6. Exhibit D - Initial Study & Negative Declaration No. 2022-60

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

CITY OF VISALIA
315 E. ACEQUIA STREET
VISALIA, CA 93291

NOTICE OF A PROPOSED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Project Title: Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595

Project Description:

Annexation No. 2022 -06: A request by AW Engineering to annex a 6.77-acre parcel into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R -1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) and C (Conservation) which is consistent with the General Plan.

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595: a request by AW Engineering to subdivide a

6.77-acre parcel into a 34- lot single-family residential subdivision with three out lots for block wall and landscaping purposes.

Project Location: The project is located at 125 North Crenshaw Street, on the wes t side of Cr enshaw Street between West Mineral King Avenue and West Oak Avenue. (APN: 085-130-002).

Contact Person: Josh Dan, Associate Planner Phone: 559-713-4003 Email: [email protected]

Time and Place of Public Hearing: A public hearing w ill be held before the Planning Commission on April 10 th, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in t he Visalia City Hall Council Chambers , located at 707 W. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, California.

Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2388, the Environmental Coordinator of the C ity of Visalia has reviewed the proposed project desc ribed herein and has found that the project will not result in any significant effect upon the environment because of the reasons listed below:

Reasons for Negative Declaration: Initia l Study No. 202 2-60 has not identified any significant, adverse environmental impact(s) that may occur because of the project. Copies of the initial study and other documents relating to the subject project may be examined by interested parties at the Planning Division in City Hall East, at 315 East Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA, and online at:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/ceqa_environmental_review.asp.

Comments on this proposed Negative Dec laration will be accepted from March 16, 20 23, to April 6, 2023.

Date: __3/14/2023___________ Signed: _____________________________

Brandon Smith, AICP
Environmental Coordinator
City of Visalia

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 Project Description: Annexation No. 2022 -06: A request by A W Engineering to annex a 6.77-acre parcel into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R -1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) and C (Conservation) which is consistent with the General Plan .

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 95: a request by AW Engineering to subdivide a 6.77- acre parcel into a 34 -lot single -family residential subdivision with three out lots for block wall and landscaping purposes.

Project Location: The project is located at 125 North Crenshaw Street, on the west side of Crenshaw Street between West Mineral King Avenue and West Oak Avenue. (APN: 085-130-002).

Project Facts: Refer to In itial S tudy for projec t facts, plans and policies, and discussion of environmental effects.

Attachments:

Initial Study (X)
Environmental Checklist (X)
Maps (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 qual ity of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populat ion 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 short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
(c) The proje ct does not have environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Cumulati vely c onsiderable m eans that the i ncremental 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 environm ental effects o f th e project will not caus e substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

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

APPROVED
Brandon Smith, AICP
Environmental Coordinator

By:

Date Approved: _03/14/2023__
Review Period: 21 days

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

INITIAL STUDY
I. GENERAL
A. Description of the Project:

Annexation No. 2022-06: A request by AW Engineering to annex a 6.77-acre parcel into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R -1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) and C (Conservation) which is consistent with the General Plan.

Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 95: a request by AW Engineering to subdivide a 6.77- acre parcel into a 34- lot single- family residential subdivision with two out lots for block wall and landscaping purposes.

B. Ident ification o f the Environmental Setti ng: The site is mostly vacant with one existing residential dwelling on site and was previously f armed with row crops . There is an existing two -lane street (North Crenshaw Street) adjacent to the east and bordered by Mill Creek to the north. The Visalia Circulation Element designates Crenshaw as a local roadway.

The development of the site with the 34-lot single-family residential subdivision will create new local streets and will extend infrastructure improvements, utilities, right-of-way improvements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found to the south and east of the surrounding area. Street frontage improvements along Crenshaw Street will be included as well. Street improvements throughout the subject site will include construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the installation of park strip landscaping and streetlights.

The areas surrounding the subject property are predominately developed with single-family homes to the north, east, and south, and an office complex to the west.

The surrounding uses, Zoning district, and General Plan land use designation are as follows:

General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Zoning District Surrounding uses
North: Conservation

Residential Very
Low Density

R-1-20 (Single-family
residential, 20,000 sq. ft.
min. site area)

Mill Creek, Single-Family
Residential.

