ranch — Visalia City Council, September 6, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

SHEPHERDS RANCH PROJECT
JUNE 2022

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

SHEPHERDS RANCH PROJECT
Prepared for:

City of Visalia
Visalia Planning and Zoning Department
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, Ca 93291
Contact Person: Brandon Smith, AICP
Phone: (559) 716-4636
Consultant :
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Contact: Jaymie Brauer
Phone: (661) 616-2600
June 2022
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.

Unauthorized use prohibited.

Project #210315
Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page i
Table of Contents
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 ................................................................................3-4

3.3 - Determination ..........................................................................................................................................3-4

3.4 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................3-6

3.4.1 - Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................3-8

3.4.2 - Agriculture and Forestry Resources...........................................................................3-12

3.4.3 - Air Quality .............................................................................................................................3-16

3.4.4 - Biological Resources .........................................................................................................3-23

3.4.5 - Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................3-34

3.4.6 - Energy.....................................................................................................................................3-38

3.4.7 - Geology and Soils................................................................................................................3-40

3.4.8 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................3-48

3.4.9 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials...............................................................................3-51

3.4.10 - Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................................3-57

3.4.11 - Land Use and Planning..................................................................................................3-65

3.4.12 - Mineral Resources...........................................................................................................3-67

3.4.13 - Noise.....................................................................................................................................3-69

3.4.14 - Population and Housing................................................................................................3-75

3.4.15 - Public Services..................................................................................................................3-77

3.4.16 - Recreation ..........................................................................................................................3-82

3.4.17 - Transportation and Traffic ..........................................................................................3-84

3.4.18 - Tribal Cultural Resources.............................................................................................3-91

3.4.19 - Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................3-94 Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page ii

3.4.20 - Wildfire................................................................................................................................3-99

3.4.21 - Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................... 3-102 SECTION 4 - List of Preparers ................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 - Lead Agency ..............................................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 - QK Inc...........................................................................................................................................................4-1 SECTION 5 - Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 5-1 List of Appendices
Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendix B Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment Appendix C Biological Assessment
Appendix D Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
Appendix E Noise Study
Appendix F Traffic Impact Study
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location .......................................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-2 Project Location...........................................................................................................................2-4 List of Tables
Table 3.4.3-1 SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of Significance....................................................3-19 Table 3.4.3-2 Project Construction Emissions....................................................................................3-20 Table 3.4.3-3 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year).............................................................3-20 Table 3.4.3-4 Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources...........................................................3-22 Table 3.4.8-1 Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................3-48 Table 3.4.13-1 Construction Equipment Reference and Projected Noise Levels..................3-70 Table 3.4.13-2 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment and Projected Levels at 30 Feet................................................................................................................................................................3-73 Table 3.4.17-1 Project Estimated Trips.................................................................................................3-86 Table 3.4.17-2 Intersection Operations ................................................................................................3-86 Table 3.4.17-3 20-Year Horizon Equitable Share Responsibility................................................3-88 Mitigated Negative Declaration

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
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.

Project Name
Shepherds Ranch
Project Location
The Project is located approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of North Shirk Street and West Goshen Avenue, Visalia, California.

Project Description
The Project would develop a total of 241 single-family homes and a 3.05-acre linear park on a combined 50.3 acres. The Project has two components called Shepherds Ranch I and Shepherds Ranch II.

Shepherds Ranch I (APN 081-030-46) includes 10.31 acres of undeveloped land located inside the current Visalia city limits on the west side of Shirk Street in the western portion of the City. The site is surrounded by developed light industrial properties to the north, with rural residential homes land to the east and south. This component includes 41 homes.

The Shepherds Ranch II site is to the west of the Shepherds Ranch I site.

The following discretionary actions are required for the proposed Shepherds Ranch I development:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) - Residential Very Low Density (VLDR) to Residential Low Density (LDR) and Parks / Recreation.
• Change of Zone – from R-1-20 to R-1-5 and QP.
• Tentative Subdivision Map.
• Right-of-way dedication and street improvements for North Shirk Street and Road 88.

Construction will be in a single phase and is anticipated start in October 2023 and take one year to build out all homes.

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 2
approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of North Shirk Street and West Goshen Avenue, Visalia, California. Shepherds Ranch II is outside the City limits and within unincorporated Tulare County.

The proposed park strip will also be designated as Parks/recreation and zoned as QuasiPublic. Since the parks span both Project components, it will be included in the rezoning of Shepherds Ranch I and included in the pre-zone of Shepherds Ranch II.

The following discretionary actions are required for the proposed development:
• Annexation into the City of Visalia.
• General Plan Amendment – Residential Very Low Density to Residential Low Density and Parks / Recreation.
• Tentative Subdivision Map.
• Tentative Parcel Map.
• Right-of-way dedication and street improvements for Shirk Street and Road 88.

Construction will be in three phases and is anticipated to start in May 2023 and take two years to build out all homes.

For the analysis throughout this document, the Project refers to both Shepherds Ranch I and Shepherds Ranch II unless the component is specifically called out as such.

Mailing Address and Phone Number of Contact Person
Brandon Smith, AICP- Planner
Visalia Planning and Zoning Department
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 713-4636
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.

Mitigated Negative Declaration

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3
Mitigation Measures Included in the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant Effects
BIO-1: Within 14 days prior to the start of Project ground-disturbing activities, a pre-activity survey with a 500-foot buffer, where land access is permitted, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of these species and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If dens/burrows that could support any of these species are discovered during the pre-activity survey, the avoidance buffers outlined below shall be established. No work shall occur within these buffers unless the biologist approves and monitors the activity. A copy of the preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

Burrowing Owl (active burrows)
• Non-breeding season: September 1 – January 31 – 160 feet • Breeding season: February 1 – August 31 – 250 feet
American Badger/SJKF
• Potential or Atypical den – 50 feet
• Known den – 100 feet
• Natal Den –Contact CDFW for consultation
BIO-2: A qualified biologist shall remain on-call throughout the construction phase if a burrowing owl, American badger, or San Joaquin kit fox occurs on the site during construction. If one of these species occurs on-site, the biologist shall be contacted immediately to determine whether biological monitoring or the implementation of avoidance buffers may be warranted.

BIO-3: The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during all phases of the Project to reduce the potential for impact from the Project. They are modified from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. a. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from the construction or Project Site.
b. Construction-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads and predetermined ingress and egress corridors, staging, and parking areas. Vehicle speeds shall not exceed 20 miles per hour (mph) within the Project Site. c. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit fox or other animals during construction, the contractor shall cover all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep at the close of each workday with plywood or similar materials. If holes or trenches cannot be covered, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks shall be installed in the trench. Before such holes or trenches are Mitigated Negative Declaration

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 4
filled, the contractor shall thoroughly inspect them for entrapped animals. All construction-related pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater that are stored on the Project Site shall be thoroughly inspected for wildlife before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If at any time an entrapped or injured kit fox is discovered, work in the immediate area shall be temporarily halted, and USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be consulted.
d. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS and CDFW have been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity until the fox has escaped.
e. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be permitted on the Project Sites to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens. f. Use of anti-coagulant rodenticides and herbicides in Project Sites shall be restricted.

This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe labels and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional Project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the USFWS and CDFW. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because of the proven lower risk to kit foxes.
g. A representative shall be appointed by the Project proponent, who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped kit fox. The representative shall be identified during the employee education program, and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the USFWS.
h. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office of USFWS and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to an SJKF during Project-related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. The USFWS contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below. The CDFW contact can be reached at (559) 243-4014 and [email protected].
i. All sightings of the SJKF shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with Mitigated Negative Declaration

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 5
the location of where the kit fox was observed shall also be provided to the Service at the address below.
j. Any Project-related information required by the USFWS or questions concerning the above conditions or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Endangered Species Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W 2605, Sacramento, California 95825-1846, phone: (916) 414-6620 or (916) 414- 6600.
k. A copy of the preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

BIO-5: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5-mile of active construction, a qualified biologist shall complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest. The assessment would 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 the construction activities of this Project. Based on this assessment, the biologist will 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 determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may need to increase depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

BIO-6: If Project construction activities are initiated during the nesting season (February 1 to September 15), a pre-activity nesting bird survey shall be conducted within 14 days prior to the start of construction. The surveys shall encompass the Project footprint and accessible areas or land visible from accessible areas within a 250-foot buffer for songbirds and a 500- foot buffer for raptors. If no active nests are found, no further action is required. However, existing nests may become active, and new nests may be built at any time prior to and throughout the nesting season, including when construction activities are in progress.

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 6
remain in place until the biologist has determined that the young are no longer reliant on the adults or the nest, or if breeding attempts have otherwise been unsuccessful. Work may occur within the avoidance buffer under the approval and guidance of the biologist, but full-time monitoring may be required. The biologist shall have the ability to stop construction if nesting adults show any sign of distress. A copy of the preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

BIO-7: Within 14 days prior to the start of ground disturbance activities, a pre-activity survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of all specialstatus plant and wildlife species with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Project. All suitable burrows that could support special-status kangaroo rats, Tulare grasshopper mouse, or other special-status wildlife species shall be avoided during construction in accordance with BIO-5 and BIO-6 unless verification surveys have indicated that the species are not present. Consultation with the USFWS and CDFW may be required if listed or fully protected species are detected during the survey. A copy of the preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

BIO-8: Prior to the initiation of construction activities, all construction personnel shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Training program developed by a qualified biologist.

Any personnel associated with the construction that did not attend the initial training shall be trained by the authorized biologist prior to working on the project site. Any employee responsible for the operations and maintenance or decommissioning of the project facilities shall also attend the Worker Environmental Awareness Training program prior to starting work on the project and on an annual basis. The Program shall be developed and presented by the project qualified biologist(s) or designee approved by the qualified biologist(s). The program shall include information on the life histories of special-status species with the potential to occur on the Project, their legal status, course of action should these species be encountered on-site, and avoidance and minimization measures to protect these species. It shall include the components described below:
a. Information on the life history and identification of special-status species that may occur or that may be affected by Project activities. The program shall also discuss the legal protection status of each such species, the definition of “take” under the Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act, measures the Project proponent/operator shall implement to protect the species, reporting requirements, specific measures for workers to avoid take of special-status plant and wildlife species, and penalties for violation of the requirements outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act mitigation measures and agency permit requirements. b. An acknowledgment form signed by each worker indicating that the Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program has been completed shall be kept on file at the construction site. A copy of the acknowledgment form shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance. c. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 7
Education Program, and signed acknowledgment forms, shall be submitted to the City of Tulare Planning Department.
d. A copy of the training transcript, training video, or informational binder for specific procedures shall be kept available for all personnel to review and be familiar with, as necessary.
e. A sticker shall be placed on hard hats indicating that the worker has completed the Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program. Construction workers shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction areas unless they have attended the Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program and are wearing hard hats with the required sticker.

The construction crews and contractor(s) shall be responsible for preventing unauthorized impacts from project activities to sensitive biological resources that are outside the areas defined as subject to impacts by Project permits. Unauthorized impacts may result in project stoppage, and/or fines depending on the impact and coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would ensure that the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

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 Native American Heritage Commission, 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 a discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

GEO-1: Prior to issuing of grading or building permits, if required, (a) the Project applicant shall submit to the Lead Agency (1) the approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and (2) the Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The requirements of the SWPPP and NPDES shall be incorporated into design Mitigated Negative Declaration

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 8
specifications and construction contracts. Recommended best management practices for the construction phase may include the following:
• Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly. • Protecting existing storm drain inlets and stabilizing disturbed areas. • Implementing erosion controls.
• Properly managing construction materials.
• Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and implementing sediment controls.

Evidence of the approved SWPPP shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

GEO-2: Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the Project owner shall develop and implement a Paleontological Worker Education and Awareness Program. If paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities (e.g., during Project construction or decommissioning), all earthwork or other types of ground disturbance within 50 feet of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist (meeting the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP]) can assess the nature and importance of the find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the paleontologist may record the find and allow work to continue or recommend salvage and recovery of the fossil. The paleontologist may also propose modifications to the stop-work radius based on the nature of the find, site geology, and the activities occurring on the site. If treatment and salvage are required, recommendations will be consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards that are current as of the discovery and with currently accepted scientific practice.

NSE-1: The Project developer or contractor shall continuously comply with the following measures throughout construction activities:
a. 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.
b. All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
c. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that is regulated for noise output by a federal, State, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project construction activity. d. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.

Mitigated Negative Declaration

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 9
e. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors. f. Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
g. Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

NSE-2: Prior to final map recordation, the Developer shall record a covenant on all lots to disclose noise exposure from the stationary industrial equipment adjacent to the Project site.

The covenant will ensure future residential property owners are notified of the potential noise impacts as follows:
“Property owner(s) of lots within the Shepherds Ranch I/ Shepherds Ranch IIProject are hereby notified that noise levels from adjacent industrial operations may exceed the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan and Municipal Code daytime and nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB Leq/L50 and 45 dB Leq/L50, respectively.” TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay its pro-rata share for of the following intersections improvements:
a. Shirk Street at SR 198 EB Ramps:
5-Year With Project and 10-Year With and Without Project Horizon scenarios:
• Installation of traffic signal
20-Year With and Without Project Horizon scenarios:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 left-through lane, and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane)
b. Shirk Street at SR 198 WB Ramps
Opening Year With and Without Project, 5-Year With and Without Project, and 10- Year Without Project Horizon scenarios:
• Installation of traffic signal
10-Year With Project and 20-Year With and Without Project Horizon scenarios:
• Intall traffic signal
• Widen the westbound approach to 1 left-through lane and 2 right turn lanes (adding 1 right turn lane)
Introduction

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 1-1
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Overview
The Project is summarized as the subdivision and development of 241 single-family residences and a 3.05-acre linear park on approximately 50 acres, located approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of North Shirk Street and West Goshen Avenue, Visalia, California.

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 Appendix A – 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 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.

Introduction

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 1-2

1.4 - Document Organization and Contents
The content and format of this IS/MND is 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 chapter 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 for any of the 21 environmental resource factors, then an Environmental Impact Report will be required.
• Section 4 – List of Preparers: This chapter identifies the individuals who prepared the IS/MND.
• Section 5 – Bibliography: This chapter contains a full list of references that were used in the preparation of this IS/MND.
• Appendix A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: This appendix 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 2030 General Plan Update (2014)
• Tulare County General Plan 2030 (2021)
• City of Visalia 2020-2023 Adopted Housing Element (2019) • Visalia City Improvement Standards (Updated Improvement Standard Implementation 2016)
• Visalia Airport Master Plan (1971)
• Visalia City Improvement Standards (Updated Improvement Standard Implementation 2016)
• Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (2012) • Mid-Kaweah GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (2019) • Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
Project Description

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 2-1
SECTION 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 - Introduction
The Project is summarized as the subdivision and development of 241 single-family residences and a 3.05-acre linear park on approximately 50 acres, located approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of North Shirk Street and West Goshen Avenue, Visalia, California.

2.2 - Project Location
The Project is located approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of North Shirk Street and West Goshen Avenue, Visalia (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). The Project is within Section 28, Township 18S, Range 24E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

2.3 - Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is bounded by light industrial development to the north, North Shirk Street and residential development to the east, an unnamed dirt road, residential, orchards, and fallow agriculture with non-native grassland to the south, and Road 88 and fallow agriculture to the west.

2.4 - Proposed Project
The Project would develop a total of 241 single-family homes and a 3.05-acre linear park on a combined 50.3 acres. The Project has two components called Shepherds Ranch I and Shepherds Ranch II.

The Shepherds Ranch II site is to the west of the Shepherds Ranch I site.

Construction will be in a single phase and is anticipated start in October 2023 and take one year to build out all homes.

Project Description

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 2-2
Shepherds Ranch II (APN 081-030-36) is 40 acres in size and is located outside the city limits but within the City of Visalia’s sphere of influence on the east side of Road 88, located approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of North Shirk StreetNorth Shirk Street and West Goshen Avenue, Visalia, California. Shepherds Ranch II is outside the City limits and within unincorporated Tulare County.

The proposed park strip will also be designated as Parks/recreation and zoned as QuasiPublic. Since the parks span both Project components, they will be included in the rezoning of Shepherds Ranch I and included in the pre-zone of Shepherds Ranch II.

Construction will be in three phases and is anticipated to start in May 2023 and take two years to build out all homes.

For the analysis throughout this document, the Project refers to both Shepherds Ranch I and Shepherds Ranch II unless the component is specifically called out as such.

Project Description

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 2-3

Figure 2-1
Regional Location
Project Description

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 2-4

Figure 2-2
Project Location
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-1
SECTION 3 - INITIAL STUDY

3.1 - Environmental Checklist

1. Project Title:

Shepherds Ranch

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Brandon Smith (559) 713-4636
Project Location:

The Project is located approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of North Shirk Street and West Goshen Avenue, Visalia, California.

4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:

DR Horton
419 W Murray
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact Person : Corine Demetrios
Phone : (559) 631-6208

5. General Plan Designation:

Existing: City of Visalia – Residential Very Low Density – 18.6 acres Existing: City of Visalia – Residential Low Density – 31.7 acres Proposed: City of Visalia – Residential Low Density – 50 acres, including 3 acres to be used as Parks / Recreation

6. Zoning:

Existing: City of Visalia – R-1-20 (20,000 SF Min Site Area) – 5 acres Existing: City of Visalia – R-1-5 (5,000 SF Min Site Area) – 5 acres Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-2
Existing: Tulare County (proposed for annexation to the City of Visalia) – AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural Zone – 20 Acre Minimum) – 40 acres Proposed: City of Visalia – R-1-5 (5,000 SF Min Site Area) – 50 acres, including 3 acres to be used as QP (Quasi-Public)

7. Description of Project:

The Project would develop a total of 241 single-family homes and a 3.05-acre linear park on a combined 50.3 acres. The Project has two components called Shepherds Ranch I and Shepherds Ranch II.

The Shepherds Ranch II site is to the west of the Shepherds Ranch I site.

Construction will be in a single phase and is anticipated start in October 2023 and take one year to build out all homes.

Shepherds Ranch II (APN 081-030-36) is 40 acres in size and is located outside the city limits but within the City of Visalia’s sphere of influence on the east side of Road 88, located approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of North Shirk StreetNorth Shirk Street and West Goshen Avenue, Visalia, California. Shepherds Ranch II is outside the City limits and within unincorporated Tulare County.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-3
• Tentative Subdivision Map.
• Tentative Parcel Map.
• Right-of-way dedication and street improvements for Shirk Street and Road 88.

Construction will be in three phases and is anticipated to start in May 2023 and take two years to build out all homes.

For the analysis throughout this document, the Project refers to both Shepherds Ranch I and Shepherds Ranch II unless the component is specifically called out as such.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The Project site is bounded by light industrial development to the north, North Shirk Street and residential development to the east, an unnamed dirt road, residential, orchards, and fallow agriculture with non-native grassland to the south, and Road 928 and fallow agriculture to the west.

Land use within the Project boundary consists of annual grassland and barren land on 10 acres (Shepherds Ranch I), and a deciduous orchard with a single-family residence and associated structures on the south side of the boundary on 40 acres (Shepherds Ranch II).

9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
• State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) • United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• Tulare County LAFCO

10. 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.?
A Sacred Land Files search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a response was received on August 30, 2021. The NAHC responded with its findings that indicate negative results. Based on the results of cultural records search findings and the lack of historical or archaeological resources previously identified within a half-mile radius of the proposed Project, the potential to encounter subsurface cultural resources is minimal. Additionally, the Project construction would be conducted within the partially developed and previously disturbed parcel. The potential to uncover subsurface historical or archaeological deposits would be considered unlikely.

NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and Project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-4
identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce 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.

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.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-5
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.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date: June 28, 2022
Brandon Smith City of Visalia
Printed Name For
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-6

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 are 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 than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

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

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
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 which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-7

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.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-8
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? According to the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan, there are no designated scenic views within the City’s limits; however, Highway 198 is designated as a state scenic corridor, and the City has implemented PSCU-P-12 to create a “greenway” setback of 200 feet along Highway 198 within the City limits as dedicated to the City for open space use in perpetuity, also known as the West 198 Scenic Corridor. The Project site is approximately 0.5 miles north of Highway 198, outside of the designated West 198 Scenic Corridor, and is not located within a designated scenic vista. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
significant
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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-9

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

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? Scenic Resources
The City of Visalia adopted a Valley Oak Ordinance that provides basic standards, measures, and compliance requirements for the preservation and protection of native Valley oak trees and landmark trees within the City. The Ordinance prohibits the destruction of oak trees except with an oak tree removal permit. A permit may be granted only if it is found that the oak tree is in danger of falling on a structure or is a host for a plant, pest, or disease endangering other species; if removal is necessary to allow the reasonable enjoyment of private property; or if urban forestry or land management practices warrant removal. If a tree removal permit is granted, the tree must either be replaced by new oak trees on the same property or by paying mitigation fees to be used for the establishment of new oak trees on other property. As discussed under Biological Resources Impact #3.4.4e, the Project will not impact the City’s Valley Oak Ordinance because the site is established with an orchard on 40 acres and does not contain any identified native Valley oak trees. Therefore, the Project has no impact.

Historic Buildings
Additionally, the discussion under Cultural Resources indicates that a cultural resources records search was conducted through the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) for the Project. The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the 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. Only one cultural resource property has been recorded within a half-mile of the proposed project, the historic route of the Southern Pacific/San Joaquin Valley Railroad, and will not be impacted by the Project. The Project was found to not impact cultural resources related to historic buildings.

State Scenic Highway
See discussion under 3.4.1 – AESTHETICS (a). The City of Visalia adopted its Scenic Highways Element in February 1976, in which Highway 198 was identified as a scenic resource. The Project site is located 0.5 miles north of Highway 198 and is outside of the designated setbacks as identified in the City’s General Plan and will therefore not have an impact on a state scenic highway.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-10
As discussed in this section, the Project will have no impact to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

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? The area surrounding the Project site consists of urban development, light industrial, fallow agriculture, orchards, non-native grassland, and barren land.

As discussed in Impact #3.4.1 (a) and (b), the Project site is not located within any designated scenic vista or scenic resource, specifically SR 198, which is located 0.5 miles south of the Project. The Project is also planned for residential development under the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan, and urbanized areas are currently adjacent to the site to the north and east. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and will have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

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?
According to the General Plan, the construction of new buildings may result in nighttime light pollution or daytime glare; however, the General Plan identifies construction impacts as likely be insignificant as a result of development. As in most typical residential areas, homes emit some light and glare during the day and evening hours. Development under the proposed 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. There are a number of circumstances that Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-11
mitigate the potential for new or significant sources of light pollution in Visalia through the General Plan policies; however, these are associated with commercial, industrial development, and recreational facilities. As the Project is for residential development, it will have a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-12

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?
According to the Department of Conservation - Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation, 2021), a 40-acre portion of the Project site is

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 nonagricultural 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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-13
identified as Prime Farmland. The 40 acres are currently within Tulare County boundaries, and the intent of the Project is to annex the 40 acres into the City boundaries for residential development. Although the Project is within Prime Farmland designation, the property is not under an existing Williamson Act Contract. The 40-acre site is currently used for agricultural cultivation as an orchard.

The City of Visalia 2030 General Plan has designated the easterly 10 acres of the Project site for urban uses under the Urban Growth Development Tier 1 and the westerly 40 acres of the Project site for urban uses under the Urban Growth Development Tier 2. Implementation of this Project will support the General Plan designation for future urban land use Policy LU-P21 for residential development. The General Plan established criteria, dependent upon land use type, for when development may advance from the first tier (Tier I) to subsequent tiers (Tiers 2 and 3), which are contained in Policy LU-P-21 of the General Plan. For residential uses, the threshold is the issuance of permits for 5,850 housing units within Tier 1 since April 1, 2010. The City met the residential permit threshold in July 2021 and now considers development located with Tiers 1 and/or 2 (City of Visalia, 2021).

The 2014 General Plan Policy LU-P-34 contained a supplemental requirement for development within the Tier 2 and Tier 3 growth boundaries to establish an Agricultural Mitigation Program. As the City approached the development permit threshold that would allow Tier 2 and Tier 3 residential development, the City Council, in early 2020, initiated a study regarding the establishment of an Agricultural Mitigation Program to ensure this supplemental requirement would be satisfied prior to the permit threshold being met.

However, an Addendum to the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078) for General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 was adopted in 2021 that replaced the 2014 Policy LU-P-34 requirement to establish an Agricultural Mitigation Program with policy language to retain coordination with Tulare County and other agencies to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth boundaries, where such efforts will promote orderly development and preservation of farming operations within Tulare County. The City noted the following as infeasible mitigation related to the establishment of Agricultural Mitigation Programs (AMP):
• There was evidence suggesting that a local City-wide AMP may result in a patchwork of easements not contiguous enough to sustain economic viability or that the easements could frustrate orderly development in the future. • That an AMP could only provide a speculative mitigation benefit due to the variability in the cost of conservation easements compared to the fees that would be established, thereby rendering the effectiveness of such a program questionable. • That the cost of purchasing easements would be cost-prohibitive to development. • That economic realities tend to guide the purchase of agricultural easements towards properties not subject to development pressures in the first place, thereby again rendering the mitigation benefits speculative at best.

As a result of the above, the City Council adopted the update to the General Plan Policy LUP-34, which now states:

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-14
• LU-P-34: Work with Tulare County and other state and regional agencies, neighboring cities, and private land trust entities to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth boundaries, where such efforts will promote orderly development and preservation of farming operations within Tulare County.

The City will support regional efforts to prevent urban development of agricultural lands, specifically at the county level.

The Project lies within the existing planned urban growth boundaries of the Urban Growth Development Tiers 1 and 2 within the City’s Sphere of Influence, and with the implementation of the recent adoption by the Visalia City Council of an Amendment to the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan through General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.2b – Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract?
See discussion of Impact #3.4.2(a). The Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; however, the Project is currently in agricultural production and is designated as Prime Farmland, which will result in the conversion of farmland to a nonagricultural use.

With the implementation of the revised General Plan Policy LU-P-34, and the City’s implementation of the planned conversion of the Project site as identified in the General Plan’s Urban Growth Development program, the Project will have a less than significant impact and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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))?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-15
The Project site is not identified as forest land or timberland. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Project would have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have 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 #3.4.2 (c), 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.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
None are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have 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?
As discussed in Impact #3.4.2 (a) and (b), the Project will result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use; however, with the implementation of the revised General Plan Policy LU-P-34, and implementation of the City’s implementation of the planned conversion of the Project site as identified in the General Plan’s Urban Growth Development program, the Project will have a less than significant impact. Additionally, as discussed in Impact #3.4.2 (d), the Project area does not include conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, Project impacts are considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
None are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-16

Discussion
The impact analyses in this section are based on an Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment (VRPA Technologies, Inc., 2021) conducted for the Project, which is included as Appendix B.

Impact #3.4.3a – Would the Project Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The City of Visalia is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Air Quality monitoring has been conducted in the SJVAB for many years. While new and innovative pollution controls have made the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) a leader in the rate of improvement, the region is not in attainment for numerous criteria air pollutants, and the air basin still has poor air quality. Much of this pollution is attributed to the Valley’s topography, meteorology, two major highways, and intensive agricultural uses.

In 2011, the major sources of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley were heavy-duty trucks, other mobile sources, autos and light trucks, and fuel combustion from stationary sources.

Ozone and particulate matter are the two largest contributors to the Valley’s poor air quality.

The causes and effects of these and other air pollutants are discussed in the next section.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) operates a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations that provide information on ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. In Tulare County, CARB measures certain air

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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-17
pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5).

Federal and State laws require emission control measures in areas where air pollution exceeds standards. The San Joaquin Valley is one of these areas. The federal government, primarily through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the federal Clean Air Act, sets standards, oversees state and local actions, and implements programs for toxic air pollutants, heavy-duty trucks, locomotives, ships, aircraft, off-road diesel equipment, and some types of industrial equipment. Currently, EPA has established national standards for criteria air pollutants: ozone (O 3); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO 2); sulfur dioxide (SO 2); suspended particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5); and lead (Pb).

The primary way of determining consistency with an air quality plan’s (AQP’s) assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure that the Project’s population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQPs for the air basin. Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) uses the growth projections, and land use information in adopted general plans to estimate future average daily trips and then Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which are then provided to San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) to estimate future emissions in the AQPs.

Existing and future pollutant emissions computed in the AQP are based on land uses from area general plans. AQPs detail the control measures and emission reductions required for reaching the attainment of the air standards. The following policies are found within the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan, which are applicable to this Project:
• AQ-P-2: Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans, and grading permits in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule.
• AQ-P-9: Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.

BMPs include transportation demand management strategies for large development projects such as:
o Providing bicycle access and parking facilities;
o Providing preferential parking for high occupancy vehicles, carpools, or alternative fuels vehicles;
o Establishing telecommuting programs or satellite work centers; o Allowing alternative work schedules;
o Subsidizing public transit costs for employee;
o Scheduling Deliveries at off-peak traffic periods; and o Providing recharge stations for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs).

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-18
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts provide BMPs for determining and mitigating project air quality impacts and related thresholds of significance for use in environmental documents.

Therefore, with implementation of appropriate Project BMPs as required by the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District, the Project would be consistent with the applicable AQPs. As a result, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plans and, therefore, would have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

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?
The City of Visalia is located within Tulare County, which is designated as nonattainment for Federal and State air quality standards for ozone, in attainment of Federal standards and nonattainment for State standards for PM10, and nonattainment for Federal and State standards for PM2.5. The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2016 and 2013 Ozone Plans, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve Federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB regarding ozone and PM. Inconsistency with any of the plans would be considered a cumulatively adverse air quality impact. As discussed in Section 4.1.1 of the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment (VRPA Technologies, Inc., 2021), the Project is consistent with the currently adopted General Plan for the City of Visalia and is therefore consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in the plan. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the 2016 and 2013 Ozone Plan, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

Project-specific emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the County is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. It should be noted that a project isn’t characterized as cumulatively insignificant when project emissions fall below thresholds of significance. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for determining environmental significance, which are provided in Table 3.4.3-1 below.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-19
Table 3.4.3-1
SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of Significance

Project Type
Ozone Precursor Emissions (tons/year)
CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions 100 10 10 27 15 15
Operational Emissions
(Permitted Equipment and
Activities)
100 10 10 27 15 15
Operational Emissions
(Non-Permitted Equipment and
Activities)
100 10 10 27 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD 2021
Results of the analysis show that emissions generated from the construction and operation of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.3c – Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses that have the greatest potential to attract these types of sensitive receptors include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. From a health risk perspective, the proposed Project is a “Type B” project in that it may potentially place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing sources.

The first step in evaluating the potential for impacts to sensitive receptors for Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) from the Project is to perform a screening-level analysis. For Type B projects, one type of screening tool is found in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective. The screening tool indicates that new sensitive land uses should not be sited within 500 feet of a freeway/urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

The Project is located more than 3,000 feet from the SR 198 highway. In addition, the Project is not located within the specified boundary for this source category. Therefore, TACs from sources in the study area will not significantly impact the Project. In addition, the Project will Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-20
not generate TACs that would have a significant impact on the environment or adjacent sensitive receptors. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Short-Term Impacts
The annual emissions from the construction phase of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants, as shown in Table 3.4.3-2 below. Therefore, construction emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant.

Table 3.4.3-2
Project Construction Emissions
Summary Report CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
Construction Emissions 3.10 3.76 4.22 0.01 1.13 0.57 569.46 SJVAPCD Level of
Significance
100 10 10 27 15 15 None
Does the Project Exceed
Standard?
No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, VRPA 2021
Long-Term Impacts
Long-Term emissions from the Project are generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as lawn maintenance equipment.

Emissions from long-term operations generally represent a project’s most substantial air quality impact. Table 3.4.3-3 below summarizes the Project’s operational impacts by pollutant.

Table 3.4.3-3
Project Operational Emissions (tons/year)
Summary Report CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
Project Operational
Emissions

11.54 2.05 3.25 0.03 2.44 0.07 2885.84
SJVAPCD Level of
Significance
100 10 10 27 15 15 None
Does the Project Exceed
Standard?
No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, VRPA 2021
Results from Table 3.4.3-3 indicate that the annual operational emissions from the Project will be less than the SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, operational emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-21

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.3d – Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The SJVAPCD requires that an analysis of potential odor impacts be conducted for the following two situations:
• Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to be located near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and
The Project will potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to be located near existing development adjacent to the site, including nearby residential and school site, approximately ¼ mile west of the Project. However, as analyzed under Impact #3.4.3 (a) through (c), emissions from cars as a result of the Project were identified as producing less than significant impacts. Therefore, it is determined that the odors generated from the development as a result of additional vehicles would also be considered a less than significant impact.
• Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people located near existing odor sources.

The Project will not generate odorous emissions given the nature or characteristics of residential developments. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influence the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJV Air Basin. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 3.4.3-4 below along with a reasonable distance from the source within which the degree of odors could possibly be significant. Manufacturing facilities are known to generate odorous emissions and include a screening distance of one (1) mile. There is a Hydrite Chemical Company facility (SJVAPCD Facility ID 8199) located a third of a mile to the north of the Project site that falls within the 1-mile screening distance set by the SJVAPCD. It should be noted that the SJVAPCD has no rules or standards related to odor emissions other than its nuisance rule.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-22
Table 3.4.3-4
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: SJVAPCD 2021
While the Hydrite Chemical facility is located within the 1-mile screening distance as depicted in Table 3.4.3-4, it should be noted that there are other residential and school land uses in the vicinity of the Project that also falls within the 1-mile boundary. In addition, prevailing wind patterns in the area indicate that wind blows primarily from the northwest and southwest depending upon the time of year. As a result, potential odors from the Hydrite Chemical facility would have minimal impact on the Project given the location of the facility with respect to the Project. Lastly, the lack of odor complaints logged for the Hydrite Chemical facility for the previous three years indicates that odorous emissions from the facility would not have a significant impact on the Project.

Based on the assessment above, the Project will not generate potential odorous emissions or attract receivers and other sensitive receptors near existing odor sources. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-23

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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-24
Discussion
The impact analysis in this section is based on a Biological Analysis Report prepared for the Project (QK, Inc., 2021a), included as Appendix C.

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? Project activities have the potential to affect biological resources. A reconnaissance survey of the Project and a 250 foot buffer, where feasible, also called the Biological Survey Area (BSA), was conducted on August 30, 2021. The survey consisted of walking meandering pedestrian transects throughout the BSA, where feasible. A portion of the buffer was inaccessible because it overlapped with private residential and industrial properties. Those areas were surveyed visually with the aid of binoculars to gather a representative inventory of the plant and wildlife species present.

No special-status species were observed during the survey. There were no special-status plant species identified within the Project site or survey buffer, and based on historical disturbance and current conditions, none are expected to occur. However, three specialstatus animal species were determined to have the potential to occur on-site and potentially be affected by the Project. The literature review identified 32 special-status animal species known or with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project. Of those, three (3) were determined to have the potential to occur on-site.

Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawks occur in grassland, desert, and agricultural landscapes throughout the Central Valley and Antelope Valley. Some hawks may be residents, especially in the southern portion of their range, while others may migrate between winter and breeding habitats. They prefer larger isolated trees or small woodlots for nesting, usually with grassland or dry-land grain fields nearby for foraging, and have been known to nest in large eucalyptus trees along heavily traveled freeway corridors. Swainson’s hawks forage in grassland, open scrub, pasture, and dryland grain agricultural habitats, primarily for rodents. Swainson’s hawks exhibit a moderate to high nest site fidelity for successful nest sites. The nearest occurrence was recorded in 2017, 1.2 miles west of the Project, where a stick nest was observed in an oak tree adjacent to agricultural fields and a commercial area.

Based on information from the reconnaissance site visit, there are large walnut trees in the orchard on the western portion of the site that could potentially support nesting Swainson’s hawks, in addition to large, planted trees in urban areas in the vicinity of the Project. The annual grassland on the Project site and within the BSA could potentially provide foraging opportunities for the Swainson’s hawk. However, the high density of residential Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-25
neighborhoods, traffic, and lack of other potential foraging habitat in the area would decrease the likelihood of Swainson’s hawk nesting activity on the Project site.

Western Burrowing Owl
The western burrowing owl is a small ground-dwelling owl that can be found throughout western North America. This species can be found in a variety of habitat types, including grasslands, deserts, or other open habitats where food resources are available and contain treeless areas with low vegetation cover and gently sloping terrain. Burrowing owls use earthen burrows, typically relying on other fossorial mammals to construct their burrows such as CAGS or American badger. They use a burrow throughout the year for temperature regulation, offspring rearing, shelter, and escape from predators. While burrows are most often earthen, they also use atypical burrows such as pipes, culverts, and other man-made structures, most often as shelter. Burrowing owls can have several burrows close to one other that they may frequently move among to avoid predators.

The nearest CNDDB occurrence is from 1998 and was located approximately 5.6 miles northwest of the Project site. No western burrowing owl or diagnostic sign (e.g., burrows, whitewash, pellets, prey remains) were observed during the survey. Burrowing owls are present year-round in the Central Valley and typically use multiple burrows within their ranges. Burrowing owls have also been known to occur in urban and agriculturally developed areas. The prey base (i.e., insects and lizards) within the Project site is marginal, however it is still possible that burrowing owls may become established in the existing CAGS burrows or pass through the Project site as transients.

San Joaquin Kit Fox
The San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) is a subspecies of kit fox that is endemic to the San Joaquin Valley, Carrizo Plain, and Cuyama Valley, as well as other small valleys in the western foothills of the Central Valley of California. They are only found west of the Sierra Nevada crest. They occupy arid to semi-arid grasslands, open shrublands, savannahs, and grazed lands with loose-textured soils. SJKF are well-established in some urban areas and are highly adaptable to human-altered landscapes. They generally avoid intensively maintained agricultural land but forage well into croplands from surrounding habitat. SJKF uses subterranean dens year-round for shelter and pup-rearing. They are nocturnally active but may be above ground near their dens during the day, particularly in the spring. They feed primarily on small mammals, but will consume a variety of prey, and will scavenge for human food.

The nearest CNDDB occurrence is from 2003 and approximately 3.4 miles northwest of the Project and is presumed extant. No SJKF were observed during the survey. No kit fox or diagnostic sign (e.g., tracks, scat, prey remains, or dens) were observed during the reconnaissance survey. This species is a highly mobile transient forager which preys on small burrowing mammals and has adapted well to urbanized settings, even feeding on anthropogenic food sources. Suitable foraging and denning habitat are present within the BSA, and the species may pass through as a transient.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-26
Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce impacts of the Project to special-status wildlife species to a level that would be less than significant.eight

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
BIO-1: Within 14 days prior to the start of Project ground-disturbing activities, a pre-activity survey with a 500-foot buffer, where land access is permitted, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of these species and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If dens/burrows that could support any of these species are discovered during the pre-activity survey, the avoidance buffers outlined below shall be established. No work shall occur within these buffers unless the biologist approves and monitors the activity. A copy of the preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-27
or trenches cannot be covered, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks shall be installed in the trench. Before such holes or trenches are filled, the contractor shall thoroughly inspect them for entrapped animals. All construction-related pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater that are stored on the Project Site shall be thoroughly inspected for wildlife before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If at any time an entrapped or injured kit fox is discovered, work in the immediate area shall be temporarily halted, and USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be consulted.
d. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS and CDFW have been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity until the fox has escaped.
e. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be permitted on the Project Sites to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens. f. Use of anti-coagulant rodenticides and herbicides in Project Sites shall be restricted.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-28
i. All sightings of the SJKF shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed shall also be provided to the Service at the address below.
j. Any Project-related information required by the USFWS or questions concerning the above conditions or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Endangered Species Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W 2605, Sacramento, California 95825-1846, phone: (916) 414-6620 or (916) 414- 6600.
k. A copy of the preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-29
If active nests are found during the survey or at any time during construction of the Project, an avoidance buffer ranging from 50 feet to 500 feet may be required, with the avoidance buffer from any specific nest being determined by a qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer will remain in place until the biologist has determined that the young are no longer reliant on the adults or the nest, or if breeding attempts have otherwise been unsuccessful. Work may occur within the avoidance buffer under the approval and guidance of the biologist, but full-time monitoring may be required. The biologist shall have the ability to stop construction if nesting adults show any sign of distress. A copy of the preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

BIO-8: Prior to the initiation of construction activities, all construction personnel shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Training program developed by a qualified biologist.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-30
c. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program, and signed acknowledgment forms, shall be submitted to the City of Tulare Planning Department.
d. A copy of the training transcript, training video, or informational binder for specific procedures shall be kept available for all personnel to review and be familiar with, as necessary.
e. A sticker shall be placed on hard hats indicating that the worker has completed the Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program. Construction workers shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction areas unless they have attended the Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program and are wearing hard hats with the required sticker.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact 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.

According to the Biological Analysis Report prepared for the Project, no water or wetland features are present on the Project site (QK, Inc., 2021a). The literature review, NHD, and NWI identified three Waters of the U.S. or wetland features in the vicinity of the Project site; however, none were observed within the Project site during the reconnaissance survey. One aquatic resource to the south, Mill Creek Ditch, was dry at the time of the survey. Two freshwater ponds to the north of the Project site are no longer present. Further, the CNDDB search resulted in four sensitive natural communities occurring in the region of the Project:

Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, Valley Sacaton Grassland, and Great Valley Oak Riparian Forest. However, none of these communities were determined to have potential to occur within the BSA because all areas have been previously disturbed Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-31
and/or are developed and no longer support suitable habitat for sensitive natural communities. There are no sensitive natural communities present on the Project, and therefore would be no impacts to sensitive natural communities.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have 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? See discussion for 3.4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (b). There are no identified water features or federal waters, or wetlands located on or near the Project. Therefore, the Project will result in no impacts to any waters or wetlands.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

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? Wildlife movement corridors, also referred to as dispersal corridors or landscape linkages, are generally defined as linear features along which animals can travel from one habitat or resource area to another. Wildlife movement corridors can be large tracts of land that connect regionally important habitats that support wildlife in general, such as stop-over habitat that supports migrating birds or large contiguous natural habitats that support animals with very large home ranges (e.g., coyotes, mule deer). They can also be small scale movement corridors, such as riparian zones, that provide connectivity and cover to support movement at a local scale.

There are no identified movement corridors on or near the Project site. The Project site may be used by transient foragers such as San Joaquin Kit fox. The open landscape creates a foraging habitat, that may be used from time to time by these species. The Project will result in no impacts to fish or wildlife movement corridors, linkages, or nursey sites.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-32

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

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 General Plan contains policies aimed at the preservation of biological resources and promotes coordination with federal and State resource agencies. The General Plan outlines a work plan with implementation measures by which to uphold these policies, including biological resource review for proposed projects and development of mitigation measures for these projects.

The City of Visalia Valley Oak Ordinance establishes policies for care, trimming, and removal of Valley Oaks. However, the Project does not conflict with the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan, the Valley Oak Tree Ordinance, or any other local ordinances.

Therefore, there are no impacts with respect to local policies and ordinance, and no measures are warranted adopted or approved plans related to the Project.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have 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 proposed Project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife BIOS Map Viewer, the Project is not located within an area covered by Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or natural Conservation Community Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2022). Therefore, no Project Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-33
impacts related to adopted or approved plans would occur, no measures are warranted, and the Project has no impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-34

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 impact analyses in this section based on a Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum, (QK, Inc., 2021b) which is attached as Appendix D.

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? A cultural resources records search was conducted Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) for the Project. The purpose of the search was to determine whether any known cultural resources or previously conducted cultural resource surveys were located on or near the proposed Project site.

The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the 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 subject property had never been surveyed for cultural resources and it is not known if any exist on it.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-35
Three cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half-mile of the project. Only one cultural resource property has been recorded within a half-mile of the proposed project, the historic route of the Southern Pacific/San Joaquin Valley Railroad. The Project will not impact this cultural resource.

A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. A response dated August 30, 2021, indicates negative results (see Appendix D).

Based on the results of cultural records search findings and the lack of historical or archaeological resources previously identified within a half-mile radius of the proposed Project, the potential to encounter subsurface cultural resources is minimal. Additionally, the Project construction would be conducted within the partially developed and previously disturbed parcel. The potential to uncover subsurface historical or archaeological deposits would be considered unlikely.

However, there is still a possibility that historical or archaeological materials may be exposed during construction. Grading and trenching, as well as other ground-disturbing actions have the potential to damage or destroy these previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources within the project area, including historical or archaeological resources. Disturbance of any deposits that have the potential to provide significant cultural data would be considered a significant impact. To reduce the potential impacts of the Project on cultural resources, implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to cultural resources.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would ensure that the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-36
involvement, in the event of a discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

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? See discussion for Impact #3.4.5(a). Although considered unlikely since there is no indication of any historical or archaeological resources on the Project site, subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed Project could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered archaeological resources. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is proposed requiring implementation of standard inadvertent discovery procedures to reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered subsurface historical and archaeological resources. To reduce the potential impacts of the Project on cultural resources, implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to cultural resources

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement mitigation measure CUL-1 and CUL-2.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.5c – Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
See discussion for Impact #3.4.5 - (a). The records searches did not indicate the presence of any human remains, burials, or cemeteries within 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 Project site. However, construction would involve earth-disturbing activities, and it is still possible that human remains may be discovered, possibly in association with archaeological sites. Mitigation Measure MM CUL-2 has been included in the unlikely event that human remains are found during ground-disturbing activities. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is proposed to reduce this potentially significant impact to a level of less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement mitigation measure CUL-1 and CUL-2.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-37

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-38

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?
CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). The means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed Project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate State and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to Project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The City of Visalia 2030 General Plan discusses how new development would result in increased energy use, in the form of new building energy use and transportation. Both residential and nonresidential development use electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products for power, lighting, heating, and other indoor and outdoor services, while cars use both oil and gas. Use of these types of energy for new development would result in the overall increased use of nonrenewable energy resources. Energy demand during the construction phase would result from the transportation of materials, construction equipment, and construction worker vehicle trips. Compliance with standard regional and local regulations, the Project would minimize fuel consumption during construction. By complying with Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-39
standard regional and local regulations, the Project would minimize fuel consumption during construction. Construction-related fuel consumption is not expected to result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use. Thus, construction-related fuel consumption at the Project site would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use. The Project would be required to comply with California’s Title 24 energy efficiency requirements and other applicable City development standards. Additionally, the Project will be required to comply with all applicable standards and building codes included in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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 3.4.6 – ENERGY (a). The Project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy efficiency and will have a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-40

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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct 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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-41
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
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 of Visalia 2030 General Plan as being located within a seismically stable region of the State. 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 closest potentially active fault is located approximately 25 miles southeast of Visalia but is not known to be active within the last 1.6 million years. The San Andreas and Owens Valley fault systems would not be expected to cause surface fault rupture in the Project area and therefore has a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-42
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 differently to earthquake waves. The composition of underlying soils, even those relatively distant from faults, can intensify ground shaking.

The California Geological Survey and US Geological Survey conducts 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, are expected to damage only weaker masonry buildings. However, very infrequent earthquakes could still cause strong shaking but with implementation of Title 24 building requirements and local standards. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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?
The susceptibility of land sliding/slope failure is dependent on the slope and geology as well as the amount of rainfall, excavation, or seismic activities. Land that has experienced sliding in the past is often more slide-prone and more sensitive to both human-induced changes and to earthquakes. Earthquake-induced ground failures are unlikely to occur in the City of Visalia because of its relatively stable geologic formation and lack of active faults. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to seismic-related ground failure.

Settlement of the ground surface can be accelerated and accentuated by earthquakes. During an earthquake, settlement can occur as a result of the relatively rapid compaction and settling of subsurface materials (particularly loose, non-compacted, and variable sandy sediments) due to the rearrangement of soil particles during prolonged ground shaking.

Settlement can occur both uniformly and differentially (i.e., where adjoining areas settle at different rates). Typically, areas underlain by artificial fills, unconsolidated alluvial sediments, slope wash, and areas with improperly engineered construction fills are susceptible to this type of settlement. During an earthquake, some settlement of soil Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-43
materials in Visalia may occur. However, very infrequent earthquakes occur within the City of Visalia and the surrounding region. With implementation of Title 24 building requirements and local standards, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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? Surface soils exhibit various characteristics dependent on location, slope, parent rock, climate, and drainage. According to the City’s General Plan, surface soils in the City of Visalia range from fine sandy loam and loam to alkali soils. The most prevalent soils are Nord fine sandy loam; Grangeville sandy loam, drained; Tagus loam; and Akers-Akers, saline-sodic, complex. Some soils have the potential to present moderate geologic hazards to building, due to their susceptibility to erosion or to expansion and contraction.

In general, soil containing high amounts of silt can be easily eroded, while sandy soils are less susceptible. Erosion is most likely to occur on sloped areas with exposed soil, especially where unnatural slopes are created by cut-and-fill activities. Soil erosion rates can be higher during the construction phase. Excessive soil erosion can eventually damage building foundations and roadways. Most surface soils in the Planning Visalia General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-2 Area have moderate potential for erosion by water; in some areas, the erosion potential is considered low to moderate, depending on soil depth.

The City of Visalia has adopted the 2019 California Building Code as the City’s building code and ordinance (Title 15: Buildings and Construction). The City’s Subdivision Ordinance requires that a preliminary soils report be provided as part of the application for a tentative subdivision map, unless the city engineer determines that no preliminary analysis is necessary (Title 16: Subdivisions). If the preliminary soils report indicates the presence of expansive soils, settlement, and potential for subsidence, the City will make a recommendation for necessary adjustments to project plans that offset potential soil problems. Adherence to these requirements reduces this impact to a level that is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-44
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 has 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.

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 from the State of California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) during construction. 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. An SWPPP must identify potential sources of erosion or sedimentation and identify and implement best management practices (BMPs) that ensure reduced erosion. If an SWPPP was not required, the Project would implement the standard BMPs. Typical BMPs intended to control erosion include sandbags, silt fencing, street sweeping, etc. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the approval of an SWPPP to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit, if appropriate. Compliance with local grading and erosion control ordinances would also help minimize adverse effects associated with erosion and sedimentation. 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 mitigation measure GEO-1.

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 any landscaped areas. Overall, the development of the Project would not result in conditions where substantial surface soils would be exposed to wind and water erosion.

Therefore, with implementation GEO-1, impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil at the Project site will be reduced to less than significant.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-45

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
GEO-1: Prior to issuing of grading or building permits, if required, (a) the Project applicant shall submit to the Lead Agency (1) the approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and (2) the Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The requirements of the SWPPP and NPDES shall be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts. Recommended best management practices for the construction phase may include the following:
• Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly. • Protecting existing storm drain inlets and stabilizing disturbed areas. • Implementing erosion controls.
• Properly managing construction materials.
• Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and implementing sediment controls.

Evidence of the approved SWPPP shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? See above discussions under Impact #3.4.7 (a)(i) - (iv) & (b). The Project will have a less than significant impact with existing state and local requirements and standards.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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?
See discussion under Impact #3.4.7(a)(iv). The City of Visalia’s Subdivision Ordinance requires a preliminary soils report as part of the application for a tentative subdivision map.

If the preliminary soils report indicates the presence of expansive soils, settlement, and potential for subsidence, the city will make recommendation for necessary adjustments to project plans that offset potential soil problems. Adherence to these requirements will reduce the Project impacts to a level that is less than significant.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-46

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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?
According to the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan Housing Element, housing developments proposed after adoption of the document are not permitted to use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems since sanitary sewer lines are used for the disposal of wastewater throughout the city. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

Impact #3.4.7f – Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
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.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
GEO-2: Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the Project owner shall develop and implement a Paleontological Worker Education and Awareness Program. If paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities (e.g., during Project Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-47
construction or decommissioning), all earthwork or other types of ground disturbance within 50 feet of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist (meeting the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP]) can assess the nature and importance of the find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the paleontologist may record the find and allow work to continue or recommend salvage and recovery of the fossil. The paleontologist may also propose modifications to the stop-work radius based on the nature of the find, site geology, and the activities occurring on the site. If treatment and salvage are required, recommendations will be consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards that are current as of the discovery and with currently accepted scientific practice.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-48

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?

The impact analyses in this section based on an Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment (VRPA Technologies, Inc., 2021), which is attached as Appendix B.

Discussion
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 SJVAPCD does not have an established threshold for GHG emission impacts. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. Although the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table 9 in the Assessment attached as Exhibit B shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model, which is roughly 70% less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD, and is shown in Table 3.4.8-1, below.

Table 3.4.8-1
Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary Report CO2e
Project Operational Emissions Per Year 2,905 MT/yr
Source: (VRPA Technologies, Inc., 2021)
Results indicate that the resulting permanent greenhouse gas increases related to Project operations would be within the greenhouse gas increases analyzed in the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan EIR, so there would be no increase in severity to the previously identified greenhouse gas impacts, and implementation of the Project will not result in Project-specific or site-specific significant adverse impacts from greenhouse gas emissions within the Project Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-49
study area. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed, and impacts are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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 greenhouse gas (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 MPOs to adopt a SCS or 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 thirteen (13) percent per capita decrease in 2020 and a sixteen (16) percent per capita decrease in 2035 from a base year of 2005.

Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-30- 15 requires MPO’s to implement measures that will achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.

The Project would be consistent with the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan upon preparation and approval of a general plan amendment in accordance with General Plan Policy LU-P-33 and LUP-24 and the adopted 2018 RTP/SCS and is therefore consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in those plan documents. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQP.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-50
CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan. The current plan has identified new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s 2030 GHG limit.

Based on the assessment above, 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, any impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-51

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? Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-52
Project Construction
Project construction-related activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. These materials may include fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals used during construction-related activities. These materials could expose human health or the environment to undue risks associated with their use, and no significant impacts will occur during construction activities.

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. U.S. Department of Transportation and Caltrans regulate the transportation of hazardous materials. Additionally, the City’s routes that have been designated for hazardous materials transport would be used. 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 offsite landfill or other such facilities. In addition, sanitary waste generated during construction would be managed through portable toilets located at reasonably accessible onsite locations.

Federal and State laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, transported and disposed of, and in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or mitigate injury to health or the environment. Laws and regulations require hazardous materials users to train employees to manage them safely. The primary Federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S.

Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT). In many cases, California State law mirrors or is more restrictive than federal law, and enforcement of these laws has been delegated to the State or a local agency. The General Plan reflects the following objective:
• S-O-3: Protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials.

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project may involve the temporary transport and use of minor quantities of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, paints and solvents as a result of construction build-out related to residential development. The handling and transport of all hazardous materials onsite would be required to perform in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

Project Operation
Once constructed, the use of such materials as paint, bleach, etc., is considered common for residential developments. It would be unlikely for such materials to be stored or used in such quantities that would be considered a significant hazard. The Project will not generate or use hazardous materials outside health department requirements. Operation activities will Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-53
comply with the California Building Code, local building codes, and applicable safety measures.

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, impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the Project will not result in any hazards and hazardous material impacts, and with implementation of standard local, state, and federal requirements regarding handling of hazardous materials, and would have a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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?
Hazardous materials handling on the Project site as a result of the residential development may result in soil and groundwater contamination from accidental spills. Construction of the Project would require preparing and implementing an SWPPP, as noted in Impact #3.4.7b..

The SWPPP is a State requirement under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction sites over one acre. The SWPPP identifies potential sources of pollution from the Project that may affect the quality of stormwater discharge and requires that best management practices (BMPs) be implemented to prevent contamination at the source. By implementing BMPs during any future construction activities, accidental spills of hazardous materials would be contained, and soil and groundwater contamination would be minimized or prevented. Development of a SWPPP and associated BMPs shall be determined by the city engineer through standard permitting processes for the Project.

The proposed Project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; as mentioned previously, the residential Project would not routinely transport, use, dispose of, or discharge hazardous materials into the environment. With the implementation of GEO-1 during construction, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement mitigation measure GEO-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-54
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 Hurley Elementary School, approximately 0.2 miles southeast of the Project site. Construction activities for the residential development 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 are 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 the use of minimal hazardous materials and require implementation of BMPs when handling any hazardous materials, substances, or waste. As noted in Impact #3.4.3a, emissions from construction and related activities are expected to be minimal and not significant. Once constructed, the residential development is not expected to result in hazardous emissions; therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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? According to EnviroStor (Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2022) the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

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
The Project would have 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 Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-55
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 1.27 miles northeast of the Visalia Municipal Airport and is not located within the Airport Influence Area as indicated in the Tulare County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Tulare County, 2012). Therefore, the proposed Project to develop a 241 single-family residential unit development is compatible and in compliance with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, as it indicated there are no special policies, procedures, and standards referenced in the City’s ordinance. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have 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 utilized Tulare County’s Emergency Operations Plan, which includes planning and response scenarios for seismic hazards, extreme weather conditions, landslides, dam failure, other flooding, wildland fires, hazardous materials incidents, transportation emergencies, civil disturbance, and terrorist attacks. In addition, the Project would also comply with the appropriate local and State requirements regarding emergency response plans and access (City of Visalia, 2022). 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 Traffic Study prepared for the proposed Project did not identify any traffic hazards that impede emergency response or evacuation plans (VRPA Technologies, Inc., 2021a). The Project site and surrounding area are relatively flat, with little to no topography that might obscure visibility to motorists. Additionally, roadway improvements have been proposed to maintain traffic safety with the anticipated increase in vehicle trips. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-56
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 land surrounding the Project site is primarily developed with a mix of urban and agricultural uses. The area is not considered to have impacts from wildfires. Further, the Project site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and the Visalia Sphere of Influence for future development, outside of any natural vegetate community. The Visalia General Plan includes policies that would protect any future development on the Project site and the community from fire dangers.

The Project site is less than 1 mile southwest of the Visalia Fire Department Station 55, the closest fire station. The Project will comply with all applicable State and local building standards as required by local fire codes and impact fees to support additional fire protection services. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-57

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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-58
Discussion
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? Project construction activities including grading could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after Project construction. Construction-related erosion could result in the loss of soil and could adversely affect water quality in nearby surface waters. As noted in Impact 3.4.7a, construction of the proposed Project will be required to prepare a sitespecific SWPPP as required by the RWQCB. The SWPPP is required to be approved by the RWQCB prior to construction that identifies project-specific best management measures that are designed to control drainage and erosion. The Project is also required to implement MM GEO-1 to identify the soil types within the development Project area as part of the preparation of a site-specific SWPPP and related BMPs.

The Project site is located 350 feet north of the Mill Creek Ditch and will not impact this waterway as related to the goals and policies of the General Plan and the updated City of Visalia Waterways and Trails Master Plan, as the site is not adjacent to or within a water corridor.

Therefore, implementation of Project-specific drainage improvements as identified in the city’s standard requirements for subdivisions would reduce the potential for the proposed Project to violate water quality standards during construction to a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement mitigation measure GEO-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

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 Visalia area is located within the Kaweah Groundwater Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The Subbasin’s 696 square miles generally comprises lands in the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD), and include the Kaweah and St. Johns Rivers, with the former being the primary source of groundwater recharge. The alluvial fans of waterways provide highly permeable areas in which groundwater is readily replenished.

Annual rainfall in Visalia usually ranges from eight to 12 inches; however, there is no estimate of what percentage of rainfall reaches the groundwater supply. Groundwater flow is generally southwestward. Based on groundwater elevation maps, horizontal groundwater barriers do not appear to exist in the subbasin.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-59
According to the Department of Water Resources, groundwater levels in the subbasin have declined about 12 feet on average from 1970 to 2000, with periodic fluctuations. As population continues to grow and farming practices continue at the current rate, groundwater levels may also decline unless recharge is increased.

According to the General Plan, the City of Visalia and the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD) have mutual interests in restoring and maintaining groundwater supplies and controlling flood water, and have worked on a number of projects in the past that benefit City and District interests. Visalia has implemented a Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Ordinance, which imposes a groundwater mitigation fee on new development and a groundwater impact fee on water suppliers. The fees are used to construct and improve groundwater recharge facilities and to purchase water for groundwater recharge. Recharge efforts are coordinated by the City with KDWCD and local irrigation districts.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average household size in Visalia is 3.02 persons (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022);therefore, future development could support approximately 728 people. According to California Water Service’s 2015 UWMP (California Water Service, 2022), the actual water used in 2015 was 160 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Therefore, the proposed 241 single-family residences would result in estimated water demand of 262,270 gallons/day (728 people x 160 gallons/day = 116,480 gpcd, which 42.5 gallon per capita annually) or approximately 130.4 acre-feet per year.

The City has adopted numerous policies to reduce water demand through conservation and other means and to increase surface water imports to the City and surrounding areas. These include the Groundwater Recharge Fee, Groundwater Impact Fee, Groundwater Mitigation Fee, and the Water Conservation Ordinance.

The developer will be responsible for paying the City of Visalia’s Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee, and therefore the Project will result in a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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 Project site is mostly flat and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The Project site does not have a stream or river and is approximately 350 feet away from the Mill Creek Ditch. The Project has a proposed storm basin that will collect stormwater runoff on the site. The Project would develop areas of impervious surfaces that Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-60
would reduce the rate of percolation at the site, but areas of open space would allow for the percolation of stormwater to recharge the aquifer, or the water would be directed into the City’s existing stormwater sewer system. The Project would comply with applicable City development standards and codes. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on drainage patterns or cause substantial erosion or siltation on or off the site.

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 construction.

Construction-related erosion and sedimentation impacts due to soil disturbance would be less than significant after implementing an SWPPP (see Mitigation Measure GEO-1) and BMPs required by the NPDES. No drainages or other water bodies are present on the Project site, and therefore, the proposed project would not change the course of any such drainages.

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. The Project design includes natural features such as landscaping and vegetation that would allow for the percolation of stormwater. However, there will be an addition in impervious surfaces that could increase the potential for stormwater runoff and soil erosion. The Project would connect to existing City stormwater sewer infrastructure. The Project will comply with all applicable local building codes and regulations to minimize impacts during construction and postconstruction. With the implementation of GEO-1, impacts that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement mitigation measure GEO-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

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? No drainages or other water bodies are present on the Project site. Therefore, the development of the site would not change the course of any such drainages that may potentially result in on or offsite flooding. Water would be used during the temporary construction phase of the Project (e.g., for dust suppression). However, any water used for dust control would be mechanically and precisely applied and would generally infiltrate or evaporate prior to running off.

The Project site is flat, and the proposed grading would not substantially alter the overall topography of the Project site. Although the amount of surface runoff on the Project site would not substantially increase with the construction of the Project, runoff patterns and Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-61
concentrations could be altered by grading activities associated with the Project. Improper design of the access road or building pads could alter drainage patterns that would cause flooding on or offsite. 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 (GEO-1). With the implementation of such measures, the Project would not substantially increase the amount of runoff to result in flooding on or offsite. Impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Additionally, with the approval of grading plans and site development requirements by the City Building Division that incorporates BMPs and design standards, the new development operations would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite. Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of GEO-1.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement mitigation measure GEO-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

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? Water would be used during the temporary construction phase of the proposed Project (e.g., for dust suppression). However, any water used for dust control would be mechanically and precisely applied and would generally infiltrate or evaporate prior to running off.

The Project would comply with all applicable State and City codes and regulations. The Project will construct a stormwater retention basin onsite to capture stormwater, and engineering calculations will support the storm drainage plan to ensure that the Project does 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.

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.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-62

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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) – (c)(iii), Project construction activities could potentially alter the course of existing drainage pattern on site. The Project would be required comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit by preparing a SWPPP to specify BMPs to prevent construction pollutants. The proposed Project does not include any construction activities that would direct excess surface waters or impede or redirect any potential flood flows.

Once constructed, there will be imperious surfaces create by the houses, roads, driveways, etc. However, there are also open spaces such as lawns and the proposed park that will allow stormwater to percolate back into the aquifer. The Project would comply with all applicable State and City codes and regulations related to stormwater during construction and postconstruction.

Therefore, the Project impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement mitigation measure GEO-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.10d – Would the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
The Project is located inland and is not located near an ocean or large body of water, and therefore, would not be affected by a tsunami. Since the Project is located in an area that is not susceptible to inundation, the Project would not risk release of pollutants.

There is no potential for the inundation of the Project site by seiche. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Project would have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-63

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

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 #3.4.10b.

Implementation of the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan policies, California Water Service’s 2015 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 City of Visalia obtains the majority of its domestic water from California Water Service.

Private development participates in the City’s ability to meet water supply goals and initiatives through payment of fees established by the city for construction of recharge facilities, the construction of recharge facilities directly by the Project, or participation in augmentation/enhancement/enlargement of the recharge capability of Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District storm water ponding basins. While any future development as a result of approval of the proposed Project may be served by conventional groundwater pumping and distribution systems, full development of the Fresno General Plan boundaries may necessitate utilization of treated surface water due to inadequate groundwater aquifer recharge capabilities. The Department of Public Utilities works with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District to utilize suitable FMFCD ponding (drainage) basins for the groundwater recharge program and works with Fresno Irrigation District to ensure that the City’s allotment of surface water is beneficially used for intentional groundwater recharge.

The City of Visalia Public Works Department will review any future development as a result of the Project approval and associated water demand analysis to determine if water service will be available through City of Visalia. The future development will be required to show water infrastructure connections to the nearest water main and water mains would be extended within the proposed lot to provide service to each unit created, subject to payment of applicable water charges.

City of Visalia Public Works Department will review the future development on the Project site for compliance with water quality and groundwater management and will determine if water service will be available for the Project. Further, the City’s General Plan includes policies and initiatives to ensure the City promotes water conservation. Therefore, compliance with payment of the City’s Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee would reduce Project impacts to less than significant.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-64

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-65

Discussion
Impact #3.4.11a – Would the Project physically divide an established community? The Project is surrounded by undeveloped or developed property to the east, agricultural fields to the south and west, and various industrial uses to the north. There is existing residential development to the south.

The Project would increase an established community within the area and promote orderly land use development by providing the ability to develop the 50 acres, which is a supported goal under the General Plan, and, therefore, would have no impact. The Project proposes connecting to existing roadways, providing future connectivity access, and not dividing an established or future community. Future development would not be built in a pre-existing community area and would not create any physical barrier between an established community.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have 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?
As proposed, the Project will be consistent with the following City of Visalia 2030 General Plan goals, objectives and policies for Land Use.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
significant
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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-66
The General Plan establishes two new growth boundaries to reflect current conditions and available population and job growth data. The First Tier, also known as the Urban Development Boundary I or UDB (Tier I), is largely coterminous with the 2012 city limits. It comprises slightly over half of the potentially developable land under the Plan, and could support a target buildout population of approximately 160,000. The Second Tier, known as the Urban Development Boundary II or UDB (Tier II) comprises 27,936 acres and could support a target build population of approximately 178,000..

The City of Visalia 2030 General Plan has designated the Project area within the existing and proposed city limits as developable under the Tier 2 Urban Development Boundary. The General Plan established criteria, dependent upon land use type, for when development may advance from the first tier (Tier I) to subsequent tiers (Tiers II and III), which are contained in Policy LU-P-21 of the General Plan. For residential uses, the threshold is the issuance of permits for 5,850 housing units within Tier 1 since April 1, 2010. The City met the residential permit threshold in July 2021 and now considers development located with Tiers 1 and/or 2 (City of Visalia, 2021). The Project will not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation, as the Project site has been identified for future residential development build-out. The Project will have a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-67

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? According to the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan, the Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery; therefore, 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.

According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mine Reclamation SMARA mapping tool, the nearest open mine (Kaweah South 91-54-0036) to the Project site is approximately 16 miles to the northeast (Department of Conservation, 2022). Additionally, the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) well finder tool does not designate an active oil or gas well in proximity to the Project site (Department of Conservation, 2022).

The Project will have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have 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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-68
The Project site is not delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site; therefore, it will not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-69
The impact analyses in this section based on an Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment (Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., 2021), which is attached as Appendix E.

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.

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

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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-70
vary depending upon the proximity of equipment activities to that point. The nearest existing sensitive uses (residential) are located approximately 30 feet away from where construction activities could occur within the Project area.

Based on the equipment noise levels in Table 3.4.13-1 below, worst-case on-site Project construction equipment noise levels at the nearest residential uses located 30 feet away are expected to range from approximately 80 to 89 dB.

Table 3.4.13-1
Construction Equipment Reference and Projected Noise Levels Equipment Description
Maximum Noise Level
at 50 Feet (dB)
Predicted Maximum
Noise Level at 30 Feet
(dB)
Air compressor 80 84
Backhoe 80 84
Ballast equalizer 82 86
Ballast tamper 83 87
Compactor 82 86
Concrete mixer 85 89
Concrete pump 82 86
Concrete vibrator 76 80
Crane, mobile 83 87
Dozer 85 89
Excavator 85 89
Generator 82 86
Grader 85 89
Impact wrench 85 89
Loader 80 84
Paver 85 89
Pneumatic tool 85 89
Pump 77 81
Saw 76 80
Scarifier 83 87
Scraper 85 89
Shovel 82 86
Spike driver 77 81
Tie cutter 84 88
Tie inserter 85 89
Truck 84 88
Source: (Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., 2021)
The Visalia General Plan exterior noise level standard of 65 dB DNL applicable to transportation noise sources affecting residential uses. Therefore, it is possible Project Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-71
construction equipment could result in short-term increases over ambient maximum noise levels at nearby existing residential uses. Further, it is possible that those noise levels could exceed the applicable Visalia General Plan and Municipal Code noise level limits. As a result, noise impacts associated with Project’s construction activities are identified as being potentially significant. Therefore, mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. NSE-1 requires the Project developer or contractor to continuously comply with measures to reduce noise impacts from the Project. This includes restricting construction activities to daylight hours, the use of noise baffles or mufflers on construction equipment, the use of electric equipment, locating equipment in areas away from sensitive receptors, and neighboring property owners will be notify of construction scheudles prior to the start of construction. Implementation of MM NSE-1 will reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels.

Traffic Noise
The development of the Project will result in increased traffic volumes on the local roadway network. Those increases in daily traffic volumes will result in a corresponding increase in traffic noise levels at existing uses located along those roadways. The analyses provided in the study utilized the FHWA Model with traffic input data from the project traffic impact analysis to predict project-generated traffic noise level increases relative to Opening Year, 5- Year Horizon, 10-Year Horizon, and 20-Year Horizon project and no Project conditions (Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., 2021).

