Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, November 7, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
Visalia City Council
City Council
Meeting Agenda - Final
Mayor Steve Nelsen
Vice Mayor Brian Poochigian
Council Member Greg Collins
Council Member Brett Taylor
Council Member Liz Wynn
City Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, November 7, 2022

ROLL CALL
CALL TO ORDER WORK SESSION - START TIME: 5:00 PM

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Citizens are now invited to comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. The Council asks that you keep your comments concise and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome.

Each speaker will be allowed three minutes and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

WORK SESSION AND ACTION ITEMS (as described)

1. NEW EMPLOYEE INTRODUCTIONS:

POLICE DEPARTMENT
Martin Aguilar, Police Officer
Alexander Cruz, Police Officer
Gabriel Prieto, Police Officer
Eric Duanes-Mejivar, Community Service Officer
22-0386

2. Receive a staff presentation on the proposed Bicycle Lane Enhancement as part of the County Center Drive Rehabilitation Project (1410-72000/CP0599-999).
22-0362
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 PM (Or, immediately following Work Session)
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION - 7:00 PM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION

Page 1 of 4 ends

1 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final November 7, 2022

ITEMS OF INTEREST

PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters that are not on the agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. The Council asks that you keep your comments brief and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome.

This is also the time for citizens to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes. Public comments related to all pulled Consent Calendar items and Regular or Public Hearing items listed on the agenda will be heard at the time that item is discussed or when the Public Hearing is opened.

Each speaker will be allowed three minutes, and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

1. Amend budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 (Year 3) Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding amount awarded and amend prior year appropriations carried forward for unspent and uncommitted PLHA funds in years 1-2 of the 5-year PLHA plan to increase construction funding for the Visalia Navigation Center. 22-0077

2. Christian Church Homes (CCH) is seeking a letter of support for the development of a 70-unit senior affordable housing project located at 2439 North Dinuba Boulevard in Visalia and the application to the State of California’s Multifamily Finance Super Notice of Funding Availability (Super NOFA) that includes the Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) program.
22-0388

3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Odell Engineering for professional consulting services for the Bridging Horizons Inclusive Park Project in the amount not to exceed $545,328.00.
22-0381

4. Request authorization to file a Notice of Completion for Maddox at Caldwell 7 subdivision, containing 41 single-family residential lots, located on the northeast corner of South Ben Maddox Way and East Monte Verde Avenue.
22-0398

Page 2 of 4 ends

2 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final November 7, 2022

5. Authorize the City Manager to approve two separate contract amendments for additional construction support with Quad Knopf (QK) for each of the following projects; Amendment Number 2 of 2 in the amount not to exceed $44,326 for the Downtown Streetlight Project (CP0345) and Amendment Number 4 of 4 in the amount not to exceed $55,215 for the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CP0373). 22-0387

REGULAR ITEMS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
Comments related to regular Items and Public Hearing Items are limited to three minutes per speaker, for a maximum of 30 minutes per item. The Mayor may reasonably limit or extend the public comment period to preserve the Council's interest in conducting efficient, orderly meetings.

1. Public hearing (the first of two) to appropriate $4.3M of Measure N Funds for the Construction of Visalia Fire Station No. 56 (No. 1410-72000/CP0346-999).
22-0383

2. Public hearing and consideration of the following actions:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider the following actions related to the project site located on the north side of West Ferguson Avenue, approximately 800 feet west of
North Demaree Street (APN: 077-190-007).

2. Adopt Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022 -04 for Annexation No. 2022-01 and Victory Oaks Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5586 (Resolution No. 2022-57
required); and

3. Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No. 2022-01 a request by D.R. Horton, to annex a 23.7-acre parcel into the City Limits of Visalia; and

4. Authorize the detachment from County Service Area No. 1 in accordance with State and County requirements; and

5. Authorize the City Manager to sign and enter into a
Pre-Annexation Agreement (Resolution No. 2022-58
required).
22-0364

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

1. For the purposes of reporting out, for the record, transactions that occurred as a result of Closed Session Real Property Negotiations:

Buyer: City of Visalia
Seller: Carmen R. McElmurry
APN: 085-560-021 (portion)
Purpose: Shirk Widening Project
Price: $32,200.00
Closing Date: 10/18/2022
Closed Session Council Date: 3/1/2021
Project Manager: Chantha Chap
22-0391

Page 3 of 4 ends

3 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final November 7, 2022

ADJOURNMENT

1. Upcoming City Council Meetings:

Monday, November 21, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., 707 W. Acequia
Monday, December 05, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., 707 W. Acequia
22-0407

Page 4 of 4 ends

4 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0386 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

NEW EMPLOYEE INTRODUCTIONS:

POLICE DEPARTMENT
Martin Aguilar, Police Officer
Alexander Cruz, Police Officer
Gabriel Prieto, Police Officer
Eric Duanes-Mejivar, Community Service Officer
Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
5 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0362 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Receive a staff presentation on the proposed Bicycle Lane Enhancement as part of the County Center Drive Rehabilitation Project (1410-72000/CP0599-999).

Deadline for Action: None
Submitting Department: Administration - CIP Engineering Contact Name and Phone Number:

Diego Corvera, Civil Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4209 Chantha Chap, Civil Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4418 Frank Senteno, City Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4331 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4323 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends City Council receive staff presentation on the proposed Bicycle Lane Enhancements as part of the County Center Drive Rehabilitation Project and requests feedback, direction, and/or support for the Class IV bike lane and protected intersection proposal.

Background Discussion:

Approximately 1.0 mile of roadway will be rehabilitated with the County Center Drive Rehabilitation project. The rehabilitation consists of typical grinding off the existing asphalt and overlaying with hot mix asphalt. The project also includes the upgrade of some existing curb ramps to meet current American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. This project adds significant life (approximately 15 years) to this street segment with this rehabilitation treatment and is of great benefit to the City.

Since this project will entail the removal of all existing striping, there’san opportunity to replace the existing Class II bike facilities with more enhanced bike lane infrastructure that would include protected intersection elements at all intersections along the corridor omitting the intersections of Riggin Ave at County Center Drive and Houston Ave at County Center Drive. Protected intersections are described in detail further within the report.

In our efforts to continue to fulfill the implementation and goals of our Active Transportation Plan, Complete Streets, and address Vehicle Miles Travel (VMT) reduction, this project presents an excellent opportunity to enhance the existing bicycle facility, save money on the project and embody a multi-modal corridor that can be appropriate for all ages and abilities.

County Center Drive is a designated collector that carries approximately 5000 average daily trips (ADT) with a posted speed of 40mph (many collectors & arterials have 15K-30K ADT). With the low volume of traffic that this corridor carries, it is ideal for a more robust bicycle lane.

This segment of County Center Drive also serves as an connector route between residential homes, Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 1 of 11
powered by Legistar™
6 File #: 22-0362 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

This segment of County Center Drive also serves as an connector route between residential homes, schools, shopping and other destinations, refer to the attached County Center Destination exhibit.

Funding Impacts (Further discussed in fiscal section)
· Acceptance of Proposal: a future appropriation from the Gas Tax for “new”improvements (Estimate $170K), full project construction
· Rejection of Proposal: Project will only construct a portion of the corridor due to lack of funding.

Bicycle Route Classifications:

Class I - is separated from a motorized roadway and can be found most typically along water courses or old railroad alignments. These routes are often multi-use paths allowing for pedestrian and bicycle travel to mix.

Class II - is an on street striped bike lane adjacent to vehicle travel lanes with no enhance protection or separation
Class III - is designated by on street markings and/or signage that the street is to be shared by bicycles and vehicular traffic. Dedicated bike lanes of any type are not included in this classification.

Class IV -is an exclusive bike lane that is adjacent a motorized roadway with some form of physical protection and a degree of separation for the bike lane from vehicle travel lanes. The protection can be delineators, concrete medians, speed humps, parked cars, or other forms of physical protection. Separation can be a striped buffer zone at street level or vertical separation in the form of an elevated path adjacent sidewalk or parkway.

Existing Conditions:

County Center Drive between Riggin Avenue and Houston Avenue is currently a 3-lane roadway with one through lane in the north and south direction and a center left turn lane. This roadway is designated as a collector street per the City’sgeneral plan and serves as a neighborhood street that carries local traffic as it is primarily surrounded by low density residential development. County Center St spans from Houston Ave on the south to Riggin Ave on the north. The corridor has Class II bike lanes and on-street parking. The lanes are currently configured as 12 to 13-foot lanes, refer to the cross section below:

Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 2 of 11
powered by Legistar™
7 File #: 22-0362 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

This segment of County Center Dr provides connectivity to transit routes along Riggin Ave, Ferguson Ave and Houston Ave. The bike lane along this route serves as a last or first mile connector to multiple transit routes providing for equitable transportation options for the local community. It also connects to the Modoc trail along Riggin Ave and the multi-use sidewalk on Shannon Parkway providing for a separated and safe east to west bike route for Visalians.

The adopted City of Visalia Active Transportation Plan (ATP) list the following goals:

1. Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking

2. Increase safety and mobility for non-motorized users.

3. Enhance public health, including reduction of childhood obesity through the use of programs including, but not limited to, projects eligible for Safe Routes to School program funding.

This proposal goes beyond the minimum designation for this corridor identified in the ATP plan to further support the listed goals of the plan. The ATP plan will undergo an update in the coming years, and maintenance project such as this, offer opportunities in the interim to evaluate, on a project-by- project basis, enhancements to improve bicycle lanes consistent with the goals in the ATP plan.

Proposal:

Staff proposes the construction of a Class IV bike lane configured with an 8ft bike lane, 7ft - 8ft buffer Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 3 of 11
powered by Legistar™
8 File #: 22-0362 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Staff proposes the construction of a Class IV bike lane configured with an 8ft bike lane, 7ft - 8ft buffer with delineators and the potential to narrow the travel lanes to calm traffic and incorporating protected intersection design elements at intersections throughout the corridor. Though still subject to a more detailed engineering review and final determination, Refer to the cross section below for the proposed lane configuration:

Vehicular through lanes are nationally accepted to between 10 to 12 feet wide depending on location, traffic volume, speed, and numerous other parameters. Visalia does have lane widths larger than 12 feet for locations where the lane is adjacent to pavement that is being reserved for future widening. For this project the narrower lanes initially proposed are to channelize the vehicles and bikes independently which has a residual affect to calm vehicular speeds and encourage the corridor to operate safer. Additionally, narrowing of the lanes reduce crossing distances at intersections further improving safety of other modes of transportation.

Reducing lane widths reduces the exposure of pedestrians and bicycles as they cross vehicle paths at intersections.

Final lane configuration may undergo further engineering review, considering traffic volume, speed, traffic modes along the corridor, and safety. After implementation, if proposal is accepted, careful monitoring will take place evaluating the corridor for safety and speed to determine if any reconfiguration or modification is needed.

Pros:

This configuration will provide a bicycle lane that can be used by people of all ages and abilities. It will offer the safety and comfort comparable to a Class I bike route while remaining as on-street lane. Bike lanes such Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 4 of 11
powered by Legistar™
9 File #: 22-0362 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.
the safety and comfort comparable to a Class I bike route while remaining as on-street lane. Bike lanes such as Class IV’swill tip the scales in encouraging Visalians to try riding a bike instead of using a vehicle for daily trips. Additionally, with the proximity to a Junior high School and Elementary School this bike lane may provide the security to parents and children to bike to school, encouraging independence and exercise for our community youth. The current operation of the roadway will remain as it is with the primary impact being slower turning movements at intersections.

Impacts:

Parking will be eliminated but the impact will be primarily felt at the town homes located on the easterly side of County Center near Riggin Avenue. The majority of the parking along the corridor is underutilized and functionally unnecessary as there are no destinations that would warrant on-street parking use along this section of County Center Dr. Parking will be addressed in more detail further in this report. ‘Protected Intersections’ for Bicycles:

Typically, the bicyclists using a bike lane traverse an intersection in a manner that exposes them to numerous conflict points to an inattentive motorist. This proposal will introduce protected intersection elements in the form of striping configuration that maintains separation between vehicles and people on bikes through the intersections. This striping design will have a mix of delineators and tactile treatments placed on the pavement surface to keep vehicles in their lanes and slow down turning movements at intersections.

Intersections are where most serious injuries to people on bikes occur, these are the areas where all modes of transportation intersect and it is critical, from a traffic safety perspective to reduce the speeds of vehicles at intersections, more specifically at conflict points which occur during turning movements.

Protected intersections are specifically designed to; 1) make bicyclists very visible to motorists, 2) slow down turning movements, 3) provide a dedicated bicycle path around and through the intersection, and 4) Offset bike lanes to give time for people on bikes or motorist to yield appropriately. They also re-configure the potential conflict points such that a driver can look forward and see the conflict directly ahead rather than looking over their shoulder. See diagram below for the components of a protected intersection:

Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 5 of 11
powered by Legistar™
10 File #: 22-0362 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Exhibit-1. Elements of a Protected Intersection
History of Protected Intersections:

These intersections originated in the Netherlands in the 1970’sand have been best practice in Europe for decades and are quickly gaining popularity across the United States.

As of today, there are at least twenty (20) constructed protected intersections in California alone, seven (7) in Fremont, two (2) in San Luis Obispo, two (2) in Richmond, three (3) in San Jose, and at least one (1) in Davis, Berkeley, Oakland, Palo Alto and San Francisco. Many more intersections throughout the state have incorporated the various protective and offset elements that function like a protected intersection. Many more are in design or early construction phase as various jurisdictions have codified these intersection treatments in their design standards and City plans. City of San Luis Obispo mandates protective intersection elements be incorporated in all new and retrofit intersection projects per their recently adopted 2021 ATP plan.

The following information provides state and national recognition and support for these protective elements at intersection:

In 2014 Caltrans issued “Design Flexibility in Multimodal Design” Memorandum that stated the following:
“Publications such as the National Association of City Transportation (NACTO) “Urban Design Guide” and “Urban Bikeway Design Guide,” …are resources that Caltrans and local entities can reference when making planning and design decisions on the State highway system and local Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 6 of 11
powered by Legistar™
11 File #: 22-0362 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.
streets and roads.”
In 2015 FHWA issued “Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide” that stated the following:
“Intersections are where most bicycle-vehicle collisions occur, and where riders feel the most stress. Designers have implemented a variety of strategies, including both time- and space- separation, for maintaining the benefits of separated bike lanes through intersections.” In 2018 Caltrans issued Design Information Bulletin 89-01 (DIB 89-01) “Class IV Bikeway Guidance.” Which states the following:
“Intersection design should strive to minimize the potential conflict between the separated bikeway user and the crossing or turning of motorized traffic and pedestrians. Providing space for motorists to wait while yielding to bicyclists and pedestrians, separating bicycle crossing from pedestrian crossing, and providing space for turning and queuing bicyclists should be considered.” See below the proposed geometry for the protected intersection at County Center Dr and Ferguson Ave, this will be constructed with striping, paint, and asphalt tactile treatments only, hard concrete curbing will not be constructed for this configuration:

Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 7 of 11
powered by Legistar™
12 File #: 22-0362 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Exhibit-2. Proposed Protected Intersection at County Center Dr and Ferguson Ave This is being proposed here as this maintenance project provides an opportunity to reconfigure the roadway striping and with the low traffic volume of County Center Dr, makes this corridor an exceptional location to implement these protective elements. Additionally, with the various shopping destinations, the Modoc trail, neighborhood parks and schools near this corridor, provides opportunity for Visalians to try the bicycle in-lieu of a vehicle with the benefit of the robust safety these intersection treatments offer.

Parking Impacts:

To have this design function optimally, all on-street parking along County Center Drive between Riggin Avenue and Houston Avenue will need to be eliminated. County Center Drive south of Robin Street has block walls on both the east and west side of the roadway and no residential homes with direct access (driveway fronting the street) to the roadway as well as no commercial or destination points along the corridor that have direct access to County Center Drive. Note, there are 8- fronting homes along the easterly side of County Center approaching Riggin Avenue; but no driveways.

A parking survey was conducted for two weeks reviewing the number of cars parked along County Center Drive. It was observed that of the approximately 433 of the available on-street parking spaces, only 6 to 11 vehicles were ever consistently parked along the street. This is a utilization rate just under 3%, and most of the parked vehicles (6 to 8) were consistently observed to park on the east side of County Center Drive near Riggin Avenue along the town home frontage. Refer to Parking Study Exhibit.

The town homes have onsite vehicle parking available; each resident has a single car garage, and every four (4) residences have two (2) available guest parking spots on site. Additionally, based on field observations, the local streets adjacent the residents have ample on-street parking space to accommodate the displacement of the vehicles parked along County Center St. See below a breakdown of the existing parking utilization along County Center Dr:

Parking Survey Date Parking Study Time Number of Cars Parked Wednesday (8/17/2022) 7:30 AM / 6:00 PM 10 / 6
Thursday (8/18/2022) 7:30 AM / 6:30 PM 10 / 11
Friday (8/19/2022) 7:20 AM / 6:30 PM 8 / 10
Tuesday (8/23/2022) 7:20 AM / 6:30 PM 7 / 9
Wednesday (8/24/2022) 7:30 AM / 6:30 PM 8 / 7
Thursday (8/25/2022) 7:20 AM / 6:20 PM 9 / 9
Saturday (8/27/2022) 10:00 AM 7
Refer to attached Existing Parking Conditions corresponding to the Parking Study Exhibit Fiscal Impact:

The project, as currently programed, does not have the funding to fully rehabilitate County Center Dr from Houston Ave to Riggin Ave. With the current funding amount, following conventional construction, the project will only rehabilitate about 2/3rds of the corridor.

This proposal will result in a cost saving to the project and allow the full length of the corridor to be rehabilitated, see below for the current project budget compared to the proposal.

County Center Rehabilitation Project (Current Design)
Funding Source
Measure N Funding (141) CP0599 $ 2,246,950
Total Project Funding $ 2,246,950
Estimate Construction Cost - Conventional Design (CM, Insp, MT included)
$ 2,850,942
Estimated Remaining Budget (Deficit - with current design)$ (603,992) County Center Rehabilitation Project (Class IV Design)
Funding Source
Measure N Funding (141) CP0599 $ 2,246,950
Gas Tax (111) Appropriation (At construction award)$ 166,000 Total Project Funding $ 2,416,950
Estimate Construction Cost - With Class IV design (CM, Insp, MT included) - Measure N (141) Eligible Costs
$ 2,046,785
Estimate Construction Cost - With Class IV design new
improvements (Green Paint & Delineators) - Gas Tax (111) Eligible Costs
$ 166,000
Estimated Remaining Budget from Measure N (141)$ 200,165 Estimated Remaining Budget from Gas Tax (111)$ 0 Proceeding with the inclusion of the Class IV bike lanes will result in an overall savings to the Measure N Fund (141) because there is no need to construct the bicycle facility with the same structural section (road thickness) as we would for the vehicle travel lanes and the space for parking. So instead of constructing the full 63’ width of the roadway with 7” of asphalt and corresponding subgrade thickness, we only need to construct approximately 35’of roadway width with 7”of asphalt with the remaining width designed for bicycle traffic and needing only 2.5”-3”asphalt thickness. This greatly reduces the material cost to the roadway construction and stretches our tax dollars to benefit all transportation modes along this corridor. With the parking eliminated and delineators in place to keep cars off the edge of the roadway, the full structural section will only be applied to the travel lanes.

However, an appropriation from the Gas Tax Fund (111) would be needed to fund components related to the Class IV bike lanes such as the green paint, delineators, and the cost difference in additional striping from the original construction cost estimate. These items are considered new improvements and the Measure N fund is not eligible to fund such associated costs. If the proposed bicycle facility enhancements are approved, staff will return to Council to request the appropriation of Gas Tax funds at the time of the award of the construction contract.

As it was mentioned prior, this rehabilitation project will serve the roadway for the next 15-20 years and with a current vehicle volume at approximately 5000 ADT the standard three-lane roadway configuration with a center left turn pocket like this one, can functionally & efficiently handle ADTs up to 22K-25K per FHWA road Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 9 of 11
powered by Legistar™
14 File #: 22-0362 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.
center left turn pocket like this one, can functionally & efficiently handle ADTs up to 22K-25K per FHWA road diet standards.
<https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/road_diets.cfm> Furthermore, the surrounding neighborhood is fully built out and will remain residential for the foreseeable future, the likelihood of the ADT along this corridor reaching 25K in the next 20 years is exceptionally low.

There are no major commercial developments planned that would push traffic through this segment of roadway. Additionally, the foresight of our past City engineers and planners wisely established block connectivity and an overall grid pattern within the City of Visalia. This arrangement makes it so adjacent collectors and arterials streets can balance traffic congestion with little noticeable impact to the motoring public.

Next steps:

Following council tentative acceptance of this proposal, staff intends to send out mailers to the local community to gather feedback on this proposal. If the community response is positive, staff will proceed with the design as proposed and not return to council for further consideration on the bike lane enhancement. If community response rejects the proposal or is negative, staff will return with the public feedback data to allow Council to weigh in on the response and decide on the best course of action.

Prior Council Action:

N/A
Alternatives:

1. Move forward with public outreach to garner support for the enhanced bike lane but omit protected intersection elements and only construct the Class IV route along County Center Dr.

2. Move forward with public outreach to garner support for the enhanced bike lane but change the protected intersection elements and/or eliminate parking impacts adjacent the townhomes.

3. Replace existing bike lanes with buffer improvements similar to other configurations in the city, omitting any need for public outreach.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to authorize staff to proceed with public outreach effort to implement the Bicycle lane enhancement as part of the County Center Dr rehabilitation project as presented.

Or
I move to authorize staff to proceed with public outreach effort to implement the Bicycle lane enhancement as part of the County Center Dr rehabilitation project omitting protected intersection elements.

Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 10 of 11
powered by Legistar™
15 File #: 22-0362 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Or
I move to authorize staff to proceed with the County Center Dr Rehabilitation project as originally planned.

Environmental Assessment Status:

N/A
CEQA Review:

Categorical Exemption - Class 1, Section 15301c
Attachments:

1. County Center Rehabilitation Bike Lane Enhancement Presentation

2. County Center St. Destination Exhibit

3. Parking Study Exhibit

4. Existing Parking Conditions
Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 11 of 11
powered by Legistar™
16 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
REHABILITATION PROJECT – BICYCLE

LANE ENHANCEMENT & PROTECTED

INTERSECTIONS
November 7th, 2022
17 PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
• Bicycle Lane Enhancement as part of County Center Dr Rehabilitation Project
• - Project Background
• - Existing project conditions and configuration
• - Bike Lane Enhancement Proposal
• - Protected Intersection Overview
• - Parking Analysis
• - Summary
• - Next Steps
• - Questions
2 18

PROJECT BACKGROUND
• Bike Lane Classifications
• - Class I – Bike trail (often a multi-use path)
separated from motorized roadway
• - Class II – Striped Bike lane adjacent vehicle lane
• - Class III – Signage or roadway markings indicating
the road to be shared by vehicles and bikes
• - Class IV – Protected and/or separated bike lane
adjacent to motorized roadway
3 19

PROJECT BACKGROUND
• County Center Dr Pavement Rehabilitation
Project – Houston Ave to Riggin Ave
• - Measure N Funding ($2.2M)
• - Construction Slated for January 2023
• - Pavement Rehabilitation Project
• - Drainage Improvements
• - ADA Ramp Construction
• - Restriping of the Street
County Center St North of Oriole Ave – Looking North
4 20

STANDARD DESIGN & EXISTING CONDITION
• County Center Dr is classified as a 2-lane Collector
Roadway
• - Standard Collector Roadway Design:
• - 2-lane roadway, center left turn lane
• curb & gutter, & sidewalk
• 2-Lane Collector Engineering Standard
• County Center Dr – Existing Condition
5 21

STANDARD DESIGN & EXISTING CONDITION
• -Various destinations surround this
section of County Center Dr.
• Destinations surrounding County Center Dr.

County Center Dr Connectivity
6 22

STANDARD DESIGN & EXISTING CONDITION
• - Standard intersection design do not
typically continue bike lanes through the
intersection.
• - Bike lanes often end ahead of intersections
drop off or merge with right turn lanes
requiring people on bikes to mix with
vehicles
• County Center Dr at Ferguson Avenue Intersection – Existing Condition
Existing County Center Dr at Ferguson Ave Intersection Design 7 23

PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITY
• County Center Dr is an excellent corridor for a Class IV bike route • Existing County Center Dr Configuration • Proposed Bike Lane 8 24

PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITY
• Advantages:
• - Encourage an active and healthy community
• - Through safety improvements, increase ridership
• - Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
• Proposed Bike Facility For County Center St• Class IV bike route on Walnut Ave 9 25

PROPOSED PROTECTED INTERSECTION - SAFETY
• Better Bike networks need
Safer Intersections
• - Intersections are the place
where the most vehicle-bike
conflicts occur. 2017, 43% of
urban bicyclist fatalities
occurred at intersections.
• NACTO analysis of NHTSA FARS data: Non-freeway
Urban Bike Fatalities (US 2017)
10 26

PROPOSED PROTECTED INTERSECTION - HISTORY
- American Engineers have been aware
of protected intersection design since
1972.
-As of today, there are at least twenty
(20) constructed protected intersections
in California alone.
-With many more throughout the
country.
11 Alabama’s First Protected Intersection – Auburn University 27 CALIFORNIA SHIFT TO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
California has been shifting towards multi-
modal transportation infrastructure.
- - Complete Street shift from vehicle movement
as primary goal to movement of people and
goods
- - Design of infrastructure for “all ages and
abilities” embodying national and international
best practices related to traffic calming.
12 28

PROTECTED INTERSECTION FUNCTIONALITY
13 29

PROPOSED PROTECTED INTERSECTION
• Advantages:
• - Improves visibility of
pedestrians and people on
bikes
• - Slows down conflict zones
• -A d d s S e p a r a t i o n a n d
protection for people on
Bikes through the
intersection
• Proposed Protected Intersection at County Center Dr and Ferguson Ave 14 N
30 PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITY – PARKING IMPACT
• Disadvantages
• - Removal of on-street parking
• A Parking Study was conducted for two weeks.
• Total Parking Stalls Approximately Available within Project Limits: 433 • Max Street Parking Utilized: 3%
• Parking Survey Date Parking Study Time Number of Cars Parked Wednesday (8/17/2022) 7:30 AM / 6:00 PM 10 / 6
Thursday (8/18/2022) 7:30 AM / 6:30 PM
10 / 11
Friday (8/19/2022) 7:20 AM / 6:30 PM 8 / 10
Tuesday (8/23/2022) 7:20 AM / 6:30 PM 7 / 9
Wednesday (8/24/2022) 7:30 AM / 6:30 PM 8 / 7
Thursday (8/25/2022) 7:20 AM / 6:20 PM 9 / 9
Saturday (8/27/2022) 10:00 AM 7
15 31
PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITY – PARKING IMPACT
• Highest observed parking Day
16 32
PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITY – PARKING IMPACT
‐ The majority of parked cars were
seen fronting the Town homes,
averaging 6 to 8 parked cars.
• Ample on street parking on Lark Ave, and other adjacent Local Streets
• On street parking along County Center Dr
17 33
PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITY – PARKING IMPACT
‐ Field observations indicate local on street parking and onsite parking is sufficient to handle the displacement of the observed parking along County Center Dr .
• Onsite Parking – 6 Available stalls
• Onsite Parking – 6 Available stalls
• Local on Street Parking (Lark Ave)
Approximately 7 Available spaces
18 34

SUMMARY
Advantages:
‐ Cost savings to the project, stretching
the project funds
‐ Improvement to traffic safety along
the corridor for all modes
Disadvantages:
‐ Loss of some on street parking
• Class IV along Walnut Ave
19 35

NEXT STEPS
If accepted, proceed with a Public Survey for the local community to garner community feedback on proposal.
‐ ‐ If feedback is positive proceed with proposal
‐ ‐ If feedback is negative return to Council for direction 20 36
QUESTIONS?
21 37
Riverway
Linwood
Riggin
Hurley
Linwood
Ferguson
Houston
Chinowth
Goshen
Oak Grove
Mineral King
Noble
Hwy 198
Pappas Memorial
Park
Rd
108Demaree
Dem
aree
Mooney
Shannon
Pratt
CountyCenter
Riggin
Rd 108
Shannon Ranch
M
ooney
M
ooney
Dem
aree
Dem
aree
Ferguson
Houston
CountyCenter
Goshen
Visalia Country Club
Manuel Hernandez
Green Acres
Mineral King
Main
Main
Noble
Mill Creek
Main Street Park
Riggin
Shannon
Riverway
Fairway Village Park
Riverway Sports Park
Ferguson
Houston
Murray
Jacob
Giddings
Divisadero
Houston
Mineral King
Conyer
Noble
Center
Main
Hall
Hwy 198
Jacob
Redwood High
County Center Dr - Destinations
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
8/17/2022, 6:04:30 PM
0 0.3 0.60.15 mi
0 0.55 1.10.28 km
1:18,056
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA | See web site for license constraints. | 38 39
40 41
Existing Parking Conditions
Adjacent the Townhomes on County Center Dr.

Picture 1. Guest Parking Onsite

Picture 2. Ample On‐street Parking Lark Ave

Picture 3. Each Resident Has a Garage
42 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0077 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Amend budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 (Year 3) Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding amount awarded and amend prior year appropriations carried forward for unspent and uncommitted PLHA funds in years 1-2 of the 5-year PLHA plan to increase construction funding for the Visalia Navigation Center.

Deadline for Action: 11/7/2022
Submitting Department: Finance and Technology Services
Contact Name and Phone Number: Margie Perez, Housing Specialist, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, (559) 713-4460; Melody Murch, Assistant Finance Director, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, (559) 713-4379; Renee Nagel, Finance Director, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, (559) 713-4375 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that Council:

1. Approve amendments to the 2022-23 PLHA budget based upon the actual allocation of PLHA funding from the State of California (State) in years 1-3 of the 5-Year PLHA plan.

2. Approve the use of the FY 2022-23 PLHA allocation set aside of $701,344 for operating to be used for development of the Navigation Center; and

3. Approve the reallocation of unexpended and uncommitted PLHA funds in years 1-2 of the 5- year PLHA plan in the amount of $106,865, for the development of the Navigation Center.

Background Discussion:

Under the California PLHA guidelines, the City of Visalia receives a formula allocation of PLHA from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) based upon the city’s status as an entitlement jurisdiction for Community Develop Block Grant funds. The PLHA Program was created by housing legislation passed in 2017 to address the shortage of affordable housing in California. This program receives 70% of the revenue generated by a $75 recording fee on real estate documents. While this is planned to be an on-going source of funding for housing, the annual revenue from the fee will fluctuate based upon the number of real estate transactions in any given year.

Each year, after funds are appropriated by the Legislature as part of the budget act, HCD will issue a Notice of Funding Available (NOFA) detailing each city and county’s allocation of PLHA. Receipt of annual funding is contingent upon the adoption of a 5-year PLHA Plan, and the drawdown of funds requires prior year funding to be committed or spent. To request a new year’s funding the City of Visalia’s unspent balance of PLHA must not exceed one year’s allocation.

Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™
43 File #: 22-0077 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.

The current 5-Year PLHA Plan was adopted in July of 2020 and as required by HCD, was based upon a percentage allocation of the funding to be received. At the time of adoption, the budget amounts were estimated based upon the first year’s actual allocation and the adopted budget percentages. Now that the actual allocation amounts are available for the first three years, the estimated budget amounts can be amended to match actual funding.

A portion of the original PLHA budget was allocated to CSET’s Navigation Center project. CSET has identified a remaining funding gap of $1,756,310 for development of the Navigation Center as shown in Attachment A: CSET’s Development Increase Request and has requested an additional $1,500,000 to fund construction costs for development of the Navigation Center. Staff is recommending utilizing PLHA funds to assist in partially filling the requested gap as discussed below.

There are three sources of additional funding for the Navigation Center Project which are available from the PLHA program.

1. $227,283 - Due to actual allocations which have exceeded estimates for year 2, the actual PLHA plan budget for Navigation Center construction received an additional $227,283. This additional amount requires only an amendment of the City budget to match the plan approved by HCD.

2. $701,344 - Year 3 of the PLHA plan included operating funds for the Navigation Center in the hope it would be open and operational during the FY 2022/23 year. Since the facility is not projected to open until the FY 2023/24 budget year, staff is requesting that these funds be authorized for use in construction of the facility. Again, these funds are already included in the 5-Year PLHA plan for the Navigation Center, and this action only requires an amendment of the City budget to transfer these funds from operating to the Navigation Center capital project.

3. $106,865 - Staff is proposing a minor budget amendment to reallocate unexpended and uncommitted PLHA funds from FY 2020/21 and FY 2021/22 to the development of the Navigation Center. Funding in the amount of $106,865 for the operation of a temporary Warming center in years 1 and 2 remains unspent, uncommitted, and available for allocation to the Navigation Center. Approval of this transfer of funds will not affect Warming Center funding in year’s 3-5 of the PLHA plan.

The proposed amendment, which is discussed further below, will be limited to the first 3 years of the 5-year PLHA plan. All PLHA Plan funding, with the exception of the administration amount, is currently classified as homeless funding, and the proposed amendment is considered “minor” by the HCD, only requiring that notice be provided to the State of the action taken by Council.

Proposed Budget Amendment
The original PLHA Plan was based upon percentages and budget amounts were estimated using the actual year 1 allocation of $630,815. The original budget estimates for year 1-3 are shown below in Table 1: Original Proposed 5-Year PLHA Plan for Years 1-3.

Table 1: Original Proposed 5-Year PLHA Plan for Years 1-3 # PLHA Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
1 Administration (69334) 31,541$ 31,541$ 31,541$ 94,622$ 2 Acquisition/Construction/Rehab of Public Facility(CP0419)504,652 410,030 - 914,682 3 Operating Funds Low Barrier Homeless Shelter (67085) - - 410,030 410,030 4 Operating Funds for Temp Emergency Shelter (67086) 94,622 94,622 94,622 283,867 5 Operating Funds Bridge Housing - Eden House (67087) - 94,622 94,622 189,245 Annual Total 630,815$ 630,815$ 630,815$ 1,892,445$ Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™
44 File #: 22-0077 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.
# PLHA Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
1 Administration (69334) 31,541$ 31,541$ 31,541$ 94,622$ 2 Acquisition/Construction/Rehab of Public Facility(CP0419)504,652 410,030 - 914,682 3 Operating Funds Low Barrier Homeless Shelter (67085) - - 410,030 410,030 4 Operating Funds for Temp Emergency Shelter (67086) 94,622 94,622 94,622 283,867 5 Operating Funds Bridge Housing - Eden House (67087) - 94,622 94,622 189,245 Annual Total 630,815$ 630,815$ 630,815$ 1,892,445$ The activities included in the original 5-year PLHA plan are discussed in detail below. • Administration: $31,541 annually - Indirect administration of PLHA funding and contracts, not to exceed 5% of the allocated funding.
• Low Barrier Shelter (Navigation Center): $914,682 (Development) and $410,030 starting FY 2022/23 (Annual Operation) - The plan includes the combination of PLHA funding with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding of $2,055,205, and Successor Agency Housing funding of $200,000 for a total of $3.2 million to be made available for the development of a public facility, in partnership with CSET a non-profit organization, to be operated as a Low-Barrier Navigation Center. Once the Navigation Center is complete, PLHA would provide an estimated $410,030 annually towards the cost of operating the facility.
• Temporary Seasonal Emergency Shelter (Warming Center): $94,622 annually - To provide operating costs for a Temporary Seasonal Emergency Shelter known as a Warming Center for the period of December 1st through February 28th of each year. • Bridge Housing (Eden House): $94,622 annually starting in Year 2 - A portion of the annual allocation was approved to provide partial funding of the operating cost for beds reserved for Visalia qualified residents at Eden House (Garden Street), beginning when their initial operating funding of HEAP/CESH/HIMIOT funding begins which ended on June 30, 2022.

The allocation of PLHA based upon the actual amounts received from the State, and the actual amounts contracted and expended by the projects and programs is shown below in Table 2: Actual PLHA Allocation from State - PLHA Plan Years 1-3.

Table 2: Actual PLHA Allocation from State - PLHA Plan Years 1-3 # PLHA Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
1 Administration (69334) 31,541$ 49,024$ 53,950$ 134,514$ 2 Acquisition/Construction/Rehab of Public Facility(CP0419)504,652 637,313 - 1,141,965 3 Operating Funds Low Barrier Homeless Shelter (67085) - - 701,344 701,344 4 Operating Funds for Temp Emergency Shelter (67086) 94,622 147,072 161,849 403,543 5 Operating Funds Bridge Housing - Eden House (67087) - 147,072 161,849 308,921 Annual Total 630,815$ 980,482$ 1,078,990$ 2,690,287$ As shown in Line 2 of Table 2, the Navigation Center will automatically receive an additional $227,283 ($1,141,965 - $914,682) per the approved percentage allocation based upon the actual annual allocation. If the requested amendment is approved, the $701,344 shown in Line 3 of Table 2 Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™
45 File #: 22-0077 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.
for operation of the facility will be moved to Line 2 and included in the construction budget for the Navigation Center. The amounts shown in lines 2 and 3 of Table 2 have already been allocated to the Navigation Center in the approved 5-year PLHA Plan, and only require a City budget amendment to adjust the appropriated amounts to the actual that has been received.

Temporary Emergency Shelter: Table 3 shows a total of $106,865 available from the Warming Center in years 1-2 of the plan. Due to Covid-19, the Warming Center was operated in a limited capacity and using other grant funding during Year 1 of the Plan (FY 2020/21). This left the year 1 funding untouched, and the amount was committed for use in the warming center contract for the remaining 4 years at a rate of $23,657 per year ($94,622/4 = $23,657). The warming center contract provides a total of $118,275 ($94.6k*5 = $473k/4=$118,275) in each of the remaining years for the operation of a warming center for 3 months each year (December-February). A total of $106,865 is available to reallocate as shown below in Table 3: Temporary Emergency Shelter Remaining Balance .

The Warming Center requested to utilize PLHA funds to secure a year-round lease to operate a seasonal warming center and cooling center. However, California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) confirmed that securing a year-round lease using PLHA funds for a seasonal emergency shelter is prohibited. As a result, the warming center is not expected to require more than the $161,849 available for this activity in the 2022/23 program year (see table 3), and this prior year unspent, and uncommitted funds are available to reallocate.

Eden House: Line 5 of Table 2 shows funding of $308,921 available in years 2 and 3 of the plan.

This funding has been offered to Eden House on an annual basis, and a total of $125,998 has been requested, contracted and/or spent. This leaves a total of $182,923 available to increase the Eden House allocation ($308,921-$125,998 = $182,923). Eden House is a bridge transitional housing project in partnership with Tulare County and the City of Tulare and is projected to need this additional funding amount. Eden House receives funds from the City of Visalia based on the number of Visalia beds. Eden House currently provides 15 out of 23 beds for the City of Visalia.

Table 4: PLHA Proposed Amendment below shows the additional development funds for the Navigation Center as well as the total 3-year funding for administration, the Warming Center, and Eden House.

Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™
46 File #: 22-0077 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.

If the proposed amendment is approved by Council, the Navigation Center (NC) project remaining requested need would be $464,508 as shown below in Table 5: Proposed PLHA Minor Amendment for NC Development. With the current estimated gap of $1,756,310, this will leave a remaining need of $720,818 to be funded by CSET from other sources.

The development of the Navigation Center project is currently contracted to receive a City contribution of $3.17m from a combination of CDBG, PLHA, and Successor Agency funding. The proposed amendment would increase this amount by an additional $1.03m for a total of $4.2m, as shown below in Table 6: Summary of Current and Proposed Navigational Center Funding.

Table 6: Summary of Current and Proposed Navigational Center Funding Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™
47 File #: 22-0077 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.

The proposed amendment does not require a formal amendment to HCD, since these approved activities are all within the same activity category of homelessness. This proposed amendment simply requires an internal budget amendment and notice of that amendment to HCD.

Alternative: Council has the option to reallocate the $106,865 of unexpended funds from the Warming Center to another PLHA eligible activity. The PLHA funding is intended to increase the supply of housing in California.

Eligible PLHA activities include the following:
· Development of rental housing,
· Development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs),
· Match funds to a Housing Trust Fund,
· Match funds to Low-and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund, · Capital reserves for services for the preservation and creation of new Permanent Supportive Housing,
· Homeless services including rapid rehousing, rental assistance, and supportive/case management services,
· Accessibility modifications in low-income owner-occupied housing, · Acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes and apartments, and · Homebuyer assistance.

