L:\Projects\2020\200180\ACAD\Survey Exhibits\200180-ANNEX LEGAL.docx EXHIBIT “A”
ANNEXATION No. 2021-__ (PRATT FAMILY RANCH)
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF VISALIA
DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA #1
Being a portion of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 13, Township 18 South, Range 24 East, and the West half of the Northwest quarter of Section 18, Township 18 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, in the County of Tulare, State of California, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning on the City Limits line of the City of Visalia at the Southwest corner of the East half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13;
Course 1: Thence, following said City Limits line and the West line of said East half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13, North 00°07’13” East, 702.77 feet, more or less, to a point on the North Right of Way line of Pratt Road. Said point also being an angle point in the City Limits line.
Course 2: Thence, leaving said City Limits line and continuing along said West line of said East half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13, North 00°07’13” East, 1,940.36 feet, more or less, to a point on the North line of said Section 13. Said point also being the Northwest corner of said East half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13;
Course 3: Thence, along said North line, South 89°42’16” East, 1,307.64 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of said Section 13. Said point also being the Northwest corner of said Section 18.
Course 4: Thence, along the North line of said Section 18, South 89°47’00” East, 271.10 feet, more or less, to the West line of the East 60 acres of the West half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 18; Course 5: Thence, along said West line, South 00°19’21” West, 2,646.44 feet, more or less, to the South line of said Northwest quarter of Section 18;
Course 6: Thence, along said South line, North 89°34’09” West, 261.20 feet, more or less, to the East quarter corner of said Section 13;
Course 7: Thence, along the South line of said East half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 13, North 89°36’09” West, 1,308.21 feet, more or less, to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 95.56 acres, more or less.
;
;
1 05/07/2021
321
PRATT ROAD
MOONEY BOULEVARD RIVERWAY DRIVE 078-010-019 078-280-038 078-280-037 078-280-026 078-280-025 078-280-024 078-300-005078-300-006078-300-007078-300-008078-300-009078-300-010078-300-011 078-300-012078-300-013078-300-014078-300-015 078-300-016 078-300-025 078-300-026 078-300-027 078-020-031 078-070-011 078-110-002 078-360-004 078-360-005
ZACHARY STREET
ST. JOHNS DITCH Ó N N 05/07/2021 05/07/2021
322
Draft Specific Plan Specific Plan, Land Use, and Zoning Applicability Pratt Family Ranch July 2023
D.R. Horton, Inc. Page 10
Figure 3-1
Current General Plan Land Use
323
Draft Specific Plan Specific Plan, Land Use, and Zoning Applicability Pratt Family Ranch July 2023
D.R. Horton, Inc. Page 11
Figure 3-2
Proposed General Plan Land Use
324
Development Agreement Page 1 of 10
City of Visalia and DR Horton CA3, Inc.
Recording Requested By and
When Recorded Return to:
City Clerk
City of Visalia
425 E. Oak Avenue
Visalia, CA 93292
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583 This Development Agreement, hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”, is entered into as of this ___ day of ________, 2023, by and between the CITY OF VISALIA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and DR HORTON CA3, INC., hereinafter referred to as “Developer”, and who has interest in real property, herein call the “Property”, which is more particularly described in Exhibit “A” and is situated in the City of Visalia, County of Tulare, State of California, and;
WHEREAS, applications have been filed by the Developer to facilitate the creation, annexation, and development of the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Specific Plan”), which will result in the development of approximately 541 single-family dwellings and approximately 8 acres of park uses on land designated for Low and Medium Density Residential and Parks/Recreation, adjacent to the intersection of Pratt Avenue, Mooney Boulevard, and River Way Avenue, adjacent to the Visalia City limits and;
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia passed Resolution No. 2023-___ approving Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583 for the Property, wholly located with Urban Growth Development Boundary Tier II (herein referred to as “Tier II)” and;
WHEREAS, on _______________, the City Council of the City of Visalia passed and adopted Specific Plan No. 2021-06 and General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05, establishing the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan and changing the General Plan land use designations within the Property to conform to the land use designations specified in the Specific Plan, and; WHEREAS, the development project, consisting of the Property and the applicable terms, conditions, policies, and standards of the Specific Plan, and the approved resolutions for Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583, is hereinafter call the “Development” and; 325
Development Agreement Page 2 of 10
City of Visalia and DR Horton CA3, Inc.
WHEREAS, this Development Agreement is being carried out as part of the City of Visalia General Plan’s Land Use Policy No. LU-P-22, which allows for parcels under common ownership or unified control that are within multiple Urban Growth Boundary Tiers to be annexed and developed in accordance with a master plan and development agreement that details the overall site plan development while maintaining the City of Visalia’s interest in maintaining concentric growth through the Urban Growth Boundary Tiers, and;
WHEREAS, currently, the Development is situated in Growth Tiers II and III as defined in the City of Visalia General Plan. In accordance with Policy No. LU-P-22, the Development may be allowed to annex and develop in Tier III while the City is still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier II designation, subject to the terms and conditions stated in this Agreement, and; WHEREAS, the Developer has requested to allow the Specific Plan development to begin growth in the Tier II area and to have continuous growth into the Tier III portion of the plan. The proposal of “continuous growth” infers not being interrupted by the requirement of meeting citywide expansion criteria as stated in Land Use Policy LU-P-21. The reasoning for the request is that the proposed Project has been designed as one cohesive neighborhood with parks, a walking trail, and other amenities that connect development situated in Tiers II and III, and; WHEREAS, City will proceed with initiating annexation of the entire Property, including portions situated within Tier III in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and; WHEREAS, City will allow for development of the portions of the Property situated within Tier II at any time, provided that the property is annexed into the City of Visalia and has secured all proper entitlements, and;
WHEREAS, City will only allow for development of the portions of the Property situated within Tier III only at such time when the terms and conditions of this Agreement have been fulfilled by Developer to the satisfaction of the City. The development of the portions of the Property situated within Tier III will also require the installation of all public improvements within the respective areas as different phases of this development move forward, and; WHEREAS, City shall periodically review this Agreement, and Developer agrees the City may modify or terminate the Agreement, if the Developer has not complied with the terms and conditions, and;
WHEREAS, Developer agrees that when a building permit or any other type of entitlement or permit for the Development is sought, all applicable processing and impact fee amounts, conditions, and standards that the City has in effect at the time of entitlement is requested by the Developer shall be applied to the requested permits, and; 326
Development Agreement Page 3 of 10
City of Visalia and DR Horton CA3, Inc.
WHEREAS, nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit Developer from selling their portion of the Development provided any such sale is subject to and incorporates the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and;
WHEREFORE, the City and Developer do enter into this Agreement and for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, duties and obligations herein set forth, do agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
LEGAL AUTHORITY
1.1 This Agreement is made pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65864 and Visalia Municipal Code, Chapter 17.60.
1.2 This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of ten (10) years from the date of execution subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein.
1.3 Developer hereby acknowledges that it is in escrow to buy and develop all residential portions of the Development and it is responsible for all rights and duties contained in the Specific Plan and the Development. No other party or individual has a development interest in the Development.
1.4 City shall periodically review this Agreement pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Section
17.60.070 and may modify or terminate this Agreement if Developer has not in good faith complied with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If City terminates this Agreement, then City may pass a moratorium of further development under Section 17.60.090 or seek other available relief and Developer agrees that all costs expended by the City, including attorney fees, may be charged by the City to Developer for violations of this Agreement.
1.5 Developer acknowledges that no vesting rights have been granted with the Development and this agreement will not vest any rights beyond those stated in the Specific Plan and the Development.
ARTICLE II
BUILDING PROGRESS WITHIN TIER II
2.1 Before the City allows for the processing of a tentative subdivision map within the portion of the Property situated within Tier III, final maps that comprise all phases and lots specified in the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583 shall be recorded with the Tulare County Recorder.
327
Development Agreement Page 4 of 10
City of Visalia and DR Horton CA3, Inc.
2.2 Before the City allows for the recording of a final subdivision map pertaining to any portion of the tentative subdivision map within the portion of the Property situated within Tier III, building permits for new dwelling units shall be issued for all (100% of) lots located within Sub Phase 1 of Phase 1 (i.e., 94 lots), all (100% of) lots located within Sub Phase 2 of Phase 1 (i.e., 60 lots), and at least 56 (62% of) lots located within Sub Phases 3 and 4 of Phase 1, which cumulatively equates to 85% of the residential lots in Tier II being issued building permits prior to approvals of any development in Tier III.
2.3 A tentative subdivision map for the Tier III area can be filed and reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee, and can subsequently be filed with the City of Visalia, but cannot be scheduled for hearing until Articles 2.1 and 2.2 are met.
ARTICLE III
IMPROVEMENTS
3.1 Developer shall dedicate and construct Mooney Boulevard between the Property’s south boundary and the entire project frontage of Sub Phase 2 of Phase 1. Mooney Boulevard shall be constructed as an 84’ collector roadway as shown in the Street Cross Section figures in the Specific Plan and in accordance with current City Development Standards.
3.2 Developer shall dedicate and construct Pratt Avenue between the Property’s west boundary to Mooney Boulevard. Pratt Avenue shall be constructed as an 84’ collector roadway as shown in the Street Cross Section figures in the Specific Plan and in accordance with current City Development Standards.
3.3 Developer shall construct a pedestrian trail and landscaping within the 20’ wide landscape easements along all portions of Pratt Avenue, Mooney Boulevard, and Zachary Street contained within Tier 2, as identified in Figure 5-1 of the Specific Plan.
3.4 Mooney Boulevard and Pratt Avenue roadway designs shall incorporate Class II bike lanes.
3.5 Developer shall submit to the City landscape and irrigation plans associated with all Outlots identified within the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583 that are to be maintained by and Landscape and Lighting District, including the lots labeled as the “HOA Park” within the gated community identified as Sub Phase 2 of Phase 1 and the “Dog Park” on the east side of Mooney Boulevard, and shall improve and install all affiliated amenities on said Outlots in accordance with the approved plans.
3.6 Street lighting plans shall be submitted with the final plat application. All the outdoor lighting shall meet City standards or as defined in the Specific Plan. 328
Development Agreement Page 5 of 10
City of Visalia and DR Horton CA3, Inc.
3.7 Developer shall design, construct, and improve the intersection of Mooney Boulevard and River Way Avenue to the City’s satisfaction. The intersection has been shown on the Specific Plan and Development Plan in the form of a round-about; however, the City recognizes that additional design work to be borne by the Developer is required for the installation of a round-about and must be approved by the City Engineer and the City Planner. Should the installation of a roundabout be found infeasible at this location due to site constraints, safety requirements, or other reasons, the Developer shall proceed with designing the roadways and improving the intersection to City standards.
3.8 Utility relocations, as needed, shall be completed where the final roadway and round-about alignment may require such.
3.9 All local streets within Phase 1 of the Development, as shown on the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583, shall be installed in accordance with City standards prior to the recording of any final map or issuance of building permits in Tier III.
3.10 The Developer shall prepare and submit improvement plans for street, drainage, water, sewer, and landscaping improvements to the City Engineer for approval for their respective portions of the Development. The improvement plans must be approved by the City for conformance with applicable City standards prior to Developer beginning work on these public improvements.
3.11 The Developer shall prepare and submit improvement plans for the required landscape and lighting district to the City Engineer for approval for their respective portions of the Development.
The City must approve the improvement plans prior to the formation of the district. The landscape and lighting district applies to all outlots identified on the subdivision map, but does not apply to the gated community’s streets, parks, and other common features which will be maintained by a homeowners association.
3.12 Maintenance of landscaping (including temporary irrigation) and furnishings in all public rights-of-way, parks, and open spaces shall be the responsibility of the Developer until formal acceptance by the City Council. Upon acceptance by the City, such parks, open space and landscape easement areas shall become a part of the City’s public system.
3.13 Developer shall establish a Homeowners Association (HOA) applicable to the gated communities (i.e., Medium Density Residential land uses) wherein the Developer shall prepare the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws for the Homeowners Association. All common areas must be conveyed to the HOA before any lot is sold, or provide for maintenance of common areas through an agreement made between all the property owners. 329
Development Agreement Page 6 of 10
City of Visalia and DR Horton CA3, Inc.
3.14 No change in the use or restrictions specified in this Agreement shall be allowed or changed without modification of this Agreement. In the event Developer changes or expands the use permitted by this Agreement or fail to comply with the restrictions in this Agreement, without formal modification of this Agreement, then Developer shall be in default.
ARTICLE IV
AFFIDAVIT OF PROPERTY OWNERS
4.1 The signatures of all owners of the Development agreeing to submit the Development to this Agreement and to the provisions set forth in California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and Visalia Municipal Code, Chapter 17.60 shall be provided and are incorporated into this Agreement.
ARTICLE V
DEFAULT
5.1 In the event Developer, its successors, assigns or subsequent owners of the Development or any other person acquiring an interest in the Development, fail to faithfully and materially comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement, such failure to comply will be deemed a default hereunder. In that event, City shall have the following options:
(a) This Agreement and the commitments contained herein may be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, if City provides written notice of Developer default, and provides the hearing required by California Government Code Section 65868. Provided, however, no such termination or reversal shall occur unless City provides written notice of the default and Developer fails to cure such default within ninety (90) days after mailing or delivery of said notice. (b) Enforcement of this Agreement may be sought in an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction located in Tulare County, California. (c) A waiver by City of any default by Developer of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of City or apply to any subsequent breach of any covenants or conditions. (d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in the event of a material default of the Agreement, the parties agree that City and/or Developer shall have thirty (90) days after delivery of notice of such default to correct the same prior to the non-defaulting party’s seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (90) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence curing the same within the thirty (90) day period and prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time within which such default may be cured shall be extended for such 330
Development Agreement Page 7 of 10
City of Visalia and DR Horton CA3, Inc.
period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same, but in any event not to exceed (6) months; and provided further, however, no default by a subsequent owner of a portion of the Development shall constitute a default by Developer for the portion of the Development still owned by Developer.
(e) In the event the performance of any obligation to be performed hereunder by any party hereto is delayed for causes that are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, with limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. (f) In addition to the remedies set forth above, in the event of a default by Developer, or any other party claiming an interest herein, City may withhold building permits for any lots within the Development until such time as the default is cured.
ARTICLE VI
UNENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS
6.1 If any term, provision, commitment or restriction of this Agreement or the application thereof to any party or circumstances shall, to any extent be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this instrument shall remain in full force and effect.
ARTICLE VII
ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER
7.1 After its execution, this Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder.
Each commitment and restriction on the development subject to this Agreement, shall be a burden on the Development, shall be appurtenant to and for the benefit of the Development, and shall run with the land. This Agreement shall be binding on the City, the Developer, and their respective heirs, administrators, executors, agents, legal representatives, successors and assigns; provided, however, that if all or any portion of the Property is divided, each owner of a legal lot shall only be responsible for duties and obligations associated with an owner’s parcel and shall not be responsible for duties and obligations or defaults as to other parcels or lots within the Development. The new owner of the Development or any portion thereof (including, without limitation, any owner who acquires its interest by foreclosure, trustee’s sale or otherwise) shall be liable for all commitments and other obligations arising under this Agreement with respect only to such owner’s lot or parcel.
ARTICLE VIII
GENERAL MATTERS
331
Development Agreement Page 8 of 10
City of Visalia and DR Horton CA3, Inc.
8.1 Amendments. Any alteration or change to this Agreement shall be made only after complying with the notice and hearing provisions of California Government Code Section 65868 and Visalia Municipal Code, Chapter 17.60.
8.2 Paragraph Headings. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by both parties hereto. Titles and captions are for convenience only and shall not constitute a portion of this Development Agreement. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates.
8.3 Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California in effect at the time of the execution of this Agreement. Any action brought in connection with this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction located in Tulare County, California.
8.4 Notices. Any notice which a party may desire to give to another party must be in writing and may be given by personal delivery, by mailing the same by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested postage prepaid, or by Federal Express or other reputable overnight delivery service, to the party to whom the notice is directed at the address of such party set forth below City:
City Clerk
City of Visalia
425 E. Oak Avenue
Visalia, CA 93292
Developer:
DR Horton CA3, Inc.
or such other addresses and to such other persons as the parties may hereafter designate in writing to the other parties. Any such notice shall be deemed given upon delivery if by personal delivery, upon deposit in the United States mail, if sent by mail pursuant to the foregoing.
ARTICLE IX
MISCELLANEOUS
9.1 This Agreement may be modified only by means of a subsequently executed and acknowledged written agreement.
9.2 In the event Developer fails to comply with the commitments set forth herein, within one hundred twenty (120) days of written notice of such failure from the City, in addition to any other 332
Development Agreement Page 9 of 10
City of Visalia and DR Horton CA3, Inc.
remedies which the City may have available to it, the City shall have the right, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies, to cure such default or enjoin such violation and otherwise enforce the requirements contained in this Agreement, and to collect the direct costs associated with such action from Developer.
9.3 In the event that a judicial dispute arises regarding the enforcement or breach of this Agreement, then the prevailing party in such dispute shall be entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs reasonably incurred, including fees and costs incurred on appeal.
9.4 The applicable building codes for structures shall be the codes in effect when a complete application for a building permit is filed. Development impact fees, if imposed by ordinance, or amended shall be payable as specified in said ordinance or amendment even if the effective date is after the date of this Agreement or the annexation and/or rezone thereto.
9.5 Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution and delivery of the Agreement and the performance of such party's obligations hereunder have been duly authorized and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement binding on such party and enforceable in accordance with its terms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto caused this Agreement to be executed, effective on the day and year first above written.
DR Horton CA3, Inc.
Signature Date
Print Name
DR Horton CA3, Inc.
Company Name
Title
CITY OF VISALIA
333
Development Agreement Page 10 of 10
City of Visalia and DR Horton CA3, Inc.
Leslie Caviglia
City Manager/City Clerk Date
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Date
APPROVAL AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Date
334
MEMO
901 E. Main Street ⬥ Visalia, California 93292 ⬥ Tel (559) 733-0440 ⬥ Fax (559) 733-7821 www.qkinc.com
Date: August 8, 2023
To: Paul Bernal, Community Development Director
From: Ernie Escobedo, QK Inc.
Subject: Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan – Tier III Development cc: Corine Demetreos; Richelle Carino
Dear Mr. Bernal:
Please accept this memo as our request to develop the Tier III portion of the proposed Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan has been designed to create a cohesive neighborhood for future homeowners to enjoy. We believe it is necessary to open up the Tier III portion for development to adequately give homeowners the opportunity to experience the Specific Plan’s intent of creating a sense of belonging and community at Pratt Family Ranch.
• LU-P-22 states – “LU-P-22 Allow for City Council approval of master plans, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, for sites under a single ownership or unified control, which may include developable land within both multiple development tiers. Allow for pre-zoning of this master planned land, subject to execution of a development agreement between the City and the land owner conforming to the requirements of Government Code Section 65864 et seq., with the project allowed to annex and develop while the City is still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier I or Tier II designation. An approved master-planned site then could be annexed before development is permitted in Tier II or Tier III under Policy LU-P21. The development agreement would spell out details on overall development, density/ intensity and phasing, infrastructure needs and financing, and what each party would do. This policy will allow large land owners, with Council approval, to have a longer time frame for development and infrastructure planning, consistent with the vision of the General Plan, and also “nail down” the numbers for their financial partners while still maintaining the City’s interest in having concentric growth through a phasing plan.”
Based on LU-P-22, it allows for continuous growth into the next growth tier through a master plan. Pratt Family Ranch is in this unique situation where the community straddles two tiered areas. The Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan has amenities and connectivity within both Tiers II and III. These features include parks, lighting, signage, and a walking trail system that connects the two tiers. Simply put, the two tiers complement each other with an overall French countryside aesthetic. While the other entitlements including the General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning and Annexation include both Tiers, only the Tier II tentative map has been allowed to be submitted for consideration.
We are requesting approval to develop Tier III at Pratt Family Ranch. This is a unique request that would provide a seamless transition of development within both Tiers II and III with its own standalone development standards. Tier II development will also include necessary infrastructure that allows for an incremental implementation of the Tier III portion of the Specific Plan that completes the sidewalks and landscaping. The project area would already be annexed and have all the necessary infrastructure to provide future residents with a complete neighborhood.
Thank you,
Ernie Escobedo
Branch Manager, QK Inc.
335
REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE: August 14, 2023
PROJECT PLANNER: Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
Phone No.: (559) 713-4636
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583: A request to subdivide
49.43 acres into 247 lots for residential use and additional lots for public and private parks, landscape / lighting district lots, and private streets with gated access, to be located within the R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential), R-M-2 (Multi-Family Residential), and QP (Quasi-Public) zone districts upon annexation.
Specific Plan No. 2021-06: A request to establish a new specific plan (Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan) on 95.56 acres, including districts for low density residential, medium density residential, and parks and open space, and establishment of lots below minimum lot size. Full buildout of the plan will accommodate approximately 541 dwelling units and 8.3 acres of parks & open space, to be developed across Urban Development Boundary Tiers II and III.
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05: A request to amend the location and acreage of General Plan land use designations within 95.56 acres, resulting in the elimination of Very Low Density Residential designation and redistribution of Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Parks / Recreation designations.
Annexation No. 2021-04: A request to annex 95.56 acres, located within the City of Visalia Urban Development Boundary Tiers II and III, into the Visalia city limits.
Applicant: D.R. Horton CA3, Inc.
Location: The project site is located north of Riverway Drive on the west and east sides of Mooney Boulevard. (APN: 078-010-025, 028, 029; 078-110-022, 023)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583:
Staff recommends approval of the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2023-36. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5) and the Visalia Housing Element.
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05, Specific Plan No. 2021-06, Annexation No. 2021-04:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve these entitlements, as conditioned, based on the findings in Resolution Nos. 2023-37, 2023-38, and 2023-39. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to approve Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2023-36.
336
I move to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2023-38.
I move to recommend approval of Specific Plan No. 2021-06, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2023-39.
I move to recommend approval of Annexation No. 2021-04, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2023-37.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, D.R. Horton, CA3, Inc. has filed entitlement applications for the development of a private 541-lot single-family residential subdivision with both public streets and private gated streets, on parcels totaling 95.56 acres located outside of City Limits, within the Tier II and Tier III urban development boundaries. The property will be developed entirely with single-family dwellings on City standard-size lots and on small lots, including some gated small-lot communities. The project site is currently vacant except for one residence, and was previously employed for agricultural use. Entitlements for this project consist of an annexation, tentative subdivision map, adoption of a specific plan (which includes the establishment of a planned residential development), and a general plan amendment.
The request for development across the two growth tiers is being made in accordance with General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-22, which allows for City Council approval of master plans (or, in this case, a specific plan), following Planning Commission review and recommendation, for sites under a single ownership, which includes developmental land within multiple development tiers.
Annexation No. 2021-04 is a request to annex parcels totaling approximately 95-acres located outside the city limits and within Tulare County (see Exhibit “G”). Upon annexation, the Zoning designations for the project area will consist of R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-2 (Multi-Family Residential, one unit per 3,000 square feet site area) and Q-P (Quasi-Public), consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designations as proposed through the General Plan Amendment.
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05 is requested to redistribute land use designations that are located upon several sites that are under a single ownership. Current and proposed land use designations are summarized as follows:
Land Use (Zoning) Designation Existing Proposed
Very Low Density Residential
(R-1-20 zone designation)
16 acres [all in Tier III] 0 acres
Low Density Residential
(R-1-5 designation)
51 acres 57 acres (including R.O.W.)
Medium Density Residential
(R-M-2 designation)
25 acres [all in Tier II] 31 acres (including R.O.W.)
Parks / Recreation
(QP designation)
4 acres [all in Tier II] 8 acres
The property currently has a land use designation of Residential Very Low Density along its north side which abuts a large Parks/Recreation designation on the south side of the St. Johns River, and Residential Medium Density and Park/Recreation designations that are currently confined to Tier II (see Exhibit “H”). The changes in designation will eliminate the Residential Very Low Density Designation and spread the balance of the designations to create a community with mixtures of lot sizes and park and trail amenities, as explained further in the specific plan (see Exhibit “I”).
337
Specific Plan No. 2021-04 establishes the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan (“Plan”), which is applicable to the subdivision area plus future development within Tier 3 northerly to Avenue 320 that is also held by the property owner. The purpose of the Plan is to carry out establish land use and development patterns over the Tier 2 and 3 areas in accordance with General Plan Policy LU-P-22. This is further done through the establishment of a Development Agreement, which sets criteria for development between growth tiers and specific improvements to be installed with each tier.
The Plan establishes a master land use plan (see Exhibit “A”), together with the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05. The Plan further provides design and development standards for the property’s residential communities, providing deviations to City development standards (Section 4). For the gated neighborhoods that contain small lot single-family residences on property to be zoned R-M-2, elevations and floor plans for three home models to be associated with the development are provided, each with multiple exterior treatment options.
The plans are all two-story units ranging in size from 1,378 square feet to 1,775 square feet of livable space (see Exhibits “E” and “F”).
A key feature of the Specific Plan is the placement of parks in the center and southeast portions of the property (see Figure 4-12) and a pedestrian trail contained on minimum 20-foot-wide linear lots connecting the open and gated neighborhoods with St. Johns River and Mooney Boulevard on the south end. The Plan establishes parks and trails with uniform features and amenities, such as landscaping, lighting features, and open space features. The Plan goes into more clear detail in Sections 5, 6, and 7 on the development’s circulation, infrastructure, administration and implementation. A separate phasing exhibit (see Exhibit “B”) illustrates the order of development along with the placement of the City’s growth tier boundary.
The Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map is a request to subdivide 49.43 acres into a 247-lot single-family residential subdivision at a density of 4.94 dwelling units per acre (see Exhibit “C”). The subdivision map covers the entirety of the project area that is within Tier II, with a small portion (estimated at 4 acres) that extends into Tier III due to the subdivision’s lot and street configuration.
The subdivision, through dedication, will establish right-of-way necessary for curb-to-curb development of collector streets Pratt Avenue and Mooney Boulevard within the subdivision. A round-about, shown on the map in concept form, is proposed for the intersection at Mooney Boulevard & River Way Avenue, to allow Mooney Boulevard to transition easterly and align with the project’s eastern boundary.
The subdivision contains three distinct lot types that are confined to different areas of the project site. Two lot types will correspond to the R-1-5 zone or Low Density Residential designation: the 50’ x 100’ lots (i.e., minimum 5,000 sq. ft.) and the 45’ x 90’ lots (i.e., minimum 4,050 square feet).
These aforementioned lots will utilize public streets and will generally conform to the City’s zoning standards, with zone exceptions as described in the Specific Plan. The densities of these two lot types will be 5.2 and 6.4 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the Low Density Residential land use classification of the General Plan, which notes density between 2 to 10 units per acre.
The lots within the R-M-2 zone or Medium Density Residential designation are sized 38’ x 72’ (i.e., minimum 2,736 square feet). The streets within this portion are gated and to be privately maintained by a homeowner association. No sidewalks will be installed along the private streets.
Access to the subdivision will be via gated entries along Mooney Boulevard and via a local street accessible on the north side of Pratt Avenue. The density of this lot types within the subdivision will be 9.8 units per acre, however between the two Medium Density Residential neighborhoods depicted in the Specific Plan, the combined density of the two neighborhoods is 10.0 units per 338
acre (see Table 4-1). The density range of the Medium Density Residential land use classification of the General Plan is 10 to 15 units per acre.
The Specific Plan will enable deviation from the Visalia Municipal Code standards for lots within the R-1-5 and R-M-2 zones. The deviations are requested in the same manner as a planned residential development, where the deviations are sought in order to maximize benefits to the eventual residents of the development. The deviations are in the forms of setbacks, private streets and gated entries, and neighborhood parks. These deviations are explained further in the Project Evaluation section.
The development will be a gated private subdivision, with private streets, landscape outlots, walking trails, a neighborhood park, and additional amenities, all maintained by a homeowner’s association (HOA).
The subdivision map will include the creation of several lettered lots maintained through a Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD). Outlots A through H will be established for purpose of containing landscaping and block walls along Pratt Avenue, Mooney Boulevard, other local streets, and portions of lots adjacent to interior street sides on the corner lots. Outlots C, E, F, and I are a minimum 20-feet in width to provide a trail connecting between the St. Johns River and Mooney Boulevard (see Figure 5-3 in Specific Plan). Outlot I will be a 0.71-acre lot that provides additional open space, and Outlot K will be a 1.61-acre dog park fronting on Mooney Boulevard and Riverway Avenue and thereby accessible to residents in the surrounding area.
There will also be separate lots for the gated subdivision’s private streets and HOA-maintained park.
The project site is within the City’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier 2 and 3 and is subject to City’s Agricultural Preservation Ordinance. This is discussed in greater detail in the Agricultural Preservation Ordinance section of the staff report below.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Existing General Plan Land Use
Designation:
Residential Very Low Density, Residential Low Density,
Residential Medium Density, Parks / Recreation
Existing County Zoning: AE-20 and AE-40
Zoning upon annexation to City: R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum lot size), R-M-2 (Multi-family Residential, one unit per 3,000 sf. Ft. site area), QP (Quasi-Public)
Surrounding General Plan and Land
Use:
North: Parks/Recreation / Vacant land, St. Johns
River
South: Residential Low Density / Shannon Ranch
single-family subdivision tract
East: Residential Very Low Density, Residential
Low Density, Residential Medium Density,
Parks/Recreation / Row crops
West: Residential Very Low Density, Residential
Low Density / Vacant land, rural residence
Environmental Review: Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023- 37, State Clearinghouse #2023070368
Special Districts: None
339
Site Plan Review: SPR No. 2020-204
RELATED PLANS & POLICIES
Please see attached summary of related plans and policies.
RELATED PROJECTS
None.
PROJECT EVALUATION
Staff supports the annexation based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Specifically, the annexation will facilitate a residential subdivision development on a 95-acre site in a manner that is consistent with the existing residential neighborhood in the area, particularly the Shannon Ranch subdivision to the south.
Furthermore, staff recommends approval of Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05, and Specific Plan No. 2021-06, based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5) and the Visalia Housing Element for approval of the tentative subdivision map. The subdivision map proposes to develop a parcel of land that is designated for residential development at a density prescribed in the 2030 Visalia General Plan.
Annexation No. 2021-04
The project proponents have filed an application to initiate annexation of the 96-acre project site into the Visalia City limits. The site will be pre-zoned to R-1-5, R-M-2, and QP classifications, consistent with the subject site’s corresponding General Plan land use designations. The annexation can be supported on the basis that the proposal is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21, which allows for the annexation and development of residential land to occur within the Tier II Urban Development Boundary consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.
The annexation of the Tier III Urban Development Boundary portion is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-22, which allows for annexation before development is permitted in Tier III under Policy LU-P-21. The policy explicitly allows for a project to annex and develop while the City still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier II designation.
The site can be serviced with all the requisite utility and infrastructure available to serve the site upon development. Cities can approve tentative maps prior to final approval of the annexation by the local agency formation commission (i.e., LAFCO) but cannot approve a final subdivision map until after the land is annexed and the annexation is recorded through the Tulare County Recorder.
Staff has included this requirement as Condition No. 6 of the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583.
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement has been prepared by staff to accompany the proposed project (see Exhibit “J”, based upon the proposal of a master-planned site that spans between Tiers II and III.
Specifically, Land Use Policy LU-P-22 allows for master-planned sites that are under a single ownership or unified control to be annexed and developed, subject to the City Council approval of a master plan (in this case, a specific plan) and a development agreement. The intent of the development agreement is to spell out “details regarding the overall development, 340
density/intensity and phasing, infrastructure needs and financing, and what each party would do”.
The development agreement, once entered into between the City and the landowner or developer, would enable the property to annex and develop within Tier III, subject to criteria, while the City is still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier II designation.
The project proponent, on behalf of DR Horton, has specifically requested to allow the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan development to begin growth in the Tier II area and to have continuous growth into the Tier III portion of the plan (see memo attached as Exhibit “K”). The proposal of “continuous growth” infers not being interrupted by the requirement of meeting citywide expansion criteria as stated in Land Use Policy LU-P-21. The memo cites how the property has been designed as one cohesive neighborhood with parks, a walking trail, and other amenities that connect development situated in Tiers II and III.
Staff’s draft Development Agreement recommends that certain criteria be met before the City will process any subdivision map entitlement in the Tier III area. The intent is to ensure that substantial progress and investment is made in the Tier II area, such that no portion of the Tier II area is being passed over prior to the Tier III area. The criteria are summarized as follows:
• Prior to the processing of a Tier III tentative subdivision map, all phases and lots specified in the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583 shall have final maps recorded with the Tulare County Recorder.
• Prior to the processing of a Tier III tentative subdivision map, permits for new dwelling units shall be issued for approximately 85% of the lots in the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583, based on the following criteria:
o All (100% of) lots located within Sub Phase 1 of Phase 1 (i.e., 94 lots). This is the Low Density Residential area south of Pratt Avenue.
o All (100% of) lots located within Sub Phase 2 of Phase 1 (i.e., 60 lots). This is the Medium Density Residential gated community.
o At least 56 (62% of) lots located within Sub Phases 3 and 4 of Phase 1. • Prior to the processing of a Tier III tentative subdivision map, improvements for Circulation Element streets, the proposed pedestrian trail and landscaping, HOA parks, and other public areas shown in the Tier II area shall be completed. • A tentative subdivision map for the Tier III area can be filed and reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee, and can subsequently be filed with the City of Visalia, but cannot be scheduled for hearing until the above criteria are met.