The study indicated that the existing ambient noise environment within the Project area is defined primarily by traffic on Shirk Street to the east, and by industrial operations from adjacent uses to the north. It was also concluded that baseline ambient conditions were considerably higher than baseline traffic noise levels.

Based on the analyses provided in the study, including consideration of measured existing ambient noise conditions within the Project area, off-site traffic noise impacts related to increases in traffic resulting from the implementation of the Project are identified as being less than significant.

Industrial Operations Noise at Proposed Residential Uses There are industrial uses adjacent to the north side of the Project boundary that exceed the City of Visalia’s General Plan and Municipal Code daytime and nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB Leq/L50 and 45 dB Leq/L50, respectively (Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., 2021). However, CEQA does not require an analysis of impacts of the existing environment on the Project itself. The noise levels emanating from the neighboring industrial operation would be considered part of the baseline ambient noise levels present at the Project. However, NSE-2 requires the developer to record a covenant on the Project properties disclosing noise impacts from the adjacent industrial uses identified. The covenant, combined with implementation of the City of Visalia’s General Plan and Municipal Code standards for noise impacts will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-72

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
NSE-1: The Project developer or contractor shall continuously comply with the following measures throughout construction activities:
a. 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.
b. All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
c. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that is regulated for noise output by a federal, State, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project construction activity. d. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.
e. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors. f. Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
g. Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

NSE-2: Prior to final map recordation, the Developer shall record a covenant on all lots to disclose noise exposure from the stationary industrial equipment adjacent to the Project site.

The covenant will ensure future residential property owners are notified of the potential noise impacts with disclosure language as follows:
“Property owner(s) of lots within the Shepherds Ranch I/ Shepherds Ranch II Project are hereby notified that noise levels from adjacent industrial operations may exceed the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan and Municipal Code daytime and nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB Leq/L50 and 45 dB Leq/L50, respectively.”

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-73
Impact #3.4.13b – Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
During Project construction, heavy equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would generate localized vibration in the immediate vicinity of the construction. The nearest existing sensitive receptors have been identified as residential structures located approximately 30 feet from construction activities that would occur within the Project area.

The City of Visalia does not currently have adopted standards for groundborne vibration. As a result, the noise study prepared for this Project indicated that the vibration impact criteria developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was applied to the Project. Equipment or activities typical of continuous vibration include excavation equipment, static compaction equipment, tracked vehicles, traffic on a highway, vibratory pile drivers, pile-extraction equipment, and vibratory compaction equipment. Equipment or activities typical of single-impact (transient) or low-rate repeated impact vibration include impact pile drivers, blasting, drop balls, “pogo stick” compactors, and crack-and-seat equipment. Table 3.4.13-2 below has identified construction equipment proposed to be utilized for this Project’s construction activities.

Table 3.4.13-2
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment and Projected Levels at 30 Feet Equipment Maximum Vibration Level
at 25 Feet (PPV)1
Predicted Maximum
Vibration Level at 30 Feet
(PPV)
Vibratory roller 0.210 0.160
Hoe ram 0.089 0.068
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.068
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.068
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.058
Jackhammer 0.035 0.027
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.002
1 PPV = Peak Particle Velocity
Source: 2020 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual and BAC calculations As shown above in Table 3.4.13-2, vibration levels generated from on-site construction activities at the nearest existing sensitive structures located approximately 30 feet away (residences) are predicted to be below the strictest Caltrans thresholds. Further, construction activities are not expected to result in adverse human response relative to the vibration annoyance criteria. Therefore, on-site construction within the Project area is not expected to result in excessive groundborne vibration levels at nearby existing sensitive uses.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-74
It is expected that the Project would not result in the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration levels at proposed uses of the Project; therefore this impact is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.13c – Would the Project result in 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? The Project is located approximately 1 ¼ miles to the northeast of Visalia Municipal Airport.

The Project is geographically located outside of the established 55 dB CNEL airport noise contour not within a safety zone identified in the ALUCP (County of Tulare, 2012).

Impacts are considered to be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-75

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)? The proposed Project includes the development of 240 single-family residences and a 3.051- acre linear park with associated utilities and infrastructure.

Population forecasts adopted by the City’s General Plan indicates growth for the City population of 210,000 people by 2030, with an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent (City of Visalia, 2014). The total population of the City of Visalia is 141,384 people, and the average persons per household is 3.02 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022).

As noted previously, the City General Plan has designated the Project site for future urban uses under the Urban Growth Development Tier 2. Implementation of this Project will support the General Plan designation for future urban land use Policy LU-P-21 for residential development. The General Plan established criteria, dependent upon land use type, for when development may advance from the first tier (Tier I) to subsequent tiers (Tiers 2 and 3), which are contained in Policy LU-P-21 of the General Plan. For residential uses, the threshold is the issuance of permits for 5,850 housing units within Tier 1 since April 1, 2010. The City met the residential permit threshold in July 2021 and now considers development located with Tiers 1 and/or 2 (City of Visalia, 2021). Thus, it is anticipated that the area would be residentially developed to meet the housing needs of the City, and the Project will not induce substantial unplanned population growth.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-76
In addition, it is likely some portion of the people who would purchase Project homes may already reside in Visalia or the surrounding communities, thereby reducing the overall impact on the population the Project may generate. The Project would not include upsizing of offsite infrastructure or roadways. Impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.14b – Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The surrounding parcels are developed with residential or industrial uses to the north and east of the Project. The properties to the south and west are undeveloped agricultural land.

The General Plan’s existing land use designations for the Project site are Residential Very Low Density and Residential Low Density. The proposed General Plan Amendment eliminates the Residential Very Low Density designation and increases the acreage of the Residential Low Density designation.

Construction of the Project would likely be completed by construction workers residing in the City or the surrounding area; they would not require new housing. The Project will not result in the displacement of any persons as there are no residential units on the Project site.

As such, no impact associated with displacement of housing or people would occur. In conclusion, with the implementation of the Project, the Project will not result in any population and housing impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have no impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-77

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 of Visalia Fire Station 55 is less than 1 mile southwest of the Project.

Prior to the recordation of the proposed subdivision maps, the developer will be required to pay development impact fees. A portion of those funds will be specifically earmarked for the use of the Fire Department 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 of Visalia Engineering, Public Works, and Fire Department in order to determine whether the Projects infrastructure design is in compliance with City policies for development. The Project’s water system will be reviewed to verify that the system can supply the required fire flow for fire protection purposes. The establishment of gallons-per- Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-78
minute requirements for fire flow shall be based on the review of the City of Visalia Fire Department.

Development of the Project will increase the need for fire protection services and expand the service area and response times of the local City Fire Department. As previously mentioned, the Project will be required to adhere to any conditions/policies pertaining to the construction of infrastructure needed for the Visalia Fire Department to provide an adequate level of fire protection service.

According to the General Plan and the standard review procedures for development projects within the City of Visalia, the Project’s plans and permits will be reviewed for input from the Fire Department. The Project’s proposed construction would be located adjacent to existing residential areas, which the City Fire Department already serves. The developer will be required to pay development impact fees to offset growth in population in the area that would impact fire protection. Impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
None are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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 Visalia Police Department (VPD) provides police protection in the City of Visalia and collaborates with other law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s office on crime prevention. The City has approximately 143 sworn officers working out of two districts. The City of Visalia Police Station - District 1office is located approximately 4 miles east, and the District 2 office is approximately 4.5 miles southeast. The District 1 office serves northern Visalia. The Project is proposing development in an area that is adjacent to residential development and undeveloped agricultural land. The Project proposes additional residential development in a previously undeveloped location, which will increase the need for police services. However, the Project will pay appropriate development fees based on the adopted fee calculations and is responsible for constructing any infrastructure needed to serve the Project. Impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
None are required.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-79

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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. The nearest schools to the Project site include Hurley Elementary School, located 0.3 miles east, Ridgeview Middle School, located

0.8 miles north, and El Diamonte High School, located 2.2 miles south. The General Plan identifies a need for a total of 21 new schools, including 17 new elementary schools, two middle and two high schools to accommodate projected growth through 2030. The General Plan identifies a proposed school site adjacent to the Project Site on the south boundary. It is noted in the General Plan that specific locations may change depending on a variety of factors, including land availability, infrastructure needs, and financing.

The Project shall implement the City of Visalia’s new development and subdivision requirements related to schools. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, school districts must maintain separate capital facilities account for reportable fees, and must make available to the public within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year a Reportable Fees Report. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66001, school districts must make findings every five years with respect to unexpended funds.

The finalized and most recent Developer Fees Report was made available to the public by the Visalia Unified School District website (Visalia Unified School District, 2022) that includes the School Facility Needs Analysis (SFNA). According to the VUSD Website (Visalia Unified School District, 2022), residential school fees established for developers within the City of Visalia is $4.41 per square foot. The purpose of Developer Fees is for the construction and/or reconstruction of facilities necessary to accommodate the students generated by new residential and commercial development.

According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed “full and complete school facilities mitigation.” School districts would utilize the General Plan and codes to establish new school sites and make decisions on school amenities and facility size. The development will be subject to school impact fees to mitigate any increased impacts on school facilities. Project impacts will be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
None are required.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-80

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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? Neighborhood and community parks are an important component of the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan, as both recreational and aesthetic resources that contribute to the City’s character. The City maintains several types of parks and facilities. Almost all parkland described here is owned by the City or another public body and used for public recreational purposes, though some small parks are maintained by local landscaping and lighting and lighting district.

Visalia classifies parks and public open space into five general categories. Facilities at each park type vary according to size. Park sizes within the City of Visalia include Pocket Park, Linear park, Community Park, Large City Park, and Natural Corridors and Greenways.

As mentioned in previous sections, the Project contains a 3.05-acre linear park. The developer is required to provide acquisition and development costs associated with the annual established fees as indicated in the City’s municipal code, which would reduce Project impacts to less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
None are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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?
Community facilities are the network of public and private institutions that support the civic and social 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, Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-81
2014). These services receive funds allocated through the General Fund, usage fees, penalties, or impact fees.

These facilities within the City of Visalia include community centers, civic buildings, libraries, visual and performing arts venues, medical facilities, and other social and community services. The Project is required to implement the City of Visalia’s new development and subdivision requirements related to public facilities, which would reduce Project impacts to be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
None are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-82

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 under Impact #3.4.11 (b) and Impact #3.4.15 (a)(iv).

Visalia has a number of parks dispersed throughout City neighborhoods. The Riverway Sports Park is approximately 4 miles northeast, Plaza Park is approximately 2 miles southwest, West Main Park is 2.5 miles southeast, and Constitution Park is less than 2 miles southeast of the Project site.

The Project is proposing the development of a park that will be available for the community/public. The City's General Plan defines an overall parkland standard of 7.6 acres per 1,000 residents; however, this total consists of separate standards for city parks, school sites, and private open space. The City has a ratio of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. (City of Visalia, 2014).

The Project to develop 241 single-family residences will increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. However, the Project also includes development of a

3.051 acres of linear park along the north boundary of the site, which would decrease existing recreational facility impacts to less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
None are required.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-83

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

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 discussion under Impact #3.4.11 (b) Impact #3.4.15 (a)(iv) and Impact #3.4.16a. The Project’s linear park would include green space and playground equipment for children. The Project would not cause the construction or expansion of any existing recreational facilities elsewhere off-site. Impacts would be considered as less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-84
The impact analyses in this section based on a a revised Traffic Impact Study (VRPA Technologies, Inc., 2022b), which is attached as Appendix F.

Discussion
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 Services
Visalia Transit (VT) is the transit operator in the City of Visalia. The closest is VT Route 10 and Route 11, which runs on W. Noble Avenue (or Highway 198), located approximately 0.7 miles south of the Project site. VT operates several fixed routes that serve city residents with some routes serving the outlying cities and communities. VT operates fixed route service 7 days a week with operational hours Monday through Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m., 9:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Sundays.

Visalia has additional transit services that interconnect to other regional locations that could be reached from Route 10 and Route 11.

The Project is not expected to disrupt or impede existing transit facilities and therefore has a less than significant impact.

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?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-85
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The City’s General Plan Update identifies bicycling and walking as inexpensive, energyconserving, healthful, and non-polluting modes of transportation. Visalia’s flat topography and dry, moderate climate make choosing to walk or bicycle an attractive transportation option during much of the year. The City of Visalia Bikeway Plan was adopted in February 2011 and is intended to guide bikeway policies, programs and facility improvements to improve safety, comfort and convenience for all bicyclists in the City of Visalia.

Currently, no bike lanes exist in the vicinity of the proposed Project site along Road 88 (future collector). However, the City of Visalia Bikeway Plan has identified portions of Road 88 adjacent to the Project site as developed for Greenway street plans, and General Plan Policy T-P-45 requires that collector streets include a bike lane. In addition, North Shirk Street is identified as a Class II Future Bike Lane according to the City’s General Plan. At the time of development, the City will review the Project to identify whether or not a bike lane would be required to be constructed along the Project’s frontage of North Shirk Street.

The Project is not expected to disrupt or impede existing or planned bicycle facilities with implementation of the City’s requirements, and therefore has a less than significant impact.

Pedestrian
Currently, walkways do not exist in the vicinity of the proposed Project site along Road 88 (future collector) on the west side of the Project boundary. The Project proponent will be responsible for implementing all applicable requirements for updating sidewalks and other related infrastructure as directed by the City of Visalia. As stated above under Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, implementation of the City’s Bikeway Plan will be required as identified along Road 88 and as reflected in the General Plan for North Shirk Street.

Roadway
Access to and from the Project site will be from Shirk Street, located on the east side of the Project boundary, and from Road 88, located on the west side of the Project boundary. The City General Plan Update indicates that Shirk Street adjacent to the Project is considered a Deferred Arterial that will eventually connect with a proposed upgraded interchange south of the Project on SR 198. The General Plan established LOS “D” as the minimum acceptable LOS standard on city roadways. Although Caltrans has not designated a LOS standard, Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) indicates that when the LOS of a State highway facility falls below the LOS “C/D” in rural areas and the LOS “D/E” in urban areas, additional traffic may have a significant impact.

The following intersections were analyzed for this Project:
• Shirk Street / SR 198 EB Ramps
• Shirk Street / SR 198 WB Ramps
• Shirk Street / Hillsdale Avenue
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-86
• Shirk Street / School Avenue
• Shirk Street / Hurley Avenue
• Shirk Street / Allen Avenue (New Road)
• Shirk Street / Goshen Avenue
• Road 88 / Project Access
• Road 88 / Goshen Avenue
The Project trip generation and design hour volumes shown in Table 3.4.17-1 were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.

Table 3.4.17-1
Project Estimated Trips
Peak Hour Trips
Land Use Units
ITE Land
Use Code
Daily Trip
Rate
Daily
Trips
% AM
Peak
% AM
Inbound
% PM
Peak
% PM
Inbound AM In AM Out PM In PM Out
Single
Family
Housing
241 210 9.407 2,267 7.3% 26% 10.0% 63% 43 123 143 84
Total 2,267 Total43 123 143 84
166 227
Source: (VRPA Technologies, Inc., 2022b) Generation factors from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition The City adopted a threshold of LOS D for street segments and intersections. Table 3.4.17-2 illustrates the intersections within the scope of the study and indicates the anticipated Level of Service (LOS) prior to and with the addition of Project traffic. In addition to the analysis of the Project, there are several other development projects within the Project’s vicinity that will add additional trips to the study intersections and segments.

Table 3.4.17-2
Intersection Operations

INTERSECTION CONTROL TARGET
LOS
PEAK
HOUR

OPENING YEAR

WITHOUT

PROJECT

OPENING YEAR

PLUS PROJECT
5-YEAR

HORIZON

WITHOUT

PROJECT
5-YEAR

HORIZON PLUS

PROJECT
10-YEAR

HORIZON

WITHOUT

PROJECT
10-YEAR

HORIZONPLUS

PROJECT
20-YEAR

HORIZON

WITHOUT

PROJECT
20-YEAR

HORIZON
PLUS

PROJECT

DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS

1. Shirk Street / SR 198 EB Ramps All-Way Stop Sign -- 1 AM 20.1 C 24.1 C 25.6 D 32.8 D 42.6 E 52.5 F 98.6 F 116.0 F PM 26.2 D 34.8 D 27.7 D 49.1 E 57.7 F 62.7 F 130.3 F 148.3 F

2. Shirk Street / SR 198 WB Ramps All-Way Stop Sign -- 1 AM 64.7 F 95.1 F 96.3 F 127.0 F 138.4 F 169.9 F 239.8 F 275.0 F PM 83.0 F 117.4 F 115.4 F 156.7 F 173.6 F 218.4 F 309.5 F 354.3 F

3. Shirk Street / Hills dale Avenue One-Way Stop
Sign
D AM 92.4 F + 140.4 F + 157.9 F + 242.4 F +
PM 54.6 F + 79.0 F + 77.6 F + 121.9 F +

4. Shirk Street / School Avenue One-Way Stop
Sign
D AM 43.1 E + 54.3 F + 56.4 F + 74.5 F +
PM 34.8 D 44.6 E + 42.9 E + 56.4 F +

5. Shirk Street / Hurley Avenue Signalized D AM 18.7 B 19.7 B 21.3 C 22.4 C PM 10.0 B 11.3 B 10.7 B 12.1 B

6. Shirk Street / Allen Avenue One-Way Stop
Sign
D AM 16.6 C 18.1 C
PM 16.5 C 18.0 C

7. Shirk Street / Goshen Avenue Signalized D AM 40.0 D 41.1 D 44.3 D 46.6 D PM 34.4 C 41.9 D 38.0 D 49.0 D
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-87

8. Road 88 / Project Access One-Way Stop
Sign
D AM 8.5 A 8.5 A
PM 8.5 A 8.5 A

9. Road 88 / Goshen Avenue One-Way Stop
Sign
D AM 17.8 C 17.8 C 19.1 C 19.3 C
PM 17.9 C 17.9 C 19.6 C 20.1 C
DELAY is measured in seconds. LOS = Level of Service / BOLD denotes LOS standard has been exceeded For s ignalized and all-way stop intersections, delay results show the average for the entire intersection. For one-way and two-way stop controlled intersections, delay results show the delay for the worst movement.
1 - With the changes brought about by SB 743, Caltrans no longer uses level of service to determine the need for transportation improvements .

Instead, the focus is on providing adequate facilities for pedes trians, bicycles, and transit as well as safety considerations for al l transportation modes . Guidance is provided in the Transportation Impact Study Guide dated May 20, 2020 and the Interim Land Development and O ntergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance dated July 2020. This guidance was us ed in determining the need for roadway improvements on Caltrans facilities.
+ Does not meet peak hour signal warrants. Provided for informational purposes only.

As shown above, three of the study intersections (Shirk Street at SR 198 EB Ramps / Shirk Street at SR 198 WB Ramps / Shirk Street at Hillsdale Avenue / Shirk Street at School Avenue) were found to exceed the City LOS threshold at the opening year and beyond.

The Project will generate approximately 2,267 ADT and will cause, in addition to other nearby developments, significant LOS impacts relating to the generation of unacceptable LOS at three intersections. Mitigation will be required to alleviate the LOS impacts caused by the Project and other proposed development in the area.

Pro-Rate Fair Share of Future Transportation Improvements Based on the results of the capacity analysis and mitigation analysis, improvments are recommended on the Shirk Avenue intersections with the SR 198 Eastbound ramps and Shirk Avenue and Sr 198 Westbound ramps. Traffic signals as well as additional lanes are expected to be needed. Implementation of this level of improvements is beyond the scale of the proposed project and is recommended to be done by others. It is recomened that the Project contribute to the City of Visalia’s traffic impact fee program. Contribution of fees to this program will directly or indirectly contribute to the improvements described below as well as general roadway improvements on the City of Visalia.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-88
Table 3.4.17-3
20-Year Horizon Equitable Share Responsibility

INTERSECTION PEAK
HOUR

EXISTING PROJECT TRIPS
20-YEAR

HORIZON PLUS

PROJECT

FAIR SHARE

PERCENTAGE
Shirk Street / SR 198 EB Ramps
AM 1,136 77 2,037 8.5%
PM 1,275 79 2,230 8.3%
Shirk Street / SR 198 WB Ramps
AM 1,519 122 2,773 9.7%
PM 1,446 164 2,677 13.3%
Shirk Street / Hillsdale Avenue 1
AM 1,362 122 1,871 24.0%
PM 1,349 164 1,872 31.4%
Shirk Street / School Avenue 1
AM 1,304 122 1,765 26.5%
PM 1,277 164 1,738 35.6%
1 - Provided for inormational purposes only and based on 5-Year Horizon The proposed Project will impact the existing transportation systems and will have an impact on the existing plans, ordinances, or policies related to the effectiveness or performance of the circulation system. Mitigation Measure MM TRA-1 requires the Project developer to pay their impact fees based on the cost to signalize three intersections and citywide improvments. With the implementation of the MM TRA-1, impacts will be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay its pro-rata share for of the following intersections improvements:
a. Shirk Street at SR 198 EB Ramps:
5-Year With Project and 10-Year With and Without Project Horizon scenarios:
• Installation of traffic signal
20-Year With and Without Project Horizon scenarios:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 left-through lane, and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane)
b. Shirk Street at SR 198 WB Ramps
Opening Year With and Without Project, 5-Year With and Without Project, and 10- Year Without Project Horizon scenarios:
• Installation of traffic signal
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-89
10-Year With Project and 20-Year With and Without Project Horizon scenarios:
• Intall traffic signal
• Widen the westbound approach to 1 left-through lane and 2 right turn lanes (adding 1 right turn lane)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.17b – Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?
Under SB 743, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a key measure used for gauging the environmental impacts of projects under CEQA.

VMT Analysis
An assessment of potential VMT impacts associated with the Project was analyzed in the TIS to address changes in CEQA requirements. The VMT analysis compared the Project’s expected VMT/capita to regional averages. The Project’s VMT impacts will be considered less than significant if the VMT per capita is 16 percent below regional averages (or lower).

The Tulare Council of Governments (TCAG) regional travel demand model was used in this calculation. The results are as follows:
• Project VMT/capita: 8.07
• Regional VMT/capita: 11.7
As discussed in Section 3.0 Impacts of the TIS, the potentially significant impacts resulting from the Project relate to the generation of unacceptable LOS at various intersections in the long term. Therefore, the Project’s VMT impacts are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
None are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.17c – Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The Project will be designed to meet current standards and safety regulations. All intersections will be constructed to comply with the City and Caltrans regulations, and Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-90
design and safety standards of Chapter 33 of the California Building Codes (CBC) and the guidelines of Title 24 to create safe and accessible roadways.

Vehicles exiting the subdivision will be provided with a clear view of the roadway without obstructions. Landscaping associated with the entry driveways could impede such views if improperly installed. Specific circulation patterns and roadway designs will incorporate all applicable safety measures to ensure that hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or other areas surrounding the Project area would not occur.

Therefore, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact with the incorporated design features and all applicable rules and regulations.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.17d – Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? See the discussion in Impact #3.4.9f
State and City Fire Codes establish standards by which emergency access may be determined. The proposed Project would have to provide adequate unobstructed space for fire trucks to turn around. The proposed Project site would have adequate internal circulation capacity, including entrance and exit routes to provide adequate unobstructed space for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to gain access and to turn around. The proposed Project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to continue to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities. Therefore, the Project would result in a lessthan-significant impact associated with emergency access.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-91

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less–thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.18 - TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
a. 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:
i. 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), or
ii. 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 Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Discussion
Impact #3.4.18a(i) – 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 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)?
Native American Tribal Consultation was completed for the Project in compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Public Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-92
Resources Code. A Sacred Land Files search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a response was received on August 30, 2021. As noted, the NAHC Sacred Lands File, results were negative and did not indicate the presence of any cultural places within the Project area.

As noted in Impact $#3.4.5a-b, Cultural Resources, a cultural resources records search was conducted by the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC), National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California State Historic Resources Inventory for the Project. It was noticed that there were no known cultural resources identified in the area.

Only one cultural resource property has been recorded within a half mile of the proposed project, the historic route of the Southern Pacific/San Joaquin Valley Railroad. The Project will not impact this cultural resource.

Although considered unlikely, since there is no indication of any tribal cultural resources on the Project site, subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed Project could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

With implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources and therefore impacts would be considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.18a(ii) – 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 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? See discussion in Section 3.4.5, Cultural Resources and Impact #3.41.18(i) above.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-93
With implemented mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse changes in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement CUL-1 and CUL-2

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-94

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that 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?
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?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion
Impact #3.4.19a – Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which would cause significant environmental effects?
The Project proposes to construct new wet and dry utility infrastructure to connect to the existing City and private service provider infrastructure. Services that will be installed during the construction of the Project include water, wastewater, storm drain drainage connections, natural gas, electric power, and telecommunications facilities. The proper sizing and placement of the utilities will be designed per the City and other utility Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-95
development design standards. All proposed wet infrastructure will be connected to existing infrastructure already located within the City road rights of way.

The General Plan identifies the existing sewer system lines, which indicates that the Project has the ability to expand on existing pipelines adjacent to the Project on the east side of North Shirk Street where there are single-family residences. It is noted that the storm drainage system lines also follow the existing sewer lines identified and are adjacent to the Project on North Shirk Street to the east.

New development has the potential to cause erosion sediment and surface water run-off that will enter the City’s storm drainage system. As the City expands, more area is made impervious, and urban runoff increases. In order to minimize these impacts, General Plan policies focus on requiring future development projects to minimize runoff into the City’s drainage system and establish development fees from development projects in order to pay for the construction and maintenance of the drainage system.

Southern California Edison provides electric service to Visalia residents. The electrical facilities network includes both overhead and underground lines, with new development required to install underground service lines. Natural gas service is primarily provided by the Southern California Gas Company. There are three major companies that provide communications services in Visalia: AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon. Comcast is the primary cable television and internet provider.

The City of Visalia provides refuse collection for residential customers and many commercial customers, and contracts with Sunset Waste Systems to provide recyclable material processing. The development of single-family residences will be serviced by Sunset Waste Systems.

The proposed Project would be subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Visalia standards, specifications, and policies. All applicable local, State, and federal requirements and best management practices will be incorporated into the construction and operation of the Project.

As part of the annexation process for the 40 of 50 acres currently located in unincorporated Tulare County, LAFCO will coordinate between urban growth management planning with public and private utilities to determine infrastructure needs, feasibility, timing, and financing. As previously stated, the Project is located within the City’s General Plan’s Tier 2 area identified for expanding urban development; therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact with implementation of all required federal, State, and local requirements and standards for general utilities.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
None are required.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-96

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
There would be a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.19b – Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
See Impact #3.4.10b.

The groundwater supply is distributed by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water).

Cal Water Visalia District supply wells extract groundwater from the Kaweah Groundwater Subbasin. The Cal Water system includes 75 operational groundwater wells, about one-third of which have auxiliary power for backup. There are 519 miles of main pipelined in the system, ranging from two inches in diameter to 12 inches in diameter. The Cal Water system includes two elevated 300,000-gallon storage tanks, an ion exchange treatment plant, four granular activated carbon filter plants, and one nitrate blending facility. In addition to the system serving the City of Visalia, Cal Water also operates three other small systems in the Visalia area, defined as Oak Ranch (wells with distribution pipeline), Post Mitts (two wells with distribution pipeline), and Fairway (well with distribution pipeline). These systems are within Cal Water’s Visalia District system but outside Visalia city limits (City of Visalia, 2014).

The system serves an estimated population of 147,000, which could grow to 226,850 by 2045, according to the adopted 2020 UWMP. Cal Water estimated that it was serving 45,325 residential, commercial, and industrial customers in 202020, with expected growth to 79,818 customers (households and businesses) by 2045. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.19c – Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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? The existing Waste Discharge Requirements placed on the City Water Conservation Plant (WCP) limit discharge to an average flow of 20 mgd and require that the ammonia concentration in the discharge be reduced to 0.025 mg/l by 2011. The certified EIR for the WCP analyzed impacts for average flow volumes of 22 mgd and 26 mgd (City of Visalia, 2014).

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-97
With the proposed upgrades to the plant processing capabilities and the rerouting of the discharge stream away from Mill Creek, the WCP has sufficient capacity to process the expected flows from land use classifications noted in the proposed General Plan for the near future and would expand its treatment capacity as the need dictates. The projected sanitary sewer flows entering the WCP at the proposed General Plan buildout (25,034,050 gpd in 2030) is expected to be less than the volume previously anticipated for the SWMP (25,949,996 gpd in 2030), meaning further expansions could be delayed. In 2014, the WCP was upgraded to provide the ability to increase capacity to 26 mgd as the demand increases.

Additional mandated water conservation measures will likely cause reductions in average daily flows to the WCP. This will also help delay the need for future expansions of the Water Conservation Plant and give the City more flexibility in determining the types of development that are appropriate.

Expansion at the outer rings of the development boundaries will not cause significant impacts to the sewer system since the majority of the area was included in the WCP Solid Waste Master Plan. Thus, the inclusion of the Project’s requirement to account for its impacts on the City’s wastewater system and development impact fees will reduce the overall impact the Project may cause. The impact will be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.19d – Would the Project 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?
The Tulare County Resource Management Agency manages solid waste disposal in accordance with the Tulare County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The County landfills accumulate approximately 300,000 tons of waste per year, which is equivalent to about five pounds per person per day or one ton per County resident per year. The County operates three disposal sites: the Visalia Disposal Site, northwest of Visalia; the Woodville Disposal Site, southeast of Tulare; and the Teapot Dome Disposal Site, southwest of Porterville (City of Visalia, 2014). The City operates its own solid waste disposal fleet.

The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) manages information regarding the operations and disposal of all solid waste sites throughout California. According to the SWIS database, the Teapot and Visalia Landfills are operationally active. However, the Woodville landfill is operationally inactive (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2022). The City will require the appropriate solid waste receptacles (compliance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991) to be provided to the Project. In addition, the Project will be Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-98
required to pay solid waste development impact fees, thus reducing the perceived impact the Project may generate. The impact will be less than significant.

The Project does not and would not conflict with federal, State, or local regulations related to solid waste. The proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs in compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.19e – Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
See Impact #3.4.19d, above.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-99

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.20 - WILDFIRE
Would the Project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
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?
c. Require the installation 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?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Discussion
Impact #3.4.20a – Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Access for emergency vehicles to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. The Project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans and would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The City has established emergency response and evacuation plans based on the Tulare Emergency Operations Plan. Impacts related to fire hazards and emergency response plans would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-100

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.20b – Would the Project 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? The potential for fire hazard is largely dependent on the extent and type of vegetation, known as surface fuels, that exists within the region. Fire hazards probability is typically highest in undeveloped, heavily wooded areas, as trees are a greater source of fuel rather than lowlying brush or grassland (City of Visalia, 2014).

The City General Plan indicates that a few very small portions of the City are classified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) as having moderate fire hazards. In general, the threat of wildland fires in Visalia is minimal because of the area’s flat topography and the relative absence of forests, grassland, and brush. In addition, the CDF designates the Project site as non-wildland/non-urban and adjacent to the urban unzoned area.

In addition, the City requires that any construction comply with the Uniform Fire Code provisions and is subject to review and approval by the City’s Fire Department. Therefore, the impacts related to the Project are considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.20c – Would the Project require the installation 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?
See discussion in Impact #3.4.20a-b.

The Project proposes to construct 241 single-family residences and includes the development of infrastructure (water, sewer, electrical power lines, and storm drainage) required to support the proposed residential uses. The Project site is surrounded by existing and future urban development.

The Project would require installing or maintaining additional electrical distribution lines and natural gas lines to connect the residences to the existing utility grid. However, the Project would be constructed in accordance with all local, State, and federal regulations Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-101
regarding power lines and other related infrastructure, as well as fire suppression requirements. The design of all proposed utilities will be subject to the review and approval of the City. This will ensure the viability of the utility infrastructure's ability for fire protection and suppression activities. Therefore, impacts for the Project would be considered as less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Impact #3.4.20d – Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The topography of the site and surrounding area is relatively flat with little topographic variation and no water features are present within the vicinity of the Project area, noting that the Mill Creek Ditch runs south of the property and is used for agricultural purposes not related to the Project. The surrounding area is predominantly developed with agricultural, residential, and industrial uses. Therefore, there is minimal risk of landslides.

The Project area is located in both a 1% Annual Change of Flood Hazard Zone and 0.2% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard Zone as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Maps and is further surrounded by properties that are identified as an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. As the Project is a relatively flat area and is not located near a water feature, impacts would be considered as less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact.

Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-102

Discussion
Impact #3.4.21a – Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant 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?
The Project may have the potential to impact biological and cultural resources as identified in this initial study; however, with implementation of the below mitigation measures, BIO-1 through BIO-8, CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
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 plant 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?
b. Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
Project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past Projects,
the effects of other current Projects, and the
effects of probable future Projects.)
c. Does the Project have environmental effects
that would cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Initial Study

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 3-103

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement mitigation measures BIO 1 through BIO-8, CUL 1 and CUL-2.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.21b - Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.)? The Project may have cumulatively considerable impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, noise, and traffic, as identified in this initial study; however, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-7, CUL-1, CUL-2, GEO-1, GEO-2, NSE-1, NSE-2 and TRA-1, the Project impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-7, CUL-1, CUL-2, GEO-1, GEO-2, NSE-1, NSE-2 and TRA-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.21c - Does the Project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The Project may have the potential to adversely impact human beings related to biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, noise, and traffic; however, with implementation of the below Mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-7, CUL-1, CUL-2, GEO1, GEO-2, NSE-1, and TRA-1 the Project impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-7, CUL-1, CUL-2, GEO-1, GEO-2, NSE-1, TRA-1.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

List of Preparers

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 4-1
SECTION 4 - LIST OF PREPARERS

4.1 - Lead Agency
• City of Visalia

4.2 - QK Inc.
• Jaymie Brauer – Project Manager
• Kristin Pittack – Lead Author
Bibliography

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 5-1
SECTION 5 - BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021). Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment for Shepherds Ranch I & II. Visalia.

California Department of Conservation. (2021, October). Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2022). Retrieved from BIOS Map Viewer:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS/Citing-BIOS
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2022, Jan 1). CalRecycle.

Retrieved from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search California Water Service. (2022). UWMP Standardized Tables Visalia District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Appendix H. Retrieved from CalWater.com:
https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2015/vis/Appendix_H_- _DWR_UWMP_Tables_Worksheets.pdf
California Water Service. (2022). UWMP Standardized Tables Visalia District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Appendix H. Retrieved from CalWater.com:
https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2015/vis/Appendix_H_- _DWR_UWMP_Tables_Worksheets.pdf
City of Visalia. (2014, January). General Plan Enviromental Impact Report. Retrieved from https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 City of Visalia. (2014). Visalia General Plan Update.

City of Visalia. (2021). Addendum to the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078) for General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01.

Visalia: Provost & Pritchard.

City of Visalia. (2022, January). City of Visalia General Plan - Safety Element. Retrieved from https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30480 Department of Conservation. (2022, January 1). Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resource. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#/- 119.30129/36.36088/14
Department of Conservation. (2022, January 1). SMARA mapping tool. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html
Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2022). EnviroStor. Retrieved from https://dtsc.ca.gov/your-envirostor/
QK, Inc. (2021a). Biological Assessment Report.