South: Residential Low
Density
R-1-5 (Single-family
residential, 5,000 sq. ft.
min. site area)

Single-Family Residential,
(Crenshaw Woods No. 2
Subdivision)
East: Office O-PA (Office
Professional-
Administrative)

Courtyards (Office/Business
Complex)
West: Residential Low
Density
R-1-5 (Single-family
residential, 5,000 sq. ft.
min. site area)

Single-Family Residential, (Oak
Creek No. 2 Subdivision)

Fire and police prot ection servi ces, street maintenance of public streets, ref use collection, and wastewater treatment will be provided by the City of Visalia upon the development of the area.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

C. Plans and Poli cies: The General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the site as Res idential Low Density.

The annexation will facilitate the development of the site with single- family residential units consistent with the residential development pattern in the surrounding area. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use designation of the General Plan.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified for this pr oject. The City of Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance contains policies and regulations that are designed to mitigate impacts to a level of non-significance.

III. MITIGATION MEASURES
There are no mitigati on measures for this project. The City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance contai ns 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. PROJECT COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONES AND PLANS The project is comp atible with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as the project relates to surrounding properties.

V. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
The following documents are hereby incorporated into this Negative Declaration and Initial Study by reference:
• Visalia General Plan Update. Dyett & Bhatia, October 2014. • Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-38 (Certifying the Visalia General Plan Update), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, June 2014.
• Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). Dyett & Bhatia, March 2014.
• Visalia City Council Resolution No. 2014-37 (Certifying the EIR for the Visalia General Plan Update), passed and adopted October 14, 2014.
• Visalia Municipal Code, including Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance). • California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
• City of Visalia, California, Climate Action Plan, Draft Final. Strategic Energy Innovations, December 2013.
• 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 2018 Map. California Department of Conservation, 2018.

VI. NAME OF PERSON WHO PREPARED INITIAL STUDY

_________________________ ____________________________

Josh Dan Brandon Smith
Senior Planner Environmental Coordinator

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
NAME OF PROPONENT: Bitta Toor NAME OF AGENT: Allen Williams, AW Engineering Address of Proponent: 27725 Rd. 92 Address of Agent: 810 W. Acequia Ave.

Tulare, CA 93274 Visalia, CA 93291
Telephone Number: 559-690-9024 Telephone Number: 559-713-6139 Date of Review 02/24/2023 Lead Agency: City of Visalia

The following checklist is used t o dete rmine if the proposed pro ject cou ld pot entially have a significant effect on the envi ronment.

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 Publ ic Resources Code Section 21099, w ould the project:
2 a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 b) Substantially damage sc enic r esources, including, but not limited to , trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildi ngs within a state scenic highway?
2 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public v iews of the site and its s urroundings? (Public views are those that are exper ienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbaniz ed area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
2 d) Create a new source of substantia l 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 ag encies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site A ssessment Mod el (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of C onservation as an optional model to use in asse ssing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental ef fects, 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 Fores t L egacy Assessment project; and for est ca rbon measurement methodology provided in Fores t Protocols adopted by the California Air Resour ces Board. Would the project:
2 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farm land, 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 zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
1 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or c ause 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?
2 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could r esult 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:
2 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
2 b) Result in a cum ulatively considera ble net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under appl icable federal or stat e am bient air quality standard?
2 c) Expose sensiti ve recep tors t o 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:
2 a) Have a substantial adverse ef fect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on an y species identifi ed as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulat ions, or by the California Department of F ish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service?
2 b) Have a substantial adverse effect o n any riparian habitat or other sensitive natur al community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and G ame or U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service?
2 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on fede rally protected wetlands (including but not lim ited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, fil ling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
2 d) Interfere substanti ally wit h the movement of any native resident or migratory f ish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
1 e) Conflict wi th any local policies or ordinan ces pro tecting biological resources, such as a tree preserv ation policy or ordinance?
Name of Proposal Crenshaw Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5595 Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

