Exhibit “D” - Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 — Visalia City Council, August 7, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Barr-Wood Subdivision
April 2023
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Prepared By: Prepared For:

City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Initial Study/MND Process 1-1

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines 1-1

1.2 Initial Study 1-1

1.3 Environmental Checklist 1-2

1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration/Notice of Preparation 1-2

1.5 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-3

1.6 Intended Uses of the Environmental Assessment, Initial Study 1-3

1.7 Notice of Determination 1-3

1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart 1-4

Section 2: Project Description 2-1

2.1 Project Description & Purpose 2-1

2.2 Project Location 2-1

2.3 Other Permits and Approvals 2-2

Section 3: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-1

3.1 Purpose 3-1

3.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-2

3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-8

3.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-11

3.5 Environmental Analysis 3-12
I. Aesthetics 3-12
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources 3-17
III. Air Quality 3-23
IV. Biological Resources 3-30
V. Cultural Resources 3-37
VI. Energy 3-42
VII. Geology and Soils 3-46
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-52
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-57
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 3-62
XI. Land Use and Planning 3-69
XII. Mineral Resources 3-74
XIII. Noise 3-75
XIV. Population and Housing 3-80
XV. Public Services 3-82
XVI. Parks and Recreation 3-86
XVII. Transportation 3-88
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 3-94
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 3-101
XX. Wildfire 3-106
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-108

3.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3-110

3.7 Supporting Information and Sources 3-115

Section 4: List of Report Preparers 4-1

Appendices
Appendix A: CalEEMod Report
Appendix B: Biological Evaluation
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D: Energy Calculations
Appendix E: VMT Assessment

List of Figures
2-1 Regional Location 2-3
2-2 Vicinity Map 2-4
3-1 Vicinity Map 3-6
3-2 Site Plan 3-7
3-3 Tentative Parcel Map 3-8
3-4 Phasing Plan 3-9
3-5 Important Farmland Map 3-20
3-6 Soils Map 3-48
3-7 Distance to Schools and Airports 3-59
3-8 General Plan Land Use Designation 3-71
3-9 Zoning Map 3-72
3-10 Construction Related Noised Levels Based on Distance 3-78 3-11 Visalia Existing VMT per Capita 3-92

List of Tables
3-1 Important Farmland Developed Under General Plan 3-21 3-2 San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status 3-24
3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-26
3-4 SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants 3-27 3-5 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction 3-28 3-6 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Operations 3-28 3-7 Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site 3-33 3-8 SCE and State Average Power Resources 3-42
3-9 Fuel Use Generated by Construction Activities 3-44 3-10 Fuel Use Generated by Operational Activities 3-44 3-11 Greenhouse Gasses 3-52
3-12 Projected Operational GHG Compared to 2005 BAU 3-55 3-13 Project Consistency with Climate Action Plan Strategies 3-56 3-14 City of Visalia Noise Standards 3-76
3-15 Noise Levels of Noise-Generating Construction Equipment 3-77 3-16 Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment 3-78 3-17 Student Generation Rates 3-84
3-18 Proposed Project’s Trip Generation 3-90

Section 1
Initial Study/Negative
Declaration Process
1-1

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291

SECTION 1
CEQA Review Process

Project Title: Barr-Wood Subdivision

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines

Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines requires that the Lead Agency prepare an Initial Study to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment. All phases of the project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. The purposes of an Initial Study, as listed under Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, include:

(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration;
(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration; (3) Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
(a) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (b) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, (c) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, and
(d) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appr opriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects.
(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment
(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

1.2 Initial Study

The Initial Study provided herein covers the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of 136 low density residential dwelling units on approximately 69.35 gross acres. The proposed project site is prezoned for R-1-20, and the General Plan designation is Very Low Density Residential. The City of Visalia will act as the Lead Agency for processing the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.

1-2

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

1.3 Environmental Checklist

The Lead Agency may use the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063(d)(3) and (f)] in preparation of an Initial Study to provide information for determination if there are significant effects of the project on the environment. A copy of the completed Environmental Checklist is set forth in Section Three.

1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration

The Lead Agency shall provide a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15072) to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies and the County Clerk within which the project is located, sufficiently prior to adoption by the Lead Agency of the Negative Declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period. The public review period (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105) shall not be less than 30 days when the Initial Study/Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse unless a shorter period, not less than 20 days, is approved by the State Clearinghouse.

Prior to approving the project, the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and shall adopt the proposed Negative Declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

The written and oral comments received during the public review period will be considered by The City of Visalia prior to adopting the Negative Declaration. Regardless of the type of CEQA document that must be prepared, the overall purpose of the CEQA process is to:

1) Assure that the environment and public health and safety are protected in the face of discretionary projects initiated by public agencies or private concerns; 2) Provide for full disclosure of the project’s environmental effects to the public, the agency decision- makers who will approve or deny the project, and the responsible trustee agencies charged with managing resources (e.g. wildlife, air quality) that may be affected by the project; and 3) Provide a forum for pub lic participation in the decision -making process pertaining to potential environmental effects.

According to Section 15070(a) a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:

The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

Less than significant impacts with mitigation measures have been identified.

The Environmental Checklist Discussion contained in Section Three of this document has determined that the environmental impacts of the project are less than significant with mitigation measures and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for adoption by the Lead Agency.

1-3

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

1.5 Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration

The Lead Agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070) for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include the following:

(a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project. (b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map. (c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. (d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding. (e) Mitigation measures, if any.

1.6 Intended Uses of Initial Study/Negative Declaration documents

The Initial Study/Negative Declaration document is an informational document that is intended to inform decision-makers, other responsible or inter ested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable the public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, th e Lead Agency must balance any potential environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals. The City of Visalia, as Lead Agency, will make a determination, based on the environmental review for the Environmental Study, Initial Study and comments from the general public, if there are less than significant impacts from the proposed project and the requirements of CEQA can be met by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

1.7 Notice of Determination (NOD)

The Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination within five working days after deciding to approve the project. The Notice of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15075) shall include the following:

(1) An identification of the project including the project title as identified on the proposed negative declaration, its location, and the State Clearinghouse identification number for the proposed negative declaration if the notice of determination is filed with the State Clearinghouse. (2) A brief description of the project.
(3) The agency's name and the date on which the agency approved the project. (4) The determination of the agency that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. (5) A statement that a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration was adopted pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
(6) A statement indicating whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project, and whether a mitigation monitoring plan/program was adopted. (7) The address where a copy of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration may be examined.
(8) The identity of the person undertaking a project which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies or the identity of the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use from one or more public agencies.
1-4

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart

Section 2
Project Description
2-1
Barr
-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 2
Project Description
P
roject Title: Barr-Wood Subdivision
2 .1 Project Description and Purpose
Th
e Project proposes a 136-unit, low-density single-family development with a central park and walking trails on 69.35 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area. The Project site’s existing General Plan land use designation is Residential Very Low Density, which corresponds to a prezone of R-1-20 (single- family residential, 20,000 square feet minimum lot size). The project includes 136 homes, averaging 11,592 square feet per lot, a 3.7-acre recessed park with walking trails, and a drainage pond.

The construction of the Project will be in three phases (Figure 3-5). Phase one will include 45 homes and the eastern site entrance, as well as a temporary emergency access road and storm drainage basin. The second phase will include 44 homes, the western site entrance, the stormwater drainage pond, and the central park. Phase three will include the remaining 47 homes.

T
he Project will require annexation into the City of Visalia; however, it is within the Visalia Planning Area and borders existing single-family homes within City Limits. Along with the annexation, the Project plans on splitting the existing parcel into three parcels to coincide with the phased development of the Project (Figure 3-3).

Th
e P roject requires a conditional use permit for three reasons. First, the Project is planning for a minimum lot size of 11,592 square feet rather than the 20,000 square feet R -1-20 zone requires. The second reason is reduced front and side yard setbacks. The R-1- 20 zone requires a minimum setback of 35 feet in the front and 10 feet on the sides. The Project is planning for setbacks of 30 feet and 5 feet, respectively. The third reason is the minimum width of the lots. The R -1-20 zone requires a minimum width of 100 feet on interior lots and 110 feet on corner lots. The Project plans for a minimum width of 85 feet, ranging to a maximum of 206 feet.

2. 2 Project Location
Th
e proposed project site is located within in the City of Visalia Planning Area within Tulare County. The site is West of South Roeben Street and East of South Shirk Road. The site is approximately 4 miles Southwest of the Visalia downtown. The Project involves construction on approximately 69.35 acres on APN 119-022-041. The site is topographically flat and is bounded by agricultural uses (Including a Dairy Farm) to the South and East, and single -family housing to the North and West. The site is zoned AE -20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) by Tulare County but is prezoned for R-1- 20 (Single Family Residential, 20,000 Square Foot Minimum Site Area) by the City of Visalia pending annexation. The

2-2
Barr
-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 General Plan Designation is Very Low Density Residential. The site currently contains agricultural uses and vacant land.
2 .3 Other Permits and Approvals
T
he following discretionary approvals are required from the City of Visalia for the proposed project:
• T
entative Subdivision Map
• Tentative Parcel Map
• Conditional Use Permit for Lot Sizes, Lot Widths, and Lot Setbacks • Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Annexation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD and will be required to comply with Rule VIII, 3135, 4101, and 9510. • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWPPP. The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB will require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent impacts related to stormwater because of project construction.

T
he following ministerial approvals are required from the City of Visalia for the proposed project:
• C
ity of Visalia Building and Encroachment Permits
• Roadway Dedication of Shirk Road, Roeben Street, and Whitendale Avenue 2-3

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map

2-4

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Figure 2-2. Vicinity Map

Section 3

Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts

3 -1
Barr
-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project Title: Barr-Wood Subdivision
This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed construction and operation of 136-unit, low-density single-family development with a central park and walking trails on

69.35 gross acres within the City of Visalia. The City of Visalia will act as Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

3.1 PURPOSE
T
he purpose of this environmental document is to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15002(a) of the CEQA Guidelines describes the basic purposes of CEQA as follows. (
1) I
nform governmental decision- makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.
(4) D
isclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

Th
is Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). According to Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
(
a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review woul d
av
oid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

3-2
Barr
-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

3.2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

1. Project Title: Barr-Wood Subdivision

2. Lead Agency: City of Visalia, Planning and Development Department Contact Person: Cristobal Carrillo, Planning Division
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
Phone Number: (559) 713-4443

3. Applicant: Woodside Homes
9 River Park Place East, Suite 430
Fresno, CA 93720
Phone Number: (559)-437-5010

4. Project Location: The proposed project site is located within in the City of Visalia Planning Area within Tulare County. The site is West of South Roeben Street and East of South Shirk Road. The site is approximately 4 miles Southwest of the Visalia downtown. The Project involves construction on approximately 69.35 acres on APN 119 -022-041. The site is topographically flat and is bounded by agricultural uses (Including a Dairy Farm) to the South and East, and single-family housing to the North and West. The site is zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) by Tulare County but is prezoned for R-1-20 (Single Family Residential, 20,000 Square Foot Minimum Site Area) by the City of Visalia pending annexation. The General Plan Designation is Very Low Density Residential. The site currently contains agricultural uses and vacant land.

5. General Plan Designation: The proposed project site is designated as Very Low Density Residential by th
e Visalia General Plan.

6. Zoning Designation: The site is zoned AE -20 by Tulare County but is prezoned for R-1-20 by the City of Visalia.

7. Project Description: The Project proposes a 136- unit, low-density single-family development with a central park and walking trails on 69.35 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area. The Project site’s existing General Plan land use designation is Residential Very L ow Density, which corresponds to a prezone of R -1-20 (single-family residential, 20,000 square feet minimum lot size). The project includes 136 homes, averaging 11,592 square feet per lot, a 3.7-acre recessed park with walking trails, and a drainage pond.

T
he Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including new and relocated utilities, new residential streets, improvements of South Roeben Street and South Shirk Road, and the continuation and improvement of West Whitendale A venue. The Project will require no demolition. The construction of the Project will be in three phases (Figure 3 -4). Phase one will include 45 homes and the eastern site entrance, as well as a temporary emergency access road and storm drainage basin. The second phase will include 44 homes, the western site entrance, the stormwater drainage pond, and the central park. Phase three will include the remaining 47 homes. 3-3
Barr
-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 The Project will require annexation into the City of Visalia; however, it is within the Visalia Planning Area and borders existing single -family homes within City Limits. Along with the annexation, the Project plans on splitting the existing parcel into three parcels to coincide with the phased development of the Project (Figure 3-3).

Th
e Project requires a conditional use permit for three reasons. First, the Project is planning for a minimum lot size of 11,592 square feet rather than the 20,000 square feet R-1-20 zone requires. The second reason is reduced front and side yard setbacks. The R-1-20 zone requires a minimum setback of 35 feet in the front and 10 feet on the sides. The Project is planning for setbacks of 30 feet and 5 feet, respectively. The third reason is the minimum width of the lots. The R -1-20 zone requires a minimum width of 100 feet on interior lots and 110 feet on corner lots. The Project plans for a minimum width of 85 feet, ranging to a maximum of 206 feet.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:

North: Very Low Density Residential ( Visalia General Plan , Visalia Planning Area ), currently Single - Family Housing.

South: Agricultural Use (Tulare County General Plan) currently agricultural use, including a dairy.

East: Low Density Residential ( Visalia General Plan, Visalia Planning Area ) currently Single-Famil y
H
ousing.

West: Agriculture Use (Tulare County General Plan) currently agricultural use.

9. Required Approvals: The following discretionary approvals are required from the City of Visalia for the proposed project:
• Tentative Subdivision Map
• Tentative Parcel Map
• Conditional Use Permit for Lot Sizes, Lot Widths, and Lot Setbacks • Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Annexation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD and will be required to comply with Rule VIII, 3135, 4101, and 9510. • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWPPP. The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB will require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent impacts related to stormwater because of project construction.

10. Native American Consultation: The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic 3-4

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial eviden ce, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Native American tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Tulare County has several Rancherias.

The tribes that were formally noticed of this Project were the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, Tule River Indian Tribe , Kern Valley Indian Community, North Fork Mono Tribe , and the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. These Rancherias are not located within the City limits.

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administe red by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

The Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe responded on behalf of the Tribe requesting an archaeological firm be hired to conduct a pre -construction survey, a records search with NAHC and CHRIS center, and monitoring of any ground disturbing activities due to concerns with the Project.

Additionally, the Tachi Yokut Tribe request to be put in contact with the archaeological firm hired so they can maintain updates about the Project.

11. Parking and access: Vehicular access to the project is available via S Shirk Road and S Roeben Street.

The project include s new streets and court s that provide full access to the project site. During construction, workers will utilize existing parking areas and/or temporary construction staging areas for parking of vehicles and equipment. Additionally, a temporary emergency access will be added during early construction.

12. Landscaping and Design: The landscape and design plans will be required during building permit and final map submittal for any areas maintained by a landscape and lighting district.

13. Utilities and Electrical Services: The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including new and relocated utilities. Water will be provided by Cal Water and sewer services will be provided by the City of Visalia via existing lines. A stormwater pond will be located in the Southwest corner of the site. During construction, a temporary stormwater basin will be utilized.

The Project would include improvement to the surrounding streets. The Right of Way (ROW) of S.

Roeben Street will be widened to 84’ and include a new center median. The Project will build out the western half of Roeben Street to include a sidewalk, bike lane, and landscaping. The ROW of S. Shirk Road will be widened to 110’, with the Project providing the eastern half of improvements. The eastern half of Shirk Street will include two lane s of traffic, a bike lane, a sidewalk, and landscaping.

W. Whitendale Avenue, currently a dirt road, will be widened to an 84’ ROW, with the Project providing the northern half of improvements. The northern half of Whitendale will include new pavement for a travel lane, bike lane, and on -street parking. Additionally, the Project will add a sidewalk and landscaping.
3-5

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Acronyms

BMP Best Management Practices
BAU Business as Usual
CAA Clean Air Act
CBC California Building Code CCAP Climate Change Action Plan CCR California Code of Regulation
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CRHR California Register of Historic Places CWA California Water Act
DHS Department of Health Services
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FMMP Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ISMND Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration ISR Indirect Source Review MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MEIR Master Environmental Impact Report
NOI Notice of Intent
ND Negative Declaration
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
ROW Right-of-Way
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCE Southern California Edison SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SSJVIC Southern San Joaquin Information Center SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource UWMP Urban Water Management Plan

3-6

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Figure 3-1. Vicinity Map

3-7
Barr
-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-2: Site Plan

3-8

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Figure 3-3: Tentative Parcel Map

3-9
Barr
-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-5: Phasing Plan

3-10
Barr
-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A
brief explanation is required for all answers except “no Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites, in the parentheses following each question.