Bibliography

Shepherds Ranch Project June 2022
City of Visalia Page 5-2
QK, Inc. (2021b). Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum.

Tulare County. (2012). Tulare County Airport Land Use Compatability Plan.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts. Retrieved from QuickFacts Visalia City, California: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/visaliacitycalifornia Visalia Unified School District. (2022). Visalia Unified School District Annual Report: Public Report of Capital Facilities Fees FY 2020-2021. Retrieved from https://www.vusd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=24&da taid=90515&FileName=Annual%20Developer%20Fee%20Report%20FY2020- 2021.pdf
Visalia Unified School District. (2022). Visalia Unified School District Developer Fees.

Retrieved from https://www.vusd.org/Page/241
VRPA Technologies, Inc. (2021). Shepherds Ranch Development Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment.

VRPA Technologies, Inc. (2021a). Shepherds Ranch Residential Development Traffic Impact Study.

VRPA Technologies, Inc. (2022b). Shepherds Ranch Development Traffic Impact Study.

APPENDIX A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
BIO-1: Within 14 days prior to the start of Project
ground-disturbing activities, a pre-activity survey with a 500-foot buffer, where land access is permitted, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable in
the identification of these species and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If
dens/burrows that could support any of these species
are discovered during the pre-activity survey, the
avoidance buffers outlined below shall be established.

No work shall occur within these buffers unless the
biologist approves and monitors the activity. A copy of the preconstruction survey report shall be submitted
to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

Burrowing Owl (active burrows)
• Non-breeding season: September 1 – January
31 – 160 feet
• Breeding season: February 1 – August 31 – 250
feet
American Badger/SJKF
• Potential or Atypical den – 50 feet
• Known den – 100 feet
• Natal Den –Contact CDFW for consultation
Within 14 days
prior to the start of
Project grounddisturbance
activities
Contractor/Lead
Agency
BIO-2: A qualified biologist shall remain on-call
throughout the construction phase if a burrowing owl,
Throughout
Project groundContractor

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
American badger, or San Joaquin kit fox occurs on the
site during construction. If one of these species occurs on-site, the biologist shall be contacted immediately to determine whether biological monitoring or the
implementation of avoidance buffers may be
warranted.
disturbance
activities
BIO-3: The following avoidance and minimization
measures shall be implemented during all phases of
the Project to reduce the potential for impact from the Project. They are modified from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) Standardized
Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground
Disturbance.
a. All food-related trash items such as
wrappers, cans, bottles, and food
scraps shall be disposed of in securely
closed containers and removed at
least once a week from the
construction or Project Site.
b. Construction-related vehicle traffic
shall be restricted to established roads
and predetermined ingress and egress
corridors, staging, and parking areas.

Vehicle speeds shall not exceed 20
miles per hour (mph) within the
Project Site.

Throughout
Project grounddisturbance
activities
Contractor

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
c. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of
kit fox or other animals during
construction, the contractor shall
cover all excavated, steep-walled holes
or trenches more than two feet deep at
the close of each workday with
plywood or similar materials. If holes
or trenches cannot be covered, one or
more escape ramps constructed of
earthen fill or wooden planks shall be
installed in the trench. Before such
holes or trenches are filled, the
contractor shall thoroughly inspect
them for entrapped animals. All
construction-related pipes, culverts,
or similar structures with a diameter
of four inches or greater that are
stored on the Project Site shall be
thoroughly inspected for wildlife
before the pipe is subsequently buried,
capped, or otherwise used or moved in
any way. If at any time an entrapped or
injured kit fox is discovered, work in
the immediate area shall be
temporarily halted, and USFWS and
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) shall be consulted.
d. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like
structures such as pipes and may enter
stored pipes and become trapped or

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
injured. All construction pipes,
culverts, or similar structures with a
diameter of four inches or greater that
are stored at a construction site for
one or more overnight periods shall be
thoroughly inspected for kit foxes
before the pipe is subsequently buried,
capped, or otherwise used or moved in
any way. If a kit fox is discovered
inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall
not be moved until the USFWS and
CDFW have been consulted. If
necessary, and under the direct
supervision of the biologist, the pipe
may be moved only once to remove it
from the path of construction activity
until the fox has escaped.
e. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be
permitted on the Project Sites to
prevent harassment, mortality of kit
foxes, or destruction of dens.
f. Use of anti-coagulant rodenticides and
herbicides in Project Sites shall be
restricted. This is necessary to prevent
primary or secondary poisoning of kit
foxes and the depletion of prey
populations on which they depend. All
uses of such compounds shall observe
labels and other restrictions

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
mandated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, California
Department of Food and Agriculture,
and other State and Federal
legislation, as well as additional
Project-related restrictions deemed
necessary by the USFWS and CDFW. If
rodent control must be conducted,
zinc phosphide shall be used because
of the proven lower risk to kit foxes.
g. A representative shall be appointed by
the Project proponent, who will be the
contact source for any employee or
contractor who might inadvertently
kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a
dead, injured, or entrapped kit fox. The
representative shall be identified
during the employee education
program, and their name and
telephone number shall be provided to
the USFWS.
h. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office of USFWS and CDFW shall be
notified in writing within three
working days of the accidental death
or injury to an SJKF during Projectrelated activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of
the incident or of the finding of a dead

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
or injured animal and any other
pertinent information. The USFWS
contact is the Chief of the Division of
Endangered Species, at the addresses
and telephone numbers below. The
CDFW contact can be reached at (559)
243-4014 and
[email protected].
i. All sightings of the SJKF shall be
reported to the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy
of the reporting form and a
topographic map clearly marked with
the location of where the kit fox was
observed shall also be provided to the
Service at the address below.
j. Any Project-related information
required by the USFWS or questions
concerning the above conditions or
their implementation may be directed
in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service at Endangered Species
Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W
2605, Sacramento, California 95825-
1846, phone: (916) 414-6620 or
(916) 414-6600.

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
k. A copy of the preconstruction survey
report shall be submitted to the lead
agency as evidence of compliance.

BIO-4: If Project construction activities occur during
the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (February 15 to
August 31), pre-construction activity surveys shall be
conducted over the Project area and within 0.5-mile
for Swainson’s hawk nests in accordance with the
Recommended Timing and Methodology for
Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s
Central Valley, Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory
Committee. A copy of the preconstruction survey
report shall be submitted to the lead agency as
evidence of compliance.
14 days prior to
any Project
grounddisturbance
activities occurring
during nesting
season (February
1 to September 15)
Contractor/Lead
Agency
BIO-5: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered
at any time within 0.5-mile of active construction, a
qualified biologist shall complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest. The assessment would 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 the
construction activities of this Project. Based on this
assessment, the biologist will determine if
construction activities can proceed and the level of
nest monitoring required. Construction activities shall Throughout
Project grounddisturbance
activities
Contractor

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
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 determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These
buffers may need to increase depending on the
sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to
disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified
biologist.

BIO-6: If Project construction activities are initiated during the nesting season (February 1 to September
15), a pre-activity nesting bird survey shall be
conducted within 14 days prior to the start of
construction. The surveys shall encompass the Project
footprint and accessible areas or land visible from
accessible areas within a 250-foot buffer for songbirds and a 500-foot buffer for raptors. If no active nests are found, no further action is required. However, existing nests may become active, and new nests may be built
at any time prior to and throughout the nesting season, including when construction activities are in progress.

If active nests are found during the survey or at any
time during construction of the Project, an avoidance
buffer ranging from 50 feet to 500 feet may be
required, with the avoidance buffer from any specific
nest being determined by a qualified biologist. The
avoidance buffer will remain in place until the biologist 14 days prior to
any Project
grounddisturbance
activities occurring
during nesting
season (February
1 to September 15)
Contractor/Lead
Agency

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
has determined that the young are no longer reliant on
the adults or the nest, or if breeding attempts have
otherwise been unsuccessful. Work may occur within the
avoidance buffer under the approval and guidance of the biologist, but full-time monitoring may be required. The biologist shall have the ability to stop construction if nesting adults show any sign of distress. A copy of the preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to
the lead agency as evidence of compliance.

BIO-7: Within 14 days prior to the start of ground
disturbance activities, a pre-activity survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable in
the identification of all special-status plant and wildlife species with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Project. All suitable burrows that could support
special-status kangaroo rats, Tulare grasshopper
mouse, or other special-status wildlife species shall be avoided during construction in accordance with BIO-5
and BIO-6 unless verification surveys have indicated
that the species are not present. Consultation with the USFWS and CDFW may be required if listed or fully
protected species are detected during the survey. A
copy of the preconstruction survey report shall be
submitted to the lead agency as evidence of
compliance.

Within 14 days
prior to the start of
Project grounddisturbance
activities
Contractor/Lead
Agency
BIO-8: Prior to the initiation of construction activities, all construction personnel shall attend a Worker
Environmental Awareness Training program
developed by a qualified biologist. Any personnel
Prior to any
Project grounddisturbance
activities
Contractor/Lead
Agency

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
associated with the construction that did not attend
the initial training shall be trained by the authorized biologist prior to working on the project site. Any
employee responsible for the operations and
maintenance or decommissioning of the project
facilities shall also attend the Worker Environmental
Awareness Training program prior to starting work on
the project and on an annual basis. The Program shall
be developed and presented by the project qualified
biologist(s) or designee approved by the qualified
biologist(s). The program shall include information on
the life histories of special-status species with the
potential to occur on the Project, their legal status,
course of action should these species be encountered
on-site, and avoidance and minimization measures to
protect these species. It shall include the components
described below:
a. Information on the life history and
identification of special-status species that may
occur or that may be affected by Project
activities. The program shall also discuss the
legal protection status of each such species, the
definition of “take” under the Federal
Endangered Species Act and California
Endangered Species Act, measures the Project
proponent/operator shall implement to
protect the species, reporting requirements,
specific measures for workers to avoid take of
special-status plant and wildlife species, and
penalties for violation of the requirements

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
outlined in the California Environmental
Quality Act mitigation measures and agency
permit requirements.
b. An acknowledgment form signed by each
worker indicating that the Worker
Environmental Awareness Training and
Education Program has been completed shall
be kept on file at the construction site. A copy of
the acknowledgment form shall be submitted
to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
c. A copy of the training transcript and/or
training video, as well as a list of the names of
all personnel who attended the Worker
Environmental Awareness Training and
Education Program, and signed
acknowledgment forms, shall be submitted to
the City of Tulare Planning Department.
d. A copy of the training transcript, training video,
or informational binder for specific procedures
shall be kept available for all personnel to
review and be familiar with, as necessary.
e. A sticker shall be placed on hard hats indicating
that the worker has completed the Worker
Environmental Awareness Training and
Education Program. Construction workers shall
not be permitted to operate equipment within
the construction areas unless they have

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
attended the Worker Environmental
Awareness Training and Education Program
and are wearing hard hats with the required
sticker.

The construction crews and contractor(s) shall be
responsible for preventing unauthorized impacts from
project activities to sensitive biological resources that are outside the areas defined as subject to impacts by
Project permits. Unauthorized impacts may result in
project stoppage, and/or fines depending on the
impact and coordination with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all
work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt
until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find
and make recommendations. Cultural resource
materials may include prehistoric resources such as
flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone,
ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic
resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or
structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist
determines that the discovery represents a potentially
significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from
Project implementation. These additional studies may
include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data
Throughout
Project grounddisturbance
activities
Contractor

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
recovery excavation. Implementation of the mitigation
measure below would ensure that the proposed
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource.

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 Native
American Heritage Commission, 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 a discovery of
human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

Throughout
Project grounddisturbance
activities
Contractor
MM GEO-1: Prior to issuing of grading or building
permits, if required, (a) the Project applicant shall
submit to the Lead Agency (1) the approved Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and (2) the
Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) from the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board. The requirements of the SWPPP
and NPDES shall be incorporated into design
specifications and construction contracts.

Prior to issuance of
grading or building
permits and initial
ground
disturbance
activities
Contractor/Lead
Agency

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
Recommended best management practices for the
construction phase may include the following:
• Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris,
concrete, and soil properly.
• Protecting existing storm drain inlets and
stabilizing disturbed areas.
• Implementing erosion controls.
• Properly managing construction materials.
• Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter,
and implementing sediment controls.

Evidence of the approved SWPPP shall be submitted to
the Lead Agency.

MM GEO-2: Prior to any ground-disturbing activities,
the Project owner shall develop and implement a
Paleontological Worker Education and Awareness
Program. If paleontological resources are discovered
during ground-disturbing activities (e.g., during
Project construction or decommissioning), all
earthwork or other types of ground disturbance
within 50 feet of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist (meeting the
standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
[SVP]) can assess the nature and importance of the
find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the paleontologist may record the find and allow
work to continue or recommend salvage and recovery
of the fossil. The paleontologist may also propose
modifications to the stop-work radius based on the
Prior to issuance of
grading or building
permits and during
construction
activities
Contractor/Lead
Agency

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
nature of the find, site geology, and the activities
occurring on the site. If treatment and salvage are
required, recommendations will be consistent with the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards that are
current as of the discovery and with currently
accepted scientific practice.

NSE-1: The Project developer or contractor shall
continuously comply with the following measures
throughout construction activities:
a. 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.
b. All noise-producing project equipment and
vehicles using internal-combustion engines
shall be equipped with manufacturersrecommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
c. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment
used on the project site that is regulated for
noise output by a federal, State, or local agency
Throughout
Project grounddisturbance
activities
Contractor

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
shall comply with such regulations while in the
course of project construction activity.
d. Electrically powered equipment shall be used
instead of pneumatic or internal combustionpowered equipment, where feasible. e. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment
staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall
be located as far as practicable from noisesensitive receptors. f. Project area and site access road speed limits
shall be established and enforced during the
construction period.
g. Nearby residences shall be notified of
construction schedules so that arrangements
can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure
to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

NSE-2: Prior to final map recordation, the Developer
shall record a covenant on all lots to disclose noise
exposure from the stationary industrial equipment
adjacent to the Project site. The covenant will ensure
future residential property owners are notified of the
potential noise impacts as follows:
“Property owner(s) of lots within the
Shepherds Ranch I / Shepherds Ranch II Project
are hereby notified that noise levels from
adjacent industrial operations may exceed the
Prior to final map
recordation
Lead Agency

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
City of Visalia 2030 General Plan and Municipal
Code daytime and nighttime noise level
standards of 50 dB Leq/L50 and 45 dB
Leq/L50, respectively.”
TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
developer shall pay its pro-rata share for of the
following intersections improvements:
a. Shirk Street at SR 198 EB Ramps:
5-Year With Project and 10-Year With and
Without Project Horizon scenarios:
• Installation of traffic signal
20-Year With and Without Project Horizon
scenarios:
• Install traffic signal
• Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left
turn lane, 1 left-through lane, and 1 right
turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane)
b. Shirk Street at SR 198 WB Ramps
Opening Year With and Without Project, 5-Year
With and Without Project, and 10-Year Without
Project Horizon scenarios:
• Installation of traffic signal
Prior to the
issuance of grading
or building permits
Contractor/Lead
Agency

Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible Monitoring
Agency
Date Initial
10-Year With Project and 20-Year With and
Without Project Horizon scenarios:
• Intall traffic signal
Widen the westbound approach to 1 left-through lane
and 2 right turn lanes (adding 1 right turn lane)

APPENDIX B

AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX C

BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS REPORT

APPENDIX D

CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

APPENDIX E

NOISE STUDY

APPENDIX F

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
October 2021
Prepared by:

VRPA Technologies, Inc.
4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105
Fresno, CA 93722
Project Manager: Georgiena Vivian
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
Executive Summary E-1

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Description of the Region/Project 1

1.2 Regulatory 1

1.2.1 Federal Agencies 1

1.2.2 Federal Regulations 4

1.2.3 State Agencies 5

1.2.4 State Regulations 6

1.2.5 Regional Agencies 12

1.2.6 Regional Regulations 14

1.2.7 Local Plans 15

2.0 Environmental Setting 17

2.1 Geographical Locations 17

2.2 Topographic Conditions 17

2.3 Climate Conditions 17

2.4 Anthropogenic (Man-made) Sources 19

2.4.1 Motor Vehicles 20

2.4.2 Agricultural and Other Miscellaneous 21

2.4.3 Industrial Plants 21

2.5 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Monitoring 21

2.6 Air Quality Standards 24

2.6.1 Ozone (1-hour and 8-hour) 24

2.6.2 Suspended PM (PM10 and PM2.5) 26

2.6.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 27

2.6.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 28

2.6.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 30

2.6.6 Lead (Pb) 30

2.6.7 Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) 30

2.6.8 Odors 33

2.6.9 Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) 34

2.6.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 34

3.0 Air Quality Impacts 36

3.1 Methodology 36

3.1.1 CalEEMod 36

3.2 Short-Term Impacts 37

3.3 Long Term Emissions 38

3.3.1 Localized Operational Emissions
Ozone/Particulate Matter 38

3.3.2 Localized Operational Emissions 39

3.3.3 Indirect Source Review 43

4.0 Impact Determinations and Recommended
Mitigation 44

4.1 Air Quality 44

4.1.1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan 44

4.1.2 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 45

4.1.3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations 46

4.1.4 Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people 47

4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 47

4.2.1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment 47

4.2.2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases 48
Appendices
Appendix A – CalEEMod Worksheets
Appendix B – City of Visalia Circulation Element
Appendix C – Wind Rose Graphics
Appendix D – ISR Worksheets

List of Tables
1 Ambient Air Quality Standards 8
2 Maximum Pollutant Levels at Visalia’s
N Church Street Monitoring Station 22
3 Tulare County Attainment Status 23
4 Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities 32
5 Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources 34
6 SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of Significance 36
7 Project Construction Emissions 38
8 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 38
9 Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions 43

List of Figures
1 Regional Location 2
2 Project Location 3
3 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 7
Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-1
Executive Summary
This Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment has been prepared for the purpose of identifying potential project-specific or site-specific air quality impacts related to the Iron Ridge Development (Project). The Project site is generally located along Shirk Road (Road 92) between Hurley Avenue and Goshen Avenue, two-thirds of a mile north of State Route (198). Regional access to the site is provided by SR 198. The Project seeks to develop approximately 243 single family dwelling units on roughly 50 acres of land. In the current set-up the project is partially within the City of Visalia and partially within Tulare County. However, the project entails an annexation entitlement to bring the entire project site into the City Jurisdiction.

The City of Visalia is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The surrounding topography includes foothills and mountains to the east and west. These mountain ranges direct air circulation and dispersion patterns. Temperature inversions can trap air within the Valley, thereby preventing the vertical dispersal of air pollutants. In addition to topographic conditions, the local climate can also contribute to air quality problems. Climate in Visalia is classified as Mediterranean, with moist cool winters and dry warm summers.

Air quality within the Project area is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs.

IMPACTS
Short-Term (Construction) Emissions
Short-term impacts are mainly related to the construction phase of a project and are recognized to be short in duration. Construction air quality impacts are generally attributable to dust generated by equipment and vehicles. Table E-1 shows the estimated construction emissions that would be generated from the Project. Results of the analysis show that emissions generated from the construction phase of the Project will not exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) emission thresholds.

Table E-1
Project Construction Emissions
Project Construction Emissions 3.10 3.76 4.22 0.01 1.13 0.57 569.46 SJVAPCD Level of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15 None
Does the Project Exceed Standard? No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, VRPA 2021
Summary Report CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-2
Long-Term Emissions
Long-Term emissions from the Project would be generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as lawn maintenance equipment.

1. Localized Mobile Source Emissions – Ozone/Particulate Matter Operational emissions associated with the Project are shown in Table E-2. Results indicate that the annual operational emissions from the Project will be less than the SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants considering adherence to all applicable SJVAPCD Rules.

Compliance with Rule 9510 will reduce Project Operational NOx Emissions by an additional 33.3% and PM10 emissions by 50% according to the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts adopted in March 2015.

Table E-2
Project Operational Emissions (tons/year)

2. Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
An evaluation of nearby land uses shows that the Project will not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources. Therefore, TAC’s from sources in the study area will not significantly impact the Project. In addition, the Project will not generate TAC’s that would have a significant impact on the environment or adjacent sensitive receptors.

3. Odors
The Project will not generate odorous emissions given the nature or characteristics of residential developments. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJV Air Basin.

4. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA)
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals found in many parts of California. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types are also Project Opeational Emissions 11.54 2.05 3.25 0.03 2.44 0.70 2885.84 SJVAPCD Level of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15 None
Does the Project Exceed Standard? No No No No No No No
PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
Source: CalEEMod, VRPA 2021
Summary Report CO NOX ROG SOX
Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-3
found in California. Construction of the Project may cause asbestos to become airborne due to the construction activities that will occur on site. The Project would be required to submit a Dust Control Plan under the SJVAPCD’s Rule 8021. Compliance with Rule 8021 would limit fugitive dust emissions from construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities associated with the Project.

5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), in consultation with Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPOs), has provided each affected region with reduction targets for Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035.

For the Tulare County Association of Government (TCAG) region, CARB set targets at thirteen (13) percent per capita decrease in 2020 and a sixteen (16) percent per capita decrease in 2035 from a base year of 2005. TCAG’s 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects that the Tulare County region would achieve the prescribed emissions targets.

In 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the following guidance documents applicable to projects within the San Joaquin Valley:
✓ Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009), and
✓ District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency (SJVAPCD 2009).

This guidance and policy are the reference documents referenced in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts adopted in March 2015 (SJVAPCD 2015). Consistent with the District Guidance and District Policy above, SJVAPCD (2015) acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds, and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
i. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS); and iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual (BAU).

In December 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-4
SCAQMD is lead agency. The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. Though the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table E-3 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model, which is roughly 70% less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD.

Table E-3
Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the effects of the Project were evaluated to determine if they will result in Project-Specific significant adverse impacts on the environment that are peculiar to the Project or its site that differ from those impacts already analyzed and disclosed in the City’s General Plan EIR. The criteria used to determine the significance of an impact with respect to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are summarized below.

1. Air Quality
The criteria used to determine the significance of an air quality impact are based on the following thresholds of significance, which come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, air quality impacts resulting from the Project are considered significant if the Project would:
✓ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The primary way of determining consistency with the air quality plan’s (AQP’s) assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure that the Project’s population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQPs for the air basin.

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 designate locations for land uses to regulate growth. TCAG uses the growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans to estimate future average Project Operational Emissions Per Year 2,905 MT/yr
CO2e
Source: CalEEMod, VRPA 2021
Summary Report
Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-5
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 area general plans. AQPs detail the control measures and emission reductions required for reaching attainment of the air standards.

The applicable General Plan for the project is the City of Visalia General Plan, which was adopted in 2014. The Project would be consistent with the General Plan upon preparation and approval of a general plan amendment in accordance with General Plan Policy LU-P-55, which addresses development of project sites that are located within the Urban Boundary and are currently zoned Low density Residential. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in the plan and the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQPs. As a result, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plans. Therefore, no mitigation is needed.
✓ 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?
The Tulare County area is nonattainment for Federal and State air quality standards for ozone, in attainment of Federal standards and nonattainment for State standards for PM10, and nonattainment for Federal and State standards for PM2.5. The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2016 and 2013 Ozone Plans, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve Federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB regarding ozone and PM. Inconsistency with any of the plans would be considered a cumulatively adverse air quality impact. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, the Project is consistent with the currently adopted General Plan for the City of Visalia and is therefore consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in the plan.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the 2016 and 2013 Ozone Plan, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

Project specific emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the County is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. It should be noted that a project isn’t characterized as cumulatively insignificant when project emissions fall below thresholds of significance. As discussed in Section 3.1, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for determining environmental significance which are provided in Table 6.

As discussed above in Section 3.2 and 3.3, results of the analysis show that emissions generated from construction and operation of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, no mitigation is needed. ✓ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-6
Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses that have the greatest potential to attract these types of sensitive receptors include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. From a health risk perspective, the proposed Project is a Type B project in that it may potentially place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing sources.

The first step in evaluating the potential for impacts to sensitive receptors for TACs from the Project is to perform a screening level analysis. For Type B projects, one type of screening tool is found in the CARB Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective.

This handbook includes a table (depicted in Table 4) with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources. The screening level analysis for the Project shows that TACs are not a concern based upon the recommendations provided in Table 4. An evaluation of nearby land uses considering CARB’s Pollution Mapping Tool shows that the Project will not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources. Table 4 indicates that new sensitive land uses should not be sited within 500 feet of a freeway/urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. The Project is located more than 3,000 feet from the SR 198 freeway. In addition, the Project is not located within the specified boundary for the source category identified in Table 4. Therefore, TAC’s from sources in the study area will not significantly impact the Project. In addition, the Project will not generate TAC’s that would have a significant impact on the environment or adjacent sensitive receptors.

Therefore, no mitigation is needed.

Short-Term Impacts
The annual emissions from the construction phase of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants as shown in Table E-1. Therefore, construction emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant.

Long-Term Impacts
Long-Term emissions from the Project are generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as lawn maintenance equipment.

Emissions from long-term operations generally represent a project’s most substantial air quality impact. Table E-2 summarizes the Project’s operational impacts by pollutant. Results indicate that the annual operational emissions from the Project will be less than the SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, operational emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant.
✓ Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-7
The Project will not generate odorous emissions given the nature or characteristics of residential developments. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJV Air Basin. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 5 above along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. As shown in Table 5, Chemical Manufacturing facilities are known to generate odorous emissions and include a screening distance of one (1) mile. There is a Hydrite Chemical Company facility (SJVAPCD Facility ID 8199) located a third of a mile to the north of the Project site which falls within the 1-mile screening distance set by the SJVAPCD. It should be noted that the SJVAPCD has no rules or standards related to odor emissions other than its nuisance rule.

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The criteria used to determine the significance of a greenhouse gas impact are based on the following thresholds of significance, which come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

Accordingly, greenhouse gas impacts resulting from the Project are considered significant if the Project would:
✓ Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The SJVAPCD acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
i. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-8
which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions; ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS); and iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual (BAU).

The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. Though the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table E-3 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model, which is roughly 70% less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD.

The resulting permanent greenhouse gas increases related to Project operations would be within the greenhouse gas increases analyzed in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no increase in severity to the previously-identified greenhouse gas impacts, and implementation of the Project will not result in Project-specific or site-specific significant adverse impacts from greenhouse gas emissions within the Project study area. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed. ✓ Conflict with an 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.

Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-30-15 requires MPO’s to implement measures that will achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to meet the 2030 Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-9
and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.

The Project would be consistent with the City of Visalia General Plan upon preparation and approval of a general plan amendment in accordance with General Plan Policy LU-P-55 and the adopted 2018 RTP/SCS and is therefore consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in those plan documents. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQP. It should also be noted that yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project (Table E-3) are less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD (see the discussion above).

CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan. The current plan has identified new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s 2030 GHG limit. Below is a list of applicable strategies in the Scoping Plan and the Project’s consistency with those strategies.
▪ California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs for long-term climate change goals. o The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to light-duty vehicles that would access the residential development. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.

▪ Energy Efficiency – Pursuit of comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards.
o The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. Though this measure applies to the State to increase its energy standards, the Project would comply with this measure through existing regulation. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.
▪ Low Carbon Fuel – Development and adoption of the low carbon fuel standard.

Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-10
o The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to the fuel used by vehicles that would access the residential development. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.

Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
1 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Description of the Region/Project
This Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment has been prepared for the purpose of identifying potential project-specific or site-specific air quality impacts related to the Iron Ridge Development (Project). The Project site is generally located along Shirk Road (Road 92) between Hurley Avenue and Goshen Avenue, two-thirds of a mile north of State Route (198). Regional access to the site is provided by SR 198. In the current set-up the project is partially within the City of Visalia and partially within Tulare County. However, the project entails an annexation entitlement to bring the entire project site into the City Jurisdiction. The Project seeks to develop approximately 243 single family dwelling units on roughly 50 acres of land. Figure 1 shows the site’s regional context while Figure 2 shows the Project location within the City of Visalia.

1.2 Regulatory
Air quality within the Project area is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies primarily responsible for improving the air quality within the City of Visalia are discussed below along with their individual responsibilities.

1.2.1 Federal Agencies
✓ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Federal Clean Air Bill first adopted in 1967 and periodically amended since then, established federal ambient air quality standards. A 1987 amendment to the Bill set a deadline for the attainment of these standards. That deadline has since passed. The other Clean Air Act (CAA) Bill Amendments, passed in 1990, share responsibility with the State in reducing emissions from mobile sources. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for enforcing the 1990 amendments.

The CAA and the national ambient air quality standards identify levels of air quality for six “criteria” pollutants, which are considered the maximum levels of ambient air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. The six criteria pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead.

Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
2 Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
3 Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
4 CAA Section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93 Subpart A) require that each new RTP and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) be demonstrated to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) before the RTP and TIP are approved by the Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or accepted by the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT). The conformity analysis is a federal requirement designed to demonstrate compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However, because the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), and Ozone address attainment of both the State and federal standards, for these pollutants, demonstrating conformity to the federal standards is also an indication of progress toward attainment of the State standards. Compliance with the State air quality standards is provided on the pages following this federal conformity discussion.

The EPA approved San Joaquin Valley reclassification of the ozone (8-hour) designation to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010, even though the San Joaquin Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

In accordance with the CAA, EPA uses the design value at the time of standard promulgation to assign nonattainment areas to one of several classes that reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem; classifications range from marginal nonattainment to extreme nonattainment. In the Federal Register on October 26, 2015, the EPA revised the primary and secondary standard to 0.070 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased public health protection against health effects associated with long- and short-term exposures.

1.2.2 Federal Regulations
 State Implementation Plan (SIP)/ Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) To ensure compliance with the NAAQS, EPA requires states to adopt SIP aimed at improving air quality in areas of nonattainment or a Maintenance Plan aimed at maintaining air quality in areas that have attained a given standard. New and previously submitted plans, programs, district rules, state regulations, and federal controls are included in the SIPs. Amendments made in 1990 to the federal CAA established deadlines for attainment based on an area’s current air pollution levels. States must enact additional regulatory programs for nonattainment’s areas in order to adhere with the CAA Section 172. In California, the SIPs must adhere to both the NAAQS and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

To ensure that State and Federal air quality regulations are being met, Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) are required. AQMPs present scientific information and use analytical tools to identify a pathway towards attainment of NAAQS and CAAQS. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) develops the AQMPs for the region where the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) operates. The regional air districts begin the SIP process by submitting their AQMPs to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB is responsible for revising the SIP and submitting it to EPA for approval.

EPA then acts on the SIP in the Federal Register. The items included in the California SIP are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 52, Subpart 7, Section Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
5 52.220.
 Transportation Control Measures
One particular aspect of the SIP development process is the assessment of available transportation control measures (TCMs) as a part of making progress towards clean air goals.

TCMs are defined in Section 108(f)(1) of the CAA and are strategies designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and associated air pollution. These goals are generally achieved by developing attractive and convenient alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use.

Examples of TCMs include ridesharing programs, transportation infrastructure improvements such as adding bicycle and carpool lanes, and expansion of public transit.  Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year.

In addition, financial incentives are included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs). States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.

1.2.3 State Agencies
 California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing its own air quality legislation called the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted in 1988. CARB was created in 1967 from the merging of the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board and the Bureau of Air Sanitation and its Laboratory.

CARB has primary responsibility in California to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS established by the EPA. Whereas CARB has primary responsibility and produces a major part of the SIP for pollution sources that are statewide in scope, it relies on the local air districts to provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. CARB combines its data with all local district data and submits the completed SIP to the EPA. The SIP consists of the emissions standards for vehicular sources and consumer products set by CARB, and attainment plans adopted by the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) and Air Quality Management District’s (AQMDs) and approved by CARB.

States may establish their own standards, provided the State standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) pursuant to California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) [§39606(b)] and its Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
6 predecessor statutes.

The CH&SC [§39608] requires CARB to “identify” and “classify” each air basin in the State on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Subsequently, CARB designated areas in California as nonattainment based on violations of the CAAQSs. Designations and classifications specific to the SJVAB can be found in the next section of this document. Areas in the State were also classified based on severity of air pollution problems. For each nonattainment class, the CCAA specifies air quality management strategies that must be adopted. For all nonattainment categories, attainment plans are required to demonstrate a five-percent-peryear reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive three-year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. In addition, air districts in violation of CAAQS are required to prepare an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) that lays out a program to attain and maintain the CCAA mandates.

Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality. CARB has established and maintains, in conjunction with local APCDs and AQMDs, a network of sampling stations (called the State and Local Air Monitoring [SLAMS] network), which monitor the present pollutant levels in the ambient air.

Tulare County is in the CARB-designated, SJVAB. A map of the SJVAB is provided in Figure 3.

In addition to Tulare County, the SJVAB includes Fresno, Kern, Kings, Tulare, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties. Federal and State standards for criteria pollutants are provided in Table 1.

1.2.4 State Regulations
 CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
The State of California is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the State. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, CARB’s motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollutant per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved.
 California Clean Air Act
The CCAA was first signed into law in 1988. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the state’s air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. The CCAA establishes more stringent ambient air quality standards than those included in the Federal CAA. CARB is the agency responsible for administering the CCAA. CARB established ambient air quality standards pursuant to the CH&SC [§39606(b)], which are similar to the federal standards. The SJVAPCD is one of 35 AQMDs that have prepared air quality management plans to accomplish a five percent (5%) annual reduction in emissions documenting progress toward the State ambient air quality standards.

Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
7 Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
8 Table 1
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary 3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3
) -- 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3
) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
24 Hour 50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3 Annual
Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3
-- 24 Hour -- -- 35 µg/m3
Same as
Primary Standard
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 12.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3
) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) -- 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3
) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) -- 8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3
) -- -- 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3
) 100 ppb (188 µg/m3) -- Annual
Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3
) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)
Same as
Primary Standard
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3
) 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) -- 3 Hour -- -- 0.5 ppm
(1300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3
) 0.14 ppm
(for cetain areas) 11 -- Annual
Arithmetic Mean
-- 0.030 ppm
(for cetain areas) 11 -- 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
-- -- Calendar
Quarter
-- 1.5 µg/m3
(for certain areas)11 Rolling 3-Month
Average
-- 0.15 µg/m3 Visibility Reducing
Particles 14 8 Hour See footnote 14
Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance
through Filter Tape
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3
)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride 12 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) 10
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) 11 Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
Gravimetric or
Beta Attenuation
Same as
Primary Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
No
National
Standards
Lead 12,13 High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
Absorption Same as
Primary Standard
Atomic Absorption
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards 1 National Standards 2 Ozone (O3) 8 Ultraviolet Photometry
Same as
Primary Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) 9
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
See footnotes on next page …
Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10) 9
Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
9 Footnotes:

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies.

3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.

5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.

8. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.

9. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.

10. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

11. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1- hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

12. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined.

These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

13. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

14. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Source: CARB, 2021
Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
10  Tanner Air Toxics Act
California regulates Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588).

The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted EPA's list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize emissions.

AB 2588 requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare a toxic-emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emission standards for various on-road mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses and offroad diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators).

These rules and standards provide for:
 More stringent emission standards for some new urban bus engines, beginning with 2002 model year engines.
 Zero-emission bus demonstration and purchase requirements applicable to transit agencies
 Reporting requirements under which transit agencies must demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule.
 AB 1493 (Pavley)
AB 1493 (Pavley) enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks.