1 f) Conflict wit h the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
2 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 15064.5?
2 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resou rces Code Section 15064.5?
2 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
2 a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessar y consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
2 b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as deli neated on the most r ecent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Z oning 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 unsta ble, or that would bec ome unstable as a resul t o f the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
1 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform B uilding Code (1994), c reating substantial risks to life or property?
1 e) Hav e soil s incapable of adequately supporting the use o f septic tanks or a lternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
1 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
2 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a signifi cant impact on the
environment?
2 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of gr eenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
1 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or t he environment through the routine transport, use, o r disposal of hazardous materials?
1 b) Create a signif icant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the re lease of hazardous mat erials into the environment?
2 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material s, 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 Gover nment C ode
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 saf ety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
1 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfer e wi th an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
2 a) Violate an y water quality standar ds of waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
2 b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
2 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of i mpervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
2 i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; 2 ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in floodi ng on- or offsite; or
2 iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 2 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
2 e) Conflict with or obstruct imple mentation 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 environmenta l i mpact 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. 2022-60
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 recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
2 a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards establ ished 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, wi thin t wo miles of a public airpo rt or p ublic use airport, would the project expose people r esiding 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 ex ample, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indi rectly (for exampl e, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
1 b) Displace substantial numbers of exi sting people or housing, necessitating the con struction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
1 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisi on of new or physically altered governmental facilit ies, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause signific ant environmental i mpacts, 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 recr eational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
1 b) Does the project i nclude 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 s ystem, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
2 b) Would the project confli ct 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 t he size and scope of the landscape, sacred plac e, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1 a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of histor ical resources as defined in Public Resources C ode section 5020.1(k), or
1 b) A resource determined by the lead agency , in its discretion and supported by subst antial evidence, to be signific ant pursuant t o criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Publ ic Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying t he criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of P ublic Resources Code Secti on 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the sig nificance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
2 a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or sto rmwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
2 b) Have sufficient water suppl ies available to service t he project and reasonable foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
1 c) Result in a determination b y the wastewater tr eatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the pr oject’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 exce ss of the capacity of local i nfrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduct ion goals?
1 e) Comply with federal, state , a nd local management 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 occ upants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
1 c) Require the in stallation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as r oads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
1 d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, i ncluding downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
2 a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of t he environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild life population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or anim al community, substantially reduce the number o r restrict the ran ge 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 a re individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“C umulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection wi th the effects of past projects, the effects of o ther current projects, and t he effects of probable future projects)?
2 c) Does the pr oject have environ mental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being s, either directly or indirectly?

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code;
Sections 2108 0(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 a nd
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 s ections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3/ 21084.2 and 21084.3

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

I. AESTHETICS
a. The proposed project is new residential construction which will meet City standards for setbacks , landscaping and height restrictions.

This project will not adversely affect the view of any scenic vistas. T he Sie rra 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 residential developmen t that will be aesthetically consistent with surrounding development and with General Plan policies. Furthermore, the City has developme nt standards related to
landscaping and other amenities that will ensur e that the visual character of the area is enhanced and not
degraded. Thus, t he proje ct wou ld not substantially
degrade the existing visu al character of the site and its surroundings.
d. The project will create new sources of light t hat are typical of residential development. The City has development
standards that require that light be direc ted an d/or
shielded so it does not fall upon adjacent properties.

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a. The project is located on property that is identified as Urban and Built -up Lan d a nd Farmland of Local
Importance based on maps pre pared by the California
Department o f Cons ervation and contained within the
Visalia General Plan, Figure 6-4.

The project will be consistent with Policy LU -P-34.

Although the site has been used for farming row crops, the site is identified as Urban and Built -Up and as such does not r equire mitigation to offset the loss since i t is not considered prime farmland as stated in Policy LU-P-34.

The policy states; “the mitigation program shall specifically allow exemption s for conversion of agricultural lands in Tier I.”
Because there is sti ll a significant impact to loss of agricultural resources after conversion of properties within the General Plan Planning Area to non-agricultural uses, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously
adopted with the Visalia General Plan Update EIR.
b. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use. All agricultural related uses have ceased on the property. The project is bordered by urban develop ment or non -
producing vacant land on all sides . There are no known Williamson Act contra cts on any properti es within the project area.
c. There is no f orest or tim ber land currently located on the site.
d. There is no forest or tim ber land currently located on t he site.
e. The project will not i nvolve any changes that would promote or resul t in the co nversion of farmlan d to non- agriculture use. The subject pro perty is currentl y
designated for an urban rather than agricultura l land use.