General Plan Consistency
Land Use Element Policies
The subdivision’s design pattern and lot pattern consisting of a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is consistent with the site’s Residential Low Density land use designation. The entire site has been designated for residential land uses since the adoption of the Visalia General Plan in 2014.
The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policies LU-P-55 and LU-P-56. The policies allow for residential development consistent with the Low Density Residential designation at a density range between 2 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre, and the Medium Density Residential designation at a density range between 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre.
Low Density Residential
Areas of the project designated as Low Density Residential will be developed at residential densities ranging between 5.0 and 6.4 units per acre consistent with the Low Density Residential 341
General Plan land use designation as well as the R-1-5 zoning district. The policy states: “this designation is intended to provide for single-family subdivisions.” Compatibility with the surrounding area is required by the General Plan in the decision to approve the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision meets all codified standards contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as well as all General Plan policies pertaining to residential development.
Staff finds that the proposed tentative subdivision map is compatible with the surrounding area and the Low Density Residential land use designation.
Medium Density Residential
The two areas of the Specific Plan designated as Medium Density Residential will have a combined density of 10.0 units per acre consistent with the Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation as well as the R-M-2 zoning district. The Medium Density Residential designated area within the tentative subdivision map will be 9.8 units per acre.
The policy states: “this designation can accommodate a mix of housing types including small-lot single-family … on infill lots or new development areas within walking distance of neighborhood nodes and corridors.” A commercial node, located on the northeast and northwest corners of Mooney Blvd. and Riggin Ave., is within one-half mile of the southern boundary of the project site.
The proposed subdivision meets all codified standards contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as well as all General Plan policies pertaining to residential development.
Currently there is no other development surrounding the Medium Density Residential portions of the project site, except for the balance of the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan development. The two areas designated for small lot subdivisions will only directly abut the Specific Plan’s R-1-5 zoned lots that are 4,250 sq. ft. in size (see Exhibit “A”), thereby providing a suitable transition between the Low and Medium Density areas. The balance of the Medium Density area will be bordered by arterial streets (Mooney and Avenue 320) on the north and east, and the landscape lots containing the pedestrian trail on the west and south.
The proposed subdivision does not meet all codified standards contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The applicant proposes setbacks that are smaller than what is required under the R-1-5 and R-M-2 standards, along with private streets. To address this, the applicant has submitted a Specific Plan which serves as a request for a Planned Residential Development, to permit deviations from Zoning Ordinance standards. The deviations are discussed in the Development Standards section of this report. As it stands, the proposal meets the intent of the Low and Medium Density Residential land use designations. The proposed deviations will still result in a development within the density limits of the land use designations.
Elimination of Very Low Density Residential
The existing General Plan land use map shows 16 acres of Residential Very Low Density designation (i.e., 0.1 to 2 dwelling units / gross acre) on the north sides of the property, at a depth of approximately 440 feet. The designation was implemented with the General Plan Update in 2014 and is intended to serve as a buffer on the outer perimeter of the City’s growth area as it approaches the St. John’s River, wherein residences would be permitted at a lesser density. Land Use Policy LU-P-54 addresses the use of the Very Low Density Residential designation as an opportunity for a rural residential transition to surrounding agricultural areas.
The applicant has provided a response to the elimination of the designation, stating in Section 3.2 of the Specific Plan that “the Very Low Density is starting to phase out in the housing market and with the ever-growing need of housing, high-density homes are a more desirable use of land.” Staff finds that the removal of the designation at this location would not be wholly inconsistent with the General Plan’s objectives and policies. At this location, the St. Johns River corridor serves as a natural boundary to growth and to agriculture uses on the other side, and a Parks /Recreation 342
designation further buffers the existing Very Low Density Designation from the St. Johns River.
Thus, removal of the designation is not anticipated to result in growth inducing or intensification effects, given that there are other existing locations along the south side of the St. Johns River where development abuts directly to the St. John’s River’s riparian setback.
Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 66589.5) The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards, including design review, if they were in effect at the time that the housing development application was deemed complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and that there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact1.
With approval of the attached Planned Residential Development as detailed per the specific plan, the project is considered to be consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and single-family residential development standards. The lots proposed for Pratt Family Ranch subdivision meet density standards for the Very Low Density Residential land use designation and will be compatible with surrounding developed residential areas.
Furthermore, the subdivision will develop a private network of local streets and improve adjacent Collector and Arterial public roadways, thereby facilitating increased street connectivity to accommodate future growth areas.
Background on Specific Plans
Specific plans are a type of guiding and policy utilized in California jurisdictions. Whereas general plans provide context, land uses, objectives and goals for an entire jurisdiction (i.e., county-wide or city-wide), a specific plan covers part of an area covered by the general plan. When being written for a particular document, a specific plan can also include zoning regulations for the mix of land uses within it, including architectural standards if desired. Specific plans may be voluntarily initiated by one or more property owners, or may be required or recommended by a general plan document. In this instance, the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan is being proposed based on Visalia General Plan Policy LU-P-22.
Specific plans are regulated by state law per Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457, and regulated by Visalia city law per Municipal Code Chapter 12.04 (see Related Plans and Policies for full text).
Development Standards
The Specific Plan (Table 4-1) and Tentative Subdivision Map (table at bottom of page 1) identify three unique minimum lot sizes that will be utilized in neighborhoods within the project area, summarized as follows:
• 50’ x 100’ (5,000 sq. ft.): Low Density Residential Designation / R-1-5 Zoning • 45’ x 90’ (4,050 sq. ft.): Low Density Residential Designation / R-1-5 Zoning • 38’ x 72’ (2,736 sq. ft.): Medium Density Residential Designation / R-M-2 Zoning Setbacks and development standards for each neighborhood type are described below.
Conformance of the development standards and any changes described herein will be enforced through Condition No. 1 of the Specific Plan.
1 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).
343
Low Density Residential, Lot size 50’ x 100’
The lots with maximum size of 5,000 sq. ft. resemble City-standard R-1-5 zone district lots that would utilize standard single-family residential standards together with City standard street design.
Specific Plan Table 4-2 provides development standards for Low Density Residential lots, which comprise the 5,000 sq. ft. lots and the 4,050 sq. ft. lots. However, since the 5,000 sq. ft. lots have the ability to utilize typical City development standards for the single-family residential (R-1-5 zone) product, Staff is recommending that the City standards be utilized, excepting that rear yards for one-story dwellings may have a 20-foot setback to the rear property line. This is being recommended as conditions of approval in the TSM and Specific Plan.
All lots will have lot depths ranging from approximately 100 feet to 113 feet, excepting lots located on knuckle street bulbs that account for roughly 10% of the total lot count. These lots will also be required to utilize standard single-family residential setback standards but are permitted to have a 20-foot setback for front-loading garages as identified in Section 17.12.080.C of the Zoning Ordinance.
It should be noted that these lots, which Staff is recommending that City standards be utilized, are the only lots that will be backing upon developed residential lots (i.e., Shannon Ranch), also within the R-1-5 zone and utilizing City standards.
Low Density Residential, Lot size 45’ x 90’
Lots with maximum size of 4,500 sq. ft. are proposed in one district of the Specific Plan and the Tentative Subdivision Map. The Map identities these as Lots 133 through 184 – in total, 52 lots.
These lots will be located in the R-1-5 zone and will utilize City standard street design.
Specific Plan Table 4-2 provides development standards for Low Density Residential lots, which comprise the 5,000 sq. ft. lots and the 4,050 sq. ft. lots.
The applicant has specified that the same residential plans/models will be utilized in the 45’ x 90’ lots and in the 38’ x 72’ lots.
The Specific Plan may deviate from normal zoning regulations and standards. Staff will consider such deviations if it can be shown that the deviations maximize benefits to the eventual residents of a development. The Specific Plan request entails certain deviations from City standards. Below is a comparison of the City standard setback for the R-1-5 zone and the setbacks as proposed in Table 4-2.
Minimum Lot Area Front Garage Side Street
Side
Rear Minimum
rear yard sq.
feet
City Standard R-1-5 Setbacks
5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size
15’ 22’ 5’ 10’ 25’ N/A
Proposed Setbacks
4,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size
15’ 20’ 5’ 10’ 15’ 675 sq. ft.
(45’ x 15’)
Minimum Lot
Area Front Side Street Side Rear
5,000 sq. ft.
15-ft. to
habitable space.
22-ft. to garage
5-ft. 10-ft. 25-ft. for 2-story
20-ft. for 1-story
344
Staff is recommending that the Specific Plan’s proposed setbacks be utilized. Staff’s recommendation is on the basis that this neighborhood is joined and adjacent to the medium density residential neighborhood which also utilizes deviated setbacks. These lots do not share any property lines with the 5,000 square foot lots. Also, the Specific Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map provide additional open space areas and access to a pedestrian trail that links St. Johns River to Mooney Boulevard.
Medium Density Residential, Lot size 38’ x 72’
The Medium Density Residential lots, anticipated to accommodate a detached single-family dwelling, are proposed in two districts of the Specific Plan. One such district is included in the Tentative Subdivision Map. The Map identities these as Lots 185 through 244 – in total, 60 lots.
These lots will be located in the R-M-2 zone and will utilize private streets with gated entry.
Specific Plan Table 4-3 provides development standards for these lots.
The applicant has specified that the same residential plans/models will be utilized in the 45’ x 90’ lots and in the 38’ x 72’ lots.
The Specific Plan may deviate from normal zoning regulations and standards. Staff will consider such deviations if it can be shown that the deviations maximize benefits to the eventual residents of a development. The Specific Plan request entails certain deviations from City standards. • Setbacks. Below is a comparison of the City standard setback for the R-M-2 zone and the setbacks as proposed in Table 4-3.
Minimum Lot Area Front Garage Side Street
Side
Rear Minimum
rear yard sq.
feet
City Standard R-M-2 Setbacks
One unit per 3,000 sq. ft.
15’ 22’ 5’ 10’ 25’ N/A
Proposed Setbacks
2.500 sq. ft. minimum lot size
12’ 18’ 4’ 4’ 10’ 350 sq. ft.
(35’ x 10’)
• Lot Width. City staff from Community Development and Public Works Departments have worked together with the applicant to achieve a subdivision design wherein individual rollout cans for solid waste and recyclables can be placed on the street curbs, subject to conditions of approval enforced by the HOA.
• Private streets and gated entries. The streets serving the Medium Density Residential portion of the subdivision are proposed to be privately maintained by an HOA. No sidewalks will be installed along these private streets (refer to Exhibit “C” for a cross section for a typical private street). Public access to the subdivision will be via gated entries along Mooney Boulevard and local streets accessed via Pratt Avenue. • HOA park. A 0.29-acre park, identified as HOA Park in the subdivision map in Exhibit “C”, is proposed to be centrally located and privately maintained by the HOA.
Medium Density Residential Building Elevations/Floor Plans Building elevations and floor plans for the development are included in Exhibits “E” and “F”. Per the submittal, the applicant will be providing two-story residences, with 1,378, 1583, and 1775 square feet of livable space. Three floor plans are provided, with three to four bedrooms, each with three distinct design types and multiple façade colors to choose from. The proposed street 345
facing façades will feature various forms of architectural ornamentation depending on the style chosen, such as fiber cement board & batten siding, stone veneer over stucco columns or wood columns, and foam outlooker with knee brace.
The number of plan options provided and architectural detail incorporated support the applicants assertion that the development is unique and provides additional amenities above what is normally proposed. These architecture features will be standard on the frontages of all residences, and the rear sides and all second story windows of the residences will contain trim around the windows.
Consistency with the exterior elevations will be enforced through the Building Permit process.
Conformance of the floor plans and elevations against the exhibits will be enforced through Condition No. 2 of the Specific Plan.
Landscape and Lighting Assessment District and Block Walls A Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) will be required for the long-term maintenance of the out lots, including the linear park, which include blocks walls, streetlights, landscaping, and all park amenities as noted on Exhibit “A”.
The block walls along street frontages will be typical City standard block walls. The subdivision map block wall heights will be reduced to three feet where the block wall runs adjacent to the front yard setback areas. The three-foot transition areas are applicable for the corner residential lots within the two subdivisions. Staff has included Map Condition No. 5 to require the stepped down walls.
Traffic Circulation and Street Improvements
The developer of the Pratt Family Ranch subdivision will be required to construct street improvements to arterial and collector roadways as development progresses. The full circulation plan for the entire project, including street cross sections, is shown in Specific Plan Section 5.
Pratt Avenue and Mooney Boulevard are designated 84-foot wide collector streets. Both roadways are currently improved as two-lane County roadways with no frontage improvements on either side. The subdivision map will dedicate the rights-of-way for these roadways. The subdivision’s initial development phase (shown in Exhibit “B” as Sub Phase 1 of Phase 1) will improve Pratt Avenue and Mooney Boulevard, south of Pratt Avenue, to their full width. Improvements being added by the subdivision will consist of a 6-foot sidewalk, 5-foot parkway, curb, gutter, parking lane, and Class II bike lane. The asphalt will be improved to accommodate two 12-foot travel lanes and one 8-foot park lane.
As part of the pedestrian trail improvements, there will be minimum 20-foot wide outlots on one side of each street connecting the path from the southern property line (to an existing 8-foot sidewalk) to Zachary Street. All portions of Pratt and Mooney that back to residential development will have 10-foot landscape lots outside of the public right-of-way dedicated through a Landscape and Lighting District. The district provides maintenance of the landscape lots, block walls, street pavement and street lighting.
Mooney Boulevard and Avenue 320. Future development in the Tier III portion will include the improvements of Mooney Boulevard and Avenue 320 on the perimeter of the project area.
Mooney Boulevard will continue to be a 84-foot wide collector street with all street improvements on site. Avenue 320 is a designated arterial roadway that will be built with a 55-foot right-of-way, half of its ultimate width. Currently, there are no built segments of Avenue 320 in the vicinity, and until there is future development to the west towards Demaree Street, Avenue 320 would only serve the project area. Extension of Avenue 320 easterly, across the St. Johns River, is shown 346
as a deferred arterial in the City’s General Plan but is not currently being contemplated since there is currently no planned growth across the river.
Traffic Round-About Design
The subdivision map and specific plan show a round-about at the intersection at Mooney Boulevard & River Way Avenue. There is no City policy or regulation that specifies the placement of a round-about at this location, however this type of traffic control has been chosen to allow Mooney Boulevard to more swiftly transition easterly, north of River Way Avenue, to align with the project’s eastern boundary.
It is important to note that City staff has not accepted or approved any design for this round-about, and that a fair amount of geometric design is still needed before the City can accept the roundabout and lock down its final geometry and design.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the final design may result in reconfiguration of proposed residential lots that back onto the round-about, slight adjustments to the final re-alignments of Mooney Boulevard and Pratt Avenue, and modifications to existing street and landscape improvements at the Mooney and Riverway intersection, including additional right of way for Riverway the transition. The developer’s civil engineer will continue to work with the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer to solidify the round-about design.
Traffic Impact Study
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for the proposed project (ref.: Pratt Family Ranch Transportation Impact Study. VRPA Technologies, Inc., July 15, 2022). The purpose of the study is to analyze traffic conditions related to the development of the subdivision and its projected level of service (LOS) at opening year and at five-year increments, and the corresponding environmental impact as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The TIS identified four intersections in the project vicinity that would experience unacceptable LOS in the long term.
• The TIS examined the intersections of Riggin and County Center and Riggin and Giddings and recommended the installation of traffic signals at these intersections. However, since the time of the preparation of the TIS, traffic signals have been installed at these intersections. The TIS and the environmental study’s mitigation measures still recommend that the project contribute to the City’s traffic impact fee program, which will directly or indirectly contribute to improvements.
• The intersection of Mooney and Ferguson is forecasted to operate at unacceptable levels under the existing and opening year scenarios (p.m. only). This intersection meets the peak hour signal warrant. With the installation of a traffic signal, the level of service will fall to acceptable levels. The TIS and the environmental study’s mitigation measures therefore recommend that the project contribute to the City’s traffic impact fee program, which will directly or indirectly contribute to improvements.
• The intersection of Riggin and Dinuba, specifically the eastbound turn lane, is forecasted to operate at unacceptable levels starting at the 10-year horizon. This intersection is already built out with a traffic signal and is managed by Caltrans. The TIS and the environmental study’s mitigation measures therefore recommend that the project contribute to the City’s traffic impact fee program, which will directly or indirectly contribute to improvements.
In addition, the TIS analyzed the intersection of Mooney and Riverway, which is proposed to have the installation of a roundabout. The TIS did not identify any level of service deficiencies, but due to the roundabout and the necessary transitions to existing roadways, the TIS recommended that 347
later stages of the project approval process include the preparation of a design for the roundabout that is acceptable to the City.
A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis was also conducted by comparing the project’s expected VMT per capita to regional averages. Since the study concluded that the project’s VMT will be
28.2% less than the regional average, meeting the 16% level of significance threshold, the impacts to VMT are concluded to be less than significant.
Agricultural Preservation Ordinance Requirements
The 95-acre project site is in the City’s Tier II and III urban development boundary and is designated as Prime Farmland as defined per the Tulare County Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. As a result, the development of this site is subject to the City’s recently adopted Agricultural Preservation Ordinance.
On May 15, 2023, the City Council approved the second and final reading of Ordinance No. 2023- 02, which adopts an addition to the Visalia Municipal Code referred to as Title 18 “Agricultural Land Preservation”, Chapter 18.04 “Agricultural Land Preservation Program”. This code creates an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO) to implement Visalia General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-34.
The APO established a process for the required preservation of agricultural land through the acquisition of agricultural conservation easements or the payment of an in-lieu fee for projects subject to the provisions of the ordinance.
The developer of the project is subject to complying with the requirements of the adopted APO since the site is located with the Tier II urban development boundary. The preserved land obligation shall be calculated at a ratio of one acre of preserved land for each acre of converted land. Converted land acreage shall be calculated by determining the applicable project acreage less the acreage of exclusions. In addition, the preserved land obligation, as established in Section 18.04.070(A), shall be preserved through acquisition of an agricultural easement in accordance with Section 18.04.080, unless eligible for payment of an in-lieu fee in accordance with Section 18.04.090.
The preserved land obligation shall be satisfied prior to issuance of any permit directly authorizing or resulting in disturbance to the project site. Compliance of the ordinance is achieved when either the approved agricultural conservation easement has been recorded or the applicant has remitted the approved in-lieu fee to the qualified entity.
Infrastructure
Water Service: Staff has included Condition No. 5 that requires a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company if, prior to development of the subdivision, the determination of water availability letter lapses.
Sanitary Sewer: The sewer system will have to be extended to the boundaries of the development where future connection and extension is anticipated. The sewer system will be sized in order to service the entire subdivision. The sanitary sewer master plan for the entire development will be required to be submitted for approval prior to approval of any portion of the system. The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plan has confirmed that it has capacity to effectively accommodate the project’s two tiers of development.
Storm Drainage: The storm drainage system will have to be extended to the boundaries of the development where future connection and extension is anticipated. The storm drain system will be sized in order to service the entire subdivision. A storm drainage plan for each development proposal will be required to be submitted to the City for approval. 348
Subdivision Map Act Findings
California Government Code Section 66474 lists seven findings for which a legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map if it is able to make any of these findings.
These seven “negative” findings have come to light through a recent California Court of Appeal decision (Spring Valley Association v. City of Victorville) that has clarified the scope of findings that a city or county must make when approving a tentative map under the California Subdivision Map Act.
Staff has reviewed the seven findings for a cause of denial and finds that none of the findings can be made for the proposed project. The seven findings and staff’s analysis are below.
Recommended finings in response to this Government Code section are included in the recommended findings for the approval of the tentative subdivision and tentative parcel map.
GC Section 66474 Finding Analysis
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans as specified
in Section 65451.
The proposed map haw been found to be
consistent with the City’s General Plan and the
proposed Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 1 of the
Tentative Subdivision Map.
(b) That the design or improvement of the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
The proposed design and improvement of the
maps have been found to be consistent with the
City’s General Plan and Pratt Family Ranch
Specific Plan. This is included as recommended
Finding No. 1 of the Tentative Subdivision Map.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the
type of development.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed map
and its affiliated development plan, which is
designated as Low Density Residential, Medium
Density Residential, and Parks/Recreation, and is
developed at densities that are within the allowed
ranges of the specified land use designations. This
is included as recommended Finding No. 3 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed
maps and its affiliated development plan, which is
designated as Low Density Residential. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 4 of the
Tentative Subdivision Map.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The proposed design and improvements of the
map has not been found likely to cause
environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. This finding is further supported by the project’s
determination of no new effects under the
Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), included as
recommended Finding No. 6 of the Tentative
Subdivision Map.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public
health problems.
The proposed design of the map has been found
to not cause serious public health problems. This
is included as recommended Finding No. 2 of the
Tentative Subdivision Map.
349
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type
of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed design of the map does not conflict
with any existing or proposed easements located
on or adjacent to the subject property. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 5 of the
Tentative Subdivision Map.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-37 disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts to the following resources:
• One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Agricultural would reduce impacts of the Project's loss of agricultural land to a level that would be less than significant. • Seven (7) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources would reduce impacts of the Project to special-status wildlife species (i.e. Swainson's Hawk, San Joaquin Kit Fox, Western Burrowing Owl, American Badger) to a level that would be less than significant. • Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Cultural Resources would reduce the impacts of the Project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction to a level that would be less than significant. • Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to submittal of plans for storm water pollution and pollutant discharge would reduce impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil at the Project site to a level that would be less than significant.
• One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Noise would reduce the impacts of the Project related to construction noise to a level that would be less than significant. • Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to payment of transportation impact fees would reduce impacts to traffic at the Project site to a level that would be less than significant.
With the mitigation incorporated into the project, staff concludes that Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-37 adequately analyzes and addresses the proposed project and reduces environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
If the Planning Commission finds that the Annexation, Specific Plan, and General Plan Amendment are consistent with the intent of the General Plan, staff recommends that the following findings be made:
Annexation No. 2021-04
1. That the Annexation is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. That the proposed Annexation, which will re-designate 95 acres of AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre) and AE-40 (Agricultural Exclusive 40-acre) County zone district to approximately 8 acres of QP (Quasi-Public), 57 acres of R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot size) zone, and 31 acres of R-M-2 (Multi-family Residential, one unit per 3,000 square feet) will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.
3. That the parcel is not located within an Agricultural Preserve. 350
4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 4 per the Council Election Voting District Map.
5. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-37, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05
1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment changing 16 acres of Residential Very Low Density designation to 6 acres of Residential Low Density designation, 6 acres of Residential Medium Density, and 4 acres of Parks / Recreation will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.
3. That the proposed land use designations under the proposed General Plan Amendment results in land uses that do not impact the rural residential transition at the City’s outer limits of its growth boundary or cause growth inducing or intensification effects on the outer limits of the growth boundary, since the St. Johns River corridor serves as a natural boundary to growth and to agriculture uses on the other side, and a Parks/Recreation designation further buffers the existing Very Low Density Designation from the St. Johns River.
4. That the General Plan Amendment will help facilitate additional residential units within the Tier 2 and 3 Urban Development Boundaries. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the adjacent residential uses.
5. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-37, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Specific Plan No. 2021-06
1. That the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan has been prepared in accordance with adopted local ordinance – in particular, Chapter 12.04 of the Visalia Municipal Code.
2. That the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan has been prepared in accordance with adopted State law – in particular, Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code.
3. That the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, and in particular, satisfactorily meets the intent of LU-P-22
4. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-37, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
5. That the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583
351
1. That the proposed location and layout of the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained, is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance, and the proposed Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan. The 49-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 247 lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-19 of the General Plan. Policy LU-P-19 states “ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.”
2. That the proposed Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The project site is bordered by existing residential development to the west and south, and will be compatible with adjacent residential uses that are similarly zoned R-1-5.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map. The project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, and the proposed Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is adjacent to land zoned for residential development, and the subdivision itself is designated as Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, and developed at densities that are within the allowed ranges of the specified land use designations.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map and the project’s density, which is consistent with the proposed Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation while being developed at densities between 5.0 and 6.4 units per acre, and the proposed Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation while being developed at 10.0 units per acre. The design of the proposed subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The 247-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. Areas of dedication will be obtained as part of the tentative map recording for new street improvements, including the construction of curb, gutter, curb return, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and pavement.
5. That the design of the proposed subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The 247-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. Areas of dedication will be obtained as part of the tentative map recording.
6. The proposed location of the tentative subdivision map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The proposed location of the subdivision is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. Multiple General Plan policies identify the implementation of development standards to ensure that new single-family residential development will contribute to positive land use compatibility. The size of the property combined with the number of residential lots proposed is consistent and compatible with existing surrounding residential development.
The proposed project will result in the creation of new single-family residential developments which, for the Low Density Residential portion at a density between 5.0 and 6.4 units per acre, and for the Medium Density Residential portion at a density of 10 units per acre, is consistent with General Plan land use designations of Low and Medium Density Residential and the R352 1-5 and R-M-2 zoning designations that will be applied to the site when annexed into the city limits.
7. The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 66589.5) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact. There is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and development standards.
8. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-37, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Annexation No. 2021-04
1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area), R-M-2 (Multi-Family Residential, one unit per 3,000 square feet site area) and Q-P (Quasi-Public), consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designations as proposed through the General Plan Amendment.
2. That the applicant(s) enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The draft PreAnnexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” of Resolution No. 2023-37. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.
Specific Plan No. 2021-06
1. That the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan be adopted in substantial compliance with the Specific Plan attached as Attachment “A” of Resolution No. 2023-39, except incorporating the following modifications:
a. That separate development standards be utilized for the Low Density Residential neighborhoods having minimum lot sizes of 4,000 and 5,000 square feet as follows:
i. For the minimum 5,000 square foot lots (i.e., 50-foot x 100-foot), City standards specified in Municipal Code Sections 17.12 080 through 17.12.100 be utilized, excepting that rear yards for one-story dwellings may have a minimum 20-foot setback to the rear property line.
ii. For the minimum 4,000 square foot lots (i.e., 45-foot x 90-foot), the Specific Plan’s proposed setbacks in Table 4-2 be utilized.
2. That dwellings on the lots within the Medium Density Residential land use designations and having minimum 2,500 square foot lot area conform to the floor plans and elevations contained within Exhibits “E” and “F”, which shall be included as an Appendix to the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan.
353
3. That the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan be developed in accordance with the development agreement, attached as Exhibit “J”, which shall be signed and recorded prior to the recording of any final maps.
Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583
1. That the subdivision map be developed in substantial compliance with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review Committee as set forth under Site Plan Review No. 2020- 204 incorporated herein by reference.
2. That the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “C”.
3. That development standards for this map shall be in compliance with those defined in the Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan.
4. That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-37 are hereby incorporated as conditions of the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583.
5. That prior to the issuance of any residential building permit on the site, the applicant / developer shall obtain and provide the City with a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company.
6. That approval of the Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2021-04, placing the project site within the corporate limits of the City of Visalia, is approved by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and is fully executed to include all conditions contained in the Pre-Annexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2021-04.
7. That the Project be null and void unless General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05 and Specific Plan No. 2021-06 are approved by the City of Visalia.
8. That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met.
APPEAL INFORMATION
Annexation No. 2021-04, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05, Specific Plan No. 2021-06 For the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Specific Plan, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory only. The final decision will be by the Visalia City Council following a public hearing. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s recommendation in this matter is not appealable.
Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583
According to the City of Visalia Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.28.080, an appeal to the City Council may be submitted within ten days following the date of a decision by the Planning Commission. An appeal with applicable fees shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 North Santa Fe St., Visalia, CA, 93292. The appeal shall specify errors or abuses of discretion by the Planning Commission, or decisions not supported by the evidence in the record.
The appeal form can be found on the City’s website www.visalia.city or from the City Clerk. 354
Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2023-36 – Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583 • Resolution No. 2023-37 – Annexation No. 2021-04
- Attachment “A” – Annexation Area
- Attachment “B” – Annexation Agreement
• Resolution No. 2023-38 – General Plan Amendment No. 2021-05 • Resolution No. 2023-39 – Specific Plan No. 2021-06
- Attachment “A” – Pratt Family Ranch Specific Plan
• Exhibit "A" – Plan Area Concept (Figure 4.1 of Specific Plan) • Exhibit “B” – Phasing Map between Tiers 2 & 3
• Exhibit “C” – Pratt Family Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5583 • Exhibit "D" – Gated Lot Fit Exhibit
• Exhibit “E” – Gated Lot Model Floor Plans
• Exhibit “F” – Gated Lot Model Elevations
• Exhibit “G” – Annexation Area
• Exhibit “H” – Existing General Plan designations (Figure 3.1 of Specific Plan) • Exhibit “I” – Proposed General Plan designations (Figure 3.2 of Specific Plan) • Exhibit “J” – Draft Development Agreement
• Exhibit “K” – Memorandum regarding request for Tier III development • Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Appendices: IS/MND Technical Studies: Air Quality/GHG, Biological, Cultural Resources, Traffic Impact Study, Water Supply Assessment
• Comments from Site Plan Review Item No. 2020-204
• General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map
355
RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
General Plan and Zoning: The following General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies apply to the proposed project:
General Plan Land Use Policies:
LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. The General Plan Land Use Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary I (UDB I) shares its boundaries with the 2012 city limits. The Urban Development Boundary II (UDB II) defines the urbanizable area within which a full range of urban services will need to be extended in the first phase of anticipated growth with a target buildout population of 178,000. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines full buildout of the General Plan with a target buildout population of 210,000. Each growth ring enables the City to expand in all four quadrants, reinforcing a concentric growth pattern.
LU-P-21: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) and the Urban Growth Boundary (Tier III) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, according to the following phasing thresholds: • “Tier II”: Tier II supports a target buildout population of approximately 178,000.
The expansion criteria for land in Tier II is that land would only become available for development when building permits have been issued in Tier I at the following levels, starting from April 1, 2010:
Residential: after permits for 5,850 housing units have been issued.
LU-P-22: Allow for City Council approval of master plans, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, for sites under a single ownership or unified control, which may include developable land within both multiple development tiers. Allow for pre-zoning of this master planned land, subject to execution of a development agreement between the City and the land owner conforming to the requirements of Government Code Section 65864 et seq., with the project allowed to annex and develop while the City is still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier I or Tier II designation.
An approved master-planned site then could be annexed before development is permitted in Tier II or Tier III under Policy LU-P-21. The development agreement would spell out details on overall development, density/intensity and phasing, infrastructure needs and financing, and what each party would do. This policy will allow large land owners, with Council approval, to have a longer time frame for development and infrastructure planning, consistent with the vision of the General Plan, and also “nail down” the numbers for their financial partners while still maintaining the City’s interest in having concentric growth through a phasing plan.
LU-P-54: Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Very Low Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram and create opportunities for residential dwellings at 0.1 to 2 units per gross acre, providing for single-family detached housing on large lots and a rural residential transition to surrounding agricultural areas.
LU-P-55: Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Low Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram for development at 2 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre, facilitating new planned neighborhoods and infill development in established areas. This designation is intended to provide for single-family detached housing with densities typical of single-family subdivisions. Duplex units, townhouses, and small-lot detached housing may be incorporated as part of Low Density Residential developments. Development standards will ensure that a desirable single-family neighborhood character is maintained.
LU-P-56: Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Medium Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram for development at 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre. 356
This designation can accommodate a mix of housing types including small-lot single-family, townhouses, two- and four-plexes, and garden apartments, on infill lots or new development areas within walking distance of neighborhood nodes and corridors. Medium Density Residential development may also be permitted on corner lots in single-family zones and in infill areas where it can be made to be consistent with adjacent properties through the conditional use process. Development standards will ensure that new development contributes positively to the larger community environment. Projects on sites larger than five acres or involving more than 60 units will require discretionary review.
Municipal Code Chapter 12.04 ADOPTION OFD SPECIFIC PLANS
12.04.010 Adoption.
A. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any specific plan, or amendment to any specific plan, and submit their findings and recommendation to city council.
B. City council shall reject or adopt by resolution the specific plan, or specific plan amendment, by a majority vote. (Prior code § 7197.0)
12.04.020 Application to ordinances of city council.
Nothing in this chapter applies to the adoption or amendment of any ordinance by the legislative body, except ordinances expressly adopting or amending a specific plan initiated pursuant to this chapter. (Prior code § 7197.1)
12.04.030 Rules and regulations.
The city council may determine and establish administrative rules and procedures for the application and enforcement of specific plans and regulations, and may assign or delegate such administrative functions, powers and duties to the planning or other agency as may be necessary or desirable. (Prior code § 7197.2)
12.04.040 Boards in aid of administration.
The city council may create boards of review, appeal, and adjustment, in connection with any portion of the specific plan. (Prior code § 7197.3)
12.04.050 Street improvement--Conformance with plan.
No street shall be improved and no sewers or connections or other improvements shall be laid or authorized in any street within any territory for which there is an adopted specific street or highway plan until the matter has been referred to the planning commission for a report as to conformity with such specific street or highway plan unless one of the following conditions applies:
A. The street has been accepted, opened or has otherwise received the legal status of a public street prior to the adoption of the plan;
B. It corresponds with streets shown on the plan;
C. It corresponds with streets shown on a subdivision map or record of survey approved by the legislative body;
D. It corresponds with streets shown on a subdivision map previously approved by the planning commission;
E. It is a local residential street not shown on the specific plan and is approved by the site plan review committee. (Prior code § 7197.4)
12.04.060 Open space and landscaping--Conformance with plan.
No street shall be improved, no sewers or connections or other improvements shall be laid or public building or works, including school buildings, constructed within any territory for which the Council has adopted a specific plan regulating the development of the use of open-space land and landscaping until a finding has been made that the open space and landscaping are in substantial compliance with the adopted specific plan. (Prior code § 7197.5)
357
12.04.070 Improvements--Cost distribution.
The cost of all public improvements of specific benefit to the area for which there is an adopted specific plan may be distributed among all properties in the plan area based on benefit. City council shall assess the cost of improvements to each property, based on the benefit to that property. The assessment process shall include public hearing affording each property owner affected an opportunity to be heard.