Regulations adopted by CARB would apply to 2009 and later model year vehicles. CARB estimated that the regulation would reduce climate change emissions from light duty passenger vehicles by an estimated 18 percent in 2020 and by 27 percent in 2030 [Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) 2007)]. In 2005, the CARB requested a waiver from U.S.

EPA to enforce the regulation, as required under the CAA. Despite the fact that no waiver had ever been denied over a 40-year period, the then Administrator of the EPA sent Governor Schwarzenegger a letter in December 2007, indicating he had denied the waiver. On March 6, 2008, the waiver denial was formally issued in the Federal Register. Governor Schwarzenegger and several other states immediately filed suit against the federal government to reverse that decision. On January 21, 2009, CARB requested that EPA reconsider denial of the waiver. EPA scheduled a re-hearing on March 5, 2009. On June 30, Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
11 2009, EPA granted a waiver of CAA preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year.  Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 required that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. December 31, 2020 is the deadline for achieving the 2020 GHG emissions cap. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrived at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state reduces GHG emissions enough to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance on instituting emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner, along with conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. Using these criteria to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 would represent an approximate 25 to 30 percent reduction in current emissions levels. However, CARB has discretionary authority to seek greater reductions in more significant and growing GHG sectors, such as transportation, as compared to other sectors that are not anticipated to significantly increase emissions.

CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan adopted in December of 2008. The current plan has identified new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s 2030 GHG limit.
 Senate Bill 375
SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. 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. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
12 targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO's SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets.

This law also extends the minimum time period for the regional housing needs allocation cycle from five years to eight years for local governments located within an MPO that meets certain requirements. City or county land use policies (including general plans) are not required to be consistent with the regional transportation plan (and associated SCS or APS).

However, new provisions of CEQA incentivize (through streamlining and other provisions) qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS or APS, categorized as "transit priority projects."
 Executive Order B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15, which was signed by Governor Brown in 2016, establishes a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-30-15 requires MPO’s to implement measures that will achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.
 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit, or SB 32 SB 32 is a California Senate bill expanding upon AB 32 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The lead author is Senator Fran Pavley and the principal co-author is Assembly member Eduardo Garcia. SB 32 was signed into law on September 8, 2016, by Governor Brown. SB 32 sets into law the mandated reduction target in GHG emissions as written into Executive Order B-30-15. SB 32 requires that there be a reduction in GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030. Greenhouse gas emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for ensuring that California meets this goal. The provisions of SB 32 were added to Section 38566 of the Health and Safety Code subsequent to the bill’s approval. The bill went into effect January 1, 2017. SB 32 builds onto Assembly Bill (AB) 32 written by Senator Fran Pavley and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez passed into law on September 27, 2006. AB 32 required California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and SB 32 continues that timeline to reach the targets set in Executive Order B-30-15. SB 32 provides another intermediate target between the 2020 and 2050 targets set in Executive Order S-3-05.

1.2.5 Regional Agencies
 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within Tulare County and throughout the SJVAB.

The District also has responsibility for monitoring air quality and setting and enforcing limits Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
13 for source emissions. CARB is the agency with the legal responsibility for regulating mobile source emissions. The District is precluded from such activities under State law.

The District was formed in mid-1991 and prepared and adopted the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), dated January 30, 1992, in response to the requirements of the State CCAA. The CCAA requires each non-attainment district to reduce pertinent air contaminants by at least five percent (5%) per year until new, more stringent, 1988 State air quality standards are met.

Activities of the SJVAPCD include the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspection of stationary sources of air pollution and response to citizen complaints, monitoring of ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementation of programs and regulations required by the FCAA and CCAA.

The SJVAPCD has prepared the following State Implementation Plans to address ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 that currently apply to the Visalia non-attainment area:
 The 2016 Ozone Plan (2008 standard) was adopted by SJVAPCD on June 16, 2016 and subsequently adopted by ARB on July 21, 2016.
 The 2013 1-Hour Ozone Plan (revoked 1997 standard) was adopted by the SJVAPCD on September 19, 2013. EPA withdrew its approval of the plan due to litigation. The District plans to submit a “redesignation substitute” to EPA to maintain its attainment status for this revoked ozone standard.
 The 2007 PM-10 Maintenance Plan (as revised in 2015) was approved by EPA on July 8, 2016 (effective September 30, 2016).
 The 2012 PM2.5 Plan (as revised in 2015) was approved by EPA on August 16, 2016 (effective September 30, 2016).

The SJVAPCD Plans identified above represent SJVAPCD’s plan to achieve both state and federal air quality standards. The regulations and incentives contained in these documents must be legally enforceable and permanent. These plans break emissions reductions and compliance into different emissions source categories.

The SJVAPCD also prepared the Guide for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), dated March 19, 2015. The GAMAQI is an advisory document that provides Lead Agencies, consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance and uniform procedures for addressing air quality impacts in environmental documents. Local jurisdictions are not required to utilize the methodology outlined therein. This document describes the criteria that SJVAPCD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents. It recommends thresholds for determining whether or not projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
14 emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts.

1.2.6 Regional Regulations
The SJVAPCD has adopted numerous rules and regulations to implement its air quality plans.

Following, are significant rules that will apply to the Project.  Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
Regulation VIII is comprised of District Rules 8011 through 8081, which are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, landfill operations, etc. The proposed Project will be required to comply with this regulation. Regulation VIII control measures are provided below:

1. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.

2. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

3. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut & fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.

4. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.

5. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.

6. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

7. Within urban areas, track out shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
 Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, and Other Earthmoving Activities District Rule 8021 requires owners or operators of construction projects to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District if at any time the project involves non-residential developments of five or more acres of disturbed surface area or moving, depositing, or relocating of more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials on at least three days of the project. The Iron Ridge Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
15 proposed Project will meet these criteria and will be required to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District in order to comply with this rule.
 Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations
If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the proposed Project will be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.  Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The purpose of this rule is to fulfill the District’s emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans, achieve emission reductions from construction activities, and to provide a mechanism for reducing emissions from the construction of and use of development projects through off-site measures. The rule is expected to reduce nitrogen oxides and particulates throughout the San Joaquin Valley by more than 10 tons per day. Rule 9510 requires single-family development projects larger than 50 residential units to reduce smog-forming and particulate emissions generated by their projects. The Project includes the development of approximately 243 single family dwelling units and will be required to comply with this rule.

1.2.7 Local Plans
 City of Visalia General Plan
California State Law requires every city and county to adopt a comprehensive General Plan to guide its future development. The General Plan essentially serves as a “constitution for development”— the document that serves as the foundation for all land use decisions. The City of Visalia General Plan includes various elements, including air quality and greenhouse gases, that address local concerns and provides goals and policies to achieve its development goals.
 City of Visalia Climate Action Plan1
The City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP) was created as one of the first key steps to guiding the development and enhancement of actions designed to reduce Visalia’s GHG emissions. The CAP represents the results of a GHG emissions inventory effort which serves as a starting point for the development of a comprehensive municipal and community strategy for addressing GHG emission reduction goals.

The major long-term objectives of the City of Visalia’s CAP for the City government and the community as a whole include the following:
1 City of Visalia Climate Action Plan, December 2013
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
16  Reduce net GHG emissions from both municipal operations and community activities;  Promote cleaner and healthier air to breathe;
 Help the City and its residents save on energy costs;  Reduce vulnerability to changes in energy availability and price; and  Increase public awareness of climate change issues.

The City of Visalia selected the years 2020 and 2030 to establish mitigation targets for the CAP. A reduction of 15% below the 2005 baseline year level is the target for 2020. A reduction of 30% below the 2005 baseline year level is the target for 2030. The City of Visalia established two mitigation milestones to correlate with the planning horizon of the 2030 General Plan Update, and to ensure that the City is working towards the State’s goal of an 80% reduction below baseline by 2050.

The City of Visalia has instituted various actions in an effort to meet the year 2020 and 2030 mitigation targets. The measures identified to achieve mitigation targets are organized into five categories: Energy Systems, Transportation, Water and Resource Conservation, Transportation / Land Use, and Waste and Resource Conservation. Included in the Transportation category is a measure regarding the expansion of bicycle paths. The Project includes the development of a linear park and buffer (3.82 acres) along the northern edge of the Project which also includes a trail with exercise stations. In addition, the western and eastern edges of the Project will include a 10-foot landscape easement. These improvements coincide with the goals of the CAP.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
17 2.0 Environmental Setting
This section describes existing air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and in Tulare County, including the identification of air pollutant standards, meteorological and topological conditions affecting air quality, and current air quality conditions. Air quality is described in relation to ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants such as, ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Air quality can be directly affected by the type and density of land use change and population growth in urban and rural areas.

2.1 Geographical Location
The SJVAB is comprised of eight counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. Encompassing 24,840 square miles, the San Joaquin Valley is the second largest air basin in California. Cumulatively, counties within the Air Basin represent approximately 16 percent of the State's geographic area. The Air Basin is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east (8,000 to 14,492 feet in elevation), the Coastal Range on the west (4,500 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains on the south (9,000 feet elevation). The San Joaquin Valley is open to the north extending to the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.

2.2 Topographic Conditions
Tulare County is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin [as determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)]. Air basins are geographic areas sharing a common "air shed." A description of the Air Basin in the County, as designated by CARB, is provided in paragraph below.

Air pollution is directly related to the region's topographic features, which impact air movement within the Basin.

Wind patterns within the SJVAB result from marine air that generally flows into the Basin from the San Joaquin River Delta. The Coastal Range hinders wind access into the Valley from the west, the Tehachapi’s prevent southerly passage of airflow, and the high Sierra Nevada Mountain Range provides a significant barrier to the east. These topographic features result in weak airflow that becomes restricted vertically by high barometric pressure over the Valley. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversion layers (1,500-3,000 feet).

2.3 Climate Conditions
Tulare County is located in one of the most polluted air basins in the country. Temperature inversions can trap air within the Valley, thereby preventing the vertical dispersal of air pollutants. In addition to topographic conditions, the local climate can also contribute to air quality problems. Climate in Tulare County is classified as Mediterranean, with moist cool winters and dry warm summers.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
18 Ozone, classified as a “regional” pollutant, often afflicts areas downwind of the original source of precursor emissions. Ozone can be easily transported by winds from a source area. Peak ozone levels tend to be higher in the southern portion of the Valley, as the prevailing summer winds sweep precursors downwind of northern source areas before concentrations peak. The separate designations reflect the fact that ozone precursor transport depends on daily meteorological conditions.

Other primary pollutants, carbon monoxide (CO), for example, may form high concentrations when wind speed is low. During the winter, Tulare County experiences cold temperatures and calm conditions that increase the likelihood of a climate conducive to high CO concentrations.

Precipitation and fog tend to reduce or limit some pollutant concentrations. Ozone needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog block the required radiation. CO is slightly watersoluble so precipitation and fog tends to “reduce” CO concentrations in the atmosphere. PM10 is somewhat “washed” from the atmosphere with precipitation. Precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley is strongly influenced by the position of the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure belt located off the Pacific coast. In the winter, this high- pressure system moves southward, allowing Pacific storms to move through the San Joaquin Valley. These storms bring in moist, maritime air that produces considerable precipitation on the western, upslope side of the Coast Ranges.

Significant precipitation also occurs on the western side of the Sierra Nevada. On the valley floor, however, there is some down slope flow from the Coast Ranges and the resultant evaporation of moisture from associated warming results in a minimum of precipitation. Nevertheless, the majority of the precipitation falling in the San Joaquin Valley is produced by those storms during the winter. Precipitation during the summer months is in the form of convective rain showers and is rare. It is usually associated with an influx of moisture into the San Joaquin Valley through the San Francisco area during an anomalous flow pattern in the lower layers of the atmosphere.

Although the hourly rates of precipitation from these storms may be high, their rarity keeps monthly totals low.

Precipitation on the San Joaquin Valley floor and in the Sierra Nevada decreases from north to south. Stockton in the north receives about 20 inches of precipitation per year, Fresno in the center, receives about 10 inches per year, and Bakersfield at the southern end of the valley receives less than 6 inches per year. This is primarily because the Pacific storm track often passes through the northern part of the state while the southern part of the state remains protected by the Pacific High. Precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is confined primarily to the winter months with some also occurring in late summer and fall. Average annual rainfall for the entire San Joaquin Valley is approximately 5 to 16 inches. Snowstorms, hailstorms, and ice storms occur infrequently in the San Joaquin Valley and severe occurrences of any of these are very rare.

The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
19 and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the San Joaquin Valley floor. This creates strong low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions. This situation leads to the San Joaquin Valley’s famous Tule Fogs. The formation of natural fog is caused by local cooling of the atmosphere until it is saturated (dew point temperature). This type of fog, known as radiation fog, is more likely to occur inland. Cooling may also be accomplished by heat radiation losses or by horizontal movement of a mass of air over a colder surface. This second type of fog, known as advection fog, generally occurs along the coast.

Conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of CO and PM10. Ozone levels are low during these periods because of the lack of sunlight to drive the photochemical reaction. Maximum CO concentrations tend to occur on clear, cold nights when a strong surface inversion is present and large numbers of fireplaces are in use. A secondary peak in CO concentrations occurs during morning commute hours when a large number of motorists are on the road and the surface inversion has not yet broken.

The water droplets in fog, however, can act as a sink for CO and nitrogen oxides (NOx), lowering pollutant concentrations. At the same time, fog could help in the formation of secondary particulates such as ammonium sulfate. These secondary particulates are believed to be a significant contributor of winter season violations of the PM10 and PM2.5 standards.

2.4 Anthropogenic (Man-made) Sources
In addition to climatic conditions (wind, lack of rain, etc.), air pollution can be caused by anthropogenic or man-made sources. Air pollution in the SJVAB can be directly attributed to human activities, which cause air pollutant emissions. Human causes of air pollution in the Valley consist of population growth, urbanization (gas-fired appliances, residential wood heaters, etc.), mobile sources (i.e., cars, trucks, airplanes, trains, etc.), oil production, agriculture, and other socioeconomic activities. The most significant factors, which are accelerating the decline of air quality in the SJVAB, are the Valley's rapid population growth and its associated increases in traffic, urbanization, and industrial activity.

Carbon monoxide emissions overwhelmingly come from mobile sources in the San Joaquin Valley; on-road vehicles contributed 34 percent, while other mobile vehicles, such as trains, planes, and off-road vehicles, contribute another 20 percent in 2012 according to emission projections from the CARB. Motor vehicles account for significant portions of regional gaseous and particulate emissions. Local large employers such as industrial plants can also generate substantial regional gaseous and particulate emissions. In addition, construction and agricultural activities can generate significant temporary gaseous and particulate emissions (dust, ash, smoke, etc.).

Ozone is the result of a photochemical reaction between Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Mobile sources contribute 84 percent of all NOx emitted from anthropogenic sources based on data provided in Appendix B of the Air District’s 2016 Ozone Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
20 Plan. In addition, mobile sources contribute 26 percent of all the ROG emitted from sources within the San Joaquin Valley.

The principal factors that affect air quality in and around Tulare County are:

1. The sink effect, climatic subsidence and temperature inversions and low wind speeds

2. Automobile and truck travel

3. Increases in mobile and stationary pollutants generated by local urban growth Automobiles, trucks, buses and other vehicles using hydrocarbon (HC) fuels release exhaust products into the air. Each vehicle by itself does not release large quantities; however, when considered as a group, the cumulative effect is significant.

Other sources may not seem to fit into any one of the major categories or they may seem to fit in a number of them. These could include agricultural uses, dirt roads, animal shelters; animal feed lots, chemical plants and industrial waste disposal, which may be a source of dust, odors, or other pollutants. For Tulare County, this category includes several agriculturally related activities, such as plowing, harvesting, dusting with herbicides and pesticides and other related activities.

Finally, industrial contaminants and their potential to produce various effects depend on the size and type of industry, pollution controls, local topography, and meteorological conditions. Major sources of industrial emissions in Tulare County consist of agricultural production and processing operations, wine production, and marketing operations.

The primary contributors of PM10 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley are farming activities (22%) and road dust, both paved and unpaved (35%) in 2020 according to emission projections from the CARB. Fugitive windblown dust from “open” fields contributed 14 percent of the PM10.

The four major sources of air pollutant emissions in the SJVAB include industrial plants, motor vehicles, construction activities, and agricultural activities. Industrial plants account for significant portions of regional gaseous and particulate emissions. Motor vehicles, including those from large employers, generate substantial regional gaseous and particulate emissions.

Finally, construction and agricultural activities can generate significant temporary gaseous and particulate emissions (dust, ash, smoke, etc.). In addition to these primary sources of air pollution, urban areas upwind from Tulare County, including areas north and west of the San Joaquin Valley, can cause or generate emissions that are transported into Tulare County. All four of the major pollutant sources affect ambient air quality throughout the Air Basin.

2.4.1 Motor Vehicles
Automobiles, trucks, buses and other vehicles using hydrocarbon fuels release exhaust products into the air. Each vehicle by itself does not release large quantities; however, when considered as a group, the cumulative effect is significant.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
21 2.4.2 Agricultural and Other Miscellaneous Activities Other sources may not seem to fit into any one of the major categories or they may seem to fit in a number of them. These could include agricultural uses, dirt roads, animal shelters, animal feed lots, chemical plants and industrial waste disposal, which may be a source of dust, odors, or other pollutants. For Tulare County, this category includes several agriculturally related activities, such as plowing, harvesting, dusting with herbicides and pesticides and other related activities.

2.4.3 Industrial Plants
Industrial contaminants and their potential to produce various effects depend on the size and type of industry, pollution controls, local topography, and meteorological conditions. Major sources of industrial emissions in Tulare County consist of agricultural production and processing operations, wine production, and marketing operations.

2.5 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Monitoring
SJVAPCD and the CARB maintain numerous air quality monitoring sites throughout each County in the Air Basin to measure ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. It is important to note that the federal ozone 1-hour standard was revoked by the EPA and is no longer applicable for federal standards.

The closest monitoring station to the Project is located at Visalia’s N Church Street Monitoring Station. The station monitors particulates, ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide.

Monitoring data for the past three years is summarized in Table 2.

Table 3 identifies the Tulare County’s attainment status. As indicated, the SJVAB is nonattainment for Ozone (1 hour and 8 hour) and PM. In accordance with the FCAA, EPA uses the design value at the time of standard promulgation to assign nonattainment areas to one of several classes that reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem; classifications range from marginal nonattainment to extreme nonattainment. The FCAA contains provisions for changing the classifications using factors such as clean air progress rates and requests from States to move areas to a higher classification.

On April 16, 2004 EPA issued a final rule classifying the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for Ozone, effective May 17, 2004 (69 FR 20550). The (federal) 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 6, 2005. However, many of the requirements in the 1-hour attainment plan (SIP) continue to apply to the SJVAB. The current ozone plan is the (federal) 8-hour ozone plan adopted in 2007. The SJVAB was reclassified from a "serious" nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard to “extreme” effective June 4, 2010.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
22 Table 2
Maximum Pollutant Levels at Visalia’s
N Church Street Monitoring Station
Time 2018 2019 2020
Pollutant Averaging Maximums Maximums Maximums National State Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.112 ppm 0.093 ppm 0.127 ppm - 0.09 ppm Ozone (O3) 8 hour 0.094 ppm 0.082 ppm 0.102 ppm 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 69.2 ppb 70.7 ppb 53.4 ppb 100 ppb 0.18 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Average 10.0 ppb 9.0 ppb 9.0 ppb 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm Particulates (PM10) 24 hour 153.4 µg/m3
411.1 µg/m3
317.4 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3 Particulates (PM10) Federal Annual
Arithmetic Mean 52.5 µg/m3

45.7 µg/m359.4 µg/m3
- 20 µg/m3 Particulates (PM2.5) 24 hour 86.8 µg/m3

47.2 µg/m3127.1 µg/m335 µg/m3
- Particulates (PM2.5) Federal Annual
Arithmetic Mean 17.3 µg/m3

12.9 µg/m319.6 µg/m312 µg/m312 µg/m3
Standards
Source: California Air Resources Board (ADAM) Air Pollution Summaries, 2021 Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
23 Table 3
Tulare County Attainment Status

Pollutant Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone - 1 Hour Revoked in 2005 Nonattainment/Severe
Ozone - 8 Hour Nonattainment/Extreme a No State Standard PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Lead (Particulate) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Source: CARB Website, 2021
Designation/Classification
a. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010).

Notes:

National Designation Categories
Non-Attainment Area: Any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.

Unclassified/Attainment Area: Any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant or meets the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.

State Designation Categories
Unclassified: A pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or non-attainment.

Attainment: A pollutant is designated attainment if the State standard for that pollutant was not violated at any site in the area during a three-year period.

Non-attainment: A pollutant is designated non-attainment if there was at least one violation of a State standard for that pollutant in the area.

Non-Attainment/Transitional: A subcategory of the non-attainment designation. An area is designated non-attainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the standard for the pollutant.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
24 2.6 Air Quality Standards
The FCAA, first adopted in 1963, and periodically amended since then, established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A set of 1977 amendments determined a deadline for the attainment of these standards. That deadline has since passed. Other CAA amendments, passed in 1990, share responsibility with the State in reducing emissions from mobile sources.

In 1988, the State of California passed the CCAA (State 1988 Statutes, Chapter 568), which set forth a program for achieving more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The CARB implements State ambient air quality standards, as required in the CCAA, and cooperates with the federal government in implementing pertinent sections of the FCAA Amendments (FCAAA).

Further, CARB regulates vehicular emissions throughout the State. The SJVAPCD regulates stationary sources, as well as some mobile sources. Attainment of the more stringent State PM10 Air Quality Standards is not currently required.

The EPA uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called the NAAQS.

The SJVAPCD operates regional air quality monitoring networks that provide information on average concentrations of pollutants for which State or federal agencies have established ambient air quality standards. Descriptions of nine pollutants of importance in Tulare County follow.

2.6.1 Ozone (1-hour and 8-hour)
The most severe air quality problem in the Air Basin is the high level of ozone. Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the troposphere.

Here, ground level, or “bad” ozone, is an air pollutant that damages human health, vegetation, and many common materials. It is a key ingredient of urban smog. The troposphere extends to a level about 10 miles up, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric, or “good” ozone layer, extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.
“Bad” ozone is what is known as a photochemical pollutant. It needs reactive organic gases (ROG), NOx, and sunlight. ROG and NOx are emitted from various sources throughout Tulare County. In order to reduce ozone concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these ozone precursors.

Significant ozone formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
25 Ozone is a regional air pollutant. It is generated over a large area and is transported and spread by wind. Ozone, the primary constituent of smog, is the most complex, difficult to control, and pervasive of the criteria pollutants. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not emitted directly into the air by specific sources. Ozone is created by sunlight acting on other air pollutants (called precursors), specifically NOx and ROG. Sources of precursor gases to the photochemical reaction that form ozone number in the thousands. Common sources include consumer products, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, and combustion products of various fuels. Originating from gas stations, motor vehicles, large industrial facilities, and small businesses such as bakeries and dry cleaners, the ozone-forming chemical reactions often take place in another location, catalyzed by sunlight and heat. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins. Approximately 50 million people lived in counties with air quality levels above the EPA’s health-based national air quality standard in 1994. The highest levels of ozone were recorded in Los Angeles, closely followed by the San Joaquin Valley. High levels also persist in other heavily populated areas, including the Texas Gulf Coast and much of the Northeast.

While the ozone in the upper atmosphere absorbs harmful ultraviolet light, ground-level ozone is damaging to the tissues of plants, animals, and humans, as well as to a wide variety of inanimate materials such as plastics, metals, fabrics, rubber, and paints. Societal costs from ozone damage include increased medical costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated replacement of industrial equipment, and reduced crop yields.  Health Effects
While ozone in the upper atmosphere protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems, such as: forests and foothill communities; agricultural crops; and some man-made materials, such as rubber, paint, and plastic. High levels of ozone may negatively affect immune systems, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia. Ozone accelerates aging and exacerbates pre-existing asthma and bronchitis and, in cases with high concentrations, can lead to the development of asthma in active children. Active people, both children and adults, appear to be more at risk from ozone exposure than those with a low level of activity. Additionally, the elderly and those with respiratory disease are also considered sensitive populations for ozone.

People who work or play outdoors are at a greater risk for harmful health effects from ozone.

Children and adolescents are also at greater risk because they are more likely than adults to spend time engaged in vigorous activities. Research indicates that children under 12 years of age spend nearly twice as much time outdoors daily than adults. Teenagers spend at least twice as much time as adults in active sports and outdoor activities. In addition, children Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
26 inhale more air per pound of body weight than adults, and they breathe more rapidly than adults. Children are less likely than adults to notice their own symptoms and avoid harmful exposures.

Ozone is a powerful oxidant—it can be compared to household bleach, which can kill living cells (such as germs or human skin cells) upon contact. Ozone can damage the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation, and it can induce symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and worsening of asthmatic symptoms. Ozone in sufficient doses increases the permeability of lung cells, rendering them more susceptible to toxins and microorganisms. Exposure to levels of ozone above the current ambient air quality standard leads to lung inflammation and lung tissue damage and a reduction in the amount of air inhaled into the lungs.

The CARB found ozone standards in Tulare County nonattainment of Federal and State standards.

2.6.2 Suspended PM (PM10 and PM2.5)
Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles that remain suspended in the air for long periods. Some particles are large or concentrated enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Others are so small they can be detected only with an electron microscope. Particulate matter is a mixture of materials that can include smoke, soot, dust, salt, acids, and metals. Particulate matter is emitted from stationary and mobile sources, including diesel trucks and other motor vehicles; power plants; industrial processes; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; wildfires; dust from roads, construction, landfills, and agriculture; and fugitive windblown dust. PM10 refers to particles less than or equal to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter. PM2.5 refers to particles less than or equal to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter and are a subset of PM10. Particulates of concern are those that are 10 microns or less in diameter. These are small enough to be inhaled, pass through the respiratory system and lodge in the lungs, possibly leading to adverse health effects.

In the western United States, there are sources of PM10 in both urban and rural areas. Because particles originate from a variety of sources, their chemical and physical compositions vary widely. The composition of PM10 and PM2.5 can also vary greatly with time, location, the sources of the material and meteorological conditions. Dust, sand, salt spray, metallic and mineral particles, pollen, smoke, mist, and acid fumes are the main components of PM10 and PM2.5. In addition to those listed previously, secondary particles can also be formed as precipitates from chemical and photochemical reactions of gaseous sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOx in the atmosphere to create sulfates (SO4) and nitrates (NO3). Secondary particles are of greatest concern during the winter months where low inversion layers tend to trap the precursors of secondary particulates.

The District’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan built upon the aggressive emission reduction strategy adopted in Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
27 the 2007 Ozone Plan and strives to bring the valley into attainment status for the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5. The District’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan provides multiple control strategies to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and other pollutants that form PM2.5. The plan’s comprehensive control strategy includes regulatory actions, incentive programs, technology advancement, policy and legislative positions, public outreach, participation and communication, and additional strategies.
 Health Effects
PM10 and PM2.5 particles are small enough—about one-seventh the thickness of a human hair, or smaller—to be inhaled and lodged in the deepest parts of the lung where they evade the respiratory system’s natural defenses. Health problems begin as the body reacts to these foreign particles. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown a statistically significant direct association between mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Non-health-related effects include reduced visibility and soiling of buildings. PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections.

PM10 and PM2.5 can aggravate respiratory disease and cause lung damage, cancer, and premature death.

Although particulate matter can cause health problems for everyone, certain people are especially vulnerable to adverse health effects of PM10. These “sensitive populations” include children, the elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from chronic lung disease such as asthma or bronchitis. Of greatest concern are recent studies that link PM10 exposure to the premature death of people who already have heart and lung disease, especially the elderly. Acidic PM10 can also damage manmade materials and is a major cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the United States.

The CARB found PM10 standards in Tulare County in attainment of Federal standards and nonattainment for State standards. The CARB found PM2.5 standards in Tulare County nonattainment of Federal and State standards.

2.6.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide (CO) is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. CO is an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas that is highly reactive. CO is a byproduct of motor vehicle exhaust, contributes more than two thirds of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. These emissions can result in high concentrations of CO, particularly in local areas with heavy traffic congestion. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes and fuel combustion in sources such as boilers and incinerators. Despite an overall Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
28 downward trend in concentrations and emissions of CO, some metropolitan areas still experience high levels of CO.
 Health Effects
CO enters the bloodstream and binds more readily to hemoglobin than oxygen, reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood and thus reducing oxygen delivery to organs and tissues.

The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease.

Healthy individuals are also affected but only at higher levels of exposure. At high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases and can impair mental abilities. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, difficulty performing complex tasks, and in prolonged, enclosed exposure, death.

The adverse health effects associated with exposure to ambient and indoor concentrations of CO are related to the concentration of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) in the blood. Health effects observed may include an early onset of cardiovascular disease; behavioral impairment; decreased exercise performance of young, healthy men; reduced birth weight; sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); and increased daily mortality rate.

Most of the studies evaluating adverse health effects of CO on the central nervous system examine high-level poisoning. Such poisoning results in symptoms ranging from common flu and cold symptoms (shortness of breath on mild exertion, mild headaches, and nausea) to unconsciousness and death.

The CARB found CO standards in Tulare County as unclassified/attainment of Federal standards and attainment for State standards.

2.6.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) is a family of highly reactive gases that are primary precursors to the formation of ground-level ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NOx is emitted from combustion processes in which fuel is burned at high temperatures, principally from motor vehicle exhaust and stationary sources such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. A brownish gas, NOx is a strong oxidizing agent that reacts in the air to form corrosive nitric acid, as well as toxic organic nitrates. EPA regulates only nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as a surrogate for this family of compounds because it is the most prevalent form of NOx in the atmosphere that is generated by anthropogenic (human) activities.2
 Health Effects
NOx is an ozone precursor that combines with Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) to form ozone. 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Why and How They Are Controlled, 456/F-99- 006R, November 2019
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
29 See the ozone section above for a discussion of the health effects of ozone.

Direct inhalation of NOx can also cause a wide range of health effects. NOx can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza.

Short-term exposures (e.g., less than 3 hours) to low levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) may lead to changes in airway responsiveness and lung function in individuals with preexisting respiratory illnesses. These exposures may also increase respiratory illnesses in children.

Long-term exposures to NO2 may lead to increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and may cause irreversible alterations in lung structure. Other health effects associated with NOx are an increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may lead to eye and mucus membrane aggravation, along with pulmonary dysfunction.

NOx can cause fading of textile dyes and additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon, and corrosion of metals due to production of particulate nitrates. Airborne NOx can also impair visibility. NOx is a major component of acid deposition in California. NOx may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. NOx in the air is a potentially significant contributor to a number of environmental effects such as acid rain and eutrophication in coastal waters.

Eutrophication occurs when a body of water suffers an increase in nutrients that reduce the amount of oxygen in the water, producing an environment that is destructive to fish and other animal life.

NO2 is toxic to various animals as well as to humans. Its toxicity relates to its ability to combine with water to form nitric acid in the eye, lung, mucus membranes, and skin. Studies of the health impacts of NO2 include experimental studies on animals, controlled laboratory studies on humans, and observational studies.

In animals, long-term exposure to NOx increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, lowering their resistance to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show susceptible humans, such as asthmatics, exposed to high concentrations of NO2, can suffer lung irritation and, potentially, lung damage. Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO2 concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes as well as hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.

NOx contributes to a wide range of environmental effects both directly and when combined with other precursors in acid rain and ozone. Increased nitrogen inputs to terrestrial and wetland systems can lead to changes in plant species composition and diversity. Similarly, direct nitrogen inputs to aquatic ecosystems such as those found in estuarine and coastal waters can lead to eutrophication as discussed above. Nitrogen, alone or in acid rain, also can acidify soils and surface waters. Acidification of soils causes the loss of essential plant nutrients and increased levels of soluble aluminum, which is toxic to plants. Acidification of surface waters creates conditions of low pH and levels of aluminum that are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.

The CARB found NO2 standards in Tulare County as unclassified/attainment of Federal standards and attainment for State standards.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
30 2.6.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
The major source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the combustion of high-sulfur fuels for electricity generation, petroleum refining and shipping. High concentrations of SO2 can result in temporary breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors. Short-term exposures of asthmatic individuals to elevated SO2 levels during moderate activity may result in breathing difficulties that can be accompanied by symptoms such as wheezing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath. Other effects that have been associated with longer-term exposures to high concentrations of SO2, in conjunction with high levels of PM, include aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and alterations in the lungs’ defenses. SO2 also is a major precursor to PM2.5, which is a significant health concern and a main contributor to poor visibility. In humid atmospheres, sulfur oxides can react with vapor to produce sulfuric acid, a component of acid rain.

The CARB found SO2 standards in the Tulare County as unclassified/attainment for Federal standards and attainment for State standards.

2.6.6 Lead (Pb)
Lead, a naturally occurring metal, can be a constituent of air, water, and the biosphere. Lead is neither created nor destroyed in the environment, so it essentially persists forever. Lead was used until recently to increase the octane rating in automobile fuel. Since the 1980s, lead has been phased out in gasoline, reduced in drinking water, reduced in industrial air pollution, and banned or limited in consumer products. Gasoline-powered automobile engines were a major source of airborne lead through the use of leaded fuels; however, the use of leaded fuel has been mostly phased out. Since this has occurred the ambient concentrations of lead have dropped dramatically.

Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause neurological impairments such as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses and young children.

Effects on the nervous systems of children are one of the primary health risk concerns from lead.

In high concentrations, children can even suffer irreversible brain damage and death. Children 6 years old and under are most at risk, because their bodies are growing quickly.

The CARB found Lead standards in Tulare County as unclassified/attainment of Federal standards and attainment for State standards.

2.6.7 Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are another group of pollutants of concern. TAC are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
31 the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TAC is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria pollutants, TAC are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination. The ten TAC are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and diesel particulate matter (diesel PM). Caltrans’ guidance for transportation studies references the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) memorandum titled “Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents” which discusses emissions quantification of six “priority” compounds of 21 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The six “priority” compounds are diesel exhaust (particulate matter and organic gases), benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and acrolein.

Some studies indicate that diesel PM poses the greatest health risk among the TAC listed above.

A 10-year research program (California Air Resources Board 1998) demonstrated that diesel PM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to diesel PM poses a chronic health risk. In addition to increasing the risk of lung cancer, exposure to diesel exhaust can have other health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of fine particulate pollution as well, and studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems.

Diesel PM differs from other TAC in that it is not a single substance but a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled, internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies, depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present.

Unlike the other TAC, however, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. The CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a diesel PM exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. Table 4 depicts the CARB Handbook’s recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources.

Existing air quality concerns within Tulare County and the entire SJVAB are related to increases of regional criteria air pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter), exposure to toxic air contaminants, odors, and increases in greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change.

The primary source of ozone (smog) pollution is motor vehicles. Particulate matter is caused by dust, primarily dust generated from construction and grading activities, and smoke which is emitted from fireplaces, wood-burning stoves, and agricultural burning.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
32 TABLE 4
Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities*

SOURCE CATEGORY ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
Freeways and High-Traffic Roads 1
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

Distribution Centers
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
- Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

Rail Yards
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. - Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.

