5a. Environmental Document — Visalia City Council, January 17, 2023

Environmental Document No. 2022-30
City of Visalia Community Development

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-15
Project Description: A request by 7Ten Properties LLC, to establish an outdoor event venue use on a

1.95-acre site improved with an outdoor lawn area, paved surface, and bathroom facilities in the QP (Quasi-Public) Zone. The property will be operated in conjunction with an on-site building that allows for the operation of a variety of indoor venues.

Project Location: The site is located at 4211 W. Goshen Avenue on southwest corner of Goshen Avenue and Chinowth Street. (APN: 085-630-003 and 085-630-001).

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

Attachments:

Initial Study (X)
Environmental Checklist (X)
Maps (X)
Noise Study (X)
Mitigation Measures (X)

DECLARATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:

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

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

APPROVED
Brandon Smith, AICP
Environmental Coordinator
By:

Date Approved: November 8, 2022
Review Period: November 17, 2022 to
December 7, 2022 (20 days)

Environmental Document No. 2022-15
City of Visalia Community Development

INITIAL STUDY
I. GENERAL
A. Description of the Project: A request by 7Ten Properties LLC, to establish an outdoor event venue use on a 1.95-acre site improved with an outdoor lawn area, paved surface, and bathroom facilities in the QP (Quasi - Public) Zone. The property will be operated in conjunction with an on-site building that allows for the operation of a variety of indoor venues.

B. Identification of the Environmental Setting: The property consists of a x,xxx-square foot assembly building and xx-space paved parking lot, together with an outdoor area with ancillary structures that are associated with the event venue use. There is an existing four -lane street bordering the site along the north (Goshen Avenue) and an existing two-lane street bordering the site along the west . The Visalia Circulation Ele ment designates Goshen Avenue as a Minor Arterial roadway and Chinowth Street as a Collector roadway.

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

General Plan Zoning Existing uses
North: Residential Low Density R-1-5 (Single-family
Residential, 5,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size)
Railroad Tracks, Single Family Subdivision
South: Residential Medium
Density
R-M-2 (Multi-family
Residential, 3,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size)
Multi-Family Residential
East: Office O-PA (Professional
Administrative Office)
Offices
West: Residential High Density R-M-3 (Multi-Family
Residential, 1,200 sq. ft.
minimum lot size)
Multi-Family Residential

Fire and police protection services, street maintenance of public streets, refuse collection, and wastewater treatment will continue to be provided by the City of Visalia for the subject property.

C. Plans and Policies: The General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the site as Public/Institutional and the Zoning Map designates the site as QP (Quasi-Public) which is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and consistent with the standards for Quasi-Public zoning district pursuant to the Visalia Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) Chapter 17.52.

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

III. MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures, which are listed below, will reduce potential environmental impacts related to Noise Impacts to a less than significant level as shown below:

Noise – An acoustical analysis was prepared for the proposed project by WJV Acoustics. The purpose of the study is to determine if noise levels associated with the proposed use will comply with the City’s applicable noise level standards . The analysis concluded that noise levels associated with the proposed outdoor venue event use are expected to exceed the existing ambient noise levels by up to 3.1 dB L50 (vicinity of noise measurement site R‐2) during nighttime hours (after 7:00 p.m.). Mitigation measures must be incorporated to comply with applicable City of Visalia exterior noise levels standards. To ensure that community noise standards are met, Environmental Document No. 2022-15
City of Visalia Community Development

the applicant is proposing an acoustical treatment that be constructed at a height of 12‐feet above ground elevation along the southern portion of the site. The acoustical treatment material provides attenuation by both blocking and absorbing noise between a noise source and receiver. Figure 6, within the acoustical analysis, provides the location and extent of the proposed acoustical fencing, along the project site southern property line. Based upon the above ‐described project‐related noise levels and insertion loss model, it was d etermined that the 12 ‐foot AcoustiFence® acoustical treatment would provide approximately 10 dB of noise level reduction at the residential land uses located south of the project site, resulting in project ‐related noise levels of approximately 43 dB L50 at the adjacent residential land uses. Such levels do not exceed the City of Visalia daytime or nighttime noise level standards and do not exceed existing (without project) ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the adjacent residential land uses.

To en sure that noise standards are met for the proposed project, the project site shall be developed in substantial compliance with the mitigation contained in the “Conclusions and Recommendations” section of the above -referenced Acoustical Analysis. As descri bed in the analysis, the following measures shall contain the following:

1) A 12‐foot AcoustiFence® acoustical treatment material along the southern property line.