The public hearing process may be waived on any parcel where the property owner has voluntarily agreed to the assessment. This agreement shall be recorded and run with the property ownership. The parcel assessment may be collected at the time of building permit issuance and may replace other existing fees where the same improvements are paid for through a new collection method. (Prior code § 7197.6)
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.12 R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
17.12.010 Purpose and intent.
In the R-1 single-family residential zones (R-1-5, R-1-12.5, and R-1-20), the purpose and intent is to provide living area within the city where development is limited to low density concentrations of onefamily 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.
17.12.015 Applicability.
The requirements in this chapter shall apply to all property within R-1 zone districts.
17.12.050 Site area.
The minimum site area shall be as follows:
Zone Minimum Site Area
R-1-5 5,000 square feet
R-1-12.5 12,500 square feet
R-1-20 20,000 square feet
A. Each site shall have not less than forty (40) feet of frontage on the public street. The minimum width shall be as follows:
Zone Interior Lot Corner Lot
R-1-5 50 feet 60 feet
R-1-12.5 90 feet 100 feet
R-1-20 100 feet 110 feet
B. Minimum width for corner lot on a side on cul-de-sac shall be eighty (80) feet, when there is no landscape lot between the corner lot and the right of way.
17.12.060 One dwelling unit per site.
In the R-1 single-family residential zone, not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on each site, with the exception to Section 17.12.020(J).
17.12.080 Front yard.
A. The minimum front yard shall be as follows:
Zone Minimum Front Yard
R-1-5 Fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty-two (22) feet for front-loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade 358
canopies, or porte cochere. A Porte Cochere with less than twenty-two (22) feet of setback from property line shall not be counted as covered parking, and garages on such sites shall not be the subject of a garage conversion.
R-1-12.5 Thirty (30) feet
R-1-20 Thirty-five (35) feet
B. On a site situated between sites improved with buildings, the minimum front yard may be the average depth of the front yards on the improved site adjoining the side lines of the site but need not exceed the minimum front yard specified above.
C. On cul-de-sac and knuckle lots with a front lot line of which all or a portion is curvilinear, the front yard setback shall be no less than fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty (20) feet for front-loading garages.
17.12.090 Side yards.
A. The minimum side yard shall be five feet in the R-1-5 and R-1-12.5 zone subject to the exception that on the street side of a corner lot the side yard shall be not less than ten feet and twenty-two (22) feet for front loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cocheres.
B. The minimum side yard shall be ten feet in the R-1-20 zone subject to the exception that on the street side of a corner lot the side yard shall be not less than twenty (20) feet.
C. On a reversed corner lot the side yard adjoining the street shall be not less than ten feet.
D. On corner lots, all front-loading garage doors shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet from the nearest public improvement or sidewalk.
E. Side yard requirements may be zero feet on one side of a lot if two or more consecutive lots are approved for a zero lot line development by the site plan review committee.
F. The placement of any mechanical equipment, including but not limited to, pool/spa equipment and evaporative coolers shall not be permitted in the five-foot side yard within the buildable area of the lot, or within five feet of rear/side property lines that are adjacent to the required side yard on adjoining lots.
This provision shall not apply to street side yards on corner lots, nor shall it prohibit the surface mounting of utility meters and/or the placement of fixtures and utility lines as approved by the building and planning divisions.
17.12.100 Rear yard.
In the R-1 single-family residential zones, the minimum yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet, subject to the following exceptions:
A. On a corner or reverse corner lot the rear yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet on the narrow side or twenty (20) feet on the long side of the lot. The decision as to whether the short side or long side is used as the rear yard area shall be left to the applicant's discretion as long as a minimum area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of usable rear yard area is maintained. The remaining side yard to be a minimum of five feet.
B. Accessory structures not exceeding twelve (12) feet may be located in the required rear yard but not closer than three feet to any lot line provided that not more than twenty (20) percent of the area of the required rear yard shall be covered by structures enclosed on more than one side and not more than forty (40) percent may be covered by structures enclosed on only one side. On a reverse corner lot an accessory structure shall not be located closer to the rear property line than the required side yard on the adjoining key lot. An accessory structure shall not be closer to a side property line adjoining key lot and not closer to a side property line adjoining the street than the required front yard on the adjoining key lot.
C. Main structures may encroach up to five feet into a required rear yard area provided that such encroachment does not exceed one story and that a usable, open, rear yard area of at least one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet shall be maintained. Such encroachment and rear yard area shall be approved by the city planner prior to issuing building permits. 359
17.12.110 Height of structures.
In the R-1 single-family residential zone, the maximum height of a permitted use shall be thirty-five (35) feet, with the exception of structures specified in Section 17.12.100(B).
17.12.120 Off-street parking.
In the R-1 single-family residential zone, subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.34.
17.12.130 Fences, walls and hedges.
In the R-1 single-family residential zone, fences, walls and hedges are subject to the provisions of Section 17.36.030.
Chapter 17.60 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
17.60.010 Authority for adoption and applications.
These regulations are adopted under the authority of Government Code Sections 65864--65869.5.
A. Applications.
1. The city planner shall prescribe the form for each application, notice and documents provided for or required under these regulations for the preparation and implementation of development agreements.
2. The city planner may require an applicant to submit such information and supporting data as the city planner considers necessary to process the application.
B. Fees. The city council shall by separate resolution fix the schedule of fees and charges imposed for the filing and processing of each application and document provided for or required under these regulations.
C. Qualification as an Applicant. Only a qualified applicant may file an application to enter into a development agreement. A qualified applicant is a person who has legal or equitable interest in the real property that is the subject of the development agreement. Applicant includes authorized agent. The city planner may require an applicant to submit proof of his interest in the real property and of the authority of the agent to act for the applicant. Before processing the application, the city planner may obtain the opinion of the city attorney as to the sufficiency of the applicant's interest in the real property to enter into the agreement.
D. Proposed Form of Agreement. Each application shall be accompanied by the form of development agreement proposed by the applicant. This requirement may be met by designating the city's standard form of development agreement and including specific proposals for changes in or additions to the language of the standard form.
E. Review of Application. The city planner shall endorse on the application the date it is received. He shall review the application and may reject it if it is incomplete or inaccurate for processing. If he finds that the application is complete, he shall accept it for filing. The city planner shall review the application and determine the additional requirements necessary to complete the agreement. After receiving the required information, a staff report and recommendation shall be prepared, which shall state whether or not the agreement as proposed or in an amended form would be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7740)
17.60.020 Hearing and notice.
A. The planning commission and city council shall each hold a public hearing on each application for a development agreement. The city planner shall give notice of intention to consider adoption of the development agreement. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing a notice to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the property that is the subject of the proposed development agreement, and by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the city. The form of the notice of intention to consider adoption of the development agreement shall contain:
360
1. The time and place of the hearing;
2. A general explanation of the matter to be considered including a general description of the area affected;
3. Other information required by specific provision of these regulations or which the city planner considers necessary or desirable.
B. The failure of any person entitled to notice required by law or these regulations to actually receive such notice, does not affect the authority of the city to enter into a development agreement. No action, inaction or recommendation regarding the proposed development agreement shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by a court by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or omission ("error") as to any matter pertaining to petition, application, notice, finding, record, hearing, report, recommendation, or any matters of procedure whatever unless after an examination of the entire case, including the evidence, the court is of the opinion that the error complained of was prejudicial and that by reason of the error the complaining party sustained and suffered substantial injury, and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred or existed. There is not presumption that error is prejudicial or that injury was done if error is shown. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7741)
17.60.030 Action by planning commission.
A. After the public hearing, the planning commission shall make its recommendation in writing to the city council. The recommendation shall include the planning commission's determination whether or not the following findings can be made:
1. That the proposed development agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and/or any proposed amendment to the general plan or applicable specific plan submitted simultaneously and in conjunction with the proposed development agreement;
2. That the proposed development agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located;
3. That the proposed development agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice;
4. That the proposed development agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare;
5. That the proposed development agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values.
B. The recommendation shall include the reasons for the recommendation. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7742)
17.60.040 Action by city council.
A. After the city council completes the public hearing, it may accept, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission. It may, but need not, refer matters not previously considered by the planning commission during its hearing back to the planning commission for report and recommendation.
B. The planning commission may, but need not, hold a public hearing on matters referred back to it by the city council.
C. The city council may not approve the development agreement unless it finds that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan, and any applicable specific plan. Any proposed change in the general plan or applicable specific plan must be approved prior to, but simultaneously with, the approval of the development agreement.
D. If the city council approves the development agreement, it shall do so by the adoption of an ordinance. Upon the ordinance approving the development agreement taking effect, the city may enter into the agreement. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7743) 361
17.60.050 Amendment or cancellation of agreement by mutual consent.
Either party may propose an amendment to or cancellation in whole or in part of the development agreement previously entered into. The procedure for such proposing and adoption of an amendment or cancellation is the same as the procedure for entering into an agreement in the first instance, as prescribed by Sections 17.60.010 through 17.60.040. However, where the city initiates the proposed amendment to or cancellation in whole or in part of the development agreement, it shall first give notice to the property owner of its intention to initiate such proceedings at least thirty (30) days in advance of the giving of notice of intention to consider the amendment or cancellation required by this section. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7744)
17.60.060 Recordation.
Within ten days after the city enters into the development agreement, the city clerk shall have the agreement recorded with the county recorder. If the parties to the agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel the agreement as provided in Section 17.60.050, or if the city terminates or modifies the agreement as provided in Section 17.60.050 for failure of the applicant to comply in good faith with the terms or conditions of the agreement, the city clerk shall have notice of such action recorded with the county recorder. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7745)
17.60.070 Periodic review.
A. Time for and Initiation of Review. The city planning staff shall review the development agreement every twelve (12) months from the date the agreement is entered into. The time for review may be modified either by agreement between the parties or by initiation in one or more of the following ways:
1. Recommendation of the planning staff;
2. Affirmative vote of at least three members of the planning commission;
3. Affirmative vote of at least three members of the city council.
B. Notice of Periodic Review. The city planner shall begin the review proceeding by giving notice to the property owner that the city intends to undertake a periodic review of the development agreement.
Following the review of the development agreement, the city planner shall make a determination that the property owner has made good faith performance and compliance with the terms of the agreement. If such finding is made by the city planner, no further action on the part of the city need be taken. If the city planner finds reasonable cause or evidence that the property owner has not demonstrated good faith performance and compliance with the terms of the agreement, such finding constitutes grounds for referring the matter of periodic review before the planning commission in public hearing. The city planner shall give the notice at least thirty (30) days in advance of the time at which the matter will be considered by the planning commission.
C. Public Hearing. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing at which the property owner must demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement. The burden of proof on this issue is upon the property owner.
D. Findings Upon Public Hearing. The planning commission shall determine upon the basis of substantial evidence whether or not the property owner has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the agreement.
E. Procedure Upon Findings.
1. If the planning commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the agreement during the period under review, the review for that period is concluded;
2. If the planning commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that the property owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the agreement during the period under review, the planning commission may recommend to the city council that the agreement be modified or terminated. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7746)
17.60.080 Modification or termination.
362
A. If, upon a finding under Section 17.60.070(E)(2), the planning commission recommends the modification or termination of the agreement, the city council shall give notice to the property owner of its intention to consider such modification or termination. The notice shall contain:
1. The time and place of the council meeting at which the matter is to be considered;
2. A statement as to whether the city proposes to terminate or to modify the development agreement;
3. Other information that the city considers necessary to inform the property owner of the nature of the proceeding.
B. Action by City Council. At the time and place set for the consideration of modification or termination, the property owner shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The city council may modify or terminate the agreement. The council may, but need not, refer the matter back to the planning commission for further proceedings. The council may impose those conditions to the action it takes as it considers necessary to protect the interests of the city. The decision of the council is final. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7747)
17.60.090 Moratorium on further development.
In the event that the applicant fails to complete the agreement as specified under Section 17.60.060, or the agreement is terminated as specified under Section 17.60.080, the city council shall enact an urgency ordinance placing a moratorium on further development activities on the property which is the subject of the agreement so terminated. The moratorium shall continue until such time as a new development agreement is executed; or until the property is rezoned or other regulations or controls on the development of the property are enacted that the city considers sufficient to protect its interests. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7748)
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65450 - 65457
65450. After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, the planning agency may, or if so directed by the legislative body, shall, prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. 65451. (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.
65452. The specific plan may address any other subjects which in the judgment of the planning agency are necessary or desirable for implementation of the general plan. 363
65453. (a) A specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. (b) A specific plan may be repealed in the same manner as it is required to be amended. 65454. No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan.
65455. No local public works project may be approved, no tentative map or parcel map for which a tentative map was not required may be approved, and no zoning ordinance may be adopted or amended within an area covered by a specific plan unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan.
65456. (a) The legislative body, after adopting a specific plan, may impose a specific plan fee upon persons seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the specific plan. The fees shall be established so that, in the aggregate, they defray but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of preparation, adoption, and administration of the specific plan, including costs incurred pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. As nearly as can be estimated, the fee charged shall be a prorated amount in accordance with the applicant’s relative benefit derived from the specific plan. It is the intent of the Legislature in providing for such fees to charge persons who benefit from specific plans for the costs of developing those specific plans which result in savings to them by reducing the cost of documenting environmental consequences and advocating changed land uses which may be authorized pursuant to the specific plan. (b) Notwithstanding Section 66016, a city or county may require a person who requests adoption, amendment, or repeal of a specific plan to deposit with the planning agency an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the plan, amendment, or repeal prior to its preparation by the planning agency.
(c) Copies of the documents adopting or amending the specific plan, including the diagrams and text, shall be made available to local agencies, and shall be made available to the general public as follows:
(1) Within one working day following the date of adoption, the clerk of the legislative body shall make the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, available to the public for inspection.
(2) Within two working days after receipt of a request for a copy of the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, accompanied by payment for the reasonable cost of copying, the clerk shall furnish the requested copy to the person making the request.
(d) A city or county may charge a fee for a copy of a specific plan or amendments to a specific plan in an amount that is reasonably related to the cost of providing that document. 65457. (a) Any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. After a supplemental environmental impact report is certified, the 364
exemption specified in this subdivision applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.
(b) An action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has approved a project pursuant to a specific plan without having previously certified a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan, where required by subdivision (a), shall be commenced within 30 days of the public agency’s decision to carry out or approve the project. 365
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
February 2021
Prepared by:
VRPA Technologies, Inc.
4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105
Fresno, CA 93722
Project Manager: Jason Ellard
366
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
Study Team
Georgiena Vivian, President, VRPA Technologies, Inc., [email protected], (559) 259-9257
Jason Ellard, Transportation Engineer, VRPA Technologies, Inc., [email protected], (559) 271-1200
367
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
Executive Summary E-1
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Description of the Region/Project 1
1.2 Regulatory 1
1.2.1 Federal Agencies 1
1.2.2 Federal Regulations 5
1.2.3 State Agencies 6
1.2.4 State Regulations 7
1.2.5 Regional Agencies 13
1.2.6 Regional Regulations 15
1.2.7 Local Plans 16
2.0 Environmental Setting 18
2.1 Geographical Locations 18
2.2 Topographic Conditions 18
2.3 Climate Conditions 18
2.4 Anthropogenic (Man-made) Sources 20
2.4.1 Motor Vehicles 21
2.4.2 Agricultural and Other Miscellaneous 22
2.4.3 Industrial Plants 22
2.5 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Monitoring 22
2.6 Air Quality Standards 25
2.6.1 Ozone (1-hour and 8-hour) 25
2.6.2 Suspended PM (PM10 and PM2.5) 27
2.6.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 28
2.6.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 29
2.6.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 31
2.6.6 Lead (Pb) 31
2.6.7 Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) 31
2.6.8 Odors 34
2.6.9 Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) 35
2.6.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 35
368
3.0 Air Quality Impacts 37
3.1 Methodology 37
3.1.1 CalEEMod 37
3.2 Short-Term Impacts 38
3.3 Long Term Emissions 39
3.3.1 Localized Operational Emissions
Ozone/Particulate Matter 39
3.3.2 Localized Operational Emissions 40
3.3.3 Indirect Source Review 43
4.0 Impact Determinations and Recommended
Mitigation 45
4.1 Air Quality 45
4.1.1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan 45
4.1.2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 46
4.1.3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations 47
4.1.4 Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people 48
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 48
4.2.1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment 48
4.2.2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases 49
Appendices
Appendix A – CalEEMod Worksheets
Appendix B – ISR Worksheets
369
List of Tables
1 Ambient Air Quality Standards 9
2 Maximum Pollutant Levels at Visalia’s
N Church Street Monitoring Station 23
3 Tulare County Attainment Status 24
4 Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities 33
5 Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources 35
6 SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of Significance 37
7 Project Construction Emissions 39
8 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 39
9 Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions 43
List of Figures
1 Regional Location 2
2 Project Location 3
3 Project Site Plan 4
4 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 8
370
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-1
Executive Summary
This Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment has been prepared for the purpose of identifying potential project-specific or site-specific air quality impacts related to the Gunning Development (Project). The Project site is generally located at the Northwest quadrant of the Riverway Drive and Mooney Boulevard intersection. Regional access to the site is provided by State Route (SR) 198 and SR 63. The Project seeks to develop approximately 555 single family dwelling units. Figure 1 shows the site’s regional context. Figure 2 shows the Project location within the City of Visalia. Figure 3 shows the tentative layout of the proposed Project.
The City of Visalia/Tulare County is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The surrounding topography includes foothills and mountains to the east and west. These mountain ranges direct air circulation and dispersion patterns. Temperature inversions can trap air within the Valley, thereby preventing the vertical dispersal of air pollutants. In addition to topographic conditions, the local climate can also contribute to air quality problems. Climate in Visalia is classified as Mediterranean, with moist cool winters and dry warm summers.
Air quality within the Project area is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs.
IMPACTS
Short-Term (Construction) Emissions
Short-term impacts are mainly related to the construction phase of a project and are recognized to be short in duration. Construction air quality impacts are generally attributable to dust generated by equipment and vehicles. Table E-1 shows the estimated construction emissions that would be generated from the Project. Results of the analysis show that emissions generated from the construction phase of the Project will not exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) emission thresholds.
Table E-1
Project Construction Emissions
Total Project Construction Emissions (tons) 10.18 11.36 10.62 0.02 2.87 1.44 2037.37 Project Emissions tons per year
(Phased over 3.5 years) 2.91 3.25 3.03 0.005 0.82 0.41 582.11 SJVAPCD Level of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15 None
Does the Project Exceed Standard? No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod
Summary Report CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
371
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-2
Long-Term Emissions
Long-Term emissions from the Project would be generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as lawn maintenance equipment.
1. Localized Mobile Source Emissions – Ozone/Particulate Matter Operational emissions associated with the Project are shown in Table E-2. Results indicate that the annual operational emissions from the Project will be less than the SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants considering adherence to all applicable SJVAPCD Rules.
Compliance with Rule 9510 will reduce Project Operational NOx Emissions by 33.3% and PM10 emissions by 50% according to the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts adopted in March 2015.
Table E-2
Project Operational Emissions (tons/year)
2. Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
An evaluation of nearby land uses shows that the Project will not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources. Therefore, TAC’s from sources in the study area will not significantly impact the Project. In addition, the Project will not generate TAC’s that would have a significant impact on the environment or adjacent sensitive receptors.
3. Odors
The Project will not generate odorous emissions given the nature or characteristics of residential developments. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJV Air Basin. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are not located within the vicinity of the Project, and therefore these existing odor sources will not affect the Project or its future users.
4. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA)
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals found in many Project Opeational Emissions 19.09 8.10 6.41 0.08 2.83 1.63 9842.41 SJVAPCD Level of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15 None
Does the Project Exceed Standard? No No No No No No No
PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
Source: CalEEMod Summary Report CO NOX ROG SOX
372
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-3
parts of California. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types are also found in California. Construction of the Project may cause asbestos to become airborne due to the construction activities that will occur on site. The Project would be required to submit a Dust Control Plan under the SJVAPCD’s Rule 8021. Compliance with Rule 8021 would limit fugitive dust emissions from construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities associated with the Project.
5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), in consultation with Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPOs), has provided each affected region with reduction targets for Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035.
For the Tulare County Association of Government (TCAG) region, CARB set targets at thirteen (13) percent per capita decrease in 2020 and a sixteen (16) percent per capita decrease in 2035 from a base year of 2005. TCAG’s 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects that the Tulare County region would achieve the prescribed emissions targets.
In 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the following guidance documents applicable to projects within the San Joaquin Valley:
Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009), and
District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency (SJVAPCD 2009).
This guidance and policy are the reference documents referenced in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts adopted in March 2015 (SJVAPCD 2015). Consistent with the District Guidance and District Policy above, SJVAPCD (2015) acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds, and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
i. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions; ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS); and iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual (BAU).
In December 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board 373
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-4
adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. Though the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table E-3 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model, which is less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD.
Table E-3
Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the effects of the Project were evaluated to determine if they will result in Project-Specific significant adverse impacts on the environment that are peculiar to the Project or its site that differ from those impacts already analyzed and disclosed in the City’s General Plan EIR. The criteria used to determine the significance of an impact with respect to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are summarized below.
1. Air Quality
The criteria used to determine the significance of an air quality impact are based on the following thresholds of significance, which come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, air quality impacts resulting from the Project are considered significant if the Project would:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The primary way of determining consistency with the air quality plan’s (AQP’s) assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure that the Project’s population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQPs for the air basin.
As required by California law, city and county General Plans contain a Land Use Element that details the types and quantities of land uses that the city or county estimates will be needed for future growth, and that designate locations for land uses to regulate growth. TCAG uses the Project Operational Emissions Per Year 9910 MT/yr
CO2e
Source: CalEEMod
Summary Report
374
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-5
growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans to estimate future average daily trips and then VMT, which are then provided to SJVAPCD to estimate future emissions in the AQPs. Existing and future pollutant emissions computed in the AQP are based on land uses from area general plans. AQPs detail the control measures and emission reductions required for reaching attainment of the air standards.
The applicable General Plan for the project is the City of Visalia General Plan, which was adopted in 2014. The Project would be consistent with the General Plan upon preparation and approval of a master plan in accordance with General Plan Policy LU-P-22, which addresses annexation and development of project sites that are located outside of the current Urban Development Boundary. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in the plan and the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQPs. As a result, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plans. Therefore, no mitigation is needed.
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The Tulare County area is nonattainment for Federal and State air quality standards for ozone, in attainment of Federal standards and nonattainment for State standards for PM10, and nonattainment for Federal and State standards for PM2.5. The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2016 and 2013 Ozone Plans, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve Federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB regarding ozone and PM. Inconsistency with any of the plans would be considered a cumulatively adverse air quality impact. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, the Project is consistent with the currently adopted General Plan for the City of Visalia and is therefore consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in the plan.
Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the 2016 and 2013 Ozone Plan, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan.
Project specific emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the County is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. It should be noted that a project isn’t characterized as cumulatively insignificant when project emissions fall below thresholds of significance. As discussed in Section 3.1, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for determining environmental significance which are provided in Table 6.
As discussed above in Section 3.2 and 3.3, results of the analysis show that emissions generated from construction and operation of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, no mitigation is needed. 375
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-6
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses that have the greatest potential to attract these types of sensitive receptors include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. From a health risk perspective, the proposed Project is a Type B project in that it may potentially place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing sources.
The first step in evaluating the potential for impacts to sensitive receptors for TACs from the Project is to perform a screening level analysis. For Type B projects, one type of screening tool is found in the CARB Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective.
This handbook includes a table (depicted in Table 4) with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources. The screening level analysis for the Project shows that TACs are not a concern based upon the recommendations provided in Table 4. An evaluation of nearby land uses considering CARB’s Pollution Mapping Tool shows that the Project will not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources. Table 4 indicates that new sensitive land uses should not be sited within 500 feet of a freeway/urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. The Project is located more than 14,000 feet from the SR 198 freeway. Therefore, TAC’s from sources in the study area will not significantly impact the Project. In addition, the Project will not generate TAC’s that would have a significant impact on the environment or adjacent sensitive receptors. Therefore, no mitigation is needed.
Short-Term Impacts
The annual emissions from the construction phase of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, construction emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant.
Long-Term Impacts
Long-Term emissions from the Project are generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as lawn maintenance equipment.
Emissions from long-term operations generally represent a project’s most substantial air quality impact. Table E-2 summarizes the Project’s operational impacts by pollutant. Results indicate that the annual operational emissions from the Project will be less than the SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, operational emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant.
Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
376
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-7
The Project will not generate odorous emissions given the nature or characteristics of residential developments. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJV Air Basin. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 5 above along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. None of the facilities shown in Table 5 are located within the vicinity of the Project.
Therefore, no mitigation is needed.
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The criteria used to determine the significance of a greenhouse gas impact are based on the following thresholds of significance, which come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
Accordingly, greenhouse gas impacts resulting from the Project are considered significant if the Project would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The SJVAPCD acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
i. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions; ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS); and iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual (BAU).
The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. Though the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table E-3 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model, which is less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD.
The resulting permanent greenhouse gas increases related to Project operations would be within the greenhouse gas increases analyzed in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no increase in severity to the previously-identified greenhouse gas impacts, and implementation of the Project 377
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-8
will not result in Project-specific or site-specific significant adverse impacts from greenhouse gas emissions within the Project study area. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Under AB 32, CARB must adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the 1990 emission cap by 2020. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its initial Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap of CARB’s plans to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan.
SB 375 requires MPOs to adopt a SCS or APS that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO's regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, has provided each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. For the TCAG region, CARB set targets at thirteen (13) percent per capita decrease in 2020 and a sixteen (16) percent per capita decrease in 2035 from a base year of 2005.
Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-30-15 requires MPO’s to implement measures that will achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.
As required by California law, city and county General Plans contain a Land Use Element that details the types and quantities of land uses that the city or county estimates will be needed for future growth, and that designate locations for land uses to regulate growth. TCAG uses the growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans to estimate future average daily trips and then VMT, which are then provided to SJVAPCD to estimate future emissions in the AQPs. The applicable General Plan for the project is the City of Visalia General Plan, which was adopted in 2014.
The Project is consistent with the currently adopted General Plan for the City of Visalia and the adopted 2018 RTP/SCS and is therefore consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in those plan documents. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQP. It should also be noted that yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project (Table E-3) are less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD (see the discussion above).
CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the 378
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
E-9
initial Scoping Plan. The current plan has identified new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s 2030 GHG limit. Below is a list of applicable strategies in the Scoping Plan and the Project’s consistency with those strategies.
California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs for long-term climate change goals. o The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to light-duty vehicles that would access the residential development. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.
Energy Efficiency – Pursuit of comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards.
o The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. Though this measure applies to the State to increase its energy standards, the Project would comply with this measure through existing regulation. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.
Low Carbon Fuel – Development and adoption of the low carbon fuel standard.
o The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to the fuel used by vehicles that would access the residential development. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.
Based on the assessment above, the Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The Project furthers the achievement of the County’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.
379
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
1 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Description of the Region/Project
This Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment has been prepared for the purpose of identifying potential project-specific or site-specific air quality impacts related to the Gunning Development (Project). The Project site is generally located at the Northwest quadrant of the Riverway Drive and Mooney Boulevard intersection. Regional access to the site is provided by State Route (SR) 198 and SR 63. The Project seeks to develop approximately 555 single family dwelling units. Figure 1 shows the site’s regional context. Figure 2 shows the Project location within the City of Visalia. Figure 3 shows the tentative layout of the proposed Project.
The City of Visalia/Tulare County is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The surrounding topography includes foothills and mountains to the east and west. These mountain ranges direct air circulation and dispersion patterns. Temperature inversions can trap air within the Valley, thereby preventing the vertical dispersal of air pollutants. In addition to topographic conditions, the local climate can also contribute to air quality problems. Climate in Visalia is classified as Mediterranean, with moist cool winters and dry warm summers.
1.2 Regulatory
Air quality within the Project area is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies primarily responsible for improving the air quality within the City of Visalia/Tulare County are discussed below along with their individual responsibilities.
1.2.1 Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Federal Clean Air Bill first adopted in 1967 and periodically amended since then, established federal ambient air quality standards. A 1987 amendment to the Bill set a deadline for the attainment of these standards. That deadline has since passed. The other Clean Air Act (CAA) Bill Amendments, passed in 1990, share responsibility with the State in reducing emissions from mobile sources. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for enforcing the 1990 amendments.
The CAA and the national ambient air quality standards identify levels of air quality for six “criteria” pollutants, which are considered the maximum levels of ambient air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. The six criteria pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead.
380
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
2 381
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
3 382
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
4 383
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
5 CAA Section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93 Subpart A) require that each new RTP and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) be demonstrated to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) before the RTP and TIP are approved by the Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or accepted by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT). The conformity analysis is a federal requirement designed to demonstrate compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However, because the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), and Ozone address attainment of both the State and federal standards, for these pollutants, demonstrating conformity to the federal standards is also an indication of progress toward attainment of the State standards. Compliance with the State air quality standards is provided on the pages following this federal conformity discussion.
The EPA approved San Joaquin Valley reclassification of the ozone (8-hour) designation to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010, even though the San Joaquin Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
In accordance with the CAA, EPA uses the design value at the time of standard promulgation to assign nonattainment areas to one of several classes that reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem; classifications range from marginal nonattainment to extreme nonattainment. In the Federal Register on October 26, 2015, the EPA revised the primary and secondary standard to 0.070 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased public health protection against health effects associated with long- and short-term exposures.
1.2.2 Federal Regulations
State Implementation Plan (SIP)/ Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) To ensure compliance with the NAAQS, EPA requires states to adopt SIP aimed at improving air quality in areas of nonattainment or a Maintenance Plan aimed at maintaining air quality in areas that have attained a given standard. New and previously submitted plans, programs, district rules, state regulations, and federal controls are included in the SIPs. Amendments made in 1990 to the federal CAA established deadlines for attainment based on an area’s current air pollution levels. States must enact additional regulatory programs for nonattainment’s areas in order to adhere with the CAA Section 172. In California, the SIPs must adhere to both the NAAQS and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
To ensure that State and Federal air quality regulations are being met, Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) are required. AQMPs present scientific information and use analytical tools to identify a pathway towards attainment of NAAQS and CAAQS. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) develops the AQMPs for the region where the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) operates. The regional air districts begin the SIP process by submitting their AQMPs to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB is responsible for revising the SIP and submitting it to EPA for approval.
EPA then acts on the SIP in the Federal Register. The items included in the California SIP are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 52, Subpart 7, Section 384
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
6 52.220.
Transportation Control Measures
One particular aspect of the SIP development process is the assessment of available transportation control measures (TCMs) as a part of making progress towards clean air goals.
TCMs are defined in Section 108(f)(1) of the CAA and are strategies designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and associated air pollution. These goals are generally achieved by developing attractive and convenient alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use.
Examples of TCMs include ridesharing programs, transportation infrastructure improvements such as adding bicycle and carpool lanes, and expansion of public transit. Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year.
In addition, financial incentives are included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs). States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.
1.2.3 State Agencies
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing its own air quality legislation called the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted in 1988. CARB was created in 1967 from the merging of the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board and the Bureau of Air Sanitation and its Laboratory.
CARB has primary responsibility in California to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS established by the EPA. Whereas CARB has primary responsibility and produces a major part of the SIP for pollution sources that are statewide in scope, it relies on the local air districts to provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. CARB combines its data with all local district data and submits the completed SIP to the EPA. The SIP consists of the emissions standards for vehicular sources and consumer products set by CARB, and attainment plans adopted by the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) and Air Quality Management District’s (AQMDs) and approved by CARB.
States may establish their own standards, provided the State standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) pursuant to California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) [§39606(b)] and its 385
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
7 predecessor statutes.
The CH&SC [§39608] requires CARB to “identify” and “classify” each air basin in the State on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Subsequently, CARB designated areas in California as nonattainment based on violations of the CAAQSs. Designations and classifications specific to the SJVAB can be found in the next section of this document. Areas in the State were also classified based on severity of air pollution problems. For each nonattainment class, the CCAA specifies air quality management strategies that must be adopted. For all nonattainment categories, attainment plans are required to demonstrate a five-percent-peryear reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive three-year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. In addition, air districts in violation of CAAQS are required to prepare an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) that lays out a program to attain and maintain the CCAA mandates.
Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality. CARB has established and maintains, in conjunction with local APCDs and AQMDs, a network of sampling stations (called the State and Local Air Monitoring [SLAMS] network), which monitor the present pollutant levels in the ambient air.