A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that th e im
pact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. A
ll answers must take account of the whole action involved, inc luding off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. O
nce the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant . If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR if required.

4. “
Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. E
arlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c) (3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following. • E
arlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. • Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
• Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated.” Describe and mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. L
ead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) . Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
3 -11
Barr
-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.  Aesthetics  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Public Services  Agriculture and Forest Resources  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Recreation  Air Quality  Hydrology and Water Quality  Transportation  Biological Resources  Land Use and Planning  Tribal Cultural Resources  Cultural Resources  Mineral Resources  Utilities and Service System  Energy  Noise  Wildfire
 Geology and soils  Population  Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.

O
n the basis of this initial evaluation:
 I
find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
 I
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  I
find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
 I
find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as de scribed on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
 I
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is requested. ________________________________ _5/31/2023____________

SIGNATURE
DATE
Brandon Smith__________________________ City of Visalia

PRINTED NAME AGENCY

3-12

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identify mitigation measures, if applicable.

I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resource Code
Section 210999, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?    
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within state
scenic highway?
   
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
   
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
   

Environmental Setting

Scenic Resources
Scenic resources include landscapes and features that are visually or aesthetically pleasing. They contribute positively to a distinct community or region. These resources produce a visual benefit upon communities. The City of Visalia has a visual character of a mix of rural and built environments.

Visalia
is surrounded by natural open space agricultural land, characterized by uses such as grazing, open space, and cultivated agriculture . Downtown Visalia is the physical, cultural, and economic center, with historical homes surrounding the downtown. St. John’s river flows along the N orth side of Visalia’s city limits, along with smaller creeks and ditches throughout the city. Valley Oak trees, both individually and in groves, also provide an important scenic feature and link to the natural setting of the San Joaquin Valley. The goal of Visalia’s General Plan regarding visual resources is to preserve and re-establish the city’s natural waterway system and Valley Oak tree groves with parks, conservation areas, and trailways.

Scenic Vistas
The Visalia General Plan identifies the Sierra Nevada mountains to the East and agricultural lands surrounding the city as scenic vistas surrounding Visalia.

3-13

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Existing Visual Character
The following photos demonstrate the aesthetic character of the project area. As shown, the proposed project site area is in a relatively flat area characterized by agricultural uses.

Photo 1: Northwest Site Boundary (View Southeast) Source: Google Maps 2021

Photo 2: Southwest Site Boundary (View Northeast) Source: Google Maps 2021

Photo 3: Southeast Site Boundary (View Northwest) Source: Google Maps 2011

3-14

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Regulatory Setting

Scenic Roadways
The California Scenic Highway Program was established in 1963 by the S tate Legislature for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through conservation strategies. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that have either been officially designated or are eligible for designation. State laws affiliated with governing the scenic highway program can be found in Sections 260-263 in The Street and Highways Code.

State Scenic Highways
According to the California Department of Transportation mapping of State Scenic Highways, the City of Visalia does not have officially designated State Scenic Highways, however the City has one eligible State Scenic Highway, a 44-mile stretch of State Route 198 from State Route 99 to Sequoia National Park. This is designated as a scenic corridor in the City’s General Plan This portion of the highway is approximately 1.3 miles North from the proposed site.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 203 0 General Plan includes the policies related to aesthetic resources that correlate to the proposed project:

LU-P-28: Continue to use natural and man- made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the City’s Urban Area Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines.

LU-P-34: Work with Tulare County to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth boundaries and to promote the of use agricultural preserves, where they will promote orderly development.

LU-P-42: Develop scenic corridor and gateway guidelines that will maintain the agricultural character of Visalia at its urban fringe.

LU-P-72: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.

OSC-P-13: In new neighborhoods that include waterways, improvement of the waterway corridor, including preservation and/or enhancement of natural features and development of a continuous waterway trail on at least one side, shall be required.

OSC-P-17: Require that new development along waterways maintain a visual orientation and active interface with waterways. Develop design guidelines to be used for review and approval of subdivision and development proposals to illustrate how this can be accomplished for different land uses in various geographic settings.

OSC-P-34: Enhance views and public access to Planning Area waterways and other significant features such as Valley Oak groves consistent with flood protection, irrigation water conveyance, habitat preservation and recreation planning policies.
3-15

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Tulare County General Plan
The 2030 Tulare County General Plan contains following goals and policies related to aesthetic resources that correlate to the proposed project:

SL-1.1 Natural Landscapes: During review of discretionary approvals, including parcel and subdivision maps, the County shall as appropriate, require new development to not significantly impact or block views of Tulare County’s natural landscapes.

1. Be sited to minimize obstruction of views from public lands and rights-of-ways,

3. Screen parking areas from view,

4. Include landscaping that screens the development,

5. Limit the impact of new roadways and grading on natural settings, and

6. Include signage that is compatible and in character with the location and building design

SL-1.2 Working Landscapes: The County shall require that new non-agricultural structures and infrastructure located in or adjacent to croplands, orchards, vineyards, and open rangelands be sited so as to not obstruct important viewsheds and to be designed to reflect unique relationships with the landscape.

1. Referencing traditional agricultural building forms and materials,

2. Screening and breaking up parking and paving with landscaping, and

3. Minimizing light pollution and bright signage.

SL-3.2 Urban Expansion–Edges: The County shall design and plan the edges and interface of communities with working and natural landscapes to protect their scenic qualities by:

1. Maintaining urban separators between cities and communities,

2. Encouraging cities to master plan mixed-density neighborhoods at their edges, locating compatible lower density uses adjacent to working and natural landscapes, and

3. 3. Protecting important natural, cultural, and scenic resources located within areas that may be urbanized in the future

City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance
The Visalia Zoning Ordinance governs the distribution and intensity of land uses, sets the principles for evaluating development and guides the development and growth of the City. The Zoning Ordinance establishes specific development criteria for each zoning district ( i.e., parking requirements, walls, fencing, setbacks, building height, etc.).

Discussion

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Less than Significant Impact: A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada mountains to the East and agricultural lands surrounding the city are the primary scenic vista within this region.

The site is surrounded by agricultural uses and single -family homes, while the Sierra Nevada foothills are approximately 10 miles east of the project site. The project would obstruct some 3-16

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 views of agricultural uses. However , the project would not significantly alter views overall from the surrounding community. There is a less than significant impact.

b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within state scenic highway?

No Impact: There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways located in the City of Visalia or nearby the site. The proposed project would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway and there is no impact.

c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a 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?

No Impact: The proposed proj ect site is in a n urbanized area within the City of Visalia. The materials, signage, fencing, landscaping, and building materials used in the construction of the project will be selected based on their ability to improve the overall visual character of the area.

The proposed project will comply with all applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. There is no impact.

d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in new lighting sources on the project site consistent with adjacent residential development. New lighting sources would include interior lighting from residences, street lighting, and security lighting. All street and landscape lighting will be consistent with the City’s lighting standards, which are developed to minimize impacts related to excessive light and glare. Although the project will introduce new light sources to the area, all lighting will be consistent with adjacent residential land uses and the City’s lighting standards. The impacts are less than significant.
3-17

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in the
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
   
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act Contract?    
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
   
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?    
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to
non-forest use?
   

3-18

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Environmental Setting

Central California is one of the world’s premier growing regions. Agriculture is an important economic resource for Visalia and the surrounding areas. 39,518 acres, or 65 percent, of the Visalia Planning Area is farmland, producing fruit and nut crops, vegetables, nursery products (trees), apiary products (honey), seed crops (cotton), industrial crops (timber), field crops (alfalfa, barley, corn), and livestock.

The proposed project site is located within the Visalia Planning Area. The proposed project site is not under Williamson Act Contract or a Farmland Security Zone contract. The proposed site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance under the Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).

The Site is within the Tier 2 Development Boundary and is designated for Very Low -Density Housing.

Nearby to the South and West are Prime Farmland and Confined Animal Enclosures. To the North and East are Urban and Built-up land.

Regulatory Setting

California Land Conservation Act of 1965
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, allows local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict the activities on specific parcels of land to agricultural or open space uses. Th e landowners benefit from the contract by receiving greatly reduced property tax assessments. The California Land Conservation Act is overseen by the California Department of Conservation; however local governments are responsible for determining specific allowed uses and enforcing the contract.

Right to Farm Ordinance
Tulare County adopted a “Right to Farm Ordinance ,” to protect the rights of commercial farming operations, while promoting a “good neighbor policy” between these uses. Under this ordinance, property owners and residents are made aware that they may experience inconveniences due to commercial agricultural operations.

California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) The FMMP is implemented by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to conserve and protect agricultural lands within the State. Land is included in this program based on soil type, annual crop yields, and other factors that influence the quality of farmland. The FMMP mapping categories for the most important statewide farmland are as follows:

• Prime Farmland has the ideal physical and chemical composition for crop production. It has been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and can produce sustained yields. 51% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Prime Farmland. • Farmland of Statewide Importance has also been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and is only slightly poorer quality than Prime Farmland. 11% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. • Unique Farmland has been cropped in the four years prior to classification and does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance but has produced specific crops with high economic value. Less than 1% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Unique Farmland.
• Farmland of Local Importance encompasses farmland that does not meet the criteria for the previous three categories. These may lack irrigation, produce major crops, be zoned as 3-19

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 agricultural, and/or support dairy. 2% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Farmland of Local Importance.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to agricultural resources that correlate to the proposed project:

• LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.
• LU-P-21: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the Tier II UDB and the Tier III Urban Growth Boundary consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, according to the stated phasing thresholds. • OSC-P-28: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping, and construction.

Tulare County General Plan
The 2030 Tulare County General Plan contains following goals related to a gricultural resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• Promote the long-term preservation of productive and potentially productive agricultural lands and to accommodate agricultural- support services and agriculturally related activities that support the viability of agriculture and further the County’s economic development goals; • Support increased viability of agriculture production and promote high -value, employment - intensive, and diverse agricultural production, and processing in Tulare County; • Support the reasonable development and economic viability of animal confinement facilities. 3-20

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Figure 3-5: Important Farmlands Map

3-21

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion

a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is currently occupied by agricultural land with field crops. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 69.35 acres of Farmland of Local Importance to non-agricultural uses.

The loss of Farmland of Local Importance on the Project site would result in the decrease of Important Farmland inventory in Visalia Planning Area. Visalia Planning Area currently has an Important Farmland inventory of 43,155 acres, 1,630 acres of which were categorized as Farmland of Local Importance. Implementation of the Project would convert 69.35 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, which would result in a .16 percent decrease in the total Important Farmland inventory of Visalia Planning Area and a 4.25 percent decrease in the Farmland of Local Importance inventory.

As shown in Table 3-1, the Visalia 2030 General Plan at full buildout plans to develop on 14,265 total acres of Important Farmland, of which 1 ,630 acres are Farmland of Local Importance . Most of the growth is planned to be adjacent to urbanized areas, which is much less disruptive to other agricultural uses countywide because it discourages the development of new rural neighborhoods or communities that would require the extension of infrastructure that would create growth -inducing impacts and potentially greater impacts to agricultural resources.

FMMP Designation Existing Planning
Area Total (Acres)
Planning Area Total at
General Plan Buildout
(Acres)
Change
Prime Farmland 33,991 21,501 -12,490 (-37%)
Farmland of Statewide Importance 7,353 6,954 -399 (-5%) Unique Farmland 181 137 -44 (-24%)
Farmland of Local Importance 1,630 298 -1,333 (-82%)
Important Farmland Total 43,155 28,890 -14,265 (-33%)
Table 3-1: Important Farmland Developed Under 2030 General Plan. Source: Visalia Planning Area General Plan EIR Although the proposed site is located on Farmland of Local Importance , the development is in accordance with the 2030 General Plan. The Site is within the Tier 2 Development Boundary and is designated as Very Low Density Residential by the General Plan. It is not designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project will follow all existing and proposed 2030 General Plan policies to reduce potential impacts. There is a less than significant impact.

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?

Less Than Significant Impact: The site is currently zoned for agriculture by Tulare County. However, it is within the Visalia P lanning Area, Tier 2 Development Boundary and is expected to be annexed by the city. It currently has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential that would suit the proposed project. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. There is a less than significant impact.

3-22

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?

No Impact: The project site is not zoned for forest or timberland production . Therefore, no impacts would occur.

d) Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact: No conversion of forestland, as defined under Public Resource Code or General Code, will occur as a result of the project and there would be no impacts.

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

Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above, new development including the project site would be focused in and around existing communities . This would prevent new infrastructure from interfering with surrounding farmland. The project does not include any features which could result in the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. There is a less than significant impact.

3-23

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

III. AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?    
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
   
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?    
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
   

Environmental Setting

Air pollution is directly related to regional topography. Topographic features can either stimulate the movement of air or restrict air movement. California is divided into regional air basins based on topographic air drainage features . The proposed project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the E ast, Coastal Ranges to the West, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the South.

The mountain ranges surrounding the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) serve to restrict air movement and prevent the dispersal of pollutio n. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollution accumulation over time. As shown in the Table 3-2, the SJVAB is in nonattainment f or several pollutant standards. The primary pollutants of concern in the San Joaquin Valley are ozone (O3) and PM10.

Pollutant Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal Standardf Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment PM 10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
PM 2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
a See 40 CFR Part 81
b See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.
3-24

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 d The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f Effective June 15, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

Table 3-2. San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status; Source: SJVAPCD

Valley Fever
Valley Fever is an illness caused by a fungus (Coccidioides immitis and C. posadasii) that grows in soils under certain conditions. Favorable conditions for the Valley Fever fungus include low rainfall, high summer temperatures, and moderate winter temperatures. In California, the counties with the highest incident of Valley Fever are Fresno, Kern and Kings counties. When soils are disturbed by wind or activities like construction and farming, Valley Fever fungal spores can become airborne. The spores present a potential health hazard when inhaled. Individuals in occupations such as construction, agriculture, and archaeology have a higher risk of exposure due to working in areas of disturbed soils which may have the Valley Fever fungus.

Regulatory Setting

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to a ir quality that correlate to the proposed project:

• AQ-P-2: Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule. • AQ-P-9: Continue to mitigate short -term construction impacts and long- term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects
Federal Clean Air Act
The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and set deadlines for their attainment . The Clean Air Act identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to meet interim milestones. The U.S. EPA is the federal agency charged with administering the Act and other air quality-related legislation . EPA’s principal functions include setting NAAQS; establishing minimum national emission limits for major sources of pollution; and promulgating regulations. Under CAA, the NCCAB is identified as an attainment area for all pollutants.

California Clean Air Act
California Air Resources Board coordinates and oversees both state and federal air pollution control programs in California. As part of this responsibility, California Air Resources Board monitors existing air quality, establishes California Ambient Air Quality Standards, and limits allowable emissions from 3-25

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 vehicular sources . Regulatory authority within established air basins is provided by air pollution control and management districts, which control stationary -source and most categories of area- source emissions and develop regional air quality plans. The project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

The state and federal standards for the criteria pollutants are pr esented in Section 8.4 of The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s 2015 “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts”. These standards are designed to protect public health and welfare. The “primary” standards have been established to protect the public health. The “secondary” standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soils, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of general welfare. The U.S. EPA revoked the national 1 -hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, and the annual PM
10 standard on September 21, 2006, when a new PM2.5
24-hour standard was established.

Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Ozone (03)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
-- Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet 8 Hour
Photometry 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)

0.075
ppm (147
μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24 Hour 50 μg/m
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150
μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 --
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24 Hour
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
35 μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
35 ppm
(40
mg/m3)
--
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10
mg/m3)
--
8 Hour
(Lake
Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) -- --
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) 8
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb
(188
μg/m3)
--
Gas Phase Annual
Chemiluminescence Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm
(57 μg/m3)
53 ppb
(100
μg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb
(196
μg/m3)
-- Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3 Hour -- --

0.5 ppm
(1300
μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)

0.14 ppm
(for --
3-26

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
certain
areas)9
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
--

0.030
ppm (for
certain
areas)9
--
Lead10,11
30 Day
Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic Absorption
-- --
High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic Absorption
Calendar
Quarter --

1.5 μg/m3
(for
certain
areas)11
Same as
Primary
Standard Rolling 3-
Month
Average
-- 0.15
μg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles12
8 Hour See footnote
12 Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance
through Filter Tape
No National Standard Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion
Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride10 24 Hour

0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98 th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units o f parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively.