Based upon insertion loss model calculations, it was determined that the AcoustiFence® acoustical treatment material would reduce project‐related noise levels by approximately 10 dB at residential land uses adjacent to the project site. This noise attenuation would result in project‐related noise levels of approximately 43 dB L50 at the adjacent residential land uses. Such levels do not exceed the City of Visalia daytime or nighttime noise level standards and do not exceed existing (without project) ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the adjacent residential land uses.
2) The hours of operation shall be limited to the proposed hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

The findings of this analysis do not provide any determination of the project compliance outside of these hours.

Staff has incorporated these recommendations as required mitigation measures. Therefore, to ensure that noise requirements are met for the proposed project, the project shall be developed and shall operate in substantial compliance with the Noise Impact Mitigation Measures 1.1 and 1.2. These mitigation measures are included in Section IV below as part of this Initial Study.

The City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance also contains guidelines, criteria, and requirements for the mitigation of potential impacts related to light/glare, visibility screening, noise, and traffic/parking to eliminate and/or reduce potential impacts to a level of non-significance.

IV. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Responsible
Party
Timeline
Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.1: A 12 ‐foot
AcoustiFence® acoustical treatment material shall be
installed along the southern property line for a length of approximately 360 feet starting from the southeast corner of the property boundary.

Project
Applicant
The sound wall shall be installed
as part of the new outdoor venue
use and shall be completed prior to
operation.

Noise Impact Mitigation Measure 1.2: The use shall be
limited to the operating hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., as detailed within the operational statement and
analyzed in the Noise Study.

Project
Applicant
The hours of operation shall apply
to all outdoor events onsite.

Environmental Document No. 2022-15
City of Visalia Community Development

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

VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are hereby incorporated into this Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study by reference:
• Visalia General Plan Update. Dyett & Bhatia, October 2014. • Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-38 (Certifying the Visalia General Plan Update), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, June 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, March 2014.
• Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-37 (Certifying the EIR for the Visalia General Plan Update), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia Municipal Code, including Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance). • California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
• City of Visalia, California, Climate Action Plan, Draft Final. Strategic Energy Innovations, December 2013.
• Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-36 (Certifying the Visalia Climate Action Plan), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• City of Visalia Storm Water Master Plan. Boyle Engineering Corporation, September 1994. • City of Visalia Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. City of Visalia, 1994. • Tulare County Important Farmland 2014 Map. California Department of Conservation, 2014. • Acoustical Analysis, The Woodlands. WJV Acoustics, May 24, 2022 (Revised October 14, 2022)

VII. NAME OF PERSON WHO PREPARED INITIAL STUDY

Brandon Smith Brandon Smith
Principal Planner Environmental Coordinator

Environmental Document No. 2022-15
City of Visalia Community Development

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
NAME OF PROPONENT: Mario Celillo, 7Ten Properties LLC NAME OF AGENT: Sam Ramirez, Naxon Hospitality Address of Proponent: P.O. Box 648 Address of Agent: 4211 W. Goshen Avenue Visalia, CA 93279 Visalia, CA 93291
Telephone Number: 559-553-2861 Telephone Number: 559-288-8130 Date of Review October 18, 2022 Lead Agency: City of Visalia

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

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

I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
1 a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
1 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
2 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of f orest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
1 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use? 1 b) Conflict with existing zonin g for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
1 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or t imberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
1 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to the ir location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
1 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
1 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 1 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
1 d) Result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
1 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
2 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife co rridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
1 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Name of Proposal Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-15
Environmental Document No. 2022-15
City of Visalia Community Development

1 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habit at Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
1 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resou rce pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 15064.5?
1 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15064.5?
1 c) Disturb any human remains, including those inte rred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
1 a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
1 b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
1 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
1 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1 iv) Landslides?
1 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
1 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 8-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
1 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 1 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
1 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, t hat may have a significant impact on the
environment?
1 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
1 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
1 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
1 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
1 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
1 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
1 a) Violate any water quality standards of waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
1 b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
1 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:
1 i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; 1 ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; or 1 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? 1 d) In flood haz ard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
1 e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
1 a) Physically divide an established community?
1 b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Environmental Document No. 2022-15
City of Visalia Community Development