Tulare County is in the CARB-designated, SJVAB. A map of the SJVAB is provided in Figure 4.
In addition to Tulare County, the SJVAB includes Fresno, Kern, Kings, Tulare, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties. Federal and State standards for criteria pollutants are provided in Table 1.
1.2.4 State Regulations
CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
The State of California is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the State. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, CARB’s motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollutant per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved.
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA was first signed into law in 1988. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the state’s air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. The CCAA establishes more stringent ambient air quality standards than those included in the Federal CAA. CARB is the agency responsible for administering the CCAA. CARB established ambient air quality standards pursuant to the CH&SC [§39606(b)], which are similar to the federal standards. The SJVAPCD is one of 35 AQMDs that have prepared air quality management plans to accomplish a five percent (5%) annual reduction in emissions documenting progress toward the State ambient air quality standards.
386
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
8 387
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
9 Table 1
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary 3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3
) -- 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3
) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
24 Hour 50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3 Annual
Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3
-- 24 Hour -- -- 35 µg/m3
Same as
Primary Standard
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 12.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3
) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) -- 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3
) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) -- 8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3
) -- -- 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3
) 100 ppb (188 µg/m3) -- Annual
Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3
) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)
Same as
Primary Standard
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3
) 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) -- 3 Hour -- -- 0.5 ppm
(1300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3
) 0.14 ppm
(for cetain areas) 11 -- Annual
Arithmetic Mean
-- 0.030 ppm
(for cetain areas) 11 -- 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
-- -- Calendar
Quarter
-- 1.5 µg/m3
(for certain areas)11 Rolling 3-Month
Average
-- 0.15 µg/m3 Visibility Reducing
Particles 14 8 Hour See footnote 14
Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance
through Filter Tape
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3
)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride 12 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) 10
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) 11 Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
Gravimetric or
Beta Attenuation
Same as
Primary Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
No
National
Standards
Lead 12,13 High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
Absorption Same as
Primary Standard
Atomic Absorption
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards 1 National Standards 2 Ozone (O3) 8 Ultraviolet Photometry
Same as
Primary Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) 9
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
See footnotes on next page …
Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10) 9
388
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
10 Footnotes:
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.
8. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.
9. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
10. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.
11. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1- hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
12. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined.
These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
13. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
14. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
389
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
11 Tanner Air Toxics Act
California regulates Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588).
The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted EPA's list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize emissions.
AB 2588 requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare a toxic-emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emission standards for various on-road mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses and offroad diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators).
These rules and standards provide for:
More stringent emission standards for some new urban bus engines, beginning with 2002 model year engines.
Zero-emission bus demonstration and purchase requirements applicable to transit agencies
Reporting requirements under which transit agencies must demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule.
AB 1493 (Pavley)
AB 1493 (Pavley) enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks.
Regulations adopted by CARB would apply to 2009 and later model year vehicles. CARB estimated that the regulation would reduce climate change emissions from light duty passenger vehicles by an estimated 18 percent in 2020 and by 27 percent in 2030 [Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) 2007)]. In 2005, the CARB requested a waiver from U.S.
EPA to enforce the regulation, as required under the CAA. Despite the fact that no waiver had ever been denied over a 40-year period, the then Administrator of the EPA sent Governor Schwarzenegger a letter in December 2007, indicating he had denied the waiver. On March 6, 2008, the waiver denial was formally issued in the Federal Register. Governor Schwarzenegger and several other states immediately filed suit against the federal government to reverse that decision. On January 21, 2009, CARB requested that EPA reconsider denial of the waiver. EPA scheduled a re-hearing on March 5, 2009. On June 30, 390
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
12 2009, EPA granted a waiver of CAA preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 required that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. December 31, 2020 is the deadline for achieving the 2020 GHG emissions cap. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.
AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrived at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state reduces GHG emissions enough to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance on instituting emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner, along with conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. Using these criteria to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 would represent an approximate 25 to 30 percent reduction in current emissions levels. However, CARB has discretionary authority to seek greater reductions in more significant and growing GHG sectors, such as transportation, as compared to other sectors that are not anticipated to significantly increase emissions.
CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan adopted in December of 2008. The current plan has identified new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s 2030 GHG limit.
Senate Bill 375
SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO's regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, has provided each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the 391
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
13 targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO's SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets.
This law also extends the minimum time period for the regional housing needs allocation cycle from five years to eight years for local governments located within an MPO that meets certain requirements. City or county land use policies (including general plans) are not required to be consistent with the regional transportation plan (and associated SCS or APS).
However, new provisions of CEQA incentivize (through streamlining and other provisions) qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS or APS, categorized as "transit priority projects."
Executive Order B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15, which was signed by Governor Brown in 2016, establishes a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-30-15 requires MPO’s to implement measures that will achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit, or SB 32 SB 32 is a California Senate bill expanding upon AB 32 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The lead author is Senator Fran Pavley and the principal co-author is Assembly member Eduardo Garcia. SB 32 was signed into law on September 8, 2016, by Governor Brown. SB 32 sets into law the mandated reduction target in GHG emissions as written into Executive Order B-30-15. SB 32 requires that there be a reduction in GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030. Greenhouse gas emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for ensuring that California meets this goal. The provisions of SB 32 were added to Section 38566 of the Health and Safety Code subsequent to the bill’s approval. The bill went into effect January 1, 2017. SB 32 builds onto Assembly Bill (AB) 32 written by Senator Fran Pavley and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez passed into law on September 27, 2006. AB 32 required California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and SB 32 continues that timeline to reach the targets set in Executive Order B-30-15. SB 32 provides another intermediate target between the 2020 and 2050 targets set in Executive Order S-3-05.
1.2.5 Regional Agencies
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within Tulare County and throughout the SJVAB.
The District also has responsibility for monitoring air quality and setting and enforcing limits 392
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
14 for source emissions. CARB is the agency with the legal responsibility for regulating mobile source emissions. The District is precluded from such activities under State law.
The District was formed in mid-1991 and prepared and adopted the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), dated January 30, 1992, in response to the requirements of the State CCAA. The CCAA requires each non-attainment district to reduce pertinent air contaminants by at least five percent (5%) per year until new, more stringent, 1988 State air quality standards are met.
Activities of the SJVAPCD include the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspection of stationary sources of air pollution and response to citizen complaints, monitoring of ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementation of programs and regulations required by the FCAA and CCAA.
The SJVAPCD has prepared the following State Implementation Plans to address ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 that currently apply to the Visalia non-attainment area:
The 2016 Ozone Plan (2008 standard) was adopted by SJVAPCD on June 16, 2016 and subsequently adopted by ARB on July 21, 2016.
The 2013 1-Hour Ozone Plan (revoked 1997 standard) was adopted by the SJVAPCD on September 19, 2013. EPA withdrew its approval of the plan due to litigation. The District plans to submit a “redesignation substitute” to EPA to maintain its attainment status for this revoked ozone standard.
The 2007 PM-10 Maintenance Plan (as revised in 2015) was approved by EPA on July 8, 2016 (effective September 30, 2016).
The 2012 PM2.5 Plan (as revised in 2015) was approved by EPA on August 16, 2016 (effective September 30, 2016).
The SJVAPCD Plans identified above represent SJVAPCD’s plan to achieve both state and federal air quality standards. The regulations and incentives contained in these documents must be legally enforceable and permanent. These plans break emissions reductions and compliance into different emissions source categories.
The SJVAPCD also prepared the Guide for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), dated March 19, 2015. The GAMAQI is an advisory document that provides Lead Agencies, consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance and uniform procedures for addressing air quality impacts in environmental documents. Local jurisdictions are not required to utilize the methodology outlined therein. This document describes the criteria that SJVAPCD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents. It recommends thresholds for determining whether or not projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project 393
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
15 emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts.
1.2.6 Regional Regulations
The SJVAPCD has adopted numerous rules and regulations to implement its air quality plans.
Following, are significant rules that will apply to the Project. Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
Regulation VIII is comprised of District Rules 8011 through 8081, which are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, landfill operations, etc. The proposed Project will be required to comply with this regulation. Regulation VIII control measures are provided below:
1. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
2. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
3. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut & fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
4. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
5. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.
6. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
7. Within urban areas, track out shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, and Other Earthmoving Activities District Rule 8021 requires owners or operators of construction projects to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District if at any time the project involves non-residential developments of five or more acres of disturbed surface area or moving, depositing, or relocating of more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials on at least three days of the project. The 394
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
16 proposed Project will meet these criteria and will be required to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District in order to comply with this rule.
Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations
If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the proposed Project will be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations. Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The purpose of this rule is to fulfill the District’s emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans, achieve emission reductions from construction activities, and to provide a mechanism for reducing emissions from the construction of and use of development projects through off-site measures. The rule is expected to reduce nitrogen oxides and particulates throughout the San Joaquin Valley by more than 10 tons per day. Rule 9510 requires single-family development projects larger than 50 residential units to reduce smog-forming and particulate emissions generated by their projects. The Project includes the development of 555 single family dwelling units and will be required to comply with this rule.
1.2.7 Local Plans
City of Visalia General Plan
California State Law requires every city and county to adopt a comprehensive General Plan to guide its future development. The General Plan essentially serves as a “constitution for development”— the document that serves as the foundation for all land use decisions. The City of Visalia General Plan includes various elements, including air quality and greenhouse gases, that address local concerns and provides goals and policies to achieve its development goals.
City of Visalia Climate Action Plan1
The City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP) was created as one of the first key steps to guiding the development and enhancement of actions designed to reduce Visalia’s GHG emissions. The CAP represents the results of a GHG emissions inventory effort which serves as a starting point for the development of a comprehensive municipal and community strategy for addressing GHG emission reduction goals.
The major long-term objectives of the City of Visalia’s CAP for the City government and the community as a whole include the following:
1 City of Visalia Climate Action Plan, December 2013
395
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
17 Reduce net GHG emissions from both municipal operations and community activities; Promote cleaner and healthier air to breathe;
Help the City and its residents save on energy costs; Reduce vulnerability to changes in energy availability and price; and Increase public awareness of climate change issues.
The City of Visalia selected the years 2020 and 2030 to establish mitigation targets for the CAP. A reduction of 15% below the 2005 baseline year level is the target for 2020. A reduction of 30% below the 2005 baseline year level is the target for 2030. The City of Visalia established two mitigation milestones to correlate with the planning horizon of the 2030 General Plan Update, and to ensure that the City is working towards the State’s goal of an 80% reduction below baseline by 2050.
The City of Visalia has instituted various actions in an effort to meet the year 2020 and 2030 mitigation targets. The measures identified to achieve mitigation targets are organized into five categories: Energy Systems, Transportation, Water and Resource Conservation, Transportation / Land Use, and Waste and Resource Conservation. Included in the Transportation category is a measure regarding the expansion of bicycle paths. The Project includes the development of multi-use trails, as depicted in Figure 3, which coincides with the goals of the CAP.
396
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
18 2.0 Environmental Setting
This section describes existing air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and in Tulare County, including the identification of air pollutant standards, meteorological and topological conditions affecting air quality, and current air quality conditions. Air quality is described in relation to ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants such as, ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Air quality can be directly affected by the type and density of land use change and population growth in urban and rural areas.
2.1 Geographical Location
The SJVAB is comprised of eight counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. Encompassing 24,840 square miles, the San Joaquin Valley is the second largest air basin in California. Cumulatively, counties within the Air Basin represent approximately 16 percent of the State's geographic area. The Air Basin is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east (8,000 to 14,492 feet in elevation), the Coastal Range on the west (4,500 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains on the south (9,000 feet elevation). The San Joaquin Valley is open to the north extending to the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.
2.2 Topographic Conditions
Tulare County is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin [as determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)]. Air basins are geographic areas sharing a common "air shed." A description of the Air Basin in the County, as designated by CARB, is provided in paragraph below.
Air pollution is directly related to the region's topographic features, which impact air movement within the Basin.
Wind patterns within the SJVAB result from marine air that generally flows into the Basin from the San Joaquin River Delta. The Coastal Range hinders wind access into the Valley from the west, the Tehachapi’s prevent southerly passage of airflow, and the high Sierra Nevada Mountain Range provides a significant barrier to the east. These topographic features result in weak airflow that becomes restricted vertically by high barometric pressure over the Valley. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversion layers (1,500-3,000 feet).
2.3 Climate Conditions
Tulare County is located in one of the most polluted air basins in the country. Temperature inversions can trap air within the Valley, thereby preventing the vertical dispersal of air pollutants. In addition to topographic conditions, the local climate can also contribute to air quality problems. Climate in Tulare County is classified as Mediterranean, with moist cool winters and dry warm summers.
397
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
19 Ozone, classified as a “regional” pollutant, often afflicts areas downwind of the original source of precursor emissions. Ozone can be easily transported by winds from a source area. Peak ozone levels tend to be higher in the southern portion of the Valley, as the prevailing summer winds sweep precursors downwind of northern source areas before concentrations peak. The separate designations reflect the fact that ozone precursor transport depends on daily meteorological conditions.
Other primary pollutants, carbon monoxide (CO), for example, may form high concentrations when wind speed is low. During the winter, Tulare County experiences cold temperatures and calm conditions that increase the likelihood of a climate conducive to high CO concentrations.
Precipitation and fog tend to reduce or limit some pollutant concentrations. Ozone needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog block the required radiation. CO is slightly watersoluble so precipitation and fog tends to “reduce” CO concentrations in the atmosphere. PM10 is somewhat “washed” from the atmosphere with precipitation. Precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley is strongly influenced by the position of the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure belt located off the Pacific coast. In the winter, this high- pressure system moves southward, allowing Pacific storms to move through the San Joaquin Valley. These storms bring in moist, maritime air that produces considerable precipitation on the western, upslope side of the Coast Ranges.
Significant precipitation also occurs on the western side of the Sierra Nevada. On the valley floor, however, there is some down slope flow from the Coast Ranges and the resultant evaporation of moisture from associated warming results in a minimum of precipitation. Nevertheless, the majority of the precipitation falling in the San Joaquin Valley is produced by those storms during the winter. Precipitation during the summer months is in the form of convective rain showers and is rare. It is usually associated with an influx of moisture into the San Joaquin Valley through the San Francisco area during an anomalous flow pattern in the lower layers of the atmosphere.
Although the hourly rates of precipitation from these storms may be high, their rarity keeps monthly totals low.
Precipitation on the San Joaquin Valley floor and in the Sierra Nevada decreases from north to south. Stockton in the north receives about 20 inches of precipitation per year, Fresno in the center, receives about 10 inches per year, and Bakersfield at the southern end of the valley receives less than 6 inches per year. This is primarily because the Pacific storm track often passes through the northern part of the state while the southern part of the state remains protected by the Pacific High. Precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is confined primarily to the winter months with some also occurring in late summer and fall. Average annual rainfall for the entire San Joaquin Valley is approximately 5 to 16 inches. Snowstorms, hailstorms, and ice storms occur infrequently in the San Joaquin Valley and severe occurrences of any of these are very rare.
The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure 398
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
20 and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the San Joaquin Valley floor. This creates strong low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions. This situation leads to the San Joaquin Valley’s famous Tule Fogs. The formation of natural fog is caused by local cooling of the atmosphere until it is saturated (dew point temperature). This type of fog, known as radiation fog, is more likely to occur inland. Cooling may also be accomplished by heat radiation losses or by horizontal movement of a mass of air over a colder surface. This second type of fog, known as advection fog, generally occurs along the coast.
Conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of CO and PM10. Ozone levels are low during these periods because of the lack of sunlight to drive the photochemical reaction. Maximum CO concentrations tend to occur on clear, cold nights when a strong surface inversion is present and large numbers of fireplaces are in use. A secondary peak in CO concentrations occurs during morning commute hours when a large number of motorists are on the road and the surface inversion has not yet broken.
The water droplets in fog, however, can act as a sink for CO and nitrogen oxides (NOx), lowering pollutant concentrations. At the same time, fog could help in the formation of secondary particulates such as ammonium sulfate. These secondary particulates are believed to be a significant contributor of winter season violations of the PM10 and PM2.5 standards.
2.4 Anthropogenic (Man-made) Sources
In addition to climatic conditions (wind, lack of rain, etc.), air pollution can be caused by anthropogenic or man-made sources. Air pollution in the SJVAB can be directly attributed to human activities, which cause air pollutant emissions. Human causes of air pollution in the Valley consist of population growth, urbanization (gas-fired appliances, residential wood heaters, etc.), mobile sources (i.e., cars, trucks, airplanes, trains, etc.), oil production, agriculture, and other socioeconomic activities. The most significant factors, which are accelerating the decline of air quality in the SJVAB, are the Valley's rapid population growth and its associated increases in traffic, urbanization, and industrial activity.
Carbon monoxide emissions overwhelmingly come from mobile sources in the San Joaquin Valley; on-road vehicles contributed 34 percent, while other mobile vehicles, such as trains, planes, and off-road vehicles, contribute another 20 percent in 2012 according to emission projections from the CARB. Motor vehicles account for significant portions of regional gaseous and particulate emissions. Local large employers such as industrial plants can also generate substantial regional gaseous and particulate emissions. In addition, construction and agricultural activities can generate significant temporary gaseous and particulate emissions (dust, ash, smoke, etc.).
Ozone is the result of a photochemical reaction between Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Mobile sources contribute 84 percent of all NOx emitted from anthropogenic sources based on data provided in Appendix B of the Air District’s 2016 Ozone 399
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
21 Plan. In addition, mobile sources contribute 26 percent of all the ROG emitted from sources within the San Joaquin Valley.
The principal factors that affect air quality in and around Tulare County are:
1. The sink effect, climatic subsidence and temperature inversions and low wind speeds
2. Automobile and truck travel
3. Increases in mobile and stationary pollutants generated by local urban growth Automobiles, trucks, buses and other vehicles using hydrocarbon (HC) fuels release exhaust products into the air. Each vehicle by itself does not release large quantities; however, when considered as a group, the cumulative effect is significant.
Other sources may not seem to fit into any one of the major categories or they may seem to fit in a number of them. These could include agricultural uses, dirt roads, animal shelters; animal feed lots, chemical plants and industrial waste disposal, which may be a source of dust, odors, or other pollutants. For Tulare County, this category includes several agriculturally related activities, such as plowing, harvesting, dusting with herbicides and pesticides and other related activities.
Finally, industrial contaminants and their potential to produce various effects depend on the size and type of industry, pollution controls, local topography, and meteorological conditions. Major sources of industrial emissions in Tulare County consist of agricultural production and processing operations, wine production, and marketing operations.
The primary contributors of PM10 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley are farming activities (22%) and road dust, both paved and unpaved (35%) in 2020 according to emission projections from the CARB. Fugitive windblown dust from “open” fields contributed 14 percent of the PM10.
The four major sources of air pollutant emissions in the SJVAB include industrial plants, motor vehicles, construction activities, and agricultural activities. Industrial plants account for significant portions of regional gaseous and particulate emissions. Motor vehicles, including those from large employers, generate substantial regional gaseous and particulate emissions.
Finally, construction and agricultural activities can generate significant temporary gaseous and particulate emissions (dust, ash, smoke, etc.). In addition to these primary sources of air pollution, urban areas upwind from Tulare County, including areas north and west of the San Joaquin Valley, can cause or generate emissions that are transported into Tulare County. All four of the major pollutant sources affect ambient air quality throughout the Air Basin.
2.4.1 Motor Vehicles
Automobiles, trucks, buses and other vehicles using hydrocarbon fuels release exhaust products into the air. Each vehicle by itself does not release large quantities; however, when considered as a group, the cumulative effect is significant.
400
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
22 2.4.2 Agricultural and Other Miscellaneous Activities Other sources may not seem to fit into any one of the major categories or they may seem to fit in a number of them. These could include agricultural uses, dirt roads, animal shelters, animal feed lots, chemical plants and industrial waste disposal, which may be a source of dust, odors, or other pollutants. For Tulare County, this category includes several agriculturally related activities, such as plowing, harvesting, dusting with herbicides and pesticides and other related activities.
2.4.3 Industrial Plants
Industrial contaminants and their potential to produce various effects depend on the size and type of industry, pollution controls, local topography, and meteorological conditions. Major sources of industrial emissions in Tulare County consist of agricultural production and processing operations, wine production, and marketing operations.
2.5 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Monitoring
SJVAPCD and the CARB maintain numerous air quality monitoring sites throughout each County in the Air Basin to measure ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. It is important to note that the federal ozone 1-hour standard was revoked by the EPA and is no longer applicable for federal standards.
The closest monitoring station to the Project is located at Visalia’s N Church Street Monitoring Station. The station monitors particulates, ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide.
Monitoring data for the past three years is summarized in Table 2.
Table 3 identifies the Tulare County’s attainment status. As indicated, the SJVAB is nonattainment for Ozone (1 hour and 8 hour) and PM. In accordance with the FCAA, EPA uses the design value at the time of standard promulgation to assign nonattainment areas to one of several classes that reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem; classifications range from marginal nonattainment to extreme nonattainment. The FCAA contains provisions for changing the classifications using factors such as clean air progress rates and requests from States to move areas to a higher classification.
On April 16, 2004 EPA issued a final rule classifying the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for Ozone, effective May 17, 2004 (69 FR 20550). The (federal) 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 6, 2005. However, many of the requirements in the 1-hour attainment plan (SIP) continue to apply to the SJVAB. The current ozone plan is the (federal) 8-hour ozone plan adopted in 2007. The SJVAB was reclassified from a "serious" nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard to “extreme” effective June 4, 2010.
401
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
23 Table 2
Maximum Pollutant Levels at Visalia’s
N Church Street Monitoring Station
Time 2017 2018 2019
Pollutant Averaging Maximums Maximums Maximums National State Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.109 ppm 0.112 ppm 0.093 ppm - 0.09 ppm Ozone (O3) 8 hour 0.091 ppm 0.094 ppm 0.082 ppm 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 58.1 ppb 69.2 ppb 70.7 ppb 100 ppb 0.18 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Average 10.0 ppb 10.0 ppb 9.0 ppb 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm Particulates (PM10) 24 hour 145.7 µg/m3
159.9 µg/m3
418.5 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3 Particulates (PM10) Federal Annual
Arithmetic Mean 46.9 µg/m3
52.0 µg/m346.3 µg/m3
- 20 µg/m3 Particulates (PM2.5) 24 hour 86.1 µg/m3
86.8 µg/m347.2 µg/m335 µg/m3
- Particulates (PM2.5) Federal Annual
Arithmetic Mean 16.2 µg/m3
17.3 µg/m312.9 µg/m312 µg/m312 µg/m3
Standards
Source: California Air Resources Board (ADAM) Air Pollution Summaries, 1/29/2021 402
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
24 Table 3
Tulare County Attainment Status
Pollutant Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone - 1 Hour Revoked in 2005 Nonattainment/Severe
Ozone - 8 Hour Nonattainment/Extreme a No State Standard PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Lead (Particulate) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Source: ARB Website, 1/29/2021
Designation/Classification
a. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010).
Notes:
National Designation Categories
Non-Attainment Area: Any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.
Unclassified/Attainment Area: Any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant or meets the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.
State Designation Categories
Unclassified: A pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or non-attainment.
Attainment: A pollutant is designated attainment if the State standard for that pollutant was not violated at any site in the area during a three-year period.
Non-attainment: A pollutant is designated non-attainment if there was at least one violation of a State standard for that pollutant in the area.
Non-Attainment/Transitional: A subcategory of the non-attainment designation. An area is designated non-attainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the standard for the pollutant. 403
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
25 2.6 Air Quality Standards
The FCAA, first adopted in 1963, and periodically amended since then, established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A set of 1977 amendments determined a deadline for the attainment of these standards. That deadline has since passed. Other CAA amendments, passed in 1990, share responsibility with the State in reducing emissions from mobile sources.
In 1988, the State of California passed the CCAA (State 1988 Statutes, Chapter 568), which set forth a program for achieving more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The CARB implements State ambient air quality standards, as required in the CCAA, and cooperates with the federal government in implementing pertinent sections of the FCAA Amendments (FCAAA).
Further, CARB regulates vehicular emissions throughout the State. The SJVAPCD regulates stationary sources, as well as some mobile sources. Attainment of the more stringent State PM10 Air Quality Standards is not currently required.
The EPA uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called the NAAQS.
The SJVAPCD operates regional air quality monitoring networks that provide information on average concentrations of pollutants for which State or federal agencies have established ambient air quality standards. Descriptions of nine pollutants of importance in Tulare County follow.
2.6.1 Ozone (1-hour and 8-hour)
The most severe air quality problem in the Air Basin is the high level of ozone. Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the troposphere.
Here, ground level, or “bad” ozone, is an air pollutant that damages human health, vegetation, and many common materials. It is a key ingredient of urban smog. The troposphere extends to a level about 10 miles up, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric, or “good” ozone layer, extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.
“Bad” ozone is what is known as a photochemical pollutant. It needs reactive organic gases (ROG), NOx, and sunlight. ROG and NOx are emitted from various sources throughout Tulare County. In order to reduce ozone concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these ozone precursors.
Significant ozone formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins. 404
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
26 Ozone is a regional air pollutant. It is generated over a large area and is transported and spread by wind. Ozone, the primary constituent of smog, is the most complex, difficult to control, and pervasive of the criteria pollutants. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not emitted directly into the air by specific sources. Ozone is created by sunlight acting on other air pollutants (called precursors), specifically NOx and ROG. Sources of precursor gases to the photochemical reaction that form ozone number in the thousands. Common sources include consumer products, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, and combustion products of various fuels. Originating from gas stations, motor vehicles, large industrial facilities, and small businesses such as bakeries and dry cleaners, the ozone-forming chemical reactions often take place in another location, catalyzed by sunlight and heat. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins. Approximately 50 million people lived in counties with air quality levels above the EPA’s health-based national air quality standard in 1994. The highest levels of ozone were recorded in Los Angeles, closely followed by the San Joaquin Valley. High levels also persist in other heavily populated areas, including the Texas Gulf Coast and much of the Northeast.
While the ozone in the upper atmosphere absorbs harmful ultraviolet light, ground-level ozone is damaging to the tissues of plants, animals, and humans, as well as to a wide variety of inanimate materials such as plastics, metals, fabrics, rubber, and paints. Societal costs from ozone damage include increased medical costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated replacement of industrial equipment, and reduced crop yields. Health Effects
While ozone in the upper atmosphere protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems, such as: forests and foothill communities; agricultural crops; and some man-made materials, such as rubber, paint, and plastic. High levels of ozone may negatively affect immune systems, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia. Ozone accelerates aging and exacerbates pre-existing asthma and bronchitis and, in cases with high concentrations, can lead to the development of asthma in active children. Active people, both children and adults, appear to be more at risk from ozone exposure than those with a low level of activity. Additionally, the elderly and those with respiratory disease are also considered sensitive populations for ozone.
People who work or play outdoors are at a greater risk for harmful health effects from ozone.
Children and adolescents are also at greater risk because they are more likely than adults to spend time engaged in vigorous activities. Research indicates that children under 12 years of age spend nearly twice as much time outdoors daily than adults. Teenagers spend at least twice as much time as adults in active sports and outdoor activities. In addition, children 405
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
27 inhale more air per pound of body weight than adults, and they breathe more rapidly than adults. Children are less likely than adults to notice their own symptoms and avoid harmful exposures.
Ozone is a powerful oxidant—it can be compared to household bleach, which can kill living cells (such as germs or human skin cells) upon contact. Ozone can damage the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation, and it can induce symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and worsening of asthmatic symptoms. Ozone in sufficient doses increases the permeability of lung cells, rendering them more susceptible to toxins and microorganisms. Exposure to levels of ozone above the current ambient air quality standard leads to lung inflammation and lung tissue damage and a reduction in the amount of air inhaled into the lungs.
The CARB found ozone standards in Tulare County nonattainment of Federal and State standards.
2.6.2 Suspended PM (PM10 and PM2.5)
Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles that remain suspended in the air for long periods. Some particles are large or concentrated enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Others are so small they can be detected only with an electron microscope. Particulate matter is a mixture of materials that can include smoke, soot, dust, salt, acids, and metals. Particulate matter is emitted from stationary and mobile sources, including diesel trucks and other motor vehicles; power plants; industrial processes; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; wildfires; dust from roads, construction, landfills, and agriculture; and fugitive windblown dust. PM10 refers to particles less than or equal to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter. PM2.5 refers to particles less than or equal to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter and are a subset of PM10. Particulates of concern are those that are 10 microns or less in diameter. These are small enough to be inhaled, pass through the respiratory system and lodge in the lungs, possibly leading to adverse health effects.
In the western United States, there are sources of PM10 in both urban and rural areas. Because particles originate from a variety of sources, their chemical and physical compositions vary widely. The composition of PM10 and PM2.5 can also vary greatly with time, location, the sources of the material and meteorological conditions. Dust, sand, salt spray, metallic and mineral particles, pollen, smoke, mist, and acid fumes are the main components of PM10 and PM2.5. In addition to those listed previously, secondary particles can also be formed as precipitates from chemical and photochemical reactions of gaseous sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOx in the atmosphere to create sulfates (SO4) and nitrates (NO3). Secondary particles are of greatest concern during the winter months where low inversion layers tend to trap the precursors of secondary particulates.
The District’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan built upon the aggressive emission reduction strategy adopted in 406
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
28 the 2007 Ozone Plan and strives to bring the valley into attainment status for the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5. The District’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan provides multiple control strategies to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and other pollutants that form PM2.5. The plan’s comprehensive control strategy includes regulatory actions, incentive programs, technology advancement, policy and legislative positions, public outreach, participation and communication, and additional strategies.
Health Effects
PM10 and PM2.5 particles are small enough—about one-seventh the thickness of a human hair, or smaller—to be inhaled and lodged in the deepest parts of the lung where they evade the respiratory system’s natural defenses. Health problems begin as the body reacts to these foreign particles. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown a statistically significant direct association between mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Non-health-related effects include reduced visibility and soiling of buildings. PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections.
PM10 and PM2.5 can aggravate respiratory disease and cause lung damage, cancer, and premature death.
Although particulate matter can cause health problems for everyone, certain people are especially vulnerable to adverse health effects of PM10. These “sensitive populations” include children, the elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from chronic lung disease such as asthma or bronchitis. Of greatest concern are recent studies that link PM10 exposure to the premature death of people who already have heart and lung disease, especially the elderly. Acidic PM10 can also damage manmade materials and is a major cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the United States.
The CARB found PM10 standards in Tulare County in attainment of Federal standards and nonattainment for State standards. The CARB found PM2.5 standards in Tulare County nonattainment of Federal and State standards.
2.6.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide (CO) is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. CO is an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas that is highly reactive. CO is a byproduct of motor vehicle exhaust, contributes more than two thirds of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. These emissions can result in high concentrations of CO, particularly in local areas with heavy traffic congestion. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes and fuel combustion in sources such as boilers and incinerators. Despite an overall 407
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
29 downward trend in concentrations and emissions of CO, some metropolitan areas still experience high levels of CO.
Health Effects
CO enters the bloodstream and binds more readily to hemoglobin than oxygen, reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood and thus reducing oxygen delivery to organs and tissues.
The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease.
Healthy individuals are also affected but only at higher levels of exposure. At high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases and can impair mental abilities. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, difficulty performing complex tasks, and in prolonged, enclosed exposure, death.
The adverse health effects associated with exposure to ambient and indoor concentrations of CO are related to the concentration of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) in the blood. Health effects observed may include an early onset of cardiovascular disease; behavioral impairment; decreased exercise performance of young, healthy men; reduced birth weight; sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); and increased daily mortality rate.
Most of the studies evaluating adverse health effects of CO on the central nervous system examine high-level poisoning. Such poisoning results in symptoms ranging from common flu and cold symptoms (shortness of breath on mild exertion, mild headaches, and nausea) to unconsciousness and death.
The CARB found CO standards in Tulare County as unclassified/attainment of Federal standards and attainment for State standards.
2.6.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) is a family of highly reactive gases that are primary precursors to the formation of ground-level ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NOx is emitted from combustion processes in which fuel is burned at high temperatures, principally from motor vehicle exhaust and stationary sources such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. A brownish gas, NOx is a strong oxidizing agent that reacts in the air to form corrosive nitric acid, as well as toxic organic nitrates. EPA regulates only nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as a surrogate for this family of compounds because it is the most prevalent form of NOx in the atmosphere that is generated by anthropogenic (human) activities.2
Health Effects
NOx is an ozone precursor that combines with Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) to form ozone. 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Why and How They Are Controlled, 456/F-99- 006R, November 2019
408
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
30 See the ozone section above for a discussion of the health effects of ozone.
Direct inhalation of NOx can also cause a wide range of health effects. NOx can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza.
Short-term exposures (e.g., less than 3 hours) to low levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) may lead to changes in airway responsiveness and lung function in individuals with preexisting respiratory illnesses. These exposures may also increase respiratory illnesses in children.
Long-term exposures to NO2 may lead to increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and may cause irreversible alterations in lung structure. Other health effects associated with NOx are an increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may lead to eye and mucus membrane aggravation, along with pulmonary dysfunction.
NOx can cause fading of textile dyes and additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon, and corrosion of metals due to production of particulate nitrates. Airborne NOx can also impair visibility. NOx is a major component of acid deposition in California. NOx may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. NOx in the air is a potentially significant contributor to a number of environmental effects such as acid rain and eutrophication in coastal waters.