Properties that are vaca nt may develop in a way that is consistent with their zoning and land use designated at any ti me. T he adopt ed Vi salia General Plan’s
implementation of a three-tier growth boundary system
further assists in protecting 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 Control District (SJVAPCD). The project in itself does not disrupt implementation of t he San Joaquin Regional Air Quality Management Plan, and w ill t herefore be a less than
significant impact.
b. Development under the Vis alia General Plan will result in emissions that w ill exceed thresholds establi shed by the SJVAPCD for PM10 and PM2.5. The project will
contribute to a net increase of criteria pol lutants and w ill therefore contribute to exceeding the thresholds . Also the project could result in short-term air quality impacts related to dust generation and exha ust due to construction and grading activities. This site was evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update EIR for co nversion into urban
development. Development under the General Plan will
result in increases of construction and operation-re lated criteria pollutant impacts, which are considered significant and unavoidable. Gen eral Plan po licies identified under Impacts 3.3 -1 and 3.3- 2 serve as th e mitigation which assists in reducing the severity of the impact to the extent possible while still a chieving the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a certain amount of growth to occur within the Planning Area.

The project is required to adhere to requirements
administered by the SJVA PCD to reduce emiss ions to a
level of compliance consistent wi th the District’s grading regulations. Compl iance with the SJVAPCD’s rules and
regulations will reduc e potential im pacts associated with air quality standard violations to a less than significan t level.

In additio n, d evelopment of the project will be subje ct to the SJV APCD Indirect Source Review (Ru le 9510)
procedures that became effective on M arch 1, 2006. The Applicant will be required to obtain permits demonst rating compliance with Rule 9510, or payment of miti gation fees to the SJVAPCD.
c. Tulare Cou nty is designated non-attainment for certain federal ozone and state ozone levels. The pr oject will result in a net increase of criteria pollutants. This site was evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update EIR for
conversion into urban development. De velopment under
the General Plan will result in increases of construction and operation-related criteria pollutant impacts, which are Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

considered significant and unavoidable. General Plan
policies identified und er Impacts 3.3 -1, 3.3 -2, and 3.3-3 serve as the mitigation which assists in reducing the
severity of the impact to the extent possible w hile sti ll achieving the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a
certain amount of gr owth to occur wi thin the Planning Area.

The project is required to adhere to r equirements
administered by the SJVAPCD to redu ce emissions to a
level of compliance consistent with the Di strict’s gr ading regulations. Compliance with the SJVAPCD ’s rules and
regulations will reduce potential im pacts associat ed with air quality standard violations to a less than significant level.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The site has no known species identified as a candidate, sensitive, o r special status species in local or regional plans, po licies, or regul ations, or by the California Department of Fis h and Game or U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service. The project would therefore not have a
substantial ad verse effect on a sensitive, candidate, or special species.

In addition, staff had con ducted an on-site visit t o the site on February 9, 2023 to observe biol ogical conditions an d did not observe any evidence or s ymptoms that would
suggest the presence of a sensi tive, candidate, or special species.

City-wide biological resources were evaluat ed in the
Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR concluded that certai n special -status species or their habitats may be directly or indirectly affected by future development wit hin the General Plan Planning Area. This may be through the removal of or
disturbance to habitat. Such effects woul d be considered significant. However, the General Plan contains multiple polices, identifie d under Impac t 3.8 -1 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on
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 nat ural 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 dev elopment w ithin the Gener al P lan Planning Area, particularly valley oak woodlands and valle y oa k riparian woodlands. Such eff ects would be considered
significant. However, the General Plan contains multiple polices, identified under Impact 3.8-2 of the E IR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on
woodlands located within in t he P lanning Area. With
implementation of these policies, impacts on woodlands
will be less than significant.
c. The proje ct is not located within or adjacent to federa lly protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

City-wide biologic al r esources were evaluated in the
Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR concluded that certain protected wetlands and other waters may be di rectly or indir ectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning
Area. Such effects would be considered significant.