Ports - Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries - Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers - Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district.
- Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.

Source: SJVAPCD 2021
1: The recommendation to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway was identified in CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook published in 2005. CARB recently published a technical advisory to the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook indicating that new research has demonstrated promising strategies to reduce pollution exposure along transportation corridors. *Notes:
• These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. • Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposures addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as much as 80% with the recommended separation.
• The relative risk for these categories varies greatly (see Table 1-2). To determine the actual risk near a particular facility, a site-specific analysis would be required. Risk from diesel PM will decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in. • These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing facilities may not be readily available and are not designed to substitute for more specific information if it exists. The recommended distances take into account other factors in addition to available health risk data (see individual category descriptions).
• Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses. • This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known problems like dry cleaners using perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable preventative actions. • A summary of the basis for the distance recommendations can be found in the ARB Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
33 2.6.8 Odors
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another. It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.

For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.

When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJVAB. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 5 along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. The Project does not propose any uses that would be potential odor sources; however, the information presented in Table 5 will be used as a screening level analysis to determine if the Project would be impacted by existing odor sources in the study area. Such information is presented for informational purposes, but it is noted that the environment’s effect on the Project, including exposure to potential odors, would not be an impact for CEQA purposes.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
34 TABLE 5
Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources

2.6.9 Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA)
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally-occurring fibrous minerals found in many parts of California. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types are also found in California. Asbestos is commonly found in ultramafic rock and near fault zones. The amount of asbestos that is typically present in these rocks ranges from less than 1% up to approximately 25% and sometimes more. It is released from ultramafic rock when it is broken or crushed. This can happen when cars drive over unpaved roads or driveways, which are surfaced with these rocks, when land is graded for building purposes, or at quarrying operations.

Asbestos is also released naturally through weathering and erosion. Once released from the rock, asbestos can become airborne and may stay in the air for long periods of time. Asbestos is hazardous and can cause lung disease and cancer dependent upon the level of exposure. The longer a person is exposed to asbestos and the greater the intensity of the exposure, the greater the chances for a health problem.

The proposed Project's construction phase may cause asbestos to become airborne due to the construction activities that will occur on site. The Project would be required to submit a Dust Control Plan under the SJVAPCD’s Rule 8021.

2.6.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases. Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Compositing 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
Type of Facility Distance
Source: SJVAPCD 2021
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
35 atmosphere because of human activities are:
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement, asphalt paving, truck trips). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
 Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.  Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.  Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes.

Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases ("High GWP gases").

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
36 3.0 Air-Quality Impacts

3.1 Methodology
The impact assessment for air quality focuses on potential effects the Project might have on air quality within the Tulare County region. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for determining environmental significance. These thresholds separate a project’s short-term emissions from its long-term emissions. The short-term emissions are mainly related to the construction phase of a project, which are recognized to be short in duration. The long-term emissions are primarily related to the activities that will occur indefinitely as a result of Project operations. Impacts will be evaluated both on the basis of CEQA Appendix G criteria and SJVAPCD significance criteria. The impacts to be evaluated will be those involving construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds for certain pollutants shown in Table 6.

Table 6
SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of Significance

3.1.1 CalEEMod
CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operations (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use.

The model is an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects throughout California. The model can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary or desirable such as CEQA and NEPA documents, pre-project planning, compliance with local air quality rules and regulations, etc.

CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions 100 10 10 27 15 15 Operational Emissions
(Permitted Equipment and Activities)
100 10 10 27 15 15
Operational Emissions
(Non-Permitted Equipment and Activities)
100 10 10 27 15 15
Project Type
Ozone Precursor Emissions (tons/year)
Source: SJVAPCD 2021
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
37 3.2 Short-Term Impacts
Short-term impacts are mainly related to the construction phase of a project and are recognized to be short in duration. Construction air quality impacts are generally attributable to dust and exhaust pollutants generated by equipment and vehicles. Fugitive dust is emitted both during construction activity and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing and earth moving activities do comprise major sources of construction dust emissions, but traffic and general disturbances of soil surfaces also generate significant dust emissions. Further, dust generation is dependent on soil type and soil moisture. Exhaust pollutants are the non-useable gaseous waste products produced during the combustion process. Engine exhaust contains CO, HC, and NOx pollutants which are harmful to the environment.

Adverse effects of construction activities cause increased dust-fall and locally elevated levels of total suspended particulate. Dust-fall can be a nuisance to neighboring properties or previously completed developments surrounding or within the Project area and may require frequent washing during the construction period.

PM10 emissions can result from construction activities of the Project. The SJVAPCD has determined that compliance with Regulation VIII and other control measures will constitute sufficient mitigation to reduce PM10 impacts to a level considered less-than significant for most development projects. Even with implementation of District Regulation VIII and District Rule 9510, large development projects may not be able to reduce project specific construction impacts below District thresholds of significance.

Ozone precursor emissions are also an impact of construction activities and can be quantified through calculations. Numerous variables factored into estimating total construction emission include: level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and amount of materials to be transported onsite or offsite. Additional exhaust emissions would be associated with the transport of workers and materials. Because the specific mix of construction equipment is not presently known for this Project, construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod Model defaults for construction equipment.

Table 7 shows the CalEEMod estimated construction emissions that would be generated from construction of the Project. Results of the analysis show that emissions generated from construction of the Project will not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
38 Table 7
Project Construction Emissions

3.3 Long-Term Emissions
Long-Term emissions from the Project would be generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as lawn maintenance equipment.

3.3.1 Localized Operational Emissions – Ozone/Particulate Matter The Tulare County area is nonattainment for Federal and State air quality standards for ozone, attainment of Federal standards for PM10 and nonattainment for State standards, and nonattainment for Federal and State standards for PM2.5. Nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases are regulated as ozone precursors. Significance criteria have been established for criteria pollutant emissions as documented in Section 3.1. Operational emissions have been estimated for the Project using the CalEEMod Model and detailed results are included in Appendix A of this report.

Results of the CalEEMod analysis are shown in Table 8. Results indicate that the annual operational emissions from the Project will be less than the SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants considering adherence to all applicable SJVAPCD Rules. Compliance with Rule 9510 will reduce Project Operational NOx Emissions by an additional 33.3% and PM10 emissions by 50% according to the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts adopted in March 2015.

Table 8
Project Operational Emissions (tons/year)
Project Construction Emissions 3.10 3.76 4.22 0.01 1.13 0.57 569.46 SJVAPCD Level of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15 None
Does the Project Exceed Standard? No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, VRPA 2021
Summary Report CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
Project Opeational Emissions 11.54 2.05 3.25 0.03 2.44 0.70 2885.84 SJVAPCD Level of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15 None
Does the Project Exceed Standard? No No No No No No No
PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
Source: CalEEMod, VRPA 2021
Summary Report CO NOX ROG SOX
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
39 3.3.2 Localized Operational Emissions
✓ Carbon Monoxide
The SJVAPCD is currently in unclassified/attainment for Federal standards and attainment for State standards for CO. An analysis of localized CO concentrations is typically warranted to ensure that standards are maintained. The City of Visalia Circulation Element of the 2030 General Plan (Appendix B) was used to evaluate level of service conditions in the study area.

The Circulation Element evaluated roadway segments along Shirk Road (Road 92) adjacent to the Project. As noted in the Circulation Element, Shirk Road is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS C) in the future considering planned future roadway improvements3. Roadways in the vicinity of the Project will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the addition of Project traffic (approx. 2,300 daily trips) 4 . As a result,
the overall CO concentrations at roadways and intersections in the study area would be less than significant.
✓ Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
The SJVAPCD’s Guidance Document, Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts – 2015, identifies the need for projects to analyze the potential for adverse air quality impacts to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses that have the greatest potential to attract these types of sensitive receptors include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. From a health risk perspective, the Project is a Type B project in that it may potentially place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing sources.

The SJVAPCD’s current thresholds of significance for TAC emissions from the operations of both permitted and non-permitted sources are presented below:
▪ Carcinogens: Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 10 in one million ▪ Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual ▪ Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual Carcinogenic (cancer) risk is expressed as cancer cases per one million. Noncarcinogenic (acute and chronic) hazard indices (HI) are expressed as a ratio of expected exposure levels to acceptable exposure levels.

These metrics are generally applied to the maximally exposed individual (MEI). There are separate MEIs for residential exposure (i.e., residential areas) and for worker exposure (i.e., off-site workplaces). Residential exposure is for a worst-case exposure duration of 24 hours 3 Source: TIS Prepared by VRPA Technologies November,2021. 4 Source: ITE Trip generation Manual, 10th Edition
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
40 a day, 350 days a year for 70 years. For off-site workplaces, the exposure is 8 hours a day, 245 days a year for 40 years.

Although the effects of the environment, including existing air quality conditions, on the Project are not impacts for CEQA purposes, the following analysis is presented for informational purposes and to demonstrate compliance with SJCAPCD guidance. The first step in evaluating the potential for impacts to sensitive receptors for TACs from the Project is to perform a screening level analysis. For Type B projects, one type of screening tool is found in the CARB Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective.

An evaluation of nearby land uses considering CARB’s Pollution Mapping Tool shows that the Project will not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources. Table 4 indicates that new sensitive land uses should not be sited within 500 feet of a freeway/urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. The Project is located more than 3,000 feet from the SR 198 freeway. Therefore, TAC’s from sources in the study area will not significantly impact the Project. In addition, the Project will not generate TAC’s that would have a significant impact on the environment or adjacent sensitive receptors.
✓ Odors
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.

While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the SJVAPCD. Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors should be deemed to have a significant impact. Because the project is a residential development, it is not expected to generate significant odors.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
41 The SJVAPCD requires that an analysis of potential odor impacts be conducted for the following two situations:
▪ Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to be located near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and
▪ Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.

The Project will not generate odorous emissions given the nature or characteristics of residential developments. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJV Air Basin. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 5 above along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. As shown in Table 5, Chemical Manufacturing facilities are known to generate odorous emissions and include a screening distance of one (1) mile. There is a Hydrite Chemical Company facility (SJVAPCD Facility ID 8199) located a third of a mile to the north of the Project site which falls within the 1-mile screening distance set by the SJVAPCD.

It should be noted that the SJVAPCD has no rules or standards related to odor emissions other than its nuisance rule.

While the Hydrite Chemical facility is located within the 1-mile screening distance as depicted in Table 5, it should be noted that there are other residential and school land uses in the vicinity of the Project that also fall within the 1-mile boundary. In addition, prevailing wind patterns in the area indicate that wind blows primarily from the northwest and southwest depending upon the time of year (Appendix C). As a result, potential odors from the Hydrite Chemical facility would have minimal impact on the Project given the location of the facility with respect to the Project. Lastly, the lack of odor complaints logged for the Hydrite Chemical facility for the previous three (3) years indicate that odorous emissions from the facility would have a significant impact on the Project.
✓ Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA)
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals found in many parts of California. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types are also found in California. Construction of the Project may cause asbestos to become airborne due to the construction activities that will occur on site. The Project would be required to submit a Dust Control Plan under the SJVAPCD’s Rule 8021. Compliance with Rule 8021 would limit fugitive dust emissions from construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities associated with the Project. ✓ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
42 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 thirteen (13) percent per capita decrease in 2020 and a sixteen (16) percent per capita decrease in 2035 from a base year of 2005. TCAG’s 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects that the Tulare County region would achieve the prescribed emissions targets.

This guidance and policy are the reference documents referenced in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts adopted in March 2015 (SJVAPCD 2015).

Consistent with the District Guidance and District Policy above, SJVAPCD (2015) acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds, and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
i. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions; ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS); and
iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual (BAU).

In the event that a local air district’s guidance for addressing GHG impacts does not use numerical GHG emissions thresholds, at the lead agency’s discretion, a neighboring air district’s GHG threshold may be used to determine impacts. In December 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. This threshold is often used by agencies, such as the California Public Utilities Commission, to evaluate GHG impacts in areas that do not have specific thresholds (CPUC 2015)5. Though the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold 5 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2015. Section 4.7, “Greenhouse Gases.” Final Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Barbara County Reliability Project. May 2015. Accessed January 18, 2018.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
43 provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table 9 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model, which is roughly 70% less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD.

Table 9
Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.3.3 Indirect Source Review
The Project is subject to the SJVAPCD’s ISR program, which is also known as Rule 9510. Rule 9510 and the Administrative ISR Fee Rule (Rule 3180) are the result of state requirements outlined in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 40604 and the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The purpose of the SJVAPCD’s ISR program is to reduce emissions of NOx and PM10 from new projects. In general, new development contributes to the air-pollution problem in the Valley by increasing the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled.

Utilizing the ISR Fee Estimator calculator available on the SJVAPCD website, it was determined that the Project’s total cost for emission reductions is $176,318.48 without implementation of emission reduction measures. The ISR Fee Estimator worksheets are included in Appendix D. The fee noted above may be reduced dependent upon the formal ISR review process. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/ene/sbcrp/SBCRP_FEIR.html.

Project Operational Emissions Per Year 2,905 MT/yr
CO2e
Source: CalEEMod, VRPA 2021
Summary Report
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
44 4.0 Impact Determinations and Recommended
Mitigation
In accordance with CEQA, when a proposed project is consistent with a General Plan for which an EIR has been certified, the effects of that project are evaluated to determine if they will result in project-specific significant adverse impacts on the environment. Accordingly, this analysis identifies any potential environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project or its site that differ from those impacts already analyzed and disclosed in the City’s General Plan EIR. The criteria used to determine the significance of an air quality or greenhouse gas impact are based on the following thresholds of significance, which come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, air quality or greenhouse gas impacts resulting from the Project are considered significant if the Project would:

Air Quality
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?
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

4.1 Air Quality

4.1.1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan The primary way of determining consistency with the air quality plan’s (AQP’s) assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure that the Project’s population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQPs for the air basin.

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 designate locations for land uses to regulate growth. TCAG uses the Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
45 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 area general plans. AQPs detail the control measures and emission reductions required for reaching attainment of the air standards.

4.1.2 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
The Tulare County area is nonattainment for Federal and State air quality standards for ozone, in attainment of Federal standards and nonattainment for State standards for PM10, and nonattainment for Federal and State standards for PM2.5. The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2016 and 2013 Ozone Plans, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve Federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB regarding ozone and PM. Inconsistency with any of the plans would be considered a cumulatively adverse air quality impact. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, the Project is consistent with the currently adopted General Plan for the City of Visalia and is therefore consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in the plan.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the 2016 and 2013 Ozone Plan, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
46 4.1.3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses that have the greatest potential to attract these types of sensitive receptors include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. From a health risk perspective, the proposed Project is a Type B project in that it may potentially place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing sources.

Therefore, no mitigation is needed.

Short-Term Impacts
The annual emissions from the construction phase of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants as shown in Table 7. Therefore, construction emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant.

Long-Term Impacts
Long-Term emissions from the Project are generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as lawn maintenance equipment.

Emissions from long-term operations generally represent a project’s most substantial air quality impact. Table 8 summarizes the Project’s operational impacts by pollutant. Results indicate that the annual operational emissions from the Project will be less than the SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, operational emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
47 4.1.4 Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people
The SJVAPCD requires that an analysis of potential odor impacts be conducted for the following two situations:
 Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to be located near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and
 Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people located near existing odor sources.

The Project will not generate odorous emissions given the nature or characteristics of residential developments. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJV Air Basin. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 5 above along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. As shown in Table 5, Chemical Manufacturing facilities are known to generate odorous emissions and include a screening distance of one (1) mile. There is a Hydrite Chemical Company facility (SJVAPCD Facility ID 8199) located a third of a mile to the north of the Project site which falls within the 1-mile screening distance set by the SJVAPCD. It should be noted that the SJVAPCD has no rules or standards related to odor emissions other than its nuisance rule.

4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.2.1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
48 The SJVAPCD acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
i. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions; ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS); and iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual (BAU).

The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. Though the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table 9 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model, which is roughly 70% less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD.

4.2.2 Conflict with an 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.

Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
49 Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-30-15 requires MPO’s to implement measures that will achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.

The Project would be consistent with the City of Visalia General Plan upon preparation and approval of a general plan amendment in accordance with General Plan Policy LU-P-33 and LUP-24 and the adopted 2018 RTP/SCS and is therefore consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in those plan documents. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQP. It should also be noted that yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project (Table 9) are less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD (see the discussion for Impact 4.2.1 above).

 The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to light-duty vehicles that would access the residential development. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.

 Energy Efficiency – Pursuit of comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards.

 The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. Though this measure applies to Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
50 the State to increase its energy standards, the Project would comply with this measure through existing regulation. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.
 Low Carbon Fuel – Development and adoption of the low carbon fuel standard.

 The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to the fuel used by vehicles that would access the residential development. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.

APPENDIX A
CalEEMod Emissions Worksheets
Iron Ridge Development
Tulare County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot Acreage adjusted to Project Desciption
Construction Phase - Operational Year Estimated for 2026

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 243.00 Dwelling Unit 50.30 437,400.00 695

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 51

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,110.00 718.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/31/2027 11/27/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/2/2026 5/1/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/15/2027 8/14/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/16/2027 8/15/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/3/2026 5/2/2025
tblLandUse LotAcreage 78.90 50.30
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1114 1.0864 0.7612 1.3800e0034.1200e0030.0536 0.0577 1.1000e0030.0497 0.0508 0.0000 120.7949 120.7949 0.0332 1.3000e004121.6619 2022 0.3840 3.7586 3.1025 6.4000e0030.9582 0.1681 1.1262 0.4189 0.1556 0.5744 0.0000 563.9849 563.9849 0.1511 5.7000e003569.4613 2023 0.2478 2.0500 2.4652 4.9700e0030.1124 0.0924 0.2048 0.0304 0.0870 0.1174 0.0000 438.5970 438.5970 0.0745 0.0122 444.0931 2024 0.2330 1.9391 2.4475 4.9700e0030.1133 0.0818 0.1951 0.0306 0.0769 0.1076 0.0000 438.5431 438.5431 0.0743 0.0119 443.9586 2025 4.2215 0.9674 1.4435 2.6800e0030.0472 0.0411 0.0883 0.0127 0.0384 0.0512 0.0000 236.2169 236.2169 0.0495 4.0600e003238.6628 Maximum 4.2215 3.7586 3.1025 6.4000e0030.9582 0.1681 1.1262 0.4189 0.1556 0.5744 0.0000 563.9849 563.9849 0.1511 0.0122 569.4613 Unmitigated Construction
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 50.30 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 50.30 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1114 1.0864 0.7612 1.3800e0034.1200e0030.0536 0.0577 1.1000e0030.0497 0.0508 0.0000 120.7948 120.7948 0.0332 1.3000e004121.6617 2022 0.3840 3.7586 3.1025 6.4000e0030.9582 0.1681 1.1262 0.4189 0.1556 0.5744 0.0000 563.9843 563.9843 0.1511 5.7000e003569.4607 2023 0.2478 2.0500 2.4652 4.9700e0030.1124 0.0924 0.2048 0.0304 0.0870 0.1174 0.0000 438.5967 438.5967 0.0745 0.0122 444.0928 2024 0.2330 1.9391 2.4475 4.9700e0030.1133 0.0818 0.1951 0.0306 0.0769 0.1076 0.0000 438.5427 438.5427 0.0743 0.0119 443.9582 2025 4.2215 0.9674 1.4435 2.6800e0030.0472 0.0411 0.0883 0.0127 0.0384 0.0512 0.0000 236.2166 236.2166 0.0495 4.0600e003238.6626 Maximum 4.2215 3.7586 3.1025 6.4000e0030.9582 0.1681 1.1262 0.4189 0.1556 0.5744 0.0000 563.9843 563.9843 0.1511 0.0122 569.4607 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-28-2021 12-27-2021 1.1285 1.1285
2 12-28-2021 3-27-2022 1.2185 1.2185
3 3-28-2022 6-27-2022 1.4000 1.4000
4 6-28-2022 9-27-2022 0.9273 0.9273
5 9-28-2022 12-27-2022 0.6327 0.6327
6 12-28-2022 3-27-2023 0.5724 0.5724
7 3-28-2023 6-27-2023 0.5804 0.5804
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 8 6-28-2023 9-27-2023 0.5803 0.5803
9 9-28-2023 12-27-2023 0.5762 0.5762
10 12-28-2023 3-27-2024 0.5421 0.5421
11 3-28-2024 6-27-2024 0.5443 0.5443
12 6-28-2024 9-27-2024 0.5442 0.5442
13 9-28-2024 12-27-2024 0.5405 0.5405
14 12-28-2024 3-27-2025 0.4999 0.4999
15 3-28-2025 6-27-2025 0.3879 0.3879
16 6-28-2025 9-27-2025 1.9066 1.9066
17 9-28-2025 9-30-2025 0.1188 0.1188
Highest 1.9066 1.9066

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 2.1836 0.1117 1.8413 6.8000e0040.0174 0.0174 0.0174 0.0174 0.0000 108.2167 108.2167 4.8400e0031.9300e003108.9128 Energy 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e0030.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 490.9854 490.9854 0.0350 9.2300e003494.6105 Mobile 1.0336 1.6684 9.5815 0.0226 2.3841 0.0192 2.4033 0.6379 0.0180 0.6559 0.0000 2,087.8897 2,087.8897 0.1097 0.1109 2,123.6708 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 50.7883 0.0000 50.7883 3.0015 0.0000 125.8260 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.0229 11.1587 16.1816 0.5177 0.0124 32.8196 Total 3.2486 2.0492 11.5373 0.0250 2.3841 0.0583 2.4424 0.6379 0.0571 0.6950 55.8112 2,698.2505 2,754.0618 3.6687 0.1344 2,885.8396 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/28/2021 1/3/2022 5 70
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/4/2022 2/28/2022 5 40 3 Grading Grading 3/1/2022 8/1/2022 5 110
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/2/2022 5/1/2025 5 718 5 Paving Paving 5/2/2025 8/14/2025 5 75
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/15/2025 11/27/2025 5 75 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Residential Indoor: 885,735; Residential Outdoor: 295,245; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 330
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1092 1.0847 0.7440 1.3400e0030.0535 0.0535 0.0497 0.0497 0.0000 117.3027 117.3027 0.0330 0.0000 118.1281 Total 0.1092 1.0847 0.7440 1.3400e0030.0535 0.0535 0.0497 0.0497 0.0000 117.3027 117.3027 0.0330 0.0000 118.1281 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 87.00 26.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 17.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1700e0031.6700e0030.0172 4.0000e0054.1200e0032.0000e0054.1500e0031.1000e0032.0000e0051.1200e0030.0000 3.4922 3.4922 1.4000e0041.3000e0043.5338 Total 2.1700e0031.6700e0030.0172 4.0000e0054.1200e0032.0000e0054.1500e0031.1000e0032.0000e0051.1200e0030.0000 3.4922 3.4922 1.4000e0041.3000e0043.5338 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1092 1.0847 0.7440 1.3400e0030.0535 0.0535 0.0497 0.0497 0.0000 117.3026 117.3026 0.0330 0.0000 118.1280 Total 0.1092 1.0847 0.7440 1.3400e0030.0535 0.0535 0.0497 0.0497 0.0000 117.3026 117.3026 0.0330 0.0000 118.1280 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.3200e0030.0129 0.0103 2.0000e0056.2000e0046.2000e0045.8000e0045.8000e0040.0000 1.6995 1.6995 4.8000e0040.0000 1.7115 Total 1.3200e0030.0129 0.0103 2.0000e0056.2000e0046.2000e0045.8000e0045.8000e0040.0000 1.6995 1.6995 4.8000e0040.0000 1.7115 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e0052.0000e0052.3000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0490 0.0490 0.0000 0.0000 0.0496 Total 3.0000e0052.0000e0052.3000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0490 0.0490 0.0000 0.0000 0.0496 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.3200e0030.0129 0.0103 2.0000e0056.2000e0046.2000e0045.8000e0045.8000e0040.0000 1.6995 1.6995 4.8000e0040.0000 1.7114 Total 1.3200e0030.0129 0.0103 2.0000e0056.2000e0046.2000e0045.8000e0045.8000e0040.0000 1.6995 1.6995 4.8000e0040.0000 1.7114 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3800e0031.0100e0030.0108 3.0000e0052.8700e0032.0000e0052.8800e0037.6000e0041.0000e0057.8000e0040.0000 2.3534 2.3534 9.0000e0058.0000e0052.3797 Total 1.3800e0031.0100e0030.0108 3.0000e0052.8700e0032.0000e0052.8800e0037.6000e0041.0000e0057.8000e0040.0000 2.3534 2.3534 9.0000e0058.0000e0052.3797 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.3931 0.0000 0.3931 0.2021 0.0000 0.2021 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0634 0.6617 0.3940 7.6000e0040.0323 0.0323 0.0297 0.0297 0.0000 66.8787 66.8787 0.0216 0.0000 67.4195 Total 0.0634 0.6617 0.3940 7.6000e0040.3931 0.0323 0.4254 0.2021 0.0297 0.2317 0.0000 66.8787 66.8787 0.0216 0.0000 67.4195 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.5062 0.0000 0.5062 0.2010 0.0000 0.2010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1994 2.1364 1.5973 3.4100e0030.0899 0.0899 0.0827 0.0827 0.0000 299.9403 299.9403 0.0970 0.0000 302.3655 Total 0.1994 2.1364 1.5973 3.4100e0030.5062 0.0899 0.5961 0.2010 0.0827 0.2837 0.0000 299.9403 299.9403 0.0970 0.0000 302.3655 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.2100e0033.0900e0030.0331 8.0000e0058.7600e0035.0000e0058.8100e0032.3300e0034.0000e0052.3700e0030.0000 7.1910 7.1910 2.7000e0042.5000e0047.2713 Total 4.2100e0033.0900e0030.0331 8.0000e0058.7600e0035.0000e0058.8100e0032.3300e0034.0000e0052.3700e0030.0000 7.1910 7.1910 2.7000e0042.5000e0047.2713 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.5062 0.0000 0.5062 0.2010 0.0000 0.2010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1994 2.1364 1.5973 3.4100e0030.0899 0.0899 0.0827 0.0827 0.0000 299.9399 299.9399 0.0970 0.0000 302.3651 Total 0.1994 2.1364 1.5973 3.4100e0030.5062 0.0899 0.5961 0.2010 0.0827 0.2837 0.0000 299.9399 299.9399 0.0970 0.0000 302.3651 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0930 0.8511 0.8918 1.4700e0030.0441 0.0441 0.0415 0.0415 0.0000 126.2903 126.2903 0.0303 0.0000 127.0467 Total 0.0930 0.8511 0.8918 1.4700e0030.0441 0.0441 0.0415 0.0415 0.0000 126.2903 126.2903 0.0303 0.0000 127.0467 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.1600e0030.0791 0.0226 3.0000e0049.3700e0039.0000e0040.0103 2.7100e0038.6000e0043.5700e0030.0000 28.5860 28.5860 2.0000e0044.3100e00329.8753 Worker 0.0181 0.0133 0.1425 3.4000e0040.0378 2.1000e0040.0380 0.0100 1.9000e0040.0102 0.0000 30.9966 30.9966 1.1500e0031.0600e00331.3424 Total 0.0213 0.0925 0.1651 6.4000e0040.0471 1.1100e0030.0483 0.0128 1.0500e0030.0138 0.0000 59.5826 59.5826 1.3500e0035.3700e00361.2177 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0930 0.8511 0.8918 1.4700e0030.0441 0.0441 0.0415 0.0415 0.0000 126.2901 126.2901 0.0303 0.0000 127.0465 Total 0.0930 0.8511 0.8918 1.4700e0030.0441 0.0441 0.0415 0.0415 0.0000 126.2901 126.2901 0.0303 0.0000 127.0465 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3462 301.3462 0.0717 0.0000 303.1383 Total 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3462 301.3462 0.0717 0.0000 303.1383 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.8200e0030.1523 0.0460 6.8000e0040.0224 9.7000e0040.0233 6.4600e0039.3000e0047.3900e0030.0000 65.7014 65.7014 3.0000e0049.8800e00368.6537 Worker 0.0395 0.0277 0.3075 7.8000e0040.0901 4.7000e0040.0906 0.0240 4.3000e0040.0244 0.0000 71.5495 71.5495 2.4600e0032.3200e00372.3012 Total 0.0433 0.1800 0.3535 1.4600e0030.1124 1.4400e0030.1139 0.0304 1.3600e0030.0318 0.0000 137.2509 137.2509 2.7600e0030.0122 140.9548 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3458 301.3458 0.0717 0.0000 303.1380 Total 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3458 301.3458 0.0717 0.0000 303.1380 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7223 303.7223 0.0718 0.0000 305.5179 Total 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7223 303.7223 0.0718 0.0000 305.5179 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.7300e0030.1534 0.0452 6.8000e0040.0225 9.9000e0040.0235 6.5100e0039.4000e0047.4500e0030.0000 65.1857 65.1857 2.9000e0049.7900e00368.1113 Worker 0.0365 0.0245 0.2845 7.6000e0040.0908 4.4000e0040.0912 0.0241 4.1000e0040.0245 0.0000 69.6350 69.6350 2.2200e0032.1400e00370.3294 Total 0.0403 0.1779 0.3297 1.4400e0030.1133 1.4300e0030.1147 0.0307 1.3500e0030.0320 0.0000 134.8207 134.8207 2.5100e0030.0119 138.4407 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7220 303.7220 0.0718 0.0000 305.5175 Total 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7220 303.7220 0.0718 0.0000 305.5175 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0595 0.5424 0.6997 1.1700e0030.0230 0.0230 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 100.8850 100.8850 0.0237 0.0000 101.4778 Total 0.0595 0.5424 0.6997 1.1700e0030.0230 0.0230 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 100.8850 100.8850 0.0237 0.0000 101.4778 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.2100e0030.0507 0.0147 2.2000e0047.4800e0033.3000e0047.8100e0032.1600e0033.1000e0042.4700e0030.0000 21.2632 21.2632 9.0000e0053.1900e00322.2161 Worker 0.0112 7.2000e0030.0870 2.4000e0040.0301 1.4000e0040.0303 8.0100e0031.3000e0048.1400e0030.0000 22.3386 22.3386 6.6000e0046.6000e00422.5514 Total 0.0124 0.0579 0.1017 4.6000e0040.0376 4.7000e0040.0381 0.0102 4.4000e0040.0106 0.0000 43.6018 43.6018 7.5000e0043.8500e00344.7674 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0595 0.5424 0.6997 1.1700e0030.0230 0.0230 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 100.8848 100.8848 0.0237 0.0000 101.4777 Total 0.0595 0.5424 0.6997 1.1700e0030.0230 0.0230 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 100.8848 100.8848 0.0237 0.0000 101.4777 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0343 0.3218 0.5467 8.5000e0040.0157 0.0157 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 75.0722 75.0722 0.0243 0.0000 75.6792 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0343 0.3218 0.5467 8.5000e0040.0157 0.0157 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 75.0722 75.0722 0.0243 0.0000 75.6792 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6600e0031.0700e0030.0129 4.0000e0054.4800e0032.0000e0054.5000e0031.1900e0032.0000e0051.2100e0030.0000 3.3203 3.3203 1.0000e0041.0000e0043.3519 Total 1.6600e0031.0700e0030.0129 4.0000e0054.4800e0032.0000e0054.5000e0031.1900e0032.0000e0051.2100e0030.0000 3.3203 3.3203 1.0000e0041.0000e0043.3519 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0343 0.3218 0.5467 8.5000e0040.0157 0.0157 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 75.0721 75.0721 0.0243 0.0000 75.6791 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0343 0.3218 0.5467 8.5000e0040.0157 0.0157 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 75.0721 75.0721 0.0243 0.0000 75.6791 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.8800e0031.2100e0030.0147 4.0000e0055.0800e0032.0000e0055.1000e0031.3500e0032.0000e0051.3700e0030.0000 3.7630 3.7630 1.1000e0041.1000e0043.7988 Total 1.8800e0031.2100e0030.0147 4.0000e0055.0800e0032.0000e0055.1000e0031.3500e0032.0000e0051.3700e0030.0000 3.7630 3.7630 1.1000e0041.1000e0043.7988 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1054 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.4100e0030.0430 0.0678 1.1000e0041.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0030.0000 9.5747 9.5747 5.2000e0040.0000 9.5878 Total 4.1118 0.0430 0.0678 1.1000e0041.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0031.9300e0030.0000 9.5747 9.5747 5.2000e0040.0000 9.5878 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.0336 1.6684 9.5815 0.0226 2.3841 0.0192 2.4033 0.6379 0.0180 0.6559 0.0000 2,087.8897 2,087.8897 0.1097 0.1109 2,123.6708 Unmitigated 1.0336 1.6684 9.5815 0.0226 2.3841 0.0192 2.4033 0.6379 0.0180 0.6559 0.0000 2,087.8897 2,087.8897 0.1097 0.1109 2,123.6708

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 2,293.92 2,318.22 2077.65 6,388,649 6,388,649 Total 2,293.92 2,318.22 2,077.65 6,388,649 6,388,649
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or CWH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 38.40 22.60 39.00 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.525357 0.051382 0.167800 0.162287 0.028850 0.007480 0.012195 0.015949 0.000630 0.000469 0.022910 0.001396 0.003296 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 179.2808 179.2808 0.0290 3.5200e003181.0535 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 179.2808 179.2808 0.0290 3.5200e003181.0535 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e0030.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 311.7047 311.7047 5.9700e0035.7100e003313.5570 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e0030.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 311.7047 311.7047 5.9700e0035.7100e003313.5570

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

5.84112e
+006

0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e0030.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 311.7047 311.7047 5.9700e0035.7100e003313.5570 Total 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e0030.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 311.7047 311.7047 5.9700e0035.7100e003313.5570 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

5.84112e
+006

0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e0030.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 311.7047 311.7047 5.9700e0035.7100e003313.5570 Total 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e0030.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 311.7047 311.7047 5.9700e0035.7100e003313.5570 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.93767e
+006
179.2808 0.0290 3.5200e003181.0535
Total 179.2808 0.0290 3.5200e003181.0535
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.93767e
+006
179.2808 0.0290 3.5200e003181.0535
Total 179.2808 0.0290 3.5200e003181.0535
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 2.1836 0.1117 1.8413 6.8000e0040.0174 0.0174 0.0174 0.0174 0.0000 108.2167 108.2167 4.8400e0031.9300e003108.9128 Unmitigated 2.1836 0.1117 1.8413 6.8000e0040.0174 0.0174 0.0174 0.0174 0.0000 108.2167 108.2167 4.8400e0031.9300e003108.9128

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.4105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.7083 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0106 0.0909 0.0387 5.8000e0047.3500e0037.3500e0037.3500e0037.3500e0030.0000 105.2694 105.2694 2.0200e0031.9300e003105.8950 Landscaping 0.0541 0.0208 1.8026 1.0000e0040.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0000 2.9473 2.9473 2.8200e0030.0000 3.0179 Total 2.1836 0.1117 1.8413 6.8000e0040.0174 0.0174 0.0174 0.0174 0.0000 108.2167 108.2167 4.8400e0031.9300e003108.9128 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.4105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.7083 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0106 0.0909 0.0387 5.8000e0047.3500e0037.3500e0037.3500e0037.3500e0030.0000 105.2694 105.2694 2.0200e0031.9300e003105.8950 Landscaping 0.0541 0.0208 1.8026 1.0000e0040.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0000 2.9473 2.9473 2.8200e0030.0000 3.0179 Total 2.1836 0.1117 1.8413 6.8000e0040.0174 0.0174 0.0174 0.0174 0.0000 108.2167 108.2167 4.8400e0031.9300e003108.9128 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 16.1816 0.5177 0.0124 32.8196
Unmitigated 16.1816 0.5177 0.0124 32.8196

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

15.8324 /

9.98131

16.1816 0.5177 0.0124 32.8196
Total 16.1816 0.5177 0.0124 32.8196
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

15.8324 /

9.98131

16.1816 0.5177 0.0124 32.8196
Total 16.1816 0.5177 0.0124 32.8196
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 50.7883 3.0015 0.0000 125.8260
Unmitigated 50.7883 3.0015 0.0000 125.8260
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
250.2 50.7883 3.0015 0.0000 125.8260
Total 50.7883 3.0015 0.0000 125.8260
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
250.2 50.7883 3.0015 0.0000 125.8260
Total 50.7883 3.0015 0.0000 125.8260
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 37 Date: 9/28/2021 9:36 PM Iron Ridge Development - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

APPENDIX B
City of Visalia Circulation Element
4-1
circulation
October 2014
4 CIRCULATION
The Circulation Element of the 2030 General Plan is
intended to provide guidance and specific actions to
ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of
Visalia’s circulation system. The Element is based on
a fundamental philosophy that traffic conditions in
the City can be managed through a comprehensive
program of transportation planning, land use planning, and growth management strategies. This Element includes provisions for roadways, transit, aviation, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation modes, as well as parking conditions.