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

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To dire ctly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 7 5 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

10. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘ toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

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

12. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10 -mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
3-27

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Table 3-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards; Source: SJVAPCD

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) The SJVAPCD is responsible for enforcing air quality standards in the project area. To meet state and federal air quality objectives, the SJVAPCD adopted the following thresholds of significance for projects:

Pollutant/Precursor
Construction
Emissions
Operational Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
Nox 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Table 3-4. SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants; Source: SJVAPCD

The following SJVAPCD rules and regulations may apply to the proposed project:

• Rule 3135: Dust Control Plan Fee. All projects which include construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities as defined by Regulation VIII (Described below) are required to submit a Dust Control Plan and required fees to mitigate impacts related to dust.
• Rule 4101: Visible Emissions. District Rule 4101 prohibits visible emissions of air contaminants that are dark in color and/or have the potential to obstruct visibility. • Rule 9510: Indirect Source Review (ISR). This rule reduces the impact PM10 and NOX emissions from growth on the SJVB. This rule places application and emission reduction requirements on applicable development projects in order to reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite SJVAPCD administered projects, or a combination of the two. This project will submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application in accordance with Rule 9510’s requirements.
• Regulation VIII: Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Regulation VIII is composed of eight rules which together aim to limit PM10 emissions by reducing fugitive dust. These rules contain required management practices to limit PM10 emissions during construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities.

Discussion

a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

No Impact: The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and would result in air pollutant emissions that are regulated by the air district during both its construction and operational phases. The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in the Visalia Planning Area into compliance with federal and state air 3-28

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 quality standards. The A ir District has Particulate Matter (PM) plans, Ozone Plans, and Carbon Monoxide Plans that serve as the clean air plan for the basin.

Together, these plans quantify the required emission reductions to meet federal and state air quality standards and provide strategies to meet these standards. The SJVAPCD adopted the Indirect Source Review (ISR) Rule in order to fulfill the District’s emission reduction commitments in its PM10 and Ozone (NOx) attainment plans and has since determin ed that implementation and compliance with ISR would reduce the cumulative PM10 and NOx impacts anticipated in the air quality plans to a less than significant level.

Construction Phase. Project construction would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. The construction related emissions from these activities were calculated using CalEEMod. The full CalEEMod Report can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-5 below, project construction related emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.

CO (tpy) ROG
(tpy)
SOx
(tpy)*
Nox
(tpy)
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
Emissions Generated
from Project
Construction

2.9256 2.3192 .00611 3.2874 1.0805 .5454
SJVAPCD Air Quality
Thresholds of
Significance
100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by CalEEMod.

Table 3-5. Projected Project Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction; Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod (v. 2020.4.0) Analysis (Appendix A)

Operational Phase. Implementation of the proposed project would result in long-term emissions associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, as well as mobile emissions. Operational emissions from these factors were calculated using CalEEMod. The full CalEEMod report can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3 -6 below, the project’s operational emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.

CO (tpy) ROG
(tpy)
SOx
(tpy)*
Nox
(tpy)
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
Operational Emissions
(Dry Years) 13.2531 9.8945 .0242 .7699 2.3256 1.5697
SJVAPCD Air Quality
Thresholds of
Significance
100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by CalEEMod .

Table 3-6. Projected Project Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants related to Operations; Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod (v. 2020.4.0) Analysis (Appendix A)

3-29

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Because the emissions from both construction and operation of the proposed project would be below the thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and there is no impact. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

Less Than Significant Impact : The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in the Visalia Planning Area into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The significance thresholds and rules developed by the SJVAPCD are designed to prevent projects from violating air quality standards or significantly contributing to existing air quality violat ions. As discussed above, neither construction -related emissions nor operation-related emissions will exceed thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. The project will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, which will further reduce the potential for any significant impacts related to air quality as a result of project implementation. Because these thresholds and regulations are designed to achieve and/or maintain federal and state air quality standards, and the project is compliant with the se thresholds and regulations, the project will not violate an air quality standard or significantly contribute to an existing air quality violation. The impact is less than significant.

c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less than Significant Impact : The single-family residences located to the North are the closest sensitive receptors. The project does not include any project components identified by the California Air Resources Board that could potentially impact any sensitive receptors. These include heavily traveled roads, distribution centers, fueling stations, and dry-cleaning operations. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Less Than Significant Impact: The project will create temporary localized odors during project construction. The proposed project will not introduce a conflicting land use (surrounding land includes residential neighborhoods) to the area and will not have any component that would typically emit odors. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3-30

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish and
Wildlife Service?
   
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
   
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through director removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
   
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
   
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
   
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
   

Discussion for this section originates from the Biological Resource Assessment that was prepared for this project by Soar Environmental Consulting to identify biological resources present or potentially present on the project site and assess the significance of project impacts on such resources per provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the F ederal Clean Water Act (CWA), the state and federal endangered species acts (FESA and CESA respectively), California Fish and Game Code, and California Water Code. The research included the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory. The full document can be found in Appendix B.

Environmental Setting

The Project site is in the western portion of the Visalia Planning Area within the lower San Joaquin Valley, in the Central Valley of California. The Central Valley is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges 3-31

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west. Like most of California, Visalia is considered a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by c ool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the humidity is relatively low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and rarely exceed 70 degrees. On average, the Central Valley receives approximately 10 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and March.

The topography of the area is completely flat at approximately 300 feet elevation, vegetative ground cover was recently mowed. The proposed Project site is in a residential and agricultural interface environment just outside the western boundary of the City of Visalia. The proposed Project site is bounded by agricultural fields to the south and west, and single-family homes to the north and east. A canal runs north and south on the eastern portion of the site. The canal is surrounded by agricultural fields. No other natural water features occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. There were no signs of pooling water or vernal pool habitat within the Project site. There are no structures on the property, no trees or bushes that would provide adequate habitat for nesting birds, and there were no small mammal Burrows that would provide adequate refuge for San Joaquin kitfox. The soil on the proposed Project site is highly compacted. Few trees exist in the surrounding area. Powerlines run north and south along the western boundary of the site.

Prior to performing the habitat assessment, Soar Environmental conducted a records search for threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the Project area. The records search included a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory. A full list of special-status species with the potential to occur on the project site can be seen in Table 3-7.

No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed during the site reconnaissance. However, several bird species were observed flying and perched on trees in the area, although there is no suitable area for the birds to nest in the project area . While no special status species were observed, the Project Site contains potentially suitable habitat for the following species:

Species Name Species
Observed on
Project Site
Potential for Occurrence on Project Site
Amphibians
California red-legged frog
(Rana draytonii)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Birds
Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
No Low: Species known to
occur in the vicinity of the
site, and there is marginal
habitat onsite.
3-32

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Fish
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Invertebrates
Conservancy fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta conservatio)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Mammals
Fisher
(Pekania pennanti)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Reptiles
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia sila)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas)
No None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
3-33

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Plants Species
Observed on
Project Site
Suitable Habitat on Project Site
California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)
No Absent
Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
No Absent
Hoover’s spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri)
No Absent
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)
No Absent
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
No Absent
Succulent owl’s-clover
(Castilleja campestris ssp.

Succulenta)
No Absent
Table 3-7: Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site Regulatory Setting

Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): defines an endangered species as “any species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species o r subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”

The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 USC 703-712): FMBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Although the USFWS and its parent administration, the U.S. Department of the Interior, have traditionally interpreted the FMBTA as prohibiting incidental as well as intentional “take” of birds, a January 2018 legal opinion issued by the Department of the Interior now states that incidental take of migratory birds while engaging in otherwise lawful activities is permissible under the FMBTA. However, California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non -game bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities.

Birds of Prey (CA Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5): Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are afforded additional protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs.

Clean Water Act: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of (1972) is to maintain, restore, and enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters . Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged and fill materials into “waters of the United States” (jurisdictional waters) . Waters of the US including navigable waters of the 3-34

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 United States, interstate waters, tidally influenced waters, and all othe r waters where the use, degradation, or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or that are adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA): prohibits the take of any state -listed threatened and endangered species. CESA defines take as “any action or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill any listed species.” If the proposed project results in a take of a listed species, a permit pursuant to Section 2080 of CESA is required from the CDFG.

City of Visalia Oak Tree Ordinance: The City of Visalia has an oak tree ordinance that protects valley oak trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 2 inches or greater. Under this ordinance, removal, or encroachment within the drip -line of or damage to valley oak trees is p rohibited. Removal requires a permit from the city manager and mitigation either by replacement in -kind or payment of an in -lieu fee to be used for oak tree planting.

Visalia Planning Area General Plan: The Visalia Planning Area General Plan contains the following policies related to the preservation of biological resources that may be considered relevant to the proposed Project’s environmental review:

• OSC-P-8 Protect, restore, and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation along Planning Area waterways, including the St. Johns River; Mill, Packwood, and Cameron Creeks; and segments of other creeks and ditches where feasible, in conformance with the Parks and Open Space diagram of this General Plan.
• OSC-P-19 Establish easements or require dedication of land along waterways to protect natural habitat areas, allow maintenance operations and promote trails and bike paths. • OSC-P-26 Establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for control of invasive plant species where such plants could adversely impact wildlife habitat.
• OSC-P-27 Establish a “no net loss” standard for sensitive habitat acreage, including wetlands and vernal pools potentially affected by development.
• OSC-P-30 Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any discretionary development projects involving riparian habitat, wetlands, or special status species habitat. Early in the development review process, consult with California Department of Fish and Game, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies.
• OSC-P-31 Protect and enhance habitat for special status species, designated under state and federal law. Require protection of sensitive habitat areas and special status species in new development in the following order: 1) avoidance; 2) onsite mitigation, and 3) offsite mitigation. 3-35

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Biological Resource Assessment conducted for the proposed Project found that the San Joaquin kit fox, Swainson’s hawk, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, and the Western yellow- billed cuckoo are special-status species with historical observations within five miles of the proposed Project site. Suitable habitat for these special status species is poor on and near the proposed Project site due to agricultural activity. CNDDB records indicate that the nearest and most recent occurrence of San Joaquin kit fox was approximately 4.1 miles north west of the proposed Project site, the Swainsons’s hawk approx imately 3 miles east, the Vernal pool fairy shrimp approximately 3 miles northwest, and the Western yellow-billed cuckoo approximately 4.3 miles northeast. However, due to habitat quality and proximity of historical occurrences, all of these species were found to be unlikely to occur within the vicinity of the Project site. Based on the findings of this assessment, the proposed development of this property is unlikely to adversely affect any special- status species and is likely to have no effect for CEQA co nsiderations. Soar Environmental Consulting does not recommend any mitigation measures, however, if any of the special status species are observed during construction, they recommend stopping work immediately and contacting CDFW. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact : There are no CNDDB -designated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the proposed Project area or surrounding lands. The Visalia General Plan identifies Grasslands, Valley Oak Riparian Woodland, Valley Oak Woodland, Vernal Pools, and Wetlands as vegetation communities to protect. The nearest community is a Valley Oak Woodland approximately 0.3 miles north. The proposed Project site consists of agricultural fields. There would be no impact.

c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wet lands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through director removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Less than Significant Impact: A canal runs through the eastern portion of the site. However, the project will not affect the canal and leave a buffer surrounding the canal. There is less than significant impact.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migra tory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project area is surrounded by cultivated agricultural lands, residential development, and paved roads. Therefore, the proposed Project area does not contain features that would be likely to function as a wildlife movement corridor. The San Joaquin kit fox , 3-36

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Swainson’s hawk, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, and the Western yellow -billed cuckoo are the special status species with potential to exist within 5 miles of the site. Due to the level of agricultural activity, residential development of the surrounding area, lack of suitable habitat, and distance of other known occurrences from the site, occurrence of special status species within the vicinity of the proposed Project site is unlikely. Impacts would be less than significant.

e) Conflict with any loca l policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact: The proposed Project would comply with the goals and policies of the Visalia General Plan.

There are few trees on the site, but the project will follow the Visalia Tree Ordinance. There would be no impact.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact: There are no known habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) in the proposed Project area. There would be no impact.

3-37

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
   
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
   
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?    

A Phase 1 cultural resources assessment for the Barr- Wood Subdivision was conducted by Taylored Archaeology (Appendix C). The Project proposes to construct 136 single family units and a 3.7 -acre park.

The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Environmental Setting

The Project area is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory of the San Joaquin Valley and located between the Kings River and the north shore of Tulare Lake. The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts.

The Project area is likely within the Telamni Yokuts territory . The main village for this area was Waitatshuulul, which was approximately 3 miles east of the Project site along Packwood Creek.

The San Joaquin Valley did not experience contact with Europeans until the late 1700s. The earliest exploration of the San Joaquin Valley by Europeans was likely by the Spaniards when in the fall of 1772 a group known as the Catalonian Volunteers entered the valley through Tejon Pass in search of deserters from the Southern California Missions. However, the group only made it as far north as Buena Vista Lake in modern day Kern County before turning around due to the extensive swamps. Initial settlement within the valley by Europeans in the 1830s was largely either by trappers or horse thieves. With the end of the Mexican American War and the beginning of the gold rush in 1848, the San Joaquin Valley became more populated with ranchers and prospectors. By 1850, Cali fornia became a state, and Tulare County was established in 1853. Visalia, founded in 1852, is one of the oldest cities in the Southern San Joaquin Valley.

During the first few decades, Visalia was a supply center for nearby gold rushes, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock and some agriculture.

Cultural Records Search
On May 20, 2022, Taylored Archaeology requested a cultural resource records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California. The purpose of this request was to identify any prehistoric or historical resources on or near the Project site that had been previously recorded within the Project boundary and a 0.5 -mile radius of the Project area and identify and review prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the Project boundary. SSJVIC staff researched historical USGS topographic maps, reports of previous cultural resource investigations, archaeological site and survey base maps, cultural resource records (DPR forms) as well as listings of the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations 3-38

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources . According to the SSJVIC records search, there has been two previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area. One is a literature review of the Project region and the second is a book on conflicts between Native Americans and California gold miners during the 1850s Gold Rush in Mariposa. Neither of these reports included archaeological surveys. There have been five cultural resource studies conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the project. There have been no cultural resources were previously recorded within the Project area . or within the 0.5-mile radius. Additionally, no recorded cultural resources are recorded within the Project There is two cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site . Both are historic -era, rural, single-family residences. In addition to the SSJVIC research, Taylored Archaeology further reviewed the cultural resources 0.5-miles from the Project boundary. Using Google Earth aerial maps, one of the historic homes was determined to have been demolished in 2021.

AB 52 Native American Consultation
Following AB 52, Native American Tribes that could potentially be impacted by the Project were contacted. The Tribes that were formally noticed of this Project were the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Du nlap Band of Mono Indians, Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, Tule River Indian Tribe, Kern Valley Indian Community, North Fork Mono Tribe, and the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.

The Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe responded regarding their concerns. A representative of the Tribe stated “Due to Tribal history and knowledge of the project area, the Tribe has concerns and is requesting that an archaeological firm be hired to conduct a pre -construction survey, a records search with the NAHC and CHRIS center, and monitoring of any ground disturbing activities. We request to be put in contact with the archaeological firm hired so we can maintain updates about the project.”

Regulatory Setting

In this report “cultural resources” are defined as prehistoric or historical archaeological sites as well as historical objects, buildings, or structures. In accordance with 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.4, “historical” in this report applies to cultural resources which are at least 50 years old. The significance or importance of a cultural resource is dependent upon whether the resource qualifies for inclusion at the local or state level in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or at the federal level in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are called “historical resources” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5[a]).

Under this statue the determination of eligibility is partially based on the consideration of the criteria of significance as defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3). Cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are deemed “historic properties.”

National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act was adopted in 1966 to preserve historic and archeological sites in the United States. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation offices.

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 register of historical resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with the state guidelines are also considered historic resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.

According to CEQA guidelines §15064.5 (a)(3), criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources includes the following:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Protection of cultural resources within California is additionally regulated by PRC §5097.5, which prohibits destruction, defacing, or removal of any historic or prehistoric cultural features on land under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to cultural resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• LU-P-48: Preserve established and distinctive neighborhoods throughout the City by maintaining appropriate zoning and development standards to achieve land use compatibility in terms of height, massing, and other characteristics; providing design guidelines for high-quality new development; supporting housing rehabilitation programs; and other means. • OSC-P-42: Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
o Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
o Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA);
o Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity (defined as areas identified according to the National Historic Preservation Act as part of the Section 106 process); and
o Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.

Discussion

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: A records search was conducted on behalf of the Applicant from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California, to determine if historical or archaeological sites had previously been recorded within the study area, if the project area had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initial study, and/or 3-40

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 whether the region of the field project was known to contain archaeological sites and to thereby be archaeologically sensitive.