However, the G eneral Plan c ontains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3.8-3 of the EIR, that togethe r work to r educe the pote ntial for impacts on wetlands and other waters located within in t he P lanning Area. With implementation of these policies, impacts on wet lands will be less than significant.
d. City-wide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR co ncluded that the mov ement of wil dlife species may be di rectly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning. Such
effects would be considered significant. Howeve r, the General Plan contains multiple polices, identified und er Impact 3.8-4 of t he EIR, that together work to reduc e the potential for impacts on wildli fe movement c orridors
located within in the Pla nning Area. With implementation of these poli cies, impa cts on wildlife movement corridors will be less than significant.
e. The project wil l not c onflict with any local polic ies or ordinances protecting biologic al resources. The City has a municipal ordinance in place to protect valley oak trees.

Four valley oaks have been id entified adjacent to the project site, however these are located outside of the
development area and will be preserved within the 50-ft riparian setback of the Mill Creek.
f. There are no local or regional habitat conservation plan s 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 dur ing development all work should cease until a qualified professional archaeologi st can evaluate t he finding and make necessary mitigati on
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 eval uate the finding and make necessary mitigation recommendations.
c. There are no known human remains buried in the project vicinity. If human re mains are unearthed during
development all work should cease until the proper
authorities are notified and a qualified professional
archaeologist can ev aluate the fi nding and make any
necessary mitigation recommendations. In the event that potentially sign ificant cultural r esources are discovered during ground disturbing activities a ssociated with project preparation, construction, or completion, work shall halt in Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

that area until a qualified Native American t ribal observer, archeologist, or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate
treatment me asures in consu ltation with Tulare County Museum, Coroner, and other appropriate agencies and
interested parties.

VI. ENERGY
a. Development of the site will require the us e of energy supply and infrastructure. However, the use of energy will be typical of that a ssociated with residential development associated with the underlying zo ning. Furthermore, the use is not considered the type of use or intensity that would resul t in wasteful, inef ficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during c onstruction or operation. The pr oject will be requi red to comply wit h 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 signif icant level. With implement ation 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 issue d 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 s ubstantial adverse impacts involving
earthquakes.
b. The dev elopment of this site wi ll require movement of topsoil. Existing City Engineering Division s tandards
require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted for review to the C ity to ensu re 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 unsta ble. Soils in the Visalia area have few limitations with regard to development . Due to low clay content and limit ed topographic reli ef, soils in the Visalia area have low expansion characteristics.
d. Due to low clay content, soils in the Visalia area have an expansion index of 0 -20, which is defined as very low
potential expansion.
e. The project doe s n ot involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater 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 l ocated within the project ar ea. In the event that pote ntially significa nt cultural r esources are discovered during ground disturbing activities associated with project preparation, construction, or completion, work shall halt in that area until a qualified N ative Amer ican tribal observer, archeologist, or pal eontologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consult ation with
Tulare C ounty Museum, Coroner, and other appropriate
agencies and interested parties.

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

The City has prepared and adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which includes a baseline G HG emissions
inventories, reduction measures, and reduction targets
consistent with local an d State goals. The CAP was
prepared concurrently with the proposed General P lan
and its i mpacts are also evaluated in the Visalia G eneral Plan Update EIR.

The Vi salia General Plan and the CAP both include
policies that aim to reduce the level of GHG em issions emitted in association with buildout conditions under the General Plan. Although emissions will be generated as a result of the project, implem entation of t he General Plan and CAP policies will result in fewer emissions than would be associated wi th a continuation of baseline conditions.

Thus, the impact to GHG emissions wil l b e less tha n
significant.
b. The Stat e o f 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 a ddition, the State has ena cted SB 32 which included provisions for reduc ing the GHG emission levels to a level 40% below 1990 baseline levels by 2030.

The proposed project will not i mpede the State’s ability to meet the GHG emission reduction targets under AB 32
and SB 3 2. Curr ent and probable future state and lo cal GHG reduc tion measures will continue to reduce the
project’s contribution to climate change. As a r esult, the project will not contribute significantly, either individually or cumulatively, to GHG emissions.