Eutrophication occurs when a body of water suffers an increase in nutrients that reduce the amount of oxygen in the water, producing an environment that is destructive to fish and other animal life.
NO2 is toxic to various animals as well as to humans. Its toxicity relates to its ability to combine with water to form nitric acid in the eye, lung, mucus membranes, and skin. Studies of the health impacts of NO2 include experimental studies on animals, controlled laboratory studies on humans, and observational studies.
In animals, long-term exposure to NOx increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, lowering their resistance to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show susceptible humans, such as asthmatics, exposed to high concentrations of NO2, can suffer lung irritation and, potentially, lung damage. Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO2 concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes as well as hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.
NOx contributes to a wide range of environmental effects both directly and when combined with other precursors in acid rain and ozone. Increased nitrogen inputs to terrestrial and wetland systems can lead to changes in plant species composition and diversity. Similarly, direct nitrogen inputs to aquatic ecosystems such as those found in estuarine and coastal waters can lead to eutrophication as discussed above. Nitrogen, alone or in acid rain, also can acidify soils and surface waters. Acidification of soils causes the loss of essential plant nutrients and increased levels of soluble aluminum, which is toxic to plants. Acidification of surface waters creates conditions of low pH and levels of aluminum that are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
The CARB found NO2 standards in Tulare County as unclassified/attainment of Federal standards and attainment for State standards.
409
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
31 2.6.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
The major source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the combustion of high-sulfur fuels for electricity generation, petroleum refining and shipping. High concentrations of SO2 can result in temporary breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors. Short-term exposures of asthmatic individuals to elevated SO2 levels during moderate activity may result in breathing difficulties that can be accompanied by symptoms such as wheezing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath. Other effects that have been associated with longer-term exposures to high concentrations of SO2, in conjunction with high levels of PM, include aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and alterations in the lungs’ defenses. SO2 also is a major precursor to PM2.5, which is a significant health concern and a main contributor to poor visibility. In humid atmospheres, sulfur oxides can react with vapor to produce sulfuric acid, a component of acid rain.
The CARB found SO2 standards in the Tulare County as unclassified/attainment for Federal standards and attainment for State standards.
2.6.6 Lead (Pb)
Lead, a naturally occurring metal, can be a constituent of air, water, and the biosphere. Lead is neither created nor destroyed in the environment, so it essentially persists forever. Lead was used until recently to increase the octane rating in automobile fuel. Since the 1980s, lead has been phased out in gasoline, reduced in drinking water, reduced in industrial air pollution, and banned or limited in consumer products. Gasoline-powered automobile engines were a major source of airborne lead through the use of leaded fuels; however, the use of leaded fuel has been mostly phased out. Since this has occurred the ambient concentrations of lead have dropped dramatically.
Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause neurological impairments such as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses and young children.
Effects on the nervous systems of children are one of the primary health risk concerns from lead.
In high concentrations, children can even suffer irreversible brain damage and death. Children 6 years old and under are most at risk, because their bodies are growing quickly.
The CARB found Lead standards in Tulare County as unclassified/attainment of Federal standards and attainment for State standards.
2.6.7 Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are another group of pollutants of concern. TAC are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite 410
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
32 the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TAC is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria pollutants, TAC are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination. The ten TAC are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and diesel particulate matter (diesel PM). Caltrans’ guidance for transportation studies references the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) memorandum titled “Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents” which discusses emissions quantification of six “priority” compounds of 21 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The six “priority” compounds are diesel exhaust (particulate matter and organic gases), benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and acrolein.
Some studies indicate that diesel PM poses the greatest health risk among the TAC listed above.
A 10-year research program (California Air Resources Board 1998) demonstrated that diesel PM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to diesel PM poses a chronic health risk. In addition to increasing the risk of lung cancer, exposure to diesel exhaust can have other health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of fine particulate pollution as well, and studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems.
Diesel PM differs from other TAC in that it is not a single substance but a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled, internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies, depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present.
Unlike the other TAC, however, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. The CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a diesel PM exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. Table 4 depicts the CARB Handbook’s recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources.
Existing air quality concerns within Tulare County and the entire SJVAB are related to increases of regional criteria air pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter), exposure to toxic air contaminants, odors, and increases in greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change.
The primary source of ozone (smog) pollution is motor vehicles. Particulate matter is caused by dust, primarily dust generated from construction and grading activities, and smoke which is emitted from fireplaces, wood-burning stoves, and agricultural burning. 411
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
33 TABLE 4
Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities*
SOURCE CATEGORY ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
Freeways and High-Traffic Roads 1
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.
Distribution Centers
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
- Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.
Rail Yards
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. - Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.
Ports - Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.
Refineries - Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.
Chrome Platers - Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.
Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district.
- Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
Source: SJVAPCD 1/29/2021
1: The recommendation to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway was identified in CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook published in 2005. CARB recently published a technical advisory to the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook indicating that new research has demonstrated promising strategies to reduce pollution exposure along transportation corridors. *Notes:
• These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. • Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposures addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as much as 80% with the recommended separation.
• The relative risk for these categories varies greatly (see Table 1-2). To determine the actual risk near a particular facility, a site-specific analysis would be required. Risk from diesel PM will decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in. • These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing facilities may not be readily available and are not designed to substitute for more specific information if it exists. The recommended distances take into account other factors in addition to available health risk data (see individual category descriptions).
• Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses. • This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known problems like dry cleaners using perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable preventative actions. • A summary of the basis for the distance recommendations can be found in the ARB Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
412
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
34 2.6.8 Odors
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).
With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another. It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.
Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor.
For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.
When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.
The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJVAB. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 5 along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. The Project does not propose any uses that would be potential odor sources; however, the information presented in Table 5 will be used as a screening level analysis to determine if the Project would be impacted by existing odor sources in the study area. Such information is presented for informational purposes, but it is noted that the environment’s effect on the Project, including exposure to potential odors, would not be an impact for CEQA purposes.
413
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
35 TABLE 5
Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
2.6.9 Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA)
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally-occurring fibrous minerals found in many parts of California. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types are also found in California. Asbestos is commonly found in ultramafic rock and near fault zones. The amount of asbestos that is typically present in these rocks ranges from less than 1% up to approximately 25% and sometimes more. It is released from ultramafic rock when it is broken or crushed. This can happen when cars drive over unpaved roads or driveways, which are surfaced with these rocks, when land is graded for building purposes, or at quarrying operations.
Asbestos is also released naturally through weathering and erosion. Once released from the rock, asbestos can become airborne and may stay in the air for long periods of time. Asbestos is hazardous and can cause lung disease and cancer dependent upon the level of exposure. The longer a person is exposed to asbestos and the greater the intensity of the exposure, the greater the chances for a health problem.
The proposed Project's construction phase may cause asbestos to become airborne due to the construction activities that will occur on site. The Project would be required to submit a Dust Control Plan under the SJVAPCD’s Rule 8021.
2.6.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases. Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Compositing Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g. auto body shops) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Type of Facility Distance
Source: SJVAPCD 1/29/2021
414
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
36 atmosphere because of human activities are:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement, asphalt paving, truck trips). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes.
Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases ("High GWP gases").
415
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
37 3.0 Air-Quality Impacts
3.1 Methodology
The impact assessment for air quality focuses on potential effects the Project might have on air quality within the Tulare County region. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for determining environmental significance. These thresholds separate a project’s short-term emissions from its long-term emissions. The short-term emissions are mainly related to the construction phase of a project, which are recognized to be short in duration. The long-term emissions are primarily related to the activities that will occur indefinitely as a result of Project operations. Impacts will be evaluated both on the basis of CEQA Appendix G criteria and SJVAPCD significance criteria. The impacts to be evaluated will be those involving construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds for certain pollutants shown in Table 6.
Table 6
SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
3.1.1 CalEEMod
CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operations (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use.
The model is an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects throughout California. The model can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary or desirable such as CEQA and NEPA documents, pre-project planning, compliance with local air quality rules and regulations, etc.
CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions 100 10 10 27 15 15 Operational Emissions
(Permitted Equipment and Activities)
100 10 10 27 15 15
Operational Emissions
(Non-Permitted Equipment and Activities)
100 10 10 27 15 15
Project Type
Ozone Precursor Emissions (tons/year)
Source: SJVAPCD 1/29/2021
416
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
38 3.2 Short-Term Impacts
Short-term impacts are mainly related to the construction phase of a project and are recognized to be short in duration. Construction air quality impacts are generally attributable to dust and exhaust pollutants generated by equipment and vehicles. Fugitive dust is emitted both during construction activity and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing and earth moving activities do comprise major sources of construction dust emissions, but traffic and general disturbances of soil surfaces also generate significant dust emissions. Further, dust generation is dependent on soil type and soil moisture. Exhaust pollutants are the non-useable gaseous waste products produced during the combustion process. Engine exhaust contains CO, HC, and NOx pollutants which are harmful to the environment.
Adverse effects of construction activities cause increased dust-fall and locally elevated levels of total suspended particulate. Dust-fall can be a nuisance to neighboring properties or previously completed developments surrounding or within the Project area and may require frequent washing during the construction period.
PM10 emissions can result from construction activities of the Project. The SJVAPCD has determined that compliance with Regulation VIII and other control measures will constitute sufficient mitigation to reduce PM10 impacts to a level considered less-than significant for most development projects. Even with implementation of District Regulation VIII and District Rule 9510, large development projects may not be able to reduce project specific construction impacts below District thresholds of significance.
Ozone precursor emissions are also an impact of construction activities and can be quantified through calculations. Numerous variables factored into estimating total construction emission include: level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and amount of materials to be transported onsite or offsite. Additional exhaust emissions would be associated with the transport of workers and materials. Because the specific mix of construction equipment is not presently known for this Project, construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod Model defaults for construction equipment.
Table 7 shows the CalEEMod estimated construction emissions that would be generated from construction of the Project. Results of the analysis show that emissions generated from construction of the Project will not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds. It should be noted that the Project will be developed over several years as reflected in Table 7. 417
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
39 Table 7
Project Construction Emissions
3.3 Long-Term Emissions
Long-Term emissions from the Project would be generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as lawn maintenance equipment.
3.3.1 Localized Operational Emissions – Ozone/Particulate Matter The Tulare County area is nonattainment for Federal and State air quality standards for ozone, attainment of Federal standards for PM10 and nonattainment for State standards, and nonattainment for Federal and State standards for PM2.5. Nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases are regulated as ozone precursors. Significance criteria have been established for criteria pollutant emissions as documented in Section 3.1. Operational emissions have been estimated for the Project using the CalEEMod Model and detailed results are included in Appendix A of this report.
Results of the CalEEMod analysis are shown in Table 8. Results indicate that the annual operational emissions from the Project will be less than the SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants considering adherence to all applicable SJVAPCD Rules. Compliance with Rule 9510 will reduce Project Operational NOx Emissions by 33.3% and PM10 emissions by 50% according to the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts adopted in March 2015.
Table 8
Project Operational Emissions (tons/year)
Total Project Construction Emissions (tons) 10.18 11.36 10.62 0.02 2.87 1.44 2037.37 Project Emissions tons per year
(Phased over 3.5 years) 2.91 3.25 3.03 0.005 0.82 0.41 582.11 SJVAPCD Level of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15 None
Does the Project Exceed Standard? No No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod
Summary Report CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
Project Opeational Emissions 19.09 8.10 6.41 0.08 2.83 1.63 9842.41 SJVAPCD Level of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15 None
Does the Project Exceed Standard? No No No No No No No
PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
Source: CalEEMod Summary Report CO NOX ROG SOX
418
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
40 3.3.2 Localized Operational Emissions
Carbon Monoxide
The SJVAPCD is currently in unclassified/attainment for Federal standards and attainment for State standards for CO. An analysis of localized CO concentrations is typically warranted to ensure that standards are maintained. The traffic analysis prepared for the Project demonstrates that implementation of feasible roadway improvements will alleviate level of service deficiencies considering City of Visalia and Tulare County level of service standards.
The overall CO concentrations at roadways and intersections in the study area would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
The SJVAPCD’s Guidance Document, Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts – 2015, identifies the need for projects to analyze the potential for adverse air quality impacts to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses that have the greatest potential to attract these types of sensitive receptors include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. From a health risk perspective, the Project is a Type B project in that it may potentially place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing sources.
The SJVAPCD’s current thresholds of significance for TAC emissions from the operations of both permitted and non-permitted sources are presented below:
Carcinogens: Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 10 in one million Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual Carcinogenic (cancer) risk is expressed as cancer cases per one million. Noncarcinogenic (acute and chronic) hazard indices (HI) are expressed as a ratio of expected exposure levels to acceptable exposure levels.
These metrics are generally applied to the maximally exposed individual (MEI). There are separate MEIs for residential exposure (i.e., residential areas) and for worker exposure (i.e., off-site workplaces). Residential exposure is for a worst-case exposure duration of 24 hours a day, 350 days a year for 70 years. For off-site workplaces, the exposure is 8 hours a day, 245 days a year for 40 years.
Although the effects of the environment, including existing air quality conditions, on the Project are not impacts for CEQA purposes, the following analysis is presented for informational purposes and to demonstrate compliance with SJCAPCD guidance. The first step in evaluating the potential for impacts to sensitive receptors for TACs from the Project 419
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
41 is to perform a screening level analysis. For Type B projects, one type of screening tool is found in the CARB Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective.
This handbook includes a table (depicted in Table 4) with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources. The screening level analysis for the Project shows that TACs are not a concern based upon the recommendations provided in Table 4.
An evaluation of nearby land uses considering CARB’s Pollution Mapping Tool shows that the Project will not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources. Table 4 indicates that new sensitive land uses should not be sited within 500 feet of a freeway/urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. The Project is located more than 14,000 feet from the SR 198 freeway. Therefore, TAC’s from sources in the study area will not significantly impact the Project. In addition, the Project will not generate TAC’s that would have a significant impact on the environment or adjacent sensitive receptors.
Odors
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).
Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.
When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the SJVAPCD. Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors should be deemed to have a significant impact. Because the project is a residential development, it is not expected to generate significant odors.
The SJVAPCD requires that an analysis of potential odor impacts be conducted for the following two situations:
Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to be located near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and
420
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
42 Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.
The Project will not generate odorous emissions given the nature or characteristics of residential developments. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJV Air Basin. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 5 above along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. None of the facilities shown in Table 5 are located within the vicinity of the Project.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA)
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals found in many parts of California. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types are also found in California. Construction of the Project may cause asbestos to become airborne due to the construction activities that will occur on site. The Project would be required to submit a Dust Control Plan under the SJVAPCD’s Rule 8021. Compliance with Rule 8021 would limit fugitive dust emissions from construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities associated with the Project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CARB, in consultation with MPOs, has provided each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035.
For the TCAG region, CARB set targets at thirteen (13) percent per capita decrease in 2020 and a sixteen (16) percent per capita decrease in 2035 from a base year of 2005. TCAG’s 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects that the Tulare County region would achieve the prescribed emissions targets.
In 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the following guidance documents applicable to projects within the San Joaquin Valley:
Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009), and
District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency (SJVAPCD 2009).
This guidance and policy are the reference documents referenced in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts adopted in March 2015 (SJVAPCD 2015).
Consistent with the District Guidance and District Policy above, SJVAPCD (2015) acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds, and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
i. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation 421
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
43 program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions; ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS); and
iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual (BAU).
In the event that a local air district’s guidance for addressing GHG impacts does not use numerical GHG emissions thresholds, at the lead agency’s discretion, a neighboring air district’s GHG threshold may be used to determine impacts. In December 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. This threshold is often used by agencies, such as the California Public Utilities Commission, to evaluate GHG impacts in areas that do not have specific thresholds (CPUC 2015)3. Though the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table 9 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model, which is less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD.
Table 9
Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.3.3 Indirect Source Review
The Project is subject to the SJVAPCD’s ISR program, which is also known as Rule 9510. Rule 9510 and the Administrative ISR Fee Rule (Rule 3180) are the result of state requirements outlined in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 40604 and the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The purpose of the SJVAPCD’s ISR program is to reduce emissions of NOx and PM10 from new projects. In general, new development contributes to the air-pollution problem in the Valley by increasing the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. 3 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2015. Section 4.7, “Greenhouse Gases.” Final Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Barbara County Reliability Project. May 2015. Accessed January 18, 2018. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/ene/sbcrp/SBCRP_FEIR.html.
Project Operational Emissions Per Year 9910 MT/yr
CO2e
Source: CalEEMod
Summary Report
422
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
44 Utilizing the ISR Fee Estimator calculator available on the SJVAPCD website, it was determined that the Project’s total cost for emission reductions is $594,975.68 without implementation of emission reduction measures. The ISR Fee Estimator worksheets are included in Appendix B. The fee noted above may be reduced dependent upon the formal ISR review process. 423
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
45 4.0 Impact Determinations and Recommended
Mitigation
In accordance with CEQA, when a proposed project is consistent with a General Plan for which an EIR has been certified, the effects of that project are evaluated to determine if they will result in project-specific significant adverse impacts on the environment. Accordingly, this analysis identifies any potential environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project or its site that differ from those impacts already analyzed and disclosed in the City’s General Plan EIR. The criteria used to determine the significance of an air quality or greenhouse gas impact are based on the following thresholds of significance, which come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, air quality or greenhouse gas impacts resulting from the Project are considered significant if the Project would:
Air Quality
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
4.1 Air Quality
4.1.1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan The primary way of determining consistency with the air quality plan’s (AQP’s) assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure that the Project’s population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQPs for the air basin.
As required by California law, city and county General Plans contain a Land Use Element that details the types and quantities of land uses that the city or county estimates will be needed for future growth, and that designate locations for land uses to regulate growth. TCAG uses the 424
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
46 growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans to estimate future average daily trips and then VMT, which are then provided to SJVAPCD to estimate future emissions in the AQPs. Existing and future pollutant emissions computed in the AQP are based on land uses from area general plans. AQPs detail the control measures and emission reductions required for reaching attainment of the air standards.
The applicable General Plan for the project is the City of Visalia General Plan, which was adopted in 2014. The Project would be consistent with the General Plan upon preparation and approval of a master plan in accordance with General Plan Policy LU-P-22, which addresses annexation and development of project sites that are located outside of the current Urban Development Boundary. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in the plan and the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQPs. As a result, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plans. Therefore, no mitigation is needed.
4.1.2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
The Tulare County area is nonattainment for Federal and State air quality standards for ozone, in attainment of Federal standards and nonattainment for State standards for PM10, and nonattainment for Federal and State standards for PM2.5. The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2016 and 2013 Ozone Plans, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve Federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB regarding ozone and PM. Inconsistency with any of the plans would be considered a cumulatively adverse air quality impact. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, the Project is consistent with the currently adopted General Plan for the City of Visalia and is therefore consistent with the population growth and VMT applied in the plan.
Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the 2016 and 2013 Ozone Plan, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan.
Project specific emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the County is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. It should be noted that a project isn’t characterized as cumulatively insignificant when project emissions fall below thresholds of significance. As discussed in Section 3.1, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for determining environmental significance which are provided in Table 6.
As discussed above in Section 3.2 and 3.3, results of the analysis show that emissions generated from construction and operation of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, no mitigation is needed. 425
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
47 4.1.3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses that have the greatest potential to attract these types of sensitive receptors include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. From a health risk perspective, the proposed Project is a Type B project in that it may potentially place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing sources.
The first step in evaluating the potential for impacts to sensitive receptors for TACs from the Project is to perform a screening level analysis. For Type B projects, one type of screening tool is found in the CARB Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective.
This handbook includes a table (depicted in Table 4) with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources. The screening level analysis for the Project shows that TACs are not a concern based upon the recommendations provided in Table 4. An evaluation of nearby land uses considering CARB’s Pollution Mapping Tool shows that the Project will not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources. Table 4 indicates that new sensitive land uses should not be sited within 500 feet of a freeway/urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. The Project is located more than 14,000 feet from the SR 198 freeway. Therefore, TAC’s from sources in the study area will not significantly impact the Project. In addition, the Project will not generate TAC’s that would have a significant impact on the environment or adjacent sensitive receptors. Therefore, no mitigation is needed.
Short-Term Impacts
The annual emissions from the construction phase of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants as shown in Table 7. Therefore, construction emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant.
Long-Term Impacts
Long-Term emissions from the Project are generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as lawn maintenance equipment.
Emissions from long-term operations generally represent a project’s most substantial air quality impact. Table 8 summarizes the Project’s operational impacts by pollutant. Results indicate that the annual operational emissions from the Project will be less than the SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, operational emissions associated with the Project are considered less than significant.
426
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
48 4.1.4 Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people
The SJVAPCD requires that an analysis of potential odor impacts be conducted for the following two situations:
Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to be located near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and
Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people located near existing odor sources.
The Project will not generate odorous emissions given the nature or characteristics of residential developments. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJV Air Basin. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 5 above along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. None of the facilities shown in Table 5 are located within the vicinity of the Project.
Therefore, no mitigation is needed.
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.2.1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
The SJVAPCD acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
i. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions; ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS); and iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual (BAU).
The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. Though the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table 9 shows the yearly GHG emissions 427
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
49 generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model, which is less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD.
The resulting permanent greenhouse gas increases related to Project operations would be within the greenhouse gas increases analyzed in the General Plan EIR, so there would be no increase in severity to the previously-identified greenhouse gas impacts, and implementation of the Project will not result in Project-specific or site-specific significant adverse impacts from greenhouse gas emissions within the Project study area. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.
4.2.2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Under AB 32, CARB must adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the 1990 emission cap by 2020. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its initial Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap of CARB’s plans to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan.
SB 375 requires MPOs to adopt a SCS or APS that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO's regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, has provided each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. For the TCAG region, CARB set targets at thirteen (13) percent per capita decrease in 2020 and a sixteen (16) percent per capita decrease in 2035 from a base year of 2005.
Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-30-15 requires MPO’s to implement measures that will achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.
As required by California law, city and county General Plans contain a Land Use Element that details the types and quantities of land uses that the city or county estimates will be needed for future growth, and that designate locations for land uses to regulate growth. TCAG uses the growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans to estimate future average daily trips and then VMT, which are then provided to SJVAPCD to estimate future emissions in the AQPs. The applicable General Plan for the project is the City of Visalia General Plan, which was adopted in 2014.
The Project is consistent with the currently adopted General Plan for the City of Visalia and the adopted 2018 RTP/SCS and is therefore consistent with the population growth and VMT applied 428
Gunning Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
50 in those plan documents. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQP. It should also be noted that yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project (Table 9) are less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD (see the discussion for Impact
4.2.1 above).
CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan. The current plan has identified new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s 2030 GHG limit. Below is a list of applicable strategies in the Scoping Plan and the Project’s consistency with those strategies.
California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs for long-term climate change goals.
The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to light-duty vehicles that would access the residential development. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.
Energy Efficiency – Pursuit of comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards.
The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. Though this measure applies to the State to increase its energy standards, the Project would comply with this measure through existing regulation. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.
Low Carbon Fuel – Development and adoption of the low carbon fuel standard.
The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to the fuel used by vehicles that would access the residential development. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.
Based on the assessment above, the Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The Project furthers the achievement of the County’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.
429
APPENDIX A
CalEEMod Emissions Worksheets
430
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Acreage based on project data
Vehicle Trips - ITE Trip Generation Rates 10th Edition
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Construction Phase - Adjusted to reflect estimated phasing Tulare County, Annual
Visalia Gunning Residential Project
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 555.00 Dwelling Unit 93.00 999,000.00 1587
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 51
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2025
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 1 of 36 431
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,550.00 461.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/23/2029 12/23/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/21/2028 2/19/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/22/2028 7/22/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/23/2028 7/23/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/22/2028 2/20/2024 tblLandUse LotAcreage 180.19 93.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2025
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.54
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 8.55
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.44
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 93.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 93.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 2 of 36 432
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.4088 4.1842 2.6935 5.0800e0031.2292 0.1986 1.4278 0.5807 0.1834 0.7640 0.0000 446.3246 446.3246 0.1335 0.0000 449.6627 2022 0.3974 3.6883 3.2786 7.7500e0030.8434 0.1467 0.9900 0.3250 0.1364 0.4614 0.0000 690.0300 690.0300 0.1380 0.0000 693.4808 2023 0.3168 2.5575 2.8490 7.3500e0030.2578 0.0929 0.3507 0.0697 0.0874 0.1571 0.0000 658.7486 658.7486 0.0819 0.0000 660.7969 2024 9.4923 0.9325 1.3547 2.6200e0030.0598 0.0406 0.1004 0.0161 0.0378 0.0539 0.0000 232.2309 232.2309 0.0481 0.0000 233.4324 Total 10.6153 11.3625 10.1757 0.0228 2.3902 0.4787 2.8689 0.9914 0.4450 1.4364 0.0000 2,027.3341 2,027.3341 0.4015 0.0000 2,037.3728 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 3 of 36 433
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.4088 4.1842 2.6935 5.0800e0031.2292 0.1986 1.4278 0.5807 0.1834 0.7640 0.0000 446.3241 446.3241 0.1335 0.0000 449.6622 2022 0.3974 3.6883 3.2786 7.7500e0030.8434 0.1467 0.9900 0.3250 0.1364 0.4614 0.0000 690.0294 690.0294 0.1380 0.0000 693.4802 2023 0.3168 2.5575 2.8490 7.3500e0030.2578 0.0929 0.3507 0.0697 0.0874 0.1571 0.0000 658.7483 658.7483 0.0819 0.0000 660.7966 2024 9.4923 0.9325 1.3547 2.6200e0030.0598 0.0406 0.1004 0.0161 0.0378 0.0539 0.0000 232.2307 232.2307 0.0481 0.0000 233.4322 Total 10.6153 11.3625 10.1757 0.0228 2.3902 0.4787 2.8689 0.9914 0.4450 1.4364 0.0000 2,027.3325 2,027.3325 0.4015 0.0000 2,037.3712 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 4 of 36 434
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 4.9872 0.2550 4.2054 1.5400e0030.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 247.1616 247.1616 0.0111 4.4100e003248.7515 Energy 0.0961 0.8211 0.3494 5.2400e0030.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0000 2,471.3223 2,471.3223 0.0870 0.0317 2,482.9304 Mobile 1.3226 11.0829 14.5351 0.0722 5.5092 0.0445 5.5537 1.4792 0.0416 1.5208 0.0000 6,687.7481 6,687.7481 0.2398 0.0000 6,693.7427 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 115.9728 0.0000 115.9728 6.8538 0.0000 287.3177 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 11.4721 80.1325 91.6046 1.1819 0.0286 129.6668 Total 6.4058 12.1589 19.0898 0.0790 5.5092 0.1505 5.6597 1.4792 0.1476 1.6268 127.4449 9,486.3644 9,613.8093 8.3735 0.0646 9,842.4090 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 5 of 36 435
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 4.9872 0.2550 4.2054 1.5400e0030.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 247.1616 247.1616 0.0111 4.4100e003248.7515 Energy 0.0961 0.8211 0.3494 5.2400e0030.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0000 2,471.3223 2,471.3223 0.0870 0.0317 2,482.9304 Mobile 1.3226 11.0829 14.5351 0.0722 5.5092 0.0445 5.5537 1.4792 0.0416 1.5208 0.0000 6,687.7481 6,687.7481 0.2398 0.0000 6,693.7427 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 115.9728 0.0000 115.9728 6.8538 0.0000 287.3177 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 11.4721 80.1325 91.6046 1.1819 0.0286 129.6668 Total 6.4058 12.1589 19.0898 0.0790 5.5092 0.1505 5.6597 1.4792 0.1476 1.6268 127.4449 9,486.3644 9,613.8093 8.3735 0.0646 9,842.4090 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 6 of 36 436
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2021 7/16/2021 5 100
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/17/2021 10/8/2021 5 60 3 Grading Grading 10/9/2021 5/13/2022 5 155
4 Building Construction Building Construction 5/14/2022 2/19/2024 5 461 5 Paving Paving 2/20/2024 7/22/2024 5 110
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/23/2024 12/23/2024 5 110 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,022,975; Residential Outdoor: 674,325; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 387.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 7 of 36 437
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 8 of 36 438
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1583 1.5720 1.0783 1.9400e0030.0776 0.0776 0.0721 0.0721 0.0000 170.0039 170.0039 0.0479 0.0000 171.2002 Total 0.1583 1.5720 1.0783 1.9400e0030.0776 0.0776 0.0721 0.0721 0.0000 170.0039 170.0039 0.0479 0.0000 171.2002 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Architectural Coating 1 40.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 200.00 59.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 9 of 36 439
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.2500e0032.0900e0030.0215 6.0000e0055.9700e0034.0000e0056.0100e0031.5900e0034.0000e0051.6300e0030.0000 4.9717 4.9717 1.4000e0040.0000 4.9752 Total 3.2500e0032.0900e0030.0215 6.0000e0055.9700e0034.0000e0056.0100e0031.5900e0034.0000e0051.6300e0030.0000 4.9717 4.9717 1.4000e0040.0000 4.9752 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1583 1.5720 1.0783 1.9400e0030.0776 0.0776 0.0721 0.0721 0.0000 170.0037 170.0037 0.0479 0.0000 171.2000 Total 0.1583 1.5720 1.0783 1.9400e0030.0776 0.0776 0.0721 0.0721 0.0000 170.0037 170.0037 0.0479 0.0000 171.2000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 10 of 36 440