According to the SSJVIC records search, there has been two previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area. One is a literature review of the Project region and the second is a book on conflicts between Native Americans and California gold miners during the 1850s Gold Rush in Mariposa. Neither of these reports included archaeological surveys. There have been five cultural resource studies conducted within a 0.5 -mile radius of the project. There have been no cultural resources were previously recorded within the Project area. or within the 0.5 -mile radius.

Additionally, no recorded cultural resources are recorded within the Project There is two cultural resources within a 0.5 -mile radius of the project site. Both are historic -era, rural, single -family residences. In addition to the SSJVIC research, Taylored Archaeology further reviewed the cultural resources 0.5-miles from the Project boundary. Using Google Earth aerial maps, one of the historic homes was determined to have been demolished in 2021.

Although no cultural resources were identified on the site, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL- 1 and CUL-2 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no known archaeological resources located within the projec t area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 will ensure that potential impact to unknown archeological resources will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no known human remains buried in the project vicinity. If human remains are unearthed during project construction, there is a potential for a significant impact. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2 will ensure that impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Cultural Resources

Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead 3-41

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City -approved institution or person who is capable of providing long- term preservation to allow future scientific study.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the Cou nty Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (N AHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Prior to the start of construction, an archaeological firm shall be hired to conduct a pre-construction survey and submit a comprehensive report to the lead agency for review and approval prior to the start of construction. This report should document the findings of the pre - construction survey and include an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on any identified archaeological resources . The plan should outline specific measures that will be implemented, such as construction phasing, site buffering, and artifact preservation, to protect the cultural resources, if any are discovered. To ensure compliance, the project approval should requi re that the archaeological survey report and the associated plan be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and that the survey and monitoring activities be conducted in accordance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. By requiring a comprehensive archaeological survey report and a detailed mitigation plan, the lead agency can ensure that any impacts to archaeological resources are avoided or minimized to the fullest extent possible.

Mitigation Measure CUL -4: During any ground distu rbing activities, an archaeological firm shall be hired to monitor the Project Site. The monitoring should be conducted by a qualified archaeologist with experience in the region and in compliance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. The monitoring should include regular site inspections to identify any archaeological resources that may have been uncovered during ground -disturbing activities. If any resources are identified, the monitoring should also include documentation, mapping, and analysis of the resources, as well as the development of a mitigation plan to address any potential impacts to the resources.

3-42

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 VI. ENERGY

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
   
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?    

Environmental Setting

Southern California Edison ( SCE) provides electricity services to the City of Visalia. SCE serves approximately 15 million people in a 50,000 square-mile area of Central, Coastal, and Southern California.

SCE supplies electricity to its customers through a variety of renewable and nonrenewable sources. Table 3-8 below shows the proportion of each energy resource sold to California consumers by SCE in 2019 as compared to the statewide average.

Fuel Type SCE Power Mix California
Power Mix
Coal 0% 2.7%
Large Hydroelectric 7.9% 12.2%
Natural Gas 16.1% 37%
Nuclear 8.2% 9.3%
Other (Oil/Petroleum Coke/Waste Heat) 0.1% 0.2%
Unspecified Sources of Power1 32.6% 5.4%
Eligible
Renewables
Biomass 0.6% 2.5%
Geothermal 5.9% 4.9%
Small Hydro 1% 1.4%
Solar 16% 13.2%
Wind 11.5% 11.1%
Total Eligible
Renewable 35.1% 33.1%

1. "Unspecified sources of power" means electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.

Table 3-8. 2019 SCE and 2020 State power resources; Source: SCE; California Energy Commission

SCE also offers Green Rate Options, which allow consumers to indirectly purchase up to 100% of their energy from renewable sources. To accomplish this, SCE purchases the renewable energy necessary to meet the needs of Green Rate participants from solar renewable developers. 3-43

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) Company provides natural gas services to the project area. Natural gas is an energy source developed from fossil fuels composed primarily of methane (CH4). Approximately 45% of the natural gas burned in California is used for electricity generation, while 21% is consumed by the residential sector, 25% is consumed by the industrial sector, and 9% is consumed by the commercial sector.

Regulatory Setting

California Code of Regulations, Title 20
Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations establishes standards and requirements for appliance energy efficiency. The standards apply to a broad range of appliances sold in California.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is a broad s et of standards designed to address the energy efficiency of new and altered homes and commercial buildings. These standards regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Title 24 requirements are enforced locally by the City of Selma Building Department.

California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
CalGreen is a mandatory green building code that sets minimum environmental standards for new buildings. It includes standards for volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting materials, water conservation, and construction waste recycling.

SB 100
SB 100, passed in 2018, set a deadline in 2045 for 100% of energy to be renewable. Additionally, by 2030, 60% of all energy must be renewable . California is targeting this goal through solar and other renewable sources.

AB 178
For California to meet its renewable goals, AB 178 was passed in 2018. AB 178 states that starting in 2020 all new low rise residential buildings must be built with solar power.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies rel ated to energy use that correlate to the proposed project:
• T-P-41: Integrate the bicycle transportation system into new development and infill redevelopment. Development shall provide short term bicycle parking and long -term bicycle storage facilities, such as bicycle racks, stocks, and rental bicycle lockers. Development also shall provide safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to high activity land uses such as schools, parks, shopping, employment, and entertainment centers. • T-P-53: Develop flexible parking requirements in the zoning ordinance for development proposals based on “best practices” and the proven potential to reduce parking demand.

Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful , inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 3-44

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes the construction and operation of single-family housing . During project construction there would be an increase in energy consumption related to worker trips and operation of construction equipment. This increase in energy use would be temporary and limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Vehicle fuel consumption during project construction was estimated based on the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths, and the number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2023 gasoline/diesel MPG factors provided by the EMFAC2017. To simplify the estimation process, it was assumed that all worker vehicles used gasoline as a fuel source and all vendor vehicles used diesel as a fuel source.

Table 3 -9, below, provides gasoline and diesel fue l used by construction and on-road sources during each phase of project construction.

Construction Phase # of
Days
Daily
Worker
Trips1
Daily
Vendor
Trips1
Daily
Hauling
Trips1
Total
Gasoline
Fuel Use
(gallons)2
Total Diesel
Fuel Use
(gallons)2
Site Preparation 40 18 0 0 7,799 0
Grading 110 20 0 0 33,871 0
Building Construction 1110 49 15 0
164,425 14,418
Paving 75 15 0 0 8,836 0
Architectural Coating 75 10 0 0 1,244 0
Total 1410 N/A N/A N/A 315,935 14,418

1. Data provided by CalEEMod (Appendix A)

2. See Appendix D
Table 3-9. On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated by Construction Activities. Source: CalEEMod(v . 2020.4.0); EMFAC2014

While construction of the proposed project will result in additional energy consumption, this energy use is not unnecessary or inefficient. This energy use is justified by the energy -efficient nature of the proposed project and would be limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Once construction is complete, the project is expected to achieve net zero energy consumption. The proposed project is subject to the California New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-2020. This plan establishes a goal for all residential buildings built after January 1, 2020, to be zero net energy. The California Energy Commission is responsible for the development and enforcement of specific strategies to achieve this goal. These strategies are implemented through Title 24, Part 6 of the Califor nia Building Code, which requires developers to include certain measures (including solar panels on all new residential buildings) to achieve required building efficiency standards.

Total Annual Operational VMT1

Annual Fuel Use
(Gasoline)
Annual Fuel Use
(Diesel)
Average MPG
2,771,614 Miles 106,191 Gallons 11,918 Gallons 23.5

1. Data Provided by CalEEMod

2. See Appendix D

Table 3-10. On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated by Operational Activities. Source CalEEMod (v. 2020.4.0); EMFAC2014
3-45

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 During project operations, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in wasteful fuel consumption. This is due to the distance of the project site to the commercial, recreational, and denser residential uses, resulting in less of a reliance on personal vehicles.

Because construction-related energy use would be temporary and limited to the greatest extent feasible through consistency with Federal, State, and local policies related to energy conservation, and operation of the project will comply with all energy efficiency standards required under Title 24, Section 6, and these standards were specifically developed to achieve net zero energy for residential projects, it can be presumed that the project will achieve net zero energy. The project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The impact is less than significant.

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

No Impact: The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed project will comply with all state and local policies related to energy efficiency and there is no impact. 3-46

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
   
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication

42.    
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?    
iv) Landslides?    
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?    
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
   
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct and indirect risks to life
or property?
   
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
   
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
   
Environmental Setting

Geologic Stability and Seismic Activity

• Seismicity
The Visalia Planning Area has no known major fault systems within its boundaries. There are small faults in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, approximately 30 miles away, though none of them are known to be active. The greatest potential for seismic activity in Visalia Planning Area is posed by the San Andreas Fault , approximately 75 miles away from the site, or the Owens Valley Fault Group, which is located approximately 125 miles away from the project site.
3-47

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 • Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby unconsolidated and/or n ear saturated soils lose cohesion and are converted to a fluid state as a result of severe vibratory motion. The relatively rapid loss of soil shear strength during strong earthquake shaking results in temporary, fluid-like behavior of the soil, which can result in landslides and lateral spreading.

Soil liquefaction causes ground failure that can damage roads, pipelines, underground cables, and buildings with shallow foundations. Liquefaction hazards may exist in and around wetland areas and creeks, though soil types ar e generally too coarse or too high in clay content, and not likely to be subject to sufficient acceleration to cause liquefaction.

• Landslides
Landslides refer to a wide variety of processes that result in the downward and outward movement of soil, rock, a nd vegetation under gravitational influence. Landslides are caused by both natural and human -induced changes in slope stability and often accompany other natural hazard events, such as floods, wildfire, or earthquake. Due little elevation changes throughout the planning area, including the proposed project site, it is considered a low landslide hazard area.

• Subsidence
Land Subsidence refers to the vertical sinking of land because of either manmade or natural underground voids. Subsidence has occurred throughout the Central Valley because of groundwater, oil, and gas withdrawal. The Kaweah Subbasin that underlies the Planning Area is in an overdraft condition on an average long -term basis. According to the most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), groundwater elevations have declined up to 50 feet between 1990 and 2010 . While groundwater recharge efforts are in progress, groundwater levels will continue to decline unless recharge is increased.

Soils Involved in Project
The proposed project involves construction on two soil type s. The properties of the soil are described briefly below:

• Tagus loam: The Tagus series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock sources and has slopes of 0 to 2 percent. It is well drained; has negligible to low runoff; and has moderate permeability.
3-48

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Figure 3-6: Soils Map

3-49

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Regulatory Setting

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment.

City of Visalia Municipal Code (California Building Code) The City of Visalia Municipal Code has incorporated and adopted the CBC, 2013 Edition, as promulgated by the California Building Standards Commission, which incorporates the adoption of the 2012 edition of the of the International Building Code, as amended with necessary California amendments and the 2012 International Building Code of the International Code Council.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to geology and soils that correlate to the proposed project:

• OSC-P-28: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping, and construction.

Discussion

a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault ? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact: Although the project is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity, the project site has a low chance of being affected by ground shaking from distant faults. The potential for strong seismic ground shaking on the project site is not a significant environmental concern due to the infrequent seismic activity of the area and distance to the faults. The project does not propose any components which could cause substantial adverse effects in the event of an earthquake. Additionally, the project has n o potential to indirectly or directly cause the rupture of an earthquake fault. Therefore, there is no impact related to the risk of loss, injury or death involving a rupture of a known earthquake fault.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

No Impact: The project site is in an area of low seismic activity. The proposed project does not include any activities or components which could feasibly cause strong seismic ground shaking, either directly or indirectly. There is no impact.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3-50

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

No Impact: The risk of liquification within the planning area outside of wetland areas is low because the soil types are generally unsuitable for liquefaction. The area’s low potential for seismic activity would further reduce the likelihood of liquefaction occurrence. Because the project site is within an area of low seismic activity, and the soils associated with the project area not suitable for liquefaction, there are no impacts.

iv. Landslides?

No Impact: The Planning Area of Visalia is considered at insignificant risk of small landslides.

Additionally, the project site is generally flat and there are no hill slopes in the area. No geologic landforms exist on or near the site that would result in a landslide event. As a result, there is very low potential for landslides. There would be no impact.

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact: Because the project site is relatively flat, the potential for erosion is low.

However, construction -related activities and increased impermeable surfaces can increase the probability for erosion to occur. Construction -related impacts related to erosion will be temporary and subject to best management practices (BMPs) required by SWPPP, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction. Because impacts related to erosion would be temporary and limited to construction, and because required best management practices would prevent significant impacts related to erosion, the impact will remain less than significant.

c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

No Impact: The soils associated with the project site are considered stable and have a low capacity for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Because the project area is stable, and this project would not result in a substantial grade change to the topography to the point that it would increase the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, there is no impact.

d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

No Impact : The proposed project site is not in an area with expansive soils. Because the soils associated with the project do not exhibit shrink swell behavior, implementation of the project will pose no risk to life or property caused by expansive soils and there is no impact.

e) Would the project 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 waste water?

3-51

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 No Impact: The proposed project would not include the use o f septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed buildings will tie into the Visalia’s existing sewer services.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no unique geologic features and no known paleontological resources located within the project area. However, there is always the possibility that paleontological resources may exist below the ground surface. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that any impacts resulting from project implementation remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Geological Resources

I
f the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be id entified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City
-a
pproved institution or person who is ca pable of providing long -t erm
preservation to allow future scientific study.

Mi
tigation Measure CUL-2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where t he Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
3-52

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
   
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
   

Environmental Setting

Natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gases. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat- trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 34ºC cooler. However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.

The effect of greenhouse gasses on earth’s temp erature is equivalent to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydro chlorofluorocarbons, and hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, sulfur, and hexafluoride. Some gases are more effective than others. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been calculated for each greenhouse gas to reflect how long it remains in the atmosphere, on average, and how strongly it absorbs energy. Gases with a higher GWP absorb more energy, per pound, than gases with a lower GWP, and thus contribute more to global warming. For example, one pound of methane is equivalent to twenty-one pounds of carbon dioxide.

GHGs as defined by AB 32 include the following gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHGs as defined by AB 32 are summarized in Table 3-11. Each gas's effect on climate change depends on three main factors. The first being the quantity of these gases are in the atmosphere, followed by how long they stay in the atmosphere and finally how strongly they impact global temperatures.

Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Methane (CH4)
Is a flammable gas and is the main
component of natural gas

12 years

21 Emitted during the production and
transport of coal, natural gas, and
oil. Methane emissions also result
from livestock and other
agricultural practices and by the
decay of organic waste in
municipal solid waste landfills.
3-53

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Carbon dioxide
(CO2)
An odorless, colorless, natural
greenhouse gas.

30-95
years

1 Enters the atmosphere through
burning fossil fuels (coal, natural
gas, and oil), solid waste, trees and
wood products, and also as a
result of certain chemical
reactions (e.g., manufacture of
cement). Carbon dioxide is
removed from the atmosphere (or
"sequestered") when it is
absorbed by plants as part of the
biological carbon cycle.

Chloro-
fluorocarbons
Gases formed synthetically by
replacing all hydrogen atoms in
methane or ethane with chlorine
and/or fluorine atoms. They are
non-toxic nonflammable, insoluble
and chemically unreactive in the
troposphere (the level of air at the
earth’s surface).
55-140
years

3,800
to
8,100

Were synthesized in 1928 for use
as refrigerants, aerosol
propellants, and cleaning solvents.

They destroy stratospheric ozone.

Hydro-
fluorocarbons
A man-made greenhouse gas. It
was developed to replace ozone-
depleting gases found in a variety
of appliances. Composed of a
group of greenhouse gases
containing carbon, chlorine an at
least one hydrogen atom.
14 years

140 to
11,700

Powerful greenhouse gases that
are emitted from a variety of
industrial processes. Fluorinated
gases are sometimes used as
substitutes for stratospheric
ozone-depleting substances.

These gases are typically emitted
in smaller quantities, but because
they are potent greenhouse gases.

Nitrous oxide
(N2O)
Commonly known as laughing gas,
is a chemical compound with the
formula N2O. It is an oxide of
nitrogen. At room temperature, it
is a colorless, non-flammable gas,
with a slightly sweet odor and
taste. It is used in surgery and
dentistry for its anesthetic and
analgesic effects.
120
years

310

Emitted during agricultural and
industrial activities, as well as
during combustion of fossil fuels
and solid waste.

Pre-
fluorocarbons
Has a stable molecular structure
and only breaks down by
ultraviolet rays about 60
kilometers above Earth’s surface.
50,000
years

6,500
to
9,200

Two main sources of pre-
fluorocarbons are primary
aluminum production and
semiconductor manufacturing.