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. No hazardous materials are anticipated with the project. b. Construction activities associated with development of the project may includ e maintenance of on- site construction equipment which could l ead to minor fuel and oil sp ills.

The use and handling of any hazardous materials during
construction activities would occur in accordance with
applicable federal, state, region al, and local laws .

Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than
significant.
c. There is one school loc ated wit hin a quarter mile of the project site. The school is located 57-feet northwest of the project site (Willow Glen Elem entary). 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 sit es liste d as hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code
Section 65692.5.
e. The City of Visalia an d County of Tulare adopted Airport Master Plans show the project area is located outside of any Airport Zo nes. There are no res trictions for the proposed project related to Airport Zone requirements.

The project area is not located within two miles of a public airport.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

f. The project will not interfere with the impleme ntation of any ad opted emergency r esponse plan or evacuation
plan.
g. There are no wild lands within or near the project area.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Development projects associated with bui ldout under the Visalia General Plan are subject to regulations which
serve to en sure that such pr ojects d o not violate water quality standards of waste discharge requirements. These regulations include the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA),
the National Poll utant Discharge Eli mination System
(NPDES) permit program. Stat e re gulations inc lude the State Water Reso urces Control Board (S WRCB) and
more specifi cally the Cen tral Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), of which the project site area falls within the jurisdiction of.

Adherence to these regulations res ults in projects
incorporating mea sures th at re duce 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 Vis alia 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 impacts to water quality. With implementat ion of these policies and the existing City sta ndards, impacts to wat er quali ty wi ll be less than significant.
b. The project area overlies the southern portion of the San Joaquin unit of the Centr al Valley groundwater aquifer.

The project w ill result in an increase of imper vious
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 alread y largely develope d and covered by impervious surfaces, the inc rease 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 gr oundwater extraction will assist in offsetting the loss in groundwater recharge.
c.
i. The development of this site will require movement of topsoil. Existing City Engineering Division standards
require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted
for review t o t he C ity to ensure that off- and on-s ite improvements will be des igned to meet City
standards.
ii. Development of the site will create additional
impervious surfaces. However, existing and planned
improvements to st orm water drainage facilities as
required through the Visalia General Plan policies will reduce any potential impacts to a less than signif icant level.

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

The project site will be accommodated by an
extension of the City’s storm water lines.

Furthermore, the project will be required to meet the
City’s improvement stand ards 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 im provements will no t cause
significant environmental impacts.
d. The project area is located sufficientl y inland and distant from bodies of water, and outside potent ially hazardous areas for seiches and tsunamis. The site is als o relatively flat, which will contribute to the lack of impacts by mudflow occurrence. Therefore th ere wil l be no impact related to these hazards.
e. Development of the site has the potential to affect
drainage pat terns in the short term due to erosion and sedimentation during construction activities and in the long term through the expansion of imper vious surfaces.

Impaired storm water runoff may then be intercepted and directed to a storm drain or water body, unl ess allowed to stand in a detention area. The Ci ty’s existing standards may re quire the preparation and impl ementation of a
Storm Water Po llution Prev ention Plan (SWPPP) in
accordance with the SWRCB’s General Construction
Permit process , which would addre ss erosion control
measures.

The Visalia General Plan contains multiple po lices,
identified under Impact 3.6-1 of the EIR, that tog ether work to reduce the potential for erosio n. With
implementation of these policies and the existing Ci ty standards, impacts to erosion will be less than significant.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The project will not phys ically divide an established community. The proposed project is to be developed on
land designated for residential development. The project site is surrounded on three sides by urban development
and is bordered by one roadway.
b. The 6.77-acre development will place single-family
residential homes 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 is consistent with Lan d Use Policy LU-P-19 of t he General Plan. Policy LU -P-19 state s:
“Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric
fashion by implementing the General Plan’ s phased
growth strategy.”
Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

The proposed project will be consiste nt with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, including Policy LU -P-55 for Low Density Residential Development, and consistent with the standards for single-family residential development pursuant to the Visalia Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) Chapter 17.12.