Reallocating funds to a newly proposed activity would require the City to submit a formal substantial amendment to HCD. Receipt of annual funding is contingent upon prior year funding being committed or spent. Therefore, a substantial amendment to HCD may prolong receipt of the current year’s annual funding, impacting FY 2022/23 funds for the Navigation Center development, the Warming Center, and Eden House. Reallocating PLHA funds to other unapproved activities in not recommended, since they are eligible activities under Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), and Successor Agency Housing (SAH) funds.

PLHA is only grant that allows operating of homeless facilities and/or services without a public Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™
48 File #: 22-0077 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.
service cap.

Fiscal Impact:

All funding discussed in this proposed amendment is PLHA and the approval of this proposal will not result in any cost to the General Fund.

Prior Council Action: Click or tap here to enter text.
· July 20, 2020 - Approval of the 5-year PLHA Plan.
· June 15, 2020 - Council reviewed the proposed 5-year PLHA Plan.

Other: None
Alternatives: As discussed above, council has the option of funding a new housing activity with a portion of the available PLHA funding.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

Staff recommends that Council:

1. Approve amendments to the 2022-23 PLHA budget based upon the actual allocation of PLHA funding from the State of California (State) in years 1-3 of the 5-Year PLHA plan.

2. Approve the use of the FY 2022-23 PLHA allocation set aside in $701,344 for operating to development of the Navigation Center; and

3. Approve and reallocate unexpended and uncommitted PLHA funds in years 1-2 of the 5-year PLHA plan in the amount of $106,865, for the development of the Navigation Center.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: Click or tap here to enter text.
· Attachment A - CSET’s Development Increase Request
· Attachment B - PLHA Proposed Amendment PPT
Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™
49 50
51 Proposed PLHA
Amendment
City Council Meeting
November 7th, 2022
52 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
• City receives an annual allocation of PLHA
funds from HCD. PLHA funds are 70% of the
revenue generated by a $75 recording fee on real
estate documents to address the shortage of
affordable housing.
53 Original
Projected
PLHA Plan
Years 1-3
54 Proposed
PLHA
Amendment I
Actual Annual
Allocations
55 Available Reallocation - $106,865
• $70,965 in FY 20/21 is committed for FY 22/23, FY 23/24, and FY 24/25. • Warming Center requested additional PLHA funds for a year-round lease to operate Warming and Cooling Center, but not eligible use of PLHA funds. 56 Proposed PLHA Amendment II
Transfer a total of $808,209 for the Development of the Navigation Center.

1. Transfer FY 22-23 Navigation Center Operating to
Development $701,344.

2. Reallocate unspent prior year funds from the Warming Center $106,865.
57 PLHA Proposed Amendment
58 City Navigation Center Development Funding
59 Proposed
Amendment
Benefits
Assist in the Navigation Center
development gap.

Does not require a
formal amendment
to HCD.
•Approved activity
in PLHA 5-year
plan.
•Same Category
of homeless
assistance.

Requires simply an internal
budget amendment.
60 Other Eligible Activities
Requires Formal Amendment to HCD
Development of
Rental Housing
Development of
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Match for
Housing Trust
Funds
Match Low-
Moderate Income
Housing Asset
Funds
Development of
Permanent
Supportive
Housing
Homeless
Services
Accessibility
Modifications
Acquire/Rehab
Foreclosed or
Vacant Homes
Homebuyer
Assistance
61 Other
Activities
Not
Recommended
Substantial Amendment to HCD
would delay current year funding.

Other activities are eligible CDBG,
HOME, SAH funds.

Only PLHA allows homeless
operating and services without a
cap.
62 Recommendation
Approve amendment to
the FY 22-23 PLHA
budget based on annual
PLHA allocation.
01 Approve reallocation of
$701,344 in FY 22-23
Navigation Center
operating funds for
development.
02 Approve reallocation of
unexpended years 1-2
of PLHA funds in
$106,865 for Navigation
Center development.
03 63
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0388 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Christian Church Homes (CCH) is seeking a letter of support for the development of a 70-unit senior affordable housing project located at 2439 North Dinuba Boulevard in Visalia and the application to the State of California’s Multifamily Finance Super Notice of Funding Availability (Super NOFA) that includes the Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) program.

Deadline for Action: 11/21/2022
Submitting Department: Finance and Technology Services
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Margie Perez, Housing Specialist, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> (559) 713-4460;
Melody Murch, Assistance Finance Director, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> (559) 713-4379
Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that Council authorize a letter of support for Christian Church Homes application for the State of California’s Multifamily Finance Super Notice of Funding Availability (Super NOFA), including the Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) Program.

Background Discussion:

Christian Church Homes (CCH) is proposing to develop a 70-unit senior affordable rental housing project located at 2439 North Dinuba Boulevard in Visalia. The proposed project is targeted to residents 62-years old and older with incomes at or below 60% of the area median income (AMI) level. CCH plans to apply for $1 million in Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) Program funds through California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Multifamily Finance Super Notice of Funding Availability (Super NOFA). CCH has requested a letter of support from the city which is a requirement to apply for the State’s Super NOFA, including the IIG program as shown inAttachment A - CCH Letter of Support Request.

The HCD Super NOFA is intended to advance the State’s goal of creating 2.5 million homes by 2030 and assist in producing more than 1 million homes for people with low and very low incomes. The HCD Super NOFA consolidates and streamlines the State’s affordable housing programs under one application including $650 million under the following programs:
· Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
· Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention (VHHP) Program · Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant (FWHG) Program · Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) Program
IIG Guideline Section 206(a)(2) requires that a letter of support be submitted for a Qualifying Infill Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
64 File #: 22-0388 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Project from the local governing body. For any applicant that is requesting IIG funding in combination with any other Super NOFA funding source or IIG funding on its own. Failure to provide the required letter of support will result in the disqualification of the Project for failure to meet minimum threshold requirements. The draft City of Visalia (COV) letter of support is included herein for Council’s review as Attachment B - Draft COV Letter of Support.

Established in 1961, Christian Church Homes (CCH) is a non-profit organization that has been building and managing affordable housing communities where seniors can live and thrive in the comfort of their own home. CCH has grown to 50 communities in seven states.

CCH Visalia Senior Apartments proposed development includes a three-story Sixty-nine (69) 1- bedroom residential units and one (1) 2-bedroom on-site manager unit. The project target residents are low and very low-income senior 62 years and older with annual income at or below 60% AMI. The proposed project will include a centrally located courtyard and interior amenity space for residents.

Other funding sources include Multifamily Housing Program funds and investor capital contributions.

Fiscal Impact:

None. No City funds are requested and a letter of support does not commit the City to any financial contribution.

Prior Council Action: None
Other: None
Alternatives: None
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move that Council authorize staff to provide a letter of support to Christian Church Homes for the State’s Multifamily Finance Super Notice of Funding Availability (Super NOFA), for the Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) Program.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: Click or tap here to enter text.
· Attachment A: CCH Letter of Support Request
· Attachment B: Draft COV Letter of Support
Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
65 Cal DRE License #00473345

CCH does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability or veteran status in the access to, or treatment in, housing services and employment. A 504 Coordinator has been designated to coordinate compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s regulations and can be contacted at 1855 Olympic Blvd, STE 300, Walnut Creek CA 94596, (510) 632-6712, TTY: 711

October 11, 2022

Margie Perez
Housing Specialist
City of Visalia Finance Dept. – Housing Division
707 W. Acequia Ave. Visalia, CA 93291
Email: [email protected]

Margie –
In reference to Christian Church Home’s senior affordable housing approved project at 2439 Dinuba we applied for $1,000,000 in funding from the State’s Multifamily Housing Super Notice of Funding – Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) program. IIG Guideline Sectio n 206 (a)(2) requires that a letter of support be submitted for the Qualifying Infill Project from the local governing body. CCH would appreciate receiving the attached letter completed and signed by the City to meet this requirement. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Thank you.

Sidney
Sidney Stone
Director Of Real Estate Development
(510) 746-4120 | [email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 13C7871F-8598-4FF8-9CE1-15F949E191D7 66 November 22, 2022

Gustavo Velasquez, Director
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 West El Camino Ave
Sacramento, CA 95833

Re: VISALIA SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (2439 Dinuba), Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) Support Letter

Dear Mr. Velasquez,

Christian Church Homes plans to submit a funding application to the State’s Multifamily Housing Super Notice of Funding – Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) program for the VISALIA SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING project, a 70-unit new construction affordable housing development located 2439 North Dinuba Boulevard in Visalia.

IIG Guideline Section 206 (a)(2) requires that a letter of support be submitted for the Qualifying Infill Project from the local governing body. This letter is to document our wholehearted support for this project. Our community is in urgent need of more affordable housing.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Margie Perez, Housing Specialist via email at [email protected] or at (559) 713-4460.

Sincerely,

Leslie Caviglia
City Manager
City of Visalia

CC: Margie Perez, Housing Specialist

City Manager’s Office

220 N. Santa Fe, Visalia, CA 93292 Tel: (559) 713-4300 Fax: (559) 713-4800 City of Visalia
67 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0381 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Odell Engineering for professional consulting services for the Bridging Horizons Inclusive Park Project in the amount not to exceed $545,328.00.

Deadline for Action: None
Submitting Department: Administration - CIP Engineering Contact Name and Phone Number:

Cody McLaughlin, Assistant Engineer, [email protected], 713-4595 Dolores Verduzco, Financial Analyst, [email protected], 713-4540 Frank Senteno, City Engineer, [email protected], 713-4331 Alvin Dias, Parks and Facilities Manager, [email protected], 713-4564 Kelli Kincaid, Parks and Recreation Director, [email protected], 713-4042 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4323 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to award the design contract to Odell Engineering for professional consulting services to prepare plans, specifications, and estimates for the Bridging Horizons Inclusive Park Project in the amount not to exceed $545,328.00 (3010- 72000/CP0595-999).

Background Discussion:

The City requested the services of a Consultant to prepare the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for the construction of the Bridging Horizons Inclusive Park Project. The new inclusive park will be the first inclusive park in the City of Visalia and located within the Civic Center in east downtown. The playground is intended to become a multi-generational gathering space for community enjoyment, socialization, healthy bodies, and imaginative fun. The goal of this inclusive playground will be to provide a place that goes beyond minimum accessibility to create play experiences that meet a variety of needs and interest. At an inclusive playground, individuals of all abilities can interact with each other and do what everyone wants to do: Play In addition to the preparation of PS&E’sthe consultant will work with city staff to refine the project deliverables, amenities and the project’s design at key milestones following an additional public outreach process and coordination with the City’sPark and Recreation Commission. It should be noted public outreach was performed during the grant application process; this additional public outreach process shall be to refine the project design. Staff will coordinate the final design concept options with City Council with the intent for a final concept to be selected. Through this coordination staff will work with the design consultant to prepare a final design and construction documents. The project design will also be coordinated with the improvement of the extension of "Oak Avenue" that will take the form of a private drive to include parking. That design will occur concurrently and a Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
68 File #: 22-0381 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 3.
concept of the drive will be presented to City Council at a later date In January 2021, the California Natural Resources Agency released the final guide and application for the Proposition 68 Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Grant Program. The purpose of this grant is to create new parks and recreation opportunities in underserved communities across California.

The City submitted the Proposition 68 grant proposal for an new inclusive park project planned to be located on Oak Street between Burke Street and the Imagine U children’s museum facility. In February 2022 the City of Visalia was selected as a grant awardee and awarded $7,829,352 for the new Inclusive Park project.

Staff is requesting a not to exceed amount of $545,328.00. This not to exceed amount includes the following tasks:

Task 1: Meetings and Project Management ($46,020)
Task 2: Site Analysis/Data Collection and Review ($101,168) Task 3: Design Development ($89,698)
Task 4: Construction Documentation ($265,156)
Task 5: Bidding and Contract Award Services ($2,850)
Task 6: Construction Support Services ($7,360)
Task 7: Construction Staking ($33,076)
Total Amount: $545,328.00
Selection Process:

The City of Visalia received one (1) proposal in response to the advertised Request for Proposals for RFP 22-23-21, Professional Design Services for the Bridging Horizons Inclusive Park Project on August 31st, 2022. The proposal was received from Odell Engineering located in Modesto, CA.

While there was only one proposal received, a review committee was still formed in order to review and evaluate the Consultant’sproposal. The proposal was reviewed and scored with comments. This was done to ensure the Consultant was qualified for the project and thoroughly understood the scope of work. The review committee’sevaluations determined the Consultant Odell Engineering qualified for the project. Odell Engineering has worked on numerous inclusive park projects for municipalities such as: May Nissen Inclusive Park in Livermore, Empowerment Inclusive Park in Sacramento, and Neel Inclusive Park in Ceres. In addition, Odell Engineering has experience with projects funded using Proposition 68 grant funding.

Staff has worked with this consulting firm previously, as Odell Engineering aided in preliminary grant application efforts. Staff recommends that Odell Engineering be awarded the design services contract for the Bridging Horizons Inclusive Park Project.

Fiscal Impact:

The city was awarded $7,829,352 toward development of the inclusive park project. There are no match funds required in the award of this grant. However, Council approved, at a previous Council meeting, the appropriation of $51,000 from the Parks Fund (211) to cover the indirect staff costs that Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
69 File #: 22-0381 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 3.
are not grant reimbursable.

The project budget summary below is based on a concept level construction estimate prepared and included with the grant application. Soft costs have been determined based upon a percentage of construction. This budget will continue to evolve and will be further refined as staff progresses through design. The preliminary project budget is as follows:

Budget Summary: Bridging Horizons Inclusive Park Project Grant Award Amount: $7,829,352
Local Funds (Parks Fund 211) $51,000
Total Project Budget $7,880,352
Project Management (Staff) $170,000
Design Consultant (Odell Engineering)$545,328
Construction Surveying $52,000
Construction Inspections $85,000
Construction Management $251,000
Materials Testing $52,000
Construction Cost $6,506,827
Total Estimated Project Cost $7,662,155
Remaining Balance $218,197
The proposed consultant design cost is under the initial estimated cost of $763,525, creating a budget surplus of grant funds in the amount of $218,197. As cost of materials and construction continue to rise, the project budget will be further refined through the design phase of the project.

Prior Council Action:

June 06, 2022
Authorized the City Manager to accept and appropriate $7,829,352 in funds awarded form the State of California Natural Resources Agency, Proposition 68 Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Grant and appropriate $51,000 for staff indirect costs from the Parks Fund (211) Other:

NA
Alternatives:

NA
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Odell Engineering for professional consulting services for the Bridging Horizons Inclusive Park Project in the amount not to exceed Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
70 File #: 22-0381 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 3.
$545,328.00.

Environmental Assessment Status:

TBD
CEQA Review:

Categorical Exemption
Attachments:

Odell Engineering Proposal Budget
Owner Disclosure Form
Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
71 FEE & EFFORT TABLE
PROJECT: Bridging Horizons Inclusive Park
CLIENT: City of Visalia
DATE: 10/18/2022
Principal
(Chad Kennedy /
Dylan Crawford)
Senior Civil Engineer
(Mike Persak)
Senior Engineer 1
(Kristen Scheidt)
Engineer 2
(Matt Vinson)
Assistant Engineer 1
(Angel Mariscal /
Edward Hamed /
JJ Beyronneau /)
Senior Landscape
Architect 2
(Karen Folsom /
Samir Khanna)
LA Project Manager
(Katherine Lewis)
Landscape Architect 2
(Tyler Fay /
Jesse Grafton / Vicky
Ringleb)
Landscape Designer 3
(Michael Samarripa /
Ting Li, Beverly Yee,)
Landscape Designer 1
(Yasmine Cordova /
Angelica Latina / Jack
Liang)
Dry Utility Project
Manager 2
(Dennis Wann)
CADD Operator 2
(Julissa Humphrey)
Survey Manager
(Scott Roberts)
Senior Land Surveyor
(Bill Cook)
Senior Surveyor 2
(Stephan Pyle)
Senior Surveyor 1
(Chris Armstrong)
Surveyor 2
(Felise Bloodgood)
Assistant Surveyor 2
(Uriel Montejano)
Assistant Surveyor 1
(Ricardo Uresti)
Survey Crew 2-man
(prevailing wage)
(Chris Armstrong /
Ricardo Uresti)
Admin
(Rosa Villarreal /
Megan Newman)
Reimbursables /
Mileage
Reproduction Costs
Pezzoni
Crawford
Unlimited Play
Structural
Hours
Task Subtotal
Task Total Fee
$280.00 $215.00 $185.00 $180.00 $130.00 $200.00 $180. 00 $170.00 $155.00 $135.00 $170.00 $115.00 $205.00 $195.00 $190.00 $170.00 $150.00 $130.00 $ 115.00 $396.00 $96.00 199 $45,540 $46,020

1.1 Kick-off Organization & Scoping Meeting 6 7 200 $880 $200 13 $4,220 $4,348

1.2 Project Coordination Meetings w/ agenda and minutes (up to 1 11 38 $2,640 49 $12,560 $12,824

1.3 Managing & Updating Project Schedule 1 16 17 $3,160 $3,160

1.4 Management 16 16 32 16 $880 80 $17,360 $17,448

1.5 QA/QC 16 24 40 $8,240 $8,240
281 $97,652 $101,168

2.1 Contextual Analysis 4 8 8 16 16 52 $8,680 $8,680

2.2.0 Field Survey Prep 24 4 10 $1,690 $1,690

2.2.1 Field Survey - Travel 1 1 $396 $396

2.2.2 Field Survey - Control 3 3 $1,188 $1,188

2.2.3 Field Survey - Topo 6 6 $2,376 $2,376

2.2.4 Data Processing/ QC 14 4 9 $1,485 $1,485

2.2.5 Drafting 12 12 24 $3,840 $3,840

2.2.6 Peer Review/ QC 24 4 10 $1,690 $1,690

2.2.7 Utility Research Coordination 26 8 $1,430 $1,430

2.2.8 Utility Research Drafting of As-Builts 8 8 $1,360 $1,360

2.2.9 Utility Research Peer Review 24 6 $1,090 $1,090

2.2.10 Subsurface Coordination / Investigation 22 1640 4 $2,390 $2,554

2.3 Boundary Survey 35 20 45 8 3334 121 $23,754 $23,754

2.4 Geotechnical Investigation 2 4 $33,523 6 $34,803 $38,155

2.5 Utility Investigation and Coordination 1 16 16 32 65 $11,480 $11,480 484 $88,648 $89,698

3.1 Public Outreach - Community Meetings (up to 4) 30 30 30 200 800 $2,000 90 $20,850 $21,150

3.2 Preliminary Site Plan Development 8 2 16 20 40 $2,000 86 $16,810 $17,010

3.3 Design Development PS&E (30%) 8 2 8 60 8 24 100 50 40 8 200 1300 $2,000 $2,000 308 $50,988 $51,538 1523 $262,129 $265,156

4.1.0 Construction Documents $4,000 0 $4,000 $4,400

4.1.1 Improvement Plans 60% 8 2 24 100 8 80 160 100 40 8 250 1500 $3,000 $3,000 530 $87,528 $88,303

4.1.2 Technical Specifications 60% 16 48 $800 64 $11,920 $12,000

4.1.3 Construction Estimates 60% 1 2 8 1 6 24 $400 42 $6,610 $6,650

4.2.0 Improvement Plans 90% 8 2 24 100 8 80 160 100 40 8 1500 $3,315 $3,000 530 $87,593 $88,375

4.2.1 Technical Specifications 90% 8 24 $600 $500 32 $6,660 $6,770

4.2.2 Construction Estimates 90% 1 2 8 1 6 24 $400 42 $6,610 $6,650

4.2.3 Draft SWPPP 16 1 17 $3,060 $3,060

4.3.0 Bid Package 100% 4 1 12 60 4 40 24 50 20 8 1500 $2,100 $3,000 223 $39,493 $40,153

4.3.1 Technical Specifications 100% 4 16 $500 $500 20 $4,460 $4,560

4.3.2 Construction Estimates 100% 1 1 4 1 3 6 $400 16 $2,935 $2,975

4.3.3 Final SWPPP 61 7 $1,260 $1,260
110 23 127 38 348 71 420 88 444 440 32 140 62 20 45 52 27 3 3 14 32 2487 $30,800 $4,945 $23,495 $6,840 $45,240 $14,200 $75, 600 $14,960 $68,820 $59,400 $5,440 $16,100 $12,710 $3,900 $8,550 $8,840 $4,050 $390 $345 $5,544 $ 3,072 $2,490 $6,600 $17,915 $33,523 $10, 200 $10,000 $493,969 $502,042 $249 $660 $1,792 $3,352 $1,020 $1,000
$30,800 $4,945 $23,495 $6,840 $45,240 $14,200 $75, 600 $14,960 $68,820 $59,400 $5,440 $16,100 $12,710 $3,900 $8,550 $8,840 $4,050 $390 $345 $5,544 $ 3,072 $2,739 $7,260 $19,707 $36 ,875 $11,220 $11,000 $502,042 PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT 6% 1% 5% 1% 9% 3% 15% 3% 14% 12% 1% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 4% 7% 2% 2% $13,515
14 $2,850 $2,850

5.1 Bid Phase Services (up to 16 hours) 4 2 8 14 $2,850 $2,850 40 $7,360 $7,360

6.1 Construction Phase Services (up to 40 hours) 4 8 28 $1,905 40 $7,360 $7,360 103 $33,076 $33,076

7.1 Staking (9 mobilizations) 42 8 7 1 103 $33,076 $33,076 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 000000000000 0 157
$2,240 $0 $1,850 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,905 $0 $0 $43,286 $43,286

GRAND TOTAL

TOTAL COST
CONSULTANT MARK-UP 10%
-Project to be billed monthly as a lump sum amount per task, and based on percentage of work completed during the month.

O'Dell Engineering
TASK 3 - Design Development
TASK 4 - Construction Documentation

TASK/DESCRIPTION
TASK 1 - Meetings and Project Management
Subcons.

TASK 5 - Bidding and Contract Award

TOTAL HOURS
TASK 2 - Site Analysis/Data Collection & Review
Tasks

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE HOURS

TOTAL CONSTRUCTINO PHASE COST
TASK 7 - Construction Staking
TASK 6 - Construction Support Services
72 73
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0398 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Agenda Item Wording:

Request authorization to file a Notice of Completion for Maddox at Caldwell 7 subdivision, containing 41 single-family residential lots, located on the northeast corner of South Ben Maddox Way and East Monte Verde Avenue.

Deadline for Action: 11/7/2022
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Adrian Rubalcaba, Associate Engineer, (559)713-4271, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Jason Huckleberry, Assistant Community Development Director, (559)713-4495, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Paul Bernal, Community Development Director, (559)713-4025, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that City Council authorize the filing of a Notice of Completion for Maddox at Caldwell 7 subdivision.

Summary:

All of the required improvements for this subdivision have been completed and are ready for acceptance by the City Engineer. The Maddox at Caldwell 7 subdivision was developed by D.R.

Horton and contains 41 single-family residential lots.

The Developer has submitted a maintenance bond in the amount of $105,657.33 as required by the Subdivision Map Act, to guarantee the public improvements against defects for one year. Staff recommends that authorization be given to the file the Notice of Completion.

Background Discussion:

City Council authorized the recording of the final map for Maddox at Caldwell 7 subdivision on December 6, 2021. All bonds and cash payments, as identified in the subdivision agreement, were received by the City prior to map recordation. As required by the Subdivision Ordinance, a maintenance bond valued at 10% of the cost of the public improvements has been submitted prior to recording of the Notice of Completion. The maintenance bond is held for one year after the recording and acts as a warranty for the public improvements installed per the subdivision agreement.

Fiscal Impact:

By authorizing this Notice of Completion, the City of Visalia will incorporate the identified public improvements into normal routine maintenance plans and procedures following the one-year maintenance period. This will have a nominal adverse effect on the fund that provides such Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
74 File #: 22-0398 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 4.
maintenance.

Prior Council Action:
· On December 6, 2021, the City Council authorized the recordation of the Maddox at Caldwell 7 subdivision final map and authorized the formation of Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 21-05 for Maddox at Caldwell 7 subdivision.

Committee/Commission Review and Action:
· On April 23, 2007, the Planning Commission approved “Maddox at Caldwell 7” Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5531, and Conditional User Permit No. 2007-09, a required to create a planned unit residential subdivision development with modified lot sizes, setbacks, and attached and detached units (i.e., duplex units) in the R-M-2 zone. · On July 10, 2017, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-15, and amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09 by removing duplex units from the approved “Maddox at Caldwell 7” subdivision (Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5531). · The Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 21-05 was reviewed and approved as to form by the Landscape and Lighting District Committee in November 2021.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to authorize the filing of a Notice of Completion for Maddox at Caldwell 7 subdivision.

CEQA Review: Negative Declaration No. 2007-20, adopted April 23, 2007.

Attachments:

1. Location Map

2. Final Map

3. Developer Disclosure
Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
75 TULARE IRRI. DIST.

E K AVE

S BURKE ST

S CAIN CT

E CALDWELL AVE

E MESA CT

E COPPER CT

S GOWDY ST

S CHARTER
OAK CT

S CAIN ST

E BEECH AVE

E DOROTHEA AVE

E MONTE

VISTA AVE

E COPPER CT

S OAKHURST CT

S BYRD CT

E MESA CT

S BRADLEY CT

E VICTOR
AVE

S BYRD ST

E COPPER CT

S KENNEDY ST

S CAIN CT
E MESA
AVE

E CHESTNUT CT

S LA MESA CT

E MONTE VERDE AVE

S STOVER ST

S CAIN ST

E MONTE

VISTA AVE

E LA SALLE AVE

S OAKHURST ST

E SUNNYSIDE
AVE

E ARLEN
AVE

S STOVER ST

S CANTAMAR ST

E COPPER CT

S COTTA ST

E MESA CT

E MONTE

VISTA CT

E BEECH DR

S SHERIDAN CT

E MONTE

VISTA CT

E MESA CT

E EVERGREEN CT

E COUNTRY CT

S TERRA LINDA ST

SE LA VIDA CT

E SUNNYSIDE AVE

E VICTOR AVE

S OAKHURST CT

S CAIN CT

E CHESTNUT CT

E MESA CT

E ARLEN AVE

E COUNTRY AVE

E PARKVIEW AVE

E LA VIDA CT

S BRADLEY CT

SE SUNNYSIDE CT

S MEADOWBROOK ST

S KENNEDY ST

S EDISON ST

S BEN MADDOX WAY

S BURKE ST

E K AVE

LOCATION MAP
±
SCALE: 1"=100'

PROJECT

LOCATION
76 <N 61° 04' 35" W 114.29'>(N 16° 56' 25" W 1007.48)
FD 3/4" IP TAGGEDLS 5676 ONLINE
FD 3/4" IP TAGGEDLS 5676 0.14' EAST OF LINE
FD 3/4" IPTAGGED LS 56760.10' SOUTH & 0.24' WEST
FD 1/2" IP TAG ILLEGIBLEN48° 56' 51"W 2.14 FROMCALCULATED POSITION FD BRASS DISC IN CONCSTAMPED LS 5676 ACCEPTED
FD HARD NAIL S84° 26' 47"E 1.48'FROM CALCULATED POSITIONNO RECORD, NOT USEDESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION L 22 RL 1 R
L 3 R
L 2
L 4 R
L 5
L 7
L 6 RL 8
L 10L 11L 12
L 13
L 20L 21
L 15
L 26
L 17L 18L 19
L 14L 9
C9
L=369.50'R=400.00'Δ=52°55'38"T=199.12'
C 5<Δ=12°19'07" R=890' L=191.35'> <<Δ=12°19'07" R=890' L=191.35'>> Δ=17°21'57"R=850.00'L=257.63'T=129.81' C66
<R=890.00' L=456.10' Δ=29°21'46">
L=78.43'R=1500.00'Δ=2°59'45"T=39.22'
(R=1500.00'L=78.43')
(Δ=2°59'45"T=39.22')
C 86
C1L=264.76'R=890.00'Δ=17°02'40"T=133.37'L=455.82'R=890.00'Δ=29°20'40"T=233.03' C 3C4 L=132.69'R=890.00'Δ=8°32'32"T=66.47'
L=227.73'R=54.00'Δ=241°37'40"T=90.54'
L=53.73'R=427.00' Δ=7°12'34"T=26.90' L=57.61'R=373.00' Δ=8°51'00"T=28.86'C8 L=111.00'R=400.00'Δ=15°53'58"T=55.86' L=51.32'R=50.00'Δ=58°48'11"T=28.18'
L=135.14'R=273.00'Δ=28°21'44"T=68.98'C7L=154.67'R=300.00'Δ=29°32'25"T=79.10' L=168.59'R=327.00'Δ=29°32'25"T=86.21'
C 6
C 11
C 12
C 13
L=259.42'R=54.00'Δ=275°15'15"T=49.26'
L=309.12'R=427.00'Δ=41°28'42"T=161.68'
L=195.63'R=773.00'Δ=14°30'01"T=98.34' C10
L=300.11'R=800.00'Δ=21°29'37"T=151.84'
L=310.24'R=827.00'Δ=21°29'37"T=156.96'
L=224.15'R=54.00'Δ=237°49'34"T=97.77'
L=128.07'R=373.00'Δ=19°40'23"T=64.67'
L=109.15'R=373.00'Δ=16°46'00"T=54.97'
C16 C81 C83
C21C11
C24
C25C26C27C28C29C30C31 C32C33C34
C35C 36C37
C38
C39
C40
C41
C42
C43C44 C45
C46C49C50
C51
C52 C53
C54
C55C56
C57
C58
C59
C60
C61
C62 C63
C64
C65C76C77
C82C15 C 17C18C14
C19C20
C22C23
C47
C48
C67
C 79C80
C78
C87 C88
C68C69C70C71C72C 73C74C75
C85C84C89 L=260.66'R=860.00'Δ=17°21'57"T=131.34'
C90<L=27.23'><R=20.00'><Δ=78° 01' 00">
C 91
C 92
L=440.91'R=860.00'Δ=29°22'28"T=225.41'L=83.34'R=860.00'Δ=5°33'08"T=41.70'L 25 10'
10'
55'
31'34'
(55')
10'55'(55')
6' PUE
6' PUE
30'30' 30'30'30'30'60'10'
55'
6' PUE
6' PUE
(55')
55'(55')
6' PUE
S 0° 26' 33" E RS 0° 25' 56" E R
S 5° 07' 12" W RS 11° 34' 36" W R
S 89° 32' 08" E R
N 83° 56' 41" E R
S 89° 32' 08" E RN 77° 47' 21" E R
N 75° 00' 52" E RR 1
N 60° 55' 28" E RN 65° 40' 17" E R
S 65° 24' 09" W RS 25° 03' 52" E R
S 14° 07' 11" E RN 70° 47' 34" W RS 55° 58' 08" E R
N 11° 59' 23" W R
S 5° 34' 39" W RS 54° 18' 14" W R
R 5
N 9° 09' 54" W RR 7S 10° 46' 55" E RR 8R 9
S 82° 04' 07" W RR 10R 12R 11R 13S 1° 46' 30" E R
N 2° 41' 00" E RS 48° 47' 09" E RR 14R 15R 16N 84° 28' 36" W R S 88° 48' 26" W R
N 77° 41' 23" W R
N 70° 43' 43" W RN 66° 08' 54" W RN 66° 33' 10" W R
S 69° 41' 42" E RS 67° 36' 27" E R
S 73° 20' 19" E RS 71° 33' 05" E R
S 75° 24' 32" E RS 76° 54' 57" E RS 79° 12' 06" E RS 80° 38' 55" E RS 80° 26' 38" E R S 83° 56' 14" E R
N 34° 31' 54" E R
S 64° 46' 46" W R
N 47° 56' 32" E RN 7° 23' 01" W R
N 88° 23' 06" E R
N 27° 12' 28" E RR 17R 18S 6° 40' 22" W R
N 40° 31' 00" E RR 6
R 4S 6° 38' 12" E R
R 20R 19
S 66° 06' 35" W R
N 73° 00' 29" W R
N 74° 47' 53" W R
S 28° 58' 16" W R
R 2
S 17° 45' 06" W RS 21° 12' 26" W RS 24° 43' 05" W RS 85° 42' 37" E RS 82° 20' 14" E RS 11° 53' 52" W R S 0° 24' 08" E R S 28° 56' 32" W RS 8° 12' 56" W R
2' BLOCK WALL EASEMENT2' BLOCK WALL EASEMENT 2' BLOCK WALL EASEMENT 2' BLOCK WALLEASEMENT2' BLOCK WALLEASEMENT
2' BLOCK WALL EASEMENT
<N 73° 03' 35" W R>
<N 28° 55' 25" E R>N 28° 55' 04" E R
N 73° 04' 02" W R
N 73° 00' 23" W R
N 74° 50' 33" W R
S 8° 08' 24" W R
R 3
N 76° 08' 53" W R

BEN MADDOX WAY
((N73°33'21"W 564.20'))N 73° 31' 59" W 804.58'240.40'35.37' N 0° 27' 15" E 1075.80'[[N0°26'04"E 1105.76']][[[N0°26'04"E 1106.11']]]N 0° 27' 15" E 1141.23'

27.00'

27.00'27.00'
< 30' >< 30' > < 30' >< 30' >
BASIS OF BEARINGS N 16° 56' 25" E 1007.48'
564.18'
COPPER CT.

CAIN ST.

MESA CT.

CAIN CT.

27.00'27.00'

27.00'27.00'
MONTE VERDE AVENUE FD. BRASS DISC IN CONC. STAMPED R.C.E. 21182PER MADDOX AT CALDWELL UNIT 3B,BK. 38, OF MAPS, AT PG 35FD. BRASS DISC IN CONC. STAMPED R.C.E. 21182PER MADDOX AT CALDWELL UNIT 3B,BK. 38, OF MAPS, AT PG 35 "K" STREET
N 16° 56' 25" E 146.02'
((N73°33'21"W 564.20'))
163.97'
N 61° 03' 28" W 114.19'N 16° 56' 25" E 971.92'
N 89° 32' 08" W 105.56'50.94'44.72'28.16'N 89° 32' 45" W 101.30'59.95'50.00' N 89° 32' 45" W 101.29'50.00'12.87'
N 89° 32' 45" W 103.39'50.00'
N 89° 33' 15" W 113.09'50.00'
N 89° 32' 45" W 131.40'50.00'

47.13'50.00'60.00'50.00'
N 0° 27' 52" E 91.03' 91.03' 91.03'
N 87° 38' 32" W R27.00'
N 88° 50' 28" E 107.00' R
N 89° 32' 43" W 58.10' R
149.69'
N 0° 27' 15" E 104.46'N 0° 27' 15" E 95.74'
N 0° 27' 15" E 108.71'

60.00'
153.95'N 0° 27' 15" E 99.99'

50.00'52.58'
N 89° 32' 45" W 142.68'50.00'
N 89° 32' 45" W 126.41'50.00'
N 89° 32' 45" W 113.56'50.00'
N 89° 32' 45" W 103.96'50.00'
N 89° 32' 45" W 97.50'50.00'
N 78° 30' 55" E 96.08'73.23'
N 33° 34' 48" E 109.99'

50.00'

96.73'
N 16° 56' 25" E 101.79'

81.55'
143.57'

42.86'
N 89° 32' 45" W 108.00'

82.28'
N 89° 32' 45" W 111.95'

52.14'
N 89° 32' 45" W 112.35'

52.14'
N 89° 32' 45" W 108.98'

52.14'
N 89° 32' 45" W 103.91'

52.14'
N 89° 32' 45" W 104.99'

52.14'
N 89° 32' 45" W 112.35'

52.14'
N 89° 32' 45" W 125.65'

52.14'

59.86'50.72'34.26'52.14'
N 9° 09' 54" W 109.02'

39.48'N 9° 09' 54" W 117.65'

28.52'
132.91'

50.34'
N 09° 09' 54" W R27.00'N 80° 50' 06" E 68.00' 68.00'

48.14'

32.25'S 73° 31' 59" E 174.41'

99.74'40.09'
N 16° 56' 25" E 972.26'
193.98'
N 89° 32' 45" W 157.13'
N 89° 32' 45" W 162.58'
N 89° 32' 45" W 144.84'
N 89° 32' 08" W 99.55'

48.14'43.02'N 07° 06' 46" E 98.38'
N 07° 38' 16" W 77.21'
N 00° 00' 06" E34.09'
N 89° 32' 08" W 94.76'64.47'
N 9° 46' 20" E 52.91'
N 0° 00' 00" E 94.51'N 0° 00' 00" E 44.30'
N 6° 45' 13" E 58.92'
N 16° 56' 25" E 98.56'
N 89° 33' 15" E 57.63'
C 93N 73° 31' 59" W 248.99'
843.51'
5,845 S.F.15,065 S.F.25,090 S.F.35,377 S.F.46,075 S.F.57,213 S.F.65,172 S.F.8 9,118 S.F.99,373 S.F.10
5,385 S.F.117,616 S.F.136,713 S.F.145,985 S.F.155,425 S.F.165,024 S.F.176,028 S.F.189,690 S.F.19 6,625 S.F.20
8,333 S.F.21 7,669 S.F.225,513 S.F.235,623 S.F.245,550 S.F.255,306 S.F.265,195 S.F.275,408 S.F.285,926 S.F.296,738 S.F.305,671 S.F.328,315 S.F.33 4,856 S.F.395,131 S.F.40
19,758 S.F.LOT B 876 S.F.LOT C1,205 S.F.LOT D
7,052 S.F.7
7,895 S.F.12
6,083 S.F.31
5,726 S.F.34
5,390 S.F.35
6,096 S.F.36
9,117 S.F.37
6,386 S.F.38
1,058 S.F.LOT A
6,254 S.F.41
LOT B
TSM 5531
NON PLOTTABLE EASEMENTS OF RECORD:1.) EASEMENT FOR STORM WATER PONDING BASIN AND THE STOCKPILING OF SOIL FROM THE SAIDPONDING BASIN OVER PARCEL 1 TO THE CITY OF VISALIA PER DOC. 96-010567 T.C.R.RECORDED 2/14/96.2.) EASEMENT GRANTED TO MT. WHITNEY POWER AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, FOR PUBLIC UTILITIESRECORDED DECEMBER 20, 1909, BOOK 15, PAGE 279. 3.)EASEMENT GRANTED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION, FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND COMMUNICATION PURPOSESRECORDED AUGUST 7, 1951, BOOK 1535, PAGE 559, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 4.) EASEMENT GRANTED TO CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY, FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES,RECORDED JANUARY 27, 1997, INSTRUMENT NO. 97-005206, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

BASIS OF BEARINGSTHE BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE CENTERLINE OF BEN MADDOX WAY ASSHOWN ON MADDOX @ CALDWELL 5 PHASE 1 RECORDED IN VOLUME 40OF MAPS AT PAGE 13 OF TULARE COUNTY RECORDS AND HAVING ABEARING OF N16°56'25"E.

LEGENDSET 3/4" X 18" LONG IP TAGGED LS 8006 AT ALL LOT CORNERSAND POINTS OF CURVATURESET CITY OF VISALIA STANDARD STREET MONUMENT(BRASS DISC IN CONC.) STAMPED L.S. 8006FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED ( )RECORD DATA PER MADDOX @ CALDWELL 5 PHASE 1 RM 40-13 (( ))RECORD DATA PER SUNRISE POINT UNIT NO. 1 RM 38-12 OR CALCULATED THEREFROM((( )))RECORD DATA PER BRIARWOOD ESTATES UNIT NO. 1 SM 35-73 OR CALCULATED THEREFROM < >RECORD DATA PER MADDOX @ CALDWELL UNIT 3B SM 38-35 ORCALCULATED THEREFROM<< >>RECORD DATA PER SEQUOIA GLEN PHASE 2 (UNIT C-1) SM 37-63OR CALCULATED THEREFROM [ ]RECORD DATA PER GRANT DEED, DOC. NO. 2017-0080122 T.C.R. [[ ]]RECORD DATA PER SUNRISE POINTE NO. 2 SM 38-73 ORCALCULATED THEREFROM[[[ ]]]RECORD DATA PER PARCEL MAP NO. 4251 IN BK.43 PG. 55 T.C.R.PUEPUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT OFFERED TO PUBLIC PER THIS MAPLIMITS OF SUBDIVISION C#CURVE NUMBER R , R#RADIAL, RADIAL NUMBER L , L#LENGTH, LINE NUMBERALL DISTANCES ARE MEASURED AND IN FEET OR DECIMALSTHEREOF UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE* SEE SHEET 4 OF 4 FOR RADIAL, CURVE AND LINE DATASHEET 3 OF 4 JOB: 17507 MAY 2021 01" =N50'50'50'25' ENGINEERING724 N. BEN MADDOX WAYVISALIA CA, 93292559-713-6139 [email protected] MADDOX @ CALDWELL 7IN THE CITY OF VISALIA COUNTY OF TULAREBEING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.MAY 2021 77 78
79 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0387 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 5.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorize the City Manager to approve two separate contract amendments for additional construction support with Quad Knopf (QK) for each of the following projects; Amendment Number 2 of 2 in the amount not to exceed $44,326 for the Downtown Streetlight Project (CP0345) and Amendment Number 4 of 4 in the amount not to exceed $55,215 for the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CP0373).