Sulfur
hexafluoride
An inorganic, odorless, colorless,
and nontoxic nonflammable gas.

3,200
years

23,900

This gas is manmade and used for
insulation in electric power
transmission equipment, in the
magnesium industry, in
semiconductor manufacturing and
as a tracer gas.

Table 3-11. Greenhouse Gasses; Source: EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

3-54

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Regarding the quantity of these gases are in the atmosphere, we first must establish the amount of the particular gas in the air, known as Concentration, or abundance, which are measured in parts per million, parts per billion and even parts per trillion. To put these measurements in more relatable terms, one part per million is equivalent to one drop of water diluted into about 13 gallons of water, roughly a full tank of gas in a compact car. Therefore, it can be assumed larger emission of greenhouse gases lead to a higher concentration in the atmosphere.

Each of the designated gases described above can reside in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, ranging from a few years to thousands of years. All these gases remain in the atmosphere long enough to become well mixed, meaning that the amount that is measured in the atmosphere is roughly the same all over the world regardless of the source of the emission.

Regulatory Setting

AB 32
AB 32 set the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. It directed the California Air Resources Board to begin developing discrete early actions to reduce greenhouse gases while also preparing a scoping plan to identify how best to reach the 2020 limit. The reduction measures to meet the 2020 target are to be adopted by the start of 2011.

SB 1078, SB 107, and Executive Order S-14-08
SB 1078, SB 107, and Executive Order S-14-08 require California to generate 20% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 then changes the 2017 deadline to 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 required that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
SJVAPCD adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) in August 2008. While the plan does not have regulatory powers, it directs SJVAPCD to develop guidance to assist District staff, valley businesses, land-use agencies, and other permitting agencies in addressing GHG emissio ns as part of the CEQA process.

City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Visalia’s draft 2013 CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory of municipal and community emissions, identification, and analysis of existing and proposed GHG reduction measures, and reduction targets to help Visalia work toward the State’s goal of an 80 percent reduction below baseline emissions by 2050. The plan sets 2020 and 2030 reduction targets, and includes reduction actions for energy, transportation, and waste and resource conservation.

City of Visalia Climate Change Initiatives
In January 2007, Visalia’s mayor signed the “Cool Cities” pledge, part of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. By entering into this agreement, the City has adopted the goal of reducing citywide GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. As detailed in the CAP, this goal was subsequently expanded in response to ARB’s recommended reduction target of 15% below the 2005 baseline, and the City added a 2030 mitigation target to correlate with the 2030 General Plan Update and the goal of achieving an 80% reduction by 2050.

3-55

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion

a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Less Than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD does not provide numeric thresholds to assess the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the SJVAPCD “Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Proje cts under CEQA” states that projects which achieve a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to Business as Usual (BAU) would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG. “Business as usual” (BAU) conditions are defined based on the year 2005 building energy efficiency, average vehicle emissions, and electricity energy conditions. The BAU conditions assume no improvements in energy efficiency, fuel efficiency, or renewable energy generation beyond that existing today. The 2005 BAU conditions were estimated using CalEEMod.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in long- term greenhouse gas emissions associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, as well as mobile emissions. The GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (Appendix A).

C02
(MT/Year)
CH4
(MT/Year)
N20
(MT/Year)
CO2e
(MT/Year)
Operational Emissions 1,393 2.04 0.06 1,461
2005 BAU 2,131 2.17 0.16 2,378
% Reduction From BAU 39%
Table 3-12: Projected Project Operational GHG Emissions Compared to 2005 BAU; Source: (CalEEMod, V.2020.4.0) The project’s operational GHG are estimated to be 917 CO2e MT lower than the 2005 BAU. This is a reduction of 3 9%, more than the 29% threshold. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.

b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

No Impact: The SJVAPCD states that individual and cumulative GHG emissions are considered less than significant if a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program with within the geographic area in which the project is located . The City of Visalia Climate Action Plan meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would not be considered a significant impact if the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Strategy. Table 3-13, below, evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable measures, both existing and proposed, in the GHG reduction plan.

3-56

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency with Strategy

2. Increase in Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Installations: Consistent. The proposed project would involve solar panels on the new homes.

7. Urban Forestry: Requirement for all new development to have street trees, require shade over at least 25%
of area in city pocket parks.

Consistent. The proposed project plans to
provide trees on all local roads and
included in the improvements on existing
roads.

10. Bicycle Path Plan: Consistent. The proposed project includes improvements with bike paths or parkways
on Roeben St., Whitendale Ave., and Shirk
Rd.

11. Infill and High-Density Development Consistent. The proposed project has denser residential housing consistent with
the 2030 General Plan.

Table 3-13. Project Consistency with Climate Action Plan Strategies.

As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Visalia Climate Action Plan.

The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and Local rules pertaining to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and the project will implement Best Performance Standards developed by the SJVAPCD. The project will not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation developed to reduce GHG emissions. There is no impact.

3-57

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
   
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
   
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
   
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard or
excessive noise to the public or the environment?
   
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
   
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
   
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
   

Environmental Setting
The proposed project site is located approximately .63 miles West of the nearest school (El Diamante High School) and approximately 0.97 miles southeast of the nearest public airport ( Visalia Municipal Airport).

The terminal of Airport is approximately 1.77 miles away; however, the runway is 0.97 miles from the Project Site.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Envirostor was used to identify any sites known to be associated with releases of hazardous materials or wastes within the project area. This research confirmed that the project would not be located on or nearby a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Regulatory Setting
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] §9601 et seq.).
3-58

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Act) authorizes the President to respond to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets and enforces Occupational Safety and Health Standards to assure safe working conditions. OSHA provides training, outreach, education, and compliance assistance to promote safe workplaces. The proposed Project would be subject to OSHA requirements during construction, operation, and maintenance.

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.).

The Toxic Substance Control Act was enacted by Congress in 1976 and authorizes the EPA to regulate any chemical substances determined to cause an unreasonable risk to public health or the environment.

Hazardous Waste Control Law, Title 26.

The Hazardous Waste Control Law creates hazardous waste management program requirements. The law is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which contains requirements for the following aspects of hazardous waste management:

• Identification and classification;
• Generation and transportation;
• Design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; • Treatment standards;
• Operation of facilities and staff training; and
• Closure of facilities and liability requirements.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11.

Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations contains regulations for the identification and classification of hazardous wastes. The CCR defines a waste as hazardous if it has any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity.

California Emergency Services Act
The California Emergency Services Act created a multi-agency emergency response plan for the state of California. The Act coordinates various agencies, including CalEPA, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, regional water quality control boards, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.
3-59

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3-7: Distance to Schools and Airports

3-60

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less than Significant Impact: Project construction activities may involve the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. During construction, the contractor will use fuel trucks to refuel onsite equipment and may use paints and solvents to a limited degree. The storage, transport, and use of these materials will comply with Local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements. There is the potential for small leaks due to refueling of construction equipment, however standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the SWPPP will reduce the potential for the release of construction related fuels and other hazardous materials by controlling runoff from the site and requiring proper disposal or recycling of hazardous materials. The impact is less than significant.

b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less than Significant Impact: There is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could result in release of hazardous materials into the environment, other than any potential accidental releases of standard fuels, solvents, or chemicals encountered during typical construction of a residential subdivision. Should an accidental hazardous release occur or should the project encounter hazardous soils, existing regulations for handling hazardous materials require coordination with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal. Therefore, potential impacts are less than significant.

c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact: The project is located approximately .63 miles from an existing middle school. The project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than insignificant amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of structures and landscaping. The project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials or waste. Therefore, there would be no impact.

d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact: The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

There would be no impact.

3-61

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located approximately 1.77 miles Southeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport). However, according to the Airport Master plan, the project site would not be impacted by the airport. Noise contours developed for 2019 show that the airport would produce less than 65 dB. All lan d uses located outside of the 65 dB contours are considered less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. There is a less than significant impact.

f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact: The City’s design and environmental review procedures shall ensure compliance with emergency response and evacuation plans. In addition, the site plan will be reviewed by the Fire Department per standard City procedure to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on emergency evacuation.

g) Would the project expose people or structures , either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

No Impact: The land surrounding the project site is developed with urban uses and farmlands which are not considered to be wildlands. Additionally, the City of Visalia General Plan finds that fire hazards within the Planning Area, including the proposed project site, have low frequency, limited extent, limited magnitude, and low significance. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there is no impact. 3-62

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise sustainably
degrade surface or ground water quality?
   
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
   
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which
would:

(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?    
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
   
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
   
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?    
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?     e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater movement plan?
   

Environmental Setting

Surface Water
Visalia is in the center of the Kaweah River Delta System, resulting in many rivers and creeks flowing through the city. The St. Johns River is the City’s primary surface water feature. Other significant surface water features include Modoc Ditch, Mill Creek Ditch, Mill Creek, Tulare Irrigation District (TID) Canal, Packwood Creek, Cameron Creek, Deep Creek, Evans Creek, Persian Ditch, and several other local ditches. These receive a significant amount of water during the rainy season and help drain stormwater.

Groundwater
Groundwater in Tulare County is present in valley deposits of alluvium that are several thousand feet thick and occurs in both confined and unconfined conditions . The creeks in Visalia are tied to the groundwater system. The creeks lose water in the winter while they feed the groundwater, and gain water in the summer when the groundwater feeds the creeks . The depth to groundwater varies significantly throughout the valley floor area of Tulare County. In the area around Visalia, depth to 3-63

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 groundwater varies from about 120 feet below ground surface along the western portion of the city to approximately 100 feet below ground surface to the east, as measured in spring 2010. Groundwater levels measured in the city have declined since the 1940s, from approximately 30 feet below ground surface in 1940 to 120 feet below ground surface in 2010. Water quality of the groundwater that underlies the Planning Area is excellent for domestic and agricultural uses. This is most likely due to the abundant snowmelt that originates in the Sierra Nevada. Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water for the planning area residents.

Stormwater Drainage
The City
, in conjunction with Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and Tulare Irrigation District, operates and maintains a vast municipal storm drainage system that consists of drainage channels, 23 detention and retention basins, 33 pump stations and 250 miles of pipe. Stormwater from the project site will be collected and conveyed to an on-site stormwater basin.

Regulatory Setting

Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is enforced by the U.S. EPA and was developed in 1972 to regulate discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Act made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is obtained.

National Flood Insurance Act
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from, and mitigating against disasters. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA is responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and administering programs that aid with mitigating future damages from natural hazards.

California Water Quality Porter-Cologne Act
California’s primary statute leading water quality and water pollution concerns with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter - Cologne Act). The Porter -Cologne Act grants th e State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and each of the nine Regional Water Quality Boards (RWQCB) power to protect water quality and further develop the Clean Water Act within California. The applicable RWQCB for the proposed project is the Central Valley RWQCB.

Central Valley RWQCB
The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB requires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the project is greater than one acre, a NPDES Permit and SWPPP will be required.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to hydrology and water q uality that correlate to the proposed project:

3-64

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 • PSCU-P-59: Require new developments to incorporate floodwater detention basins into project designs where consistent with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater Recharge Plan. • PSCU-P-60: Control urban and stormwater runoff and point and non-point discharge of pollutants.

As part of the City’s Stormwater Management Program, adopt and implement a Stormwater Management Ordinance to minimize stormwater runoff rates and volumes, control water pollution, and maximize groundwater recharge. New development will be required to include Low Impact Development features that reduce impermeable surface areas and increase infiltration.

Such features may include, but are not limited to:
o Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
o Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
o Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
o Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
o On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration; and
o Integrated or s ubsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.
• PSCU-P-46: Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks, streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance’s requirements. The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
o Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping;
o Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of cool-season turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks);
o Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; o Requiring automatic irrigation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weather-based or other self-adjusting technology; o Promoting the use of recycled water; and
o Minimizing overspray and runoff.

Discussion

a) Would the project v iolate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

Less than Significant with Mitigation: The project will result in less than significant impacts to water quality due to potentially polluted runoff generated during construction activities. Construction may include excavation, grading, and other earthwork across most of the 69.35- acre project site. During storm events, exposed construction areas across the project site may cause runoff to carry pollutants, 3-65

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 such a chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris. Implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for the project. A SWPPP identifies all potential sources of pollution that cou ld affect stormwater discharges from the project site and identifies best management practices (BMPs) related to stormwater runoff. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD- 1 and HYD-2 will ensure impacts remain less than significant with mitigation.

b) Would the project s ubstantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Less than Significant Impact: Water services will be provided by the Cal Water, Visalia District, upon development. The District currently produces about 27 million gallons of local groundwater per day from 75 active wells and delivers it to customers through more than 519 miles of pipeline. The District delivers water to residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers. Residential customers account for most of the District’s service connections and 69 percent of its water uses.

Non-residential water uses account for 28 percent of total demand, while distribution system losses account for 3 percent. The system produced 30,152 acre -feet (AF) of groundwater in 2020. The available water supply is expected to supply the projected population. The system has a capacity to pump 100,829 acre-feet per year (afy), all from groundwater. T he projected demand is expected to 35,276 AF in 2030, 38,310 AF in 2035, and 41,258 AF in 2040.

Using average per-person water use in Visalia (183 gallons; 2020 Urban Water Management Plan) and the average household size in Visalia ( 2.99 persons; US Census Bureau), water demand for the proposed 136-unit residential development is estimated to be approximately 74,415 gallons of water daily, or about 83-acre feet per year. With an expected increase of 5,124 AF from 2020 to 2030, there will be enough water supply for the proposed project. The most water-intensive aspect of the Project (Very Low-Density Residential homes) is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation.

As such, the Project would not affect groundwater supplies beyond what has already been analyzed in the most current General Plan EIR or Urban Water Management Plan.

The project would result in nearly full development of the site, which would convert approximately

69.35 acres from pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces. However, this would not significantly interfere with groundwater recharge because all stormwaters would be collected and diverted to a new stormwater basin located on the Southwest area of the project site for groundwater recharge.

Because the addition of impervious surfaces would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and the project would not utilize groundwater resources beyond what has been previously analyzed in the Visalia Planning Area General Plan EIR or the Urban Water Management Plan , the impact would be less than significant.

c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 3-66

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces and alter existing drainage patterns on the 69.35-acre project site which would have the potential to result in erosion or siltation on - or off-site. The disturbance of soils during construction could cause erosion, resulting in temp orary construction impacts. However, this impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which include mandated erosion control measures, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction (Mitigation Measure HYD -1). The Project proponent will also be required to prepare drainage plans (Mitigation Measure HYD-2) and a Development Maintenance Manual (Mitigation Measure HYD-3) to ensure th at existing drainage patterns are maintained during project operations and that that the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The impact is less than significant with implementation of these mitigation measures.

ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?

Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces on the 69.35- acre project site which would have the potential to increase surface runoff resulting in flooding on - or off -site. This impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2, which requires the project to submit drainage plans to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits . The drainage plans will include BMPs to ensure runoff from the project will not result in flooding on - or off-site. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation.

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?

Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces and alter existing drainage patterns on the 69.35-acre project site which would have the potential to impact existing stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project would contain a storm drainage basin to collect all runoff from the site.

The disturbance of soils during construction could cause erosion, resulting in temporary construction impacts. However, this impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which include mandated erosion control measures, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction (Mitigation Measure HYD -1). During project operations, the proposed impervious surfaces, including roads, building pads, and parking areas, would collect automobile derived pollutants such as oils, greases, rubber, and heavy metals. This could contribute to point source and non-point source pollution if these pollutants were transported into waterways during storm events.

The Project proponent will be required to prepare drainage plans (Mitigation Measure HYD-2) and a Development Maintenance Manual (Mitigation Measure HYD-3) to ensure that the project would not 3-67

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 overwhelm the planned stormwater drainage basin or result in discharges of polluted runoff into local waterways. The impact is less than significant with implementation of these mitigation measures.

iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?

Less than Significant with Mitigation: The Project site is generally flat and no significant grading or leveling will be required. The proposed project site is not in proximity to a stream or river and will not alter the course of a stream or river. According to National Flood Hazard mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the proposed project is in an X flood zone, which has a 0.2% chance of flooding every year.

The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces on the 69.35-acre project site which could affect drainage and flood patterns. This impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2, which requires the project to submit drainage plans to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The drainage plans will include BMPs to ensure the project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation.

d) Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?