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.2500e0032.0900e0030.0215 6.0000e0055.9700e0034.0000e0056.0100e0031.5900e0034.0000e0051.6300e0030.0000 4.9717 4.9717 1.4000e0040.0000 4.9752 Total 3.2500e0032.0900e0030.0215 6.0000e0055.9700e0034.0000e0056.0100e0031.5900e0034.0000e0051.6300e0030.0000 4.9717 4.9717 1.4000e0040.0000 4.9752 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.5420 0.0000 0.5420 0.2979 0.0000 0.2979 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1167 1.2149 0.6346 1.1400e0030.0613 0.0613 0.0564 0.0564 0.0000 100.3072 100.3072 0.0324 0.0000 101.1182 Total 0.1167 1.2149 0.6346 1.1400e0030.5420 0.0613 0.6033 0.2979 0.0564 0.3544 0.0000 100.3072 100.3072 0.0324 0.0000 101.1182 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 11 of 36 441
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.3400e0031.5100e0030.0155 4.0000e0054.3000e0033.0000e0054.3300e0031.1400e0033.0000e0051.1700e0030.0000 3.5796 3.5796 1.0000e0040.0000 3.5822 Total 2.3400e0031.5100e0030.0155 4.0000e0054.3000e0033.0000e0054.3300e0031.1400e0033.0000e0051.1700e0030.0000 3.5796 3.5796 1.0000e0040.0000 3.5822 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.5420 0.0000 0.5420 0.2979 0.0000 0.2979 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1167 1.2149 0.6346 1.1400e0030.0613 0.0613 0.0564 0.0564 0.0000 100.3070 100.3070 0.0324 0.0000 101.1181 Total 0.1167 1.2149 0.6346 1.1400e0030.5420 0.0613 0.6033 0.2979 0.0564 0.3544 0.0000 100.3070 100.3070 0.0324 0.0000 101.1181 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 12 of 36 442
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.3400e0031.5100e0030.0155 4.0000e0054.3000e0033.0000e0054.3300e0031.1400e0033.0000e0051.1700e0030.0000 3.5796 3.5796 1.0000e0040.0000 3.5822 Total 2.3400e0031.5100e0030.0155 4.0000e0054.3000e0033.0000e0054.3300e0031.1400e0033.0000e0051.1700e0030.0000 3.5796 3.5796 1.0000e0040.0000 3.5822 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.6722 0.0000 0.6722 0.2787 0.0000 0.2787 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1257 1.3920 0.9264 1.8600e0030.0596 0.0596 0.0548 0.0548 0.0000 163.4849 163.4849 0.0529 0.0000 164.8068 Total 0.1257 1.3920 0.9264 1.8600e0030.6722 0.0596 0.7317 0.2787 0.0548 0.3335 0.0000 163.4849 163.4849 0.0529 0.0000 164.8068 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 13 of 36 443
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6000e0031.6700e0030.0172 4.0000e0054.7800e0033.0000e0054.8100e0031.2700e0033.0000e0051.3000e0030.0000 3.9773 3.9773 1.1000e0040.0000 3.9802 Total 2.6000e0031.6700e0030.0172 4.0000e0054.7800e0033.0000e0054.8100e0031.2700e0033.0000e0051.3000e0030.0000 3.9773 3.9773 1.1000e0040.0000 3.9802 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.6722 0.0000 0.6722 0.2787 0.0000 0.2787 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1257 1.3920 0.9264 1.8600e0030.0596 0.0596 0.0548 0.0548 0.0000 163.4848 163.4848 0.0529 0.0000 164.8066 Total 0.1257 1.3920 0.9264 1.8600e0030.6722 0.0596 0.7317 0.2787 0.0548 0.3335 0.0000 163.4848 163.4848 0.0529 0.0000 164.8066 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 14 of 36 444
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6000e0031.6700e0030.0172 4.0000e0054.7800e0033.0000e0054.8100e0031.2700e0033.0000e0051.3000e0030.0000 3.9773 3.9773 1.1000e0040.0000 3.9802 Total 2.6000e0031.6700e0030.0172 4.0000e0054.7800e0033.0000e0054.8100e0031.2700e0033.0000e0051.3000e0030.0000 3.9773 3.9773 1.1000e0040.0000 3.9802 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.6722 0.0000 0.6722 0.2787 0.0000 0.2787 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1722 1.8451 1.3795 2.9500e0030.0777 0.0777 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 259.0394 259.0394 0.0838 0.0000 261.1338 Total 0.1722 1.8451 1.3795 2.9500e0030.6722 0.0777 0.7498 0.2787 0.0714 0.3502 0.0000 259.0394 259.0394 0.0838 0.0000 261.1338 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 15 of 36 445
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8100e0032.3600e0030.0247 7.0000e0057.5700e0035.0000e0057.6200e0032.0100e0035.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 6.0742 6.0742 1.6000e0040.0000 6.0782 Total 3.8100e0032.3600e0030.0247 7.0000e0057.5700e0035.0000e0057.6200e0032.0100e0035.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 6.0742 6.0742 1.6000e0040.0000 6.0782 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.6722 0.0000 0.6722 0.2787 0.0000 0.2787 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1722 1.8451 1.3795 2.9500e0030.0777 0.0777 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 259.0390 259.0390 0.0838 0.0000 261.1335 Total 0.1722 1.8451 1.3795 2.9500e0030.6722 0.0777 0.7498 0.2787 0.0714 0.3502 0.0000 259.0390 259.0390 0.0838 0.0000 261.1335 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 16 of 36 446
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8100e0032.3600e0030.0247 7.0000e0057.5700e0035.0000e0057.6200e0032.0100e0035.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 6.0742 6.0742 1.6000e0040.0000 6.0782 Total 3.8100e0032.3600e0030.0247 7.0000e0057.5700e0035.0000e0057.6200e0032.0100e0035.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 6.0742 6.0742 1.6000e0040.0000 6.0782 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1408 1.2883 1.3500 2.2200e0030.0667 0.0667 0.0628 0.0628 0.0000 191.1733 191.1733 0.0458 0.0000 192.3183 Total 0.1408 1.2883 1.3500 2.2200e0030.0667 0.0667 0.0628 0.0628 0.0000 191.1733 191.1733 0.0458 0.0000 192.3183 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 17 of 36 447
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0145 0.5116 0.0948 1.3500e0030.0322 1.3700e0030.0335 9.3000e0031.3100e0030.0106 0.0000 128.2444 128.2444 5.5100e0030.0000 128.3822 Worker 0.0661 0.0410 0.4296 1.1700e0030.1314 8.5000e0040.1323 0.0349 7.9000e0040.0357 0.0000 105.4987 105.4987 2.7800e0030.0000 105.5683 Total 0.0806 0.5526 0.5244 2.5200e0030.1636 2.2200e0030.1658 0.0442 2.1000e0030.0463 0.0000 233.7431 233.7431 8.2900e0030.0000 233.9505 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1408 1.2883 1.3500 2.2200e0030.0667 0.0667 0.0628 0.0628 0.0000 191.1731 191.1731 0.0458 0.0000 192.3181 Total 0.1408 1.2883 1.3500 2.2200e0030.0667 0.0667 0.0628 0.0628 0.0000 191.1731 191.1731 0.0458 0.0000 192.3181 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 18 of 36 448
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0145 0.5116 0.0948 1.3500e0030.0322 1.3700e0030.0335 9.3000e0031.3100e0030.0106 0.0000 128.2444 128.2444 5.5100e0030.0000 128.3822 Worker 0.0661 0.0410 0.4296 1.1700e0030.1314 8.5000e0040.1323 0.0349 7.9000e0040.0357 0.0000 105.4987 105.4987 2.7800e0030.0000 105.5683 Total 0.0806 0.5526 0.5244 2.5200e0030.1636 2.2200e0030.1658 0.0442 2.1000e0030.0463 0.0000 233.7431 233.7431 8.2900e0030.0000 233.9505 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3462 301.3462 0.0717 0.0000 303.1383 Total 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3462 301.3462 0.0717 0.0000 303.1383 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 19 of 36 449
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0159 0.6300 0.1249 2.0800e0030.0507 6.5000e0040.0514 0.0147 6.2000e0040.0153 0.0000 197.3215 197.3215 6.3600e0030.0000 197.4806 Worker 0.0964 0.0575 0.6123 1.7700e0030.2071 1.3000e0030.2084 0.0551 1.1900e0030.0563 0.0000 160.0809 160.0809 3.8800e0030.0000 160.1780 Total 0.1123 0.6875 0.7373 3.8500e0030.2578 1.9500e0030.2598 0.0697 1.8100e0030.0715 0.0000 357.4025 357.4025 0.0102 0.0000 357.6586 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3458 301.3458 0.0717 0.0000 303.1380 Total 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3458 301.3458 0.0717 0.0000 303.1380 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 20 of 36 450
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0159 0.6300 0.1249 2.0800e0030.0507 6.5000e0040.0514 0.0147 6.2000e0040.0153 0.0000 197.3215 197.3215 6.3600e0030.0000 197.4806 Worker 0.0964 0.0575 0.6123 1.7700e0030.2071 1.3000e0030.2084 0.0551 1.1900e0030.0563 0.0000 160.0809 160.0809 3.8800e0030.0000 160.1780 Total 0.1123 0.6875 0.7373 3.8500e0030.2578 1.9500e0030.2598 0.0697 1.8100e0030.0715 0.0000 357.4025 357.4025 0.0102 0.0000 357.6586 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0265 0.2420 0.2910 4.9000e0040.0110 0.0110 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 41.7328 41.7328 9.8700e0030.0000 41.9796 Total 0.0265 0.2420 0.2910 4.9000e0040.0110 0.0110 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 41.7328 41.7328 9.8700e0030.0000 41.9796 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 21 of 36 451
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.1300e0030.0865 0.0163 2.9000e0047.0200e0039.0000e0057.1100e0032.0300e0038.0000e0052.1100e0030.0000 27.1342 27.1342 8.9000e0040.0000 27.1566 Worker 0.0124 7.1300e0030.0779 2.4000e0040.0287 1.7000e0040.0289 7.6200e0031.6000e0047.7800e0030.0000 21.2876 21.2876 4.8000e0040.0000 21.2996 Total 0.0146 0.0936 0.0942 5.3000e0040.0357 2.6000e0040.0360 9.6500e0032.4000e0049.8900e0030.0000 48.4217 48.4217 1.3700e0030.0000 48.4561 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0265 0.2420 0.2910 4.9000e0040.0110 0.0110 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 41.7328 41.7328 9.8700e0030.0000 41.9795 Total 0.0265 0.2420 0.2910 4.9000e0040.0110 0.0110 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 41.7328 41.7328 9.8700e0030.0000 41.9795 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 22 of 36 452
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.1300e0030.0865 0.0163 2.9000e0047.0200e0039.0000e0057.1100e0032.0300e0038.0000e0052.1100e0030.0000 27.1342 27.1342 8.9000e0040.0000 27.1566 Worker 0.0124 7.1300e0030.0779 2.4000e0040.0287 1.7000e0040.0289 7.6200e0031.6000e0047.7800e0030.0000 21.2876 21.2876 4.8000e0040.0000 21.2996 Total 0.0146 0.0936 0.0942 5.3000e0040.0357 2.6000e0040.0360 9.6500e0032.4000e0049.8900e0030.0000 48.4217 48.4217 1.3700e0030.0000 48.4561 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0544 0.5239 0.8044 1.2500e0030.0258 0.0258 0.0237 0.0237 0.0000 110.1459 110.1459 0.0356 0.0000 111.0365 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0544 0.5239 0.8044 1.2500e0030.0258 0.0258 0.0237 0.0237 0.0000 110.1459 110.1459 0.0356 0.0000 111.0365 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 23 of 36 453
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8500e0031.6300e0030.0179 5.0000e0056.5700e0034.0000e0056.6100e0031.7500e0034.0000e0051.7800e0030.0000 4.8784 4.8784 1.1000e0040.0000 4.8812 Total 2.8500e0031.6300e0030.0179 5.0000e0056.5700e0034.0000e0056.6100e0031.7500e0034.0000e0051.7800e0030.0000 4.8784 4.8784 1.1000e0040.0000 4.8812 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0544 0.5239 0.8044 1.2500e0030.0258 0.0258 0.0237 0.0237 0.0000 110.1458 110.1458 0.0356 0.0000 111.0364 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0544 0.5239 0.8044 1.2500e0030.0258 0.0258 0.0237 0.0237 0.0000 110.1458 110.1458 0.0356 0.0000 111.0364 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 24 of 36 454
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8500e0031.6300e0030.0179 5.0000e0056.5700e0034.0000e0056.6100e0031.7500e0034.0000e0051.7800e0030.0000 4.8784 4.8784 1.1000e0040.0000 4.8812 Total 2.8500e0031.6300e0030.0179 5.0000e0056.5700e0034.0000e0056.6100e0031.7500e0034.0000e0051.7800e0030.0000 4.8784 4.8784 1.1000e0040.0000 4.8812 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 9.3765 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.9400e0030.0670 0.0996 1.6000e0043.3500e0033.3500e0033.3500e0033.3500e0030.0000 14.0429 14.0429 7.9000e0040.0000 14.0627 Total 9.3864 0.0670 0.0996 1.6000e0043.3500e0033.3500e0033.3500e0033.3500e0030.0000 14.0429 14.0429 7.9000e0040.0000 14.0627 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 25 of 36 455
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.6000e0034.3600e0030.0476 1.4000e0040.0175 1.1000e0040.0176 4.6600e0031.0000e0044.7600e0030.0000 13.0091 13.0091 2.9000e0040.0000 13.0164 Total 7.6000e0034.3600e0030.0476 1.4000e0040.0175 1.1000e0040.0176 4.6600e0031.0000e0044.7600e0030.0000 13.0091 13.0091 2.9000e0040.0000 13.0164 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 9.3765 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.9400e0030.0670 0.0996 1.6000e0043.3500e0033.3500e0033.3500e0033.3500e0030.0000 14.0429 14.0429 7.9000e0040.0000 14.0627 Total 9.3864 0.0670 0.0996 1.6000e0043.3500e0033.3500e0033.3500e0033.3500e0030.0000 14.0429 14.0429 7.9000e0040.0000 14.0627 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 26 of 36 456
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.3226 11.0829 14.5351 0.0722 5.5092 0.0445 5.5537 1.4792 0.0416 1.5208 0.0000 6,687.7481 6,687.7481 0.2398 0.0000 6,693.7427 Unmitigated 1.3226 11.0829 14.5351 0.0722 5.5092 0.0445 5.5537 1.4792 0.0416 1.5208 0.0000 6,687.7481 6,687.7481 0.2398 0.0000 6,693.7427
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.6000e0034.3600e0030.0476 1.4000e0040.0175 1.1000e0040.0176 4.6600e0031.0000e0044.7600e0030.0000 13.0091 13.0091 2.9000e0040.0000 13.0164 Total 7.6000e0034.3600e0030.0476 1.4000e0040.0175 1.1000e0040.0176 4.6600e0031.0000e0044.7600e0030.0000 13.0091 13.0091 2.9000e0040.0000 13.0164 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 27 of 36 457
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 5,239.20 5,294.70 4745.25 14,591,358 14,591,358 Total 5,239.20 5,294.70 4,745.25 14,591,358 14,591,358
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or CWH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 38.40 22.60 39.00 86 11 3
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
0.547974 0.030892 0.177362 0.116043 0.015836 0.004304 0.020124 0.078823 0.001802 0.001136 0.004060 0.001058 0.000587 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 28 of 36 458
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,520.4541 1,520.4541 0.0688 0.0142 1,526.4117 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,520.4541 1,520.4541 0.0688 0.0142 1,526.4117 NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0961 0.8211 0.3494 5.2400e0030.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0000 950.8682 950.8682 0.0182 0.0174 956.5187 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0961 0.8211 0.3494 5.2400e0030.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0000 950.8682 950.8682 0.0182 0.0174 956.5187
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
1.78186e
+007
0.0961 0.8211 0.3494 5.2400e0030.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0000 950.8682 950.8682 0.0182 0.0174 956.5187 Total 0.0961 0.8211 0.3494 5.2400e0030.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0000 950.8682 950.8682 0.0182 0.0174 956.5187 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 29 of 36 459
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
1.78186e
+007
0.0961 0.8211 0.3494 5.2400e0030.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0000 950.8682 950.8682 0.0182 0.0174 956.5187 Total 0.0961 0.8211 0.3494 5.2400e0030.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0664 0.0000 950.8682 950.8682 0.0182 0.0174 956.5187 Mitigated
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
5.22652e
+006
1,520.4541 0.0688 0.0142 1,526.4117
Total 1,520.4541 0.0688 0.0142 1,526.4117
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 30 of 36 460
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 4.9872 0.2550 4.2054 1.5400e0030.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 247.1616 247.1616 0.0111 4.4100e003248.7515 Unmitigated 4.9872 0.2550 4.2054 1.5400e0030.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 247.1616 247.1616 0.0111 4.4100e003248.7515
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
5.22652e
+006
1,520.4541 0.0688 0.0142 1,526.4117
Total 1,520.4541 0.0688 0.0142 1,526.4117
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 31 of 36 461
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.9377 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
3.9016 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0243 0.2076 0.0883 1.3300e0030.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 240.4301 240.4301 4.6100e0034.4100e003241.8589 Landscaping 0.1236 0.0474 4.1170 2.2000e0040.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0000 6.7315 6.7315 6.4500e0030.0000 6.8926 Total 4.9871 0.2550 4.2054 1.5500e0030.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 247.1616 247.1616 0.0111 4.4100e003248.7515 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 32 of 36 462
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 91.6046 1.1819 0.0286 129.6668
Unmitigated 91.6046 1.1819 0.0286 129.6668
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.9377 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
3.9016 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0243 0.2076 0.0883 1.3300e0030.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 240.4301 240.4301 4.6100e0034.4100e003241.8589 Landscaping 0.1236 0.0474 4.1170 2.2000e0040.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.0000 6.7315 6.7315 6.4500e0030.0000 6.8926 Total 4.9871 0.2550 4.2054 1.5500e0030.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0000 247.1616 247.1616 0.0111 4.4100e003248.7515 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 33 of 36 463
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
36.1605 /
22.7968
91.6046 1.1819 0.0286 129.6668
Total 91.6046 1.1819 0.0286 129.6668
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
36.1605 /
22.7968
91.6046 1.1819 0.0286 129.6668
Total 91.6046 1.1819 0.0286 129.6668
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 34 of 36 464
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 115.9728 6.8538 0.0000 287.3177
Unmitigated 115.9728 6.8538 0.0000 287.3177
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
571.32 115.9728 6.8538 0.0000 287.3177
Total 115.9728 6.8538 0.0000 287.3177
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 35 of 36 465
10.0 Vegetation
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
571.32 115.9728 6.8538 0.0000 287.3177
Total 115.9728 6.8538 0.0000 287.3177
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/31/2021 3:14 PM Page 36 of 36 466
APPENDIX B
ISR Fee Worksheets
467
Emissions Estimator Worksheet 2/2/2021
No q
Project
Phase Name
ISR
Phase
Construction
Start Date
Unmitigated
Baseline(1)
(TPY)
Mitigated
Baseline(2)
(TPY)
Achieved
On-site
Reductions(3)
(tons)
Required
Off-site
Reductions(4)
(tons)
Unmitigated
Baseline(1)
(TPY)
Mitigated
Baseline(2)
(TPY)
Achieved
On-site
Reductions(3)
(tons)
Required
Off-site
Reductions(4)
(tons)
ISR Phase NOx PM10
1 3/1/2021 11.3625 11.3625 0.0000 2.2725 2.8689 2.8689 0.0000 1.2910 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 0.0000
3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3 0.0000 0.0000
4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4 0.0000 0.0000
5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5 0.0000 0.0000
6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000
7 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7 0.0000 0.0000
8 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8 0.0000 0.0000
9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9 0.0000 0.0000
10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10 0.0000 0.0000
Total 11.3625 11.3625 0.0000 2.2725 2.8689 2.8689 0.0000 1.2910 Total 0.0000 0.0000 Project
Phase Name
ISR
Phase
Operation
Start Date
Unmitigated
Baseline(1)
(TPY)
Mitigated
Baseline(2)
(TPY)
Achieved
On-site
Reductions(3)
(tons)
Required
Off-site
Reductions(4)
(tons)
Total
Emission
Reductions
Required by
Rule(6)
Average
Annual
Emission
Reductions
Required by
Rule(7)
Unmitigated
Baseline(1)
(TPY)
Mitigated
Baseline(2)
(TPY)
Achieved
On-site
Reductions(3)
(tons)
Required
Off-site
Reductions(4)
(tons)
Total
Emission
Reductions
Required by
Rule(6)
Average
Annual
Emission
Reductions
Required by
Rule(7)
ISR Phase NOx PM10
1 1/1/2025 12.1589 12.1589 0.0000 30.3973 30.3973 3.0397 5.6597 5.6597 0.0000 28.2985 28.2985 2.8299 1 32.6698 29.5895 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 0.0000 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3 0.0000 0.0000 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4 0.0000 0.0000 5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 7 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7 0.0000 0.0000 8 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8 0.0000 0.0000 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9 0.0000 0.0000 10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10 0.0000 0.0000 Total 12.1589 12.1589 0.0000 30.3973 30.3973 3.0397 5.6597 5.6597 0.0000 28.2985 28.2985 2.8299 Total 32.6698 29.5895
1.2910
Emission Reductions
Required by Rule(5)
Emission Reductions
Required by Rule(5)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Applicant/Business Name: Gunning Development
Project Name:
Project Location:
District Project ID No.:
Gunning Develoment
City of Visalia
Total Required Off-Site Reductions (tons)
Total Achieved On-Site Reductions (tons)
NOx
Project Operations Emissions (Area + Mobile)
PM10
2.2725
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.2725
1.2910
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
NOx PM10
If applicant selected Construction Clean Fleet Mitigation Measure - Please select "Yes" from dropdown menu Project Construction Emissions
Notes:
TPY: Tons Per Year
(1) Unmitigated Baseline: The project's baseline emissions generated with no on-site emission reduction measures. (2) Mitigated Baseline: The project's baseline emissions generated after on-site emisison reduction measures have been applied. (3) Achieved On-site Reductions: The project's emission reductions achieved after on-site emission reduction measures have been applied. (4) Required Off-site Reductions: The project's remaining emission reductions required by Rule 9510 if on-site emission reduction measures did not achieive the required rule reductions. (5) Emission Reductions Required by Rule: The project's emission reductions required (20% NOx and 45% PM10) for construction from the unmitigated baseline. (6) Total Emission Reductions Required by Rule: The project's emission reductions required (33.3% NOx and 50% PM10) for operations from the unmitigated baseline over a 10-year period. (7) Average Annual Emission Reductions Required by Rule: The project's total emission reduction for operations required by Rule 9510 divided by 10 years. 468
Fee Estimator Worksheet 2/2/2021
NOTES:
(1) The start date for each ISR phase is shown in TABLE 1. (2) If you have chosen a ONE-TIME payment for the project, then the total amount due for ALL PHASES is shown under TABLE 2. (3) If you have chosen a DEFERRED payment schedule or would like to propose a DEFERRED payment schedule for the project, the total amount due for a specific year is shown in TABLE 3 according to the schedule in TABLE 1. * If you have not provided a proposed payment date, the District sets a default invoice date of 60 days prior to start of the ISR phase.
Yes q
TABLE 2 -
NO FDS TABLE 3 - APPROVED FEE DEFERRAL SCHEDULE (FDS) BY PAYMENT YEAR Project
Phase Name
ISR
Phase
Start Date
per Phase
Scheduled
Payment
Date*
Required Offsite Reductions
(tons) 2017 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
32.6698 32.6698 32.6698
29.5895 29.5895 29.5895
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
32.6698 32.6698 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 32.6698 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
29.5895 29.5895 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.5895 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 $305,462 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $305,462 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$266,630 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $266,630 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Administrative Fee ($) $22,883.68 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,883.68 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Offsite Fee ($) $572,092.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $594,975.68 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Project Offsite Fee ($) $594,975.68
Year Nox PM10
2019 and Beyond $9,350 $9,011
Gunning Development
Gunning Develoment
City of Visalia
If applicant selected Fee Deferral Schedule -
Please select "Yes" from dropdown menu
2 3
5 Applicant/Business Name:
Project Name:
Project Location:
District Project ID No.:
3/1/21
TABLE 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION
4 8
9 10
7 $594,975.68
Rule 9510 Fee Schedule ($/ton)
Offsite Fee by Pollutant ($)
TABLE 2 -
No Fee Deferral Schedule (FDS)
T O T A L
(tons)
NOx
PM10
NOx
PM10
Pollutant
NOx
PM10
NOx
PM10
NOx
PM10
NOx
PM10
NOx
PM10
PM10
NOx
PM10
NOx
NOx
PM10
NOx
PM10
NOx
PM10
1 1/1/2021
6 469
BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS REPORT
D.R. HORTON, AMERICA’S BUILDER
PRATT FAMILY RANCH PROJECT
JUNE 2020
470
BIOLOGIAL ANALYSIS REPORT
PRATT FAMILY RANCH PROJECT
Prepared for:
D.R. Horton, America’s Builder
419 W. Murray Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact Person: Cliff Ronk
Phone: (559) 636-9850
Consultant:
6051 North Fresno Street, Suite 200
Fresno, CA 93710
Contact: Ernie Escobedo
Phone: (559) 449-2400
July 2020
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.
Unauthorized use prohibited.
Project #200180
471
Pratt Family Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 - Project Location.......................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 - Project Description.................................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 - Purpose, Goals, and Objectives ..........................................................................................................1-1 SECTION 2 - Methods ................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 - Definition of Biological Study Area ..................................................................................................2-1
2.2 - Definition of Special-Status Species.................................................................................................2-1
2.3 - Literature Review and Database Analysis.....................................................................................2-1
2.4 - Field Surveys.............................................................................................................................................2-3 SECTION 3 - Regulatory Setting............................................................................................................. 3-1 SECTION 4 - Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 - Physical Characteristics........................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 - Topography .............................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 - Climate.......................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.3 - Land Use ...................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.4 - Soils.............................................................................................................................................4-2
4.1.5 - Hydrology.................................................................................................................................4-2
4.2 - Vegetation and Other Land Cover.....................................................................................................4-5
4.2.1 - Annual Grassland ..................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.2 - Dryland Grain Crops.............................................................................................................4-5
4.2.3 - Irrigated Grain Crops...........................................................................................................4-8
4.2.4 - Urban .........................................................................................................................................4-8
4.3 - General Wildlife Observations ...........................................................................................................4-8 SECTION 5 - Special-Status Resources ................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 - Special-Status Species ...........................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 - Special-Status Plant Species..............................................................................................5-2
5.1.2 - Special-Status Animal Species..........................................................................................5-2
5.1.3 - Other Protected Species .....................................................................................................5-6
5.2 - Sensitive Natural Communities .........................................................................................................5-6
5.2.1 - Sensitive Plant Communities ............................................................................................5-6
5.2.2 - Critical Habitats .....................................................................................................................5-6
5.3 - Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources ......................................................................................................5-8
5.4 - Wildlife Movement.................................................................................................................................5-8
5.5 - Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances...........................................................5-8
5.5.1 - Valley Oak Ordinance ..........................................................................................................5-8 472
Pratt Family Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page ii
5.6 - Habitat Conservation Plans..............................................................................................................5-10 SECTION 6 - Impact Analysis and Recommended Mitigation Measures ................................... 6-1
6.1 - Special-Status Species ...........................................................................................................................6-1
6.1.1 - Project Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species........................................................6-1
6.1.2 - Project Impacts to Special-Status Animal Species....................................................6-1
6.2 - Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat.................................................................6-7
6.3 - Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources ......................................................................................................6-7
6.4 - Wildlife Movement.................................................................................................................................6-8
6.5 - Local Policies and Ordinances............................................................................................................6-8
6.6 - Adopted or Approved Plans................................................................................................................6-8 SECTION 7 - Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance ............................................................ 7-1 SECTION 8 - References ........................................................................................................................... 8-1 SECTION 9 - List of Preparers ................................................................................................................ 9-1 Appendices
Appendix A Regulatory Setting
Appendix B Representative Photographs
Appendix C Plants and Animals Observed On-site
Appendix D Special-Status Species Evaluation Table
Appendix E U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance
473
Pratt Family Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page iii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Map, ...............................................................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2 Project Location Map,................................................................................................................1-3 Figure 2-1 Biological Study Area,................................................................................................................2-2 Figure 4-1 Soils Mapped within the BSA,.................................................................................................4-3 Figure 4-2 NWI and NHD Records of Aquatic Resources, .................................................................4-4 Figure 4-3 FEMA Flood Zone Map, .............................................................................................................4-6 Figure 4-4 Vegetation Communities within the BSA,..........................................................................4-7 Figure 5-1 Special-Status Resources Observed within the BSA,.....................................................5-4 Figure 5-2 Mapped Critical Habitat in the Project Vicinity,..............................................................5-7 Figure 5-3 Movement Corridors and Linkages,.....................................................................................5-9 List of Tables
Table 4-1 Field Survey Personnel and Timing.......................................................................................4-1 Table 4-2 Habitat Acreages Observed On-site.......................................................................................4-5 Table 5-1 Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur On-site .................................................5-1
474
Pratt Family Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations
APN Assessor Parcel Number
BAR Biological Analysis Report
BIOS Biogeography Information and Observation System
BSA Biological Study Area
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CWA Clean Water Act
CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationships
DBH Diameter Brest Height
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
475
Biological Analysis Report Executive Summary
Pratt Family Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
QK prepared this Biological Analysis Report to evaluate the potential for sensitive biological resources that may be impacted by the Pratt Family Ranch Project (Project), Tulare County, California. The proposed Project, approximately 94.6 acres, is located to the north of Visalia, California at the intersection of Pratt Road and Mooney Boulevard. D.R. Horton proposes to construct a residential development, with single family homes ranging from low-density to medium density that will include open space/park areas.
A database review and reconnaissance level survey were completed by QK biologists to characterize existing conditions on-site and determine the potential for special-status species and other sensitive biological resources to occur on-site that may be impacted by the Project. Four special-status wildlife species were determined to have potential to occur within the Project site and survey buffer (Biological Study Area), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), American badger (Taxidea taxus), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Nesting migratory birds have potential to occur within the Biological Study Area. No sensitive natural communities or special-status plant species have potential to occur on the Project footprint and impacts to those resources are not expected to occur. Two water features occur within the Biological Study Are. Based upon the Project design, no impacts to these features are expected to occur.
All Project activities will occur on areas that are in current use or on recently disturbed agricultural land. Directimpacts could include direct injury or mortality of individual specialstatus species and/or their young during the breeding and/or nesting season. Indirect impacts include loss of foraging habitat for wildlife species that utilize the Project site.
Nesting migratory birds may be impacted if Project activities occur during the nesting season. The Project is not expected to substantially impact any other sensitive resources and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances, or conservation plans.
Because there is potential for special-status species to be present as transients and for migratory birds to nest on and near the Project site, avoidance and minimization measures are recommended which, when implemented, would reduce Project impacts to biological resources to less than significant level. This Biological Analysis Report is designed to support evaluation of the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, but it could also be used as the basis for additional environmental evaluation and documentation that may be required by other regulations.
476
Biological Analysis Report Introduction
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 1-1
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
Quad Knopf, Inc. (QK) prepared this Biological Analysis Report (BAR) to evaluate the potential impacts to special-status biological resources by the construction of the Pratt Family Ranch Project (Project) near the City of Visalia, California (Figure 1-1).
1.1 - Project Location
The proposed Project is located north of Visalia, California at the intersection of Pratt Road and Mooney Boulevard (Figure 1-2). It is within the Visalia, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, and within the northeast corner of Section 13, Township 18 South, Range 24 East and northwest corner of Section 18, Township 18 South, Range 25 East.
The proposed Project will be built on five contiguous parcels which include: Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 078-010-025, 078-010-028, 078-010-029, 078-110-022, 078-110-023, approximately 95 acres.
1.2 - Project Description
The Project proponent proposes to construct a residential development with single family homes ranging from low-density to medium density that will include open space/park areas encompassing approximately 94.6 acres (Project site).
1.3 - Purpose, Goals, and Objectives
The purpose of this BAR is to identify where potential special-status biological resources may occur within the Project site and survey area buffer, determine how those resources may be impacted by the Project, and recommend avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This BAR was prepared to support an analysis of biological conditions as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and to support regulatory permit applications, if needed. A summary of the State, local and federal regulations that could apply to this Project is provided in Section 3 and Appendix A. 477
Biological Analysis Report Introduction
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 1-2
Figure 1-1
Regional Map,
Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
478
Biological Analysis Report Introduction
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 1-3
Figure 1-2
Project Location Map,
Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
479
Biological Analysis Report Methods
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 2-1
SECTION 2 - METHODS
2.1 - Definition of Biological Study Area
The Biological Study Area (BSA) for the Pratt Family Ranch Project consists of the limits of the Project site and a 250-foot buffer surrounding the Project site (Figure 2-1).
2.2 - Definition of Special-Status Species
For the purposes of this report, special-status species include:
• Species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); species that are under review may be included if there is a reasonable expectation of listing within the life of the project,
• Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA),
• Species designated as Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern, or Watch List by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
• Other species included on the CDFW’s Special Animals List, • Plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) in categories 1 or 2, and • Species designated as locally important by the Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance or local policy.
The potential for each special-status species to occur in the study area was evaluated according to the following criteria:
• No. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable to meet the needs of the species (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime), and species would have been identifiable on-site if present (e.g., oak trees).
• Yes. Conditions on the site may, in some way, support a portion of the species ecology (foraging, reproduction, movement/migration).
• Present. Species was observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., California Native Diversity Database (CNDDB), other reports) on the site recently (within the last 5 years).
2.3 - Literature Review and Database Analysis
The following sources were reviewed for information on special-status biological resources in the project vicinity:
• CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2020a) • CDFW’s Special Animals List (CDFW 2009)
• CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System (CDFW 2020b) 480
Biological Analysis Report Methods
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 2-2
Figure 2-1
Biological Study Area,
Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
481
Biological Analysis Report Methods
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 2-3
• CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988)
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2020)
• Calflora (Calflora 2020)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2020a) • USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation system (USFWS 2020b) • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2020c)
• USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD; USGS 2020a)
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone maps (FEMA 2020) • U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2020a)
• NRCS National Cooperative Soil Survey, Lists of Hydric Soils, (NRCS 2020b) • Current and historical aerial imagery (Google LLC 2020) • Topographic maps (USGS 2020b)
For each of these data sources, the search was focused on the Visalia, California USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle in which the Project is located, plus the surrounding eight (8) quadrangles. A ten-mile search radius was used for acquiring information from the CNDDB.
The CNDDB provides element-specific spatial information on individually documented occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural communities. Some of the information available for review in the CNDDB is still undergoing review by the CDFW; these records are identified as unprocessed data. The CNPS database provides similar information as the CNDDB, but at a much lower spatial resolution. Much of this information in these databases is obtained opportunistically and is often focused on protected lands or on lands where development has been proposed. Neither database represents a comprehensive survey for special-status resources in the region. As such, the absence of recorded occurrences in these databases at any specific location does not preclude the possibility that a special-status resource could be present. The NWI and Web Soil Survey provide comprehensive data, but at a low resolution that requires confirmation in the field.
The results of the database inquiries were reviewed to develop a list of special-status resources that may be present in the vicinity of the Project. The resources were then evaluated against existing conditions observed during the site visit to determine which have the potential to occur, and then the potential for the Project to impact those resources was assessed.
2.4 - Field Surveys
A reconnaissance survey of the BSA was conducted on May 22, 2020 by QK Environmental Scientists Karissa Denney and Erica Peña. The survey consisted of walking meandering pedestrian transects spaced 50 to 100 feet apart with the 250 foot buffer where feasible.
Areas of the BSA within private property or areas which had no access were visually surveyed with the aid of binoculars.
482
Biological Analysis Report Methods
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 2-4
General tasks completed during the survey included developing an inventory of plant and wildlife species, characterizing vegetation associations and habitat conditions within the BSA, assessing the potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur on or near the Project; and assessing the potential for nesting migratory birds and raptors to occur and an near the site. All locational data was recorded using ESRI Collector for ArcGIS software installed on an iPad and site conditions were documented with representative photographs (Appendix B).
483
Biological Analysis Report Regulatory Setting
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 3-1
SECTION 3 - REGULATORY SETTING
Regulated or sensitive resources that were studied and analyzed include special-status plant and animal species, nesting birds and raptors, sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement areas, and locally protected resources, such as protected trees. Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, State, and local authorities. Primary authority for regulation of general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions, which for this Project is the City of Visalia.
Impacts to biological resources were analyzed based upon local and regional policies and plans including the San Joaquin Valley Species Recovery Plan and Visalia 2030 General Plan.
Potential impacts to biological resources were analyzed based on the following list of statutes. Summaries of these statues are provided in Appendix A. • CEQA
• FESA
• CESA
• Federal Clean Water Act
• California Fish and Game Code
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
• Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
484
Biological Analysis Report Environmental Setting
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 4-1
SECTION 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section identifies the regional and local environmental setting of the Project and describes existing baseline conditions. Information on the environmental setting was obtained from various sources of literature, databases, and aerial photographs. Site conditions were verified during the site reconnaissance survey conducted on May 22, 2020 by QK Environmental Scientists (Table 4-1).