Deadline for Action: None
Submitting Department: Administration - CIP Engineering Contact Name and Phone Number:

Chantha Chap, Civil Engineer, [email protected], 713-4418 Eric Bons, Senior Civil Engineer, [email protected], 713-4350 Frank Senteno, City Engineer, [email protected], 713-4331 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], 713-4323 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends City Council authorize the City Manager to approve the following consultant Contract Amendment with QK to add the following construction support services: 1) Amendment #2 in the amount not to exceed $44,326 for the Downtown Streetlight Project (CP0345) and 2) Amendment #4 in the amount not to exceed $55,215 for the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CP0373).

Summary:

Staff is seeking construction support services from QK to respond to Request for Information (RFI) from the contractor and provide design direction during construction. Construction support services was an optional task item within the original RFP that secured QK and will only be added on an as-needed basis to support construction. The design contract was awarded to QK in October of 2019. The previous fees are being submitted with adjustments to reflect increased construction duration and current fees. With construction currently underway on the Downtown Streetlight and Pavement Rehabilitation Project (as a single construction project), Staff sees a need for construction support resulting from over thirty RFI’sbeing received for the project seeking clarifications on the design such as questions related to proposed pole locations, wiring circuits and pole foundation details, just to name a few.

In addition, unforeseen conditions were encountered during construction which will require direction from the design consultant. For example, while potholing for the foundation footing of the streetlight on the north side of Main Street between Bridge Street and Santa Fe Street, the contractor discovered the foundation for the proposed streetlight was over the top of the existing Mill Creek Culvert with little to no cover to allow the footing to be placed. At the time of this report, Staff is seeking direction from the design consultant to address this pole foundation conflict.

Background Discussion:

Downtown Streetlight Project (P02475)
The City of Visalia entered a contract with QK on November 19, 2019, for engineering services for the design Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
80 File #: 22-0387 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 5.

The City of Visalia entered a contract with QK on November 19, 2019, for engineering services for the design and preparation of construction documents for the streetlight project. A purchase order for these services was issued in the amount of $406,569. The first contract amendment in the amount of $54,021.20 was for additional project management/design services emanating from scope changes and additional work that included potholing, development of cost estimates, and additional field work to identify elements not captured by the City’stopographic survey. This second contract amendment is for an amount not to exceed $44,326.00 to provide construction support services. Construction support services will be charged on an as-needed and time and material basis. The total revised contract amount including both amendments is $504,916.20 (pending approval of Amendment #2).

Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project (P02476)
The City of Visalia entered a contract with QK on October 21,2019, for project management and engineering services for the design and preparation of construction documents for the pavement rehabilitation project. A purchase order for these services was issued in the amount of $228,540.00. The first contract amendment in the amount of $5,233.00 was for additional borings need for geotechnical work. The second contract amendment in the amount of $53,390.50 was for additional design services for ADA curb ramps, parking stalls and pavement rehabilitation work. The third contract amendment was for $38,224.80 to cover additional project management and design services due to additional potholing, field work, and scope changes directed by staff. This fourth contract amendment is for an amount not to exceed $55,215.00 to provide construction support services. Construction support services will be charged on an as-needed and time and material basis.

The total revised contract amount including both amendments is $380,603.30 (pending approval of Amendment #4).

Engineering staff went to the Change Order Committee to seek approval to add the construction support services on October 24th. The Change Order Committee is a non-appointed committee of technical staff who are not directly involved with the project being considered. The Committee reviews the contract change order request for completeness, accuracy, constructability, objectivity, consistency, and overall insight. The Committee approved the contract amendment to add construction support services in the amount not to exceed $44,326.00 for the streetlight project (CP0345) and a not to exceed amount of $55,215.00 for the pavement rehabilitation project (CP0373). Due to the high dollar amount per the City Procurement Policy, the contract amendment requires City Council approval.

Fiscal Impact:

Downtown Streetlight Project (CP0345)
The streetlight component of the Downtown project is funded by the Measure N (141) Fund with a total project budget of $9.6M. The table below shows the budget summary for the Downtown Streetlight Project:

Project Funding:

Measure N Fund (141) - Streetlighting: $9,600,000
Total Project Funding: $9,600,000
Project Costs:

Design Staff Time (Estimated) $350,000
Design - Consultant (QK Inc.) Design - QK Amendment #1: $406,569 $54,021.20
Construction Management -Staff Time (Estimated) $196,000 Streetlight Procurement $822,050
Construction Management (NV5, Inc.) $515,386
Construction -Streetlighting (AC Electric) $6,279,318 Total Project Costs: $8,623,344.20
Summary:

Project Funding:

Measure N Fund (141) - Streetlighting: $9,600,000
Total Project Funding: $9,600,000
Project Costs:

Total Project Funding: $9,600,000
Total Project Cost: Project Budget Surplus/Contingency: ($8,623,344.20) $ 976,655.80
Additional Costs To Date: QK Amendment #2: ($ 44,326) Project Funds Remaining: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 932,329.80 Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CP0373)
The pavement rehabilitation component of the Downtown Project is funded by funds from the Senate Bill 1- Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (SB1 RMRA) Fund (113) with a total project budget of $3,520,800. These funds are for the design and construction of pavement rehabilitation, limited sidewalk repairs & curb ramps, and ADA-compliant parking stalls.

The table below shows the budget summary for the Downtown Pavement Project:

Project Funding:

SB1 Funding (113) - Pavement Rehabilitation $3,520,800
Total Project Funding: $3,520,800
Project Costs:

Design Staff Time (Estimated) $56,230
Design - Consultant (QK Inc.) Design - QK Amendment #1, 2, 3: $228,540 $96,848.30 Construction Management -Staff Time (Estimated) $49,000 Construction Management (NV5, Inc.) $128,847
Construction -Streetlighting (AC Electric) $2,574,257 Total Project Costs: $3,133,722.30
Summary:

Total Project Funding: $3,520,800
Total Project Cost: ($3,133,722.30)
Project Budget Surplus/Contingency: Additional Costs to Date: $ 387,077.70 ($55,215) Project Funds Remaining: $331,862.70
With the current progress of construction, the construction contingency in the project is sufficient to cover the cost for the added construction support services and therefore no additional appropriation transfer is needed.

Prior Council Action:

May 2, 2022 - City Council conducted the first of two public hearings to amend the Measure N plan and appropriate $2,700,000 towards the Downtown Streetlight Project (CIP 1410-72000/CP0345-999) to address a shortfall in the Downtown Streetlight project’s budget.

April 7, 2022 - The Measure N Oversight Committee reviewed and approved the Measure N amendment for the appropriation of $2,700,000 towards the Downtown Streetlight Project.

April 4, 2022 - City Council received the bid results for the Downtown Streetlight and Downtown Pavement Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
82 File #: 22-0387 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 5.

April 4, 2022 - City Council received the bid results for the Downtown Streetlight and Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Projects for information. Authorized staff to begin the Measure N amendment process for the appropriation of $2.7M towards the Downtown Streetlight Project. Council authorized the appropriation of $2,141,800 of SB1 RMRA funds towards the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project.

December 6, 2021 - City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with NV5, Inc. to provide the construction management services for the Downtown Streetlight Project and Pavement Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $644,233.00.

November 15, 2021 - City Council authorized the City Manager to purchase the streetlight poles for the Downtown Streetlight Project from AV Poles and Lighting of Lancaster, CA, in the amount of $822,050.25.

November 15, 2021 - City staff presented the preliminary construction staging plans for the Downtown Streetlight Project and Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Projects.

June 7, 2021 - City staff presented the recommendation for the appropriation of $2.4M for the Downtown Streetlight Project to the second public hearing. The committee reviewed and approved the recommendations.

May 17, 2021 - City staff presented the recommendation for the appropriation of $2.4M for the Downtown Streetlight Project to the first public hearing. The committee reviewed and approved the recommendations.

April 22, 2021 - City Staff presented the recommendation for the appropriation of $2.4M for the Downtown Streetlight project to the Measure N Oversight Committee. The Committee reviewed and approved the recommendation.

March 15, 2021 - City Staff presented decorative streetlight options for the downtown streetlight project. City Council approved the recommendation for the layout option 3 and streetlight scenario 3 and Measure N amendment process to approve the appropriation of $2.4M for the Streetlight project.

December 07, 2020 - City Staff presented standards for installing Back Flow Preventors within the public right of way. City Council approved the recommendation for the standards.

July 21, 2020 - City Staff presented revised layout options for the Downtown Streetlight Project. City Council approved the recommendation for a core decorative streetlight style.

June 01, 2020 - City Staff presented layout options for the Downtown Streetlight Project. City Council requested additional information from City Staff.

October 21, 2019 - Council authorized award of the design contract for the Downtown Streetlight Project to Quad Knopf for an amount not to exceed $407,098.00.

October 15, 2018 - City Staff presented an update of the downtown streetlights project to City Council during a work session item.

April 16, 2018 - Council approved Resolution No. 2018-25 to designate various road projects for 2018/19 funding from the State of California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill SB1) Alternatives:

Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
83 File #: 22-0387 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 5.

None recommended.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to authorize the City Manager to approve Amendment Number 2 in the amount not to exceed $44,326.00 for the Downtown Streetlight Project and Amendment Number 4 in the amount not to exceed $55,215.00 for the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project with Quad Knopf (QK) to add construction support services.

Environmental Assessment Status:

None.

CEQA Review:

Categorical Exemption, Section 15301(c)
Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Extra Work Authorization Form and Scope of Work - Streetlight Project

2. Attachment 2 - Extra Work Authorization Form and Scope of Work - Pavement Project

3. Ownership Disclosure
Visalia City Council Printed on 11/3/2022Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
84 CITY OF VISALIA
EXTRA WORK AUTHORIZATION #3

DOWNTOWN PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT
Job No. 190395.01

Project #: 190395.01 Phase #s : 20 Task#: 20.1-20.5

Project Title : Visalia Downtown Street Light and Pavement Rehabilitation Project

Project Description :

Provide project management and engineering services for the design and development of contract documents for the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project.

Scope of Work :

The extra work includes the following:
- Construction Management Support (See Attachment 1: Scope of Services – edited excerpt from original proposal)
- Budget Adjustment Explanation (See Attachment 2: City Correspondence)

Period of Performance :

Additional work to begin upon receipt of Notice to Proceed or approval of Extra Work Authorization through duration of the project construction

Budget :

Task

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
Fee Basis Street Light
(Measure N)
190395.01/20
20 Construction Management Support T&M $44,326
Subtotal Construction Management Support $44,326

Special Terms and Conditions :

All of the terms and conditions of the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Visalia and Quad Knopf dated November 19, 2019 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

Invoicing Requirements:
 Payment Terms: Net 30 Days
 Contract Type:

Time & Materials $44,326 Fixed Fee
 Invoice Frequency: Monthly

Quad Knopf, Inc.

City of Visalia

By:

Signature

By:

Signature

Name : Amber Aguayo

Title : COO/CFO

Name :

Title :

Date :

85 Attachment 1: Scope of Services (Edited from Original Proposal)

PHASE 3 - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
TASK 20.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
Phase 3 work is provided to the City to assist the City with aspects of Construction Management for th e project. Below are subtasks outlining services provided to help the City.

Subtask 20.1 Meeting Attendance
QK and Kimley-Horn will be available to attend meeti ngs throughout the construction phase of the project, including the following:
• Pre -bid meeting
• Preconstruction meeting
• Project meetings during construction, up to five (5) meetings These meetings may include attendance by staff resp onsible for the street lighting, pavement rehabilit ation and civil engineering improvements, or utility coordination scope of services.

Subtask 20.2 Technical Submittal Review
QK will receive contractor-submittals from the City ’s Construction Manager. QK will log and file the s ubmittal materials into our submittal tracking system, using Newforma Project Center software. QK will distribute submitt al materials to pertinent subject-matter reviewers within QK or to subconsultant reviewers, as necessary. QK will moni tor submittal review timeframes to ensure timely responses to contractor-submittals. QK will return reviewer comments and markups, including acceptance or rejection of the submitted materials to the City’s Construction Manager for di sposition with the contractor.

Deliverables:
• Contractor -submittal review documents including indications of acceptability or rejection of the submitted materials
Subtask 20.3 RFI Review
QK will receive contractor-issued Requests for Information (RFIs) from the City’s Construction Manager. QK will log and file each RFI into our submittal tracking system, u sing Newforma Project Center software. QK will distribute each RFI to pertinent subject-matter reviewers within QK or to subconsultant reviewers, as necessary, for their re sponse. QK will monitor RFI review timeframes to ensure timely responses to the RFIs. QK will return reviewer response comments and markups, including any additional clarifying materi als to the City’s Construction Manager for disposit ion with the contractor.

Deliverable:
86 • RFI response documents including any clarifying materials Subtask 20.4 Review of Changes
As emergent issues come to light, QK will consult w ith the City’s Construction Manager to determine if the issue is supported by the Contract Documents. For those issu es where additional design input is required, QK wi ll provide supplementary design data, along with enough inform ation to the contractor to assist the Construction Manager to implement the change.

Deliverable:
• Supplementary design data in support of change documentation Subtask 20.5 As-Built Record Drawings
QK will receive contractor-provided red-line as-bui lt drawings for review from the City’s Construction Manager. It is assumed that the provided drawings will have been vetted by the Construction Manager to ensure they are complete with all relevant changes noted and locations for subsur face improvements indicated. QK will update design drawings with the changes noted on the red-lines and provide the City a full-size set of record drawings. QK will al so provide the City AutoCAD Civil 3D 2019 copies of the record drawings for the City’s use.

Deliverable:
• CAD published full -size drawings labelled “As -Built Record Drawings”, and AutoCAD Civil 3D 2019 files of record drawings in the most current file format

87 Attachment 2: City Correspondence

From: Jeff Cowart
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 11:20 AM
To: Frank Senteno < [email protected] >
Cc: Amber Aguayo < [email protected] >; Monique Mello < [email protected] >; Eric Bons < [email protected] >; Kelly Riddle < [email protected] >; Chantha Chap <[email protected] >; Dole, Ryan < [email protected] > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]:Downtown Visalia Street Lighting Project - "Construction Support from Design"

Hi Frank,
We are planning for the CM support services to be provided on a T&M basis. When we prepared the original proposal, we tried to split the costs between the 2 project phases because of the funding and based on some assumptions at the time. Based on our phone and discussions, we believe there is some justification to increase the budgets from what is shown below and I have listed those here:

1. Change in duration of the Construction Period: The original schedule anticipated at the beginning of the project was approximately 6 months. The final specifications state 220 working days which is approximately 10 months. This indicates a 66% increase in the duration of the project from our initial estimate. Although much of our work would be expended in the front end of the project for RFIs, submittals and other reviews, the increased duration does require additional meetings, site visits and project coordination/management. A 30% increase would be justified.

2. Changes in charge rate schedule : The original contract was executed in 2019 with our 2019 rate schedule. Our engineering rates have increased on average 6% since the 2019 rate schedule. A copy of our 2022 charge rate schedule is attached.

3. Contingencies: Construction projects in developed areas, tend to have more challenges due to existing improvements that have been covered up over the years and their location is not always well documented. This is especially true in older downtown areas. We found this to be true as we worked together through the design process and finding documentation for existing underground utilities and past street improvements. For typical projects, we have seen and recommend a 10% contingency. For this type of construction in Visalia’s older downtown area, I would suggest something higher, such as a 15%-20% contingency.

4. Funding constraints: Since the streetlighting portion and the street rehabilitation portion have separate funding sources, we would treat them as stand-alone budgets. As T&M tasks, the City will be directing the activities of our team through their contract CM team. It would be prudent to start off with each budget being substantial enough to last through the duration of the project and provide the City with the value that they expect from the design team.

With these in mind, I suggest the following budgets for your consideration:

Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to review these together.

Thanks
Jeff

Jeff Cowart, PE
VP of Quality Control & Municipal Services
(559) 733-0440 Office
(559) 789-2376 Mobile
www.QKinc.com
88 CITY OF VISALIA
EXTRA WORK AUTHORIZATION #3

DOWNTOWN PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT
Job No. 190395.02

Project #: 190395.02 Phase #s : 18 Task#: 18.1-18.5

Project Title : Visalia Downtown Street Light and Pavement Rehabilitation Project

Project Description :

Provide project management and engineering services for the design and development of contract documents for the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project.

Scope of Work :

Period of Performance :

Additional work to begin upon receipt of Notice to Proceed or approval of Extra Work Authorization through duration of the project construction

Budget :

Task

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
Fee Basis Pavement
Rehab (SB -1)
190395.0 2/18
20 Construction Management Support T&M $55,215
Subtotal Construction Management Support $55,215

Special Terms and Conditions :

All of the terms and conditions of the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Visalia and Quad Knopf dated November 19, 2019 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

Invoicing Requirements:
 Payment Terms: Net 30 Days
 Contract Type:

Time & Materials $55,215 Fixed Fee
 Invoice Frequency: Monthly

Quad Knopf, Inc.

City of Visalia

By:

Signature

By:

Signature

Name : Amber Aguayo

Title : COO/CFO

Name :

Title :

Date :

89 Attachment 1: Scope of Services (Edited from Original Proposal)

PHASE 3 - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
TASK 18.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
Phase 3 work is provided to the City to assist the City with aspects of Construction Management for th e project. Below are subtasks outlining services provided to help the City.

Subtask 18.1 Meeting Attendance
QK and Kimley-Horn will be available to attend meeti ngs throughout the construction phase of the project, including the following:
• Pre -bid meeting
• Preconstruction meeting
• Project meetings during construction, up to five (5) meetings These meetings may include attendance by staff resp onsible for the street lighting, pavement rehabilit ation and civil engineering improvements, or utility coordination scope of services.

Subtask 18.2 Technical Submittal Review
QK will receive contractor-submittals from the City ’s Construction Manager. QK will log and file the s ubmittal materials into our submittal tracking system, using Newforma Project Center software. QK will distribute submitt al materials to pertinent subject-matter reviewers within QK or to subconsultant reviewers, as necessary. QK will moni tor submittal review timeframes to ensure timely responses to contractor-submittals. QK will return reviewer comments and markups, including acceptance or rejection of the submitted materials to the City’s Construction Manager for di sposition with the contractor.

Deliverables:
• Contractor -submittal review documents including indications of acceptability or rejection of the submitted materials
Subtask 18.3 RFI Review
QK will receive contractor-issued Requests for Information (RFIs) from the City’s Construction Manager. QK will log and file each RFI into our submittal tracking system, u sing Newforma Project Center software. QK will distribute each RFI to pertinent subject-matter reviewers within QK or to subconsultant reviewers, as necessary, for their re sponse. QK will monitor RFI review timeframes to ensure timely responses to the RFIs. QK will return reviewer response comments and markups, including any additional clarifying materi als to the City’s Construction Manager for disposit ion with the contractor.

Deliverable:
90 • RFI response documents including any clarifying materials Subtask 18.4 Review of Changes
As emergent issues come to light, QK will consult w ith the City’s Construction Manager to determine if the issue is supported by the Contract Documents. For those issu es where additional design input is required, QK wi ll provide supplementary design data, along with enough inform ation to the contractor to assist the Construction Manager to implement the change.

Deliverable:
• Suppleme ntary design data in support of change documentation Subtask 18.5 As-Built Record Drawings
QK will receive contractor-provided red-line as-bui lt drawings for review from the City’s Construction Manager. It is assumed that the provided drawings will have been vetted by the Construction Manager to ensure they are complete with all relevant changes noted and locations for subsur face improvements indicated. QK will update design drawings with the changes noted on the red-lines and provide the City a full-size set of record drawings. QK will al so provide the City AutoCAD Civil 3D 2019 copies of the record drawings for the City’s use.

Deliverable:
• CAD published full -size drawings labelled “As -Built Record Drawings”, and AutoCAD Civil 3D 2019 files of record dr awings in the most current file format

91 Attachment 2: City Correspondence

With these in mind, I suggest the following budgets for your consideration:

Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to review these together.

Thanks
Jeff

Jeff Cowart, PE
VP of Quality Control & Municipal Services
(559) 733-0440 Office
(559) 789-2376 Mobile
www.QKinc.com
92 93
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0383 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Public hearing (the first of two) to appropriate $4.3M of Measure N Funds for the Construction of Visalia Fire Station No. 56 (No. 1410-72000/CP0346-999).

Deadline for Action: N/A
Submitting Department: Administration - Engineering
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Jaklin Rowley, Assistant Project Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4369 Mike Porter, Project Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4412 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4323 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that City Council conduct the first of two public hearings to amend the Measure N plan and appropriate $4.3M towards the Construction of Visalia Fire Station 56 (No. 1410-72000/CP0346- 999) to address a shortfall in the project’s budget.

Summary:

On October 17, 2022, staff presented options for the Construction of Fire Station No. 56 project and the cost estimates. Council approved the recommendation and the additional appropriation of $4.3M for the Construction of Fire Station No. 56 (CP0346). On November 01, 2022, the Measure N Oversight Committee reviewed and approved the recommendation.

Staff is returning to City Council under the rules of Measure N to hold two public meetings and authorize the $4.3M appropriation. This is 1 of 2 public hearings. The Notice for the first Public Hearing was published on 10/27/2022 as required in a newspaper of general circulation within 10 days of the regularly scheduled and appropriately noticed Council meeting. The Notice for the second Public Hearing will be published on or about 11/11/2022, within 10 days of the regularly scheduled and appropriately noticed Council meeting. After the second public hearing on November 21, 2022, Council may adopt the plan.

Background Discussion:

In November of 2016, the voters of Visalia passed a ½ cent Sales Tax Override, Measure N - The Visalia Essential City Services Measure. Sales Tax from Measure N will provide for essential city services such as police and fire, as well as maintenance of parks and roads. The measure uses a detailed, 10-year plan which includes the hiring of personnel, construction of capital projects, and equipment purchases.

As part of the measure, Council adopted an Accountability Ordinance (Ordinance 16-21) to have a high degree of accountability when using Measure N funds. As a result, the following actions are Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
94 File #: 22-0383 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.
necessary to amend the Measure N spending plan:
· City Manager makes a recommendation to City Council and makes changes as requested. · Comments and recommendations received by Sales Tax Oversite Board. · Two Public Hearings are held at regular Council Meetings to consider recommendations to amend the expenditure plan (tonight’s 1 of 2 public hearings) The current Fire Station 56 is shared with the Cal Fire site on the northeast corner of Lovers Lane and Walnut Avenue. The lease for this station will terminate at the end of 2023. Because of this, City staff identified the need to move fire equipment and personnel to a new Fire Station. The new fire station is designed for two fire engines, a visitor lobby, offices, dining, and sleeping accommodations for fire personnel. The exterior elevations denote cement plaster siding, accented with a dark bronze metal panel trim, and incorporated Coronado stone veneer as part of the building façade (see attachment A: Elevation exhibit).

The fire station will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, which is consistent with other City fire stations. Three on-duty firefighters will be stationed at the facility, with an additional three firefighters present during shift changes. Daily activities for fire personnel include responding to emergency calls, maintaining property, and fire equipment maintenance. Given the fire station’sproximity to residential development, the Battalion Chief noted, per the operational statement, that during late night and early morning hours, fire personnel will only use sirens when necessary to reduce noise impacts to the surrounding sensitive land uses.

City staff performed multiple analyses on three (3) potential project locations for the new Fire Station 56 (see attachment C: alternate site locations map). Ultimately the decision was made to build the station on the west side of Lovers Lane, south of Tulare Avenue (see attachment B: Vicinity Map).

The use of this location altered the site layout and orientation with significant changes to the ingress, egress, and configuration of the building on site. The additional design work/cost for this alternative far outweighed the cost that would have been required to develop the other site locations that were considered. The location of the new fire station provided the City with the opportunity to save money on the extension of utilities, such as water, electricity, gas, sewer, and storm drain. Additionally, there are savings associated with the parcel being ‘shovelready’including the elimination or reduction in the need for demolition, orchard removal, on-site grading, off-site grading, paving, and installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk.

Fire Station 56 is a single-company neighborhood fire station that is modeled after Fire Station 53.

The Fire Station 56 (FS 56) Project consists of a new 6,800 square-foot fire station located on the west side of Lovers Lane, approximately 400 ft south of Tulare Avenue. The new building construction is a combination of concrete, masonry, steel, and wood. Portions of the existing site are being demolished to facilitate the construction of the new facility. The project includes the development of 0.82 acres of site improvements around the building including curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, and concrete driveways.

Bid Process:

The City of Visalia advertised for bids from qualified contractors for the construction of Fire Station

56. The bid package had two components: 1) “base bid” for construction of the fire station, and 2) “UnitPrices”for removal of unsatisfactory soil & replacement with satisfactory soil, cutting & patching of concrete floor slabs, and miscellaneous & structural steel.

The standard City bid process was conducted, and on September 30, 2022, City staff opened two (2) Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
95 File #: 22-0383 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.

The standard City bid process was conducted, and on September 30, 2022, City staff opened two (2) bids that were submitted for the project. Per the construction documents, the apparent low bid was established by the lowest base bid. The results are summarized below.

No. Contractor Location Bid Amount

1. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc. Ivanhoe CA $5,670,000

2. AMG and Associates, Inc. Santa Clarita CA $6,335,000 Staff reviewed the bids and found that each bidder submitted the required information.

Forcum/Mackey Construction’sBid proposal was determined to be the lowest responsive bid and as part of the bid review process, the references provided by Forcum/Mackey Construction and their listed subcontractors can perform the work for this project. References provided included work on Visalia's Riverway Sports Park, school construction projects and completion of Tulare County Fire Station 1 in 2020. Comments from references provided were positive and included that they had work with Forcum Mackey on other successful projects as well as those listed. Staff recommends the award of the lowest responsive bid from Forcum/Mackey Construction in the amount of $5,670,000 for the construction of Fire Station No. 56.

Fiscal Impact:

This project is funded by Measure N Fund 141 (No. 1410-72000/CP0346-999) additional funds must be appropriated from Measure N to complete the project.

Budget Summary: Construction of Fire Station 56, CP0346 Project Budget $4,000,000
Land Acquisition Costs $435,310
Design Phase Costs (City Staff Time, Cal Water, permit fees, etc.)$245,000 Design Consultant - RRM Design Group $458,083
Construction Cost $5,670,000
Construction Contingency (10%) $567,000
Construction Inspection (1%) $56,700
Construction Management Services - Vanir CM Inc.$395,660 Construction Management (5%) - City Staff Costs$293,500 Material Testing (3%) $170,100
Total Estimated Project Costs $8,291,353
Remaining Balance $(4,291,353)
Appropriate Additional Funds $4,300,000
Due to the identified budget shortfall and in order to complete the project for the Fire Station 56 Construction, staff requests the City Council to authorize staff to continue the process for a Measure N amendment to appropriate the additional funds in the amount of $4,300,000 towards the Fire Station 56 Construction. A larger construction contingency has been incorporated into the project budget for a revision to the electrical plans and construction to incorporate additional infrastructure Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
96 File #: 22-0383 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.
budget for a revision to the electrical plans and construction to incorporate additional infrastructure which will provide the backbone for a future electric charging system to power an electric fire engine.

It is unknown at this time how the change in infrastructure will affect the electrical systems or equipment, as such a higher contingency is being included. The City Staff costs section also includes the costs that will be associated with the groundbreaking ceremony and the ribbon-cutting ceremony; this cost is in addition to the five percent that is being budgeted for staff time.

At the second public hearing, staff will make the recommendation for the award of the construction contract and authorization of the additional funding. Over the past couple of years, revenues from Measure N have been higher than anticipated. Those additional revenues are being proposed to facilitate this project’s need without impeding previously identified programs or projects within Measure N.

The Construction Manager’s (Vanir Construction) estimate for the base bid item (fire station construction) was $6,707,507. The lowest apparent bid came in more than a million dollars under the estimate that was completed by Vanir in September of 2021. This is a very favorable bid price and staff highly recommends the award of the project to Forcum/Mackey Construction.

The past two years have seen considerable increases in construction costs, especially in fire stations, Vanir Construction completed a study showing how prices have increased over the last two years in which they observed price jumps in the following materials at the following amounts: lumber 101%, steel mill products 88%, copper and brass 61%, aluminum 33%, plastics 22%, gypsum 18% and trucking/transportation 15% (see attachment D: Construction Cost Increases). Staff expected the bids to come in far over the estimate that was created last September based on this study and comparable projects that Vanir Construction has been involved in over the last two years. Despite these increases in costs, that have been observed, both bids came in under the estimate. Vanir Construction has worked with Forcum/Mackey in the past and have said they are fair and easy to work with.

Project Schedule
Below is the estimated project schedule. Staff is planning a groundbreaking ceremony to invite the public to celebrate the new fire station that will be serving Visalia Construction will start after the notice to proceed is issued which is currently scheduled for early January. Vanir Construction and RRM, the project’sDesign Team, have concurred the estimated time to complete construction based on similar projects is 14 months. Based on this, construction is expected to be completed in May of 2024 which will be celebrated with a ribbon-cutting ceremony. Our firefighters will move into their new station in May of 2024. The lease for the exiting fire station 56 is currently being reviewed for an extension so that there is time to complete construction before the firefighters are required to move.

Task Start Date Completion
Design February 2019 July 2022
Request for Construction Bids August 2022 September 2022 Measure N Committee and Public Hearings October 2022 November 2022 Construction January 2023 May 2024
Grand opening/Ribbon Cutting May 2024
Move-In May 2024 June 2024
Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
97 File #: 22-0383 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Prior Council Action:

October 17, 2022 - Council accepted the presentation of the Fire Station No. 56 projects bid proposals and authorized staff to begin the Measure N amendment process for the appropriation of $4,300,000 to CP0346 (No. 1410-72000/CP0346-999).

January 19, 2021 - Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract with the consulting firm of Vanir Construction Management, Inc. for construction management services for the Fire Station 56 December 7, 2020 - Closed session item to discuss the possibility of moving the FS 56 site location to an alternate site on Lovers Lane.

October 19, 2020 - Closed session item to discuss the possibility of moving the FS site location to the SW corner of Tulare & Vista.

October 9, 2019 - Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with RRM Design Group, to provide Architectural and Engineering Design Services for the Fire Station 56 Project.

Alternatives:

N/A
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

Conduct the first of two public hearings.

Environmental Assessment Status:

N/A
CEQA Review:

N/A
Attachments:

Attachment A: Measure N Committee Approval
Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
98 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0364 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Public hearing and consideration of the following actions:

2. Adopt Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-04 for Annexation No. 2022-01 and Victory Oaks Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5586 (Resolution No. 2022-57 required); and

3. Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No. 2022-01 a request by D.R. Horton, to annex a

23.7-acre parcel into the City Limits of Visalia; and

4. Authorize the detachment from County Service Area No. 1 in accordance with State and County requirements; and

5. Authorize the City Manager to sign and enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement (Resolution No. 2022-58 required).

Deadline for Action: 11/7/2022
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Rafael Garcia, Senior Planner, (559) 713-4443, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Paul Bernal, Community Development Director, (559) 713-4025 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council initiate annexation proceedings for the subject parcel by taking the following actions:

1. Adopt Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-04; and

2. Initiate proceedings on Annexation No. 2022-01 with the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); and

3. Authorize the detachment of the property from County Service Area No. 1 in accordance with State and County requirements; and

4. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Visalia and property owners.

Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™
99 File #: 22-0364 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

If approved by the City Council, staff will file the Annexation application with LAFCO.

Summary:

The recommendation to initiate Annexation No. 2022-01 is based on the conclusion that the project is consistent with General Plan land use policies directing development to occur in the City’sTier 1 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) through projects that promote concentric growth utilizing sites in close proximity to City services (i.e., sewer, water, police, and fire, etc.).

The annexation application is requesting to annex a property within the City’sGrowth Tier I boundary to facilitate development of the Victory Oaks Tentative Subdivision Map, which was approved with conditions by the Planning Commission on September 26, 2022. Upon annexation, the Zoning designation for the 23.7-acre parcel will be R-1-5 (Single-family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area) and Q-P (Quasi-Public) for the project site. The Victory Oaks Tentative Subdivision Map will subdivide the 23.7-acre parcel into a 117-lot single-family residential subdivision at a density of 5.09 dwelling units per acre (see Exhibit “A”).

The proposed single-family subdivision will be serviced by 60-foot wide public local streets containing full improvements (curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, sidewalks, and streetlights), sewer lines, storm drainage, and other public infrastructure, utilities, and services (i.e., electricity, gas, and water).

Primary access to the subdivision will be from Ferguson Avenue, a collector street. Ferguson will be improved to its ultimate right-of-way width within the boundaries of the Victory Oaks subdivision.

Improvements along the right-of-way include construction of curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, sidewalks, block wall, installation of park strip landscaping, streetlights, and undergrounding of utility lines. The street improvements associated with this subdivision are discussed in greater detail in the Ferguson Avenue Improvements and Local Street Connectivity section of the staff report below. The project will also include the development of a 2.02-acre park as part of the subdivision.

The subdivision map will also create lettered lots for Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) purposes. The LLD lots will contain landscaping and the six-foot tall block walls along Ferguson Avenue. The LLD lots will also extend around to the street sides on the corner lots adjacent to Chinowth Street, which provides the primary entrance into the subdivision.

The subdivision will be developed in two phases. Phase I will be approximately 12.18 acres in area and will include 63 lots. Phase II will be approximately 11.82 acres in area and will include 54 lots.

The project site is currently undeveloped with an active pomegranate orchard that will continue to be farmed until the site is ready for development. The parcel is surrounded by residential subdivisions to the north and south while the property to the west is developed with two residential structures and the property to the east is largely undeveloped with an agricultural use and several residential structures fronting Demaree Street. The project will also be accessible from the abutting residential subdivision to the north via Fontana Street.

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 26, 2022, to consider the annexation and tentative subdivision map request for the project site. The Planning Commission concluded that the annexation of the site is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, and specifically Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™
100
File #: 22-0364 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.
concluded that the annexation of the site is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, and specifically noted that the proposed annexation is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policies LU-P-20 and LU-P-55.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation and findings to support the annexation request are included in the resolution for the City Council’sconsideration. If the City Council adopts the resolution initiating the annexation, staff will prepare an annexation application and file it with the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

Background Discussion:

General Plan Consistency
The proposed 117-lot single-family residential subdivision on 23.7 acres is compatible with existing residential development adjacent to the area. The project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-20 of the 2014 General Plan, which states that the city should “Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time”. The proposed site is located within a county island located on the northwest corner of Demaree Street and Ferguson Avenue. Existing utility infrastructure (i.e., sewer, storm and water) can be provided to accommodate the project at buildout.

Further, the site is in the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier I, which allows for immediate development upon successful annexation.

Furthermore, the project is consistent with Policy LU-P-55. The policy allows for residential development consistent with the Low Density Residential designation at a density range between 2 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed subdivision will be developed at a residential density of 5.09 units per acre, consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation as well as the R-1-5 zoning district assigned to this parcel. The policy states that “thisdesignation is intended to provide for single-family subdivisions.”Compatibility with the surrounding area is required by the General Plan in the decision to approve the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision meets all of the codified standards contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as well as all General Plan policies pertaining to residential development. Staff finds that the proposed tentative subdivision map is compatible with the surrounding area and the Low Density Residential and Parks/Recreation land use designation.

Annexation Processing
The project proponents have filed the annexation application, which is required in order to annex the site into the City’s land use jurisdiction. The Annexation can be supported on the basis that the proposed use is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-20, which allows for the annexation and development of residential land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier I) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram. The site can be serviced with all of the requisite utility and infrastructure available to serve the site upon development. Cities can approve tentative maps prior to initiation by the City Council and prior to final approval of the annexation by the local agency formation commission, but cannot approve the final subdivision map until after the land is annexed and the annexation is recorded through the Tulare County Recorder.

Williamson Act
The annexation territory is currently encumbered by a portion of Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve No. 187 and Land Conservation Contract No. 2735. The Preserve and Contract cover the subject parcel along with the undeveloped parcel directly to the east, which is not a part of the annexation Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™
101
File #: 22-0364 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.
parcel along with the undeveloped parcel directly to the east, which is not a part of the annexation request. A Notice of Full Nonrenewal of the Contract was recorded with the County in 2015 for the Project site, which will cause the contract to expire in 2025.

Establishment of the preserve was protested by the City of Visalia, and the property was within one mile of the City limits at the time of protest. Under provisions of State Law effective at the time, the City of Visalia protested the formation of Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve No. 187 with the City’s (blanket) Resolution No. 686 in a letter dated January 7, 1969. Therefore, the City is not required to succeed to the contract upon annexation. If LAFCO agrees that the contract was successfully protested, the contract and preserve will be eliminated upon annexation and the property owner will not be required to apply for cancellation of the contract or pay cancellation fees. Findings are contained in the Annexation resolution pertaining to the City not succeeding to the contract upon annexation based on the filing of a successful protest.

City Services
City Services, including Police and Fire protection, will be provided to the project site upon annexation. Sanitary sewer service will be extended to the project site upon development, as will water service through the California Water Service Company. Upon annexation, the full complement of city services and programs will be available to future occupants of the project site.

Detachment for Service Area No. 1
The subject site is part of Tulare County Service Area No. 1. Services provided in Service Area No. 1 include domestic water and sewer. Detachment of the project area from Service Area No. 1 is required upon annexation as future development will receive domestic water and sanitary sewer services from the California Water Service Company and the City of Visalia, respectively.

Annexations submitted to LAFCO require that the City include a request to detach the annexed area from the County’s service area. Though detachments were previously an automatic process conducted as part of annexations, a 2009 law change now requires Cities to explicitly request detachment.

Pre-Annexation Agreement
The annexation will be subject to the terms of a Pre-Annexation Agreement which must be signed by the property owners requesting the annexation. The agreement is included as Exhibit “C”in the staff report.

City Council Districts
If the annexation area is approved, the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 1 per the Council Election Voting District Map. This change will be implemented upon completion of the process, and, to be clear, after the election of 2022.

Ferguson Avenue Improvements and Local Street Connectivity The developer of the subdivision will be required to construct major street improvements along Ferguson Avenue to the south of the project site. Improvements along the subdivision frontage Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™
102
File #: 22-0364 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.
include improving the street to its ultimate right-of-way design.

Ferguson Avenue is a designated collector road that will be improved with two lanes of traffic and an ultimate right-of-way width of 112 feet in width, which includes raised medians containing mature oak trees. Improvements along the right of way within the boundaries of the subdivision map include improving the street to its full width which will include a Class II bike lane, curb, gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, block wall and landscaping along the north side of the street. Ferguson Avenue is currently improved with an eastbound and westbound lane, but there is no curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlighting, block wall or landscaping along the proposed project site. In addition, the Ferguson Avenue and Chinowth Street intersection will allow for full turning movements. This will allow for a new left-turn pocket into the subdivision as part the existing median landscape island for eastbound Ferguson Avenue.

The landscaping frontage along Ferguson Avenue is required to be dedicated as part of a Landscape and Lighting District, which will be formed with the subdivision map. The Landscape and Lighting District lots are identified as out-lots “A”and “B”of the Victory Oaks Tentative Subdivision Map (see Exhibit “A”).The establishment of the district provides maintenance of the landscape lots, block walls, street pavement and street lighting. Also, as noted in the Engineering Division’sSite Plan Review comments, all new utilities that will service the residential subdivision will be placed underground.