No Impact: The proposed project is located inland and not near an ocean or large body of water, therefore, would not be affected by a tsunami. The proposed project is in a relatively flat area and would not be impacted by inundation related to mudflow. Since the project is in an area that is not susceptible to inundation, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

As such, there is no impact.

e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

No Impact: The project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Central Valley RWQCB. The project will comply with all applicable rules and regulations regarding water quality and groundwater management and there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures for Hydrology and Water Quality

Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any clearing, grading, or excavation, the Applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the Project site to the California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit. • Prior to issuance of grading permits for Phase 1 the Applicant shall submit a copy of the NOI to the City.
• The City shall review noticing documentation prior to approval of the grading permit. City monitoring staff will inspect the site during construction for compliance.

Mitigation Measure HYD-2: The Applicant shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45 days prior to the start of 3-68

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 work for approv al. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the Project site in excess of one (1) acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than one acre but is part of the Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres. The SWPPP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to storm water and shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. The following BMP methods shall include, but would not be limited to:
• Dust control measures will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite activities to control fugitive dust;
• A routine monitoring plan will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite erosion and sedimentation control measures;
• Provisional detention basins, straw bales, erosion control blankets, mulching, silt fencing, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers will be used;
• Soil stockpiles and graded slopes will be covered after two weeks of inactivity and 24 hours prior to and during extreme weather conditions; and,
• BMPs will be strictly followed to prevent spills and discharges of pollutants onsite, such as material storage, trash disposal, construction entrances, etc.

Mitigation Measure HYD -3: A Development Maintenance Manual for the Project shall include comprehensive procedures for maintenance and operations of any stormwater facilities to ensure long- term operation and maintenance of post -construction stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require that stormwater BMP devices be inspected, clea ned, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance conditions. The manual shall require that devices be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e., mid-October) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., mid-May). The manual shall also require that all devices be checked after major storm events. The Development Maintenance Manual shall include the following:
• Runoff shall be directed away from trash and loading dock areas; • Bins shall be lined or otherwise constructed to reduce leaking of liquid wastes; • Trash and loading dock areas shall be screened or walled to minimize offsite transport of trash; and,
• Impervious berms, trench catch basin, drop inlets, or overflow containment structures nearby docks and tras h areas shall be installed to minimize the potential for leaks, spills , or wash down water to enter the drainage system.
3-69

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?     b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
   

Environmental Setting

The proposed project site is in the Visalia Planning Area, just outside of the city limits. The site is approximately 4 miles Southwest of the Visalia downtown. The site is currently zoned as AE -20 by the County of Tulare but is prezoned for R-1-20 by the City of Visalia after annexation. The site is designated as Very Low Density Residential by the Visalia General Plan. The Project does not need rezoning or General Plan Amendments.

The site currently contains agriculture uses. The site is topographically flat and is bounded by agricultural uses (Including a dairy) to the South and West, and single-family residential to the North and East.

Regulatory Setting

Visalia General Plan
The proposed project site is designated as Very Low Density Residential. • The Very Low-Density Residential designation provides single family detached housing on large lots. Residential densities are typical of rural residential environments. The typical residential density for this designation ranges from 0.1 to two housing units per gross acre. Buildout is assumed at two units per gross acre.

The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to land use that correlate to the proposed project:

• LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.
• LU-P-20: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the Tier I Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.
• LU-P-28: Continue to use natural and man-made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the city’s Urban Area Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines. • LU-P-71: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
3-70

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 • LU-P-47: Establish criteria and standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation networks within new subdivisions and non-residential development.

City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance

The proposed project site is prezoned for R-1-20. The Project will not comply with the R-1-20 zoning code for three reasons and will require a requires a conditional use permit . First, the Project is planning for a minimum lot size of 11,592 square feet rather than the 20,000 square feet R-1-20 zone requires. The second reason is reduced front and side yard setbacks. The R -1-20 zone requires a minimum setback of 35 feet in the front and 10 feet on the sides. The Project is planning for setbacks of 30 feet and 5 feet, respectively. The third reason is the minimum width of the lots. The R-1-20 zone requires a minimum width of 100 feet on interior lots and 110 feet on corner lots, as measured from the middle of the lot. The Project plans for a minimum width of 85 feet, ranging to a maximum of 206 feet.

R-1 zoning is intended to provide living area within the city where development is limited to low density concentrations of one -family dwellings where regulations are designed to accomplish the following:
• to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life; • to provide space for community facilities needed to compliment urban residential areas and for institutions that require a residential environment;
• to minimize traffic congestion and to avoid an overload of utilities designed to service only low - density residential use.
3-71

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Figure 3-8: General Plan Land Use Designation

3-72

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Figure 3-9: Zoning Map
3-73

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion

a) Would the project physically divide an established community?

No Impact: The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. The proposed project site is designated for Very Low Density Residential by the Visalia General Plan and the project is consistent with this land use designation. The project would continue to operate as the same designation following project implementation. There is no impact.

b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

No Impact: The project site is located on land designated for residential use. The proposed project does not conflict with th is land use, or any other policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is no impact. 3-74

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
   
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other lands use plan?
   

Environmental Setting

Tulare County contains mineral resources of sand, gravel, and crushed stone, found in alluvial deposits and hard rock quarries. Most of this mining takes place along rivers and at the base of the Sierra foothills.

However, t he Visalia Planning Area currently contains three former sand and gravel min es, but no currently operating mines and no designated Mineral Resource Zones.

Regulatory Setting

California State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The California State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act was adopted in 1975 to regulate surface mining to prevent adverse environmental impacts and to preserve the state’s mineral resources. The Act is enforced by the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Mine Reclamation.

Discussion

a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact: The project site has no known mineral resources that would be of a value to the region and the residents of the state, therefore the proposed project would not result in the loss of impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact.

b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other lands use plan?

No Impact: There are no known mineral resources of importance to the region and the project site is not designated under the City’s or County’s General Plan as an important mineral resource recovery site. For that reason, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact. 3-75

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XIII. NOISE

Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permeant increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
   
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?    
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
   
Environmental Setting

Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is the variation in air pressure that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur at least 20 times per second, they can be detected by the human ear. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz).

Ambient noise is the “background” noise of an environment. Ambient noise levels on the proposed project site are primarily due to agricultural activities and traffic. Construction activities usually result in an increase in sound above ambient noise levels.

Vibration is seismic waves that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the earth.

Operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile driving and other impacts devices such as pavement breakers create this vibration.

Sensitive Receptors
Noise level allowances for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Residences, hotels/motels, hospitals, schools, and libraries are some of the most sensitive land uses to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise level allowances than most commercial or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance. The nearest sensitive receptor is the Wildhorse Subdivision that borders the Southeast border of the site.

Regulatory Setting

City of Visalia Noise Ordinance
The City of Visalia Noise Ordinance provides noise level standards for land use compatibility. Exterior and interior noise levels may not exceed any of the categorical noise level standards shown in Table 3-76

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 3-14. The standards are shown in A- weighted decibels ( dBA). F or Single Family Residential, the exterior noise during the daytime is to be below 70 dBA, and the indoor noise during the daytime is to be below 55 dBA.

Table 3-14: City of Visalia Noise Standards. Source: City of Visalia Noise Ordinance City of Visalia General Plan
The current noise element of the City’s General Plan establishes goals and policies intended to limit community exposure to excessive noise levels. Visalia’s current General Plan identifies noise sources such as roadways, rails, and airports within the city and includes land use compatibility guidelines. • N-P-3: Establish performance standards for noise reduction for new housing that may be exposed to community noise levels above 65 dB DNL/CNEL, as shown on the Noise Contour Maps, based on the target acceptable noise levels for outdoor activity levels and interior spaces in Tables 8 -2 and 8-3. Noise mitigation measures that may be considered to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
o Construct façades with substantial weight and insulation; o Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; o Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas; o Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
o Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attics, and gable ends; o Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions.

Discussion

a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permeant increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less than Significant Impact: Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 66 months and will involve temporary noise sources in the vicinity of the project. The average noise levels generated by construction equipment that will likely be used in the proposed project are provided in Table 3-15.

3-77

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 The nearest residence and sensitive receptor are the single-family homes surrounding the site. The C ity requires that mitigation measures be implemented if noise levels exceed 70 dB in sensitive outdoor areas or if interior noise levels exceed 55 dB. As shown in Figure 3-10, it was found that a residence must be at least 250 feet from construction in the exterior and 100 feet from construction in the interior to avoid noise levels exceeding these thresholds.

With the project bordering another residential community, a noise disturbance is unavoidable. However, the construction would comply with Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 to ensure that the construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Measures such as maintaining minimum setback distances between construction equipment and receptors, only having construction during weekday daytime hours, and noise barriers would be implemented to avoid significant construction noise impacts.

Long term noise levels resulting from the project would be produced by single family residential homes, which are not normally associated with high operational noise levels . Because noise generated during project construction would be intermittent, short term, and would not exceed the thresholds established by the Visalia Noise Ordinance for sensitive receptors and the project does not propose uses that would typically generate high noise levels, the impact is less than significant.

Type of
Equipment
Exterior
Lmax at 50
feet (dBA)

Tractors 84
Loaders 80
Backhoes 80
Excavators 85
Generator
Sets 82
Air
Compressors 80
Rubber Tired
Dozers 85
Forklifts 75
Welders 73
Graders 85
Scrapers 85
Cranes 85
Paving
Equipment 85
Rollers 85
Table 3 -15. Noise levels of noise -generating construction equipment at various distances. Source: FHA Construction Noise Handbook (dBA at 50 feet). Noise levels beyond 50 feet were estimated using the inverse square law based on given values for dBA at 50 feet
3-78

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Figure 3 -10: Construction Related Noise Levels Based on Distance from Construction Equipment . Interior Noise=Assume 25 dB Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction

b) Would the project result in g eneration of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less than Significant Impact: Although project operations would not include uses or activities that typically generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, project construction could introduce temporary groundborne vibration to the project site and the surrounding area.

Sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are provided in Table 3-16.

Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration
Level (LV) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range)

0.644 (typical)
112
104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range

0.170 typical
105
93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill (slurry wall) 0.008 in soil

0.017 in rock
66 75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Table 3-16. Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018.

The primary source of vibration during project construction would likely be from a bulldozer (tractor), which would generate 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet with an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB. Vibration from the bulldozer would be intermittent and not a source of continual vibration.

There are no adopted City standards or thresholds of significance for vibration. The evaluation of potential impacts related to construction vibration levels is based on the published data in the 2018

3-79

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 FTA Guidelines. At 25 feet, the buildings most susceptible to vibration could be impacted at .12 inch/second. Because vibrations generated by project construction would not exceed 0.1 2 inch/second, the impact is less than significant.

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located approximately 1.77 miles Southeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport). However, according to the Airport Master plan, the project site would not be impacted by the airport. Noise contours developed for 2019 show that the airport would produce less than 65 dB. All land uses located outside of the 65 dB contours are considered less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. There is a less than significant impact. 3-80

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
   
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
   

Environmental Setting

The United States Census Bureau stated the population in the City of Visalia to be 141,214 as of April 2020.

This is an increase from the 2010 census, which counted the population in the City of Visalia to be 124,442.

Factors that influence population growth in Visalia include job availability, housing availability, and the capacity of proposed and existing infrastructure.

Regulatory Setting

The City of Visalia population size is controlled by the development code and Housing Element of the General Plan. These documents regulate the number of dwelling units per acre allowed on various land uses and establish minimum and maximum lot sizes , which has a direct impact on the City’s population size.

City of Visalia 2003 General Plan Housing Element
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to population and housing that correlate to the proposed project:

• LU-P-50: Provide development standards to ensure residential development is not negatively affected by adjacent non-residential land uses.
• U-P-71: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.

Discussion

a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

No Impact: The United States Census Bureau stated the population in the City of Visalia to be 141,214 as of April 2020. The project proposes to construct 136 new single family residential units. The US 3-81

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Census Bureau states that the City’s average household size is 2.99 persons. Based on this average household size, the anticipated population increase because of the proposed project is 407 persons.

The construction of housing at this location would not be unplanned, as the Visalia General Plan designated the proposed project site for very low density residential. Additionally, the city is planning for more businesses, services, and infrastructure to accommodate the new population. Overall, the project will not constitute an unplanned increase in growth and population. There is no impact.

b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact: There project would not displace any existing housing. There is one existing house on the site which will be removed. Overall, this will increase the amount of available housing in the community. There is No Impact.
3-82

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 serve ratios, response times
of other performance objectives for any of the
public services:

a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other public facilities?    

Environmental Setting

Fire
Visalia and project site is served by The Visalia Fire Department (VFD), which operates 5 fire stations within the City of Visalia. The VFD will continue to provide fire protection services to the proposed project site following project implementation. VFD Fire Station #53 is the nearest fire station to the site, approximately .77 miles to the Northeast.

Police
Law enforcement services are provided to the project site via The Visalia Police Department (VPD) .

The VPD will continue to provide police protection services to the proposed project site following project implementation. The VPD headquarters are located approximately 3.6 miles Northeast of the proposed project site. VPD Substation District 2 is located approximately 2.3 miles Southeast of the project site.

Schools
The proposed project site is located within the Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) f rom Kindergarten through 12th Grade. The District includes 25 elementary schools, four middle schools, four traditional high schools, and alternative education programs . The nearest school is located approximately .63 miles West (El Diamante High School).

Regulatory Setting

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, 3-83

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 structures, and premises. The provisions of th e Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure throughout the State of California. The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire -resistance-rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire services features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland -urban interface areas.

City of Visalia Fire Department Plan Check and Hydrant Ordinance Visalia’s requirements for new construction include provisions for the Fire Department to review building and site plans prior to the issuance of any permit. The Fire Department ensures that proposed projects will be adequately served by water, and accessible to emergency vehicles. The Department also enforces the City’s Hydrant Ordinance, which states that subdividers are responsible for the installation of wat er mains and hydrants and determines the minimum spacing for fire hydrants.

Street dimensions are scrutinized to ensure that space will be preserved for ladder trucks to be stabilized, and for emergency vehicles to turn around. Basic requirements in the City’s subdivision ordinance include 52-foot minimum right-of-way widths and a 53-foot turning radius for cul-de-sacs.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to public services that correlate to the proposed project:

• PSCU-P-33: Coordinate land use and development with school location and site design, working with the Visalia Unified School District and other districts to ensure that adequate facilities are available and integrated with neighborhoods.

Discussion

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 serve ratios, response times of other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact : The VFD will provide fire protection services to the proposed development. The closest fire station is Station #5 3, located .77 miles Northeast of the project site at 5025 W Walnut Ave. The Fire Department uses the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard for fire protection services, which requires 1 responder per 1,000 residents. The addition of 136 residential units will increase the demand for fire protection services. The city currently has .48 responders per 1,000 residents. By 2030, the city expects growth up to a total of 210,000 residents. This would result in .32 responders per 1,000 residents. This will require an additional 85 on-duty responders by 2030 to meet 1 responder per 1,000 residents, or 41 new responders to meet the current ratio . The existing fire stations are placed to provide optimum service, however new stations will be needed to support the expanding city . To support the expansion of fire services, a development impact fee of $2,002 per gross acre will be paid for fire services. The total development impact fee for fire services would be $138,839. 3-84

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 The timing of when new fire service facilities would be required or details about size and location cannot be known until such facilities are planned and proposed, and any attempt to analyze impacts to a potential future facility would be speculative. As new or expanded fire service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion projects would be subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts.

Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

b. Police protection?

Less than Significant Impact : The VPD will provide services to the proposed development. The VPD headquarters are located approximately 3.6 miles Northeast of the proposed project site.

VPD Substation District 2 is located approximately 2.3 miles Southeast of the project site. The development would increase the demand for police service with the addition of 136 residential units. The VPD does not establish service standards either in terms of officers per thousand residents or in incident response time but plans to maintain the current ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. The Department has 143 sworn officers working out of two districts, as well as seven reserve sworn officers, 64 civilian officers, and 65 volunteers. The demand for additional officers and equipment will be compensated by the development impact fee of $ 1,832 per acre of Low-Density Housing. The total development impact fee for police protection services would be $127,049.

The timing of when new police service facilities would be required or details about size and location cannot be known until such facilities are planned and proposed, and any attempt to analyze impacts to a potential future facility would be speculative. As new or expanded police service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion projects would be subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

c. Schools?

Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is within the (VUSD) from Kindergarten through 12th Grade. The District includes 25 elementary schools, four middle schools, four traditional high schools, and alternative education programs. The City of Visalia predicts the generation rates shown below in Table 3-17.