The Circulation Element responds directly to the
Government Code [Section 65302(b)], which requires
“a circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan.”
State Law recognizes that circulation and land use are
closely related and requires that policies in this Element and the Land Use Element be linked. Careful integration of the City’s traffic and circulation policies with its land use policies will ensure that there is sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate traffic
generated by planned future development. The City
is committed to designing a system of regional routes,
local roads, public transit and bicycle and pedestrian
pathways that will enhance the community and protect the environment.

The Land Use Element contains policies related to
the physical framework for development that the circulation system is designed to serve all transportation users including vehicles, trucks, bicyclists and pedestrians. This Element also addresses landscaping along major streets and planning for street connectivity in
new neighborhoods. It discusses how to create pedestrian-friendly environments and design for alternate modes of transportation. The Noise Element of the
General Plan includes policies to alleviate noise generated by traffic conditions.

4.1 Complete Streets Framework
In September 2008, the Governor signed into law the
California Complete Streets Act, requiring General
Plans to develop a plan for a multi-modal transportation system. The goal of the Act is to encourage cities to rethink policies that emphasize automobile circulation and prioritize motor vehicle improvements, and come up with creative solutions that emphasize
all modes of transportation. Complete Streets design
has many advantages. When people have more transportation options, there are fewer traffic jams and the overall capacity of the transportation network
increases. Complete Street design attends to the
needs of people who don’t travel by automobile, who
have often been overlooked. Additionally, increased
transit ridership, walking, and biking can reduce air
pollution, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas
emissions, while improving the overall travel experience for road users.

The City is committed to designing a system of
regional routes, local roads, public transit and bicycle and pedestrian pathways that will enhance the
community and protect the environment.
4-2 Visalia General Plan
To further the goal of optimizing travel by all modes,
this General Plan incorporates the concept of “Com-
plete Streets.” Complete Streets are designed and
operated to enable safe, attractive, and comfortable
access and travel for all users, including motorists,
pedestrians, bicyclists, children, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and users of public transportation.

While there is no standard design template for a
Complete Street, it generally includes one or more of
the following features: bicycle lanes, wide shoulders,
plenty of well-designed and well placed crosswalks,
crossing islands in appropriate midblock locations,
bus pullouts or special bus lanes, audible pedestrian
signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, center medians, and
street trees, planter strips and ground cover. Com-
plete Streets create a sense of place and improve social interaction due to their emphasis on encouraging
pedestrian activity.

4.2 GuidingPrinciples
Visalia’s Circulation Element relies upon three prin-
ciples:
• Land use and the circulation system are interactive
and interrelated;
• The City’s traffic circulation planning efforts are
integrated with those of the County and Caltrans
in a cooperative, regional planning effort; and
• State of the art transportation engineering is used, applying a Complete Streets framework, to bring
planned improvements to reality considering the
multi-modal, increased travel capacity and safety
needs of the community.

Only through the development and implementation
of all these principles can the City’s commitment to
a balanced, efficient circulation system be achieved.

Connectivity
The major objective of the Circulation Element is
to provide an interconnected street system with
improved north-south and east-west connections
for existing and future development in Visalia. The
City’s original street layout provided street connec-
tions linking neighborhoods with work places, but
as the community has grown, access has not always
improved.

Traditional grid street designs allow for through
movement and good connections between and
within neighborhoods. Short blocks offer a choice of
routes and enable more direct connections. Variations
from the traditional grid can allow for diagonal and
curvilinear streets as well as larger or smaller blocks for maximum flexibility and improved connectivity.

In order to ensure that street layout in future devel-
opment incorporates the need for neighborhood con-
nectivity and the comfort and safety of pedestrians
and bicyclists, it is essential that:
• New development is connected to the
surroundings with an increased number of access
points and pedestrian and bicycle connections to
the neighborhood network;
• Blocks are short to allow for more direct
connections;
• Neighborhood streets are designed at a humanscale, without excessively wide streets; and 4-3
circulation
October 2014
• Traffic controls are incorporated including speed
limits, bulb outs, modern roundabouts, signage,
and truck routes to restrict commercial traffic in
neighborhoods.

The 2030 General Plan provides for new routes in
partially developed portions of the Planning Area
and expands the capacity and efficiency of the existing system. In addition, the Plan provides for narrower streets in some areas than might otherwise be designed based upon current traffic design standards
and requirements alone.

Balanced Modes
Another objective is to create a balanced transportation system that serves public transit, bicyclists and pedestrians as well as private motor vehicles. Careful integration of land use and transportation and attention to the design and location of all roadway
elements is essential to support pedestrian-oriented
development and maintain the “small-town” atmosphere that Visalians desire. The 2030 General Plan includes new bikeways, trails and pedestrian facilities to link neighborhoods, schools, major recreation sites, and commercial centers including downtown.

The Plan also fosters compact development, which
can support additional public transit. By facilitating
use of alternative modes of travel, Visalia will encourage physical activity, reduce auto-dependency, and lessen roadway congestion.

4.3 Overall Circulation System
Planning
Roadway Network
In Visalia, the roadway system is based on a traditional grid pattern, on which all modes of transportation depend to some degree. This pattern has been modified in recent years to include some suburban
curvilinear and cul-de-sac streets in several areas in
the City. While State Routes 63, 99, 198 and 216 provide regional east/west and north/south access, these large arterials and freeways create lineal barriers to
connectivity on smaller city streets.

Functional Street Classifications
Visalia’s roadway system is set up around a hierarchy
of street types, which are commonly referred to as
functional classifications. These functional classifications for most major streets are illustrated on Figure 4-1 and summarized as follows:

Freeways
Freeways provide intra- and inter-regional mobility in
Visalia. Freeway access is restricted to primary arterials via interchanges. State routes 99 and 198 are the only freeways within the Planning Area.
• State Route 99 is a four- to six- lane divided freeway with a landscaped median. The northbound
segment between Betty Drive in Goshen to Avenue
384 south of Kingsburg (Fresno County) contains
three travel lanes; the remainder of State Route 99
in Tulare County contains two northbound and
two southbound travel lanes. With approximately
55,000 daily trips near State Route 198, State Route
99 is the second most traveled roadway in the
Good roadway design is essential to support
pedestrian-oriented development and maintain a
“small-town” feel (top).

Visalia’s roadway system is set up around a hierarchy
of street types, including arterials such as Ben Maddox Way (bottom).
4-4 Visalia General Plan
county. In addition, it is estimated that nearly 25
percent of these trips are trucks.
• State Route 198 is a major east-west corridor that
begins at US 101, travels through the City of
Visalia, and terminates at the Sequoia National
Park entrance. This roadway has several sections
that contain two and four lane roadways. In
Visalia this roadway operates as a four lane
freeway. State Route 198 will be improved to a
four lane expressway between State Route 43 and
State Route 99. State Route 198 serves a mix of
residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural
land uses. SR 198 between Ben Maddox and
Mooney Boulevard is the County’s most traveled
roadway, with 58,000 daily trips in 2011.

Arterials
Arterials collect and distribute traffic from freeways
and expressways to collector streets and vice versa.

On arterials, the optimum distance between intersec-
tions is approximately one quarter mile. Driveways to
major traffic generators may be permitted within the
quarter-mile spacing. Other intersections closer than
one quarter mile should be restricted to right turn
access. Based upon the Visalia Improvement Stan-
dards (2008), the arterial right-of-way widths range
from 84 feet to 110 feet. Arterials feature two to three through lanes of traffic in each direction with a leftturn channelization.

Collectors
Collectors connect local and arterial streets and pro-
vide direct access to parcels. At major intersections,
driveways on collector streets should be no closer
than 50 feet to the intersection per the City of Visalia Improvement Standards. Non-residential driveways
and/or intersecting streets on collector streets should be no closer than 300 to 400 feet apart.

Major collectors carry four lanes of traffic within an
84-foot right-of-way and two bicycle lanes within an
additional 10 feet of right-of-way. Collectors generally carry two lanes of traffic and are a minimum of 60
feet wide.

Local Streets
Local streets provide direct access to parcels. Local
streets represent the largest part of the city’s circu- lation system. Access to local streets is unrestricted
and right-of-way widths vary between 48 and 66 feet
depending on surrounding land uses (2008 City of
Visalia Design and Improvement Standards). All
roadways not identified in the General Plan as free-
ways, arterials, or collectors are designated local
streets.

Although the City of Visalia Design Standards pro-
vide guidance on cross-section widths and the City
has preserved right-of-way along street corridors for
future transportation-related improvements, street
designs may vary with regard to raised medians,
travel lanes for vehicles, bicycle lanes, parking and
sidewalks within these cross sections. Future road-
ways will be developed on a street by street basis
according to direction from the City.
4-5
circulation
October 2014
Persian Creek
0 1 2
MILES
1/2
10 40
160 acres
1/2 Mile Radius
Figure 4-1:

Roadway Classifications
Freeway
Existing Arterial
Year 1-10 Arterial
Year 11-25 Arterial
Existing Collector
Year 1-10 Collector
Year 11-25 Collector
Deferred Arterial
Deferred Collector
Local Street
Planned Interchange
Improvement
Proposed New
Interchange
Proposed Overcrossing
Urban Development
Boundary Tier 1
Urban Development
Boundary Tier 2
Urban Development
Boundary Tier 3
Planning Area
City Limits
S t Joh n s R i v e r
N. COUNTY CENTER DR
W.RIGGIN AVE
ROAD 80

KELSEY ST
W. DOE AVE ROAD 88
ROAD 76
ROAD 86

FERGUSON
AVE
ROAD 68
W. WALNUT AVE
N.SHIRK RD
W.HURLEY AVE

GOSHEN AVE
W.RIGGIN AVE
N. MOONEY BLVD

HALL ST
W. HOUSTON AVE E. HOUSTON AVE DINUBA BLVD

MURRAY AVE
S. AKERS ST
S. PLAZA DR

RIVER WAY DR

PRATT AVE
N. BURKE ST
RD 132 BEN MADDOX WAY

LOVERS LANE
W. MAIN ST

MINERAL KING AVE
W.NOBLE AVE
S.MOONEY BLVD

NOBLE AVE

LOVERS LANE
ROAD 148

BEN MADDOX WAY

TULARE AVE
S. COURT ST

SANTA FE ST

TULARE AVE
S. GIDDINGS ST

SANTA FE ST
N.DEMAREE ST

COURT ST

PINKHAM ST
S. DEMAREE ST

LINWOOD ST
N.CHINOWTH ST S. CHINOWTH ST
S. LINWOOD ST

WHITENDALE AVE
AVE 280 W. CALDWELL AVE
AVE 272
RD 92
AVE 276
ROAD 152 AVE 292 ROAD 156
AVE 280
AVE 272
AVE 264
ROAD 108

ROEBEN ST
AVE 320 AVE 320
N. PLAZA DR

ST JOHNS PKWY
W. SHANNON PKWY
N.CAIN ST
RD 144 S. MCAULIFF ST
W. VISALIA PKWY

MC AULIFF ST

FERGUSON AVE
AVE 328

MINERAL KING AVE
W. FERGUSON AVE
E. K AVE

GOSHEN AVE

WALNUT AVE
S. COUNTY CENTER DR
RD 100
S. CONYER ST
ROAD 92
AVE 328
RD 148
N. AKERS ST
AVE 288

GOSHEN AVE

CENTER AVE

ACEQUIA AVE

CAMERON AVELOCUST ST

RIVER WAY DR
2ND
3RD AVE
AVE

DIVISADERO
ST

JACOB ST

WILLIS ST

BRIDGE ST

MAIN ST
N.CAIN ST

MILLCREEK
PKWY
N. GIDDINGS ST
S.SHIRK RD

MILL CREEK DR

CAMPUS AVE

WOODLAND ST
AVE 316
Figure 4-1: Roadway Classifications
4-6 Visalia General Plan
Level of Service
To determine the operating conditions of a roadway
segment or intersection, the concept of level of service (LOS) is commonly used. The LOS grading system is a scale ranging from LOS A to LOS F, with LOS A representing free-flow conditions and LOS F
representing congested conditions. Table 4-1 provides
more specific definitions.

Table 4-1: Intersection Level of Service Definitions
Stopped Delay/Vehicle (sec)
LOS Description Signalized Unsignalized All-Way Stop
A Free Flow or Insignificant Delays: Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their abil-ity to maneuver within the traffic stream.

Control delay at signalized in-tersections is minimal.
< 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
B Stable Operation or Minimal Delays: The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and control delay at signalized intersections are not significant.
>10 and < 20.0 >10 and < 15.0 >10 and < 15.0
C Stable Operation or Acceptable Delays: The ability to maneuver and change lanes is somewhat restricted, and average travel speeds may be about 50 percent of the free flow speed. >20 and < 35.0 >15 and < 25.0 >15 and < 25.0
D Approaching Unstable or Tolerable Delays: Small increases in flow may cause sub-stantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed.
>35 and < 55.0 >25 and < 35.0 >25 and < 35.0
E Unstable Operation or Significant Delays: Significant delays may occur and average travel speeds may be 33 percent or less of the free flow speed.
>55 and < 80.0 >35 and < 50.0 >35 and < 50.0
F Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: Conges-tion, high delays, and extensive queuing occur at critical signalized intersections with urban street flow at extremely low speeds.
> 80.0 > 50.0 > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board. 4-7
circulation
October 2014
Existing conditions for roadway segment levels of
service were estimated utilizing average daily traffic
(ADT) and then evaluated based on LOS thresholds;
see Table 4-2.

Table 4-2: Level of Service Criteria for Roadway Segments Roadway Segment Type
Total Two-way Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E
6-Lane Divided Freeway 42,000 64,800 92,400 111,600 120,000 4-Lane Divided Freeway 28,000 43,200 61,600 74,400 80,000 6-Lane Freeway 36,900 61,100 85,300 103,600 115,300
4-Lane Freeway 23,800 39,600 55,200 67,100 74,600
6-lane Divided Expressway (with left-turn lanes) 35,500 42,200 46,200 55,800 60,000 6-Lane Divided Arterial (with left-turn lane) 32,000 38,000 43,000 49,000 54,000 4-Lane Divided Arterial (with left-turn lane) 22,000 25,000 29,000 32,500 36,000 4-Lane Undivided Arterial (no left-turn lane) 18,000 21,000 24,000 27,000 30,000 2-Lane Arterial (with left-turn lane) 11,000 12,500 14,500 16,000 18,000 2-Lane Arterial (no left-turn lane) 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000 2-Lane Collector/Local Street 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 Note: All volumes are approximate and assume ideal roadway characteristics. Actual threshold volumes for each Level of Service listed above may vary depending on a variety of factors including curvature and grade, intersection or interchange spacing, driveway spacing, percentage of trucks and other heavy vehicles, travel lane widths, signal timing characteristics, on-street parking, volume of cross traffic and pedestrians, etc.

Source: Based on “Highway Capacity Manual,” Transportation Research Board, 2000. 4-8 Visalia General Plan
Existing Traffic Conditions
The city’s roadways were evaluated using average daily
traffic (ADT) counts for the 2008 to 2010 period.

Intersection facilities were evaluated for the AM and
PM peak-hour using 2010 peak-hour turning movement counts. Traffic conditions and deficiencies were identified by calculating level of service (LOS).

LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade “A” through “F” is assigned to an intersection or roadway segment representing progressively worsening traffic conditions.

LOS was calculated for different intersection control
types using the methods documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000).

The previous General Plan established LOS “D” as
the minimum acceptable LOS standard on city roadways. Although Caltrans has not designated a LOS standard, Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of
Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) indicates
that when the LOS of a State highway facility falls
below the LOS “C/D” cusp in rural areas and the
LOS “D/E” cusp in urban areas, additional traffic
may have a significant impact.

Existing Intersection Level of Service
Existing weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic volume counts were conducted at 25 intersections and 24-hour counts were conducted on roadway segments
in April 2010 while school was in session. The AM
peak hour is defined as one-hour of peak traffic flow
counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM
peak hour is defined as one-hour of peak traffic flow
counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Table 4-3
summarizes intersection LOS and seconds of delay
for the AM and PM peak hours; Table 4-4 summarizes roadway segment LOS in 2010 (the baseline year).

As Table 4-3 shows, all of the 25 study intersections
operate at acceptable LOS under existing conditions
(2010 baseline).

All of the intersections and roadway segments studied
for the General Plan update currently have acceptable
“level of service” traffic conditions, including South
Mooney Boulevard (State Route 63).
4-9
circulation
October 2014
Table 4-3: Existing Intersection LOS (2010)
No. Intersection
Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Riggin Avenue/Shirk Road AWSC 9.7 A 9.6 A
2 Riggin Avenue/Demaree Street Signal 17.4 B 19.8 B
3 Riggin Avenue/Giddings Street TWSC 14.6 B 16.6 C
4 Riggin Avenue/Dinuba Boulevard Signal 17.3 B 27.5 C
5 Ferguson Avenue/Linwood Street AWSC 10.7 B 9.0 A
6 Goshen Avenue/Plaza Drive Signal 24.7 C 22.5 C
7 Houston Avenue/Demaree Street Signal 23.4 C 19.8 B
8 Houston Avenue/Ben Maddox way Signal 20.6 C 24.0 C
9 Houston Avenue/McAuliff Street Signal 20.7 C 18.2 B
10 Hurley Street/Plaza Drive Signal 6.8 A 8.9 A
11 Hillsdale Avenue/Akers Street Signal 21.3 C 18.1 B
12 Mineral King Avenue/Akers Street Signal 16.9 B 17.9 B 13 Noble Avenue/Akers Street Signal 14.1 B 17.5 B
14 Cypress Avenue/Akers Street Signal 17.6 B 34.3 C
15 Main Street/West Street Signal 6.6 A 7.1 A
16 Noble Avenue/Watson Street Signal 8.4 A 7.1 A
17 Tulare Avenue/Santa Fe Street AWSC 13.4 B 14.3 B
18 Walnut Avenue/Shirk Road AWSC 13.3 B 15.7 C
19 Whitendale Avenue/Demaree Street Signal 8.4 A 8.9 A
20 Whitendale Avenue/Woodland Drive TWSC 11.8 B 14.5 B
21 K Avenue/Ben Maddox Way AWSC 9.5 A 13.5 B
22 K Avenue/Lovers Lane OWSC 15.4 C 17.9 C
23 Caldwell Avenue/Burke Street Signal 15.6 C 23.8 C
24 Caldwell Avenue/Lovers Lane Signal 18.8 B 21.0 C
25 Visalia Road/Akers Street TWSC 16.9 C 15.6 C
Legend:

TWSC = Two-Way-Stop Control; AWSC = All-Way-Stop Control; OWSC = One-Way-Stop Control For Signalized Intersections Average Delay = Average Intersection Delay; For TWSC Intersections Average Delay = Worst-Case Intersection Movement Delay; For Signalized Intersections LOS = Average Intersection Level-of-Service; For TWSC Intersections LOS = Worst-Case Movement’s Level-of-Service; Warrant = MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant 3
Source: Omni-Means, 2014.
4-10 Visalia General Plan
Table 4-4 identifies existing roadway segment LOS
for existing conditions (baseline 2010). Table 4-4
shows that all of the 33 roadway segments operate at
acceptable LOS under existing conditions.

Table 4-4: Existing Roadway Segment LOS (2010)
Roadway Segment Limits No. of Lanes Facility Type AADT LOS Akers Street Rialto – Caldwell Avenue 4 Arterial 7,100 B Akers Street Goshen Avenue – Ferguson Ave. 4 Arterial 10,400 B Caldwell Avenue Shirk Street - Aspen 2 Arterial 10,300 B Caldwell Avenue Ben Maddox Way – Pinkham Ave. 2 Arterial 13,500 B Center Avenue Floral Street – Court Street 2 Arterial 6,600 B County Center Beech Street – Walnut Avenue 2 Collector 10,478 C Demaree Street Damsen - Nicholas 4 Arterial 21,600 B
Demaree Street Walnut Avenue – Tulare Avenue 4 Arterial 18,600 B Goshen Avenue Demaree Street – Chinowth Street 4 Arterial 18,800 B Main Street Floral Street – Court Street 2 Collector 7,100 C Noble Avenue Pinkham Street – Lovers Lane 2 Arterial 9,000 B Riggin Avenue Akers Street – Linwood Street 2 Arterial 7,800 C Santa Fe Street Center Avenue – School Street 2 Collector 2,600 B Santa Fe Street Walnut Avenue – Tulare Avenue 2 Collector 5,300 C Shirk Avenue Goshen Avenue – Doe Avenue 2 Arterial 7,600 C Shirk Avenue Walnut Avenue – State Route 198 2 Arterial 6,800 C Walnut Avenue Atwood – Linwood Street 4 Arterial 11,600 B Walnut Avenue Conyer Street – Court Street 4 Arterial 15,200 B Walnut Avenue Yale – Mall Entrance 4 Arterial 15,100 B
Whitendale Avenue Crenshaw – Linwood Street 2 Collector 7,300 C Whitendale Avenue West Street – Court Street 2 Collector 6,100 C State Route 63 Caldwell Avenue – Walnut Avenue 6 State Route 33,000 B State Route 63 Walnut Avenue – Tulare Avenue 6 State Route 31,000 B State Route 63 School Avenue – Murray Avenue 4 State Route 11,700 B State Route 99 Caldwell Avenue – State Route 198 4 State Route 55,000 B 4-11
circulation
October 2014
Table 4-4: Existing Roadway Segment LOS (2010)
Roadway Segment Limits No. of Lanes Facility Type AADT LOS State Route 99 State Route 198 – Avenue 304 4 State Route 49,500 B State Route 99 Avenue 304 – Betty Drive 4 State Route 49,000 B State Route 198 State Route – Akers Street 4 State Route 50,000 C State Route 198 Akers Street - Mooney Boulevard 4 State Route 59,000 D State Route 198 Mooney Boulevard – Lovers Lane 4 State Route 61,000 D State Route 198 Lovers Lane – Road 156 4 State Route 29,000 B State Route 216 Mill Creek Parkway – Douglas Ave. 4 State Route 19,200 B State Route 216 Lovers Lane – McAuliff Street 2 State Route 9,200 C Source: Omni-Means, 2010
Objectives
T-O-1 Develop and maintain a road system that is
convenient, safe, efficient, and cost effective.

T-O-2 Maximize the use and efficiency of the existing transportation system through application of Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies.

T-O-3 Promote ways to reduce the number of peak
hour trips and vehicle-miles traveled in the
Planning Area.

T-O-4 Ensure that new development pays its fair
share of the costs of new and improved transportation facilities.

Policies
System Planning
T-P-1 Provide transportation facilities based on a
“Complete Streets” concept that facilitate the
balanced use of all travel modes (pedestrians,
bicyclists, motorists, and transit users), meeting the transportation needs of all ages and abilities and providing mobility for a variety
of trip purposes.

T-P-2 Optimize roadway operations with priority given to signal timing coordination in order to increase traffic-carrying capacity and
decrease air pollution and congestion. Roundabouts shall be considered when feasible and beneficial as an alternative to traffic signals.
4-12 Visalia General Plan
T-P-3 Design and build future roadways that complement and enhance the existing network, as shown on the Circulation Diagram, to ensure
that each new and existing roadway continues
to function as intended.

T-P-4 Where feasible, space traffic signals no closer
than one-quarter mile along two-way arterials except in unusual circumstances. The intersections of arterial and collector streets
and access driveways to major traffic generators that are signalized shall be located so as to maintain this spacing.

T-P-5 Take advantage of opportunities to consolidate driveways, access points, and curb cuts along existing arterials when a change in
development or a change in intensity occurs
or when traffic operation or safety warrants.

T-P-6 Establish priorities for improvements based
on the functional classifications identified
for street segments on the Circulation System
Map and on the relative importance of the
roadway for each travel mode.

For example, transit stops and bus turnouts
may have higher priority than improvements for
through traffic on important transit corridors;
through traffic may have higher priority than
on-street parking on major arterials; and pedestrian and bicycle movement may have high priority in areas with high pedestrian interest and activity (such as Downtown).

T-P-7 Continue to implement a monitoring and
evaluation program that will provide the data
and planning needed to develop an effective and coordinated Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that will provide circulation
improvements in concert with development
trends.

T-P-8 Give priority to funding and implementing projects that either complete links on the transportation system or relieve existing deficiencies.

Level of Service Standards; Engineering and
Safety Standards
T-P-9 Maintain acceptable levels of service for all
modes and facilities, as established in Tables
4-1, Intersection Level of Service Definitions
and 4-2, Level of Service Criteria for Roadway
Segments.

T-P-10 Manage local residential streets to limit average daily vehicle volumes to 1,500 or less and maintain average vehicle speeds between 15
and 25 miles per hour.

T-P-11 Update the City of Visalia Engineering and
Street Design Standards to ensure that roadway and streetscape design specifications are in accordance with the Complete Streets concept and other policies in this General Plan.

Updated design standards must allow flexibility
to accommodate retrofitting streets with limited
right-of-way. In order to accommodate all travel
modes, adjustments may be made to median,
travel lane, and bike lane widths; alternate
The Plan directs the City to design and build future
roadways following the Circulation Diagram, including
new streets and improvements to existing streets (top).

Street design standards are to be updated to follow
the “Complete Streets” concept (bottom).
4-13
circulation
October 2014
bikeway routes on parallel facilities may also be
considered.

T-P-12 Require or provide adequate traffic safety
measures on all new and existing roadways.

These measures may include, but shall not be
limited to: appropriate levels of maintenance,
proper street design, traffic control devices, street
lights, and coordination with school districts to
provided school crossing signs and protection.

Right of Way Acquisition and Construction
T-P-13 Where possible, acquire right-of-way within
older areas of the city to improve the con-
nectivity of the roadway system, consistent
with Figure 4-1. The benefits of improved traffic flow shall be weighed against the adverse impacts of street widening on the neighborhoods and adjacent land uses.

T-P-14 Require residential communities on undevel-
oped land planned for urban uses to provide
stubs for future connections to the edge of the
property line. Where stubs exist on adjacent
properties, new streets within the develop-
ment should connect to them.

T-P-15 Require additional right-of-way and improve-
ments of Circulation Element facilities where
needed for turning movements or to provide
access to adjacent properties wherever access
is not feasible from the lower classification
street system.

T-P-16 Promote phased construction of major arte-
rials where sufficient right-of-way width is
obtained for ultimate future needs, but street
construction width is adequate to meet pres-
ent need, thereby avoiding maintenance costs
resulting from unused pavement.

T-P-17 Use citywide traffic impact fees to pro-
vide additional funding for transportation
improvements with citywide benefits, such
as highway interchanges and ramps. Provide
for automatic annual adjustments in traffic
fees to reflect increases in construction costs
(materials, inflation, etc.).

Traffic Studies and Mitigation Measures
T-P-18 To ensure that citywide traffic service levels are maintained, require a traffic study, as a condition of development, of surrounding
arterials, collectors, access roads, and region-
ally significant roadways for any major proj-
ect that would require a General Plan amend-
ment, and for projects where the proposed use
could create traffic congestion because needed
improvements identified by this General Plan
would not be completed before project occu-
pancy or are not funded under the CIP.

The City will update its criteria and guidelines
for traffic studies to be consistent with the Gen-
eral Plan, and projects that conform to General
Plan-specified land use designations and intensi-
ties will generally not be required to prepare a
traffic study.

T-P-19 Pursue Transportation System Management
(TSM) for the mitigation of traffic and parking congestion. 4-14 Visalia General Plan
Public transit, traffic management, ride sharing, and parking management can be used to implement TSM strategies.

T-P-20 Work with major employers and the Tulare
County Association of Governments (TCAG)
to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and the
total number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips and provide better utilization of the transportation system through development and implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that
are tailored to the needs of geographic areas
within the city and the time period of traffic
congestion.

These may include the implementation staggered
work hours, utilization of telecommunications,
increased use of ridesharing in the public and
private sectors, and provision for bicyclists.

Coordination with the College of the
Sequoias
T-P-21 Coordinate with the College of the Sequoias
to develop a transportation plan that ensures
that the College provides adequate parking
areas for students and faculty; improves circulation issues on and adjacent to campus; integrates transit; and incorporates Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies such as incentives for ridesharing and facilities for bicyclists.

The plan should minimize negative impacts on
surrounding residential areas and on the transportation system.

4.4 Planned Improvements
To achieve a balance between existing and future land
uses and the carrying capacity of transportation corridors, improvements to the roadway network will be needed. The future Circulation Diagram is illustrated
in Figure 4-1. Major street improvements consistent
with the Circulation Diagram planned for Visalia
are listed in Table 4-5. These improvements include
widening portions of State Route 198 and other major
arterials, new bridge crossings, interchange improvements and grade separations. Several new arterial roads will need to be constructed as well as numerous
collector and residential streets in the targeted growth areas. The proposed roads are conceptual, subject to
further engineering and environmental review. Interchange improvements may be done in coordination with Caltrans and other jurisdictions.

Table 4-5 shows planned improvements where engineering details are known; additional improvements, shown on Figure 4-1, will also be needed to accommodate future traffic and ensure a complete street system correlated with future land use. Details on
these planned improvements will be defined as the
City moves forward with long-range capital improvement programming. 4-15
circulation
October 2014
Table 4-5: Planned Circulation System Improvements
Facility Project Scope Length Type of Improvement
New Roadway Construction Projects
Avenue 272 Construct new roadway Rd 122 to Santa Fe; 0.8 mi. New 2-lane; 1/2 arterial Avenue 320 Construct new roadway Demaree to Mooney; 1 mi. New 2-lane; 1/2 arterial Mooney Boulevard Construct new roadway Riggin to Avenue 320; 1 mi. New 2-lane; arterial Court Street Construct new roadway Wren to Riggin; 0.2 mi. New 2-lane; collector Tulare Avenue Construct new roadway Lovers Lane to McAuliff; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Cain Street Construct new roadway Goshen to Douglas; 0.2 mi. New 2-lane; collector Kelsey Street Construct new roadway Doe to Riggin; 0.7 mi. New 2-lane; collector Sunnyview Avenue Construct new roadway Kelsey to Clancy; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Virmargo Street Construct new roadway Goshen to Houston; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Chinowth Street Construct new roadway Avenue 272 to Caldwell; 1 mi. New 2-lane; collector Chinowth Street Construct new roadway Goshen to Houston; 0.2 mi. New 2-lane; collector Court Street Construct new roadway Avenue 272 to Ave 276; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Linwood Street Construct new roadway Avenue 272 to Ave 276; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Linwood Street Construct new roadway Riggin to Avenue 320; 1 mi. New 2-lane; collector Pinkham Street Construct new roadway Avenue 272 to Caldwell; 0.9 mi. New 2-lane; collector Roeben Street Construct new roadway Caldwell to Whitendale; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Tulare Avenue Construct new roadway Shirk to Roeben; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Avenue 276 (Visalia Pkwy) Construct new roadway Ben Maddox to Rd 148; 2 mi. New 2-lane; collector Avenue 308 (Ferguson) Construct new roadway American (Rd 76) to Plaza; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Avenue 316 Construct new roadway Plaza to Chinowth; 3.2 mi. New 2-lane; collector County Center Drive Construct new roadway Avenue 272 to Packwood Creek; 0.7 mi. New 2-lane; collector County Center Drive Construct new roadway Pratt to Avenue 320; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Giddings Street Construct new roadway Shannon Pkwy to Avenue 316; 0.3 mi. New 2-lane; collector Hurley Avenue Construct new roadway Camp to American (Rd 76); 0.3 mi. New 2-lane; collector Hurley Avenue Construct new roadway Kelsey to Shirk; 1 mi. New 2-lane; collector Hurley Avenue Construct new roadway Road 76 to Plaza; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector "K" Avenue Construct new roadway Lovers Lane to McAuliff; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Kelsey Street Construct new roadway Riggin to Avenue 320; 1 mi. New 2-lane; collector 4-16 Visalia General Plan
Table 4-5: Planned Circulation System Improvements
Facility Project Scope Length Type of Improvement
McAuliff Street Construct new roadway Avenue 272 to Caldwell; 1 mi. New 2-lane; collector McAuliff Street Construct new roadway Walnut to Caldwell; 1 mi. New 2-lane; collector Road 76 (American) Construct new roadway Ferguson (Ave 308) to Riggin; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Road 76 (American) Construct new roadway Hurley to Legacy; 0.2 mi. New 2-lane; collector Road 88 Construct new roadway Riggin to Avenue 320; 1 mi. New 2-lane; collector Road 96 (Roeben St) Construct new roadway Riggin to Avenue 320; 1.4 mi. New 2-lane; collector Tulare Avenue Construct new roadway Rd 148 to Rd 152; 0.6 mi. New 2-lane; collector Doe Avenue Construct new roadway Shirk to Roeben; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Shannon Parkway Construct new roadway Dinuba Blvd. (SR 63) to Santa Fe; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector St John’s Parkway Construct new roadway McAuliff to Rd 148; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Virmargo Street Construct new roadway Houston to St. John’s Parkway; 0.4 mi. New 2-lane; collector Whitendale Avenue Construct new roadway Shirk to Roeben; 0.5 mi. New 2-lane; collector Burke Street Construct new roadway Roosevelt to Houston; 0.3 mi. New 2-lane; collector Oak Ave Construct new roadway Tipton to Burke; 0.2 mi New 2-lane; local School Ave Construct new roadway Tipton to Burke; 0.2 mi New 2-lane; local Avenue 276 (Visalia Pkwy) Construct new roadway Demaree to Ben Maddox; 3 mi. New 4-lane; Arterial Ben Maddox Way Construct new roadway Avenue 272 to Caldwell; 0.9 mi. New 4-lane; arterial Road 148 Construct new roadway Houston (SR 216) to St. John’s Pkwy; 0.2 mi. New 4-lane; Arterial Road 148 Construct new roadway Mineral King to Houston; 1.1 mi. New 4-lane; Arterial Road 148 Construct new roadway Walnut to Noble; 0.9 mi. New 4-lane; Arterial Santa Fe Street Construct new roadway Riggin/St John’s Parkway to Shannon Parkway; 0.3 mi.