Local Street Connectivity: The 117-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’sEngineering Improvement Standard “P-15 - Super Block Connectivity”. This improvement standard provides for access via the local street connectivity pattern within a superblock, thereby reducing trips onto arterial and collector streets. The superblock connectivity design allows for interconnectivity between and within neighborhoods. The local street connection proposed within the 117-lot subdivision provides access to the subdivision located to the north of the project site, accessed via Fontana Street as shown on Exhibit “A”.In addition, local street connections for the property to the east of the park site are also provided. This will facilitate the extension of local streets to the east when that site is developed. The subdivision’sfirst phase of development will complete the Chinowth Street and Fontana Street connections.

Planning Commission Public Hearing
At its meeting on September 26, 2022, the Planning Commission considered Annexation No. 2022- 01 and Victory Oaks Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) No. 5586.

Public comment and concerns regarding the proposal were received from Rosemarie Holbert during the public hearing. Ms. Holbert cited concerns regarding privacy that may be generated by the new homes backing onto Ferguson Avenue. In response, staff indicated that impacts onto residential property owners located south of Ferguson Avenue will be minimal since Ferguson Avenue will have an ultimate right-of-way width of approximately 122 feet, which should negate any impacts associated with privacy from the second story residences that back up onto Ferguson Avenue.

Based on the proposal and public testimony received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the tentative subdivision map request, and found the annexation to be consistent with the policies and goals of the Visalia General Plan. The resolution recommending approval of the annexation to the City Council and the Tentative Subdivision Map were unanimously approved via a 4 -0 vote by the Planning Commission.

Fiscal Impact:

Future development of the property will require the developer to pay development impact fees which Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™
103
File #: 22-0364 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Future development of the property will require the developer to pay development impact fees which include Transportation, Trunk Line Capacity, Strom Drainage Acquisition, Park Acquisition and Development, Waterways Acquisition, Public Safety, and Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation.

Prior Council Action: None.

Committee/Commission Review and Action:

The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed project on September 26, 2022 and approved the subdivision map and found the Annexation consistent with the Visalia General Plan by a 4-0 vote.

Alternatives:

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

1. Deny the Annexation; or

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

3. Continue the matter to a future City Council hearing for additional information.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to approve Resolution No. 2022-57, adopting Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-04; and
I move to approve Resolution No. 2022-58, to initiate proceedings for Annexation No. 2022-01, authorize the detachment of property from County Service Area No. 1, and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Visalia and the property owners...end
CEQA Review:

An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-04 disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant with the inclusion of mitigation measures pertaining to the impacts toward agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geography and soils, and tribal cultural resources. Staff concludes that Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-04 adequately analyzes and addresses the proposed project and reduces environmental impacts to a less than significant level.

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 2022-57 certifying Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-04

2. Resolution No. 2022-58 initiating the Proceedings for Annexation No. 2022-01 Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™
104
File #: 22-0364 Agenda Date: 11/7/2022 Agenda #: 2.
and Detachment from County Service Area No. 1.

3. Exhibit “A” - Victory Oaks Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5586

4. Exhibit “B” - Annexation Plan and Legal Description

5. Exhibit “C” - Pre-Annexation Agreement

6. Exhibit “D” - Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-04

7. Exhibit “E” - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-42 recommending initiation of Annexation No. 2022-01

8. Exhibit “F” - Planning Commission Staff Report

9. General Plan Land Use Map

10. Zoning Map

11. Aerial Map

12. Location Map
Visalia City Council Printed on 11/4/2022Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™
105
Resolution No. 2022-__
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

VISALIA, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. 2022-04, WHICH EVALUATES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
FOR ANNEXATION NO. 202 2-01 AND VICTORY OAKS
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5586

WHEREAS, the project consisting of Annexation No. 2022-01 and Victory Oaks Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5586(hereinafter “Project”) is a request to annex a 23.70-acre parcel into the City Limits of Visalia in order to facilitate the subdivision of said 23.70-acre parcel into a 117- lot single-family residential subdivision. The Project is located on the north side of Ferguson Avenue approximately 800 feet west of Demaree Street (APN: 077-190-007); and,

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after t en (10) days published notice, held a public hearing before said Council on November 7, 2022; and,

WHEREAS, on the basis of this Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project were prepared and noticed for review and comment for 20 days beginning on September 1, 2022; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Visalia did not receive any comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and found that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration contain and reflect the independent judgment of the City of Visalia.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia hereby finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial eviden ce that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby adopts Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-04. The documents and other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decisions based are located at the office of the City Planner, 315 East Acequia Avenue, Visalia, California, 93291.

106
Resolution No. 2022-___

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF VISALIA

REQUESTING THE CITY OF VISALIA TO INITIATE

PROCEEDINGS FOR FILING WITH THE TULARE COUNTY
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ANNEXATION NO.
2022-01 AND DETACHMENT OF PROPER TY FROM COUNTY
SERVICE AREA NO. 1, PERTAINING TO ONE PARCEL
TOTALING 23.70 ACRES. THE SITE WOULD BE ZO NED R-1-5
(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE NTIAL 5,000 SQUARE F OOT

MINIMUM) AND QP (QUASI -PUBLIC) WHICH IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE GENERAL PLA N LAND USE DESIGNATI ON. THE

SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FERGUS ON
AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 800 FE ET WEST OF DEMAREE
STREET (APN: 077-190-007)

WHEREAS, Annexation No. 2022-01 is a proposed annexation of a total of 23.70 acres into the city limits (“Project”). The property is located on the north side of Ferguson Avenue approximately 800 feet Demaree Street, within the County of Tulare (APN: 077-190-007); and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia desires to initiate proceedings for annexation to said city of territory described on the attached legal description and map herein as Exhibit “B”; and

WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Visalia desires to annex said property to the City of Visalia for the following reasons: The annexation will contribute to and facilitate orderly growth and development of both the City and the territory proposed to be annexed; will facilitate and contribute to the proper and ord erly layout, design and construction of streets, gutters, sanitary and storm sewers and drainage facilities, both within the City and within the territory proposed to be annexed; and will provide and facilitate proper overall planning and zoning of lands a nd subdivision of lands in said City and said territory in a manner most conducive of the welfare of said City and said territory; and

WHEREAS, this proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese -Knox-Hertzburg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, com mencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited per Government Code Section 56046; and

WHEREAS, the property proposed to be annexed is adjacent to City Limits; and

WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is located in Voting District 1 as identified in the Election District Map adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-11; and

107
Resolution No. 2022-___

WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Visalia, after a ten day public notification period, held a public hearing on November 7, 2022, and found the project consistent with the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with re gard to the project:

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

2. The subject property is within Tier 1 Urban Development Boundary as defined by the City of Visalia General Plan and is designated Low Density Residential and Parks/Recreation by the General Plan Land Use Map.

3. That the proposed Annexation , which changes 23.70 acres of County/AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum) zone to R-1-5 (Single Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum) and QP (Quasi -Public) zone, will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

4. That the property is located within Voting District 1 per the Council Election Voting District Map.

5. That the Tulare County Board of Supervisors has approved, and the County of Tulare has processed a partial Williamson Act contract cancellation for Contract No. 2735 for the portion of the contract that applies to the subject parcel, and that the site is no longer burdened by a Land Conservation Contract.

6. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-04, is hereby adopted.

7. Portions of the territory are currently within Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve No. 187 and Land Conserva tion Contract Nos. 2735, and a Notice of Full Nonrenewal was filed and recorded for the Contract in 2015.

8. There is evidence in the public record to show that a successful protest by the City of Visalia (ref. letter by City of Visalia to the County Board of Supervisors dated January 7, 1969, together with Resolution No. 686) applies to Land Conservation Contract No. 2735, and that Williamson Act Agriculture Preserve No. 187 was within one mile of the city limits at time of protest.

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

1. Application is hereby made to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), County of Tulare, State of California, for an annexation of territory illustrated in the map attached as Exhibit “B”.
108
Resolution No. 2022-___

2. Proceedings shall be taken for this annexation proposal pursuant to Title 5, Division 3, Part 3 of the California Government Code and other relevant provisions of the Cortese - Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.

3. In conjunction with the proceedings being taken for this annexation proposal, application is also hereby being made to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission, County of Tulare, State of California, for det achment from County Service Area No. 1.

4. The Council hereby request s waiver of the conducting authority proceedings in accordance with Government Code Section 56663(c).

5. The Council hereby exercises its option to uphold the protest associated with Williamson Act Preserve No. 187 and not succeed to Williamson Act Preserve No. 187 / Contract No. 2735 that encumbers the Project site.

6. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned R-1-5 (Low Density Residential ) and QP (Quasi-public) zone consistent with the pre-zoning designated by the General Plan Land Use Map.

7. Upon annexation, the territory shall be assigned to Voting District 1 and the Election District Map adopted on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-11 shall be amended to reflect the new territory assigned to Voting District 1.

8. The City Clerk of the City of Visalia is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Executive Officer of Tulare County LAFCO.

9. The applicant(s) shall enter into a Pre -Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The Pre -Annexation Agreement is attached herein as Exhibit “ C”. The agreement is subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney and subject to clerical and form modifications as approved by the City Manager. 109
102
858486 808182
1 43
5678
23 101112131415161819202122 30242526272829
41 31323334353637383940
9998
103
100101
105104
96 87
83 9
2 46
42 45
4344
60 5547
65 54
72 64
53 71 63
52 70 62
5951
69 61
5850
68 5749
67 5648
66 73 767574 797877
117
106
116115114113112111110109108107
9593929190898894
97 17
A
B C
122'4.7'
2%EASTBOUNDLANE1.5%

R/W R/WC/L

MEDIAN ISLANDSIDEWALKAND LANDSCAPINGCURB &GUTTER

ASPHALTCONCRETE
11' 20'EASTBOUND LANE 1.5%
34'EXISTING PAVEMENT30'MEDIAN
2'
2%
FL
12'LANE
18'EXISTING PAVEMENT
1'
MIN. 6" COMPACTED SUBGRADE,95% RELATIVE COMPACTIONMIN. 12" AGG BASE, CLASS 295% RELATIVE COMPACTIONMIN. 7" ASPHALTCONCRETE, TYPE A CONSTRUCT CONCRETECURB & GUTTER PERCITY STD. DRAWINGSPARKWAYCONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PERCITY STD. DRAWINGSASPHALTCONCRETE 10'2' 5'BIKE8'PARKING6'5'10'

LANDSCAPESETBACK LOT
11' PROPOSEDBLOCK WALL
FL P/L
7'
2'BLOCKWALLEASEMENT
9/12/2022 8:54 AM G:\DR Horton - 1594\159421002-Victory Oaks\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08-TTM\1 COVER SHEET.dwg -Michael McConnell

PREPARED BY
DATE:9/12/22JOB NO.:159421002
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/ GENERAL NOTES ·APN: 077-190-007·SITE AREA: 23.7 AC·SITE DRAINAGE: CONNECT TO EXISTING LINE IN FERGUSON AVE AND FONTANASTREET.·TRASH COLLECTION: CITY OF VISALIA·PROPOSED SEWERAGE: CITY OF VISALIA PUBLIC WORKS. CONNECT TOEXISTING MAIN IN FERGUSON AVENUE AND FONTANA STREET.·WATER: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE. CONNECT TO EXISTING MAIN INFERGUSON AVENUE AND FONTANA STREET.·FIRE PROTECTION: CITY OF VISALIA FIRE DEPARTMENT·FLOOD ZONE: ZONE X·LOT SIZES FOR R-1-5:INTERIOR LOT:50' WIDE BY 100' DEEP (VARIES)CORNER LOT:60' WIDE BY 100' DEEP (VARIES)·ZONING SETBACKS FOR R-1-5:FRONT:15 FEET FOR LIVING SPACE AND SIDE LOADING GARAGEFRONT/CORNER:22 FEET FOR FRONT-LOADING GARAGECORNER:10 FEETREAR:25 FEETSIDE:5 FEET

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PROPERTY OWNER KERI LEA COCHRANSUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THEBURKDOLL REVOCABLE FAMILYTRUST ESTABLISHED MARCH 10,1993

VICTORY OAKS

SITE MAP

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

W FERGUSON AVEN DEMAREE ST

N AKERS ST

W GOSHEN AVE
CHINOWTH STREETN. FONTANA ST.

FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION AS SHOWN ON THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'SFLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, PANEL NUMBER 06107C0930E, FORCOMMUNITY NO. 060409, CITY OF VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA, EFFECTIVE JUNE 16, 2009. THE PROPERTY LIES IN THEZONE X AREA OF 1% DEPTH LESS THAN 1 FOOT.BASIS OF BEARING THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23 - 18/24,M.D.B.&M., TAKEN AS NORTH 00°11'46" EAST, AS MEASURED BY GPSOBSERVATIONS TIED TO LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK.

LEGAL DESCRIPTIONTHE WEST 16 ACRES OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THENORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE EAST 8 ACRES OF THE EAST HALF OFTHE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OFSECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 24 EAST, MOUNT DIABLOBASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, ACCORDING THE THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF.

TYPICAL INTERIOR STREETN.T.S
PROJECT BENCHMARK CITY OF VISALIA BENCHMARK #741, A SURVEY NAIL SET IN THE TOP OF CURBAT THE CENTER OF THE RETURN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DEMAREE &FERGUSON.ELEVATION = 314.53' NGVD29 DATUMW. FERGUSON AVE.

FERGUSON AVENUE SECTIONN.T.S

VICINITY MAP

C STREET

NORTH FONTANA STREET

A STREET
3RD STREET
4TH STREET
2ND STREET
1ST STREET
PROPOSED PARK2.02 AC
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
12 11
SUBDIVIDER STATEMENT ·GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, PARKS/RECREATION·CURRENT ZONING: AE-20·PROPOSED ZONING: R-1-5·EXISTING USE: AGRICULTURE (ORCHARD)/VACANT·PROPOSED USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ANDCOMMUNITY PARK·PHASE 1: 63 LOTS, 10.97 AC·PHASE 2: 54 LOTS, 12.01 AC·TOTAL LOTS: 117·LOT AREA: 5,000 MIN/ 11,155 MAX·DENSITY: 5.09 UNITS/GROSS AC·STREET LIGHTING TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY OF VISALIASTANDARDS·GROSS AREA: 23.7 ACRES. NET AREA: 14.6 ACRES.·COMMUNITY PARK AREA: 2.02 ACRES. PERCENTAGE OF AREADEDICATED TO COMMUNITY PARK COMP. TO NET AREA: 13.8%.·NUMBER OF OUTLOTS: 3·OUTLOT AREA: 2.05 ACRES. USES LANDSCAPE LOTS ANDCOMMUNITY PARK.

SURVEY NOTETOPOGRAPHY SHOWN WAS COLLECTED BY PROVOST & PRITCHARDCONSULTING GROUP DURING A FIELD SURVEY CONDUCTED IN OCTOBEROF 2021.

PROPERTY DIVISION CERTIFICATE "I HEREBY APPLY FOR APPROVAL OF THE DIVISION OF THE REAL PROPERTYSHOWN IN THIS PLAT AND CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER (OR AUTHORIZEDAGENT OF THE LEGAL OWNER) OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE INFORMATIONSHOWN HEREON IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ANDBELIEF".

SIGNATURE ADDRESS CAPACITYACREAGE NOTE GROSS ACREAGE(S) INCLUDE ALL PORTIONS HELD IN FEE TITLE, REGARDLESS OFEXISTING EASEMENTS OR FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY. PORTIONS OF THE FRONTAGEFOR FERGUSON AVENUE HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE STATE IN FEE AND ARENOT INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ACREAGE.NET ACREAGE SHOWN FOR PROPOSED PARCELS EXCLUDE:·THOSE PORTIONS WITHIN THE FUTURE CITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR INTERIORSTREETS

PROPOSED PHASEBOUNDARY LINE
110
xx
xxxx
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
□□
□□
□o□□□□OE
OEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
1277.52' N0° 06' 56.6"E
783.01' S89° 29' 50.0"E
1280.86' S0° 06' 56.6"W
783.03' N89° 16' 33.4"W
R52
R52
61+00
62+00
63+00
64+00
65+00
31+0032+0033+0034+0035+0036+0037+0038+0039+0071+00
72+00
73+00
81+00
82+00
83+00
84+00
85+00
86+00
21+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+00
51+00
52+00
53+00
54+00
55+00
56+00
41+0042+0043+0044+00
R52

27.68'
119.70'

50.00'

55.00'

61.83'
R=200.00'L=91.043'
R=200.05'L=89.776'N26° 11' 51.2"E92.88'
□□□□□□

51.82'40.00'40.00'46.64' 54.43'40.00'40.00'

51.84'
11+00
313.000
1310,579 SF145,270 SF155,000 SF165,000 SF185,000 SF195,000 SF205,000 SF215,000 SF225,000 SF 305,000 SF245,000 SF255,000 SF265,000 SF275,000 SF285,000 SF295,000 SF 415,944 SF
315,000 SF325,000 SF335,044 SF347,464 SF359,596 SF
365,169 SF375,000 SF385,000 SF395,000 SF405,000 SF
995,000 SF985,000 SF
1035,000 SF
1005,000 SF
1015,000 SF
1025,000 SF
1055,800 SF1045,000 SF
965,942 SF
875,857 SF
835,000 SF855,000 SF845,000 SF865,800 SF 805,800 SF815,000 SF825,000 SF 95,000 SF
25,000 SF15,178 SF
45,165 SF35,000 SF
55,165 SF
65,000 SF
75,000 SF
85,000 SF
235,000 SF
105,000 SF
115,032 SF
127,098 SF
100.00'100.00'100.00'95.94'

99.96'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00' 100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'

88.79'128.54'122.41'

60.00'
100.01'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'100.01'

97.90'100.06'100.06'100.06'
100.06'
100.06'
100.06'

89.76'

99.86'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'

61.59'

62.64'

80.03'62.00'

50.00'

67.62'

64.91'
101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'111.07'120.64'130.21' 121.38'101.44'101.45'101.46'101.46'101.47'101.48'101.49'101.49'101.80'100.90'112.77'128.53'

81.50'81.44' 121.38'
100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'

80.01'

40.00'

60.00'60.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'

80.01'100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'62.99'

50.00'

40.00'100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'

95.66'
108.90'

77.82'50.90'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'60.00'

41.06'80.07'100.01'

21.21'

93.84' 28.43'

28.13'

28.19'

40.00'40.00'47.02'73.46'

28.13'

80.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'80.01'

28.43'40.00' 28.13'

80.01'21.21'

70.00'

52.78'52.78'52.78'61.65'52.00'52.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'60.00'

24.64'

40.00'28.28'
270.80'

28.13'

91.31'

28.43'28.13'80.01'40.00'50.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'

88.54'
123.15'113.82'

70.00' 51.64'40.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'40.00'28.43' 425,880 SF435,000 SF445,000 SF455,000 SF466,794 SF

40.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'52.00'52.00'57.60'608,112 SF 555,278 SF475,890 SF
655,277 SF
545,278 SF
725,886 SF 645,279 SF
535,379 SF
715,377 SF 635,217 SF
525,379 SF
705,377 SF 625,504 SF
598,006 SF515,379 SF
695,377 SF 616,274 SF
586,522 SF505,379 SF
685,378 SF
576,024 SF495,379 SF
675,378 SF
565,527 SF485,379 SF
665,379 SF

40.00' 52.00'52.00'52.00'40.14'

56.13' 57.60'44.66'

52.75'

28.43'

38.52'
258.63'340.02'
236.59'
175,000 SF
735,800 SF765,000 SF755,000 SF745,000 SF 795,800 SF785,000 SF775,000 SF 1176,299 SF
1065,800 SF
1165,000 SF
1155,000 SF
1145,000 SF
1135,000 SF
1125,000 SF
1115,000 SF
1105,000 SF
1095,000 SF
1085,000 SF
1075,000 SF
9511,155 SF
975,070 SF
945,654 SF935,083 SF925,003 SF915,003 SF905,003 SF895,003 SF885,003 SF103.22'

28.28'

51.32'

50.00'50.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'

51.25'

50.00'

50.00'50.00'

50.00'

50.00'40.65'

28.17'118.01'

38.50'

28.28'

28.28'
A5,407 SF
B2,394 SF
30'60' 30'
30'60'30'60'
60'30'
30'60'
60'30'
30'60'
60'30'
5' LANDSCAPE STRIP5' LANDSCAPE STRIP
61'27'5'8'5'10'LANDSCAPE LOT
60'
6'
9/12/2022 8:54 AM G:\DR Horton - 1594\159421002-Victory Oaks\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08-TTM\2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.dwg -Michael McConnell

PREPARED BY
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/ 04080 160SCALE IN FEET

CHINOWTH STREET
W. FERGUSON AVE.

C STREET

NORTH FONTANA STREET

A STREET
N. FONTANA ST.
3RD STREET
4TH STREET
2ND STREET
1ST STREET
PROPOSED PARK2.02 AC
PROPOSED LEFT-HAND TURNPOCKET. FINAL LENGTH TOBE DETERMINED BY CITYTRAFFIC. COORDINATE WITHCITY ARBORIST REGARDINGREMOVAL OF OAK TREES.

DATE:9/12/22JOB NO.:159421002
EXISTING OAK TREE.REMOVAL TO BECOORDINATED WITHCITY ARBORIST

EXISTING WELL TO BEDESTROYED

CITY OF VISALIA LIMIT LINE

CITY OF VISALIA LIMIT LINEEXISTING POWER POLETO BE REMOVED

EXISTING POWER LINES TOBE UNDERGROUNDEDEXISTING POWER POLETO BE RELOCATED

EXISTING ELECTRICAL SERVICEFOR AGRICULTURAL WELLS TOBE DEMOLISHED BY SCE

PROPOSED POWER POLE
BLOCK WALL TO BECONSTRUCTED PER CITY OFVISALIA STANDARD G-4 WITHINTHE PROPOSED 2' WIDE BLOCKWALL EASEMENT, TYP

PROPOSED PHASE LINE
PHASE 1
PHASE 2PROPOSED ROADWAY ANDSIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS.SEE FERGUSON AVENUESECTION ON SHEET 1 FORMORE INFORMATION.

CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PER CITY OF VISALIA STANDARDS ANDEXTEND TO THE INTERSECTION OF W. FERGUSON AVE. AND N.LINWOOD ST. THIS PROJECT WILL ALSO IMPROVE THE CURBRETURN AT W. FERGUSON AVE. AND N. LINWOOD ST. BYCONSTRUCTING A CURB RAMP PER CITY OF VISALIA STANDARDS

COORDINATE PAVEMENTTRANSITION WITH CITY STAFF
11 12CONSTRUCT TEMPORARYTURNAROUND ON LOT ORADJACENT PROPERTYCONSTRUCT TEMPORARYTURNAROUND ON LOT ORADJACENT PROPERTY

PROPOSED PHASEBOUNDARY LINE

CONSTRUCT TEMPORARYTURNAROUND ON LOT ORADJACENT PROPERTY 111
x
xxx
x x x x x x x
OE
OE
OE
OE

95.94'

99.96'
122.41'

64.91'

93.84'

28.43'
113.82'

27.68'
119.70'

50.00'

51.82'

40.00'

40.00' 46.64'25'
5'
25'
25'
5'
5'
25'
15'
20'
5'
5'20'
15' 15'
20'
1310,579 SF145,270 SF155,000 SF
115,032 SF
127,098 SF
1065,800 SF
x x x x x
□□□□
□□
100.00'

88.79'128.54'

89.76'

99.86'

61.59'28.19'
123.15'

40.14'

54.43' 40.00' 40.00'

51.84'

28.17'118.01'
25'
5'
5'
5' 15'
25'
15'
25'
25'
25'5'
15'
20'
5'5'
15' 20'20'
20'
5,000 SF335,044 SF347,464 SF
359,596 SF
365,169 SF

97.90'
100.06'

95.66'
108.90'

77.82'50.90'

40.00'

40.00' 47.02'

73.46'

28.13'

91.31'

50.00'

88.54'

51.64'

40.00'
103.22'

51.32'
25' 5'
20'
25'
25'
25'
15'15'
5'
5'
5'5'
15'25'5'
5'
20'20'20'
15'
965,942 SF
9511,155 SF
975,070 SF
945,654 SF935,083 SF
9/12/2022 8:54 AM G:\DR Horton - 1594\159421002-Victory Oaks\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08-TTM\3 LOT FIT ANALYSIS.dwg -Michael McConnell

PREPARED BY
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/ 01530 60SCALE IN FEET
DATE:9/12/22JOB NO.:159421002
LOT FIT ANALYSISLOTS 12-14 LOT FIT ANALYSISLOTS 93-96LOT FIT ANALYSISLOTS 33-36 GARAGE

GARAGEGARAGE GARAGEGARAGE
GARAGE
GARAGE
GARAGE
GARAGE

GARAGEGARAGE
112
xx
xxxx
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
□□
□□
□o□□□□OE
OEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE □□□□□□
1277.52' N0° 06' 56.6"E
783.01' S89° 29' 50.0"E
1280.86' S0° 06' 56.6"W
783.03' N89° 16' 33.4"W
R52
R52
30'60' 30'60'
30'60'30'60'
60'30'
30'60'
60'30'
30'60'
60'30'
1310,579 SF145,270 SF155,000 SF165,000 SF185,000 SF195,000 SF205,000 SF215,000 SF225,000 SF 305,000 SF245,000 SF255,000 SF265,000 SF275,000 SF285,000 SF295,000 SF 415,944 SF
315,000 SF325,000 SF335,044 SF347,464 SF359,596 SF
365,169 SF375,000 SF385,000 SF395,000 SF405,000 SF
995,000 SF985,000 SF
1035,000 SF
1005,000 SF
1015,000 SF
1025,000 SF
1055,800 SF1045,000 SF
965,942 SF
875,857 SF
835,000 SF855,000 SF845,000 SF865,800 SF 805,800 SF815,000 SF825,000 SF 95,000 SF
25,000 SF15,178 SF
45,165 SF35,000 SF
55,165 SF
65,000 SF
75,000 SF
85,000 SF
235,000 SF
105,000 SF
115,032 SF
127,098 SF
100.00'100.00'100.00'95.94'

99.96'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00' 100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'

88.79'128.54'122.41'
61+00
62+00
63+00
64+00
65+00
31+0032+0033+0034+0035+0036+0037+0038+0039+0071+00
72+00
73+00
81+00
82+00
83+00
84+00
85+00
86+00
21+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+00
51+00
52+00
53+00
54+00
55+00
56+00
41+0042+0043+0044+00

60.00'
100.01'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'100.01'

97.90'100.06'100.06'100.06'
100.06'
100.06'
100.06'

89.76'

99.86'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'

61.59'

62.64'

80.03'62.00'

50.00'

67.62'

64.91'
101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'101.50'111.07'120.64'130.21' 121.38'101.44'101.45'101.46'101.46'101.47'101.48'101.49'101.49'101.80'100.90'112.77'128.53'

81.50'81.44' 121.38'
100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'

80.01'

40.00'

60.00'60.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'

80.01'100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'62.99'

50.00'

40.00'100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'
100.01'

95.66'
108.90'

77.82'50.90'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'60.00'

41.06'80.07'100.01'

21.21'

93.84' 28.43'

28.13'

28.19'

40.00'40.00'47.02'73.46'

28.13'

80.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'80.01'

28.43'40.00' 28.13'

80.01'21.21'

70.00'

52.78'52.78'52.78'61.65'52.00'52.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'60.00'

24.64'

40.00'28.28'
270.80'

28.13'

91.31'

28.43'28.13'80.01'40.00'50.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'

88.54'
123.15'
R52
113.82'27.68'
119.70'

50.00'

70.00'

55.00' 51.64'40.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'40.00'28.43'

61.83' 425,880 SF435,000 SF445,000 SF455,000 SF466,794 SF

40.00' 52.00'52.00'52.00'40.14'

56.13' 57.60'44.66'

52.75'

28.43'

28.28'
5' LANDSCAPE STRIP5' LANDSCAPE STRIP

51.32'
61'27'5'8'6'5'10'LANDSCAPE LOT

50.00'50.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'

51.25'

50.00'

50.00'50.00'

50.00'

50.00'40.65'

51.82'40.00'40.00'46.64' 54.43'40.00'40.00'

51.84'

28.17'118.01'

38.50'

28.28'

28.28'11+00
313.000
□□□□ □□
□□
□
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
9/12/2022 8:55 AM G:\DR Horton - 1594\159421002-Victory Oaks\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08-TTM\4 WALLS & FENCES.dwg -Michael McConnell

PREPARED BY
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/ 04080 160SCALE IN FEET

CHINOWTH STREET
W. FERGUSON AVE.

C STREET

NORTH FONTANA STREET

A STREET
N. FONTANA ST.
3RD STREET
4TH STREET
2ND STREET
1ST STREET
PROPOSED PARK2.02 AC
DATE:9/12/22JOB NO.:159421002
EXISTING OAK TREE.REMOVAL TO BECOORDINATED WITHCITY ARBORIST

EXISTING WELL TO BEDESTROYED

CITY OF VISALIA LIMIT LINE

EXISTING POWER LINES TOBE UNDERGROUNDEDEXISTING POWER POLETO BE RELOCATED

EXISTING ELECTRICAL SERVICEFOR AGRICULTURAL WELLS TOBE DEMOLISHED BY SCE PHASE 1
PHASE 2
11 12
PROPOSED 6' BLOCK WALLCONSTRUCTION LEGEND
EXISTING WOOD FENCE, 6' H□ EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE, 6' HEXISTING BARBED WIRE FENCE TO REMAINPROPOSED WOODEN FENCE□

TEMPORARY FENCE TOBE DEMOLISHED
113
Page1 of1
ANNEXATION NO. ____TO THE CITY OF VISALIAGEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONAll that certain real property, situate in the Northeast quarter of Section 23 of Township 18South, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, in the County of Tulare, State ofCalifornia, described as follows:BEGINNING at a point on the East line of the West 12 acres of the East half of the Southwestquarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23, said point lying 20.00 feet North of the Southline of said Northeast quarter, at an angle point in the existing City Limit line of the City ofVisalia; thence1) North 00°04’31” East, along the East line of the West 12 acres of the East half of theSouthwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 23 and along said existing CityLimit line, 1313.52 feet, more or less, to the North line of the South half of said Northeastquarter and an angle point in said existing City Limit line; thence2) South 89°31’12” East, along said North line and continuing along said existing CityLimit line, 785.58 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of the West 16 acres of theSoutheast quarter of said Northeast quarter; thence departing said existing City Limit line3) South 00°06’57” West, along the East line of said West 16 acres, 1316.86 feet, more orless, to a point lying 20.00 feet North of the South line of said Northeast quarter, being apoint on the existing City Limit line; thence4) North 89°16’33” West, parallel with said South line and along said existing City Limitline, 784.69 feet, more or less, to the POINT OF BEGINNING.Containing approximately 23.70 acres.For assessment purposes only. This description of land is not a legalproperty description as defined in the Subdivision Map Act and maynot be used as the basis for an offer for sale of the land described. 1/20/22
114
N00°11'46"E1340.21'S00°06'57"W1316.86'N00°04'31"E1313.52' 115
1 of 8

EXHIBIT C
Pre-Annexation Agreement
This Pre- Annexation Agreement (”Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ______________, by and among the City of Visalia, a charter law city (“City’) and Nash Limited Partnership, (hereinafter “Owner”):

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owners are the record owners of the property, currently located in the unincorporated area of the County of Tulare, legally described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is adjacent to and contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City, but is not situated within the limits of any municipality; and
WHEREAS, Owner desires to have the Property annexed to the City and to have the Property zoned as R-1-5 and QP (Quasi-public), which would permit the Property to be used for Low Density Residential and Parks/Recreation; and WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 23.7 acres, an d no electors reside thereon; and
WHEREAS, proper applications have been filed with the City for approval of the annexation and for the legal subdivision of the lot, as may be required for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has, by a resolution requesting initiation of proceedings to annex territory (“Resolution”) adopted on October ___, 2022 , initiated proceedings to annex the Property; and
WHEREAS, in certain annexation proceedings Williamson Act issues arise which require indemnification of LAFCO, in said ev ent, City requires indemnification from Developer; and
WHEREAS, finding __ of Resolution No. 2022-___ initiating annexation requires entry into this Annexation Agreement prior to the City submitting an application to the Local Area Formation Commission to commence the proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that during the term of this Agreement the Property will be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations of the City, as they may be amended from time to time, as well as state and federal statutes and regulations, as they may be amended.
116
2 of 8
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by its police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and is entering into this Agreement and executing such authority for said purpose; and
WHEREAS, nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by town of any tax, fee, or charge.

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

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

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

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

II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION; PURPOSE OF

AGREEMENT
Generally, each party to this Agreement is benefited and burdened by detachment from the County and annexation to the City. Owner will obtain a variety of services from City and City will obta in additional tax revenues. City has adopted ordinances , regulations, and policies concerning design, improvement, construction, development and use of property within the City .

Nothing contained in this Agr eement shall constitute a waiver of City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by City of any tax or fee . The purpose of this Agreement is to spell out additional conditions to which Owner will be subject following annexation and prior to development within the City due to the burden placed on City by Owner’s desired annexation:

A. Water Acquisition Policy: Although City’s current water service prov ider, California Water Service, continues to issue will -serve letters, City’s Council is aware of the steadily decreasing level of water in the City’s underground water aquifers and has determined that increasin g development is contributing to this serious problem. Therefore, City’s Council has studied the issue and investigated possible solutions in order that it may continue to assure citizens that there will be water available to serve the community’s needs. City’s Council is actively engaged in water replenishment activities with the Kaweah Delta Water 117
3 of 8
Conservation District and it has adopted a policy, as set forth in Chapter

16.54 of the Visalia Municipal Code, which requires annexation applicants to convey title to water rights to City upon annexatio n and/or to pay a fee to City (pursuant to an adopted fee schedule) so that City may acquire water for groundwater replenishment and storage in order to serve new development that comes with annexation, includin g development of the Property (the “Water Acq uisition Policy”). Therefore, Owner agrees that, at the time that LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related theret o), Owner will comply with the Water Acquisit ion Policy by entering into an agreement with City to either (i) convey to City those water rights vested in the Property, if any, (ii) agree to pay City a fee in lieu thereof, (iii) agree to some combination of an in lieu fee payment and water right conveyance, or (iv) to comply by any other method allowed by the Water Acquisition Policy, provided that such agreement includes a condition precedent requiring City’s water supplier to agree to serve the Property w ith potable water in amount sufficient to meet Owner’s reasonably anticipated total water demand for the Property, as determined by a valid water supply assessment prepared pursuant to California Water Code § 10910 et seq. No post -annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued by City unless and until Owner complies with the Water Acquisition Policy in a manner consistent with this subsection II(A). Owner agrees that it shall identify all water rights which, to the best of Owner’s knowledge, have been used by Owner or its agents in connection with the Property, regardless of whether they are considered “vested” in the Property, and shall comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to c onvey such rights, if any, to City. City sha ll cooperate with Owner in valuing such water rights for the purposes of determining the amount of offset to be applied against the in lieu fee as required pursuant of the Water Acquisition Policy. Owner furthe r agrees that City shall have first right of refusal in acquiring upon mutually acceptable terms any water rights that Owner owns that may be in addition to those required to meet Owner’s obligations under the Water Acquisition Policy. City agrees that wa ter rights need not be conveyed and in lieu fees shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more parcel maps or final subdivision maps covering the Property and, in the event Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such water rig hts convey ance or fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each final subdivision map, with conveyance of water rights or payment to be made on a per map basis upon City’s issuance of each final subdivision map covering the Property.

B. General Plan Maintenance Fee: On June 21, 2004, the City adopted (by Resolution 2004 -63, as corrected ) a General Plan Maintenance Fee.

Owner agrees that, at the time LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee in an amount equal to 118
4 of 8
$427 per acre and no post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued unless and until said agreement is executed. City agrees that such fee shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more final subdivis ion maps covering the Property and, in the ev ent Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by eac h final subdivision map, with payment to be made on a p er map basis upon City’s issuance of each final subdivision map covering the Property. Owner’s satisfaction of its obligations under this Section II(B) will satisfy any and all of Owner’s obligations r elated to and arising under the General Plan Maintenance Fee.

C. Plan For Providing Services . The parties agree to cooperate in, and to take such actions as may be necessary to ensure, the diligent preparation of a Plan For Providing Services to the Pro perty, to be submitted to LAFCO along with Ci ty’s annex ation application, in accordance with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requirements.

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

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

IV. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT
In the event of breach or default of any term, condition, covenant or ob ligation of this Agreement by either party, t he other p arty may exercise any rights available at law or in equity, including an action for specific performance or other injunctive relief, and all such remedies shall be cumulative. This Agreement shall be enforceable, unless lawfully terminated or cancelled, by any party to the Agreement or any party’s successor in interest, notwithstanding any subsequent changes in any applicable law adopted by the City which alters or amends the laws, ordinances, resoluti ons, rules or policies frozen by this Agreement.

V. INDEMNIFICATION
Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City and the City’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability, claims, 119
5 of 8
causes of actions, and demands, includi ng attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation, or with any other action annexation or other action determined necessary or desirable by the City in order to effectuate the annexat ion of Owner’s property, or which are in any manner con nected with the City’s enforcement of this Agreement. Owner further agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against or at the City’s option to pay the attorney ’s fees and court costs, which arise out of o r are in a ny manner connected with this Agreement or its operation.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Binding Effect/Covenants to Run With Land. The Parties hereto agree to be bound by this Agreement. This Agreement shall be bi nding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, transferees, successors and assigns of the part ies hereto. The terms and conditions stated herein shall constitute covenants running with the land.
b. Assignment. Neither party shall assign, delegate or transfer their rights and duties in this A greement w ithout the written consent of the other party.
c. Authorized Signatory. The individuals executing this Agreement, by their signature hereto, declare that they are authorized to, and have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind the part y to the t erms and conditions of this Agreement.
d. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be effective upon personal delivery to City, or Owner, as the case may be, three (3) business days after deposit in the United States Mail, postage fully prepaid, addressed to the respective parties as follows:

To the City: City Manager
City of Visalia
220 N. Santa Fe Street
Visalia, CA 93292
With Copy to: Kenneth J. Richardson
City Attorney
Peltzer & Richardson
3746 West Mineral King Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
To Owner: Keri Lea Cochran
4720 W. Ferguson Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
120
6 of 8

e. Entire Ag reement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the City and Owner as to its subject matter and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or affect.

f. Amendment. No part of this Agreement may be modif ied without the written consent of both parties.

g. Headings. Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions under the heading.

h. No Third Party Beneficiaries In tended. Except as p rovided herein, the parties of this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy.

i. Exhibits and Recitals . The recitals and any exhibits to this Agreement are full y incorporated by re ference and are integral parts of this Agreement.

j. Conflict With Laws or Regulations /Severability. This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found by any court or othe r legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing this subject, the conflicting provision(s) shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a mate rial benefit of the Agreement to either party is lost, the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the effected party. In all other cases, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

k. Waiver. A waiver of any breech of thi s Agreement by any party shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breech of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

l. Choice of Law - Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California a nd any questions ari sing her eunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. Venue for any legal action arising from or in connection with this Agreement or the Property shall be in Tulare County, California.

m. Attorneys Fees . In the event either party commen ces any action, arbitration or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court or arbitrator, shall be entitled to recovery of its reasonable fees and costs, including attorneys fees, court costs an d arbitration costs incurred in the action brought thereon.

n. No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership . It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that Owner is not an agent of City. City and 121
7 of 8
Owner hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection therewith shall be construed as making C ity and Owner joint venturers or partners.
o. Excusable Delays; Extension of Time of Performance . In the event of delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, war, terrorism, lockouts, third -party litigation or other legal challenges regarding the ann exation, riots, floods, earthquakes, epidemic, quarantine, freight embargoes, failure of contractors to perform, or other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the parties and which cause substantially interferes with t he ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, then the time for performance of any such obligation shall be extended for such period of time as the cause of such delay shall exist but in any event not longer than for such period of time.
p. Further Assurances. The parties will execute and deliver, upon demand by the other party, such further documents, instruments and conveyances, and shall take such further actions as such other party may request from time to time to document the transactions se t forth herein.
q. Recordation of Agreement; Counterparts . This Agreement, or an abstract of its material terms and conditions shall be recorded by either party in the Official Records of the Tulare County Recorder. This Agreement may b e executed in counterparts a nd, when all counterparts are combined, shall constitute a single agreement.
/////
122
8 of 8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth next to their signature.

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

Date: ____________ By: _________________________________ Michelle Nicholson, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

Date: ____________ By: _________________________________ Kenneth J. Richardson,
City Attorney
OWNER
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ Keri Lea Cochran
Property Owner
123

VICTORY OAKS

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION

JULY 2022
SCH NO.