School Type Single Family Generation Rate Number of Students Elementary School 0.448 61
Middle School .092 13
High School .156 21
Table 3-17: Student Generation Rates, City of Visalia General Plan

3-85

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Since the proposed project includes the addition of 136 single family homes , the number of students will increase by approximately 95. The proposed project site is located within the Planning Area’s limits and therefore, growth associated with the Project has been planned and expected. In addition to the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, future development is required to pay development impact fees to the school districts at the time of building permit issuance. The City of Visalia charges $4.41 per square foot of residential development. This would total up to $1,079,568. These impact fees are used by the school districts to maintain existing and develop new facilities, as needed. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

d. Parks?

Less than Significant Impact: The addition of 136 new residential units would result in more use of the existing parks. Parks within a half-mile to one-mile radius that would service the proposed development include Sunset Park and John Combs Park. The project plans to include 3.7 acres of parkland with walking trails. Since the project would not lower the existing level of services for parks, and the proposed project would contribute its fair share to parks facilities throug h in-lieu fees, the impact is less than significant.

e. Other public facilities?

Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would be required to pay a development impact fee for Public Facilities, including for the Civic Center, Corporation Yard, and Libraries. The fees for these are $602 per single family unit . This is a total of $ 81,872 for Public Facilitates .

Additional development fees will be paid to offset the increased demand for public services related to transportation, water, wastewater, groundwater recharge, storm drainage, and general governmental services. Fees for transportation, water, wastewater, and general government are based on building square footage and will be calculated prior to the issuance of building permits.

Fees for groundwater recharge and storm drainage are based on site acreage.

While the payment of development fees could result in the construction of new or altered public service facilities, no specific projects have been identified at this time. As new or expanded public service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion projects would be subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts.

Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
3-86

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XVI. PARKS AND RECREATION

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
   
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?
   
Environmental Setting

There are 40 park facilities totaling 678 acres within the Visalia Planning Area. The City of Visalia provides diverse types of parks and open space facilities, or park types, to meet park and open space recreation needs of the community. Park types include:

• Pocket Parks: A park typically between one-half and two acres in size intended to serve the needs of a specific neighborhood within a half-mile radius. There are currently 17 pocket parks in Visalia. • Neighborhood Parks: A park typically 2 to 5 acres in size that provides basic recreation activities for one or more neighborhoods. There are currently 19 neighborhood parks in Visalia. • Community Parks: A park typically ranging from 5 to 12 acres in size or larger, which are intended to serve the recreational needs of a larger area of the city. There are currently 4 community parks in Visalia.
• Large City Parks: A park generally larger than 40 acres in size intended to serve the recreational needs of all city residents and to create opportunities for contact with the natural environment.

These parks may include a concentration of sports fields, golf courses, and areas for p icnicking and passive enjoyment of open space. There are currently 2 large city parks in Visalia. • Natural Corridors and Greenways: A network of greenways of varying size intended to serve the recreational needs of city residents. These parks may include facilities such as bikeways, walkways, and riding trails, and are primarily developed along the city’s waterways. There is a total of 196 acres of natural corridors and greenways.

The Visalia Planning Area additionally contains two county parks and a public golf course. The golf course is not counted to the total amount of parkland. The Visalia General Plan states a total parkland standard of five acres of city parkland per 1,000 residents.

Regulatory Setting
Quimby Act
The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code section 66477) authorized cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees 3-87

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 for park improvements. The Act states that the dedication requirement of parkland can be a minimum of three acres per thousand residents or more and up to five acres per thousand residents if the existing ratio is greater than the minimum standard. Revenues generated through in -lieu fees collected and the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. In 1982, the Act was substantially amended. The amendments further defined acceptable uses of or restrictions on Quimby funds, provided acreage/population standards and formulas for d etermining the exaction, and indicated that the exactions must be closely tied (nexus) to a project’s impacts as identified through studies required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to parks and recreation that correlate to the proposed project:

• PSCU-P-2: Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents.
• PSCU-P-7: Promote development of small pocket parks or play lots dispersed throughout new neighborhoods and in existing neighborhoods, where needed, on a voluntary basis in coordination with new infill development, consistent with the following planning guidelines:
o Size: 0.5 to 2 acres; and
o Facilities: the specific features of pocket parks should address the anticipated needs of nearby residents and/or workers. In a residential environment, the needs of small children and seniors should be emphasized. In mixed-use or commercial areas, lunchtime use by office workers and shoppers should be facilitated. • PSCU-P-10: Adopt and implement parkland dedication requirements for all subdivisions, consistent with the Quimby Act and Policy PSCU-P-2. This requirement will be integrated with the City’s Park Acquisition Development Fee Program.

Discussion

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Less than Significant Impact : The proposed project is anticipated to increase the Visalia population by approximately 407 residents. Based on the desired parkland ratio of five acres per 1000 residents identified in the Visalia General Plan, the Project would need to provide approximately 2.03 acres of parkland/open space. The project has 3.7 acres of parkland, more than the required amount . The impact is less than significant.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact: The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. There is no impact.
3-88

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XVII. TRANSPORTATION

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
   
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with the CEQA
guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?    
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
   
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?    
Environmental Setting

Vehicular Access
Vehicular access to the project is available via South Roeben Street on the East side of the site, and South Shirk Road (Road 92) on the West side of the site. The project includes a network of local streets that provide full access to the project site.

Parking
Each Single-Family home will contain at least a two-car garage, as well as room for two more cars in the driveway. Street parking will be limited due to reduced street widths. During construction, workers will utilize existing parking areas and/or temporary construction staging areas for parking of vehicles and equipment.

Regulatory Setting

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b): Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts

(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one -half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact.
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152. (3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the 3-89

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environ mental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

City of Visalia Standard Specifications
The City of Visalia Standard Specifications are developed and enforced by th e City of Visalia Public Works Department to guide the development and maintenance of streets within the City. The cross- section drawings contained in the City’s Standard Specifications dictate the development of roads within the City.

City of Visalia General Plan:

The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to transportation that correlate to the proposed project:

• T-P-3: Design and build future roadways that complement and enhance the existing network, as shown on the General Plan Circulation Diagram, to ensure that each new and existing roadway continues to function as intended.
• T-P-5: Take advantage of opportunities to consolidate driveways, access points, and curb cuts along existing arterials when a change in development or a change in intensity occurs or when traffic operation or safety warrants.
• T-P-10: Manage local residential streets to limit average daily vehicle volumes to 1,500 or less and maintain average vehicle speeds between 15 and 25 miles per hour. • T-P-22: Require all residential subdivisions to be designed to discourage use of local streets as a bypass to congested arterials, and when feasible, require access to residential development to be from collector streets.
• T-P-23: Require that all new developments provide right -of-way, which may be dedicated or purchased, and improvements (including necessary grading, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parkway/landscape strips, bike, and parking lanes) other city street design standards.

Design standards will be updated following General Plan adoption. • T-P-24: Require that proposed developments make necessary off -site improvements if the location and traffic generation of a proposed development will result in congestion on major streets or failure to meet LOS D during peak periods or if it creates safety hazards. • T-P-26: Require that future commercial developments or modifications to existing developments be designed with limited points of automobile ingress and egress, including shared access, onto major streets.
• T-P-40: Develop a community -wide trail system along selected planning area waterways, consistent with the Waterways and Trails Master Plan and General Plan diagrams. 3-90

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion

a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

Less than Significant Impact: The existing General Plan established LOS “D” as the minimum acceptable LOS standard on city facilities. A traffic study prepared for the project (Appendix E ) concluded that the project would not result in a significant increase in vehicle or truck trips.

Table 3-18 shows the estimated vehicle trips generated for the proposed project. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,339 daily trips, including 99 AM peak hour trips (26 inbound, 73 outbound) and 133 PM peak hour trips (84 inbound, 49 outbound).

Single-Family Detached Housing
(ITE Code 210) -Project Phase
Total
Units
Daily* AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour*
Trips % In: Out In Out Total % In: Out In Out Total
Phase 1 43 464 26:74 9 26 35 63:37 28 17 45
Phase 2 (add 46 units) 89 906 26:74 17 50 67 63:37 56 33 89 Phase 3 (add 47 units) 136 1,339 26:74 26 73 99 63:37 84 49 133 Total Project 136 1,339 26:74 26 73 99 63:37 84 49 133
*Regression equations used based on procedure in Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, September 2017 TABLE 3-18: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

According to the City of Visalia’s Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), March 2021, residential developments generating less than 200 peak hour trips do not require a TIA. Therefore, as per the City’s TIA guidelines, it is anticipated the project will not require a TIA.

Whitendale Avenue does not currently exist between Shirk Road and Roeben Street. Phase 1 of the project is expected to generate approximately 464 daily trips, including 35 AM peak hour trips (9 inbound, 26 outbound) and 45 PM peak hour trips (28 inbound, 17 outbound). The number of trips generated
during both the AM and PM peak hours for Phase 1 are significantly less than the total project and less than the City’s TIA guidelines that would require additional analysis.

Given that Whitendale Avenue does not currently exist, that few trips will be generated during Phase 1, and that the City’s TIA guidelines do not require analysis for residential projects generating less than 200 peak hour trips, it is not anticipated that there will be any significant impact to adjacent intersections during Phase 1 or that additional analysis should be required. The City of Visalia Traffic Impact Fee facilities list includes traffic signal projects which are not individually identified. The project will pay its fair share of traffic impact fees to support payment of the signals. There is a less than significant impact.

b) Would the project c onflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?

Less than Significant Impact: The City of Visalia’s VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (Guidelines) document, prepared by LSA and adopted on March 15, 2021, provides guidance for determining a project’s transportation impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Guidelines 3-91

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 acknowledge that certain activities and projects may result in a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions and, therefore, a less than significant impact to transportation and circulation. A variety of projects may be screened out o f a complicated VMT analysis due to the presumption described in the TA regarding the occurrence of less than significant impacts.

The Guidelines state : “Residential, office, or mixed- use projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and located within green-colored VMT zones, as shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8, respectively, are presumed to have similar low VMT profiles and could be screened out from further VMT analysis.”

The State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research d ocument entitled Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA dated December 2018 (OPR Guidelines) provides the reasoning for the screen out. The OPR Guidelines state: “Residential and office projects that are located in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT. Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps may be used to screen out residential and office projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.”

The Project is consistent with Visalia’s General Plan land use, and the Project is within a green-colored VMT zone, shown in Figure 3 -11. Therefore, the Project can be screened out will not need a VMT analysis. There is a less than significant impact.

3-92

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

Figure 3-11: Visalia Existing VMT per Capita

3-93

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

No Impact: The project does not propose any incompatible uses or include any design features that could increase traffic hazards. The project does include t wo new vehicle access poin ts on S Roeben Street and S Shirk Road. This improvement will be subject to review by the City’s engineer to ensure the new access point does not pose any safety risks due to project design. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards in or around the project area there is no impact.

d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact: This project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency access to the site would be via S Roeben Street and S Shirk Road. During the first phase of construction, the access on S Shirk Road would not be built yet. However, a temporary emergency access will connect to W Whitendale Avenue. A network of local roads within the proposed project pro perty provides full access to all buildings within the development. The Project would have no impact on emergency access.
3-94

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
   
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.
   

Environmental Setting

The Project area is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory of the San Joaquin Valley. The Yokuts are a sub -group of the Penutian language that covers much of coastal and central California and Oregon. The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts. T he Project area is likely within the Telamni Yokuts territory. The main village for this area was Waitatshuulul, which was approximately 3 miles east of the Project site along Packwood Creek Primary Yokuts villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses, with scattered secondary or temporary camps and settlements located near gathering areas in the foothills. Prior to Euro-American contact, the Yokuts were one of the densest populations of Native Americans in western North America due to the substantial natural resources surrounding Tulare Lake . According to the Native American Heritage Commission, eight Native American tribal groups can be associated with the Project area, including the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, the Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, the Wukasache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, the Kern Valley Indian Community, the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, the North Fork Mono Tribe and the Tule River Indian Tribe.

Cultural Resources Record Search
On May 20, 2022, Taylored Archaeology requested a cultural resource records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California. The purpose of this request was 3-95

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 to identify any prehistoric or historical resources on or near the Project site that had been previously recorded within the Project boundary and a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area and identify and review prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the Project boundary. SSJVIC staff researched historical USGS topog raphic maps, reports of previous cultural resource investigations, archaeological site and survey base maps, cultural resource records (DPR forms) as well as listings of the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources .

According to the SSJVIC records search, there has been two previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area. One is a literatur e review of the Project region and the second is a book on conflicts between Native Americans and California gold miners during the 1850s Gold Rush in Mariposa. Neither of these reports included archaeological surveys. There have been five cultural resource studies conducted within a 0.5 -mile radius of the project. There have been no cultural resources were previously recorded within the Project area. or within the 0.5 -mile radius .

Additionally, no recorded cultural resources are recorded within the Project There is two cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Both are historic -era, rural, single -family residences. In addition to the SSJVIC research, Taylored Archaeology further reviewed the cultural resources 0.5-miles from the Project boundary. Using Google Earth aerial maps, one of the historic homes was determined to have been demolished in 2021.

Native American Consultation
The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed proj ects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080. 3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, plac es, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)).

Additional information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

The site is currently vacant and has been routinely disturbed as part of the agricultural operations. If any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, existing federal, State, and local laws, and regulations as well as the mitigation measures will require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significanc e by a qualified cultural resource professional.

On May 20, 2022, Taylored Archaeology sent an email to the NAHC requesting a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search to identify places in or near the Project area that may be tribal cultural resources, including sacred sites or other resources of importance. The results of this search were negative.

However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area.

3-96

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Following AB 52, Native American Tribes that could potentially be impacted by the Project were contacted. The Tribes that were formally noticed of this Project were the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, Tule River Indian Tribe, Kern Valley Indian Community, North Fork Mono Tribe, and the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.

Regulatory Setting

Historical Resources
Historical resources are defined by CEQA as resources that are listed in or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, resources that are listed in a local historical resource register, or resources that are otherwise determined to be historical under California Pu blic Resources Code Section 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. Under these definitions Historical Resources can include archaeological resources, Tribal cultural resources, and Paleontological Resources.

Archaeological Resources
As stated above, archaeological resources may be considered historical resources. If they do not meet the qualifications under the California Public Resources Code 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, they are instead determ ined to be “unique” as defined by the CEQA Statute Section 21083.2. A unique archaeological resource is an artifact, object, or site that: (1) contains information (for which there is a demonstrable public interest) needed to answer important scientific research questions; (2) has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or (3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR)
Tribal Cultural Resources can include site features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects, which are of cultural value to a Tribe. It is either listed on or eligible for the CA Historic Register or a local historic register or determined by the lead agency to be treated as TCR.

Paleontological Resources
For the purposes of this section, “paleontological resources” refers to the fossilized plant and animal remains of prehistoric species. Paleontological Resources are a limited scientific and educational resource and are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its ecology.

Fossilized remains, such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves, are found in geologic deposits (i.e., rock formations). Paleontological resources generally include the geologic formations and localities in which the fossils are collected.

Native American Reserve (NAR)
This designation recognizes tribal trust and reservation lands managed by a Native American Trib e under the United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs over which the County 3-97

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 has no land use jurisdiction. The County encourages adoption of tribal management plans for these areas that consider compatibility and impacts upon adjacent area facilities and plans.

California Historic Register
The California Historic Register was developed as a program to identify, evaluate, register, and protect Historical Resources in California. Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically or archaeologically significant” (PRC §5020.1[j]). In addition, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a local survey co nducted in accordance with the state guidelines are also considered historic resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.

According to CEQA guidelines §21074 (a)(1), criteria for tribal cultural resources includes the following:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to tribal resources that correlate to the proposed project:

OSC-P-42: Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
3-98

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 • Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
• Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA);
• Requiring pre -construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity (defined as areas identified according to the National Historic Preservation Act as part of the Section 106 process); and • Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.

Discussion

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. Based on the results of the records search, no previously recorded tribal cultural resources are located within the project site. Although no cultural resources were identified, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Therefore, Tribes that can potentially be impacted were consulted. The Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe responded regarding their concerns. A representative of the Tribe stated “Due to Tribal history and knowledge of the project area, the Tribe has concerns and is requesting that an archaeological firm be hired to conduct a pre -construction survey, a records search with the NAHC and CHRIS center, and monitoring of any ground disturbing activities. We request to be put in contact with the archaeological firm hired so we can maintain updates about the project.” Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL -4 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The lead agency has not determined there to be any known tribal cultural resources located within the project area. Additionally, there are not believed to be any paleontological resources or human remains buried within the project area’s vicinity. However, if resources were found to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California Native American Tribe. Implementation of Mitigation 3-99

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that any impacts resulting from project implementation remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Cultural Resources:

If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guideli nes, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavat ions of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City -approved instit ution or person who is capable of providing long -term preservation to allow future scientific study.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Prior to the start of construction, an archaeological firm shall be hired to conduct a pre-construction survey and submit a comprehensive report to the lead agency for review and approval prior to the start of construction. This report should document the findings of the pre - construction survey and include an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on any identified archaeological resources. The plan should outline specific measures that will be implemented, such as construction phasing, site buffering, and artifact preservation, to protect the cultural resources, if any are discovered. To ensure compliance, the project approval should require that the archaeological survey report and the associated plan be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and that the survey and monitoring activities be conducted in accordance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. By requiring a comprehensive archaeological survey report and 3-100

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 a detailed mitigation plan, the lead agency can en sure that any impacts to archaeological resources are avoided or minimized to the fullest extent possible.