1 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
1 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource rec overy site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
3 a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
1 b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
1 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airpor t or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
1 a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly ( for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
1 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
1 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or 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:
1 i) Fire protection?
1 ii) Police protection?
1 iii) Schools?
1 iv) Parks?
1 v) Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:
1 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
1 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVII. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Would the project:
1 a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
1 b) Would the project confl ict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
1 c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1 d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1 a) Listed or eligible for listing in the Califor nia Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
1 b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
1 a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
1 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to service the project and reasonable foreseeable future development dur ing
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
1 c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
1 d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
1 e) Comply with federal, state, and local ma nagement and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
1 a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
1 c) Require the 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?
Environmental Document No. 2022-15
City of Visalia Community Development

1 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? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
1 a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
2 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 oth er current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
2 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 an d 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code;
Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05,
21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, (1988) 202
Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco
(2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

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

Environmental Document No. 2022-15
City of Visalia Community Development

DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

I. AESTHETICS
a. The proposed project is a new outdoor event venue use proposed as part of an existing site previously occupied by the Sons of Italy.

This project will not adversely affect the view of any scenic vistas. The Sierra Nevada Mountain range may be
considered a scenic vista and the view will not be adversely impacted by the project.
b. There are no scenic resources on the site.
c. The proposed project includes the incorporation of an outdoor venue use as part of an existing site. No significant changes are proposed as part of the new use, in that, the existing site is already improved with a wide variety of landscaping and other ancillary improvements. Thus, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings.
d. The project will create incidental new sources of light that are typical with outdoor event uses . The City has
development standards that require that light be directed and/or shielded so it does not fall upon adjacent properties.

A conceptual photometric plan for the proposed
development has been provided, demonstrating the lighting fixtures installed throughout and directed toward the interior of the site. The on-site lighting for the facility is directed and focused so as to avoid direct illumination spilling beyond the site boundaries into the adjacent residential uses, as
required under Section 17.30.015.H of the Zoning
Ordinance. The conceptual photometric plan demonstrates that lighting for the proposed uses along the respective property lines primarily do not excee d 1.0 footcandles . A condition will be included with the Conditional Use Permit requiring compliance with the 1.0 footcandle standard at property line, in particular to the south where scattered residential uses are located.

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a. The project is located on property that is identified as Urban and Built Up Land based o n maps prepared by the
California Department of Conservation and contained
within the Visalia General Plan, Figure 6-4.

The Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) has already considered the environmental
impacts of the conversion of properties within the Planning Area into non -agriculture uses. Overall, the General Plan results in the conversion of over 14,000 acres of Important Farmland to urban uses, which is considered significant and unavoidable. Aside from preventing development
altogether the conversion of Important Farmland to urban uses cannot be directly mitigated, through the use of
agricultural conservation easements or by other means.

However, the General Plan contains multiple polices that together work to limit conversion only to the extent needed to accommodate long -term growth. The General Plan
policies identified under Impact 3.5 -1 of the EIR serve as the mitigation that assists in reducing the severity of the impact to the extent possible while still achieving the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a certain amount
of growth to occur within the Planning Area. These policies include the implementation of a three-tier growth boundary system that assists in protecting open space around the City fringe and maintaining compact development within the City limits.
b. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use. The project is bordered by urban development and there are no known Williamson Act contracts on any properties within the
project area.
c. There is no forest or tim ber land currently located on the site.
d. There is no forest or tim ber land currently located on the site.
e. The project will not involve any changes that would promote or result in the conversion of farmland to non -agriculture use. The subject property is currently designated for an urban rather than agricultural land use. Properties that are vacant may develop in a way that is consistent with their zoning and land use designated at any time. The adopted Visalia General Plan’s implementation of a three-tier growth boundary system further assists in pr otecting open space around the City fringe to ensure that premature conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses does not occur.

III. AIR QUALITY
a. The project site is located in an area that is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Co ntrol District (SJVAPCD). The project in itself does not disrupt implementation of the San Joaquin Regional Air Quality
Management Plan , and will therefore be a less than
significant impact.
b. New development under the Visalia General Plan will result in emissions that will exceed thresholds established by the SJVAPCD for PM10 and PM2.5. The project is not
proposing any new significant development and will not
significantly contribute to a net increase of criteria pollutants and therefore , will not contribute to exceeding the
thresholds.
c. Tulare County is designated non -attainment for certain federal ozone and state ozone levels. The project will not result in a net increase of criteria pollutants. The project is required to adhere to requirements administered by the
SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to a level of compliance
consistent with the District’s grading regulations.

Compliance with the SJVAPCD’s rules and regulations will reduce potential impact s associated with air quality
standard violations to a less than significant level.
d. The proposed project will not involve the generation of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The site has no known species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or r egional Environmental Document No. 2022-30
City of Visalia Community Development

plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The project would therefore not have a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive, candidate, or special species.