PREPARED FOR:

City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291

PREPARED BY:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

124
Table of Contents
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 1-1

1.1 Regulatory Information ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1-1

1.2 Document Format ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 1-1 Chapter 2 Project Description ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2-1

2.1 Project Background ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 2-1 Project Title ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 2-1 Lead Agency Name and Address ................................ ................................ .............. 2-1 Contact Person and Phone Number ................................ ................................ ......... 2-1 Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2-1 General Plan Designation and Zoning ................................ ................................ ...... 2-1 Description of Project ................................ ................................ .............................. 2-1 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ................................ ............................ 2-2 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required................................ ....... 2-2 Consultation with California Native American Tribes ................................ ............... 2-2 Chapter 3 Determination ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3-1

3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3-1

3.2 Determination ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-3

4.1 Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4-3 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-3 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-3 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4-5

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4-6 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-6 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-7 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4-9 Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-10

4.3 Air Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4-12 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-12 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-12 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-20

4.4 Biological Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 4-22 125
Table of Contents
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 ii
Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-22 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-25 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-28 Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-30

4.5 Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4-31 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-31 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-32 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-35 Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-35

4.6 Energy................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4-37 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-37 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-37 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-41

4.7 Geology and Soils ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-42 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-42 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-43 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-46

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4-49 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-49 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-49 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-55

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-58 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-58 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-59 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-61

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4-64 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-64 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-65 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-67

4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4-72 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-72 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-72 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-73

4.12 Mineral Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4-74 126
Table of Contents
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 iii
Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-74 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-74 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-75

4.13 Noise ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4-76 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-76 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-76 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-77

4.14 Population and Housing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-79 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-79 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-79 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-79

4.15 Public Services ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-81 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-81 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-81 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-85

4.16 Recreation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4-87 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-87 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-88 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-90

4.17 Transportation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-91 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-91 Thresholds ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4-91 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-92

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4-93 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-93 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-94 Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-95

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4-96 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-96 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-97 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4-101

4.20 Wildfire ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4-103 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-103 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4-104

4.21 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................ ................................ .................. 4-105 127
Table of Contents
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 iv
Statement of Findings ................................ ................................ .......................... 4-105 Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ................................ ................................ ....... 5-1

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........A-1 Appendix B: Biological Review ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... B-1 Appendix C: Cultural Resources Information ................................ ................................ .............................. C-1 Appendix D: Transportation Analyses................................ ................................ ................................ ........ D-1 Appendix E: LESA Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... E-1 Appendix F: Site Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. F-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2-3 Figure 2-2: Topographic Quadrangle Map ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2-4 Figure 2-3: Project Site Boundary Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2-1 Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map ................................ ................................ ................. 2-1 Figure 2-5: Zone District Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 2-2 Figure 4-1: Farmland Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4-11 Figure 4-2: FEMA Map ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-71

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties .............. 2-2 Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4-3 Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4-6 Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4-12 Table 4-4: SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance ................................ ................................ ....................... 4-18 Table 4-5: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation .............................. 4-19 Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants .......... 4-20 Table 4-7: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Emissions ................................ ................................ ...... 4-21 Table 4-8: Biological Resources Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4-22 Table 4-9: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity. .............. 4-24 Table 4-10: Cultural Resources Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4-31 Table 4-11: Energy Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 4-37 Table 4-12: Geology and Soils Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4-42 Table 4-13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts ................................ ................................ ...................... 4-49 Table 4-14 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts ................................ ................................ ............. 4-58 Table 4-15: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts ................................ ................................ ................... 4-64 Table 4-16: Use for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Projected ................................ ............................ 4-69 Table 4-17: Land Use and Planning Impacts ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-72 Table 4-18: Mineral Resources Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4-74 Table 4-19: Noise Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4-76 Table 4-20: City of Visalia - Noise Level Standards ................................ ................................ .................. 4-77 128
Table of Contents
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 v
Table 4-21: Population and Housing Impacts ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-79 Table 4-22: Public Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 4-81 Table 4-23: School Distance from Project Site ................................ ................................ ......................... 4-85 Table 4-24: Recreation Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 4-87 Table 4-25: Transportation Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4-91 Table 4-26: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts ................................ ................................ ......................... 4-93 Table 4-27: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts ................................ ................................ .................... 4-96 Table 4-28: Wildfire Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4-103 Table 4-29: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................ ................................ ........... 4-105 Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ................................ ................................ ....... 5-2

129
Table of Contents
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 vi

ACRONYMS
AB ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... Assembly Bill AF…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..acre-feet AFV ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... alternative fuel vehicles AHERA ................................ ................................ ......................... Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act APCD ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. Air Pollution Control District APE ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... Area of Potential Effect APS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. alternative planning strategy AQMD ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... Air Quality Management District ASCE ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ American Society of Civil Engineers BAU ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... Business as usual CAA ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............Clean Air Act CAAQS ................................ ................................ ............................. California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAFE ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... Corporate Average Fuel Economy Cal/OSHA ................................ .............................. California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod ................................ ................................ ...... California Emissions Estimator Modeling (software) CalEPA ................................ ................................ ....................... California Environmental Protection Agency CalGreen ................................ ................................ ................................ .......California’s Green Building Code CalRecycle ................................ ................................ ........ Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Cal Water ................................ ................................ ................................ . California Water Service Company CAP ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . Climate Action Plan CARB ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ California Air Resources Board CBC ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... California Building Code CCAA ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... California Clean Air Act CCR ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ California Code of Regulations CDFW................................ ................................ ................................ .................... California Fish and Wildlife CEC ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ California Energy Commission CEQA ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... California Environmental Quality Act CESA ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... California Endangered Species Act CFR ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... Code of Federal Regulations CGP ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. Construction General Permit CH4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. Methane 130
Table of Contents
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 vii
CHRIS ................................ ................................ ............... Calfornia Historical Resources Information System City ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... City of Visalia CNDDB ................................ ................................ ................................ .. California Natural Diversity Database CO2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ Carbon dioxide CO ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... Carbon Monoxide County ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... Tulare County CPUC ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... California Public Utilities Commission CRHR ................................ ................................ ................................ California Register of Historic Resources CWA ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... Clean Water Act dBA ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ A-weighted decibels DBH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... diameter at breast height DOC ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. Department of Conservation DOT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ Department of Transportation EAP ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. Energy Action Plan EIR ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. Environmental Impact Report EO ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... Executive Order EPA ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... Environmental Protection Agency EPCA ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ Energy Policy and Conservation Act EPAct ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... Energy Policy Act of 1992 ESA ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... Endangered Species Act FEMA ................................ ................................ ............................. Federal Emergency Management Agency FMMP ................................ ................................ ....................... Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FPPA ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... Farmland protection policy Act GHG ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... Greenhouse Gas GIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. Geographic Information System GP ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ General Plan GSP ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. Groundwater Sustainability Plan HAP ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... Hazardous Air Pollutant HARP ................................ ................................ .............................. Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program IPaC ................................ ................................ ............................. Information for Planning and Consultation IS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. Initial Study IS/MND ................................ ................................ ...................... Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ISR ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... Indirect Source Review 131
Table of Contents
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 viii
km ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... kilometers Ldn ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. Day Night Average Sound Level LESA ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... Land Evaluation and Site Assessment MBTA ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... Migratory Bird Treaty Act MJ-LHMP ................................ ................................ ............ Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan MMRP ................................ ................................ .................... Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. million metric tons MND ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. Mitigated Negative Declaration MOU ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ Memorandum of Understanding MPO ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... Metropolitan Planning Organization MS4 ................................ ................................ ............................... Small Municipal Separate Storm Systems MTCO2e ................................ ................................ ......................... Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MJLHMP ................. Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program NAAQS ................................ ................................ .............................. National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA ................................ ................................ . Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC ................................ ................................ ................................ . Native American Heritage Commission ND ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... Negative Declaration NEPA ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... National Environmental Policy Act NO2 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Nitrogen Dioxide NOx ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... Nitrogen oxides NPDES ................................ ................................ ................. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRCS ................................ ................................ ................................ Natural Resources Conservation Service O3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... Ozone OPR ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. Office of Planning and Research PM10 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... particulate matter 10 microns in size PM2.5 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... particulate matter 2.5 microns in size ppb ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... parts per billion ppm ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... parts per million PRC ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ Public Resource Codes PRD ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. Permit Registration Documents Project ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... Victory Oaks Subdivision RWQCB ................................ ................................ ................................ Regional Water Quality Control Board SB ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... Senate Bill 132
Table of Contents
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 ix
SCAQMD ................................ ................................ .................. South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... Southern California Edison SCS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. sustainable community strategy SDC ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... Seismic Design Category SHPO................................ ................................ ................................ ....... State Office of Historic Preservation SJVAB ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. San Joaquin Valley Air Board SJVAPCD ................................ ................................ ............... San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SJVCEO ................................ ................................ ................... San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization SIP ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... State Implementation Plan SMARA ................................ ................................ ................................ ... Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SO2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... Sulfur Dioxide SoCalGas ................................ ................................ ................................ .... Southern California Gas Company SRA ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ State Responsibility Area SR ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. State Route SSJVIC ................................ ................................ ................. Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center SWPPP ................................ ................................ ............................... Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB ................................ ................................ ................................ . State Water Resources Control Board TAC ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. Toxic Air Contaminant TCEHSD ................................ ................................ ...... Tulare County Environmental Health Services Division TIP ................................ ................................ ................................ ... Transportation Improvement Program USFWS ................................ ................................ ................................ United States Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... Urban Water Management Plan μg/m3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. micrograms per cubic meter VFD ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... Visalia Fire Department VMT ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ Vehicle Miles Traveled VUSD ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. Visalia Unified School District

133
Chapter 1: Introduction
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 1-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of DR Horton to address the potential environmental effects of the Victory Oaks Subdivision (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA ), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The City of Visalia is the CEQA lead agency for this Project.

The site and the Project are described in detail in Chapter 2 Project Description.

1.1 REGULATORY INFORMATION
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a p roject may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq. )-- also known as the CEQA Guidelines --Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that mi ght avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant eff ect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant b efore the proposed MND and IS is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before t he agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This IS/MND contains six chapters. Chapter 1 Introduction, provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process. Chapter 2 Project Description , provides a detailed description of proposed Project components and objectives. Chapter 3 Determination, the Lead Agency’s det ermination based upon this initial evaluation. Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), provides the 134
Chapter 1: Introduction
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 1-2
proposed mitigation measures, implementation timelines, and the entity/agency responsible for ensuring implementation.

The CalEEMod Output Files , Biological Review, Cultural Resources Information , and Transportation Analyses, are provided as technical appendices Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files, Appendix B: Biological Review, Appendix C: Cultural Resources Information, Appendix D: Transportation Analyses, Appendix E:

LESA Analysis, and Appendix F: Site Plan respectively, at the end of this document. 135
Chapter 2: Project Description
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 2-1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Title
Victory Oaks Subdivision
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Visalia
Community Development Department, Planning Division
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact
Rafael Garcia, Senior Planner
(559) 713-4031
[email protected]
CEQA Consultant
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Jarred Olsen, Environmental Project Manager
(559) 636-1166
Project Location
The Project is located in Visalia, California, approximately 195 miles South of Sacramento and 70 miles North of Bakersfield (see Figure 2 1 and Figure 2 2). The Project site is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) 077-190-007. The centroid of the Project site is 36° 21’ 04.09” N, 119° 20’ 11.5” W.

General Plan Designation and Zoning
Project Area General Plan Designation Zoning District
ONSITE Low Density Residential AE-20 (Existing)
R-1-5 (Proposed)
ADJACENT LANDS Low Density Residential AE-20, R-1-5
Description of Project
The Victory Oaks Subdivision project pertains to approximately 23.7 gross acres of property located on the north side of West Ferguson Avenue between North Linwood and North Demaree Streets in the Northwest Quadrant of the City of Visalia.
136
Chapter 2: Project Description
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 2-2
This project proposes to subdivide the approximately 23.7-acre property for purposes of creating 117 single-family residential lots and a 2.02-acre General Plan-designated community park. Site improvements and construction of the homes will take place over 21 months. An Oak tree removal permit will be required in order to remove four Oak trees. An existing groundwater well will be destroyed in accordance with state and local regulations.

The Project will also require dedications and/or acquisitions along the Project’s Ferguson Avenue frontage for public street rights-of-way, landscape and utility easements as well as the construction of public facilities and infrastructure in accordance with the standards, specifications and policies of the City of Visalia in order to facilitate the future proposed development of the subject property. The Project will connect to existing stormwater, water, and sewer utilities located in the Project’s Ferguson Avenue frontage.

The Project will annex into the City of Visalia and is prezoned to the R-1-5 zone district. The park space is prezoned to the Quasi-Public zone district.

Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties Direction from Project
Site Existing Use General Plan Designation Zone District NORTH Single-Family Residential Low Density Residential R-1-5 (City of Visalia) EAST Agriculture, Single-Family
Residential
Low Density Residential AE-20 (Tulare County)
SOUTH Single-Family Residential Low Density Residential R-1-5 (City of Visalia) WEST Single-Family Residential Low Density Residential R-1-5 (City of Visalia) Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
• Tulare County LAFCo
Consultation with California Native American Tribes
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, 2013-14)) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues unti l the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.

The City of Visalia, as the public lead agency, received a letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to Public Resource Code ( PRC) § 21080.3.1 (AB 52) officially requesting notification of Projects within the Santa Rosa Rancheria’s geographic area of traditional and cultural affiliation. On March 18, 2022, the City sent the Tribe a formal letter including a Project description. In accordance with the law, the letter provided 30 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation in writing. Further discussion of the AB 52 process can be found in the Tribal Cultural Resources Section (4.18). 137
Chapter 2: Project Description
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 2-3

Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map
138
Chapter 2: Project Description
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 2-4

Figure 2-2: Topographic Quadrangle Map
139
Chapter 2: Project Description
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 2-1

Figure 2-3: Project Site Boundary Map
140
Chapter 2: Project Description
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 2-1

Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map
141
Chapter 2: Project Description
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 2-2

Figure 2-5: Zone District Map
142
Chapter 3: Determination
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 3-1
CHAPTER 3 DETERMINATION

3.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As indicated by the discussions of existing and baseline conditions, and impact analyses that follow in this Chapter, environmental factors not checked below would have no impacts or less than significant impacts resulting from the project. Environmental factors that are checked below would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the project. Mitigation measures are recommended for each of the potentially significant impacts that would reduce the impact to less than significant.

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

The analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4 Impact Analysis result in an impact statement, which shall have the following meanings.

Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an ef fect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

Less than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the proposed Project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.

No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (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 project-specific screening analysis). 143
Chapter 3: Determination
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 3-2

3.2 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):

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

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

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.

An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that 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

_______________________________________
Printed Name/Position
144
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-3
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ANALYSIS

4.1 AESTHETICS
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have 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 which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?

Baseline Conditions
Scenic vistas are areas that are considered to be a viewpoint either, naturally occurring or man-made, that would be pleasing to the general public and as a result provide a benefit to the area. Within the Visalia area, scenic vistas include views of the Sierra Nevada foothills. The Project site is currently a pomegranate orchard. The nearest Scenic Corridor designated by the General Plan is Highway 198 located approximately

1.7 miles south of the Project site. The Project site is undeveloped and borders a nother subdivision, and there are no historic buildings located on or near the Project site.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to aesthetics that are relevant to the Project. 145
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-4
State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA establishes that it is the policy of the State to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state “with…enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and h istoric environmental qualities.” [California Public Resources Code Section 21001(b)].

California Scenic Highways Program
Recognizing the value of scenic areas and the value of views from roads in such areas, the State Legislature established the California Scenic Highway Program in 1963. Under this program, State highway segments are designated as eligible for inclusion as scenic routes. Once the local jurisdictions through which a roadway passes have established a corridor protection program, the State ma y officially designate a roadway as a scenic route. Projects must then be evaluated for their impact on the scenic qualities of the corridor. Each designated corridor is monitored by the State and its designation may be revoked if a local government fails to enforce the provisions of the corridor protection program.

State Route 198 is 1.7 miles south of the Project vicinity is classified as eligible for State Scenic Highway status but is not officially designated.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Policy LU-P-37: Adopt specific development standards for scenic entryways (gateways) and roadway corridors into the City, including special setback and landscape standards, open space and park development, and/or land use designations.

City of Visalia Municipal Code
Section 17.30.015.H – Lighting: No on-site lighting shall directly or indirectly illuminate adjacent properties or the public street which provides access. The lights and standards to be used for the Project shall be subject to the requirements set forth by the City’s Site Plan Review Committee.

City of Visalia Valley Oak Ordinance
The City’s Valley Oak Ordinance provides basic standards, measures, and compliance requirements for the preservation and protection of native Valley oak trees and landmark t rees. The Ordinance prohibits destruction of Valley 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 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 planting new oak trees at the specified mitigation ratio on the same property, or by paying mitigation fees to be used by the City to plant new oak trees at other locations, consistent with the City Oak Tree Mitigation Policy.1

1 (City of Visalia 2007) Page 1. Date Access: March 2022. 146
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-5
Impact Analysis
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact. Scenic features in the vicinity may include views of the Sierra Nevada foothills. The Project site is not within the viewshed of any water features or scenic vistas. Furthermore, the Project site does not stand out from its surroundings in any notable fashion, since its surrounded by urban development. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. State Route 198 (SR 198) has been officially identified by Caltrans as a “Eligible State Scenic Highway.” However, Project activities would occur approximately 1.72 miles south and do not have the potential to affect the highway. There would be no impact. 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The existing visual character of the Project site is farmed agricultural land surrounded by urban development. A subdivision exists both to the north and south of the project site.

To the west, the Project is surrounded by residential properties, and vacant agricultural land to the east.

Furthermore, the subdivision development will offer attractive landscaping and archite ctural design to reduce any visual effect to the surrounding properties and conform with the existing character of the neighboring community. As the project is located in an urbanized area, the project will be required to comply with the development standards of the applicable zone district. Any impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Development of the Project would create new sources of light typical of urban development found at the majority of the edges of the Project site. Nighttime lighting levels would increase over current levels, as sources of new and nighttime lighting and illumination would include, but are not necessarily limited to, lighting from the new residential use, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., car headlights), and street lighting. Increased nighttime lighting and illumination could result in adverse effects to adjacent land uses through the “spilling over” of light into these areas and “sky glow” conditions. However, all future development under the Project would have to comply with Chapter 16 of the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance, which ensures that proposed street lights shall be installed by the subdivider, at locations consistent with the adopted development improvement standards. This would assist in reducing potential impacts associated with daytime glare and nighttime light. As such, any potential light and glare would not be substantial and thus a less than significant impact.

2 (California Department of Transportation - Scenic Highways 2022) 147
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-6

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?

Baseline Conditions
Agriculture has been the predominant land use in the Project area since the late 1800s. Due to the region’s rich soils, water resources, and favorable geographic and climatic conditions, agricultural activity in and around Visalia is highly productive. Visalia’s agricultural heritage has contributed significantly to the City’s economy – much of the region’s economic activity is related to the cultivation, processing, and distribution of agricultural products – as well as its visual and cultural character. Historically, City’s General Plan policies have acknowledged the value of the areas agricultural resources and sought to preserve them through urban growth management strategies and monitoring despite a prevalence of development pressures on local landowners and a growing urban population.3
The Project site is currently a farmed pomegranate orchard, surrounded on the north and south by urban neighborhoods with residential land to the west and farmland to the east.

3 (City of Visalia 2014)
148
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-7
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) oversees the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S. Code Section 4201, et seq.; see also 7 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 658). The FPPA (a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill) is national legislation designed to protect farmland. The FPPA states its purpose is to “minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.” The FPPA applies to projects and programs that are sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the federal government. The FPPA does not apply to private construction projects subject to federal permitting and licensing, projects planned and completed without assistance from a federal agency, federal projects related to national defense during a national emergency, or projects proposed on land already committed to urban development. The FPPA spells out requirements to ensure federal programs to the extent practical are compatible wi th State, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland and calls for the use of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to aid in analysis.

Because the City may ultimately seek some federal funding for transportation or other capital improvements related to this Project, this document addresses the FPPA as an applicable regulation.

State
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection As part of the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP), t he California Department of Conservation (DOC) applies the NRCS soil classifications to identify agricultural lands, and these agricultural designations are used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural land resources.

These designated agricultural lands are included in the Important Farmland Maps . The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analysis of agricultur al land use and land use changes throughout California. The DOC has a minimum mapping unit of 10 acres, with parcels that are smaller than 10 acres being absorbed into the surrounding classifications.

The list below provides a comprehensive description of all the categories mapped by the DOC. • Prime Farmland. Farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long ‐term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the produc tion of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. 149
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-8
• Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazi ng of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
• Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to

1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10‐acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, publi c administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
• Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping catego ry. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

As shown in Figure 4-1, the Project site is designated Prime Farmland.

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is promulgated in California Government Code (GC) Sections 51200 -51297.4. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. Private land within locally designated agricultural preserve areas are eligible for enrollment under Williamson Act contracts. However, an agricultural preserve must consist of no less than 100 acres. In order to meet this requirement two or more parcels may be combined if they are contiguous or if they are in common ownership.

The Williamson Act program is ad ministered by the DOC in conjunction with local governments, which administer the individual contract arrangements with landowners. The landowner commits the parcel to a 10‐year period, or a 20-year period for property restricted by a Farmland Security Zone Contract, wherein no conversion to a non-agricultural use is permitted. Each year the contract automatically renews unless a notice of non‐renewal is filed. In return, the land is taxed at a rate based on the actual use of the land for agricultural purpo ses as opposed to its unrestricted market value. A landowner may also submit a n application for immediate cancellation, provided that the cancellation is consistent with the criteria stated in the California Land Conservation Act and those adopted by the a ffected county or city. Non‐renewal or immediate cancellation does not change the zoning of the property. Participation in the Williamson Act program is dependent on city or county adoption and implementation of the program and is voluntary for landowners.4
The Project site is subject to a Williamson Act contract.

4 (California Department of Conservation 2022)
150
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-9
Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Policy LU-P-14: Recognize the importance of agriculture-related business to the City and region, • Policy LU-P-25: Provide planning and technical support for the relocation of agricultural operations currently located in the City to compatible locations in the Planning Area or the County. • Policy LU-P-30: Maintain greenbelts, or agricultural/open space buffer areas, between Visalia and other communities by implementing growth boundaries and working with County and land developers to prevent premature urban growth north of th e St. Johns River and other sensitive locations within the timeframe of this General Plan.
• Policy LU-P-44: Develop land use and site design measures for areas adjacent to high-voltage power facilities. Measures will include landscape buffers and mandatory setbacks from substations and transmission towers and lines.

Impact Analysis
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 t he California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located on County land that has been historically used for agriculture, producing pomegranates, which would be annexed into the City of Visalia as a part of this Project. The Project site is designated by the DOC as Prime Farmland, which would be converted into a new subdivision. 5 An assessment of the Project site using the DOC LESA Model was completed to determine whether or not the conversion of P rime Farmland would have a significant impact on the environment. The model determined that the Project would not have a significant Impact on the environment due to the Site Assessment score of the LESA analysis being below 20. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would result in the conversion of farmland currently under a William son Act Contract into a residential subdivision. This contract was originally protested by the City of Visalia when it was proposed to be formed in 1969, due to its proximity to City limits. The Project would result in the cancellation of the existing Williamson Act Contract, creating a significant impact. Alternatively, and pursuant to State law, the City may exercise its right to not succeed to the Williamson Act Contract, terminating the contract in the event the annexation associated with the Project is completed. In the event that the Project does result in a cancellation of the contract, and i n order to mitigate impacts resulting from the cancellation of the existing Williamson Act Contract, the applicant will implement mitigation measure AGR-1. This will mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

5 (California Department of Conservation 2022)
151
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-10
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 sec tion 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Project would result in the annexation of the Project site from Tulare County into the City of Visalia, p rezoning the site for residential use. The Visalia General Plan has not designated the Project site or surrounding areas as Forest Land, Timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. The Project site has historically been utilized for agricultural use, producing primarily pomegranates. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest l and to non - forest use. The Project would result in the construction of a new subdivision on land that would be annexed into the City of Visalia, which has historically been utilized for agriculture. This would not require the loss or conversion of a forest to a non-forest use. Therefore, there would be no impact. 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? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the conversion of approximately 2 3.7 acres of farmland into a new residential subdivision. While the Project would convert farmland into residential and park uses, the Project site is substantially surrounded by urban uses, and is part of a County island, a portion of which would be annexed into the City as a part of this Project. A dditionally, under the LESA assessment discussed above, the conversion of the Prime Farmland located at the Project site would not be considered significant. The farmland located on the property to the east is a part of the Williamson Act Contract that wou ld be cancelled to facilitate the Project. As a result, conversion of the eastern adjacent parcel would become more likely to occur. However, the Project site and the eastern adjacent property are significantly surrounded by urban uses and is located on a County island. The Project site and eastern adjacent parcel are planned for residential use, which would be facilitated by this Project.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation
AGR-1 Prior to development, the Williamson Act Contract shall be cancelled and applicable cancellation fees shall be paid to the County Treasure in accordance with Government Code Section 51283(b). In the event that the City exercises the option of not succeeding to the Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51243.5(d), and such action is approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission, the Contract will be terminated, no cancellation is required, and no cancellation fees are required to be paid.

152
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-11

Figure 4-1: Farmland Map
153
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-12

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?

Baseline Conditions
The subject property is composed of a pomegranate orchard spanning approximately 23.7 acres. Typical cultivation operations include traversing the site with all-terrain vehicles and pickup trucks, application of pesticides and fertilizers, removal and replanting of orchards, and the picking o f fruit. Such activities are likely to disturb the site’s bare dirt, causing an unquantifiable amount of particulate matter emissions.

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

CAA and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 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, CO, NO 2, SO2, PM 2.5 and PM 10, and lead (Pb). Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non - health-related adverse effects such as visibility restrictions.

The CAA also required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution.

The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules 154
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-13
and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The EPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformance with the mandates of the CAA, and the amendments thereof, and determine if implementation would achieve air quality goals. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan may be prep ared for the nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures.

CAA Section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93 Subpart A) require that each new Regional Transportation Plan (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, in this case the County Association of Governments or accepted by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). The conformity analysis is a federal requirement designed to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. However, because the San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plan for CO, PM10, 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 California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) 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 w as 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 severi ty 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 ppm to provide increased public health pr otection against health effects associated with long - and short-term exposures. The previous ozone standard was set in 2010 at 0.075 ppm.

National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA) provides general information on the effects of federally funded projects. The act was implemented by regulations included in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 6). The code requires careful consideration concerning environmental impacts of federal actions or plans, including local projects that receive federal funds. The regulations address impacts on land uses and conflicts with state, regional, or local plans and policies, among others. They also require that projects requiring NEPA review seek to avoid or minimize adverse effects of proposed actions and to restore and enhance environmental quality as much as possible. The Project is subject to NEPA compliance because of the potential for federal grant funding for construction of the Project. The air quality assessment required under federal air quality standards and regulations covers the basic outline for project -level assessment under NEPA guidelines. The CAA also requires a parallel “Conformity” in addition to the basic impact assessment.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act first authorized the EPA to regulate asbestos in schools and public and commercial buildings under Title II of the law, which is also known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). AHERA requires Local Education Agencies to inspect their schools for Asbestos- Containing Building Materials and prepare management plans to reduce the asbestos hazard. The Act also established a program for the training and accreditation of individuals performing certain types of asbestos work.
155
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-14
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pursuant to the CAA, the EPA established the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

These are technology -based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).

State
California Air Resources Board and the California Clean Air Act The California Air Resources Board (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 the CARB, and attainment plans adopted by the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) and Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) and approved by CARB.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is one of 35 AQMDs that have prepared air quality management plans to accomplish a fi ve percent annual reduction in emissions documenting progress toward the CAAQS.

States may establish their own standards, provided the state standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established the CAAQS pursuant to Health and Safet y Code (HSC) Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes.

Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 39608 requires CARB to “identify” and “classify” each air basin in the state on a pollutant -by-pollutant basis. Subsequently, the CARB designated areas in Cal ifornia as nonattainment based on violations of the CAAQS. Designations and classifications specific to the San Joaquin Valley Air Board (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 -per-year reduction in nonattainm ent 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 Stations [SLAMS] Network), which monitors the present pollutant levels in the ambient air.

All of Tulare County, including the City, is in the SJVAB. A map of the SJVAB is provided in Appendix A. Table 4-5 contains a summary of State and federal air quality standards and the SJVABs attainment status for common pollutants.

CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
CARB is responsible for controlling emissio ns from the operation of motor vehicles in the state. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, CARBs motor vehicle 156
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-15
standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the reg ulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end, CARB has adopted regulations that require auto manufacturers to phase in less-polluting vehicles.

The CCAA was first signed into law in 1988 and is administered by CARB. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the States air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. The CAAQS, established pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 39606(b), are similar to, but more stringent than, the NAAQS.

Assembly Bills 1807 & 2588 - Tanner Air Toxics Act
California regulates 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 a TAC. This includes research, public par ticipation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TACs. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted EPAs list of HAPs as TAC s. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the CARB list of TAC s. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. CARB list of TACs is provided below:

▪ Benzene
▪ Ethylene Dibromide
▪ Ethylene Dichloride
▪ Hexavalent chromium
▪ Asbestos
▪ Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans
▪ Cadmium
▪ Carbon Tetrachloride
▪ Ethylene Oxide
▪ Methylene Chloride
▪ Trichloroethylene
▪ Chloroform
▪ Vinyl chloride
▪ Inorganic Arsenic
▪ Nickel
▪ Perchloroethylene
▪ Formaldehyde
▪ 1,3-Butadiene
▪ Inorganic Lead
▪ Particulate Emissions from Diesel -Fueled
Engines
▪ Environmental Tobacco Smoke
▪ EPA Hazardous Air Pollutants (187)

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 to minimize emissions.

California Assembly Bill 170
Assembly Bill 170, Reyes (AB 170), was adopted by state lawmakers in 2003 creating Government Code (GC) Section 65302.1 which requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive goals, policies and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality.

State Tailpipe Emission Standards
To reduce emissions from off -road diesel equipment, on -road diesel trucks, and harbor craft, CARB established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new engines. New construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy duty trucks, off-road construction equipment, tugboats, and barges, would be required to comply with the standards.
157
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-16
Local
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating air pollutan t emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within the County and throughout the SJVAB. The District also has responsibility for monitoring air quality and setting and enforcing limits for source emissions. The CARB is the agency with the leg al 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 AQAP, dated January 30, 1992, in response to the requirements of the 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 t he 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 source s 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 CAA and the CCAA.

The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2013 Ozone Plan to achiev e federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB regarding ozone. It provides a comprehensive list of regulatory and incentive -based measures to reduce emissions of ozone and particulate matter precursors throughout the SJVAB, and calls for major advancements in pollution control technologies for mobile and stationary sources of air pollution, a 75 -percent reduction in ozone -forming oxides of nitrogen emissions, and addresses the remaining requirement under the 1979 revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

The EPA in 2006 issued a Final Rule determining that the Basin had attained the NAAQS for PM 10, it did however note that the Final Rule did not constitute a redesignation to attainment until all of the CAA requirements under Section 107(d)(3) were me t. In response, the SJVAPCD prepared the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation (2007 PM 10 Plan). The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB. The 2012 PM 2.5 Plan provides a comprehensive list of regulatory and incentive-based measures to reduce PM2.5.

The Guide for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts was prepared in 2015, which is an advisory document that provides Lead Agencies, consultants, and pro ject applicants with analysis guidance and uniform procedures for addressing air quality impacts in environmental documents. It describes the criteria that SJVAPCD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents and recommends thresholds for determining whether or not projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts.

The SJVAPCD documents identified above represent the SJVAPCDs 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 separate emi ssions reductions and compliance into different emissions source categories. The SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations that are applicable to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions), Regulation VIII (Rules 8011-8081): This regulation is a series of rules designed to reduce particulate emissions generated by human activity, including 158
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-17
construction and demolition activities, carryout and trackout, use of paved and unpaved roads and traffic areas, bulk material handling and storage, open space areas, etc. If a non-residential area is five or more acres in size, a Dust Control Plan must be submitted as specified in Section 6.3.1 of Rule 8021. Additional requirements may apply, depending on total area of disturbance. • 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, o r relocating of more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials on at least three days of the project. The 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 9510 – Indirect Source Review: Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review, fulfills the SJVAPCD emission reduction commitments in the PM 10 and Ozone Attainment Plans through emission reductions associated with construction and operational activities for projects subject to the rule. Since the project contains more than 20,000 square feet of recreational space it will be required to comply with Rule 9510. Compliance with Rule 9510 is separate from the CEQA process, although the control measures used to comply with Rule 9510 may be used to mitigate CEQA impacts. • Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance O perations: If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the 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.
• Regulatory Attainment Designations: Under the CCAA, CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant con centrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The EPA designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO 2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The EPA uses the same sub-categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, EPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM 10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” The SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the state PM10 standard, ozone, and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the national 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards. On September 25, 2008, the EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. 159
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-18
Table 4-4 shows the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for both construction - and operation -related emissions from a given project.

Table 4-4: SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance
SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons/yr)
Pollutant Construction Emissions Operation Emissions
ROG 10 10
NOx 10 10
CO 100 100
SOx 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD, May 2015.

City of Visalia General Plan
• Policy 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. • Policy AQ -P-9: Continue to mitigate short -term construction impacts and long -term stationary 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.

City of Visalia Climate Action Plan
The City 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 Greenhouse Gas (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’s CAP for the City government and the community as a whole include the following:
▪ 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 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 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 States goal of an 80% reduction below baseline by 2050.

The City 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.
160
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-19
Table 4-5: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration* Attainment
Status Primary Attainment
Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe
– No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3 Nonattainment – Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified 8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm Attainment 53 ppb Attainment/
Unclassified 1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM – Attainment -- Attainment/
Unclassified 24-hour 0.04 ppm --
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead (Pb) 30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment – No
Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter – --
Rolling 3 -Month
Average
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment No Federal Standards Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S)
1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl)
24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Attainment
Visibility-
Reducing
Particle Matter
8-hour Extinction coefficient:

0.23/km-visibility of
10 miles or more due
to particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%.

Unclassified
* For more information on standards visit: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard ***Secondary Standard
Source: CARB 2015; SJVAPCD 2015
161
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-20
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact . CEQA requires that certain projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. In addition, emission reductions achieved through implementation of offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD air quality plans. As discussed below, construction of the project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Implementation of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII would further reduce construction dust impacts.

Operational emissions associated with the project would not exceed SJVAPCD established significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. The Project does exceed the minimum dwelling unit count to be subject to Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD air quality plans. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) 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? Less than Significant Impact. Construction-generated emissions are temporary in duration, site improvements and construction of the homes will take place over 21 months. The construction of the Project would result in the temporary generation of emissions associated with site grading and excavation, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, as well as the movement of construction equipment on unpaved surfaces. Estimated construction -generated emissions and operational emissions are summarized in Table 4-6. Operational emissions would occur from vehicular trips, area sources such as fireplaces, and energy sources from the combustion of natural gas. These emissions are summarized in Table 4-7.

Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source
Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) (1)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx
2024 0.2670 2.3877 2.6145 0.3148 0.1706 <0.001
2025 0.8117 1.2943 1.7508 0.1236 0.0678 <0.001
Maximum Annual Proposed Project Emissions: 0.8117 2.3877 2.6145 0.3148 0.1706 <0.001 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds: 10 10 100 15 15 27
Exceed SJVAPCD Thresholds? No No No No No No

1. Emissions were quantified using CalEEmod Output Files Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
162
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-21
Table 4-7: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Emissions
Source
Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) (1)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx
Maximum Annual Project Emissions: 1.3004 0.8330 4.9340 0.0117 0.0105 0.0117 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds: 10 10 100 15 15 27
Exceed SJVAPCD Thresholds? No No No No No No

2. Emissions were quantified using CalEEmod Output Files Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As Project emissions will not exceed established thresholds, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would generate diesel particulate matter during construction and during project operations when solid waste is being collected from the site. These emissions are short in duration, temporary, and consistent with emissions found in the project vicinity. Furthermore, the conversion of farmland would likely result in similar emission reductions. A Health Risk Assessment utilizing Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool version 21081 was prepared for the Project, using the emissions found in Receptors were placed at the boundary of the Project site and spaced 50 meters apart. The maximum impact was found to be

0.007419 in a million. This shows that the Project would not be a substantial producer of pollutant concentrations which sensitive receptors would be exposed to. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roaster, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants, among other uses. The Project does not include any of these activities or land uses. The Project would therefore have no impact with respect to generation of emissions leading to odors or other adverse or objectionable emissions.

163
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-22

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4-8: Biological Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (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?

Baseline Conditions
General
The proposed Project is located near the intersection of North Demaree Street and West Ferguson Avenue (Project) located in the City of Visalia, California. The Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) that was reviewed for biological resources consists of approximately 23.7 acres with an additional 50 -foot buffer surrounding the APE (see Appendix B: Biological Review). The topography is relatively flat across the San Joaquin Valley floor and the APE is situated at approx imately 300 feet in elevation. The APE includes an active pomegranate orchard and a portion of the median in the center of West Ferguson Avenue (see Appendix B: Biological Review).
164
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-23
Like most of California, the San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and rarely exceed 70 degrees. On average, the Central Valley receives approximately 12 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and April.

Water
The nearest surface waters is an above ground canal approximately 0.3 miles away. The canal receives water from St. John’s River, which is approximately 1.5 miles away from the APE.

A watershed is the topographic region of water that drains into a stream, river, or lake and can consist of many smaller subwatersheds. The APE lies within the Lower Cross Creek watershed; Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 1803000713 and the Mosquito Creek-Cross Creek subwatershed; HUC: 180300071302.

The Lower Cross Creek watershed is comprised of stormwater or snowmelt collected in upland areas which flows into Hamilton Creek, Eagle Scout Creek, Granite Creek, Cliff Creek, Buck Creek, Castle Creek, Merhten Creek, Panther Creek, Dome Creek, and Paradise Creek, which are tributaries to Middle Fork Kaweah River.

Middle Fork Kaweah River, Marble Fork Kaweah River, North Fork Kaweah River, East Fork Kaweah River, and South Fork Kaweah River join to form the Kaweah River. Kaweah River then flows into Kaw eah Lake which also receives flow from Horse Creek and Grassy Creek. Kaweah River then flows out of Kaweah Lake.

Kaweah River then flows into St. John’s River. St. John’s River flows into irrigation canals that run adjacent to the APE and terminate in Visa lia. St. John’s River continues past the APE, eventually flowing into Tule River which terminates in Tule Lakebed.

Soil
One soil mapping unit representing a singular soil type was identified within the APE. Tagus loam with a 0 to 2 percent slope, is found within 100 percent of the APE . It is well drained, moderately permeable with low runoff. This soil is primarily used for irrigated cropland, dairies, and urban development. None of the major or minor soil mapping units were identified as hydric. Hydric soi ls are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported.

The full soil report can be found in Appendix B: Biological Review at the end of this document.

Wildlife and Plant Species
A thorough search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and iNaturalist were reviewed for potential special status plant and animal species that may be found in and around the APE. The CNDDB search included the United States Geologic Survey areas encompassing the Visalia 7.5-minute quadrangle that contain the APE in its entirety, and for th e eight surrounding quadrangles: Traver, Monson, Ivanhoe, Exeter, Cairns Corner, Tulare, Paige, and Goshen. The full CNDDB and IPaC species list can be found in Appendix B: Biological Review at the end of this document.

A pre-construction biological survey was conducted on October 27, 2021 by Provost & Pritchard biologist Shaylea Stark. During the survey, 46 valley oak trees (Quercus lobata), were identified. GPS coordinates, diameter at breast height (DBH), and total height were recorded (see Appendix B: Biological Review). The survey also consisted of walking thoroughly through the APE while identifying and noting land uses, 165
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-24
biological habitats and communities, plant and animal species encountered, and assess ed for suitable habitats of various wildlife species.

There are 23 special status animal species and 18 special status plant species found within the nine-quad search. Species found within three miles of the APE includes five animal species which are explained further in Table 4-9 below. No plant species were found within three miles of the APE. CNDDB contains records of historical observations which lack precise occurrence locations. These inaccurate occurrences have been omitted from the list below.