Table 4-1
Field Survey Personnel and Timing
Date Personnel Time
Weather
Conditions
May 22, 2020 Karissa Denney
Erica Peña
9:40 – 12:40 Clear, sunny
4.1 - Physical Characteristics
In general, the region in supports active agricultural lands and land recently converted to residential development (see Figure 2-1). Physical characteristics of the BSA are described below. Representative photographs of the BSA are included in Appendix B.
4.1.1 - TOPOGRAPHY
The BSA is on the eastern floor of the Central Valley in the northwestern portion of Tulare County. The topography of the BSA is relatively flat with an elevation of about 325-feet above mean sea level (see Photographs 1 through 6 in Appendix B).
4.1.2 - CLIMATE
The BSA is within an area of that has a Mediterranean climate of hot summers and mild, wet winters. According to the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) average high temperatures range from 56°F in January to 97°F in July, with daily temperatures often exceeding 100°F several days in the summer (WRCC 2020). Average low temperatures range from 37°F in December to 64°F in July. Precipitation occurs primarily as rain, most of which falls from November to April, with an average of 10 inches of rainfall per year. Precipitation may also occur as a dense fog during the winter known as Tule fog. Rain rarely falls during the summer months.
4.1.3 - LAND USE
The region in general supports new residential development, agricultural activities, and the Saint Johns River. The Project site is on an active wheat field with southern portion and some of the western portion of the BSA consisting of residential housing. Historical imagery shows that the agricultural areas have been in use since at least 1994 (Google LLC 2020). Within 485
Biological Analysis Report Environmental Setting
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 4-2
the Project area, there is an occupied residence located on the northern parcel and an unoccupied residence with associated farm buildings located on the southern parcel (see Figure 2-1). The northern portion of the BSA extend into annual grassland habitat adjacent to the Saint Johns River. The Project site is bounded to its east and west by cropland. Pratt Road and S. Mooney Boulevard bisect the Project site.
4.1.4 - SOILS
The BSA is underlain by one soil type: Grangeville sandy loam (Figure 4-1) which is described below.
Grangeville sandy loam. The Grangeville series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed on alluvial fans and floodplains (NRCS 2020). This soil type is formed in moderate coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granitic rock sources. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent at elevations from 0 to 1,800 feet. The climate is dry sub-humid with hot dry summers and cool moist winters. Mean annual precipitation is 7 to 16 inches and the mean annual air temperature ranges from 60to 64°F. Grangeville soils are used for growing alfalfa (Medicago sativa), grapes (Vitis sp.), cotton (Gossypium sp.), truck crops, and irrigated pasture. Some areas are used for urban development. Vegetation consists of annual grasses, forbs with native alkali-tolerant plants possibly with a few scattered oak (Quercus sp.) and cottonwood (Populus sp.) trees.
4.1.5 - HYDROLOGY
There are two jurisdictional water features within the BSA (Figure 4-2). One feature, located along the eastern boundary and flowing south, is designated as a canal/ditch by the National Hydrology Database (NHD, USGS 2020a) and is described as R5UBFx according to the Cowardin classification system (Cowardin 1979). The feature is manmade, lacked any significant vegetation cover and appeared to be well maintained. The bed is dirt lined, and the banks do not contain any riprap. While it was not inundated at the time of the survey, historic imagery show evidence of intermittent water flow.
The other stream feature, located along the northern boundary of the BSA, is designated by the NHD as the Saint Johns River (USGS 2020a). According to the Cowardin classification system, it is classified as R4SBA, which is defined as an intermittent streambed (Cowardin 1979). Vegetation along this feature contained oak trees with an annual grass species understory. Based on historical imagery it shows evidence of intermittent water flow. 486
Biological Analysis Report Environmental Setting
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 4-3
Figure 4-1
Soils Mapped within the BSA,
Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
487
Biological Analysis Report Environmental Setting
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 4-4
Figure 4-2
NWI and NHD Records of Aquatic Resources,
Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
488
Biological Analysis Report Environmental Setting
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 4-5
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), most of the BSA and Project site are within an area of 1% annual chance flood hazard, but some areas near the center of the BSA and Project site are within an area of 0.2% annual chance flood hazard (FEMA 2020) as presented in Figure 4-3.
4.2 - Vegetation and Other Land Cover
Four habitat types were observed within the BSA: Annual Grassland, Dryland Grain Crops, Irrigated Grain Crops, and Urban (Figure 4-4). The habitats observed on-site were described in the context of the CWHR (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Habitat type acreage within the Project site and BSA are listed in Table 4-2. A complete list of plant species observed during the survey is included in Appendix C.
Table 4-2
Habitat Acreages Observed On-site
Habitat Type
Acreages
Project Site BSA
Annual Grassland 0.0 11.0
Dryland Grain Crops 93.0 104.0
Irrigated Grain Crops 0.0 15.0
Urban 3.0 18.0
4.2.1 - ANNUAL GRASSLAND
This community is composed primarily of annual plant species many of which occur as understory plants in Valley Oak Woodland and other habitats. It is dominated by introduced annual grasses that include wild oats (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum), and foxtail fescue (Festuca sp.). Many wildlife species use annual grasslands for foraging, but some require special habitat features such as cliffs, caves, ponds, or habitats with woody plants for breeding, resting, and escape cover. Annual Grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Common soil orders include Entisols and Alfisols. This habitat occurs in various sized patches throughout the state.
Annual grassland is present within the BSA (see Figure 4-4, Photograph 7 in Appendix B).
Typically, this habitat is dominated by several species of oak trees, and the understory consists of a variety of herbs and grasses including black mustard (Brassica nigra), red brome, wild oat, and downy brome (Bromus tectorum).
4.2.2 - DRYLAND GRAIN CROPS
This habitat includes non-irrigated grain and seed crops of barley (Hordeum vulgare), cereal rye (Secale cereal), oats, and wheat. Dryland grain and seed crops are usually established on fertile soils, which historically supported an abundance of wildlife. Grain crops have reduced the wildlife habitat richness and diversity. Many species of rodents and birds have adapted 489
Biological Analysis Report Environmental Setting
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 4-6
Figure 4-3
FEMA Flood Zone Map,
Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
490
Biological Analysis Report Environmental Setting
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 4-7
Figure 4-4
Vegetation Communities within the BSA,
Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
491
Biological Analysis Report Environmental Setting
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 4-8
to croplands and are controlled by fencing, trapping, and poisoning to prevent excessive crop losses. Non-irrigated grain and seed crops are located on flat to gently rolling terrain.
Dryland grain crop is present within the BSA (see Figure 4-4, Photograph 8 in Appendix B).
In addition to the residual wheat crop, common plants in this habitat included common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), red-stem filigree (Erodium cicutarium), and black mustard.
4.2.3 - IRRIGATED GRAIN CROPS
This habitat includes a variety of crops in different sizes, shapes, and growing patterns.
Irrigated grain crops include corn (Zea mays), safflower (Carthamus tinctorius), dry beans, and other such crops. These crops are typically planted in the spring and harvested in the summer or fall. These crops can be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops including winter wheat or barley. Many species of rodents and birds have adapted to croplands and are controlled by. fencing, trapping, and poisoning to prevent excessive crop losses. Irrigated grain crops are located on flat to gently rolling terrain.
Irrigated grain crops are present within the BSA (see Figure 4-4, Photograph 9 in Appendix B). In addition to the residual wheat crop, common plants in this habitat included common groundsel and black mustard.
4.2.4 - URBAN
This developed habitat includes five types of vegetative structure which includes tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. Species composition in urban habitats varies with planting design and climate. Monoculture is commonly observed in tree groves and street tree strips. Three urban categories relevant to wildlife are distinguished:
downtown, urban residential, and suburbia. There is a progression outward of decreasing development and increasing vegetative cover. Species richness and diversity tend to be extremely low, particularly in the central urban core.
Urban is present within the BSA (see Figure 4-4, Photograph 10 in Appendix B). Portions of the BSA consist of existing paved roads and compacted dirt road and shoulder with ruderal vegetation. The Pratt Family Ranch and residences within the BSA are planted with a variety of ornamental plant species. Common plants in the urban habitat of the BSA include Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora), and horticultural trees.
These areas were once used for agricultural purposes (Google LLC. 2020), but since 2009 residential expansion encroached into these areas.
4.3 - General Wildlife Observations
Many of the wildlife species observed during the survey were typical of urban and agricultural habitats in the Central Valley. Bird species included Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and their sign (burrows and tracks) were 492
Biological Analysis Report Environmental Setting
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 4-9
observed along the western boundary of the BSA along the dirt road. A complete list of wildlife observed is included in Appendix C.
493
Biological Analysis Report Special-Status Resources
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 5-1
SECTION 5 - SPECIAL-STATUS RESOURCES
Local, State, and federal agencies regulate special-status species and other sensitive biological resources and require an assessment of their presence or potential for presence on a project site prior to the approval of proposed development. This section discusses sensitive biological resources observed on the Project site and evaluates the potential for other sensitive biological resources to occur. Assessments of the potential occurrence of special-status species are based upon known ranges, habitat preferences of the species, species occurrence records from the CNDDB and CNPS, species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the BSA, previously prepared and relevant reports, and the results of surveys conducted within the BSA.
5.1 - Special-Status Species
Table 5-1 presents the list of special-status plant and animal species determined to have potential to occur within the BSA and identifies if the Project may affect the species and threaten the viability of the species population. The complete list of species evaluated for this Project is included in Appendix D. Based upon habitat requirements, known ranges of the species and other environmental criteria from this search, it was determined that four species have the potential to occur on the BSA. The potential for species and rational is presented in the species list. Each species is further discussed in the subsections below.
Table 5-1
Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur On-site
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Potentially Affected
by Project?
Yes/No
Viability Threat?
Yes/No
Birds
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
-/-
-/SSC Yes No
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk
-/ST
-/BCC Yes No
Mammals
Taxidea taxus
American badger
-/-
-/SSC Yes No
Vulpes macrotis
mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
FE/ST
-/- Yes No
BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
FE Federally Endangered
ST State Threatened
SSC State Species of Special Concern
494
Biological Analysis Report Special-Status Resources
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 5-2
5.1.1 - SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
The literature and database review identified seventeen special-status plant species known or within potential to occur in the vicinity of the Project (Appendix D). None of these species occur on-site due to the lack of suitable habitat conditions (currently under cultivation or urban habitat) or because the BSA is located outside of the species’ known range.
5.1.2 - SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES
The literature review identified 24 special-status animal species known or with potential to occur in the vicinity of the project (Appendix D). Of those, four were determined to have the potential to occur on-site (see Table 5-1) and are discussed below.
Burrowing Owl
ATHENE CUNICULARIA
Status: CDFW Species of Special Concern
The western burrowing owl is a small ground-dwelling owl that can be found throughout western North America (Klute et al. 2003). This species can be found in a variety of habitat types including grasslands, deserts, or other open habitats where food resources are available and contain treeless areas with low vegetation cover and gently sloping terrain (Rodewald 2015).
Burrowing owls use earthen burrows, typically relying on other fossorial mammals to construct their burrows such as California ground squirrels or American badger (USFWS 1998). In California, they are most often associated with California ground squirrels (Winchell 1994). They use a burrow throughout the year for temperature regulation, offspring rearing, shelter, and escape from predators. While burrows are most often earthen, they also use atypical burrows such as pipes, culverts, and other man-made structures, most often as shelter (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Burrowing owls can have several burrows close to one other that they may frequently move among to avoid predators.
The nearest recorded CNDDB occurrence (EONDX 69904) was recorded in 2006 approximately 4.3 miles north of the BSA (CDFW 2020a). The occurrence documented 6 adults, each at a separate burrow. Based on-site conditions suitable nesting habitat does not exist within the BSA, although nearby agricultural fields could provide potential foraging habitat. Most of the BSA is consistently subjected to agricultural disturbance that would preclude colonization by burrowing owls. No burrowing owls or diagnostic signs were observed during the reconnaissance survey, but they could be present on the BSA as transient foragers.
Swainson’s Hawk
BUTEO SWAINSONI
Status: State Threatened
495
Biological Analysis Report Special-Status Resources
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 5-3
Although present through a broad range in the western United States, Swainson’s hawks occur in grassland, desert, and agricultural landscapes in the Central Valley and Antelope Valley (Bechard et al. 2010, Zeiner et al. 1990). This species typically migrates into Mexico and South America during the winter months, but some hawks in the southern portion of their range, including the Central Valley, may be residents. They prefer larger isolated trees or small woodlots for nesting, usually with grassland or dry-land grain fields nearby for foraging and have been known to nest in large eucalyptus trees along heavily traveled freeway corridors. Swainson’s hawks forage in grassland, open scrub, pasture, and dryland grain agricultural habitats, primarily for rodents. Swainson’s hawks exhibit a moderate to high nest site fidelity for successful nest sites.
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (EONDX 109959) was recorded in 2017 approximately 5.0 miles southwest of the Project site (CDFW 2020a). The occurrence documented a stick nest with a nesting pair present in an oak tree, adjacent to agricultural fields and commercial areas. Two unoccupied stick nests were observed outside of the BSA (Photographs 11 to 13 in Appendix B), which were suitable for nesting Swainson’s hawks (Figure 5-1). A pair of Swainson’s hawks were observed foraging in the BSA and along the Saint Johns River (see Figure 5-1). Based on surrounding site conditions, nearby available nest sites, and presence of Swainson’s hawks in the BSA, there is a potential for Swainson’s hawks to forage within the Project site and nearby agricultural lands.
496
Biological Analysis Report Special-Status Resources
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 5-4
Figure 5-1
Special-Status Resources Observed within the BSA,
Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
497
Biological Analysis Report Special-Status Resources
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 5-5
American Badger
TAXIDEA TAXUS
Status: CDFW Species of Special Concern
The American badger is an uncommon permanent resident at lower elevations throughout California except for the northern North Coast (CDFG 1995) and alpine habitat. They can typically be found in grasslands, deserts, and drier habitats. Badgers are typically nocturnal and hunt or forage at night while spending daylight hours below ground. Normally, they have a single den entrance that is approximately 8 to 12 inches in width, in an elliptical or halfmoon shape, mimicking their body shape. Dens are usually found in friable soils, which facilitates digging. American badgers spend most of their time near a den, but they may have multiple dens in an area that are frequently used. American badgers are known to be able to dig a new den each night. During cooler nights the entrance to the den may be partially plugged with soil to help regulate temperatures.
American badgers primarily feed on small mammals that they capture by excavating the prey’s burrows. Prey may include pocket gophers, mice, chipmunks, and ground squirrels (CDFG 1995). Other prey may include birds, bird eggs, reptiles, invertebrates, and carrion.
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (EONDX 56600) was recorded in 1994 approximately 7.5 miles southeast of the BSA (CDFW 2020a). The occurrence documented one individual with the likelihood of a small population to survive within the area. Based on site conditions there is potential for the American badger to forage within the BSA and suitable denning habitat occurs in the Saint Johns River corridor. No American badgers or diagnostic signs were observed during the survey. This is a highly mobile species and may by present in the Project site as a transient and it could be present as a resident within the Saint Johns River corridor.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
VULPES MACROTIS MUTICA
Status: Federally Endangered and State Threatened
The San Joaquin kit fox is a subspecies of kit fox that is endemic to the San Joaquin Valley, Carrizo Plain, and Cuyama Valley, as well as other small valleys in the western foothills of the Central Valley of California (USFWS 1998, USFWS 2010). They are only found west of the Sierra Nevada crest. They occupy arid to semi-arid grasslands, open shrublands, savannahs, and grazed lands with loose-textured soils. San Joaquin kit foxes are well-established in some urban areas and are highly adaptable to human-altered landscapes. They generally avoid intensively maintained agricultural land but forage well into croplands from surrounding habitat. San Joaquin kit foxes uses subterranean dens year-round for shelter and puprearing. They are nocturnally active but may be above ground near their dens during the day, particularly in the spring. They feed primarily on small mammals, but will consume a variety of prey, and will scavenge for human food.
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (EONDX 67936) was recorded in 1975 approximately 4.0 miles west of the Project site (CDFW 2020a). Based on-site conditions there is potential for San Joaquin kit fox to forage within the Project site. Suitable denning habitat occurs in the 498
Biological Analysis Report Special-Status Resources
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 5-6
BSA along the Saint Johns River corridor where native habitat occurs. No San Joaquin kit fox or diagnostic signs were observed in the BSA during the survey. This is a highly mobile species that has been historically known to occur in the area and may pass through the Project site as a foraging transient.
5.1.3 - OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES
Nesting Birds
Habitat within the BSA supports nesting native bird species, which are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. The reconnaissance survey was conducted during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15). Three unoccupied stick nests, which are typically used by raptor species were observed. Two stick nests were located outside of the BSA along the Saint Johns River and one stick nest was in an abandoned barn on the southern parcel (see Figure 5-1). None of the nests were active during the survey. Various species of migratory birds will construct nests in a variety of habitats and structures, and nests may be found in trees or shrubs, in man-made structures, and directly on the ground. Because the BSA support several types of habitat suitable for nesting birds, it is likely that birds will nest within the BSA. Several bird species were seen on or in the vicinity of the BSA (see Appendix C).
5.2 - Sensitive Natural Communities
5.2.1 - SENSITIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES
The database and literature identified four sensitive plant communities within 10-miles of the BSA. Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest (EONDX 15609) is recorded approximately
7.8-miles southeast of the BSA (CDFW 2020a). Northern Claypan Vernal Pool (EONDX 26434) is recorded approximately 7.3-miles northwest of the BSA (CDFW 2020a). Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool (EONDX 26878) is recorded approximately 5.7-miles north of the BSA (CDFW 2020a). Valley Sacaton Grassland (EONDX 8664) is located approximately 7.2-miles southeast of the BSA. None of these sensitive plant communities were observed within the BSA.
5.2.2 - CRITICAL HABITATS
The Project site does not overlap with any federally designated critical habitat Units (USFWS 2020b, Figure 5-2). There are designated critical habitats for five special-status species north, northwest and northeast of the BSA, the closest of which is approximately 4.0-miles to the north. That Habitat Unit provides critical habitat for four species including Hoover’s spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri), San Joaquin Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). 499
Biological Analysis Report Special-Status Resources
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 5-7
Figure 5-2
Mapped Critical Habitat in the Project Vicinity,
Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
500
Biological Analysis Report Special-Status Resources
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 5-8
5.3 - Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
A formal delineation of waters of the U.S. and waters of the State was not conducted or warranted for this Project. The search of the NHD and NWI databases indicated two stream features within the BSA (see Figure 4-2). One feature, an irrigation canal that is located along the eastern boundary of the Project site, flows south, from its origins at the Saint Johns River.
This stream feature is a branching man-made irrigation canal and will not be impacted by the Project. The other feature, which is the Saint Johns River, is located approximately 0.5- miles north of the BSA (Photograph 14 in Appendix B). The Saint Johns River flows from east to west and merges with Cross Creek approximately 7.0-miles downstream from the Project site. The Saint Johns River is a traditionally navigable water. The Project footprint is outside of the Saint Johns River floodplain and this feature would not be impacted by the Project.
5.4 - Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement corridors, also referred to as dispersal corridors or landscape linkages, are generally defined as linear features along which animals can travel from one habitat or resource area to another. Wildlife movement corridors can be large tracts of land that connect regionally important habitats that support wildlife in general, such as stop-over habitat that supports migrating birds or large contiguous natural habitats that support animals with very large home ranges (e.g., coyotes [Canis latrans], mule deer [Odocoileus hemionus californicus]). They can also be small scale movement corridors, such as riparian zones, that provide connectivity and cover to support movement at a local scale.
The BSA is not located within any identified wildlife movement corridors identified by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (Spencer et al. 2010). The nearest wildlife movement corridor is located approximately 5.5-miles northwest of the BSA (Figure 5-3).
The Saint Johns River and adjoining native habitat area is likely to be used as a local travel corridor for many species of wildlife. The Project does not encroach into that corridor and significant impacts to that corridor are not anticipated.
5.5 - Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances
5.5.1 - VALLEY OAK ORDINANCE
Chapter 12.24 of the City of Visalia Municipal Code regulates the preservation and protection of Valley oak (Quercus lobata) or landmark trees. Protected Valley oak trees are defined as having a trunk diameter of two inches or greater at 4.5 feet above the root crown (or 2-inch diameter breast height [DBH]). Landmark trees are defined as “any native or non-native tree recognized by City Council resolution for its age, size, location, outstanding habitat value, superior beauty, historical, and/or cultural significance.” Valley oak and landmark trees are protected on both public and private properties from destruction, removal, or pruning without a permit, except during emergency situations. Public utility projects are exempted from complying with this Municipal Code.
501
Biological Analysis Report Special-Status Resources
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 5-9
Figure 5-3
Movement Corridors and Linkages,
Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
502
Biological Analysis Report Special-Status Resources
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 5-10
5.6 - Habitat Conservation Plans
The Project is located within an area covered by the PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). That HCP only applies to maintenance and operations of PG&E facilities and does not apply to this Project. 503
Biological Analysis Report Impact Analysis and Recommended Mitigation Measures
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 6-1
SECTION 6 - IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES This section provides an analysis of the potential for sensitive biological resources to be impacted by the proposed Project. The analysis was developed using the CEQA Appendix G questions, but also provides sufficient information to support National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation.
6.1 - Special-Status Species
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
6.1.1 - PROJECT IMPACTS TO SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES No special-status plant species have the potential to occur within the BSA because of existing habitat and soil conditions. No impacts to special-status plant species will occur and no measures are warranted.
6.1.2 - PROJECT IMPACTS TO SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES Four special-status wildlife species have potential to occur within the BSA: burrowing owl Swainson’s hawk, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox.
Burrowing Owl
There is no evidence that the burrowing owl is present within the BSA. California ground squirrel burrows were observed along the western boundary of the BSA which could be used by a burrowing owl. The agricultural and urban habitat types provide some foraging habitat but there is no evidence that those areas are used for foraging. This species is known to be present in the region year-round and it is possible for a transient burrowing owl to occur onsite at any time. Direct impacts to burrowing owl could occur if there is an active burrow or transient individual within the BSA during the period of construction activities. Construction activities could result in crushing or destroying a burrow with a burrowing owl inside. Noise and vibration from the Project construction activities could alter the daily behaviors of individual owls and effect foraging activities or rearing of young. Implementation of Measures BIO–1 through BIO-3 and BIO-7, listed below, would reduce any impacts to the species to less than significant level.
Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawks were observed foraging within and near the BSA during the survey. The Project site does not contain suitable nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk but the site may 504
Biological Analysis Report Impact Analysis and Recommended Mitigation Measures
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 6-2
be used by Swainson’s hawks for foraging. The Saint Johns River and the adjacent cropland, located to the north, east and west, provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Two unoccupied stick nests were observed in oak trees adjacent to the BSA.
The Project site lies within an expansive area of agricultural habitat, similar to what occur on the Project site. The loss of a small area such as this, with a very low prey base and low potential to provide substantial foraging opportunities does not warrant the acquisition or preservation of compensatory habitat. Direct impacts to nesting and foraging habitat for the species is reduced to below significant levels.
Impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks could occur during construction due to noise, vibration, and presence of construction workers that may alter normal behaviors and possibly lead to nest failure. Implementation of Measures BIO-4 through BIO-5 and BIO-7 would reduce any impacts to the species to below significant levels.
American Badger
There is no positive evidence that the American badger is present within the BSA, but potential denning and foraging habitat exists to the north of the Project boundary. Because this species is highly mobile, this species may be present on the site as a transient forager.
Direct impacts could include injury or death of individuals, and entrapment in trenches or pipes. Noise, vibration, and the presence of construction workers could alter normal behaviors if badgers are present, which could affect reproductive success. Increased human presence at the new residential homes following Project activities could indirectly impact American badgers by deterring them from denning or foraging in the vicinity of the Project.
Implementation of Measures BIO–1 through BIO-3, and BIO-7, listed below, would reduce any impacts to the species to less than significant level.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
There is no evidence that the San Joaquin kit fox is present within the BSA. The BSA and surrounding land are highly developed and provide minimal denning and foraging habitat, but the species is known to inhabit the region and is adaptable to urban environments.
Because this species is highly mobile, it may be present from time to time on the BSA as a transient forager or part-time resident. Direct impacts resulting in injury, death, or entrapment in trenches or pipes could occur if a fox travels into the construction area.
Construction activities could result in crushing or destroying a den with a kit fox inside.
Noise, vibration, and the presence of construction workers may alter normal behaviors, which could affect reproductive success. Implementation of Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 and BIO-7 would reduce impacts to the species to a less than significant level.
Nesting Birds
The BSA contains suitable habitat for a wide variety of nesting bird species. Within the BSA urban habitat, Saint Johns River corridor, and annual grassland would support birds that nest in trees, shrubs, grasses and man-made structures. When in active cultivation, dryland 505
Biological Analysis Report Impact Analysis and Recommended Mitigation Measures
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 6-3
grain crops and irrigated grain crops would support birds that use these agriculture fields for foraging. One unoccupied stick nest was observed in the abandoned barn located on the southern edge of the Project site and two unoccupied stick nests were observed in the oak trees located outside of the northern boundary of the BSA. If birds were to nest on or near the Project site, construction related vibration, noise, and dust production, and human presence could alter the normal behaviors of nesting birds in the vicinity of the Project and lead to nest failure. Implementation of Measures BIO-6 and BIO-7 would reduce impacts to these species to below significant levels.
Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The limited disturbance footprint of this Project, the extent of existing disturbances, and the short duration of activities at any given location, coupled with implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures listed below would reduce impacts of the Project to special-status wildlife species to level that would be less than significant. The following measures are recommended to avoid and minimize impacts to burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk American badger, San Joaquin kit fox, and other nesting birds.
BIO-1 Pre-activity Surveys for burrowing owl burrows, American badger and San Joaquin kit fox dens. Within 14 days of the start of Project activities, a preactivity survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of these species. The pre-activity survey should include walking transects to identify presence of burrowing owls and their burrows and American badgers, and San Joaquin kit foxes and their dens. The transects should be spaced at no greater than 30-foot intervals in order to obtain a 100 percent coverage of the Project site and a 250-foot buffer. Areas devoid of habitat incapable of supporting these species would not require surveys. If no evidence of these special-status species is detected, no further action is required.
BIO-2 Avoidance of Burrowing Owl Burrows and American Badger and San Joaquin Kit Fox Dens. If dens or burrows that could support these species are discovered during the pre-activity survey conducted under Measure BIO-1, avoidance buffers outlined below should be established. No work should occur within these buffers unless a qualified biologist approves and monitors the activity.
Burrowing Owl (active burrows)
• Non-breeding season: September 1 – January 31 – 160 feet • Breeding season: February 1 – August 31 – 250 feet
American Badger and San Joaquin Kit Fox
• Potential or Atypical den – 50 feet
• Known den – 100 feet
• Natal or pupping den – Contact agencies for further guidance 506
Biological Analysis Report Impact Analysis and Recommended Mitigation Measures
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 6-4
Any Ecological Sensitive Area (ESA) buffer established should remain in place until the species has left on its own. Once the species has left, the burrow may be monitored using trail cameras or tracking medium such as diatomaceous earth. If no species are detected for a minimum of three consecutive days/nights, the burrow may be hand excavated under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist. All burrow tunnels must be hand excavated to their terminus or examined before backfilling to ensure no burrowing owls, kit foxes, or other animals are hiding.
Alternatively, burrowing owls can be passively excluded from a non-nest burrow through the installation of one-way doors. Prior to engaging in such passive exclusion activities, an Exclusion Plan should be prepared following the guidance outlined in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). The Exclusion Plan should be submitted to the CDFW for review and approval prior to implementation. Once approved, one-way doors may be installed at non-nest burrows. The doors should be monitored for a minimum of three days to ensure burrowing owls have left the burrow. The burrow may then be excavated as described above. If at any time during excavation a burrowing owl is detected within the burrow, excavation activities should immediately cease, and the one-way door reinstalled and monitored until the owl has left the burrow. Hand excavation may then resume. Exclusion efforts should be documented.
BIO-3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Burrowing Owl, American Badger and San Joaquin Kit Fox. The following avoidance and minimization measures should be implemented during all phases of the Project to reduce the potential for impact from the Project. They are modified from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011). The standard measures for the protection of the San Joaquin kit fox are provided in full in Appendix E.
• Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all Project areas, except on County roads and State and federal highways.
• All Project activities should occur during daylight hours, but if work must be conducted at night then a night-time construction speed limit of 10-mph should be established.
• Off-road traffic outside of designated Project areas should be prohibited. • To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during construction of the Project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one 507
Biological Analysis Report Impact Analysis and Recommended Mitigation Measures
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 6-5
or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks should be installed.
• Before holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the USFWS and the CDFW should be contacted before proceeding with the work.
• In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the USFWS and CDFW should be contacted for guidance.
• All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater that are stored at a construction-site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes and burrowing owls before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
• All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or Project site.
• No pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the Project site. • Project-related use of rodenticides and herbicides should be restricted. • A representative should be appointed by the Project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative should be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number should be provided to the USFWS and CDFW.
• Upon completion of the Project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances (including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc.) should be recontoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-Project conditions.
An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the Project, but after Project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. • Any Project personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring one of these species should immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative should contact the CDFW (and USFWS in the case of San Joaquin kit fox) immediately in the case of a dead, 508
Biological Analysis Report Impact Analysis and Recommended Mitigation Measures
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 6-6
injured or entrapped San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, or burrowing owl.
• The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife office and CDFW Region 4 office should be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during Project related activities. The CDFW should be notified in the case of accidental death to an American badger or western burrowing owl. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information.
• New sightings of San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, or burrowing owl shall be reported to the CNDDB. A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where a San Joaquin kit fox was observed should also be provided to the USFWS.
BIO-4 Pre-activity Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk Nests. If Project activities must occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31), pre-activity surveys should be conducted for Swainson’s hawk nests in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley, Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (CDFG 2000). The surveys would be conducted on the Project site plus a 0.5-mile buffer. To meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys should be conducted during at least two survey periods.
If no Swainson’s hawk nests are found, no further action is required.
BIO-5 Swainson’s Hawk Nest Avoidance If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5-mile of active construction, a qualified biologist should complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest. The assessment would consider the type of construction activities, the location of construction relative to the nest, the visibility of construction activities from the nest location, and other existing disturbances in the area that are not related to construction activities of this Project. Based on this assessment, the biologist will determine if construction activities can proceed and the level of nest monitoring required.
Construction activities should not occur within 500 feet of an active nest but depending upon conditions at the site this distance may be reduced. Full-time monitoring to evaluate the effects of construction activities on nesting Swainson’s hawks may be required. The qualified biologist should have the authority to stop work if it is determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may need to increase depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.
BIO-6 Pre-activity Surveys for Nesting Birds. If Project activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1 to September 15), pre-activity nesting bird 509
Biological Analysis Report Impact Analysis and Recommended Mitigation Measures
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 6-7
surveys should be conducted within seven days prior to the start of construction at the construction-site plus a 250-foot buffer for songbirds and a 500-foot buffer for raptors (other than Swainson’s hawk). If no active nests are found, no further action is required. However, existing nests may become active and new nests may be built at any time prior to and throughout the nesting season, including when construction activities are in progress. If active nests are found during the survey or at any time during construction of the Project, an avoidance buffer ranging from 50 feet to 500 feet may be required, with the avoidance buffer from any specific nest being determined by a qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer will remain in place until the biologist has determined that the young are no longer reliant on the adults or the nest.
Work may occur within the avoidance buffer under the approval and guidance of the biologist, but full-time monitoring may be required. The biologist should have the ability to stop construction if nesting adults show any sign of distress.
BIO-7 Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to the initiation of construction activities, all personnel should attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Training program developed by a qualified biologist. The program should include information on the life histories of special-status species with potential to occur on the Project, their legal status, course of action should these species be encountered on-site, and avoidance and minimization measures to protect these species.
Significance After Mitigation. Implementation of the avoidance, and minimization measures above will reduce impacts to special-status wildlife species to a less than significant level.
6.2 - Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
The BSA does not overlap critical habitat and there are no sensitive natural communities present. The Project would have no impacts to Critical Habitat or sensitive natural communities and no measures are warranted.
6.3 - Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
510
Biological Analysis Report Impact Analysis and Recommended Mitigation Measures
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 6-8
The proposed developments are located on disturbed land and would not affect aquatic features. There are no jurisdictional aquatic resources that would be affected by the Project and no measures are warranted.
6.4 - Wildlife Movement
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.
The Project is not located within a designated wildlife movement corridor or linkage and there are no features on-site that specifically lend themselves to wildlife movement. The Project does not serve as a connector between any patches of valuable wildlife habitat. The Project would not have any impacts to wildlife movement and no measures are warranted.
6.5 - Local Policies and Ordinances
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
The proposed Project does not conflict with the Visalia 2030 General Plan. There are no impacts with respect to local policies and ordinances and no measures are warranted.
6.6 - Adopted or Approved Plans
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The Project is located within an area covered by the PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP. This HCP applies only to PG&E’s activities and does not apply to this Project.