In addition, staff had conducted an on-site visit to the site in October 2022 to observe biological conditions and did not observe any evidence or symptoms that would suggest the presence of a sensitive, candidate, or special species.

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

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

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

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

The EIR concluded that certain sensitive natural
communities may be directly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning Area,
particularly valley oak woodlands and valley oak riparian woodlands. Such effects would be considered significant.

However, the General Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.8-2 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on woodlands located within in the Planning Area. With implementation of these policies, impacts on woodlands will be less than significant. c. The project is not located within or adjacent to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

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

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

The EIR concluded that the movement of wildlife species may be directly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning. Such effects would be considered significant. However, the General Plan
contains multiple polices, identified under Impact 3.8 -4 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on wildlife movement corridors located within in the Planning Area. With implementation of these poli cies, impacts on wildlife movement corridors will be less than significant.
e. The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City has a municipal ordinance in place to protect valley oak tree s; however no oak trees exist on the site.
f. There are no local or regional habitat conservation plans for the area.

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

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

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

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

Therefore, the project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts involving
earthquakes.

Environmental Document No. 2022-30
City of Visalia Community Development

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

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. The project is not expected to generate any considerable Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions , in that, only minor
construction is anticipated in conjunction with the operation of the proposed business.

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

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

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

The proposed project will not impede the State’s ability to meet the GHG emission reduction targets under AB 32 and SB 32. Current and probable future state and local GHG reduction measures will continue to reduce the project’s contribution to climate change. As a result, the project will not contribute significantly, either individually or
cumulatively, to GHG emissions.

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. No hazardous materials are anticipated with the project. b. The minor construction activities associated with
development of the project may include maintenance of on- site construction equipment which could lead to minor fuel and oil spills. The use and handling of any hazardous
materials during construction activities would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
c. There is one school located within 0.40 miles of the project site. The school is located 2,100-feet south of the project site (Hyde Park Pre -School). Notwithstanding, there is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could affect the site.
d. The project area does not include any sites listed as hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Cod e
Section 65692.5.
e. The Airport Master Plans adopted by City of Visalia and County of Tulare show the project area is located outside of any Airport Zones. There are no restrictions for the proposed project related to Airport Zone requirements.

The project area is not located within two miles of a public airport.
f. The project will not interfere with the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan.
g. There are no wild lands within or near the project area.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. All new development is subject to regulations which serve to ensure that such projects do not violate water quality standards of waste discharge requirements. These
regulations include the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDE S) permit program. State regulations include the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and more specifically
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), of which the project site area falls within the jurisdiction of.

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

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

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.6 -2 and 3.9 -3 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for im pacts to water quality. With implementation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts to water quality will be less than significant.
b. The project area overlies the southern portion of the San Joaquin unit of the Central Valley groundwater aquifer. The Environmental Document No. 2022-30
City of Visalia Community Development

project will result in an increase of impervious surfaces on the project site, which might affect the amount of
precipitation that is recharged to the aquifer. However, as the City of Visalia is already largely developed and covered by imper vious surfaces, the increase of impervious
surfaces through this project will be small by comparison.

The project therefore might affect the amount of
precipitation that is recharged to the aquifer. The City of Visalia’s water conversation measures and explorations for surface water use over groundwater extraction will assist in offsetting the loss in groundwater recharge.
c.
i. The improvements of the site will require only a
minimal amount of topsoil movement. Existing City
Engineering Division standards requ ire that any new
development provide a grading and drainage plan for
review to the City to ensure that off - and on -site
improvements will be designed to meet City standards.
ii. The minor improvements proposed as part of the site will create additional impervi ous surfaces. However,
connection of the site to storm water drainage facilities that already exist in adjacent roadways will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Polices identified under Impact 3.6 -2 of the EIR will
reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. With implementation of these policies and the
existing City standards, impacts to groundwater
supplies will be less than significant.
iii. The minor improvements associated with the site will create additional impervious surfaces. However,
connection of the site to storm water drainage facilities that already exist in adjacent roadways will reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Existing storm water mains are on site and the
applicant will be connecting to service. Furthermore, the project will be required to meet the City’s
improvement standards for directing storm water runoff
to the City’s storm water drainage system consistent
with the City’s adopted City Storm Drain Master Plan.