Table 4-9: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence on APE
Northern California
legless lizard (Anniella
pulchra)
CSC Found primarily underground,
burrowing in loose, sandy soil.

Forages in loose soil and leaf litter
during the day. Occasionally observed
on the surface at disk and night.

Unlikely. The APE is an active orchard
that is regularly maintained and disced
which creates a habitat unsuitable for this
species. The APE in the median is
separated from the orchard by a paved
road with frequent traffic. The nearest
recorded observations of this species are
an unknown location in the vicinity of
Visalia in 1934 (CNDDB) and ten miles
southeast of the APE in 2021.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
FE, CT Underground dens with multiple
entrances in alkali sink, valley
grassland, and woodland in vallrys and
adjacent foothills.

Unlikely. The APE is located within the
historic range for San Joaquin kit fox, but
there are no known core or satellite
populations in the vicinity of the APE.

Dens were not identified within the APE.

Elevated levels of human and traffic
disturbance would deter this species from
the area.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp ( Branchinecta
lynchi)
FT Occupies vernal pools, clear to tea -
colored water, in grass or mud -
bottomed swales, and basalt
depression pools.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat for
this species is abse nt from the APE and
surrounding area. In between the rows of
stonefruit, t he APE is subject to
intermittent discing and prominent levels
of ground disturbance.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSC Found in open, arid to semi-arid
habitats, including dry desert washes,
flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland,
open ponderosa pine forest, grassland,
and agricultural areas, where it feeds
on insects in flight. Roosts most
commonly in crevices in cliff faces but
may also use hig h buildings and
tunnels.

Unlikely. Suitable roosting habitat is
absent from the APE. The closet recorded
observation of this species is four miles
south of the APE. At most, a transient
occurrence of this species may be found
foraging within the APE at night.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
CSC Prefers open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats
including mixed woodlands,
grasslands, coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands,
river floodplains, alluvial fans, playas,
alkali flats, foothills, and mountains.

Vernal pools or temporary wetlands,
lasting a minimum of three weeks,
which do not contain bullfrogs, fish,
or crayfish are necessary for breeding.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the APE and surrounding
area, due to intermittent discing and
prominent levels of ground disturbance.

The closet recorded observation of this
species is approximately three miles west
of the APE in 2004.
166
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-25

EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.

STATUS CODES
FT Federally Threatened
FE Federally Endangered
CT California Threatened
CSC California Species of Concern
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protects fish and wildlife species and their habitats that have been identified by the USFWS as threatened or endangered. Endangered refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of their range. Threatened refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are likely to become endangered in the near future.

Due to the potential for the City to obtain federal grant funding for the Project, Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA may be relevant. Provisions of Sections 7 and 9 are summarized below. • Section 7: Section 7 of the ESA provides a means for authorizing incidental take of threatened and endangered species by federal agencies. “Take” as defined by ESA, means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engag e in any such conduct”. “Harm” is defined as “any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat modification.” Under Section 7, the federal agency funding, permitting, or conducting an action [the lead federal agency, such as the Uni ted States Army Corps of Engineers] must consult with USFWS to ensure that the proposed action would not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. If a Project “may affect” a listed species or designated critical habitat, the federal lead agency is required to prepare a biological assessment (BA) evaluating the nature and severity of the expected effect. In response, the USFWS issues a biological opinion, with a determination whether the proposed action either:
o Would jeopardize the continued existence of one or more listed species (jeopardy finding) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (adverse modification finding), or
o Would not jeopardize the continued existen ce of any listed species (no jeopardy finding) or result in adverse modification of critical habitat (no adverse modification finding).

The biological opinion issued by the USFWS may stipulate discretionary “reasonable and prudent” conservation measures. If the project would not therefore jeopardize a listed species, the USFWS issues an incidental take statement to authorize the proposed activity. • Section 9: Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed as endangered under the ESA by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Take of threatened 167
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-26
species also is prohibited under Section 9, unless otherwise authorized by federal regulations. In some cases, exceptions may be made for threatened species under ESA Section 4[d]; in such cases, the USFWS issues a “4[d] rule” describing protections for the threatened species and specifying the circumstances under which take is allowed. In addition, Section 9 prohibits removing, digging up, cutting, and maliciously da maging or destroying federally listed plants on sites under federal jurisdiction.

Executive Order (EO) 13186 – Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 United States Government Code 703–712, prohibits the take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird.6 Under the act, “take” is defined as the action of or attempt to “pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill”. This act applies to all persons and agencies in the United States, including federal agencies.

Executive Order (EO) 13186 requires that any project with federal funding, permitting, or action must address the impacts of the project on migratory birds.7 The order is designed to assist federal agencies in their efforts to comply with the MBTA and does not constitute any legal authorization to take migratory birds. The order also requires federal funding, permitting, or action-taking agencies to work with the USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU). Protocols developed under the MOU must promote the conservation of migratory bird populations through:
• Avoiding and minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions;
• Restoring and enhancing the habitat of migratory birds, as practicable; and • Preventing or abating the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds, as practicable.

EO 13112: Invasive Species
EO 13112, signed February 3, 1999, directs all federal agencies to prevent and control the introduction of invasive species in a cost -effective and environmentally sound manner. The EO requires consideration of invasive species in NEPA analyses, including their identification and distribution, their potential effects, and measures to prevent or eradicate them.

EO 11990: Protection of Wetlands
EO 11990, signed May 24, 1977, directs all federal agencies to refrain from assisting in or giving financial support to projects that encroach on publicly or privately-owned wetlands. It further requires that federal agencies support a policy to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands.

State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the regulatory framework by which California public agencies identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts. The CEQA statute is set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the Guidelines implementing the Act (State CEQA Guidelines) are set forth in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq. A project normally is considered to result in a significant environmental impact on biological resources if it substantially affects a rare or endangered

6 (Cornell Law School 2022)
7 (United States Department of Energy 2022)
168
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-27
species or the habitat of that species, substantially interferes with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife, or substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants.

California Endangered Species Act
California implemented California Endangered Species Act ( CESA) in 1984. The act prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species; however, habitat destruction is not included in the States definition of take. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill an individual of a species . Section 2090 of CESA requir es State agencies to comply with endangered-species protection and recovery and promote conservation of these species. CDFW administers the act and authorizes take through Section 2081 agreements (except for species designated as fully protected). Regarding rare plant species, CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, which preserves, protects, and enhances rare and endangered plant species and prohibits importing/exporting or the sale of rare and endangered plants. All State plants that have been designed as rare, threatened, endangered, or listed as a candidate or species of special concern are protected. In addition to federal and State protection the California Native Plant Society has a ranking system that places native plants into categories or ranks reflecting degrees of concern and which also needs to be addressed during CEQA review.

California Fish and Game Code
• Section 1602: Under Fish and Game Code Section 1602, public agencies are required to notify CDFW before undertaki ng any project that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow, bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Preliminary notification and project review occur generally during the environmental process. When an existing fish or wildlife res ource may be substantially adversely affected, CDFW is required to propose reasonable project changes to protect the resources. These modifications are formalized in a streambed -alteration agreement that becomes part of the plans, specifications, and bid documents for the project. • Sections 3503 and 3503.5: Fish and Game Code Section 3503 prohibits the destruction of bird nests.

Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing of raptor species and the destruction of raptor nests. • Section 3511 (Fully Protected Birds): The Fish and Game Code provides protection from take for a variety of species of birds, referred to as fully protected species. Section 3511 lists fully protected birds and prohibits take of these species. The Fish and Game Code defines t ake as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”. Except for take related to scientific research, all take of fully protected species of birds is prohibited.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Objective O SC-O-10: Protect and enhance natural vegetation throughout the Planning Area, especially types that are considered sensitive natural communities by the Department of Fish and Game [sic].
• Policy OSC -P-28: Protect significant stands of Valley Oak woodlands f rom further development by designating them for Conservation, creating habitat management plans, where needed, and undertaking restoration activities as appropriate. • Policy OSC -P-30: Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any discretionary development projects involving riparian habitat, wetlands, or special status 169
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-28
species habitat. Early in the development review process, consult with California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies. • Policy OSC-P-31: Protect and enhance habitat for special status species, designated under state and federal law. Require protection of sensitive habitat areas and special status species in new development in the following order: (1) avoidance; (2) onsite mitigat ion, and (3) offsite mitigation.

City of Visalia Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance
The City has a valley oak (Quercus lobate) tree ordinance that protects valley oak trees with a diameter at breast height of 18 inches or greater. Under this ordinance, removal or encroachment within the dripline of or damage to valley oak trees is prohibited. Removal requires a permit from the City Manager and mitigation either by replacement in -kind or payment of an in -lieu fee to be used for future oak tree planting.8
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Of the five regionally occurring special status animal species, all of them were found to be absent or unlikely to occur within the APE due to unsuitable habitat. As explained in Table 4-9, these species include: Northern California legless lizard, San Joaquin kit fox, vernal pool fairy shrimp, western mastiff bat, and western spadefoot . Since it is unlikely these species would occur onsite, implementation of the Project would have no impact on these special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Protection measures are not warranted.

The APE contains suitable nesting and/or foraging habitat for ground and tree nesting avian species. With implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3, any potential impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant.
b) 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?
No Impact. The CDFW and USFWS often designates areas of “Critical Habitat” when i t lists species as threatened or endangered. Critical Habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and would require special management or protection. According to CNDDB and IPaC, designated critical habitat is absent from the APE and vicinity.

CDFW also designates “natural communities of special concern” and are defined by distinguished, significant biological diversity, or a home to special status species. According to CNDDB, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool is designated as a natural community of special concern and is located approximately six miles northwest of the APE. Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool is designated as a natural community of special concern and is located is ten miles northeast of the APE. Valley Sacaton Grassland is designated

8 (City of Visalia 2022)
170
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-29
as a natural community of special concern and is located seven miles west, and eight miles east of the APE. Great Valley - Valley Oak Riparian Forest is designated as a natural community of special concern and is located eight miles west of the APE. Valley Oak trees within the APE are not part of this designated community and will be addressed using the requirements set forth by the City of Visalia, Oak Tree Ordinance (12.24.010 through 12.24.270). The Project would not impact these natural communiti es.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The APE does not contain natural aquatic features and potential Waters of the United States, riparian habitat, typical wetlands, vernal pools, lakes, or streams, or other sensitive nat ural community (Appendix B: Biological Review). The nearest surface water is an above ground canal approximately 0.3 miles away. The canal receives water from St. John’s River, which is approximately 1.5 miles away from the APE. Implementation of the Project would have no impact on jurisdictional waters, wetlands, navigable waters, wild and scenic rivers, riparian habitat or other water features. Therefore, the Project would not require jurisdictional permits from regulatory compliance agencies. There would be no impact. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with establi shed native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter -population movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation.

The APE does not contain features that would be likely to function as wildlife movement corridors.

Further, a portion of the APE located in the median is disturbed by ongoing traffic and the remainder of the APE is completely surrounded by a fence, which would discourage dispersal and migration. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. Forty-six Valley Oak trees were identified within the APE. The City of Visalia Oak Tree Ordinance states (12.24.025):
“It is unlawful for any person to willingly remove, destroy, damage, mutilate, poison, or attempt to kill an oak tree in the city, except as may be allowed pursuant to a removal permit as provided for in Section

12.24.020 of this Chapter, or as designated in a notice to prune an oak tree that satisfies Article 3 of this chapter.”9
The ordinance goes on to define “oak tree” as (12.24.020):

9 (American Legal Publishing Legal Code Library 2022)
171
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-30
”Oak tree” means Valley Oak Tree (Quercus lobata), with a trunk diameter of eighteen (18) inches or greater at a point 4.5 feet above the root crown (Also referred to as “18 inches DBH”).” Four Valley Oak trees were measured to have greater than 18 inches DBH and therefore a removal permit must be obtained to remove or destroy them. As the Project will require compliance with the removal permit, impacts will be less than significant.
f) 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? No Impact. The Project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There would be no impact.

Mitigation
The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of nesting bird season) in an effort to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

If activities must occur within nestin g bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist would conduct a pre-construction survey for all nesting birds within the Project boundary and an additional 50 feet surrounding the Project, no more than seven days prior to the start of con struction. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage.

On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, the biologist will determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the species in question. Construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlin gs have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.

172
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-31

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-10: Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?

Baseline Conditions
As the oldest Central Valley city sou th of Stockton, Visalia hosts an impressive collection of historic sites and structures, including four that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Numerous distinctive architectural styles are present in Visalia, concentrated in the city’ s historic core; particularly notable examples are recorded in the city’s local registry.10 Visalia was settled in 1852 and incorporated as a city in 1874. In its early years the City was a supply center for nearby gold mining operations, and had an agricu ltural economy based on livestock. The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad through the Valley in 1872 triggered a shift in the agricultural economy from cattle toward field crops. The next major economic change was brought about by the availabili ty of irrigation water, resulting in the conversion of large grain fields to small farms, where citrus, grapes, olives, and deciduous fruits were raised. These crops are a mainstay of the region’s economy today. 11 Records Search
A records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in February 2022. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of al l recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks , the California Register of Historical Resources , the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the above referenced APE and an additional ½ mile radius.

Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. (Appendix C).

10 (City of Visalia 2014) General Plan Chapter 3 Historic Preservation 11 Ibid.
173
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-32
Additional sources included the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.

Native American Outreach
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento was also contacted in February 2022.

They were provided with a brief description of the Project and a map showing its location and requested that the NAHC perform a search of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediate APE. The N AHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in Californi a. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among many other powers and duties.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
National Register of Historic Places
The National Historic Preservation Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a Nation Register of Historic Places, an inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant on a national, state, or local level in American history, architecture, archeology, engineer ing, and culture. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, SHPO, and grants-in-aid programs.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protectio n and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) strives to ensure that all Indian human remains, and cultural items are treated with dignity and respect. It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums. It also states the intent for states to provide mechanisms for aiding Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims.

State
Office of Historic Preservation
The mission of the Office of Historic Preservation and the State Historical Resources Commission is to preserve and enhance California's irreplaceable historic heritage as a matter of public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, recre ational, aesthetic, economic, social, and environmental benefits will be maintained and enriched for present and future generations. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024 requires consultation with the SHPO when a project may impact historical resources located on State- owned land.

California Register of Historic Resources
The SHPO maintains the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on the National Register are automatically listed on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1). State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The California Register can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historic resource surveys.
174
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-33
For a historic resource to be eligible for listing on the California Register, it must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
• It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local and regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; • It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or • It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation (California Public Resources Code).

California Environmental Quality Act
PRC Section 21083.2 Archaeological Resources: CEQA directs the lead agency to include in its environmental assessment for the project a determi nation of the project effects on unique archeological resources; defines unique archeological resource; enables a lead agency to require an applicant to make a reasonable effort to preserve or mitigate impacts to any affected unique archeological resource; sets requirements for the applicant to provide payment to cover costs of mitigation; and restricts excavation as a mitigation measure.

PRC Section 21084.1 Historic Resources: CEQA establishes that adverse effects on a historic resource qualifies as a significant effect on the environment; and defines historical resource.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5: This section defines three ways that a property can qualify as a significant historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review:
• If the resource is list ed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources;
• If the resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC S ection 5020.1(k), or is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g) unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; or
• If the lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5)
In addition to determining the significance under CEQA and eligibility of any identified historical resource for the California Register, historic properties must be evaluated under the criteria for the National Register should federal funding or permitting become involved in any undertaking subject to this document.

CEQA Guidelines on Mitigation of Cultural Resources Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 states that “public agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resources of an archeological nature.” The Guidelines further state that preservation-in-place is the preferred approach to mitigate impacts on archaeological resources. However, according to Section 15126.4, if data recovery through excavation is “the only feasible mitigation,” then a “data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resources, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken.” Data recovery is not required for a resource of an archaeological nature if “the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically 175
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-34
consequential information from and about the archaeologica l or historical resource.” The section further states that its provisions apply to those archaeological resources that also qualify as historic resources.

Native American Heritage Act
Also relevant to the evaluation and mitigation of impacts to cultural re sources is the Native American Heritage Act of 1976 which established the NAHC and protects Native American religious values on state property (see PRC Section 5097.9).

Public Notice to California Native American Indian Tribes GC Section 65092 includes California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the NAHC in the definition of “person” to whom notice of public hearings shall be sent by local governments.

Tribal Consultation Guidelines
Passed in 2004, SB 18 (Burton, D -San Francisco; codified at GC Sections 65351 and 65352) established a procedure to help tribes and jurisdictions define tribal cultural resources and sacred areas more clearly and incorporate protection of these places earlier into the General Plan and Specific Plan processes. The SB 18 process mirrors the Section 106 Review process used by archaeologists as part of the environmental review conducted under NEPA (36 CFR Part 800) While not a component of CEQA review per se, the Lead agency is required to request consultation neighboring tribes, during the initial study and EIR process (PRC 21080.3.1).

Disposition of Human Remains (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) When an initial study identifies the existence, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native American groups or individuals as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropr iate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American burials. Furthermore, HSC Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.

California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 HSC Sections 8010-8011 establish a State repatriation policy intent that is consistent with and facilitates implementation of NAGPRA. The Act strives to ensure that all California Indian human remains, and cultural items are treated with dignity and respec t. It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California. It also states the intent for the state to provide mechanisms for aiding California Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Policy OSC -P-39: Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archaeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
o Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
o Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeolog ical or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA);
176
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-35
o Requiring pre -construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity; and o Implementing appropriate measures to avo id the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
See section b) below.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
a-b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A CHRIS records search, from the SSJVIC, was conducted in February 2022 and confirmed there have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the Project area . There have been two previous cultural resource stud ies conducted within the one-half mile radius, TU-00103 and 01248. The search also confirmed the absence of identified cultural resources within the Project APE and the one-half mile radius. It is unlikely that the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts or adverse effects to any unknown cultural or historical resources, such as archaeologic al remains, artifacts or historic properties. However, in the improbable event that cultural resources are encountered during Project construction, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 outlined below, would reduce impacts to any historical or archaeological resource to less than significant.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is currently a pomegranate orchard with no structures. The Project proposes to develop a subdivision of 117 single family lots and a

2.02-acre park. There is no evidence in the record that indicates the Project has the potential to be an unknown burial site or the site of buried human re mains. In the unlikely event of such a discovery, mitigation shall be implemented. With incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-2 outlined below , impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred on the Project site would be less than significant.

Mitigation
CUL-1 Should archaeological remains or artifacts be unearthed during any stage of project activities, work in the area of discovery shall cease until the area is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If mitigation is warranted, the proj ect proponent shall abide by recommendations of the archaeologist.

CUL-2 In the event that any human remains are discovered on the Project site, the Tulare County Coroner must be notified of the discovery (California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5) and all activities in the immediate area of the find or in any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains must cease until appropriate and lawful measures have been implemented. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, but rather of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the 177
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-36
NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours to permit the NAHC to determine the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American.
178
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-37

4.6 ENERGY
Table 4-11: Energy Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?

Baseline Conditions
The subject property is composed of a pomegranate orchard spanning approximately 23 .7 acres. Typical current cultivation operations include traversing the site with all-terrain vehicles and pickup trucks, removal and replanting of orchards, and the picking of fruit.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act, enacted by Congress in 2007, is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. It expands the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil and confronting climate change. Specifically, it does the following:
• Increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Reduces United States demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent as compared to 2007 levels.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also set energy efficiency standards for lighting (specifically light bulbs) and appli ances. Development would also be required to install photosensors and energy-efficient lighting fixtures consistent with the requirements of 42 United States Code Section 17001 et seq.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Enacted in 1975, this legislation established fuel economy standards for new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States. The law placed responsibility on the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration for establishing and regularly updating vehicle standards. The United States E PA administers the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, which determines vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with existing fuel economy standards. Since the inception of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, the average fuel 179
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-38
economy for new light-duty vehicles steadily increased from 13.1 miles per gallon for the 1975 model year to 30.7 miles per gallon for the 2014 model year and is proposed to increase to 54.5 by 2025. Light -duty vehicles include autos, pickups, vans, and sport-utility vehicles.

Energy Star Program
Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program introduced by EPA to identify and promote energy -efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components suc h as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems.

Under this program, appliances that meet specifications for maximum energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star label. In 1996, the EPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now also includes certifying commercial and industrial buildings as well as homes.

Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard
The EPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Emissions requirements for new off -road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015.

State
California Energy Action Plan
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for preparing the California Energy Action Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The 2008 California Energy Action Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supp lies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs, as well as encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), the CEC and California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared and adopted a joint -agency report, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence, in 2003. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT. One of the performance -based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand. In response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports, the Governor directed the CEC to take the lead in developing a long -term plan to increase alternative fuel use.

Integrated Energy Policy Report
SB 1389 requires th e CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The CEC uses these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety. The most recent assessment, the 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report, contains two volumes. Volume I highlights the implementation of California’s innovative policies and the role they have played in establishing a clean energy economy. 180
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-39
Volume II provides more detail on several key energy policies, including decarbonizing buildings, increasing energy efficiency savings, and integrating more renewable energy into the electricity system.

Senate Bill (SB) 350
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires a doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy eff iciency and conservation by December 31, 2030.

California Renewable Portfolio Standard and Senate Bill 100 Approved by former Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 accelerates the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Assembly Bill 1493: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions AB 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost -effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” Implementation of new regulations prescribed by AB 1493 required that the state of California apply for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act. Although the EPA initially denied the waiver in 2008, EPA approved a waiver in June 2009, and in September 2009, CAR B approved amendments to its initially adopted regulations to apply the Pavley standards that reduce GHG emissions to new passenger vehicles in model years 2009 through 2016. According to CARB, implementation of the Pavley regulations is expected to reduce fuel consumption while also reducing GHG emissions.

On September 19, 2019, the EPA withdrew California’s Clean Air Act preemption waiver and issued the One National Program Rule, which prohibits states from establishing their own separate fuel economy standards or passing laws that substantially affect fuel economy standards. As a result, California may no longer promulgate and enforce its tailpipe GHG emission standard and zero emission vehicle mandate.

Energy Action Plan
In 2003, the CEC and California Public Utilities Commission set forth their energy policy vision in the Energy Action Plan (EAP). The CEC adopted an update to the EAP in February 2008 (EAP II) that supplements the earlier EAP and examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change. The nine major action areas in the EAP include energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, electricity adequacy/reliability/infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas supply/demand/infrastructure, transportation fuels supply/demand/infrastructure, research/development/demonstration, and climate change.

Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other federal, state, and local agencies. The State Alternative Fuels Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative non -petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The State Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel po rtfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
181
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-40
Bioenergy Action Plan (EO S-06-06)
EO S -06-06 establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower and directs state agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigati on. The EO establishes the following in -state production targets to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources:
• Produce 20 percent of biofuels used in California by 2010; • Produce 40 percent of biofuels used in California by 2020; and, • Produce 75 percent of biofuels used in California by 2050.

EO S-06-06 also calls for the state to meet a target for use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies potential barriers and recommends actions to address them so the state can meet its clean energy, waste reduction, and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 Plan and provides a more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:
• Increase environmentally and economically sustainable energy production from organic waste • Encourage development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications
• Create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the state • Reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste.

Title 24, California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings. The CEC established Title 24 in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new efficien t technologies and methods. In 2019, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements effective January 1, 2020. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020, must follow the 201 9 standards. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.

California Green Building Standards Code (2019), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11
California’s Green Building Code, referred to as CalGreen, was developed to provide a consistent approach to green building in the State. Having taken effect in January 2020, the most recent version of CalGreen lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce GHG emissions through improved energy efficiency and process improvements. It also includes voluntary tiers to further encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap- and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes a wide variety of goals related to energy efficiency and renewable energy that are intended to help meet the State’s 2030 target, including goals specifically targeted at the water sector. 182
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-41
Local
Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia implements the following policies that are applicable to the Project related to energy consumption:

AQ-P-16. Support State efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions through local action that will reduce motor vehicle use, support alternative forms of transportation, require energy conservation in new construction, and energy management in public buildings, in compliance with AB 32.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would comply with Building Energy Efficiency Standards included in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires new residential development to incorporate energy efficiency standards into Project designs. In addition, the Proj ect would implement the aforementioned General Plan polic y. The Project proposes the construction of residence that will comply with the energy conservation requirements of the California Building Code and will be adjacent to an existing bicycle route.

Natural gas for the Project and the surrounding area are serviced by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). The Project site does not currently have a demand for natural gas usage and the Project would represent an increase in natural gas usage. However, SoCalGas has indicated it can meet the increased demand for natural gas with its existing facilities and through engaging in Energy Efficiency programs.

Current regulations for construction equipment, heavy -duty equipment, and earthmoving equipment used i n construction contributes to reductions in energy as well as reduction in pollutant emissions.

California implemented its In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets regulations (off -road regulation) which applies to all self -propelled off -road diesel vehicles 2 5 horsepower or greater and most two -engine vehicles. The Small Off -Road Engines program was implemented by California to apply to categories of outdoor powered equipment and specialty vehicles often used in construction.

Through compliance with energy reduction standards and regulations aimed at reducing consumption of transportation related energy consumption, as well as the energy provider’s energy reduction programs, the Project will have less than significant impacts related to energy usage during Project operations and construction and its impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption overall, would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with any of the applicable plans including Title 24, AB 32, SB 32, SB 350, and SB 100, therefore the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would be less than significant.

183
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-42

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 4-12: Geology and Soils Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) 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 waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?

Baseline Conditions
Geology and Soils
Surface soils exhibit various characteristics dependent on location, slope, parent rock, climate, and drainage. The Project site currently contains Tagus loam, 0 to 2 percent slope.12

12 (United States Department of Agrculture Natural Resource Conservation Service 2022) 184
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-43
Faults and Seismicity
The Project is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults within the City of Visalia. The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 70 miles southwest of the Project site. The San Andreas fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North American and Pacific plates. The Nunez Fault is approximately 50 miles southwest and the Poso Fault is approximately 50 miles south.

Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction, which is the loss of soil strength due to seismic forces, is dependent on soil types and density, the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking. A lthough no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Tulare County or the City of Visalia, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high -water table coincide. Soil types along the Valley floor are not generally conducive to liquefaction because they are generally too co arse. Furthermore, according to the California Department of Water Resources Live Groundwater Levels map, the groundwater levels measured at a location approximately one mile to the east of the Project site was approximately 140 feet below ground surface as of October 15, 2021; this further reduces potential for liquefaction.

Soil Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over -saturation or ex tensive withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. These areas are typically composed of open -textured soils, high in silt or clay content, that become saturated. Although some areas in Tulare County have experienced subsidence due to groundwater overdraft, the City of Visalia’s elevation has remained relatively unchanged.

Soils of the Project site consist of Tagus loam, which is coarse-textured, low in clay content, and have a low shrink-swell potential. Therefore, soils onsite represent a low risk of subsidence.

Dam and Levee Failure
The nearest dam with a high likelihood of breaching is the Bravo Lake Reservoir Dam, located approximately

13.6 miles to the northeast.13
Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to geology and soils that are applicable to the Project.

State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972)
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,

13 (California Department of Water Resources 2021)
185
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-44
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 Project area. The risk of surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within a Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, as designated under the Alquist-Priolo Act.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was developed to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes.

This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. Before a development permit is granted for a site within a Seismic Hazard Zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted, and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project de sign.

Geotechnical investigations conducted within Seismic Hazard Zones must incorporate standards specified by CGS Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards.14 The purpose of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act is to ide ntify where special provisions, beyond those contained in the California Building Code (C BC), are necessary to ensure public safety. This need has not been recognized for the hazard of ground shaking.

Design provisions contained in the CBC are believed to be representative of current knowledge and capability in earthquake -resistant design. 15 No portion of County has been mapped under the Seismic Hazards Zoning Program.

California Building Standards Code
The CBC, codified in Title 24 Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), is administered by the California Building Standards Commission which by law is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The current version took effect January 1, 2020, and contains necessary California amendment s based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standards 7 -05. ASCE 7 -05 provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads as well as other loads (flood, snow, wind, etc.) for inclusion into building codes. The provisions apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California.

The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients which are used to determine a Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site and ranges from SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E/F

14 (California Department of Conservation 2008)
15 (International Code Council ICC 2019).
186
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-45
(very high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC.

California Department of Transportation
Caltrans jurisdiction includes State and interstate routes within California. Any work within the right-of-way of a federal or State transportation corridor is subject to Caltrans regulations governing allowable actions and modifications to the right-of-way. Caltrans standards incorporate the CBC and contain numerous rules and regulations to protect the public from seismic hazards such as surface fault rupture and ground shaking.

In addition, Caltrans standards require that projects be constructed to minimize potential hazards associated with cut and fill oper ations, grading, slope instability, and expansive or corrosive soils, as described in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. The southern portion of the Project site abuts SR 198, and Houston Avenue (SR 216) abuts the northern portion of the site; any work that is done within Caltrans right-of-way would be coordinated with Caltrans.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Objective S -O-1: Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
• Policy OCS-P-25: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping and construction.

City of Visalia General Plan Seismic Safety Element
The Visalia General Plan incorporates the Seismic Safety Eleme nt completed in 1974 by the Five-County Seismic Safety Committee, with participation from the Tulare Council of Governments. The Safety Element determines that ground shaking is the main potential hazard in the southern Central Valley, and the risk of ground shaking in the Visalia area is low. The Element includes a number of policies, calling for the creation of a public relations and education program to build awareness; development of an Earthquake Disaster Plan; consideration of seismic hazards in the environmental impact assessment process; and adoption and enforcement of the Uniform Building Code (since replaced by the CBC), among others.

City of Visalia Building Code
The City has adopted the 2019 CBC as the City’s building code and ordinance (Title 15: Buildings and Construction).

Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan A hazard mitigation plan is a formal document that outlays the plans to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural or manmade hazards. Visalia participates in the preparation of the Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ -LHMP) which covers the County and eleven participating cities. The latest adopted MJ-LHMP was prepared in 2018. The plan has been designed to meet four goals; (1) significantly reduce life loss and injuries, (2) minimize damage to structures and property, as well as disruption of essential services and human activities, (3) protect the environment, and (4) promote hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy. 187
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-46
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project 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.

See section ii) below.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
i-ii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. The site is not located in an Alquist -Priolo Earthq uake Fault Zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act (Section 2622 of Chapter 7.5, Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code). The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 70 miles southwest of the Project site. The Nunez Fault is approximately 50 miles southwest and the Poso Fault is approximately 50 miles south.

Construction of the proposed residential structures w ill comply with the most recent seismic standards as set forth in the California Building Standards Code. Compliance with these standards would ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, water -saturated sediments lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Tulare County and the City of Visalia , this potential is recognized throughout the San Joa quin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high -water table coincide. Using the U nited States Department of Agriculture NRCS soil survey, an analysis of the soils onsite was performed. Soils in the area consists of Tagus loam, which is well-drained and coarse-textured, representing a low risk for liquefaction or seismic- related ground failure. In addition, using California Department of Water Resources Live Groundwater Levels map, the groundwater levels measured at a location approximately one mile to the east of the Project site was approximately 140 feet below ground surface as of October 15, 2021; 16 this further reduces potential for liquefaction. Furthermore, as mentioned above in Impact Assessments -a-i and a-ii, strong seismic ground shaking is unlikely to occur. Any impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant. iv. Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides usually occur in locations with steep slopes and unstable soils. The Project is located on the Valley floor where no major geologic landforms exist, and the topography is essentially flat and level. The nearest foothills are approximately 16 miles east of the Project. Therefore, the Project site has minimal-to-no landslide susceptibility, and there will be no impact

16 (California Department of Conservation 2022)
188
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-47
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Earthmoving activities associated with the Project would include excavation, trenching, grading, and construction over an area of approximately 2 3.7 acres. These activities could expose soils to erosion processes and the extent of erosion would vary depending on slope steepness/stability, vegetation/cover, concentration of runoff, and weather conditions. Dischargers whose projects disturb one (1) or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common pl an of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Constru ction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Since the Project site has relatively flat terrain with a low potential for soil erosion and would comply with the SW RCB requirements, the impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral sp reading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
See section d) below.
d) 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? c and d) Less than Significant Impact. Soils of the Project site consist of Tagus loam, which is coarse - textured, low in clay content, and well-drained. Tagus loam has a low shrink -swell potential and a low plasticity index, and therefore, is not considered expa nsive soils. Furthermore, the aforementioned physical properties of these soils make subsidence, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or other ground failure unlikely. Any impacts would be considered less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapabl e of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic installation or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not necessary for the Project. The Project would be required to connect to the City of Visalia’s wastewater system located in the Project site’s Ferguson Avenue frontage. There would be no impact. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological re source or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. No known paleontological resources have been identified at the Project site. However, if a paleontological resource is found incorporation of mitigation measure GEO- 1 would reduce impacts to less than significant. In addition, the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe identified concerns about the damage to tribal and cultural resources that could be uncovered during Project construction. The implementation of mitigation measures TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 would ensure that any potential impacts to uncovered tribal and cultural resources are lessened to a less than 189
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-48
significant level. TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR -3 are discussed in further detail in Section 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.

Mitigation
GEO-1 Should paleontological resources be encountered on the Project site, all ground disturbing activities in the ar ea shall stop. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the discovery. Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon co mpletion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Visalia for review, and (if paleontological materials are recovered) a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. 190
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-49

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4-13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?

Baseline Conditions
The subject property is composed of a pomegranate orchard spanning approximately 23.7 acres. Typical current cultivation operations include traversing the site with all-terrain vehicles and pickup trucks, removal and replanting of orchards, and the picking of fruit.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Section 202 GHG Regulation of Cars and Light Duty Trucks This rule was proposed jointly by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to create a national program of GHG emission standards and Corp orate Average Fuel Economy standards. The standards apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The standards are designed to achieve a national vehicle fleet whose emissions and fuel economy performance improves year after year. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions by 960 million metric tons and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of vehicles sold in model years 2012 through 2016.17 The final rule was signed on April 1, 2010, and became effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

Greenhouse Gas Findings (2009)
In the United States Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), 12 states, three cities, and 13 environmental groups filed suit that the EPA should be required to regulate carbon dioxide and other GHG as pollutants under the Federal Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the United States Supreme Court found that the EPA has a statutory authority to formulate standards and regulations to address GHG, which it historically has not done. On December 7, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator finalized two findings to be effective January 14, 2010. The findings are related to GHG under section 202(a)

17 (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2010) 191
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-50
of the Clean Air Act. These finding s do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities.
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well -mixed greenhouse gases —carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well - mixed GHG from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.18 EO 13154 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued EO 13154, which instructs federal agencies to set or achieve various emissions reduction and energy and environmental benchmarks by 2015, 2020, and 2030. The order requires agencies to set GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020 within 90 days and requires Office of Management and Budget to set a federal government target for 2020 within 120 days. The order also sets out required reductions in vehicle fleet petroleum use and requires increases in water a nd energy efficiency and in recycling and waste diversion rates. The order also mandates adoption of certain contract and procurement practices designed to promote energy and water efficiency and environmentally preferable products.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 declared it to be United States policy to establish a reserve of up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum and established nationwide fuel economy standards in order to conserve oil. Pursuant to this Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, part of the DOT is responsible for revising existing fuel economy standards and establishing new vehicle fuel economy standards.

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program was established to determine vehicle manufacturer compliance with the government’s fuel economy standards. Compliance with CAFE standards is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. The CAFE values are a weighted harmonic average of the EPA city and highway fuel economy test results. Based on information generated under the CAFE program, the DOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance.

CAFE rules require the average fuel economy of all vehicles of a given class that a manufacturer sells in each model year to be equal or greater than the standard. CAFE standards apply to passenger cars and light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less). Heavy -duty vehicles (i.e. gross vehicle weight over 8,500 pounds) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. The EPCA was reauthorized in 2000 (49 CFR 533). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 revised CAFE standards for the first time in 30 years, followed quickly by Section 202 GHG Regulation of Cars and Light Duty Trucks, which calls for further revision of the CAFE standards. Both of those regulations are described above.

18 (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2009) 192
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-51
Energy Policy Acts of 1992, 2005, etc. (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) wa s 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 also included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions would be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. The Act also requires states to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes updated provisions for renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Global Change Research Act (1990)
The purpose of the legislation was: “…to require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the c umulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions towards international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes.” To that end, the Global Change Research Information Office was establ ished in 1991 (it began formal operation in 1993) to serve as a clearinghouse of information. The Act requires a report to Congress every four years on the environmental, economic, health and safety consequences of climate change; however, the first and on ly one of these reports to-date, the National Assessment on Climate Change, was not published until 2000. In February 2004, operational responsibility for Global Change Research Program shifted to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

State
There are a variety of statewide rules and regulations which have been implemented or are in development in California which mandate the quantification or reduction of GHGs. Under CEQA, an analysis and mitigation of emissions of GHGs and climate change in relation to a Project is required where it has been determined that a project would result in a significant addition of GHGs. Certain APCDs have proposed their own levels of significance. The SJVAPCD, which has regulatory authority over the air emissions from this project, has not established a significance threshold.

California Air Resources Board
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, the CCAA, adopted in 1988. CARB was created in 1967 from the mer ging of the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board and the Bureau of Air Sanitation and its Laboratory.

The CARB has primary responsibility in California to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NA AQS established by the EPA. Whereas the 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 ju risdiction. The 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 the CARB, and attainment plans adopted by APCDs and AQMDs and approved by CARB.
193
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-52
States may establish their own standards, provided the state standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established the CAAQS pursuant to HSC Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes.

HSC Section 39608 requires that CARB “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 t o 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-per-year reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive three -year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progr ess is developed. In addition, air districts in violation of CAAQS are required to prepare an Air Quality Attainment Plan that lays out a program to attain and maintain the CCAA mandates.

Other duties of CARB include monitoring air quality, which has estab lished and maintains, in conjunction with local APCDs and AQMDs, and S tate or Local Air Monitoring Stations network, which monitor the present pollutant levels in the ambient air.

California Attorney General
The Attorney General has a special role in prote cting the environment and public health in California. By law, the Attorney General has independent authority, acting directly in the name of the People, "to act to protect the natural resources of the State of California from pollution, impairment, or des truction." The Attorney General plays a leading role in the oversight and enforcement of CEQA and the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). The Attorney General also prosecutes civil and criminal violations of environmental laws in the name of the People of the State of California and on behalf of client agencies.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix F: Energy Conservation
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines describes the types of information and analyses related to energy conservation that are to be included in the EIR process. Energy conservation is described in terms of decreasing per capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. To assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, EIRs must include a discussion of the potentially significant energy impacts of Projects (to the extent relevant and applicable to the Project), with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

EO S-3-05: EO S-3-05 was established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2006.

EO S-3-05 establishes statewide emission reduction targets through the year 2050:
• by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

This EO does not include any specific requirements that pertain to the Project. However, actions taken by the State to implement these goals may affect the Project, depending on the specific implementation measures that are developed.
194
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-53
Senate Bill 1368: Senate Bill 1368 (SB 1368) was enacted in 2006 and required the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a CO 2 emissions standard for base load generation owned by or under long-term contract with publicly owned utilities. The CPUC established a GHG Emissio ns Performance Standard (EPS) of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. SB 1368 also requires the posting of notices of public deliberations by publicly owned companies on the CPUC website and establishes a process to determine compliance with the EPS. The Project, as a renewable energy generation facility, is determined by rule to comply with the GHG Emission Performance Standard requirements of SB 1368.

Assembly Bill 32: California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32, codified at HSC 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 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced t o 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction would be accomplished by enforcing a statewide cap on GHG emissions that would be phased in starting in 2012. 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; i nstitute 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 econom ically 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 incr ease emissions. Under AB 32, CARB was required to adopt regulations by January 1, 2011, to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the 1990 emission cap by 2020. In 2019, CARB disclosed that emissions in 2017 were 7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e) below the State 2020 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 community strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that would prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, would provide 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 would be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPOs SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets.

This law also extends the minimum time period for the regional housing nee ds 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 p lan (and associated SCS or APS). However, new provisions of CEQA would incentivize (through streamlining and other provisions) qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS or APS, categorized as "transit priority projects."
195
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-54
Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory: Consistent with SB 97, on June 19, 2008, Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released its Technical Advisory on CEQA and Climate Change, which was developed in cooperation with the Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and CARB. The Technical Advisory offers the informal interim guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents, until CEQA guidelines are developed pursuant to SB 97 on how state and local agencies should analyze, and when necessary, mitigate GHG.