Mitigation Measure CUL -4: During any ground disturbing activities, an archaeological firm shall be hired to monitor the Project Site. The monitoring should be conducted by a qualified archaeologist with experience in the region and in compliance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. The monitoring should include regular site inspections to identify any archaeological resources that may have been uncovered during ground -disturbing activities. If any resources are identified, the monitoring should also include documentation, mapping, and analysis of the resources, as well as the development of a mitigation plan to address any potential impacts to the resources.

3-101

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 relation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
   
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
   
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
   
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
   
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
   

Environmental Setting

Wastewater
Sewer services are provided to the site by the City of Visalia. The City owns a Water Conservation Plant (WCP) to treat wastewater. Presently, the WCP’s permitted capacity as established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is 20 million gallons per day (mgd). A planned upgrade will increase the capacity to 26 mgd. The WCP has a daily flow of 13 mgd. The City of Visalia operates a sewer system divided into eight service areas. The system currently has over 468 miles of sewer pipe.

Solid Waste
The City of Visalia provides residential waste pickup but has contracts with companies for other aspects. Sunset Waste Systems provides waste collection for commercial uses and processes recyclable material. Tulare County Compost and Biomass processes green waste.

The Tulare County Resource Management Agency manages some solid waste disposal. Programs include household hazardous waste disposal, electronics recycling, tire recovery, yard waste recycling, metal recycling and appliance recovery programs. The county landfills approximately 300,000 tons of waste per year, which is equivalent to about 5 pounds per person per day or one ton per county 3-102

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 resident per year. The County operates three disposal sites: the Visalia Disposal Site, northwest of Visalia; the Woodville Disposal Site, southeast of Tulare; and the Teapot Dome Disposal Site, southwest of Porterville. These sites have a remaining capacity of 24,258,052 cubic yards, with a total capacity of 37,101,523 cubic yards.

Water
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) distribute groundwater supply. Cal Water’s Visalia District supply wells extract groundwater from the Kaweah Groundwater Subbasin. The Cal Water system includes 75 operational groundwater wells, about one third of which have auxiliary power for backup. There are 519 miles of main pipeline in the system. The system includes two elevated 300,000-gallon storage tanks, an ion exchange treatment plant, four granular activated carbon filter plants and one nitrate blending facility.

The system currently has the capacity to pump 100,829 acre-feet per year (afy), all from groundwater.

This will be able to supply a growing population, as in 2010, 31,762 AF was needed. By 2030, the city is expected to use 43,002 afy.

Regulatory Setting

CalRecycle
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Natural Resources – Division 7 contains all current CalRecycle regulations regarding nonhazardous waste management in the state. These regulations include standards for the handling of solid waste, standards for the handling of compostable materials, design standards for disposal facilities, and disposal standards for specific types of waste.

Central Valley RWQCB
The Central Valley RWQCB requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the project is greater than one acre, a SWPPP to manage stormwater generated during project construction will be required.

The Central Valley RWQCB regulates Wastewater Discharges to Land by establishing t hresholds for discharged pollutants and implementing monitoring programs to evaluate program compliance. This program regulates approximately 1500 dischargers in the region.

The Central Valley RWQCB is also responsible for implementing the federal program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES Program is the federal permitting program that regulates discharges of pollutants to surface waters of the U.S. Under this program, a NPDES permit is required to discharge pollutants into Waters of the U.S. There are 350 permitted facilities within the Central Valley Region.

Cal Water Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) – Visalia District The UWMP describe s the Visalia District service area, system demand and usage, available water resources, reliability of the water supply, and contingency planning for water shortage. It also contains a conservation section in compliance with SB X7 -7 describing water usage reduction targets and implementation measures. The UWMP identifies five core programs for water conservation in the District that involve promotion of high -efficiency fixtures in residential settings, promotion of high - efficiency irrigation systems, and public information and education.

3-103

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the objectives and policies related to utilities and service systems that correlate to the proposed project:
• PSCU-O-14: Provide for long -range community water needs by adopting best management practices for water use, conservation, groundwater recharge and wastewater and stormwater management.
• PSCU-P-46: Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks, streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance’s requirements. The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
o Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping;
o Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of cool-season turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks);
o Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; o Requiring automatic irrigation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weather-based or other self-adjusting technology; o Promoting the use of recycled water; and
o Minimizing overspray and runoff.
• PSCU-P-59: Require new developments to incorporate floodwater detention basins into project designs where consistent with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater Recharge Plan. • PSCU-P-60: Control urban and stormwater runoff and point and non-point discharge of pollutants.

3-104

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Discussion

a) Would the project 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 relation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in new water services. However, the proposed site has no change of use proposal. Visalia’s current system for water and wastewater have the capacity to manage the projected growth expected in the General Plan. To compensate for these services, new development will be required to pay impact fees . It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would result in increased demand for any utility services beyond the planned conditions. There is a less than significant impact.

b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

Less than Significant Impact: Cal Water will provide water services. The City’s water supply source is comprised of 75 operational groundwater wells . The system currently has the capacity to pump 100,829 acre -feet per year (afy), all from groundwater. This will be able to supply a growing population, as in 2010, 31,762 AF was needed. By 2030, the city is exp ected to use 43,002 afy. Using average per-person water use in Visalia (183 gallons; 2020 Urban Water Management Plan) and the average household size in Visalia (2.99 persons; US Census Bureau), water demand for the proposed 136-unit residential development is estimated to be approximately 74,415 gallons of water daily, or about 83-acre feet per year. With the system capacity at 100,829 afy, there will be enough water supply for the proposed project. The project does not propose any new or expanded uses against the Visalia General Plan . The available water supply is expected to supply the projected population. In 2030, the projected demand is expected to 35,276 AF of groundwater, in 2035, there is expected to be 38,310 AF of groundwater, and in 2040 there is expected to be 41,258 AF of groundwater. To compensate for these services, new development will be required to pay impact fees for new water services, along with the reduced water use implementations from the polices set forth in the Visalia General Plan. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Less than Significant Impact: The project does not propose any new or expanded uses and is therefore not anticipated to result in increased demand for wastewater treatment services beyond existing conditions in the Visalia General Plan. Additionally, the City’s MEIR has evaluated the site’s current and future wastewater service demand . The current capacity of the wastewater system is approximately 20 mgd. It currently receives 13 mgd, leaving an available 7 mgd. In addition, a future upgrade plans to increase the capacity to 26 mgd. Based on the average per -acre daily wastewater use (1,300 gallons; City of Visalia General Plan), the 69.35-acre project would produce approximately 90,155 mgd of wastewater.

3-105

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Because the City ’s sewer system has the capacity to meet the project site’s ex pected demand for wastewater treatment, and it is not anticipated that the project will increase the site’s demand for wastewater treatment, it can be inferred that the existing wastewater treatment system has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. There is a less than significant impact.

d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

No Impact: Sunset Waste Systems provides solid waste services to the proposed project site. The project does not propose any new or expanded uses and is therefore not anticipated to result in increased generation of solid waste beyond existing conditions.

Additionally, the disposal sites are at
less than half capacity. Because the City’s existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate the solid waste currently planned in the General Plan for expanded population, it can be inferred that the existing solid waste infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. The project would not generate solid waste more than State or Local Standards and there is no impact.

e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact: This proposed project conforms to all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. The proposed project will comply with the adopted policies related to solid waste, and will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to disposal of solid waste, including recycling. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on solid waste regulations.
3-106

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?    
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
   
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
   
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
   

Environmental Setting

There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the vicinity of the project site, and the project site is not categorized as a “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire. This CEQA topic only applies to areas within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ.

Regulatory Setting

Fire Hazard Severity Zones: geographical areas designated pursuant to California Public Resources Codes Sections 4201 through 4204 and classified as Very High, High, or Moderate in State Responsibility Areas or as Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones designated pursuant to California Government Code, Sections 51175 through 51189.

Discussion

a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact: The project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency r esponse plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Visalia Fire Department will review the project to ensure the project does not impair emergency response or emergency evacuation. Additionally, the proposed project site is not located within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ. There is no impact.

3-107

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

No Impact: The project is located on a flat area of agricultural and urban land which is considered to be at little risk of fire. Additionally, the proposed project site is not located within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ. There is no impact.

c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

Less than Significant Impact: The construction of the project involves adding new local residential streets, and new and relocated utilities. Utilities such as emergency water sources and power lines would be included as part of the proposed development, however all improvements would be subject to City standards and Fire Chief approval. The proposed project would not exacerbate fire risk and the impact would be less than significant.

d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes?

No Impact: The project site is not located in an area designated as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone and lands associated with the Project site are relatively flat. Therefore, the project would not be susceptible to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post -fire instability or drainage changes. There is no impact.
3-108

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential
substantially to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
   
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
   
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
   

Discussion

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: This initial study/mitigated negative declaration found the project could have significant impacts on biological resources, hydrology and water quality , historical, and Tribal cultural resources. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures for each respective section would ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

3-109

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Less t han Significant Impact : CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h) state s that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than c umulatively considerable. The proposed project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc). Impacts would be less than significant.

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant Impact : The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project design to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, which results in a less than significant impact to this checklist item.
3-110

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

3.6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the project in order to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures that have been adopted for the proj ect. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been created based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Barr-Wood Subdivision Project in the City of Visalia.

The first column of the table identifies the mitigation measure. The second column names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The third column, “Timing of Mitigation Measure” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fourth column, “Responsible Party for Monitoring,” names the party ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last column will be used by the City to ensure that the individual mitigation measures have been monitored.

Plan checking and verification of mitigation compliance shall be the responsibility of the City of Visalia.

3-111

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.

If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be id entified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency . Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City- approved institution or person who is ca pable of providing long- term preservation to allow future scientific study.

Project Applicant Ongoing during
construction
Contractor/
Lead Agency
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately .

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur un
til the County Coroner has
made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Co mmission (NAHC) . The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section
5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American r emains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.

The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

Project Applicant Ongoing during
construction
Contractor/
Lead Agency
3-112

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Prior to the start of construction, an archaeological firm shall be hired to conduct a pre -construction survey and submit a comprehensive report to the lead agency for review and approval prior to the start of construction. This report should document the findings of the pre-construction survey and include an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on any identified archaeological resources. The plan should outline specific measures that will be implemented, such as construction phasing, site buffering, and artifact preservation, to protect the cultural resources, if any are discovered. To ensure compliance, the project approval should require that the archaeological survey report and the associated plan be prepared by a qualified archae ologist and that the survey and monitoring activities be conducted in accordance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. By requiring a
comprehensive archaeological survey report and a detailed mitigation plan, the lead agency can e nsure that any impacts to archaeological resources are avoided or minimized to the fullest extent possible.

Project Applicant Prior to the Start
of Construction
Contractor/
Lead Agency
Mitigation Measure CUL -4: During any ground disturbing activities, an archaeological firm shall be hired to monitor the Project Site. The monitoring should be conducted by a qualified archaeologist with experience in the region and in compliance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices.

The monitoring should include regular site inspections to identify any archaeological resources that may have been uncovered during ground- disturbing activities. If any resources are identified, the monitoring should also include documentation, mapping, and analysis of th
e resources, as well as the
development of a mitigation plan to address any potential impacts to the resources.

Project Applicant Ongoing during
construction
Contractor/
Lead Agency
Mitigation Measure HYD -1: Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any clearing, grading, or excavation, the Applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the Project site to the California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit.
• Prior to issuance of grading permits for Phase 1 the Applicant shall submit a copy of the NOI to the City.
• The City shall review noticing documentation prior to approval of the grading permit. City monitoring staff will inspect the site during construction for compliance.

Project Applicant Prior to the Start
of Construction
Contractor/
Lead Agency
3-113

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
Mitigation Measure HYD -2: The Applicant shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45 days prior to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the Project site in excess of one (1) acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than one acre but is part of the Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres. The SWPPP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to storm water and shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. The following BMP methods shall include, but would not be limited to:
• Dust control measures will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite activities to
control fugitive dust;
• A routine monitori ng plan will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite erosion and sedimentation control measures; • Provisional detention basins, straw bales, erosion control blankets, mulching, silt fencing,
sand bagging, and soil stabilizers will be used;
• Soil s tockpiles and graded slopes will be covered after two weeks of inactivity and 24
hours prior to and during extreme weather conditions; and, • BMPs will be strictly followed to prevent spills and discharges of pollutants onsite,
such as material storage, tr ash disposal, construction entrances, etc.

Project Applicant
45 Days Prior to
the Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead Agency
3-114

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
Mitigation Measure HYD -3: A Development Maintenance
Manual for the Project shall include comprehensive procedures for maintenance and operations of any stormwater facilities to ensure long-term operation and maintenance of post -
construction stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require that stormwater BMP devices be inspected, cleaned, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance conditions. The manual shall require that devices be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e., mid-October) an d immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., mid-May). The manual shall also require that all devices be checked after major storm events. The Development Maintenance Manual shall
include the following:
• Runoff shall be directed away from trash and loading dock areas;
• Bins shall be lined or otherwise constructed to reduce leaking of liquid wastes;
• Trash and loading dock areas shall be screened or walled to minimize offsite transport of trash; and
• Impervious berms, trench catch basin, drop inlets, or overflow containment structures nearby docks and trash areas shall be installed to minimize the potential for leaks, spills or wash down water to enter the drainage system.

Project Applicant Prior to the Start
of Construction
Contractor/
Lead Agency

3-115

Barr-Wood Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023

3.7 Supporting Information and Sources

1. AB 3098 List

2. EMFAC2014

3. Tulare County General Plan

4. City of Visalia General Plan

5. City of Visalia General Plan MEIR

6. City of Visalia Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan

7. City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance

8. Engineering Standards, City of Visalia

9. SJVAPCD Regulations and Guidelines

10. FEMA Flood Maps

11. California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook

12. 2019 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines

13. California Building Code

14. California Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)

15. “Construction Noise Handbook.” U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration.

16. Government Code Section 65962.5

17. California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) S an Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Mitigation Measures (http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/Mitigation-Measures.pdf

18. Southern California Edison 2019 Power Content Label

19. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018.

20. 2020 U.S. Census

21. California Department of Transportation Scenic Roadways

22. EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

23. 2020 Cal Water Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) – Visalia District

24. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

25. Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment - Consuelo Y. Sauls, Taylored Archaeology

26. Biological Resource Assessment – Soar Environmental Consulting

Section 4
List of Preparers
4-1

Barr-Wood Subdivision
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2023 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291

SECTION 4
List of Preparers

Project Title: Barr-Wood Subdivision

List of Preparers

4-Creeks Inc.
• David Duda, AICP, GISP
• Steve Macias, Civil Engineer
• Molly McDonnel, Associate Planner
• Lisa M. Wallis-Dutra, Sr. Traffic Engineer

Persons and Agencies Consulted

The following individuals and agencies contributed to this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration:

City of Visalia
• Cristobal Carrillo, Planning Division
• Brandon Smith, Planning Division
• Leslie Blair, Senior Civil Engineer
• Adrian Rubalcaba, Associate Engineer

Taylored Archaeology
• Consuelo Y. Sauls, Archaeologist

California Historic Resources Information System
• Celeste Thomson, Coordinator

SOAR Environmental Consulting
• Ben Arax, Biologist

Appendix A

CalEEMod Report

Part 1
Projected Emissions from CalEEMod
Barr-Wood Subdivision
Tulare County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot Acerage Established
Construction Phase -
Off-road Equipment -
Trips and VMT -
Grading -
Fleet Mix - District Accepted Fleet Mix for Residential Projects Woodstoves -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Single Family Housing
136.00
Dwelling Unit

69.35 244,800.00
389

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
7 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 51

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Southern California Edison
2030
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98

0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 1 of 39 ends

Visalia City CouncilAugust 7, 2023

Visalia City Council
August 7, 2023