The project as a whole does not conflict with any land use plan, po licy or regulation of the City of Visalia. The site contains a General Plan Land Use Designation of
Residential Low Density . The project is part of an
annexation request and d oes not currently have an
assigned Zoning Designati on, how ever, once ann exed
into the city, the underlying land use would a llow for the most consistent zoning designation of Single-family
Residential (R -1-5). The City of Vis alia’s Zoning
Ordinance allows for single-family residences as permitted uses in their respective zones.

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 Gener al Plan.

With implementation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts to land use dev elopment consistent
with the General Plan will be less than significant.

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

XIII. NOISE
a. The project will result in noise generation typical of urban development, but not in excess of standa rds establi shed in the City of Visalia’s Gener al Plan or Noise Ordinance.

The Vi salia Noise E lement and City Ordinance contain
criterion for acceptable nois e levels inside and outside residential living spaces. This standard is 65 dB DNL for outdoor activity areas associated with residences and 45 dB DNL for indoor areas.

Ambient noise levels w ill increase beyond current levels as a result of the proje ct; however, these levels will be typical of noise levels associated with urban development and not in excess of s tandards established in the City of Visalia’s General Plan or Noise Or dinance. The City’s
standards for setbacks and construction of fences or walls along major streets and bet ween residential uses reduce noise levels to a level that is less than significa nt. Noise associated with the establishment of new residential uses was previously e valuated with the General Plan for the conversion of land to urban uses.

Noise levels will i ncrease temporarily during the
construction of the project but shall remain within the limits defined by the City of Vi salia Noise Ordinance. Temporary increase in ambient noise levels is considered to be less than significant.
b. Ground-borne vibration or gr ound-borne noise levels may occur as part of construction activities associated with the project. Construction acti vities wil l be temporary and will not expose persons to such vibration or noise levels for an extended period of time; thus the impacts will be less than significant. There are no existing uses near the project area that cre ate ground-borne vibration or gr ound-borne noise levels.
c. The project area is located in excess of t wo 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 in duce substantial unplanned population growth th at is in excess of that plann ed in the General Plan, as the General Plan placed a default land use designation of Low Density Residential on all future school sites.
b. Development of the site will result in the removal of one non-deed restricted residential structures on the 6.77-acre site. The removal of this structures in addition to se veral accessory structures will he lp in facilitating the
development of this site with 34 new single-family homes.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a.
i. Current fire protection facilities are located at the Visalia Station 55, located approximately 2.5 miles north of the property, and ca n adequately serve the site without a
need for alteration. Impact fees will be paid to miti gate the project’s proportionate impact on these facilities. ii. Current police protection facilities can adequately serve the site without a need f or alteration. Impact fees will be paid to mitigate the project’s proportionate impact on
these facilities.
iii. The project will generate additional dwelling units, for which existing schools in the area may accommodate.
iv. Current park facilities can a dequately serve th e sit e without a need for alteration. Impact fees will be paid to mitigate the project’s proportionate i mpact on these
facilities.
v. Other public facilities can adequately ser ve the site without a need for alteration.

XVI. RECREATION
a. The project will gen erate new res idents and will therefore incrementally increase the use of existing parks and other recreational f acilities, but not at a level that will cause or accelerate substantia l adverse impacts or reduce
acceptable serv ice levels. Further, the project will pay Recreation Impact Fees to fund the creation and
maintenance of new parks and recreational programs.
b. The proposed project does not include public recreational facilities o r require the construction or expansion of any existing recreational facil ities within the area that would otherwise have an adverse phy sical effect on the
environment.

The Visalia Gener al Plan contains multiple polices,
identified under Impact 3. 9-7 of th e EIR, that together work t o address the quality and management of
recreational fa cilities and the development of new
recreational facilities with progressive growth of the City .

With implementation of these policies and the existing City standards, impacts will be less than significant.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

XVII. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. Development and op eration of th e project is not
anticipated to conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies est ablishing measures of effectiveness of the City’s ci rculation system. Th e 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 traff ic in the area, but will not cause a subs tantial increase in traffic on the city’s existing circulation pattern.

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

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

For the metric measuring VMT per 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 14.7537 miles, which is above the average county-wide trip distance of 11. 9 miles and the 16% target reduction of 9.76 mil es. However, under the Guidelines, the projec t 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 Ge neral Plan and current zoning. The Crenshaw Tentative
Subdivision project is projected to generate a maximum 321 trips daily. As proposed, the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and will comply with Chapter 17.12 Single-Family Resi dential Zone development standards.