According to OPR, lead agencies should determine whether GHG may be generated by a Project, and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by type and source. Second, the lead agency must assess whether those emissions are individually or cumulatively significant. When assessing whether a project’s effects on climate change are “cumulatively significant” even though project specific GHG contribution may be individually limited, the lead agency must consider the impact of the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Finally, if the lead agency determines that the GHG emissions from the project as prop osed are potentially significant, it must investigate and implement ways to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate the impacts of those emissions.

On April 13, 2009, OPR sent proposed amendments of the CEQA Guidelines to the Secretary of the Resources Agenc y for promulgation. The proposed amendments contain Model Policies for GHGs in General Plan. OPR recommended changes to fourteen sections of the existing guidelines, including: the determination of significance as well as thresholds; statements of overridi ng consideration; mitigation; cumulative impacts; and specific streamlining approaches. The proposed Guidelines also include an explicit requirement that EIRs analyze GHG emissions resulting from a project when the incremental contribution of those emissio ns may be significant. OPR adopted new amendments in 2018; however, these amendments to the CEQA Guidelines apply prospectively only.

California Energy Code: Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations , called the California Energy Code, includes standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction, as well as retrofitting existing buildings. Since its establishment in 1977, the building efficiency standards (along with standards for energy efficiency in appliances) , which regulate energy consumed in buildings for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting , have contributed to a reduction in electricity and natural gas consumption in California. The standards are updated every three years to allow new energy efficien cy technologies to be considered. The latest update to Title 24 standards became effective January 1, 2020.

California Green Code: CalGreen, the nation’s first Green Building Standards Code, became effective in August 2009 for voluntary compliance and local adoption, and became effective for mandatory compliance on January 1, 2011. This Code establishes minimum standards for new construction that are intended to help the State achieve the AB 32 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 level s by 2020. In addition to energy efficiency standards, CalGreen includes mandatory measures for water conservation, storm water drainage and retention, material conservation, and construction waste reduction. The requirements for nonresidential construction also include parking, landscaping, and other standards. Local jurisdictions have the option of adopting procedures by ordinance to improve the level of construction beyond the CalGreen minimum standard.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Objective AQ-O-3: Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change in accord with federal and State law.
196
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-55
• Policy AQ-P-12: Support the implementation of Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (the District) for individual development projects that may exceed District significance thresholds.
• Policy AQ-P-16: Support State efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions through local action that will reduce motor vehicle use, support alternative forms of transportation, require energy conservation in new construction, and energy management in public buildings, in compliance with AB 32.
• Policy AQ-P-17: Prepare and adopt a Climate Action Plan that incorporates a GHG Emissions Reduction Plan. The GHG Emissions Reduction Plan will quantify current and anticipated future emissions and focus on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of General Plan implementation on climate change and air quality.

Visalia Climate Action Plan
The City ’s CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory of municipal and community emissions, identification and analysis of existing and proposed GHG reduction measures, and reduction targets to help Visalia work toward the States goal of an 80 percent reduction below baseline emissions by 2050. The plan sets 2020 and 2030 reduction targets, and includes reduction actions for energy, transportation, and waste and resource conservation. The CAP includes targets and action steps for th e municipal and community sectors. The CAP has been prepared concurrently with the proposed General Plan (GP), is evaluated in this EIR together with the proposed GP and includes objectives and specific policies from the proposed GP to address long-term emissions reduction efforts by the City.

Visalia’s Climate Change Initiatives
In January 2007, City’s mayor signed the “Cool Cities” pledge, part of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. By entering into this agreement, the City originally adopted the goal of reducing citywide GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. As detailed in the CAP, this goal was subsequently expanded in response to CARBs recommended reduction target of 15% below the 2005 baseline, and the City added a 2030 mitigation target to correlate with the 2030 GP Update and the goal of achieving an 80% reduction by 2050.

In 2008, the City also became a partner with the San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization (SJVCEO), which is a non-profit serving the eight-county region. This partnership led to the development of the Valley Innovative Energy Watch, which is a partnership with Southern California Edison (SCE), SoCalGas, Pacific Gas & Electric, SJVCEO, and other public jurisdictions in Tulare and Kings Counties. One major task in this initiative was assisting each of the local government partners to develop comprehensive clean energy/GHG reduction plans, including the identification of baseline GHG emissions and energy use.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would generate 1,770 MTCO2e/yr using an operational year of 2005, which includes area, energy, mobile, waste, and water sources. “Business as usual” (BAU) is referenced in CARBs AB 32 Scoping Plan as emissions projected to occur in 2020 if the a verage baseline emissions during the 2002-2004 period grew to 2020 levels, without control or BPS offsets. As a result, an estimate of the Project s operational emissions in 2005 were compared to operational emissions in 197
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-56
2024 in order to determine if the Project meets the 29% emission reduction. The SJVAPCD has reviewed relevant scientific information related to GHG emissions and has determined that they are not able to determine a specific quantitative level of GHG emissions increase, above which a project would have a significant impact on the environment, and below which would have an insignificant impact. As a result, the SJVAPCD has determined that projects achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

Results of the analysis show GHG emissions in the year 2020 as 1,467 MTCO2e/yr. This represents an achievement of 17% GHG emission reduction on the basis of BAU, which does not meet the 29% GHG emission reduction target. However, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) allows lead agencies to consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts.

On December 5, 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 7,000 MTCO 2e/yr for GHG emissions.

Though the Project is not within the SCAQMD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Based on the assessment above, the Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. To assist lead agencies, project proponents, permit applicants, and interested parties in assessing and reducing the impacts of project-specific GHG on global climate change, the SJVAPCD has adopted the guidance: Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the policy: District Policy – Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. The guidance and policy rely on the use of performance-based standards, otherwise known as BPS to assess significance of project-specific greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change during the environmental review process, as required by CEQA. Use of BPS is a method of streamlining the CEQA process of determining significance and is not a required emission reduction measure. Projects implementing BPS would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact. Otherwise, demonstration of a 29 percent reduction in GHG emissions, from BAU, is required to determi ne that a project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact.

The Project incorporates a recreational park that will encourage biking, jogging, and walking and provide neighboring residential neighborhoods with direct access to its facilities. The types of facilities incorporated into the Project coincide with the pedestrian infrastructure -based mitigation measures included in the SJVAPCDs Mitigation Measures document. Those measures include providing pedestrian enhancing infrastructure that includes sidewalks and pedestrian paths and direct pedestrian connections.

The City’s 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 resu lts 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 CAP identifies existing and proposed community measures desig ned to reduce GHG emissions. The Project incorporates the following identified existing and proposed community measures assisting the City achieve its 2020 15% and 2030 30% reduction goals:
198
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-57
Expansion of bicycle paths, lanes, and trails: Based on the assessment above, the Project would further the achievement of the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals and would not conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. The Project would result in the installation of bike lanes along the Project’s Ferguson Avenue frontage This street currently contains a bike lane along its south side, while the north lane is a shared roadway. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.

199
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-58

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 4-14 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?

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?

Baseline Conditions
Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the loca tion of hazardous materials release sites. GC Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC's EnviroStor database provides DTSC's component of Cortese List data (DTSC, 2010). In 200
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-59
addition to the Enviro Stor database, the State Water Resource s Control Board (SWRCB) Geotracker database provides information on regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) cases and non -UST cleanup programs, including Spills -Leaks-Investigations-Cleanups sites, Department of Defense sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor19 database and the SWRCB Geotracker20 performed on February 14, 2022 determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site or immediate surrounding vicinity.

Airports
The Project site is located approximately 3.75 miles northeast of the Visalia Municipal Airport. The Project would not be located within an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

Emergency Response Plan
The City of Visalia has an Emergency Operations Plan that was adopted in 2011. 21 The plan lays out the planned procedures that the City would follow in the event of an emergency. The proposed Project would not conflict with the City of Visalia’s Emergency Operations Plan.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive Receptors are groups that would be more affected by air, noise, and light pollution, pes ticides, and other toxic chemicals than others. This includes infants, children under 16, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. High concentrations of these groups would include, daycares, residential areas, hospitals, elder care facilities, schools and parks. Because the Project site is located within an urbanized setting, there would be sensitive receptor areas near the site. These include the single -family residences surrounding the Project site, Oak Grove El ementary School to the southwest, Manuel F Hernandez Elementary School to the southeast, and Soroptimist Park to the southwest.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration published standard 1910.120, addressing dangers that hazardous materials pose in the workplace. The standard requires that employers evaluate the potential health hazard that hazardous materials pose in the workplace and communicate information concerning hazards and appropriate protective measures to employees.

State
Department of Toxic Substances Control
The EPA has delegated much of its regulatory authority to the individual states. The DTSC of Ca lEPA enforces hazardous materials and waste regulations in California in conjunction with the EPA. The DTSC is

19 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor 2022) 20 (State of California Water Resources Control Board - Geotracker 2022) 21 (City of Visalia 2011)
201
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-60
responsible for regulating the management of hazardous substances , including remediation of sites contaminated by hazardous substances. California hazardous materials laws incorporate federal standards but are often more strict than federal laws.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The RWQCB is authorized by the SWRCB to enforce provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. This act gives the RWQCB authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of groundwater or surface waters of the state are threatened and to remediate the site, if necessary.

State Underground Storage Tank Program
State laws also regulate Underground Storage Tanks ( USTs) and Above ground Storage Tanks (ASTs) containing hazardous substances. These laws are primarily found in the Health and Safety Code, and, combined with CCR Title 23, establish the requirements of the State UST program. The laws contain requirements for UST permittin g, construction, installation, leak detection monitoring, repairs and corrective actions and closures. In accordance with State laws, the County Department of Health Services Environmental Health Division implements UST and AST regulations in County.

Hazardous Materials Worker Safety Requirements
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) are the agencies responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. The federal regulations pertaining to worker safety are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29 (29 CFR) as authorized in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. They provide standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to hazardous materials handling. In California, Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations; Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations.

The State regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace are included in Title 8 of the CCR, and contain requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA also enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain worker safety training and hazard information requirements, such as proc edures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information relating to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to protect workers and employees at hazardous waste sites.

Local
Tulare County Environmental Health Division
In Visalia, the Tulare County Environmental Health Services Division (TCEH SD) is the local agency responsible for the implementation of the State-mandated Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (MJLHMP). County has prepared a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and the aforementioned MJLHMP, which serves as the County’s emergency response plan for hazardous materials emergency incidents. In addition, the TCEHSD acts as lead agency to ensure proper remediation of leaking underground petroleum storage tank sites and certain other contaminated sites.

TCEHSD provides three permanent Household Hazardous Waste drop-off facilities in the County including one in Visalia and operates mobile collection events throughout the year. These services are available free of charge to any County resident.
202
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-61
City of Visalia and Tulare County Fire Departments
The Visalia Fire Department (VFD) provides fire and life safety services for residents located within the city limits while the County Fire Department provides additional services for unincorporated areas of County.

VFD staffs five paramedic engine companies, one truck company and a Battalion Chief daily, from six fire station locations. The engines and truck companies are staffed with three personnel, giving the VFD a daily minimum staffing of 19 .22 All stations are staffed with a paramedic at all times. The City requires all new development and subdivisions to meet or exceed California Fire Code provisions, and the City’s Fire Department reviews development applications during the plan check process.

The VFD also provides oversight of hazardous materials. The VFD is responsible for conducting inspections for code compliance and fire -safe p ractices, and for scene management and investigation of fire and hazardous materials incidents. According to Chapter 8.32 (Hazardous Materials) of the Visalia Municipal Code, an emergency situation created by a hazardous material release which poses an imminent risk to the life, health or safety of persons, property, or to the environment shall be mitigated in the manner prescribed and pursuant to the direction of the VFD. The VFD regulates explosive and hazardous materials under the California Fire Code, and permits the handling, storage and use of any explosive or other hazardous material. The City hosts “Dump-On-Us” events four times a year for city residents to drop off residential hazardous waste. Accepted items include small appliances, ce ll phones, fencing material, air conditioning/ heating units, tires, scrap metal, mattresses, yard waste, and other types of waste.

Waste Disposal Regulations
The disposal of contaminated soil is regulated by the RWQCB, in this case the Central Valley Region, and is regulated based on the concentrations of chemical constituents that are present. Soils having concentrations of contaminants higher than certain acceptable levels must be handled and disposed as hazardous waste when excavated. CCR Title 22, Se ction 66261.20-24 contains technical descriptions of characteristics that would cause a soil to be classified as a hazardous waste.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
See section b) below.
b) 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 t he environment?
a and b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Potential impacts during construction of the Project could occur from potential spillage of fuels and lubricants associated with construction equipment. These potential impacts would be temporary in nature and would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, as well as the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Project operations would consist of consumer grade pesticides, fertilizers, and petroleum -based fuels. However, these potentially

22 (City of Visalia 2012)
203
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-62
hazardous materials would not be of a type or occur in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would minimize hazards associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, compliance with applicable laws and regulations would lower any potential impacts from foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would handle construction related hazardous materials in the form of fuels and solvents during construction of the Project within a quarter mile of Oak Grove Elementary School and Manuel F Hernandez Elementary School. Through the use of BMPs, any potential spillage of these materials would be limited to a less than significant level. During operation, the site would handle consumer grade pesticides, fertilizers, and petroleum-based fuels in quantities that would not be high enough to create a significant impact for the public or the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, according to the Envirostor and Geotracker databases mentioned above in Section 4.9.1. As a result, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment due to the Project being located on an existing hazardous material site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
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? No Impact. The Project site is not located within an ALUCP, nor is it located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, there would be no impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. While construction would result in truck deliveries, hauling of materials, and construction crews, improvement plans and any work completed in existing roadways would be required to be approved by the City Engineer before they could occur. Streets within the subdivision have been designed to City specifications and have adequate site access for emergency vehicles. The Project does not generate an amount of traffic that warrants analysis of congestion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
204
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-63
No Impact. The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. As discussed more thoroughly in Section 4.20, the Project site is not located in an area that has been designated as being a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or as being a very high fire hazard severity zone. The Project site would be annexed to the City of Visalia as a part of the Project and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. The refore, there would be no impact.
205
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-64

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 4-15: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?

Baseline Conditions
The climate in Tulare County can be classified as Mediterranean with average rainfall rates of 14.9 inches annually, occurring primarily between November and March.23 Hydrology in the Project area is associated with the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, containing three main subbasins. The Tulare Lake subbasin is in the northern alluvial fan and basin subarea characterized by southwest to south flowing rivers, creeks, and

23 (bestplaces.net 2022)
206
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-65
irrigation canal systems that convey water from the Sierra Nevada to the west toward the Tulare Lake Bed.

The southern portion of the basin is internally drained by the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern Rivers. 24 The Tulare Lake Basin comprises the drainage area of the San Joaquin Valley south of the San Joaquin River and is essentially a closed basin because surface water drains north into the San Joaquin River only in years of extreme rainfall. The Project site consists of irrigated farmland served by groundwater.

The 23 .7-acre Project site is currently served by an existing groundwater well used for farming pomegranates. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, crops in California has been surveyed to use an average of 2.9 acre-feet per acre,25 or a total of 67 acre-feet annually on the Project site, specifically.

The City of Visalia’s water is managed by the California Water Service Visalia District. Groundwater is the sole source of water supply for the Visalia District. Groundwater used by Visalia is extracted from the underlying Kaweah and Tule Subbasins. The Project site itself is located within the Greate r Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s boundary.26
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Federal Clean Water Act
The CWA, described in more detail in Section 4.4.2, requires the EPA to develop, publish, and periodically update ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health. In 1980, the EPA published water quality criteria for 64 pollutants and pollutant classes and considered non -cancer, cancer, and taste and odor effects. Over the years, these criteria have evolved and have included additional pollutants and pollutant classes.

During the last decade, policy has shifted from a program -by-program, source-by-source, pollutant-by- pollutant approach to more watershed-based strategies. Ultimately, these criteria are used by states for establishing water quality standards under Section 303 (c) of the CWA and provide a basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Regulations The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program to control discharges of pollutants from point sources (CWA 402), as discussed in Section 4.4.2. The 1987 amendments to CWA created a new section of CWA devoted to stormwater permitting (CWA 402[p]). The EPA has granted California primacy in administering and enforcing the provisions of CWA and the NPDES permit program , which is the primary federal program that regulates point -source and nonpoint -source discharges to waters of the United States. SWRCB issues bot h general and individual permits for certain activities. Relevant general and individual NPDES permits are discussed below.

Phase II MS4 Permit
The SWRCB, in response to the EPA, issued Water Quality Order No. 2013-001-DWQ NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004, Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate

24 (California Department of Water Resources 2006)
25 (United States Department of Agriculture 2017)
26 (Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2022) 207
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-66
Storm Systems (MS4s) in February 2013 which went into effect July 2013. The MS4 Permit requires urban municipalities with predetermined inclusion reequipments to file an application and comply with prescriptive tasks over the 5-year permit term. The prescriptive tasks include, but are not limited to, public outreach and involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control, post- construction storm water management, municipality facility and operation good housekeeping, water quality monitoring, and municipality assessment and reporting.

Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit
A Construction NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit (CGP), Water Quality Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) is required for dischargers or projects who disturb one acre or more of soil or whose project disturbs less than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one acre or more. This CGP was adopted in September 2009 and went into effect July 2010.

The CGP requires the development of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) which include the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list /describe BMPs the discharger would use to prevent polluted stormwater runoff and show the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “non -visible” pollutants, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Attachment B of the CGP describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP. Additional PRD requirements are described in Attachments C-E in the CGP.

General Dewatering Permit
Small amounts of construction -related dewatering are covered under the CGP. Large amounts of dewatering, particularly over lengthy periods of time would be required to comply with the General Dewatering Permit. Project-related dewatering is likely to be limited in nature and scope and would likely be covered under the CGP. However, some projects may result in larger amount s of dewatering than covered under the CGP and a Low Threat Discharge and Dewatering Permit would need to be obtained from the Central Valley RWQCB.

State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969
The Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and divided the state into nine regional basins, each with a RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary state agency responsible for protecting the quality of the States surface and groundwater supplies, while the regional boards are responsible for developing and enforcing water quality objectives and implementation plans. The Project would be within the jurisdiction of Central Valley RWQCB.

The act authorizes the SWRCB to enact State policies regarding water quality in accordance with the CWA Section 303. In addition, the act authorizes the SWRCB to issue WDRs for projects that would discharge to state waters. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires that the SWRCB or the Central Valley RWQCB adopt water quality control plans (basin plans) for the protection of water quality. A basin plan must:
• Identify beneficial uses of water to be protected;
208
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-67
• Establish water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of the beneficial uses; and • Establish a program of implementation for achieving the water quality objectives.

Basin plans also provide the technical basis for determining waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. Basin plans are updated and reviewed every 3 years in accordance with Art icle 3 of Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act and CWA 303(c) (Central Valley RWQCB 2004 with approved amendments).

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In September 2014, the California Legislature enacted a three -bill law (A B 1739, SB 1168, and S B 1319), known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA was created to provide a framework for the sustainable management of groundwater supplie s and intended to empower local agencies to adopt groundwater management plans that are tailor ed to the resources and needs of their communities, such that sustainable management would provide a buffer against drought and climate change, and ensure reliable water supplies regardless of weather patterns. SGMA is considered part of the statewide, comprehensive California Water Action Plan that includes water conservation, water recycling, expanded water storage, safe drinking water, and wetlands and watershed restoration. It protects existing surface water and groundwater rights and does not affect current drought response measures.27 The Project site is located with the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

Local
Visalia Urban Water Management Plan
California Water Service Company 28 Visalia District 2020 UWMP evaluates water demand and potential supply based on projected population and urban area growth. Water Code Section 10644(a) requires urban water suppliers to file UWMPs with the DWR, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water suppl ies. The UWMP describes the water system, system demands, system supplies, water supply reliability and water shortage contingency planning, and demand management measures.

City of Visalia General Plan
• Objective OSC -O-6: Protect water resources vital to th e health of the community residents and important to the Planning Area’s ecological and economic stability.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Surface runoff from the subdivision would be accommodated by the existing retention basin maintained by the City southwest of the Project site, located at the southeast corner of Linwood Street and Houston Avenue. The Project would connect to the CalWater water supply system.

27 (State of California Department of Water Resources 2022) 28 (California Water Services 2022)
209
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-68
The existing groundwater well will be destroyed in accordance with state and local regulations. Water quality for domestic/potable use is controlled by the C ity itself pursuant to State water quality regulations. It is not anticipated that the Project would degrade either surface- or ground-water quality.

In addition, the Project would be required to complete a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction of the subdivision. Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact b) 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?
Less than Significant Impact. . Cal Water delivers local groundwater and operates 59 wells across the Visalia service area, which would include the Project site once annexed into the City. According to the Visalia District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), in 2020, the total system demand was 30,152 AF.29. In 2020, single family uses used 19,359 AF, which accounted for 64 percent of the total water used.

The UWMP projected water demands for potable and non-potable water. Projected water demand from 2025 through 2045 are shown in Table 4-16.

29 (California Water Service 2021)
210
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-69
Table 4-16: Use for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Projected Use for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Projected
Use Type Additional Description
(as needed)
Projected Water Use (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Family 20,815 22,593 24,604 26,513 28,705
Multi-Family 1,583 1,686 1,815 1,945 2,070
Commercial 5,634 6,009 6,448 6,891 7,364
Institutional/Governmental 2,854 3,152 3,483 3,819 4,164 Industrial 308 308 308 308 308
Other Potable 223 223 223 223 223
Landscape (b) 0 0 0 0 0
Losses (c) 1,102 1,304 1,429 1,559 1,695
Total 32,520 35,276 38,310 41,258 44,529
NOTES:
(a) District’s billing system does not track this use type separate from other use types (b) Real and apparent losses
Source: (California Water Service 2021)
The Project consists of 117 dwelling units and the average household size in Visalia is 2.99; therefore, the Project would house approximately 350 people.30 , According to the UWMP, the amount of groundwater pumped during the year 2020 was 30,152 AF or 26.9 MGD. Therefore, the Project would result in an estimated water demand of 108,186 gallons per day (350 people x 219 gallons/day = 76,650 gallons/day) or 85.9 acre-feet per year).

Although the Project would utilize groundwater for domestic purposes, the amount of water use is not considered significant and would not significantly lower the groundwater table of the aquifer or interfere substantially with the recharge of the underground aquifer.

The Project would pay its fair share of installation of improvements and pay all development fees related to water service. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, Cal Water provided a “Will Serve” letter, dated March 22, 2022, stating that they will provide water service to the Project. Impacts would be less than significant. c) 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:

30 (California Water Service 2021)
211
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-70
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; See section iv.
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
See section iv.
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; See section iv.
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
c-i-iv) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in some soil erosion and the loss of topsoil due to Project related construction activities. The drainage pattern of the new subdivision would be altered to flow to the existing stormwater basin maintained by the City southwest of the Project site, located at the southeast corner of Linwood Street and Houston Avenue . Through the completion of a SWPPP and the implementation of the applicable best management practices, any potential impacts from the altering of drainage patterns would be limited to less than significant. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundations?
Less than Significant Impact. There are no streams or rivers onsite or in the immediate vicinity of the Project. The nearest 100-year flood zone is 1,019 feet from the site. In order to minimize erosion and run-off during construction activities, a SWPPP would be implemented, and the contractor would comply with all Cal/OSHA regulations regar ding regular maintenance and inspection of equipment, spill prevention, and spill remediation in order to reduce the potential for incidental release of pollutants or hazardous substances onsite. There is no potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Any impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is within the Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s boundary, whose Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) was adopted in January 2020. As the Project would not result in a significant decrease in groundwater compared to baseline conditions, and would follow the policies of the GSP, the Project would not conflict with or obstruction implementation of the GSP. Impacts would be less than significant impact.

212
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-71

Figure 4-2: FEMA Map
213
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-72

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 4-17: Land Use and Planning Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?

Baseline Conditions
The Project site is currently a pomegranate orchard. The Project site is surrounded by two subdivisions to the north and south; and residential properties to the east and west . The City of Visalia General Plan designates the Project site as Low Density Residential and Parks and Recreation . General Plan land use designations and Zone Districts of the Project site and surrounding areas are illustrated in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal land use regulations that apply to the Project.

State
There are no State land use regulations that apply to the Project.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Policy LU-P-20: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.

City of Visalia Municipal Code
The purpose and intent of the R-1-5 (Single-family residential zone- 5,000 square foot minimum site area) zone is to provide an area within the City where development is limited to low density concentrations of single-family dwellings where regulations are designed to accomplish the following: to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life; to provide space for community facilities needed to compliment urban residential areas and for institutions that require a residential environment; to minimize traffic congestion and to avoid an overload of utilities designed to service only low density residential use.

214
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-73
The purpose and intent of the QP (Quasi-public) zone is to allow for the location of institutional, academic, community service, governmental, and nonprofit uses. According to Municipal Code section 17.52.020, “Permitted uses in this zone include public uses of an administrative, recreational, public service or cultural type including city, county, state or federal administrative centers and courts, libraries, museums, art galleries, police and fire stations and other public building, structures and faciliti es; public playgrounds, parks and community centers.”31
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact. The Project involves the subdivision and development of 117 single-family residential lots adjacent to two existing residential subdivision s in northwest Visalia. The Project will create an extension of existing residential housing in a manner that would encourage unification and expansion of an established community. The site of the proposed subdivision is currently a pomegranate orchard located adjacent to existing residential subdivisions. Development of the site into a residential subdivision would reduce commuter obstacles by expanding roads and sidewalks. Implementation of the Project would provide additional housing and an expansion of services. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community, and the impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not confli ct with or cause a signif icant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project is proposing to subdivide and develop 117 single family low density residential units and a neighborhood park within the approximately 23.7-acre Project area. As illustrated in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5, the City of Visalia General Plan Update land use diagram designates th e Project site as Low Density Residential and Parks and Recreation32. The Project will not conflict with any City of Visalia General Plan policies , therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation since it would be consistent with land use designation standards. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.

31 (American Legal Publishing Legal Code Library 2022)
32(City of Visalia 2014). Figure 2-2, Land Use Diagram. 215
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-74

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Table 4-18: Mineral Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?

Baseline Conditions
Visalia is part of the Central Valley region one of several geomorphic provinces in California . The most economically significant mineral resources in Tulare County are sand, gravel, and crushed stone, used as sources for aggregate (road materials and othe r construction). The two major sources of aggregate are alluvial deposits (riverbeds, and floodplains), and hard rock quarries. Consequently, most Tulare County mines are located along rivers at the base of the Sierra foothills. Surface mining in Californi a is regulated through the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), a State law adopted in 1975 to address the dual goals of protecting the state’s need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, while protecting public and environmental health. SMAR A requires that all cities incorporate into their general plans mapped mineral resource designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board. The Visalia Planning Area contains three former sand and gravel mines, but no currently operating mines and no designated Mineral Resource Zones.33
Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the Project.

State
There are no State regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the Project.

33 (Calfornia Department of Conservation 2022)
216
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-75
Impact Analysis
a) 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?
No Impact. According to the City of Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, the City of Visalia Planning Area, including the Project site, does not contain land designated as mineral resource zone. Additionally, there are no active mining operations. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) 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? No Impact. As discussed above in Impact “a”, there are no active mining operations or lands designated as a mineral resource zone in the City of Visalia’s Planning Area, therefore the Project would not 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. There would be no impact. 217
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-76

4.13 NOISE
Table 4-19: Noise Impacts
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 ground borne
vibration or ground borne 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?

Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located in an area that has historically been used for agricultural purposes, substantially surrounded by urban uses on all sides. Single family residences area located on all sides, with some remaining agricultural land to the east. In addition, Oak Grove Elementary School (400 feet southwest) and Manuel F Hernandez Elementary School (1,200 feet southeast) are located nearby. The nearest intersection to the Project site is the intersection of North Demaree Street and West Ferguson Avenue. West Ferguson Avenue is an existing collector roadway, and North Demaree Street is an existing arterial roadway as designated by the City of Visalia General Plan Circulation Element.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with noise that are applicable to the Project.

State
State of California General Plan Guidelines
The State of California General Plan Guidelines (OPR 2003) identify guidelines for the noise elements of local GPs, including a sound level/land use compatibility chart that categorizes, by land use, outdoor Ldn ranges in up to four categories (normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable). For many land uses, the chart shows overlapping Ldn ranges for two or more compatibility categories. The noise element guideline chart identifies the normally acceptable range of Ldn values for low-density residential uses as less than 60 dB and the conditionally acceptable range as 55–70 218
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-77
dB. The normally acceptable range for high-density residential uses is identified as Ldn values below 65 dB, and the conditionally acceptable range is identified as 60–70 dB. For educational and medical facilities, Ldn values below 70 dB are considered normally acceptable, and Ldn values of 60 –70 dB is considered conditionally acceptable. For office and commercial land uses, Ldn values bel ow 70 dB are considered normally acceptable, and Ldn values of 67.5–77.5 are categorized as conditionally acceptable. When noise levels are in the conditionally acceptable range new construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the no ise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation requirements are included in the design. These overlapping Ldn ranges are intended to indicate that local conditions (existing sound levels and community attitudes toward dominant sound sources) should be considered in evaluating land use compatibility at specific locations.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The current Noise Element of the City’s GP establishes goals and policies intended to limit community exposure to excessive noise levels. Visalia’s current GP identifies noise sources such as roadways, rails, and airports within the city and includes land use compatibility guidelines. In addition, Implementation Policy

2.2 states that an acoustical analysis may be required if existing or pro jected future noise exposure at the exterior of buildings which would contain noise sensitive uses or within proposed outdoor activity areas exceeds 65 dB, Ldn, or I interior noise levels resulting from offsite noise are estimated to exceed 45 dBA.

Noise Ordinance
Section 8.36 of the City’s Municipal Code contains the City’s noise ordinance, which establishes exterior and interior noise level standards. Exterior and interior noise levels may not exceed any of the categorical noise level standards shown in Table 4-20:

Table 4-20: City of Visalia - Noise Level Standards
City of Visalia’s Noise Level Standards
Categories Cumulative number of minutes
in any one-hour time period
Evening and daytime (6:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.)
Exterior Levels
1 30 50 45
2 15 55 50
3 5 60 55
4 1 65 60
5 0 70 65
Interior Levels
1 5 45 35
2 1 50 40
3 0 55 45
Impact Analysis
a) 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The construction for the Project will create a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of the standards established in the local general plan, 219
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-78
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies for approximately 21 months . The construction required for the completion of this Project would temporarily increase noise levels above what is allowed by the City’s Noise Ordinance (Table 4-20); however, construction related activities are allowed between 6 am – 7 pm during the week and between 9 am – 7 pm on the weekends. Construction related noise would be temporary and would cease upon completion of the Project. Additionally, the Project involves the construction of six-foot high retaining wall and landscape wall around the subdivision, this will further create a noise buffer between existing residences in surrounding neighborhoods and the construction of the homes, as well as provide a buffer for traffic noise. The Project site is currently has varying levels of noise due to agricultural equipment historically being utilized on -site and traffic on W Ferguson Avenue. In addition, according to the inverse square law, noise diminishes from its source by six dBA with each doubling of distance from origin. As a result, any noise generated from the Project site would have a diminished effect when heard from people in the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact . Construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Construction and agricultural activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perce ptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels from construction would be temporary in nature and further buffered from surrounding residences by the subdivision wall and la ndscape wall. In addition, vibration levels subside with increased distance from the source, diminishing the effect the Project would have. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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? No Impact. The Project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan.

The nearest airport or airstrip to the Project site Visalia Municipal Airport approximately 3.75 miles southwest of the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact. 220
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-79

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 4-21: Population and Housing Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
Sample, 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?

Baseline Conditions
The existing site does not contain any residential dwelling units and is currently a pomegranate orchard. A residential subdivision lies immediately to the south and north of t he Project site. There are residential homes to the west, and agricultural land to the east. According to the California Department of Finance , the City has an estimated population of 139,254 in 2021. In 2021, there were 49,257 housing units, of which 20 percent were multifamily units and 80 percent were single -family units. Approximately 5.9 percent of these units were vacant.34
According to 2020 U.S. Census data, the City’s population was 141,384. As of 2015 -2019, there was an average of 43,250 households with an average 3.02 persons per house. 35 Applicable Regulations
There are no federal, State, or local regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with population or housing that are applicable to the Project.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for Sample, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would result in the development of 117 lot single-family residential subdivision on approximately 2 3.7 acres of undeveloped agricultural land. The Project will build new local streets which will provide street connectivity to the residential neighborhood

34 (State of California Department of Finance 2022)
35 (United States Census Bureau 2022)
221
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-80
directly to the north , build new homes, and connect to the City’s public utility infrastructure located adjacent to the Project site . The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation .

Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project site is located on approximately 23.7 acres of land historically used for agriculture.

It is currently planted with trees, there is no housing located on the site and the Project would not displace any existing people or housing. The Project is proposing to develop new a new residential subdivision on-site. Furthermore, there would be no impact.

222
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-81

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Table 4-22: Public Services
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located on the north side of West Ferguson Avenue between North Demaree and North Linwood Streets. It is a 23.7 acre pomegranate orchard property. The Project site is served by City of Visalia, Fire Station 55, Visalia Unified School District, and the Visalia Police Substation District 1.

Fire Protection : The City of Visalia, Fire Station 55 , located 1.9 miles west of the Project, provides fire suppression and prevention, emergency and non-emergency medical services.

Police Protection : The Visalia Police Substation District 1 , located 3.2 miles southeast of the Project site, provides 24-hour policing services within the city limits.

Schools: The Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) serves the project site. Oak Grove Elementary School is located approximately 0.17 miles southwest of the Project.

Parks: The City has 23 neighborhood parks located throughout the city. Soroptimist Park is the closest park to the Project site located 0.25 miles southwest of the Project. The park includes picnic tables, barbeque stations, a playground, a basketball court, multi-purpose field, and an open play area.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines that are applicable to the Project. 223
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-82
State
State Open Space Standards
State planning law (Government Code Section 65560) provides a structure for the preservation of open space by requiring every city and county in the state to prepare, adopt, and submit to the Secretary of Resources Agency a “local open -space plan for the comprehensive and lo ng-range preservation and conservation of open -space land within its jurisdiction.” This is commonly achieved by incorporating an “Open Space” Element as part of the City and County long range GPs. The following open space categories are identified by the State for preservation:
• Open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to, areas that require special management or regulation due to hazardous or special conditions. • Open space for the preservation of natural resources, including, bu t not limited to, natural vegetation, fish and wildlife, and water resources.
• Open space for resource management and production, including, but not limited to, agricultural and mineral resources, forests, rangeland, and areas required for the recharge of g roundwater basins.
• Open space for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited to, parks and recreational facilities, areas that serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations (such as trails, easements, and scenic roadways), and areas of outstanding scenic and cultural value. • Open space for the protection of Native American sites, including, but not limited to, places, features, and objects of historical, cultural, or sacred significance such as Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located on public property (further defined in California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993).

Local
City of Visalia General Plan: Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities The Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities Element of the City’s GP was last comprehensively updated in 2014. Regarding parks and recreation, the element presents City’s policies and programs for the development and maintenance of parks, schools, and other fundamental building blocks for new neighborhoods to be built over the next two decades. The Element objectives and goals pertaining to public services are as follows:

Fire:
• Policy S-O-4: Protect Visalia’s residents and businesses from potential fire hazards. • Policy S-P-22: Manage vegetation in areas within and adjacent to public rights-of-way and in close proximity to critical facilities in order to reduce the risk of tree failure and property damage and avoid creation of wind acceleration corridors within vegetated areas. • Policy S-P-27: Implement a fuel modification program, which also includes residential maintenance requirements and enforcement, plan submittal and approval process, guidelines for planting, and a listing of undesirable plant species. Require builders and developers to submit their plans, complete with proposed fuel modification zones, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning construction.
224
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-83
• Policy S-P-29: Ensure availability of adequate water supplies to meet public health and safety needs, and for resource protection, by maintaining the following order of priority for water use:
• Potable water supply, fire protection, and domestic use • Resource protection and preservation
• Industrial, irrigation and commercial uses
• Water-oriented or water-enhanced recreation
• Air conditioning.

Police:
• Policy S-O-5: Provide a comprehensive program of safety services including police, fire and medical response in all parts of the Visalia Planning Area.
• Policy S-P-30: Integrate the Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan, in particular the hazard analysis and mitigation strategy sections, into the development review process, the emergency operations plan, and capital improvement program, as appropriate.

Parks:
• Policy PSCU-O-1: Design parks and recreation facilities that will enhance community identity and serve the recreat ion and social needs of Visalians of all ages, economic situations and physical abilities.
• Policy PSCU-O-2: Continue to develop and expand special recreation amenities and programs for teens, senior citizens, and ethnic populations.
• Policy PSCU-O-6: Maximize opportunities for joint use of public land and facilities involving schools, stormwater ponding basins and other areas under public jurisdiction suitable for recreation. • Policy PSCU -P-25: Encourage cooperative agreements with the City and the Kaweah Wat er Conservation District, levee districts, irrigation companies, school district, College of the Sequoias, Southern California Edison Company and other public agencies and utilities to explo re innovative recreation open space facilities throughout the Visalia planning area. • Policy PSCU -P-2: Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents.
• Policy PSCU-P-3: Reserve land and develop parks and public open spaces and recreation fac ilities consistent with designated Parks and Open Space land on the Land Use Diagram. • Policy PSCU-P-13: Design parks to enhance neighborhood character and minimize negative impacts. • Locate neighborhood parks with local or collector street frontages on at least three sides, and sidewalks and crossings designed for safe and easy pedestrian access. • Where a neighborhood park is part of a neighborhood node, it should be designed to promote visual connections and pedestrian movement between the park and adjacent uses such as schools and commercial uses.
• Policy PSCU-P-23: Promote innovative park design that responds to neighborhood needs and user groups.
• Policy PSCU-P-24: Provide shade in parks by using arbors and other landscaping techniques. • Policy PSCU-P-46: Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks, 225
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-84
streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance requirements. The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
• Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping; • Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of cool-season turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks);
• Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; • Requiring automatic irri gation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weather-based or other self-adjusting technology;
• Promoting the use of recycled water; and
• Minimizing overspray and runoff.
• Policy PSCU-P-47: Implement a program of irrigation water use analyses, irrigation surveys, irrigation audits or similar techniques using available technology to evaluate water use in existing City parks and landscape areas, and undertake improvements to reduce water use t o a level that does not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance as calculated under the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance under Policy CO-P-3.

Other Public Facilities:
• Policy PSCU-P-59: Require new developments to incorporate flood water detention b asins into project designs where consistent with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater Recharge Plan.
• Policy PSCU-P-60: Control urban and stormwater runoff, and point and non -point discharge of pollutants. As part of the City’s Stormwater Manageme nt Program, adopt and implement a Stormwater Management Ordinance to minimize stormwater runoff rates and volumes, control water pollution, and maximize groundwater recharge. New development will be required to include Low Impact Development features that reduce impermeable surface areas and increase infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
• Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
• Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
• Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
• Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
• On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration; and
• Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.
226
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-85
City of Visalia Fire Department Plan Check and Hydrant Ordinance Visalia’s requirements for new construction include provisions for the fire department to review building and site plans prior to the issuance of any permit. The fire department ensures that the Project would be adequately served by water and accessible to emergency vehicles. The VFD also enforces the City’s Hydrant Ordinance, which states that subdividers are responsible for the installation of water mains and hydrants, and determines the minimum spacing for fire hydrants. Street dimensions are scrutinized to ensure that space would be preserved for ladder trucks to be stabilized and for emergency vehicles to turn around.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection:

Less than Significant Impact. New construction projects are required to submit building and site plans for Fire Department review prior to the issuance of any permit. The Fire Department would ensure that the Project would be adequately served. Fire Department review would also include requirements for new fire hydrants and provide specifications for required fire flows. The Fire Department currently has an average response time of 5 minutes and 37 seconds, and the closest service station is 1.9 miles west of the Project. Subject to Fire Department r eview and with incorporation of the fire related conditions, the Project will have a less than significant impact on fire service facilities and will not warrant the need for new or physically altered fire facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios a nd meet performance objectives.
ii. Police Protection:

Less than Significant Impact. The closest existing City of Visalia Police Substation, District 1, is located at 204 NW Third Street, approximately 3.2 miles southeast of the Project site. The Visalia Police Department does not establish service standards either in terms of officers per thousand residents or in incident response time. While the Project may result in the need for additional police staff, the police facility is adequate in size to support a dditional officers, and within a distance that would allow the Department to maintain acceptable response times. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact on police facilities and will not warrant the need for new or physically altere d police facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios and meet performance objectives. iii. Schools:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be served by VUSD. The Nearest Schools are summarized in the table below:

Table 4-23: School Distance from Project Site
School Grades Address Distance from Project
Oak Grove Elementary School K-8 4445 W Ferguson Avenue 0.23 mi SW Manuel F. Hernandez
Elementary
K-6 2133 N Leila Street 0.43 mi SE
Mt. Whitney High School 9-12 900 S Conyer St 3.4 mi SE
Redwood High School 9-12 1001 W Main St 2.9 mi SE
227
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-86
iv. Parks:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site would be served by the City of Visalia Parks which offers 23 neighborhood parks located throughout the city. Soroptimist Park is the closest park to the Project site located 0.25 miles southwest of the Project, and Woodland Park is 1.3 miles southeast of the site.