New 4-lane; arterial
Stonebrook Street Construct new roadway Avenue 272 to Caldwell; 1 mi. New 4-lane; collector 4-17
circulation
October 2014
Table 4-5: Planned Circulation System Improvements
Facility Project Scope Length Type of Improvement
Existing Roadway Widening Projects
Houston Ave. Widen existing roadway Ben Maddox to Lovers Lane; 1 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Houston Ave. Widen existing roadway Santa Fe to Ben Maddox; .5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Murray Ave. Widen existing roadway Giddings to Santa Fe; 1 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Santa Fe St. Widen existing roadway K St to Tulare; .9 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Santa Fe St. Widen existing roadway Tulare to Houston; 1.5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Walnut Ave. Widen existing roadway Yale to Central; .2 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Akers Street Widen existing roadway Ferguson to Riggin; 0.5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Court St. Widen existing roadway Walnut to Tulare; .4 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Ferguson Ave. Widen existing roadway Plaza to Kelsey; .5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Goshen Avenue Widen existing roadway Santa Fe to Lovers Lane; 1.6 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes McAuliff Street Widen existing roadway Mineral King to Mill Creek Pkwy; 0.6 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Santa Fe Street Widen existing roadway Caldwell to "K"; 0.7 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Whitendale Avenue Widen existing roadway Sallee to Fairway; 0.4 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Santa Fe St. Widen existing roadway Caldwell to Ave. 272; 1 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Santa Fe Street Widen existing roadway Houston to Riggin; 1 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Shirk Road Widen existing roadway Caldwell to SR198; 4 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Shirk Road Widen existing roadway SR198 to Goshen Ave; 1 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Walnut Avenue Widen existing roadway Cedar to Rd 148; 1.2 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Akers Street Widen existing roadway Avenue 276 to Avenue 272; 0.5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Akers Road Widen existing roadway Caldwell to Visalia Pkwy (Ave. 276); .5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Demaree St. Widen existing roadway Pratt to Ave 320; 0.5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Goshen Ave. Widen existing roadway Camp to American (Rd 76); 0.6 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Hwy 63 (Dinuba Blvd) Widen existing roadway Riggin to St John’s River; 0.6 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Road 148 Widen existing roadway Ave 272 to Ave 276; 0.5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Road 148 Widen existing roadway Ave 276 to Walnut; 1.5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Shirk Street Widen existing roadway Goshen to Riggin; 1 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Walnut Avenue Widen existing roadway Shirk to Akers; 1 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 4-18 Visalia General Plan
Table 4-5: Planned Circulation System Improvements
Facility Project Scope Length Type of Improvement
Walnut Avenue Widen existing roadway Rd 148 to Rd 152; 0.5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Lovers Lane Widen existing roadway Ave 272 to Caldwell; 1 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Riggin Avenue Widen existing roadway Road 80 to SR 63 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Caldwell Avenue Widen existing roadway Akers St to Linwood Ave; 0.5 mi. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Plaza Drive Widen existing roadway Crowley to Avenue 304 (Goshen) Widen from 2 to lanes Mooney Boulevard (SR 63) Widen existing roadway Avenue 272 to Avenue 276; 0.5 mi. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Bridge Structure Projects
Preston Street New bridge Preston St at Mill Creek Ditch New 2-lane bridge; local McAuliff Street New over crossing McAuliff St/SR 198 New bridge structure Ben Maddox Way Widen over crossing Ben Maddox Way/SR 198 Widen bridge structure Traffic Signal Improvement Projects
Acequia Ave at Bridge St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Acequia Ave at Burke St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Acequia Ave at Santa Fe St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Akers St at Ferguson Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Akers St at Riggin Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Akers St at Visalia Parkway Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Beech Ave at Court St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Ben Maddox Way at
Douglas Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Ben Maddox Way at K Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Bridge St at Center Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Bridge St at Main St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Bridge St at Murray Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Bridge St at Tulare Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Burke St at Center Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Burke St at Goshen Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Burke St at Main St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Burke St at St John’s Pkwy Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal 4-19
circulation
October 2014
Table 4-5: Planned Circulation System Improvements
Facility Project Scope Length Type of Improvement
Burke St at Tulare Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Burrel Ave at Mooney Blvd Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Cain St at Main St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Cain St at Mineral King Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Cameron Ave at County
Center
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Cameron Ave at Court St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Campus Ave at County
Center
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Center Ave at Conyer St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Center Ave at SantavFe St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Central St at Tulare Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Chinowth St at Goshen Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal College Ave at Lovers Lane Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal County Center at Ferguson
Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
County Center at Houston
Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
County Center at
Packwood Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
County Center at Riggin
Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
County Center at Royal
Oaks Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Court St at Ferguson Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Court St at Granite/Pearl St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Court St at Paradise Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Court St at Whitendale Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Crenshaw St at Whitendale
Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Cypress Ave at Linwood St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Damsen Ave at Demaree St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal 4-20 Visalia General Plan
Table 4-5: Planned Circulation System Improvements
Facility Project Scope Length Type of Improvement
Demaree St at Ferguson
Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Demaree St at Mill Creek
Pkwy
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Divisadero St at Walnut
Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Divisadero St at
Whitendale Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Doe Ave at Shirk St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Encina St at Walnut Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Ferguson Ave at Linwood
St
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Ferguson Ave at Mooney
Blvd
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Giddings St at Prospect
Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Giddings St at Riggin Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Goshen Ave at Mooney
Blvd
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Grape St at NE 3rd Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Houston Ave at Jacob St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Houston Ave at Mooney
Blvd
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Houston Ave at Rinaldi St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Hurley Ave at Shirk St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Jacob St at Main St. Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal K Ave at Pinkham St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Lovers Lane at Tulare Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Main St at Mineral King
Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
McAuliff St at Noble Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal McAuliff St at Walnut Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Murray Ave at Santa Fe St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal 4-21
circulation
October 2014
Table 4-5: Planned Circulation System Improvements
Facility Project Scope Length Type of Improvement
Noble Ave at Pinkham St Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Riggin Ave at Shirk Rd Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Roeben St at Tulare Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Roeben St at Walnut Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Santa Fe St at Tulare Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Santa Fe St at Walnut Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Shirk St at Walnut Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Visalia Mall entrance at
Walnut Ave
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
West St at Whitendale Ave Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal Whitendale Ave at
Woodland Dr
Not applicable Not applicable New Traffic Signal
Traffic signal
interconnection
Connecting existing
traffic signals

1.0 mile Signal interconnect
Source: Omni Means, 2014 & Tulare County Regional Transportation Plan, 2011. 4-22 Visalia General Plan
Street Standards
Typical street widths and design elements in Visalia
are listed in Table 4-6. All street designs are subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department and additional local street cross-sections may be approved with area plans, development projects
or subdivisions to reflect specific design concepts.

Although the City of Visalia Design Standards provide guidance on cross-section widths and the City has preserved right-of-way along street corridors for
future transportation-related improvements, street
designs may vary with regard to raised medians,
travel lanes for vehicles, bicycle lanes, parking and
sidewalks within these cross sections. Future roadways will be developed on a street by street basis according to direction from the City.

Table 4-6: Typical Street Elements and Widths (Feet)
Street Classification
Right-ofWay WidthCurb-toCurb WidthTravel
Lanes
Parking
Lanes
Bicycle
Lanes
Median
Strip
Planter
Strip1 Sidewalk
6-Lane Arterial 134’ 110’ 6 x 12’ None 2 x 6’ 26’ 5’ 7’ 4-Lane Arterial 110’ 86’ 4 x 12’ None 2 x 6’ 26’ 5’ 7’
2-Lane Arterial 74’ 50’ 2 x 12’ None 2 x 6’ 14’ 5’ 7’
4-Lane Collector 110’ 86’ 4 x 12’ 2 x 8’ 2 x 5’ 12’ 5’ 7’ 2-Lane Collector 84’ 62’ 2 x 12’ 2 x 8’ 2 x 5’ 12’ 5’ 6’ 2-Lane Local 60’ 40’ 2 x 12’ 2 x 8’ None None 5’ 5’

1. Minimum planter strip width stated in the table includes the width of the curb.

Source: Dyett and Bhatia, 2010; Omni-Means, 2012.

Streetscape Improvements
Complementing improvements to the citywide street
system are improvements to the city’s streetscape and
city identity. These streetscape types create a hierarchy for navigation throughout the city, and provide opportunities for public art, signage, and special
landscaping and fixtures. The General Plan introduces four streetscape concepts, shown on the illustrative street sections that follow.

Figure 4-2a shows a “green street” version of a twolane collector. Green Streets are more intimate in scale and provide greater pedestrian facilities like
wide sidewalks, furnishings, curb bulb-outs, and frequent, well-marked crosswalks. This design may be appropriate for streets like Main Street, Murray Avenue, Court Street/Dinuba Boulevard, and Santa Fe Street. The shared travel/bike lane is a departure from the typical street section for a two-lane collector.
4-23
circulation
October 2014
Figure 4-2b shows a “green corridor” that supports
multimodal circulation, where pedestrians, bicyclists,
and vehicles share the right-of-way. Street trees and
lighting play an important role on these streets in
providing a consistent landscape scheme and shading. Typically, street parking would be provided on a collector but not on an arterial. Arterial versions
of green corridors may include major east-west and
north-south connections like Goshen Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and Demaree Street. Figure 4-2c shows a green corridor in a Downtown context where rightof-way may be more limited and buildings are built to the street edge.

Figure 4-2d shows an arterial that accommodates
transit in its own lane, and supports a pedestrianrealm that complements transit. The “transit corridor” may be considered a type of four-lane arterial.

This design could be appropriate along the route of
a future light rail or bus rapid transit line on Goshen Avenue, South Mooney Boulevard, Main Street or Murray Avenue.
“Gateway boulevards,” as shown in Figure 4-2e, provide a sense of identity and entrance into the city.

Double rows of trees, enhanced plantings, and lighting elements are the primary components of the streetscape design. Gateway boulevards may be an
appropriate design for six-lane arterials that could
include Shirk Road, Riggin Avenue, Lovers Lane,
and Caldwell Avenue.

Figure 4-2a: Green Street (2-Lane Collector)
4-24 Visalia General Plan
Figure 4-2b: Green Corridor (4-Lane Collector) Figure 4-2d: Transit Corridor (4-Lane Arterial, with Transit) Figure 4-2c: Green Corridor - Downtown (4-Lane Collector) Figure 4-2e: Gateway Boulevard (6-Lane Arterial) 4-25
circulation
October 2014
Future Traffic Conditions
The TCAG Regional Travel Demand Forecast Model
(RTDFM) was used to identify future traffic volumes
along local, collector, and arterial roads and freeways.

The model treats these as a system of links, or streets, that connect future land uses—i.e., residential and
non-residential uses—based on each city’s and the
county’s general plan. Tulare Council of Governments (TCAG) provided the transportation model forecasts for land use and circulation.

Table 4-7 identifies 2030 forecasted AM and PM
peak hour traffic LOS. As shown in Table 4-7, all
of the study intersections are projected to operate at
acceptable LOS with planned improvements, including traffic signalization and lane modifications that will be required during the life of the General Plan.1
The lane geometry and signal control of each study
intersection is shown in Figure 4-2.
1 Mitigation measures for these impacts will be evaluated in the Draft EIR. These may include signalization and intersection improvements as well as shifting traffic to alternate routes and an expanded grid—options that the TCAG model cannot evaluate because they are fine-grained, but can be studied with “post-processing” analysis techniques.

Table 4-7: Future Intersection LOS (2030)
No. Intersection
Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Riggin Avenue/Shirk Road Signal 25.7 C 31.9 C
2 Riggin Avenue/Demaree Street Signal 22.3 C 26.9 C
3 Riggin Avenue/Giddings Street Signal 14.8 B 16.6 B
4 Riggin Avenue/Dinuba Boulevard Signal 29.3 C 37.6 D
5 Ferguson Avenue/Linwood Street AWSC 18.7 C 12.2 B
6 Goshen Avenue/Plaza Drive Signal 25.3 C 25.7 C
7 Houston Avenue/Demaree Street Signal 42.0 D 31.8 C
8 Houston Avenue/Ben Maddox way Signal 22.6 C 41.0 D
9 Houston Avenue/McAuliff Street Signal 27.9 C 16.9 B
10 Hurley Street/Plaza Drive Signal 24.9 C 38.2 D
11 Hillsdale Avenue/Akers Street Signal 25.6 C 34.2 C
12 Mineral King Avenue/Akers Street Signal 34.0 C 31.2 C 13 Noble Avenue/Akers Street Signal 48.3 D 45.5 D
4-26 Visalia General Plan
Table 4-7: Future Intersection LOS (2030)
No. Intersection
Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
14 Cypress Avenue/Akers Street Signal 20.0 C 30.5 C
15 Main Street/West Street Signal 6.3 A 7.7 A
16 Noble Avenue/Watson Street Signal 13.7 B 11.5 B
17 Tulare Avenue/Santa Fe Street Signal 27.8 C 33.9 C
18 Walnut Avenue/Shirk Road Signal 30.3 C 25.2 C
19 Whitendale Avenue/Demaree Street Signal 14.5 B 16.6 B 20 Whitendale Avenue/Woodland Drive Signal 8.8 A 9.7 A
21 K Avenue/Ben Maddox Way AWSC 18.8 C 34.1 D
22 K Avenue/Lovers Lane Signal 14.3 B 14.7 B
23 Caldwell Avenue/Burke Street Signal 12.1 B 13.3 B
24 Caldwell Avenue/Lovers Lane Signal 25.5 C 54.5 D
25 Visalia Parkway/Akers Street Signal 18.0 B 17.4 B
AWSC = All-Way-Stop Control
For Signalized Intersections Average Delay = Average Intersection Delay; For Signalized Intersections LOS = Average Intersection Level-of-Service; AWSC Intersections Average Delay = Worst-Case Intersection Movement Delay; For AWSC Intersections LOS = Worst-Case Movement’s Level-ofService Source: Omni-Means, 2014.
4-27
circulation
October 2014

STOP STOP

RIGGIN AVENUE/ SHIRK ROAD
1 2 RIGGIN AVENUE/

DEMAREE STREET
STOP
STOP

RIGGIN AVENUE/

GIDDINGS STREET
3 RIGGIN AVENUE/ DINUBA BOULELVARD4

STOP STOP

FERGUSON AVENUE/

LINWOOD STREET
5 GOSHEN AVENUE/

PLAZA DRIVE
6 HOUSTON AVENUE/

DEMAREE STREET
7 8 HOUSTON AVENUE/

BEN MADDOX WAY
16 NOBLE AVENUE/

WATSON STREET
15 MAIN STREET/
WEST STREET 14 CYPRESS AVENUE/AKERS STREET 13 NOBLE AVENUE/AKERS STREET MINERAL KING AVENUE/ AKERS STREET 11 HILLSDALE AVENUE/ 12 AKERS STREET 10 HURLEY STREET/
PLAZA DRIVE 9 HOUSTON AVENUE/McAULIFF STREET

STOP STOP

STOP STOP
17 TULARE AVENUE/

SANTA FE STREET
STOP
STOP
25 VISALIA PARKWAY/

AKERS STREET

STOP STOP

STOP STOP
18 WALNUT AVENUE/
SHIRK ROAD 19 WHIENDALE AVENUE/DEMAREE STREET
STOP
STOP
20 WHITENDALE AVENUE/

WOODLAND STREET

STOP STOP

STOP STOP
21 K AVENUE/ BEN MADDOX STREET
STOP
22 K AVENUE/

LOVERS LANE
STOP
23 CALDWELL AVENUE/ BURKE STREET 24 CALDWELL AVENUE/ LOVERS LANE Existing Lane Geometrics
Existing Controls
Mitigated Lane Geometrics
Existing Controls
Figure 4-3:

Year 2030
Improved Lane
Geometrics and
Control
Source; Omni-Means, 2014 Source: Omni-Means, 2014.

Figure 4-3: Year 2030 Improved Lane Geometrics and Control Mitigated Controls
4-28 Visalia General Plan
Table 4-8 identifies projected average daily traffic and LOS in 2030 at 33 study roadway segments. Projected
2030 traffic volumes, consistent with the proposed
General Plan land uses, are shown below.

Table 4-8: Future Roadway LOS (2030)
Roadway Segment Limits No. of Lanes Facility Type AADT LOS Akers Street Rialto – Caldwell Avenue 4 Arterial 15,540 A Akers Street Goshen Avenue – Ferguson Ave. 4 Arterial 32,550 D Caldwell Avenue Shirk Street - Aspen 4 Arterial 18,300 A Caldwell Avenue Ben Maddox Way – Pinkham Ave. 4 Arterial 21,200 B Center Avenue Floral Street – Court Street 2 Arterial 3,220 A County Center Beech Street – Walnut Avenue 2 Collector 6,110 B Demaree Street Damsen - Nicholas 4 Arterial 32,010 D
Demaree Street Walnut Avenue – Tulare Avenue 4 Arterial 25,800 B Goshen Avenue Demaree Street – Chinowth Street 4 Arterial 35,250 D Main Street Floral Street – Court Street 2 Collector 3,710 A Noble Avenue Pinkham Street – Lovers Lane 2 Arterial 13,000 C Riggin Avenue Akers Street – Linwood Street 4 Arterial 19,800 B Santa Fe Street Center Avenue – School Street 4 Collector 12,310 B Santa Fe Street Walnut Avenue – Tulare Avenue 4 Collector 13.610 B Shirk Avenue Goshen Avenue – Doe Avenue 4 Arterial 20,660 A Shirk Avenue Walnut Avenue – State Route 198 4 Arterial 24,900 B Walnut Avenue Atwood – Linwood Street 4 Arterial 14,400 A Walnut Avenue Conyer Street – Court Street 4 Arterial 17,660 A Walnut Avenue Yale – Mall Entrance 4 Arterial 13,040 A
Whitendale Avenue Crenshaw – Linwood Street 2 Collector 6,940 B Whitendale Avenue West Street – Court Street 2 Collector 7,060 B State Route 63 Caldwell Avenue – Walnut Avenue 6 State Route 29,730 A State Route 63 Walnut Avenue – Tulare Avenue 6 State Route 31,900 A State Route 63 School Avenue – Murray Avenue 4 State Route 26,630 C State Route 99 Caldwell Avenue – State Route 198 6 State Route 97,200 C 4-29
circulation
October 2014
Table 4-8: Future Roadway LOS (2030)
Roadway Segment Limits No. of Lanes Facility Type AADT LOS State Route 99 State Route 198 – Avenue 304 6 State Route 84,420 B State Route 99 Avenue 304 – Betty Drive 6 State Route 84,420 B State Route 198 State Route 99 – Akers Street 4 State Route 76,020 E State Route 198 Akers Street – Mooney Boulevard 4 State Route 89,890 F State Route 198 Mooney Boulevard – Lovers Lane 4 State Route 84,400 F State Route 198 Lovers Lane – Road 156 4 State Route 42,810 A State Route 216 Mill Creek Parkway – Douglas Ave. 4 State Route 24,540 B State Route 216 Lovers Lane – McAuliff Street 2 State Route 15,840 C Source: TCAG Regional Travel Demand Forecast Model; Omni-Means, 2014.

As shown in Table 4-8, the three roadway segments
along State Route 198 between State Route 99 and
Lovers Lane are projected to operate at unacceptable
LOS F conditions at buildout. The State Route 198
Route Concept Report identifies this as a full-build
six-lane freeway in the future between Road 80 and
Downtown Visalia, which would accommodate traffic projections along these segments. However, State Route 198 between State Route 99 and Road 80 and
east of Downtown Visalia to Lovers Lane needs to be
a six-lane freeway based upon the TCAG RTDFM
forecasts.

Objectives
T-O-5 Plan and develop a transportation system for
Visalia that contributes to community livability, recognizes and respects community characteristics, and minimizes negative impacts on adjacent land uses.

Policies
T-P-22 Require all residential subdivisions to be
designed to discourage use of local streets as a
bypass to congested arterials, and when feasible, require access to residential development to be from collector streets.

Local streets should not serve as “cut-throughs”
for through traffic; at the same time, the local
street network should still emphasize connectivity and minimize dead-ends and cul-de-sacs, while also providing for neighborhood safety. A
finer-grained street grid can provide for more
neighborhood connectivity.

T-P-23 Require that all new developments provide
right-of-way, which may be dedicated or purchased, and improvements (including necessary grading, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parkway/landscape strips, bike and
parking lanes) other city street design stan-
4-30 Visalia General Plan
T-P-27 Work with Caltrans to modify the State
Route 198 Route Concept Report to ensure
that the facility is designated as a six-lane free-
way from Downtown Visalia east to Lovers
Lane.

T-P-28 Promote traffic safety by requiring that
ingress and egress to shopping centers be care-
fully designed, with minimal use of left-turn
movements into and out of these centers.

Existing points of automobile ingress and egress,
including shared access, should be consolidated
wherever possible. Left turn movements into
commercial areas from divided arterials, must
be justified by demonstrating substantial reduc-
tion in U-turns at arterial roadways or other
benefits.

T-P-29 Require, where possible, that arterials and
collectors form four-leg, right-angle intersec-
tions. Jogged, offset, and skewed intersections
at major streets in near proximity shall be
avoided, where possible.

4.5PublicTransit
The City of Visalia has a variety of public trans-
portation options including fixed route service and
demand-responsive systems as well as local and
regional systems. Visalia’s Transit Division operates
numerous mass transportation services, allowing resi-
dents to travel conveniently from neighborhoods to
major shopping centers, local schools, medical offices, and work sites. The following public transportation
systems are available to Visalia residents.
dards. Design standards will be updaed fol-
lowing General Plan adoption.

Developments must also dedicate or sell neces-
sary rights-of-way when subdivision or develop-
ment of property adjacent to Circulation Ele-
ment streets is proposed.

T-P-24 Require that proposed developments make
necessary off-site improvements if the location
and traffic generation of a proposed develop-
ment will result in congestion on major streets
or failure to meet LOS D during peak periods
or if it creates safety hazards.

Such improvements may be eligible for credit or
reimbursement from traffic impact fees.

T-P-25 Require that where arterial streets are nec-
essary through residential areas, residential
development shall be oriented away (side-on
or rear-on) from such streets and be properly
buffered so that traffic carrying capacity of
the street will be preserved and the residen-
tial environment will be protected from the
adverse characteristics of the arterial street.

This policy also may apply to collector streets if
circumstances warrant.

T-P-26 Require that future commercial developments
or modifications to existing developments be
designed with limited points of automobile
ingress and egress, including shared access,
onto major streets.
4-31
circulation
October 2014
Local Systems
Visalia Transit
Visalia Transit (VT) provides a local fixed route system for Visalia residents and visitors alike. VT operates several fixed routes that serve city residents with some routes serving the outlying cities and communities. VT operates fixed route service 7 days a week with operational hours Monday through Friday
between 6:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m., 9:00 a.m. and 6:30
p.m. on Saturdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30
p.m. on Sundays. All fixed routes are shown in Figure 4-3. The VT fixed routes are summarized below:
• Route 1 – Transit Center, TCAG Transfer,
Mooney Boulevard, College of Sequoias, Visalia
Mall, Sequoia Mall, downtown Visalia;
• Route 2 –Transit Center, Locust Street/Court
Street, Caldwell Avenue, Linwood Avenue,
Whitendale Avenue, El Diamante School, S. Akers
Street;
• Route 4 – Transit Center, Locust Street/Court
Street, Tulare Avenue, Mt. Whitney School,
Divisadero School, Kmart Shopping Center,
Visalia Medical Clinic;
• Route 5 – Transit Center, Houston Avenue,
Valley Oak School, Golden West School, DMV,
Walmart;
• Route 6 – Transit Center, Goshen Avenue/Murray
Avenue, Save-Mart Shopping Center, Industrial
Park, San Joaquin Valley College, Goshen Walnut
Avenue, Giddings Street, Whitendale Avenue,
Mooney Boulevard, County Center Drive,
Linwood Street, Akers Street, Tulare Avenue;
• Route 7A – Transit Center, Lincoln Oval, N.

Court Street, W. Riggin Avenue, Demaree Street,
W. Ferguson Avenue, W. Houston Avenue,
Mooney Boulevard;
• Route 7B – Transit Center, Lincoln Oval, Mooney
Boulevard/Houston Avenue, Ferguson Avenue/
County Center Drive, Riggin Avenue/Giddings
Street, Ferguson Avenue/Court Street, Locust
Street/NW 2nd Street;
• Route 8A – Transit Center, Center Avenue, Santa
Fe Street/Tulare Avenue, Walmart, Lovers Lane/
Mineral King Avenue, Valley Oak Middle School,
Ben Maddox Way, St. John’s Parkway;
• Route 8B – Transit Center, Ben Maddox Way/St.

John’s Parkway, Valley Oak Middle School, Lovers
Lane/Mill Creek, Walmart, Santa Fe Street/Tulare
Avenue;
• Route 9 – Transit Center, Main Street., S. Ben
Maddox Way, E. Walnut Avenue, Farmersville,
Visalia Road, Exeter;
• Route 10 – Transit Center, Mineral King Avenue,
Noble Avenue, Visalia Airport, Goshen,;
• Route 11 –Transit Center, Mineral King Avenue,
Noble Avenue, Goshen;
• Route 12 – Caldwell Avenue, Visalia Parkway,
Cameron Avenue, S. Court Street, Exeter,
Farmersville; and
• Routes 106 and 610.

Visalia’s Transit Division operates numerous mass
transportation services, allowing residents to travel
conveniently from neighborhoods to major shopping
centers, local schools, medical offices, and work sites. 4-32 Visalia General Plan
Dial-A-Ride Visalia
Visalia Transit provides Dial-A-Ride curb-to-curb
paratransit service on a shared-ride, demand-response
basis to locations within the city limits of Visalia,
Goshen, Farmersville and to/from Exeter. Reduced
fares are available for the following groups:
• Certificate of eligibility of ADA Paratransit
services
• Visalia City Coach Disabled ID card
• Medicare Card holders
• California DMV Disabled Person or Disabled
Veteran ID
Visalia Dial-A-Ride operates between 6:00 a.m. to
9:30 p.m. during the weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to
6:30 p.m. on Saturdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30
p.m. on Sundays. Fares range from $1.75 to $3.25 per
passenger and monthly passes are available with limited service available on holidays.

Visalia Towne Trolley
The Visalia Towne Trolley offers three fixed routes
and operates between 7:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
depending on the route. During the hours of operation the headway is 10 to 15 minutes. There is a $0.25 service charge to rider with an optional monthly pass
for $5.00 and the service limits are bounded by Murray Avenue, Acequia Avenue, Tulare County Courthouse and Santa Fe Street.

The Loop Route
The Loop Route provides a fun, easy, and safe way for
all school-aged kids to access community and recreation centers in Visalia, including:
• Manual Hernandez Community Center
• Wittman Center
• Anthony Community Center
• Boys & Girls Club
• Redwood High School Pool
• PAL Center
This program is funded through the City general
fund and Measure R and does not receive money
from state or federal sources.

All local transit routes are shown in Figure 4-4.

Sequoia Shuttle
The Sequoia Shuttle serves Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks during the peak summer visitation period. Sequoia Shuttle departs Visalia five times per day, seven days per week. In Visalia pick-up/dropoff locations include the Holiday Inn, Fairfield Inn, La Quinta, Hampton Inn, Lamplighter Inn, Convention Center (serving Marriott Hotel and Comfort Suites), the Visalia Transit Center, the Barn Service
station in Exeter, Three Rivers Comfort Inn, and the
Three Rivers Memorial Building. The Sequoia Shuttle offers service between Memorial Day and Labor Day seven days a week, charging $15 per passenger.

The City operates the Sequoia Shuttle routes inside
the Park under an agreement with the National Parks
Service. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
also provide three internal transit routes to the various attractions. 4-33
circulation
October 2014
Persian Creek

CAMERON AVE
9 9
8 Tulare County
Government
Plaza
Visalia
Transit Visalia Center Medical
Center
6 10
4 2 3
5 6
6 6
10 10
11 1110
4 2 4
2 4
2 2
6 1
1 1
12 12 12
10 11
6 11
3 5
3 5
5 5 9
5 9 5
8 8
5 7
7 7
7 Visalia City
Coach Routes
Tulare County
Area Transit
Visalia Towne
Trolley Routes
10 11
1 0 1 2
MILES
1/2
10 40
160 acres
Figure 4-4:

Transit Routes
30 40
40 10
10 40
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 10
30 40
Gold Route
Red Route
Blue Route
Urban
Development
Boundary Tier 1
Urban
Development
Boundary Tier 2
Urban Growth
Boundary Tier 3
Planning Area
City Limits
S t Joh n s R i v e r N. COUNTY CENTER DR
W.RIGGIN AVE
ROAD 80

KELSEY ST
W. DOE AVE ROAD 88
ROAD 76
ROAD 86
W.FERGUSON AVE
ROAD 68
W. WALNUT AVE
N.SHIRK ST
W.HURLEY AVE

GOSHEN AVE
W.RIGGIN AVE N. MOONEY BLVD
W. HOUSTON AVE E. HOUSTON AVE DINUBA BLVD

MURRAY AVE
S. AKERS ST
S.

LOCUST ST

PLAZA DR

RIVER WAY DR

PRATT AVE
N. BURKE ST
RD 132 BEN MADDOX WAY
W. MAIN ST

MAIN ST

LOVERS LANE

MINERAL KING AVE
W.NOBLE AVE
S. MOONEY BLVD

NOBLE AVE

LOVERS LANE

IVANHOE DR
ROAD 148

BEN MADDOX WAY

TULARE AVE
S. COURT ST

SANTA FE ST

TULARE AVE
S. GIDDINGS ST

CENTER AVE

SANTA FE ST

COURT ST
N.DEMAREE ST

PINKHAM ST
S. DEMAREE ST

LINWOOD
ST
N.CHINOWTH ST S. CHINOWTH ST
S. LINWOOD ST

WHITENDALE AVE
AVE 280 W. CALDWELL AVE
AVE 272
AVE 276
RD 92
ROAD 152 AVE 292ROAD 156
AVE 280
AVE 272
AVE 264
ROAD 108

ROEBEN ST
AVE 320 AVE 320
N. PLAZA DR

ST J OHNS PKWY
W. SHANNON PKWY
N.CAIN ST
RD 144 S. MCAULIFF ST
W. VISALIA PKWY

MC AULIFF ST

FERGUSON AVE
AVE 328

MINERAL KING AVE
W. FERGUSON AVE
E. K AVE

GOSHEN AVE

WALNUT AVE
S. COUNTY CENTER
RD 100
S. CONYER ST
ROAD 92
AVE 328
RD 148
N. AKERS ST
AVE 288

GOSHEN AVE
Figure 4-4: Transit Routes
4-34 Visalia General Plan
Regional Systems
Visalia Transit
Visalia Transit regional routes also serve the outlying community of Goshen and the cities of Exeter and
Farmersville. These services provide access to medical
care facilities, schools, recreational facilities and other amenities offered in Visalia. These routes provide service between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. on weekdays, and between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.
on Saturdays and Sundays. Regional services are provided through an agreement with Tulare County and the affected communities and schools.

Other services provided for regional travel through
Visalia include Orange Belt Stages, Greyhound and
Amtrak connections to Hanford (Kings County).

Tulare County Area Transit (TCaT) and Kings
County Area Regional Transit (KART) provide
connections to Visalia Transit Center, local schools,
medical centers and other necessities.

Tulare County Area Transit
Tulare County Area Transit (TCaT) provides reliable
and convenient public transit service between cities as well as intra-city transit service for many small communities throughout Tulare County. Fixed route services are offered Monday through Saturday, demandresponse Dial-A-Ride services are offered Monday through Friday. All ages are welcome to ride all transit service. TCaT offers eight fixed routes that serve a majority of the population centers and communities.

Fixed route service is listed below:
• Route 10 – serves north Tulare County with stops
at the Justice Complex, Dinuba, Sultana, Cutler,
Orosi, Yettem and Seville.
• Route 20 – serves southern Tulare County with
stops in Tulare, Tipton, Pixley, Earlimart, Delano
and Richgrove.
• Route 30 – serves eastern Tulare County with
stops at the Transit Center, in Ivanhoe, Woodlake,
Lemon Cove and Three Rivers.
• Route 40 – serves central Tulare County with
stops at the County Government Center, in
Tulare, Lindsay, Strathmore and Porterville.
• Route 50 – serves northwest Tulare County
with stops in Dinuba, London, Traver and Delft
Colony.
• Route 60 – serves southeast Tulare County with
stops in Lindsay, Strathmore, Plainview and
Woodville.
• Route 70 –serves southeast Tulare County will
service to Springville and Porterville.
• Route 90 – serves Woodville, Poplar and
Porterville.

TCaT regional transit routes are shown in Figure 4-4.

Kings Area Rural Transit
Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) is Kings County’s complete public rural and urban transportation provider. KART provides daily routes to the cities of
Hanford and Lemoore, and regular service to most
other communities in the county and daily weekday
service to Visalia. In addition, KART provides transportation to Fresno every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and Dial-A-Ride service to eligible residents of Hanford, Lemoore, Armona and Avenal.
4-35
circulation
October 2014
All KART bus routes begin and end at the Intermodal transfer facility west of Amtrak on 7th Street in Downtown Hanford. KART fixed routes provide
service to Visalia via the Hanford-Visalia route. The
Hanford-Visalia route makes stops at the College of
Sequoias, Mooney Boulevard/Packwood Creek and
Visalia Transit Center.

Orange Belt Stages
Inter-regional, statewide and nationwide bus transportation is provided to the Visalia area via Orange Belt Stages. The Orange Belt Stages depot is located
centrally in the Downtown Visalia area, at 425 East
Oak Street between Bridge and Santa Fe Streets (the
Visalia Transit Center).

Potential Future Transit Improvements
The General Plan identifies potential transit corridors along Goshen Avenue and Mooney Boulevard, with Downtown segments along Murray Avenue
and Main Street. These corridors may support highcapacity transit in the form of light rail or bus rapid transit (BRT), and provide a framework for transitoriented development in Visalia.

Objectives
T-O-6 Work with other agencies and jurisdictions
that provide regional public transportation
to provide connectivity between Visalia and
adjacent jurisdictions.

T-O-7 Develop and maintain a coordinated mass
transportation system that will encourage
increased transit use through convenient,
safe, efficient, and cost-effective services.

Policies
T-P-30 Give high priority to public transportation
systems that are responsive to the needs of
commuters, the elderly, persons with disabilities, the youth, and low income citizens. Continue to work with transit providers to expand services to these populations and to underserved areas of the City.

T-P-31 Seek cooperation with Tulare County Association of Governments and Visalia City Coach to attain a balance of public transportation
opportunities.

Visalia City CouncilSeptember 6, 2022

Visalia City Council
September 6, 2022