These improvements will not cause significant
environmental impacts.
d. The project area is located sufficiently inland and distant from bodies of water, and outside potentially hazardous areas for seiches and tsunamis. The site is also relatively flat, which will contribute to the lack of impacts by mudflow occurrence. Therefore, there will be no impact related to these hazards.
e. The minor improvements associated with the site do not have the potential to affect drainage patterns in the short.

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

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The project will not physically divide an established community. The project is proposing a new use within an existing site previously occupied by the Sons of Italy. Only minor improvements are proposed as part of the property which is improved with a wide variety of landscaping and hardscape on a 1.95-acre site and on land designated for Public/Institutional. The project site is surrounded by urban development and is bounded by Goshen Avenue to the
north and Chinowth Street to the east.
b. The project site is within the City of Visalia’s Tier I Urban Development Boundary as implemented by the City
General Plan. Development of lands in Tier I may occur at any time.

The proposed project will be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and consistent with the
standards for Quasi-Public zoning district pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) Chapter

17.52. The project as a whole does not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation of the City of Visalia. The site contains a General Plan Land Use Designation of
Public/Institutional and a Zoning Designation of Q-P
(Quasi-Public). The City of Visalia’s Zoning Ordinance conditionally allows outdoor event venues.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.1-2 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts to the development of land as designated by the General Plan. With
implementation of these policies and the existing City
standards, impacts to land use development consistent with the General Plan will be less than significant.

The project does not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as it is located on a vacant dirt lot with no significant natural habitat present.

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

XIII. NOISE
a. The Visalia Municipal Code contain criteria for acceptable noise levels during daytime and nighttime hours . VMC
Section 8.36.040 provides daytime e xterior categorical noise standards that vary between 50 and 70 dBA between the hours of 6am and 7pm . The nighttime exterior
categorical noise standards vary between 45 and 65 dBA
between the hours of 7pm and 6am. Furthermore, in the
event the measured ambient noise level without the alleged offensive source in operation exceeds an applicable noise level standard in any exterior noise category, the applicable standards shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient
noise level.

An A coustical Analysis was prepared for the proposed
project, addressing the proposed outdoor events at the
event facility. The purpose of the study was to determine if noise levels associated with the project will comply with the City’s applicable noise leve l standards , particularly with Environmental Document No. 2022-30
City of Visalia Community Development

regards to the existing multi -family residential uses to the south of the project site . The acoustical analysis models determine the project‐related noise levels that will be generated by the project site.

The analysis concluded that noise levels generated by the proposed outdoor venue would exceed the existing ambient noise level by up to 3.1 db L 50. In order to address the noise, the project is proposing install an AcoustiFence® acoustical treatment material along the southern boundary of the project site, adjacent to existing residential land uses.

The acoustical treatment will be constructed to a height of 12‐feet above ground elevation along the southern
boundary. The acoustical treatment material provides
attenuation by both blocking and absorbing noise between a noise source and receiver. The acoustical analysis has concluded that the placement of the acoustical fence will bring the project in compliance with the city’s Noise
Ordinance.

Based upon the above ‐described project ‐related noise
levels and insertion loss model, it was determined that the 12‐foot AcoustiFence® acoustical treatment would provide approximately 10 dB of noise level reduction at the
residential land uses located south of the project site, resulting in project‐related noise levels of approximately 43 dB L50 at the adjacent residential land uses. Such levels do not exceed the City of Vis alia daytime or nighttime noise level standards and do not exceed existing (without project) ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the adjacent
residential land uses.

Therefore, to ensure that community noise standards are met for the proposed project, t he project site shall be developed in substantial compliance with the mitigation contained in the “Conclusions and Recommendations”
section of the above -referenced Acoustical Analysis. As described in the analysis, the following measures shall contain the following:
1) An acoustical fence with a minimum height of
twelve (12) feet above the project‐side grade
shall be constructed along the southern
boundary of the project site , as illustrated on
Figure 1. The extent and location of the
required acoustical fence treatment is
provided on Figure 1.

2) Hours of project operation must be limited to
the proposed hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

The findings of this analysis do not provide
any determin ation of the project compliance
outside of these hours.

Staff has incorporated these recommendations as required mitigation measures. Therefore, to ensure that noise
requirements are met for the proposed project, the project shall be developed and shall o perate in substantial
compliance with the Mitigation Measures 1.1 and 1.2.

These mitigation measures are included as part of this Initial Study.