Hence, the proposal is screened out of performing a VMT analysis and the project will hav e a less than significant impact with regards to complianc e with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
c. There are no planned geometric designs associated with the project that are considered hazardous.
d. The pr oject 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 a s either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of t he landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural val ue to a C alifornia Native American tribe.
a. The site is not listed or eligible for l isting in t he California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register o f historical resources as def ined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
b. The site has been det ermined to not be significant pursuant to criteria set fort h in subdivision (c) of Pu blic Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth i n subdivision (c) of Public R esource C ode Section 5024.1, the lead agency sha ll consider t he
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Pre-consultations lette rs were sent to local tribes in accordance with AB 52, providing tribes a 20-day early
review period. Staff did not receive correspondence in
return from any of the tribes which where noticed.

Further, the EIR (SCH 2010041078) for the 2014 General Plan update included a thorough review of sacred lands files through the Califor nia Native American H eritage Commission.

The sacred lands file did not contai n a ny kn own c ultural resources information for the Visalia Planning Area.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. The project will be connecting to existing City sa nitary sewer lines, consi stent with the City S ewer Mas ter Pl an.

The Visalia wastewater treatment plant has a current rated capacity of 22 million gallons per day, but currently treat s an average da ily maximum month flow of 12.5 million
gallons per day. With the completed project, the plant has more t han suff icient capacity to accommodate impacts
associated w ith t he pr oposed pr oject. The proposed
project will therefore not cause signif icant environme ntal impacts.

The project site will be accommodated by an extension of the City’s sanitary sewer and storm water lines. As part of the project, existing sanitary sewer and storm water mains will be extended off -site along public street frontages.

Usage of these lines is consistent with the City Sewer
System Master Plan and Storm Water Master Plan. These
improvements wil l n ot cause significant environmental impacts.
b. California Water Serv ice Company has determined that there are sufficient water supplies to support the site, and that service can be extended to the site.
c. The City has deter mined that there is adequat e c apacity 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. Rem oval 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 sides b y e xisting deve lopment. The site will be further served by mult iple points of access. In the event of an emergency respon se, coordinatio n would be made with
the C ity’s Engineering, Police, and Fire Divisions to
ensure that adequate access to and fr om the site is
maintained.
b. The project area is r elatively flat and the underlying soil is not known to be unstable. Therefore, t he site is not in a location that is likely to exacerbate wildfire risks.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

c. The project is located on a site that is adjacent on multiple sides by existing development. New pro ject development will require the installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure; however the in frastructure would be typical of residential development and would be developed to the standards of the underlying responsible agencies.
d. The project area is relatively flat and the underlying s oil is not known to be unstable. Therefore, the sit e is not in a location tha t would expose persons or structures to
significant risks of flooding or landslides.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The project wi ll n ot a ffect the habit at of a fish or wildl ife species or a plant or animal comm unity. This site was evaluated in the Pro gram EIR ( SCH No. 2010041078) for the City of Visalia’s General Plan Update for conversion to urban use. The City adopted mitigation m easures for
conversion to urban development. Where effects were still determined to be significant a statem ent of overridi ng considerations was made.
b. This site was evaluated in the Program EIR (SCH No.
2010041078) for the City of Visalia General Plan Updat e for the area’s conver sion 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 t he Program EI R ( 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 st ill determined to be significant a statement of overriding considerations was made.

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

I find that the proposed projec t MAY have a "potentially s ignificant impact" or " potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least on e effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal stan dards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as describ ed 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 proj ect no new effects could oc cur, or new m itigation measures would be required that have not been addressed wi thin the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010041078). The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Visalia General Plan was certified by Resolution No. 2014-37 adopted on October 14, 2014. THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WILL BE UTILIZED.

March 14, 2023

Brandon Smith, AICP Date
Environmental Coordinator

Environmental Document No. 2022-60
City of Visalia Community Development

Visalia City CouncilJuly 17, 2023

Visalia City Council
July 17, 2023