Additionally, the Project proposes a 2.02-acre Neighborhood Park. The city’s General Plan proposes a 5.1 acres per 1,000 residents, the construction of the Project would include a 2.02-acre park and would maintain the current ratio of 5.1. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. v. Other public facilities:

Less than Significant Impact. Other public facilities include the Tulare County Superior Court -Visalia Courthouse, libraries, and hospitals. Though the Project may necessitate some increased maintena nce for these public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the Project would not 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 other performance objective s for other public facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
228
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-87

4.16 RECREATION
Table 4-24: Recreation Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

Baseline Conditions
Visalia classifies parks and public open space into five general categories. Facilities at each park type vary according to size. Most neighborhood parks have picnic tables, play equipment, and drinking fountains.

Community and regional parks have these am enities as well as a combination of sports fields/courts, barbecue areas, parking, restrooms and facilities for other types of recreation. Parks are classified as follows:
• Pocket Park: A park typically between one -half acre and two acres in size intended to serve the needs of a specific neighborhood within a half-mile radius. • Neighborhood Park: A park typically two to five acres in size that provides basic recreation activities for one or more neighborhoods. The service area ranges from a half -mile to a o ne-mile radius.

These parks may include facilities such as children’s playgrounds, picnic tables, benches, and walkways. Many neighborhood parks are planned adjacent to new schools, and actual neighborhood park sizes may be as large as 10 acres depending on neighborhood size and need. • Community Park: A park typically ranging from 5 to 12 acres in size or larger, depending on the needs of the quadrant. Community parks are intended to serve the recreational needs of a larger area of the city, and particularly those residents living or working within a two -mile radius. These parks may include facilities such as sport fields, exercise courses, recreation buildings, and restrooms. Other facilities may include community centers, swimming pools, tennis courts, and concession stands.
• Large City Park: A park generally larger than 40 acres in size intended to serve the recreational needs of all city residents and to create opportunities for contact with the natural environment.

These parks may include a concentration of sports fields, golf courses, and areas for picnicking and passive enjoyment of open space. The proposed Project would fall into this category. • Natural Corridors and Greenways: A network of greenways of varying size intended to serve the recreational needs of city residents. These parks may include facilities such as bikeways, walkways, and riding trails, and are primarily developed along the city’s waterways. Mill Creek and Packwood passing through the Project site fall into this category. 229
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-88
Currently, Visalia has 37 parks dispersed throughout the City. Four community parks (Fairview Village Park, Recreation Park, Seven Oaks Park, and Whitendale Park) provide a fuller range of community amenities or are co-located with community centers and range from approximately 9 to 14 acres. Three larger facilities, Mooney’s Grove Park (County), Plaza Park and Riverway Sports Park, are located at the periphery. The St.

John’s Trail (St. John’s Riverway) forms much of the northern edge of the City. Altogether, there are 678 acres of parkland within the City. Tulare County’s Cutler Park provides another 50 acres just outside of the City; this acreage is not counted as park acreage for the City of Visalia.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to recreation that apply to the Project.

State
State Open Space Standards
State planning law (GC Section 65560) provides a structure for the preservation of open space by requiring every city and county in the state to prepare, adopt, and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency a “local open -space plan for the comprehensive and long -range preservation and conservation of open - space land within its jurisdiction.” The following open space categories are identified for preservation:
• Open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to, areas that require special management or regulation due to hazardous or special conditions. • Open space for the preservation of natural resources, including, but not limited to, nat ural vegetation, fish and wildlife, and water resources.
• Open space for resource management and production, including, but not limited to, agricultural and mineral resources, forests, rangeland, and areas required for the recharge of groundwater basins.
• Open space for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited to, parks and recreational facilities, areas that serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations (such as trails, easements, and scenic roadways), and areas of outstanding scenic and cultural value. • Open space for the protection of Native American sites, including, but not limited to, places, features, and objects of historical, cultural, or sacred significance such as Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located on public property (further defined in PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993).

Quimby Act
The 1975 Quimby Act (GC Section 66477) authorizes cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The Act states that the dedication requirement of parkland can be a minimum of three acres per thousand residents or more and up to five acres per thousand residents if the e xisting ratio is greater than the minimum standard. Revenues generated through in -lieu fees collected and the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. In 1982, the Act was substantially amended. The amendments further defined acceptable uses of , or restrictions on Quimby funds, provided acreage/ population standards and formulas for determining the exaction, and indicated that the exactions must be closely tied (i.e. via nexus) to project impacts as identified through studies required by CEQA. 230
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-89
Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities Element of Visalia’s GP was last comprehensively updated in 2014. Regarding parks and recreation, the element presents Visalia’s policies and programs for the development and maintenance of parks, schools, and other fundamental building blocks for new neighborhoods to be built over the next two decades. The Element objectives and goals pertaining to recreation are as follows:
• Policy PSCU-O-1: Design parks and recreation facilities that will enhance community identity and serve the recreation and social needs of Visalians of all ages, economic situations and physical abilities.
• Policy PSCU-O-2: Continue to develop and expand special recreation amenities and programs for teens, senior citizens, and ethnic populations.
• Policy PSCU-O-6: Maximize opportunities for joint use of public land and facilities involving schools, stormwater ponding basins and other areas under public jurisdiction suitable for recreation. • Policy PSCU -P-25: Encourage cooperative agreements with the City and the Kaweah Water Conservation District, levee districts, irrigation companies, school district, College of the Sequoias, Southern California Edison Company and other public agencies and utilities to explo re innovative recreation open space facilities throughout the Visalia planning area. • Policy PSCU -P-2: Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents.
• Policy PSCU-P-3: Reserve land and develop parks and public open spaces and recreation facilities consistent with designated Parks and Open Space land on the Land Use Diagram. • Policy PSCU-P-13: Design parks to enhance neighborhood character and minimize negative impacts. • Locate neighborhood parks with local or collector street frontages on at least three sides, and sidewalks and crossings designed for safe and easy pedestrian access. • Where a neighborhood park is part of a neighborhood node, i t should be designed to promote visual connections and pedestrian movement between the park and adjacent uses such as schools and commercial uses.
• Policy PSCU-P-23: Promote innovative park design that responds to neighborhood needs and user groups.
• Policy PSCU-P-24: Provide shade in parks by using arbors and other landscaping techniques. • Policy PSCU-P-46: Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks, streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance requirements. The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
• Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping; • Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of cool-season turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks);
• Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; • Requiring automatic irrigation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weather-based or other self-adjusting technology;
231
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-90
• Promoting the use of recycled water; and
• Minimizing overspray and runoff.
• Policy PSCU-P-47: Implement a program of irrigation water use analyses, irrigation surveys, irrigation audits or similar techniques using available technology to evaluate water use in existing City parks and landscape areas, and undertake improvements to reduce water use t o a level that does not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance as calculated under the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance under Policy CO-P-3.

Impact Analysis
a) 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? Less than Significant Impact. The Project is located within two miles from an existing public community park and a regional park, Fairview Village Park and Riverway Sports Park, respectively . Additionally, the Project w ould include the development and dedication of public open spaces in the form of a Neighborhood Park, which will be located within the project and constructed with development.

Currently, the Project site is active farmland, and it is not used as park space. The Project would include park space by constructing a 2.02-acre neighborhood park. According to the City of Visalia General Plan, a goal for the City is to have a neighborhood park within a quarter -mile walk for every residence. 36 The inclusion of a Neighborhood Park would assist in satisfying that goal. Residents in the vicinity of the Project site could utilize the proposed park. The City’s park space goal is to have five acres of park space per 1,000 residents. As noted in the General Plan, the current ratio is 5.1 acres per 1,000 residents. The Project-proposed 2.02-acre park would maintain the current ratio of 5.1. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site currently consists of irrigated farmland. The Project would include the development and dedication of public open spaces in the form of a Neighborhood Park, which is proposed to be constructed with development. No off -site park space is required to be constructed.

Impacts related to the construction of the Neighborhood Park is included in the physical impacts evaluated as part of the Project. In addition to construction of park fa cilities, the Project may also be responsible for the payment of in -lieu fees for park land dedication/reservation. Therefore, impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant.

36 (City of Visalia 2014)
232
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-91

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Table 4-25: Transportation Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site would be located on an approximately 23 .7-acre pomegranate orchard along West Ferguson Avenue, approximately 750 feet west of the West Ferguson Avenue and North Demaree Street intersection. West Ferguson Avenue is an existing collector roadway, and North Demaree Street is an existing arterial roadway as designated by the City of Visalia General P lan Circulation Element. Arterial streets in Visalia are designed to transition traffic from freeways and expressways to smaller collector streets, and vice versa. State Routes (SR) in and within the immediate vicinity of the City of Visalia include SR 63, 99, 198, and 216. The Project’s Ferguson Avenue frontage contains a bicycle route.

Thresholds
The City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Thresholds provide details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a propo sed land use project is anticipated to result in a less -than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed VMT analysis. 37 Screening thresholds include:

1. Residential and office projects within a Transit Priority Area

2. Locally serving retail projects up to 50,000 square feet

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

4. 100 percent affordable housing projects

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

37 (LSA Associates 2021)
233
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-92
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Project would not be in conflict with the standards and goals set forth in the City of Visalia General Plan Circulation Element. The Project is required to submit improvement plans, including roadway improvements, for review and approval by the City Engineer to ensure improvements will be consistent with City standards. Therefore. there would be no impact.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the addition of 117 new homes to the City of Visalia, resulting in an increase of population for the City. A rise in population for the area would result in an increased amount of VMT being produced from a rise in population. The City of Visalia has identified the area as being located within a Low VMT -generating area as illustrated on the site plan map in Appendix F: Site Plan.38 As a result, the Project meets one of the five screening thr esholds identified in Section 4.17.2 above. These screening thresholds limits the Project’s impacts relating to VMT generation to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) 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)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. The Project would result in one point of access along West Ferguson Avenue and would result in a connection to North Fontana Street and the existing neighborhood to the north of the Project site. Roadway design and width would be required to be approved by the City Engineer before construction could commence. Compliance with all applicable safety standards would be required and confirmed during the review of improvement plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access as it proposes two points of access and provides for future connectivity to the property to the east . While the construction for the Project would result in truck deliveries, hauling of materials, and construction crews, improvement plans and any work completed in existing roadways would be required to be approved by the City Engineer before they could occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

38 (LSA Associates 2021)
234
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-93

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-26: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) 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 the 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 Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Baseline Conditions
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013 -14) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it would undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notif ication to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement would be made.

The City of Visalia, as the public lead agency, received a letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (AB 52) officially requesting notification of Projects within the Santa Rosa Rancheria’s geographic area of traditional and cultural affiliation. 235
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-94
Records Search
A records search from the SSJVIC of CHRIS, located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in February 2022. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built - environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical La ndmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the above referenced APE and an additional ½ mile radius. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. (Appendix C).

Additional sources included the State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.

Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013-14) Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013 -14) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it would undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturall y affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement would be made.

Native American Outreach
The NAHC in Sacramento was also contacted in February 2022. They were provided with a brief description of the Project and a map showing its location and requested that the NAHC perform a search of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediate APE. The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among many other powers and duties.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resou rce, 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 the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed for the project area and t he results were negative for the presence of Native American tribal cultural resources. A records search from CHRIS at SSJVIC also confirmed that t here are 236
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-95
no recorded cultural or historical resources within the project area. Additionally, there are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or the one-mile radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Re gister of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks. Less than significant impacts, with mitigation incorporated, to tribal resources are expected. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, described above in Section 4.5, as well as TCR-1 and TCR-2 are recommended in the event tribal cultural materials or human remains are unearthed during excavation or construction. 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 Res ources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Visalia, as the public lead agency, received a letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (AB 52) officially requesting notification of Projects within the Santa Rosa Ranche ria’s geographic area of traditional and cultural affiliation. On March 18, 2022, the City sent the Tribe a formal letter including a Project description. In accordance with the law, the letter provided 30 days from receipt of the letter to request consul tation in writing. One request for tribal consultation was made for the Project. The requests from the Tribe have been incorporated into this document as mitigation measures TCR-1, TCR- 2, and TCR -3. Implementation of TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR -3 mitigation measures outlined below will reduce any impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources will be less than significant.

In addition, although there is little chance the Project would cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2, described in Section 4.5 is recommended in the event cultural materials or human remains are unearthed during excavation or construction.

Mitigation
TCR-1 (Tribal Cultural Resource Presentation): Due to Tribal history and knowledge of the project area, the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe has concerns and is requesting to be retained for a cultural presentation to all construction staff of the Project, prior to start of construction activities.

TCR-2 (Tribal Cultural Monitoring): An approved Tribal Monitor or representative appointed by the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe shall be retained to be on site to monitor during all project -related ground-disturbing construction activities within the Cultural APE (i.e., grading, excavation, etc.).

TCR-3 (Curation of Archaeological Collections): A curation agreement shall be entered into with the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe . Materials and documents would be professionally curated as outlined in the agreement and made available to other archaeologists or researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, to a n appropriate curation facility as outlined in agreement with Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, to be accompanied by payment. 237
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-96

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 4-27: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 could
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 which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?

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?

Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located on the north side of West Ferguson Avenue, between North Demaree and North Linwood Streets in the City of Visalia.

Wastewater
The City of Visalia’s existing sanitary sewer system consists of over 468 miles of gravity-flow sanitary sewer pipe ranging in size from four to 48 inches, with 12 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition connected lift stations. The system currently serves most developed areas of the city limits. The Visalia Department o f Public Works develops and maintains the sewer systems. The City of Visalia typically utilizes a wastewater generation factor of 100 to 125 gallons per day per capita. The nearest sewer main is located in the Project’s Ferguson Avenue frontage.

Solid Waste
Solid waste disposal is provided to the City by the Tulare County Resource Management Agency, which operates the Visalia Landfill approximately 5.4 miles northwest of the Project. The facility is located at 8614 Avenue 328 in Visalia and serves the cities of Visalia, Farmersville, Dinuba, Exeter, Tulare, Woodlake, 238
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-97
Fresno, and unincorporated areas of northern Tulare and southern Fresno Counties. The a pproximate amount of waste disposed at Visalia in 2003 was estimated to be 120,000 tons. 39 This landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, a maximum permitted capacity of 18,630,666 cubic yards, and a remaining capacity of 16,145,59 1 cubic yards. The Visalia Landfill is expected to cease operation in January of 2024. 40 Solid waste collection is provided by the City and recyclable material processing is provided to the City by Sunset Waste Systems.

Electricity
Power is provided to the City by SCE. SCE is a subsidiary of Edison International and provides electricity to over 15 million Californians. It is one of the largest electric utilities in the nation, and the nation’s single largest purchaser of renewable power. The electrical facilities network includes both overhead and underground lines, with new development required to install underground service lines.

Natural Gas
Natural gas service in the City is provided by the SoCalGas.

Communications
There are three major c ompanies that provide communications services in Visalia: AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon. Comcast is the primary cable television and internet provider.

Water Service Company
The California Water Service Company Visalia district (Cal Water) is the primary water purveyor in the City of Visalia. The nearest water main is located adjacent to the Project’s Ferguson Avenue frontage.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Clean Water Act
The CWA was enacted by Congress in 1972 and has been amended several times since its adop tion. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the U.S. and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribes the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants and sets minimum water quality standards for all surface waters in the United States. At the federal level, the CWA is administered by the EPA. The EPA published fi nal regulations regarding stormwater discharges on November 16, 1990. The regulations require that MS4 discharges to surface waters to be regulated by a NPDES permit. At the State and regional levels, the CWA is administered and enforced by the SWRCB and the RWQCBs.

39 (Tulare County 2010)
40 (City of Visalia 2014)
239
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-98
Municipal Urban (Area-wide) Storm-Water Discharges
A MS4 systems defined by the EPA must obtain an NPDES permit by a certain date according to the population served by the system. Operators the stormwater system must submit an NPDES permit application and supporting information to the respective RWQCB. The CWA provides for delegating certain responsibilities for water-quality control and planning to the states. California has been authorized by the EPA to administer and enforce portions of the CWA, including the NPDES program. Section 208 of the CWA is designated to provide a comprehensive planning framework for both point- and non-point-source water pollution. Specific planning requirements include, but are not limited, to the following:
• Identification of needed treatment works to meet anticipated requirements over a 20-year period; • Identification of construction priorities for the region; and Procedures and methods to control non -point-source pollution emanating from agriculture, mining, a nd other sources. Most owners or operators of facilities that discharge waste into a municipal sanitary sewer system need to obtain an NPDES permit. The EPA, the SWRCB, and the respective RWQCB or the local wastewater management agency might require some industries to treat industrial hazardous wastes before such wastes are discharged to a municipal sanitary sewer system. The local wastewater management agency advises industries of those requirements.

State
State Water Resources Control Board – Waste Discharge Requirements Program State regulations pertaining to the treatment, storage, processing, or disposal of solid waste are found in Title 27, CCR, Section 20005 et seq. (hereafter Title 27). In general, the W aste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Program (sometimes also referred to as the “Non Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program”) regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g. sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The scope of the WDR Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to Section 202 30 of Title 27 41. Several programs are administered under the WDR Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs.

Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is the State agency designated to oversee, manage, and track wastes generated in California. In 2015, statewide disposal was 33.2 million tons of solid waste . CalRecycle develops laws and regu lations to control and manage waste, for which enforcement authority is typically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.

The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC 40000, et seq.) or AB 939, administered by CalRecycle, requires all local and county governments to adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to identify means of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills. This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.

41 (State of California Water Resources Control Board 2022) 240
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-99
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
As authorized by the CWA, the NPDES Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into water of the United States. In California, it is the responsibility of SWRCB and RWQCBs to preserve and enhance the quality of the States waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of WDR. WDRs for discharges to surface waters also serve as NPDES permits.42 NPDES permits also regulate the requirements of the MS4 discharges to surface waters.

Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit
A CGP for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity CGP, Water Quality Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) is required for dischargers or projects who disturb one acre or more of soil or whose project disturbs less than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one acre or more. The SWRCB established the CGP program to reduce surface water impacts from construction activities. This CGP was adopted in September 2009 and went into effect July 2010.

The CGP requires the development of PRDs which include the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and aft er construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list /describe BMPs the discharger would use to prevent polluted stormwater runoff and show the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Attachment B of the CGP describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP. Additional PRD requirements are described in Attachments C-E in the CGP.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
The primary responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the SWRCB and nine RWQCB. The SWRCB sets statewide policy for the implementation of state and federal laws and regulations. The RWQCBs adopt and implement Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) which recognize regional differences in natural water quality, actual and potential benefi cial uses, and water quality problems associated with human activities.

The City is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB in an area identified as the Tulare Lake Basin, which comprises the drainage area of the San Joaquin Valley sout h of the San Joaquin River.

According to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, the basin consists of approximately

10.5 million acres, and includes the metropolitan areas of Bakersfield, Fresno, Porterville, Hanford, Tulare, and Visalia.43 The Regional Board has set water quality objectives for both surface and ground water, which it achieves through an implementation plan. The RWQCB efforts emphasize the importance of controlling toxic discharges and address ground water salinity, which is identified as the greatest long -term problem facing the basin.44
The Regional Board identifies the elimination of groundwater overdraft as an important tool to use to combat the increasing salinity of the basin, as continued overdraft would deplete goo d quality water

42 (State of California Water Resources Control Board 2022) 43 (State of California Water Boards - Central Valley Region 5 2022) 44 Ibid.
241
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-100
supplies and introduce salts from poorer quality aquifers. Groundwater recharge is recommended as a major mechanism to prevent further groundwater overdraft.45 Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Objective PSCU -O-14: Provide for long -range c ommunity water needs by adopting best management practices for water use, conservation, groundwater recharge and wastewater and stormwater management.
• Objective PSCU-O-15: Preserve groundwater resources.
• Policy PSCU-P-47: Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance’s requirements. The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
o Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping;
o Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of cool -season turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks);
o Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; o Requiring automatic irrigation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weather-based or other self-adjusting technology;
o Promoting the use of recycled water; and
o Minimizing overspray and runoff.

City of Visalia Municipal Code
• City of Visalia Water Conservation Ordinance
The City’s Water Conservation Ordinance was adopted in 1989 and can be found in Chapter 13.20 of the Municipal Code. The Ordinance sets regulations to minimize outdoor water use and reduce unnecessary consumption of potable water. It defines and places restriction on wasteful uses of water and establishes water conservati on alert stages to be enacted during periods of water shortage.
• The Visalia Municipal Code contains regulations related to solid waste and recycling in Chapter 8.28. The City, in order to promote and protect the public and refuse worker health and safety and to reduce the danger and hazards of fires and conflagrations, reserves unto itself the exclusive right and power to collect, transport, and dispose of, or to authorize, regulate, permit and control said collections, transportation and disposition of a ll refuse and rubble produced or found within the corporate limits of said city.
• The Visalia Municipal Code contains regulations related to solid waste and recycling in Chapter 8.29. The purpose of this chapter is to increase the recycling and reuse of construction and demolition debris, consistent with the goals of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.

45 Ibid.
242
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-101
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or s torm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The Project is surrounded by urban and developed areas of the City.

Therefore, the Project would connect to existing water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure within the City, located in the Project’s Ferguson Avenue frontage . CalWater has provided a Will Serve letter stating they would have adequate water supplies to serve the Project. Therefore, the Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. Additionally, the Project would be served by the existing wastewater treatment provider and would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities. The Project would connect to existing natural gas, and existing power lines in the project vicinity. Natural gas and electricity connections would be coordinated with SoCalGas. Therefore, the Projec t would not require the relocation or construction of new water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. The Project area is not located in an adjudicated subbasin, and the 2020 UWMP indicates that CalWater has no issue meeting demands of this project or future projects during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will be connecting to existing City sanitary sewer lines, consistent with the City Sewer Master Plan. The Visalia wastewater treatment plant has a current rated capacity of 22 million gallons per day, but currently treats an average daily maximum month flow of 12.5 million gallons per day. The City has adequate wastewater capacity to serve the Project in addition to its existing commitments, therefore the Project will have a less than significant impact on wastewater capacity. d) 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? Less than Significant Impact. The Visalia Landfill approximately 5.4 miles northwest of the Project, is the primary landfill serving the area. The facility is located at 8614 Avenue 328 in Visalia and serves the cities of Visalia, Farmersville, Dinuba, Exeter, Tulare, Woodlake, Fresno, and unincorporated areas of northern Tulare and southern Fresno Counties. The approximate amount of waste disposed at Visalia in 2003 was estimated to be 120,000 tons. This landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, a maximum permitted capacity of 18,630,666 cubic yards, and a remaining capacity of 16,145,591 cubic yards. The Visalia Landfill is expected to cease operation in January of 2024. A typical residence disposes of approximately 10 pounds of solid waste each day. The 117 residences proposed by the Project would generate approximately 694 cubic yard of waste per year Assuming the current maximum daily throughput of solid waste were committed to the landfill each day through its closure date, the Project’s incremental contribution of 6,941 cubic yards of solid waste would not result in the need for new or 243
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-102
physically alt ered landfill facilities to meet service objectives, and thus there would be a less than significant impact.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will be required to comply with all regulations applicable to solid waste generation for residential projects. In order for the Project to comply with local regulations, the Project would be provided with basic container service. Each property owner will receive a container for solid waste, green waste, and recyclable materials. Impacts will be less than significant.

244
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-103

4.20 WILDFIRE
Table 4-28: Wildfire Impacts
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 uncontrollable spread of 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?

Baseline Conditions
The Project site would be located in an area that is not designated as being a very high fire hazard severity zone by CalFire’s California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. 46 The Project site is also not located in an area that has been designated as a n SRA by the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s State Responsibility Area Viewer.47 The site is considered a local responsibility area and is served by City of Visalia Fire Stations. The nearest fire stations to the Project site are the City of Visalia Fire Station 55, approximately

1.63 miles to the northwest, and the City of Visalia Fire Station 54, approximately 2.25 miles to the east of the Project site. The Project site is relatively flat and is considerably surrounded by urban uses.

46 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) 2022) 47 (California Department of Forestry and Fire 2021)
245
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-104
Impact Analysis
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
See Section d below for analysis.
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, 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?
See Section d below for analysis.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, 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 Section d below for analysis.
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, 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? No Impact. The Project would not be located within an area that has been designated as a very-high fire hazard severity zone, nor has it been designated as an SRA. The nearest designated SRA is located approximately 12 miles northeast, northwest of Woodlake. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 23.5 miles northeast near Three Rivers. Therefore, there would be no impact.

246
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-105

4.21 CEQA MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Table 4-29: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) 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) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?

Statement of Findings
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 wil dlife 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigated Incorporated . The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the Project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geological and tribal cultural resources from the implementation of the proposed Project will be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed in this analysis. Accordingly, the proposed Project will involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction in the habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or example of a major period 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 considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
247
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 4-106
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) States that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a proj ect is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. The proposed Project would include an annexation, prezone and subdivision for purposes of allowing the development of a new residential subdivision and associated infrastructure to connect the subdivisions to the Cit y of Visalia. The Project site was anticipated for urbanization with the development of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures and basic regulatory requirements incorporated into Project design.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study results in a determination that the Project would have a less than a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
248
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 5-1
CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION,

MONITORING, AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Project in the City of Visalia. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project and identifi es monitoring and reporting requirements.

Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program presents the mitigation measures identified for the Project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, AIR-2 would be the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND.

The first column of Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program identifies the mitigat ion measure. The second column, entitled “When Monitoring is to Occur,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Frequency of Monitoring,” identifies the frequency of the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The f ourth column, “Agency Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last columns will be used by the Lead and Responsible Agencies to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored.
249
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 5-2
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure
When
Monitoring is to
Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
AGR-1 AGR-1 Prior to development, the Williamson
Act Contract shall be cancelled and applicable
cancellation fees shall be paid to the County
Treasure in accordance with Government Code
Section 51283(b). In the event that the City
exercises the option of not succeeding to the
Contract pursuant to Government Code Section
51243.5(d), a nd such action is approved by the
Local Agency Formation Commission, the
Contract will be terminated, no cancellation is
required, and no cancellation fees are required to
be paid.

Prior to
recordation of
Final Map
Once Applicant/Contractor
Biological Resources
BIO-1 The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31
(outside of nesting bird season) in an effort to
avoid impacts to nesting birds.

Prior to
construction
Once Applicant/Contractor
BIO-2 If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified
biologist would conduct a pre-construction
survey for all nesting birds within the Project
boundary and an additional 50 feet surrounding
the Project, no more than 7 days prior to the start
of construction. All raptor nests would be
considered “active” upon the nest-building stage.

Prior to
construction
Once Applicant/Contractor
BIO-3 On discovery of any active nests or breeding
colonies near work areas, the biologist will
determine appropriate construction setback
distances based on applicable CDFW and/or
USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the
species in question. Construction buff ers will be
Upon discovery of
active nests or
colonies near work
areas
Once Applicant/Contractor
250
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 5-3
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure
When
Monitoring is to
Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily
visible means, and will be maintained until the
biologist has determined that the nestlings have
fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Should archaeological remains or artifacts be
unearthed during any stage of project activities,
work in the area of discovery shall cease until the
area is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If
mitigation is warranted, the project proponent
shall abide by recommendations of the
archaeologist.

During
construction
Continuously Applicant/Contractor
CUL-2 In the event that any human remains are
discovered on the Project site, the Tulare County
Coroner must be notified of the discovery
(California Health and Safety Code, Sec tion
7050.5) and all activities in the immediate area of
the find or in any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent human remains
must cease until appropriate and lawful
measures have been implemented. If the
Coroner determines that the remain s are not
recent, but rather of Native American origin, the
Coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento
within 24 hours to permit the NAHC to determine
the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased
Native American.

Upon discovery of
human remains
Continuously Applicant/Contractor
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Should paleontological resources be
encountered on the Project site, all ground
disturbing activities in the area shall stop. A
qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to
assess the discovery. Mitigation may include
Upon discovery of
paleontological
resources
Continuously Applicant/Contractor
251
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 5-4
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure
When
Monitoring is to
Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
monitoring, recording the fossil loc ality, data
recovery and analysis, a final report. Public
educational outreach may also be appropriate.

Upon completion of the assessment, a report
documenting methods, findings, and
recommendations shall be prepared and
submitted to the City of Visalia for review, and (if
paleontological materials are recovered) a
paleontological repository, such as the University
of California Museum of Paleontology.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 (Tribal Cultural Resource Presentation): Due to
Tribal history and knowledge of the project area,
the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe has
concerns and is requesting to be retained for a
cultural presentation to all construction staff of
the Project, prior to start of construction
activities.

Prior to
commencement of
construction
activities
Continuously Applicant/Contractor
TCR-2 (Tribal Cultural Monitoring): An approved Tribal
Monitor shall be retained to be on site to monitor
during all project -related ground -disturbing
construction activities within the Cultural APE
(i.e., grading, excavation, etc.).

Prior to
commencement of
construction
activities
Continuously Applicant/Contractor
TCR-3 Curation of Archaeological Collections): A
curation agreement shall be entered into with
the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe,
materials and documents would be
professionally curated as outlined in agreement
and made available to other archaeologists or
researchers for further study. The collections and
associated records shall be transferred, to an
appropriate curation facility as outlined in
agreement with Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi
Yokut Tribe, to be accompanied by payment.

Prior to
commencement of
construction
activities
Continuously Applicant/Contractor
252
Chapter 6 References
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 6-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
AirNav. Quail Lake Sky Park Airport. FAA Information Effective as of July 16, 2020. 2020. "AirNav. Quail Lake Sky Park Airport. FAA Information Effective as of July 16, 2020." AirNav. Quail Lake Sky Park Airport.

FAA Information Effective as of July 16, 2020. http://www.airnav.com/airport/CL46.

American Legal Publishing Legal Code Library. 2022. "City of Visalia Municipal Code." American Legal Publishing Municipal Code Library. Accessed April 18, 2022. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/visalia/latest/visalia_ca/0-0-0-28682.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. 2020. "Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines." Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.
bestplaces.net. 20221. Tulare County California. Accessed April 18, 2022. https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/california/tulare.

Calfornia Department of Conservation. 2019. Important Farmland Categories. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx. —. 2022. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Mineral Land Classification. Accessed March 18, 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mineral-land-classification-smara.

California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003. "California Stormwater Quality Associatio n Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook New and Redevelopment." California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook New and Redevelopment. https://www.casqa.org/sites/default/files/BMPHandbooks/BMP_NewDevRedev_Complete.pdf.

California Air Pollution Control District. 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.1. Fresno: California Air Pollution Control District.

California Air Resources Control Board. 2020. California Air Resources Control Board Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate- matter-and-health.

California Department of Conservation - California Geological Survey. 2020. http://subduction.rocks/Storage%20for%20Handouts%20and%20Reference%20Materials/CGS%2 0Anniversary%20California%20Facts%20150yrs.pdf.

California Department of Conservation. 2020. California Department of Conservation Naturally Occurring Asbestos. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/asbestos/ofr_2000-019.pdf. —. 2022. California Department of Conservtion DOC Maps: Agriculture. Accessed March 15, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/.
—. 1999. CGS Information Warehouse. April 1.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/mlc/. 253
Chapter 6 References
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 6-2
—. 1984. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. May 18. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp.

California Department of Conservation Fish and Wildlife. 2020. California Department of Conservation Fish and Wildlife. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.

California Department of Conservation. 2008. "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California." State Mining and Geology Board Guidelines. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/SP117-091508.pdf.

California Department of Conservation Well Finder. 2020. California Department of Conservation Well Finder. May 18. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx.

California Department of Conservation. 2022. "Williamson Act Program." California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.

California Department of Conservation. 2015. Landslide Map and Report 79 -04. Landslides in the Los Angeles Region, Ca lifornia – Effects of the February -March 1978 Rains. 1978. "California Department of Conservation. 2015. Landslide Map and Report 79-04. Landslides in the Los Angeles Region, California – Effects of the February -March 1978 Rains." California Department of Conservation. 2015. Landslide Map and Report 79 -04. Landslides in the Los Angeles Region, California – Effects of the February -March 1978 Rains. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=landsli`des.

California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. 2020. California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2020. Unites States Department of Agriculture National Statistics Service. April 24.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/AgComm/2018/2018crop yearcactb00.pdf.

California Department of Forestry and Fire. 2021. California State Responsiblilit y Areas - ArcGIS. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?appid=5e96315793d445419b6c96f89ce5d153.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). 2022. California Department of Forestry and Fire Pr otection - Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) Fire Hazard Severity Zones. March. Accessed March 14, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 1995. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor. 2022. California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

California Department of Transportation - Scenic Highways. 2022. California Department of Transportation - State Scenic Highways. Accessed February 17, 2022.
254
Chapter 6 References
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 6-3
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057 116f1aacaa.

California Department of Water Resources. 2006. "California Groundwater Bulletin 118 - San Joaquin Tulare Lake Subbasin." California Department of Water Resources Media Library. January. Accessed March 18, 2022. https://water.ca.gov/ -/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater- Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/5_022_12_TulareLakeSubbasin.pdf. —. 2021. Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher.
https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. —. 2018. DWR Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/.

California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2. n.d. "California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2." Mendota.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2013. "OEHHA 2013 Report: Indicators of Climate Change in California." Indicators of Climate Change in California. August 8. https://oehha.ca.gov/climate-change/report/2013-report-indicators-climate-change-california.

California State Scenic Highway System Map . 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map . https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc199

83. California State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. California State Water Resources Control Board Construction Stormwater Program.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.html.

California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003. California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practice .
https://www.casqa.org/sites/default/files/BMPHandbooks/BMP_NewDevRedev_Complete.pdf. —. 2003. California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practic e. https://www.casqa.org/sites/default/files/BMPHandbooks/BMP_NewDevRedev_Complete.pdf.

California Water Service. 2021. "2020 Urban Water Management Plan Visalia District." https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/VIS_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf.

California Water Se rvices. 2022. California Water Services. Accessed March 18, 2022. https://www.calwater.com/.

City of Mendota General Plan. n.d. City of Mendota General Plan. http://ci.mendota.ca.us/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/City-of-Mendota-General-Plan-Update.pdf.

City of Tehachapi. 2012. "General Plan Draft EIR." Tehachapi.

City of Turlock General Plan. 2012. City of Turlock General Plan. September. https://www.cityofturlock.org/_pdf/files/generalplancomplete.pdf.

City of Visalia. 2014. "Chapter 5 Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities." City of Visalia General Plan. October. Accessed March 23, 2022.
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30477. 255
Chapter 6 References
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 6-4
—. 2014. "City of Visalia." General Plan. October 14. Accessed March 29, 2022. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30475. —. 2014. "City of Visalia General Plan - Chapter 2 Land Use." City of Visalia. October. Accessed May 20, 2022. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474. —. 2007. "City of Visalia Oak Tree Mitigation Policy." City of Visalia. February 01. Accessed March 2022. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=3800. —. 2022. City of Visalia Valley Oak Tree Ordinance. Accessed May 18, 2022. https://www.visalia.city/depts/parks_n_recreation/urban_forestry/valley_oak_ordinance_.asp. —. 2011. "Protect Yourself and Your Family." City of Visalia Em. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://www.visalia.city/documents/Engineering/Flood%20Info/Complete%20EOP%20Binder%20 2011.pdf.
—. 2012. "Visalia General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report." City of Visalia. Accessed March 23, 2022. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30502.

Commission, State of California Native American Heritage. 2020. State of California Native American Heritage Commission. http://nahc.ca.gov/.

Congressional Research Service Central Valley Project Issues and Legislation. 2020. May 26. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45342.

Cornell Law School. 2022. "16 U.S. Code S ubchapter II - MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY." Legal Information Institute. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/chapter - 7/subchapter-II.

County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. 2010. "County of Tulare RMA Climate Action Plan." February 25.
http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GeneralPlan2010/ClimateActionPlan.pdf.

Department of Water Resources Bay -Delta Office. 2018. "Mean and Extreme Climate Change Impacts on the State Water Project." A Report for California's Fourth Clim ate Change Assessment. August. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/Water_CCCA4-EXT-2018-004_ada.pdf.

District, Westlands Water. 2020a. "Westlands Water District Groundwater Management ." Westlands Water District Groundwater Management . https://wwd.ca.gov/water- management/groundwater-management-program.
efsdfsdf. n.d. "sdfsdf." 2-5.

Federal Transit Administration. n.d. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Maual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit- noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123 0.pdf.

Fresno County California Code of Ordinances . 1978. Fresno County California Code of Ordinan ces Title 8. https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HESA_C H8.40NOCO.
256
Chapter 6 References
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 6-5
Fresno County General Plan Background Report. 2000. Fresno County General Plan Background Report.

October 3. https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=8398.

Fresno County General Plan Policy Document. 2000. Fresno County General Plan Policy Document. October

3. https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=18117.

Google Earth. 2020. Google Earth. https://www.google.com/earth/.

Greater Ka weah Groundwater Sustainability Agency. 2022. Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Accessed March 23, 2022.
https://iportal.tularecounty.ca.gov/iportal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e3e4fc3ab9174da 1ad751619bae29291.

International Code Council ICC. 2019. "2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2 with Jan 2020 Errata." ICC Digital Codes. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CBC2019P2/chapter-16-structural- design#:~:text=About%20this%20chapter%3A%20Chapter%2016%20establishes%20minimum%2 0design,categories%20that%20are%20indicative%20of%20their%20intended%20use.

Kern County Parks and Recreation Department Lake Isabella. 2020. Kern County Parks and Recreation Department Lake Isabella.
https://www.kerncounty.com/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/16/32619.

Kern County Williamson Act Eligible Agricultural Preserve/Kern County Williamson Act Parcels. n.d. Kern County Williamson Act Eligible Agricultural Preserve/Kern County Williamson Act Parc els. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=0b47026d71b44be2887a1b574b0624ff&sublayer=

0. Kern County. Code of Ordinances, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.36 – Noise Control. 2020. "Kern County. Code of Ordinances, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.36 – Noise Control." Kern County.

Code of Ordinances, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.36 – Noise Control. https://library.municode.com/ca/kern_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HESA_CH

8.36NOCO.

Kern-Tulare Water District Groundwater Sustain ability Plan. 2019. "Kern -Tulare Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan." Kern-Tulare Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

December 12. http://www.kerngwa.com/assets/kern -tulare-water-district-management-area- plan.pdf.

LSA Associates. 2021. City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Thresholds. City of Visalia.

Madera County Fire Department. 2020. Madera County Fire Department. https://www.maderacounty.com/government/staffing-stations.

Madera County General Plan Background Report. 1995. Madera County General Plan Background Report.

October 24. https://www.maderacounty.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=2852.

Madera County Municipal Code. n.d. "Madera County Municipal Code Noise Regulations." Madera County Municipal Code Noise Regulations 9.58 .020 General Noise Regulations. https://library.municode.com/ca/madera_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PESA MO_VOFAGPUPE_CH9.58NORE_9.58.020GENORE.
257
Chapter 6 References
Victory Oaks Subdivision
July 2022 6-6
Map My Ride - Wasco Cycling Trails. 2020. Map My Ride - Wasco Cycling Trails. https://www.mapmyride.com/us/wasco-ca/.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Warmest Year on Record. 2017. NASA NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally. January 18. https://www.nasa.gov/press -release/nasa- noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.

Visalia City CouncilNovember 7, 2022

Visalia City Council
November 7, 2022