There are no expected substantial increases in temporary noise levels associated with the project other than the noise increased associated with outdoor events as described
above.
b. No. g round-borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels are anticipated to occur as part of the minor construction activities associated with the projec t; thus the impacts will be less than significant. There are no existing uses near the project area that create ground -borne vibration or ground - borne noise levels.
c. The project area is located in excess of two miles from a public airport. The project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels resulting from aircraft operations.

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

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a.
i. Current fire protection facilities are located at the Visalia Station 55, located approximately 2.2 miles northwest of the property, and can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration.
ii. Current police protection facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration.
iii. The project will not generate new students for which existing schools in the area may accommodate.
iv. Current park facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration.
v. Other public facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration.

XVI. RECREATION
a. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities within the area that might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment. The project will not increase the use of existing n eighborhood and regional parks as no residential uses are proposed.
b. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities within the area that might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment.

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

The City of Visalia, in determining the significance of transportation impacts for land use projects, recognizes the State Office of Planning Research (OP R) recommended
Environmental Document No. 2022-30
City of Visalia Community Development

threshold as the basis for what constitutes a significant or less than significant transportation impact. The State OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018 (”Technical Advisory”) has
recommended a 1 5% reduction target based on its
statement that “achieving a 15% lower per capita or per trip distance Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) than existing
development is both generally achievable and is supported by evidence that connects this level of reduction to the State’s emissions goals. The Technical Advisory further states that lead agencies may screen out VMT impacts
using maps created with VMT data from a traffic demand
model.

For the metric measuring VMT per trip distance, a map of the City of Visalia, produced by Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), provides areas with 84% or less
average VMT per trip distance, or 16% below the regional average. In the subject site’s TAZ, the current average trip distance experienced is 6.45 miles, which is above the average county -wide trip distance of 11. 9 miles and the 16% target reduction of 9.76 miles. However, under the
Guidelines, the project is screened out from creating a significant impact since the project will generate less than 1,000 trips daily and is consistent with the City’s General Plan and current zoning. The Woodlands project is
projected to generate 218 trips on peak operating day s based on a total par king availability of 218 stalls . The outdoor venue use is also conditionally permitted in the QP in which it resides. H ence, the proposal is screened out of performing a VMT analysis.
c. There are no planned geometric designs associated with the project that are considered hazardous.
d. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. a. The site is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
b. The site has been determined to not be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.

Further, the EIR (SCH 2010041078) for the 2014 General Plan update included a thorough review of sacred lands files through the California Native American Heritage Commission. The sacred lands file did not contain any known cultural resources information for the Visalia Planning Area.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. 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. With the completed project, the plant has more than sufficient capacity to accommodate impacts
associated with the proposed project. The proposed project will therefore not cause significant environmental impacts.

Existing sanitary sewer and storm water mains are on site and the applicant will be connecting to services . Usage of these lines is consistent with the City Sewer System Master Plan and Storm Water Master Plan. These improvements
will not cause significant environmental impacts.
b. The project will not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
c. The City has determined th at there is adequate capacity existing to serve the site’s projected wastewater treatment demands at the City wastewater treatment plant.
d. Current solid waste disposal facilities can adequately serve the site without a need for alteration.
e. The project will be able to meet the applicable regulations for solid waste. Removal of debris from construction will be subject to the City’s waste disposal requirements.

XX. WILDFIRE
a. The project is located on a site that is adjacent on multiple sites which are already developed. The site will be further served by multiple points of access off Goshen Avenue. In the event of an emergency response, coordination would
be made with the City’s Engineering, Police, and Fire
Divisions to ensure that adequate access to and from the site is maintained.
b. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unstable. Therefore, the site is not in a location that is likely to exacerbate wildfire risks.
c. The project is located on a site that is adjace nt on multiple sides by existing development. The minor improvements
will require the installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure extending from adjacent off -site locations to the project site; however the infrastructure would be typical of commercial development and would be developed to the standards of the underlying responsible agencies.
d. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unstable. Therefore, the site is not in a location that would expose persons or structures to
significant risks of flooding or landslides.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The project will not affect the habitat of a fish or wildlife species or a plant or animal community. This site was evaluated in the Program EIR ( SCH No. 2010041078) for Environmental Document No. 2022-30
City of Visalia Community Development

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

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

Environmental Document No. 2022-30
City of Visalia Community Development

DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

November 8, 2022
Brandon Smith, AICP Date
Environmental Coordinator

Environmental Document No. 2022-30
City of Visalia Community Development

Figure No. 1

Visalia City CouncilJanuary 17, 2023

Visalia City Council
January 17, 2023