511
Biological Analysis Report Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 7-1
SECTION 7 - LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND USE RELIANCE
This Biological Analysis Report has been performed in accordance with professionally accepted biological investigation practices conducted at this time and in this geographic area. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on findings derived from site reconnaissance, jurisdictional areas, and specified historical and literature sources. The biological investigation is limited by the scope of work performed. Reconnaissance biological surveys for certain taxa may have been conducted as part of this assessment but were not performed during a particular blooming period, nesting period, or particular portion of the season when positive identification would be expected if present, and therefore, cannot be considered definitive. The biological surveys are limited also by the environmental conditions present at the time of the surveys. In addition, general biological (or protocol) surveys do not guarantee that the organisms are not present and will not be discovered in the future within the site. In particular, mobile animal species could occupy the site on a transient basis or re-establish populations in the future. No other guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, are provided.
512
Biological Analysis Report References
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 8-1
SECTION 8 - REFERENCES
Bechard, M.J., C.S. Houston, J.H. Saransola, A.S. England, 2010. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), version 2.0. The Birds of North America (A.F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doiorg/10.2173/bna.265.
Calflora. 2020. Information on wild California plants for conservation, education, and appreciation. Berkeley, CA. Updated online and accessed via: www.calflora.org.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1995. Taxidea taxus. California Department of Fish and Game “Special Animal.” Stanislaus River Basin and Calaveras River Water Use Program.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Commercial version dated November 1, 2018. Accessed May 26, 2020, from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.
CDFW. 2009. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. July 2009.
CDFW. 2020b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Accessed May 26, 2020 from www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS
California Native Plant Society. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.7-08cInterim 8-22-02. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.
City of Visalia. 2014. Visalia 2030 General Plan.
Cowardin et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. FEMA flood map service center. Visalia, California. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor Google LLC. 2020. Google Earth Pro.
Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and T.S.
Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003. Washington, DC.
Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitat of California. State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA 166 pp.
Rodewald. 2015. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. https://birdsna.org. 513
Biological Analysis Report References
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 8-2
Shuford and Gardali. 2008. "California Bird Species of Special Concern." https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34166/Shuford-Gardali2008-California-Bird-Species-of-Special-Concern-PDF?bidId=.
Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2020a. National Hydrography Dataset. https://www.usgs.gov/corescience-systems/ngp/national-hydrography United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020a.
Web Soil Survey. Accessed May 26, 2020. Soil Survey Area: Visalia, California. Soil Survey Data: Version 8, August 27, 2009. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020b.
Lists of Hydric Soils. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Accessed via: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.).
USFWS. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region
1. Portland, OR. 319 pp.
USFWS. 2020a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html USFWS. 2020b. Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool.
Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
USFWS. 2020c. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
Western Regional Climate Center. 2020. Cooperative Climatological Data Summaries, NOAA Cooperative Station Visalia, California (049367). https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca9367 Winchell, Clark S. 1994. Natural History and Protection of Burrowing Owls. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference (1994). Paper 68.
Zeiner, D., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K.E. Mayer (May 1988). California’s Wildlife.
California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, Volumes I, II, & III. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
514
Biological Analysis Report List of Preparers
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page 9-1
SECTION 9 - LIST OF PREPARERS
QK Inc.
Primary Authors
• Karissa Denney, Associate Environmental Scientist
• Erica Peña, Assistant Environmental Scientist
Secondary Author
• Dave Dayton, Senior Environmental Scientist
Technical Review
• Curtis Uptain, Principal Environmental Scientist
Graphics
• Karissa Denney, Associate Environmental Scientist
Field Reconnaissance Survey
• Karissa Denney, Associate Environmental Scientist
• Erica Peña, Assistant Environmental Scientist
515
APPENDIX A
REGULATORY SETTING
516
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page A-1
Regulatory Setting
Federal Laws and Regulations
FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 (USC, TITLE 16, SECTIONS 1531 -1543) The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and subsequent amendments provide guidance for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The FESA defines species as threatened or endangered and provides regulatory protection for listed species. The FESA provides a program for the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species as well as the protection of designated critical habitat that USFWS determines is required for the survival and recovery of listed species.
Section 9 lists actions that are prohibited under the FESA. Although take of a listed species is prohibited, it is allowed when it is incidental to an otherwise legal activity. Section 9 prohibits take of listed species of fish, wildlife, and plants without special exemption. The definition of “harm” includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns related to breeding, feeding, or shelter. “Harass” is defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species by disrupting normal behavioral patterns related to breeding, feeding, and shelter significantly.
Section 7 of the FESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and assistance from the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction of adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibilities for administering the FESA. Regulations governing interagency cooperation under Section 7 are found in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 50, Part 402. If an activity could result in "take" of a listed species as an incident of an otherwise lawful activity, then a biological opinion can be issued with an incidental take statement that exempts the activity from FESA's take prohibitions.
Section 10 provides a means whereby a nonfederal action with the potential to result in take of a listed species can be allowed under an incidental take permit. Application procedures are found at CFR Title 50, Sections 13 and 17 for species under the jurisdiction of USFWS and CFR, Title 50, Sections 217, 220, and 222 for species under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Section 10 would apply to the Project if take of a species (as defined in Section 9) were determined to occur.
Section 4(a)(3) and (b)(2) of the FESA requires the designation of critical habitat to the maximum extent possible and prudent based on the best available scientific data and after considering the economic impacts of any designations. Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the FESA: 1) areas within the geographic range of a species that are occupied by individuals of that species and contain the primary constituent elements (physical and biological features) essential to the conservation of the species, thus warranting special 517
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page A-2
management consideration or protection; and 2) areas outside of the geographic range of a species at the time of listing but that are considered essential to the conservation of the species.
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT (USC, TITLE 16, SECTIONS 703 - 711) The MBTA, first enacted in 1918, is a series of treaties that the United State has with Great Britain (on behalf of Canada), Mexico, Japan, and the former Soviet Union that provide for international migratory bird protection. The MBTA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The act provides that it shall be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, “to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest or egg of any such bird” (U.S. Code Title 16, Section 703). The MBTA currently includes several hundred species and includes all native birds.
BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT OF 1940 (USC, TITLE 16, SECTION 668) The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) of 1940 protects bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucoephalus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) by prohibiting the taking, possession, and commerce of these species and established civil penalties for violation of this act. Take of bald and golden eagles includes to “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” To disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially inferring with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. (Federal Register [FR], volume 72, page 31132; 50 CFR 22.3).
FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT (USC, TITLE 33, SECTIONS 1521 - 1376) The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 401 requires that a Project applicant that is pursuing a federal license or permit allowing a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain State Certification of Water Quality, thereby ensuring that the discharge will comply with provisions of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the certification program in California. Section 402 establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredged or fill material) into waters of the U.S. Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that regulates the discharge of the dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The USACA implementing regulations are found in CFR, Title 33, Sections 320 and 330. Guidelines for implementation are referred to as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which were developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with USACE (40 CFR 230). The guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts. 518
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page A-3
Applicable State Laws and Regulations
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, SECTIONS 21000 - 21178, AND TITLE 14 CCR, SECTION 753, AND CHAPTER 3, SECTIONS 15000 - 15387) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is California's broadest environmental law.
CEQA helps guide the issuance of permits and approval of projects. Courts have interpreted CEQA to afford the fullest protection of the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutes. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects proposed to be conducted or approved by a State, County, or City agency, including private projects requiring discretionary government approval.
The purpose of CEQA is to disclose to the public the significant environmental effects of a proposed discretionary project; prevent or minimize damage to the environment through development of project alternatives, mitigation measures, and mitigation monitoring; disclose to the public the agency decision making process to approve discretionary projects; enhance public participation in the environmental review process; and improve interagency coordination.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) provides that a species not listed on the federal or State list of protected species nonetheless may be considered rare or endangered for purposed of CEQA if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals.
CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE SECTION 2050 ET SEQ.)
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) establishes the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. The CESA mandates that State agencies should not approve Projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. For Projects that would result in take of a species listed under the CESA, a project proponent would need to obtain a take permit under Section 2081(b). Alternatively, the CDFW has the option of issuing a Consistency Determination (Section 2080.1) for Projects that would affect a species listed under both the CESA and the FESA, as long as compliance with the FESA would satisfy the “fully mitigate” standard of CESA, and other applicable conditions.
PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
Under Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCB must certify that actions receiving authorization under Section 404 of the CWA also meet State water quality standards. The RWQCB regulates waters of the State under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter Cologne Act). The RWQCB requires Projects to avoid impacts to wetlands whenever feasible and requires that Projects do not result in a net loss of wetland acreage or a net loss 519
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page A-4
of wetland function and values. The RWQCB typically requires compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands and/or waters of the State. The RWQCB has jurisdiction over waters deemed ‘isolated’ or not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction under the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) decision. Dredging, filling, or excavation of isolated waters constitutes a discharge of waste into waters of the State, and such discharges are authorized through an Order of Waste Discharge (or waiver of discharge) from the RWQCB.
VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE AND FISH AND GAME CODE Section 460 and Sections 4000-4003
Chapter 5 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) describes regulations concerning the take of furbearing mammals, including defining methods of take, seasons of take, bag and possession limits, and areas of the State where take is allowed. Section 4000-4003 defines furbearing mammals, and the issuance of permits by the Department. Sections 460 and 4000 identifies fisher, marten, river otter, desert kit fox and red fox as furbearing mammals, and Section 460 prohibits take of these species at any time. This section of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) has historically been interpreted to apply to restriction on furbearer trapping permit but has recently been expanded by CDFW to apply to any forms of take and treated as if these species were listed under CESA.
Sections 1600 through 1616
Under these sections of the FGC, a Project operator is required to notify CDFW prior to any Project that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow, bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, a “stream” is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically, or intermittently, through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. Based on this definition, a watercourse with surface or subsurface flows that supports of has supported riparian vegetation is a stream and is subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Altered or artificial watercourses valuable to fish and wildlife are subject to CDFW jurisdiction. CDFW also has jurisdiction over dry washes that carry water during storm events. Preliminary notification and Project review generally occur during the environmental process. When an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected, CDFW is required to propose reasonable Project changes to protect the resource. These modifications are formalized in a Streambed Alteration Agreement.
Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515
The protection of fully protected species are described in Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the FGC. These statues prohibit take or possession of fully protected species. CDFW is unable to authorize incidental take of fully protected species, except as allowed for in an approved Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), or through direct legislative action.
520
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page A-5
Sections 1900 through 1913 - Native Plant Protection Act California’s Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) requires all State agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. Provision of the NPPA prohibit that taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of CDFW at least ten days in advance of any change in land use. This allows CDFW to salvage listed plant species that otherwise would be destroyed. A Project proponent is required to conduct botanical inventories and consult with CDFW during Project planning to comply with the provisions of this act and sections of CEQA that apply to rare or endangered plants.
Local and Regional Laws, Regulations, and Policies
CITY OF VISALIA GENERAL PLAN
City of Visalia’s Open Space and Conservation element includes an objective and policies for preservation of natural resources including riparian areas, fish and wildlife habitat, and vegetation.
Table A-1
Chapter 6 – Open Space and Conservation
Objective
OSC-0-10 Protect and enhance natural vegetation throughout the Planning Area, especially types that are considered
sensitive natural communities by the Department of Fish and Game.
Policies
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-28 Protect significant stands of Valley Oak woodlands from further development by designating them for
Conservation, creating habitat management plans, where
needed, and undertaking restoration activities as
appropriate.
OSC-P-29 Update the Zoning Ordinance to implement the
Conservation land use designation on the Land Use
Diagram.
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, 521
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page A-6
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.
OSC-P-32 Develop riparian planting and maintenance standards< and incorporate these standards into conservation area
management plans>
OSC-P-33 Develop a list of recommend native plants and landscaping guidelines. Make this list and guidance accessible through the Community Development Department, the public
library, and the City website.
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.
OSC-P-35 Use native trees in street and public landscaping designs, where appropriate, to preserve Visalia’s character.
OSC-P-36 Prepare a comprehensive habitat management plan for areas designated as Conservation in order to take
advantage of opportunities for habitat enhancement,
restoration, and urban forest development and resources conservation.
OSC-P-37 Design selected storm water ponds and retention basins to serve a dual role as wildlife habitat by planting species appropriate for food and cover needs. Work with a trained professional in design, selection and management of each site.
OSC-P-38 Revise the City’s Valley Oak Ordinance to include cottonwood groves and other mature native trees, and
update the map of landmark trees and distinctive biotic areas.
Source: (City of Visalia General Plan, 2014)
LOCAL ORDINANCES
Valley Oak Ordinance
Chapter 12.24 of the Municipal Code regulates the preservation and protection of Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) or landmark trees. Protected Valley oak trees are defined by a trunk diameter of two inches or greater at 4.5 feet above the root crown (or 2-inch diameter breast height [DBH]). Landmark trees are defined as “any native or non-native tree recognized by city council resolution for its age, size, location, outstanding habitat value, superior beauty, 522
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page A-7
historical, and/or cultural significance.” Approved Valley oak or landmark trees are protected from destruction, removal, or pruning without a permit on both public and private properties; however, emergency events and public utilities are exempt. 523
APPENDIX B
REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
524
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page B-1
Photograph 1: View of the Project site northwest corner, facing east.
GPS Coordinates: 36.368163, -119.318806.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
Photograph 2: View of the Project site northeast corner, facing south.
GPS Coordinates: 36.370884, -119.313500.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
525
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page B-2
Photograph 3: View of the BSA eastern boundary looking at current farm buildings, facing southwest.
GPS Coordinates: 36.366542, -119.314045.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
Photograph 4: View of the northern parcel, south of Pratt Road, facing north.
GPS Coordinates: 36.698654, -119.315252.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
526
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page B-3
Photograph 5: View of the southern parcel and abandoned farm buildings, facing south.
GPS Coordinates: 36.698654, -119.315252.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
Photograph 6: View of the southern parcel, facing north.
GPS Coordinates: 36.363788, -119.317138.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
527
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page B-4
Photograph 7: Annual grassland located within the northern boundary of BSA, facing north.
GPS Coordinates: 36.371002, -119.315465.
Photograph taken by Karissa Denney on May 22, 2020.
Photograph 8: Dryland grain crops within the BSA, facing east.
GPS Coordinates: 36.365788, -119.318711.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
528
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page B-5
Photograph 9: Irrigated grain crops located within the eastern boundary of BSA, facing southeast.
GPS Coordinates: 36.366542, -119.313378.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
Photograph 10: Urban habitat located within the southern boundary of BSA, facing south.
GPS Coordinates: 36.363920, -119.314227.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
529
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page B-6
Photograph 11: Unoccupied stick nest #1 located in an oak tree outside of the BSA, facing north.
GPS Coordinates: 36.373037, -119.317191.
Photograph taken by Karissa Denney on May 22, 2020.
Photograph 12: Unoccupied stick nest #2 located in an oak tree outside of the BSA, facing north.
GPS Coordinates: 36.373011, -119.316816.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
530
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page B-7
Photograph 13: Unoccupied stick nest #3 located in an abandoned barn inside the BSA, facing south.
GPS Coordinates: 36.364069, -119.315431.
Photograph taken by Karissa Denney on May 22, 2020.
Photograph 14: Dry man-made irrigation canal entering the eastern boundary of BSA, facing east.
GPS Coordinates: 36.366542, -119.313378.
Photograph taken by Erica Peña on May 22, 2020.
531
APPENDIX C
PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN THE BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA
532
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page C-1
Table C-1
Plant Species Observed within the Biological Study Area on May 22, 2020 Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
Scientific Name Common Name Status Native or Introduced Trees
Eucalyptus
camaldulensis
red gum/Eucalyptus None Introduced
Phoenix dactylifera date palm None Introduced
Quercus lobata Valley oak None Native
Herbs
Brassica nigra black mustard None Introduced
Cucurbita palmata coyote melon None Native
Datura stramonium Jimson weed None Introduced
Erigeron canadensis Canada horseweed None Native
Erodium cicutarium red stemmed filaree None Introduced
Helianthus annuus common sunflower None Native
Malva parviflora cheeseweed mallow None Introduced
Marrubbium vulgare white horehound None Introduced
Salsola australis Russian thistle None Introduced
Senecio vulgaris common groundsel None Introduced
Silybum marianum milk thistle None Introduced
Tribulus terrestris puncture vine None Introduced
Grasses
Avena sativa common oat None Introduced
Bromus tectorum downy brome None Introduced
Schismus arabicus Arabian schismus None Introduced
Triticum aestivum common wheat None Introduced
Zea mays corn None Introduced
*Cal-IPC = California Invasive Plant Council.
Rating system: High = several ecological impacts; Moderate = substantial but not severe ecological impacts; Limited = minor ecological impacts or not enough information to justify higher score; Alert = species ranked as High or Moderate with limited distribution, but potential to spread; Watch = could pose a high risk of becoming invasive in the future.
533
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page C-2
Table C-2
Animal Species Observed within the Biological Study Area on May 22, 2020 Pratt Family Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Native or
Introduced
Reptiles
Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard None Native Birds
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk None Native
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk ST Native
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird None Native
Pavo cristatus Indian peafowl None Introduced
Picidae sp. woodpecker None Native
Sturnus vulgaris common starling None Introduced
Zenaida macroura mourning dove None Native
Mammals
Canis latrans *coyote None Native
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel None Native * Indicates sign (i.e. tracks, scat, nest, burrow or den, calls) observed. 534
APPENDIX D
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS
535
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-1
Table D-1
Special-Status Plant Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Project Site Pratt Family Ranch, Tulare County, California
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
Sensitive Plant Communities
Great Valley Valley Oak
Riparian Forest
-/-
S1.1/-
This community occurs in
relatively fine-textured
alluvium, somewhat back
from active river channels.
These sites experience
overbank flooding (with
abundant alluvial
deposition and
groundwater recharge)
without severe physical
battering or erosion.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1985 and approximately
7.8 miles southeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 15609).
Northern Claypan Vernal
Pool
-/-
S1.1/-
This community consists of
a low, herbaceous
community dominated by
annual herbs and grasses.
Germination and growth
begin with winter rains,
often continuing even
when inundated. Rising
spring temperatures
evaporate the pools,
leaving concentric bands of
vegetation. Claypan vernal
pools are typically small
and contain less cover than
northern hardpan vernal
pools.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1983 and approximately
7.3 miles northwest of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 26434).
Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
-/-
S3.1/-
This community occurs on
old, very acidic, Fe-Si
cemented hardpan soils
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
536
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
(Redding, San Joaquin, and
similar series). The
microrelief on these soils
typically is hummocky,
with mounds intervening
between localized
depressions. Winter
rainfall perches on the
hardpan, forming pools in
the depressions.
Evaporation (not runoff)
empties pools in the spring.
CNDDB occurrence is from
1980 and approximately
5.7 miles north of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 26878).
Valley Sacaton Grassland
-/-
S1.1/-
This community is
dominated by alkali
sacaton, a tuft formed
grass. It is found in areas
with fine textured, poorly
drained and usually
alkaline soils with high
water tables, or that are
flooded during winter
months.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1985 and approximately
7.2 miles southeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 8664).
Plants
Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
Heartscale
-/-
1B.2/-
Found in alkali grasslands
on saline and alkaline soils
in and around scald areas.
Found in chenopod scrub
and valley and foothill
grassland habitats.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1938 and approximately
5.0 miles southwest of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 3244).
Atriplex cordulata var.
erecticaulis
Earlimart orache
-/-
1B.2/-
Annual herb that occurs in
saline or alkaline soils at
elevations under 100
meters (m). Blooms
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
537
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-3
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
between August and
September.
2002 and approximately
6.4 miles northwest of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 47221).
Atriplex depresse
brittlescale
-/-
1B.2/-
Annual herb found on alkali
soils that typically occur in
barren areas within alkali
grassland, alkali meadow,
and alkali scrub habitat. It
is occasionally found on
margins of alkali vernal
pools.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 1881
and approximately 1.6
miles southeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 83720).
Atriplex minuscula
lesser saltscale
-/-
1B.1/-
Annual plant; occurs in
chenopod scrub,
grasslands, and alkali sink
habitats, but is also known
to occur in wet areas.
Blooms from April to
October. Occurs at
elevations under 330 feet.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 2002
and approximately 5.4
miles southwest of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 56431).
Atriplex persistens
vernal pool smallscale
-/-
1B.2/-
Annual herb; blooms June
and August – October;
restricted to alkaline vernal
pools on the floor of the
San Joaquin Valley and is
endemic to California;
elevation ~ 30 to 375 feet;
threatened by agriculture
and flood control activities;
documented primarily on
Central Valley floor.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 2010
and approximately 1.6
miles northeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 90336).
Atriplex subtilis
subtle orache
-/-
1B.2/-
Annual herb; blooms June –
October; occurs in
chenopod scrub, grassland,
and alkali sink habitats,
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 2002
538
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
sometimes wet areas, at
elevations under 70 m.
and approximately 5.1
miles southwest of the
Project and is possibly
extirpated (EONDX 33912).
Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
FE/SE
1B.1/-
Annual herb; blooms
February to May; occurs in
slightly alkaline sandy soils
in chenopod scrub, valley
and foothill grassland, and
pinyon and juniper
woodland; elevation ~200
to 3,280 feet; found in San
Joaquin Valley, Carrizo
Plain, and Cuyama Valley
from Fresno County south
to Santa Barbara County;
many occurrences
presumed extirpated;
threatened by
development, grazing, and
competition from non-
native plants.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Delphinium recurvatum
recurved larkspur
-/-
1B.2/-
Perennial herb; commonly
found in chenopod scrub,
valley and foothill
grassland and cismontane
woodland; most common
on sandy or clay alkaline
soils, at elevations between
30 and 600 m; blooms
March – June.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 1998
and approximately 5.3
miles north of the Project
and is presumed extant
(EONDX 58420).
Eryngium spinosepalum
spiny-sepaled button-
celery
-/-
1B.2/-
Annual or perennial herb;
blooms April-June; occurs
in vernal pools and moist
areas in valley and foothill
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 1992
539
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-5
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
grasslands; elevation
~260-3200 feet;
threatened by
development, grazing, road
maintenance, hydrological
alterations, and agriculture;
documented primarily in
foothills of Sierra Nevada
with scattered occurrences
on Central Valley floor and
western foothills and lower
mountains.
and approximately 4.5
miles north of the Project
and is presumed extant
(EONDX 81502).
Euphorbia hooveri
Hoover’s spurge
FT/-
1B.2/-
Annual herb; blooms July to
September, sometimes into
October; occurs in vernal
pool habitats from ~80 feet
to 820 feet; several
scattered occurrences
throughout the Central
Valley, mostly on the valley
floor or surrounding
foothills; threatened by
grazing, agriculture, and
non-native plants.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 2011
and approximately 4.3
miles north of the Project
and is presumed extant
(EONDX 2447).
Helianthus winteri
Winter’s sunflower
-/-
1B.2/-
Perennial shrub; blooms
January to December;
occurs in Cismontane
woodlands, valley and
foothill grasslands, and
openings on relatively
steep south facing slopes;
threatened by grazing,
agriculture, road
maintenance, and habitat
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 2018
and approximately 7.7
miles northeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 110877).
540
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-6
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
loss; ranges in elevation from 410 to 8415 feet.
Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
-/-
2B.1/-
Perennial herb; occurs in
chaparral, coastal scrub,
Mojavean desert scrub,
meadows and seeps, and
riparian scrub in mesic or
alkali soils; blooms
September-May; elevation
~0-3,986 feet.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 1895
and approximately 1.6
miles southeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 69849).
Lathenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter’s goldfields
-/-
1B.1/-
Annual herb; occurs in
coastal marshes and
swamps, and playas and
vernal pools in the interior
of California; blooms Feb –
June; ranges in elevation
from 0 to 4,002 feet.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 2015
and approximately 7.8
miles northeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 114944).
Orcuttia inaequalis San
Joaquin Valley Orcutt
grass
FT/SE
1B.1/-
Annual herb; blooms April
to September; occurs in
vernal pools; elevation
~32-2,500 feet; threatened
by agricultural,
development, overgrazing,
channelization, and non-
native plants; documented
primarily on eastern
Central Valley floor and
foothills from Visalia north.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 2017
and approximately 4.8
miles north of the Project
and is presumed extant
(EONDX 35397).
Pseudobahia perisonii
San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
FT/SE
1B.1/-
Annual herb; blooms
March-April; occurs in
cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill
grasslands, and usually
adobe clay; elevation from
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
541
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-7
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
~295-2,625 feet; more than
half of known occurrences
are very small; seriously
threatened by agriculture,
grazing, development, nonnative plants, road
construction and
maintenance, and flood
control activities; possibly
threatened by road
maintenance.
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
-/-
1B.2/-
Annual herb found on
alkaline soils, vernally
mesic habitats, sinks, flats,
and lake margins. Typically
associated with chenopod
scrub, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill
grasslands, and vernal
pools, at elevations under
3,050 feet. Blooms between
March and May.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 1936
and approximately 4.5
miles northeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 100166).
Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford’s arrowhead
-/-
1B.2/-
Perennial rhizomatous
herb (emergent); blooms
May-October, sometimes
into November; occurs in
assorted shallow
freshwater marshes and
swamps, and slow-moving
waterways, in sandy loam
and clay soils; elevation ~0
to 2,130 feet; threatened by
grazing, development,
recreational activities, nonnative plants, road
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
occurrence is from 2018
and approximately 6.3
miles northeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 108242).
542
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-8
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
widening, and channel
alteration/maintenance;
documented primarily
throughout Central Valley
on valley floor and
surrounding foothills.
Invertebrates
Andrena macswaini
An andrenid bee
-/-
-/-
This bee species occurs in
deep sandy soil. It is an
oligolectic bee of morningopening, yellow-flowered
species of Camissonia. It is
the only species in the
subgenus Diandrena with
aggregated nests
associated with
depressions.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
-/SC
-/-
This bee occurs in
relatively warm and dry
sites, including the inner
Coast Range of California
and the margins of the
Mojave Desert. It can be
found in open grassland
and scrub habitats. Nesting
occurs underground. This
species is classified as a
short-tongued species,
whose food plants include
Asclepias, Chaenactis,
Lupinus, Medicago,
Phacelia, and Salvia.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1961 and approximately
1.5 miles southwest of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 98758).
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
FT/-
-/-
Occur a variety of vernal
pool habitats that range
from small, clear pools to
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
543
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-9
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
large, turbid and alkaline
pools; more common in
pools less than 0.05 acre,
typically as part of larger
vernal pool complexes;
adults active from early
December to early May;
pools must hold water for
at least 18 days, the
CNDDB occurrence is from
2008 and approximately
4.4 miles north of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 95408).
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
FT/-
-/-
Closely associated with
elderberry shrubs
(Sambucus sp.) for food
and reproduction; usually
along rivers and streams;
eggs laid on bark, and
larvae hatch and burrow
into the stems; adults each
elderberry leaves and
flowers; stem diameter
must be minimum one
inch; exit holes in stems are
most common methods for
identification; ranges from
southern Shasta County to
Fresno County.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
FE/-
-/-
This species inhabits
seasonal vernal pools and
swales in the Sacramento
Valley. Pools are often
found in grass-bottomed
swales of unplowed
grasslands, and pools will
be used even if highly
turbid. May also be found
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
2002 and approximately
6.0 miles northeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 45197).
544
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-10
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
in roadside ditches and
ruts.
Lytta hoppingi
Hopping’s blister beetle
-/-
-/-
This beetle species occurs
in the foothills of the
southern end of the Central
Valley; adults are often
found on flowers.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
the 1900’s and
approximately 1.5 miles
southeast of the Project
and is presumed extant
(EONDX 8142).
Talanites moodyae
Moody’s gnaphosid
spider
-/-
-/-
This arachnid species
occurs in leaf litter, in
moist coastal habitats and
grasslands, generally in
serpentine soils. It is a
nocturnal hunter.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1991 and approximately
6.7 miles east of the Project
and is presumed extant
(EONDX 59170).
Fish
Hypomesus
transpacificus
delta smelt
FT/SE
-/-
Small fish endemic to the
San Francisco Estuary and
the larger Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta; moves
between freshwater and
low salinity water
throughout year; most
spawning happens in
tidally influenced
backwater sloughs and
channel edgewaters;
historical distribution did
not extend beyond
Mossdale on the San
Joaquin River and
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
545
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-11
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
Sacramento on the
Sacramento River.
Amphibians
Ambystoma
californiense
California tiger
salamander
FT/ST
-/WL
Occurs in ephemeral pools
or ponds that mimic them,
and that remain inundated
for 12 weeks or more; can
occupy artificial ponds
(ranch stock ponds) if
ponds are allowed to go dry
in the summer; requires
nearby upland habitat
containing small mammal
burrows or crevices that
provide refugia; restricted
to grasslands and low
foothills; lives underground
most of the year.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
2002 and approximately
4.3 miles northeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 7033).
Lithobates pipiens
northern leopard frog
-/-
-/SSC
Highly aquatic; occurs in
quiet aquatic habitats with
permanent or semipermanent water;
shoreline cover and/or
emergent vegetation
important; breeds in
emergent wetlands;
uncommon and localized in
California; Found in Modoc
County and possibly
eastern Lassen County, and
along the Colorado River
and irrigated areas in
Imperial, Tulare, and Kern
Counties; may have been
introduced in many areas;
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1961 and approximately
6.0 miles northeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 74694).
546
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-12
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
elevation range from sea
level to 7,000 feet.
Rana draytonii
California red-legged
frog
FT/-
-/SSC
Occurs primarily in and
near ponds in forests,
woodlands, grasslands,
coastal scrub, and stream
sides with plant cover;
mostly in lower elevations;
breeding habitat may be
permanent or ephemeral;
estivates in animal burrows
or other moist refuges
when ephemeral habitat is
dry; endemic to California
and northern Baja
California; found
throughout coastal
California from Mendocino
County south; inland
distribution includes
northern Sacramento
Valley and foothills of
Sierra Nevada south to
Tulare County (possibly
Kern County); elevation
from sea level to 5,000 feet.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
-/-
-/SSC
Species relies on vernal
pools for breeding where
predators cannot become
established; open areas
with sand or gravelly soils
in a variety of habitats:
grasslands, coastal scrub,
woodlands, chaparral,
sandy washes, lowland
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
2004 and approximately
4.6 miles southwest of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 55262).
547
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-13
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
river floodplains, alkali
flats, foothills, and
mountains; endemic to
California and northern
Baja California; distribution
from Redding south
throughout Central Valley
and foothills, throughout
South Coast Ranges into
coastal southern California
to Transverse mountains
and Peninsular mountains;
elevation from sea level to
4,500 feet.
Reptiles
Anniella pulchra
northern California
legless lizard
-/-
-/SSC
This species occurs in
moist warm loose soils
with vegetative cover. Is
found in beach dunes,
chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert scrub,
sandy washes, and stream
terraces. This species
requires moisture in the
soil.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1934 and approximately
1.6 miles southeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 107010).
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
-/-
-/SSC
Highly aquatic and
diurnally active; found in
ponds, lakes, rivers,
streams, creeks, marshes,
and irrigation ditches with
vegetation and
rocky/muddy bottoms;
wide variety of habitats;
need basking areas near
water (logs, rocks,
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1879 and approximately
1.6 miles southeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 8143).
548
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-14
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
vegetation mats, banks);
may enter brackish water
and even seawater; digs
nest on land near water;
range from north of San
Francisco Bay area south,
including Central Valley.
Gambelia silus
blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
FE/SE
-/FP
Occurs in semiarid habitats
within the southern Central
Valley and Cuyama Valley;
habitats typically are flat
and have large open areas
with scattered shrubs for
refuge; uses small mammal
burrows for shelter; spends
most of year underground,
surfacing in spring/early
summer to breed and eat;
hatchlings surface in fall to
eat; may interbreed with
long-nosed leopard lizard
in Cuyama Valley;
threatened by habitat
loss/fragmentation and
drought; elevation from
100-2,400 feet.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Thamnophis gigas
giant gartersnake
FT/ST
-/-
Highly aquatic snake found
in marshes and sloughs,
drainage canals, and
irrigation ditches; prefers
vegetation close to water
for basking; does not
venture more than 200 feet
from aquatic habitat;
elevation from sea level to
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
549
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-15
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
400 feet; endemic to
California; currently ranges
from Glenn County to
southern edge of San
Francisco Bay Delta, and
from Merced County to
northern Fresno County.
Birds
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
-/ST
-/SSC
Colonial breeder that
prefers freshwater,
emergent wetlands with
tall, dense cattails or tules,
but also thickets of willow,
blackberry, wild rose, and
tall herbs; breeding
colonies are minimum ~50
pairs; forages in pastures,
grain fields, and similar
habitats near breeding
areas.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
-/-
-/SSC
Occupies variety of open,
semi-arid to arid habitats
throughout central and
southern California,
including desert regions;
prefers open habitats with
few shrubs or trees; most
active around sunrise and
sunset; utilizes burrows
constructed by mammals
year-round for shelter and
nesting; well documented
in urban areas where
patches of undeveloped
areas are present (e.g.,
Yes
The species could be a
potential transient forager
in the vicinity of the Project
site. Nearest CNDDB
occurrence is
approximately 4.3 miles
north of the Project and is
presumed extant (EONDX
69904).
550
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-16
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
canals, airports, drainage
basins), and in areas of
dense agricultural
development where,
particularly where canals
provide burrow habitat;
forages primarily for
rodents and insects within
several miles of burrow,
usually in open grassy
habitats if available; has
been observed hunting bats
and insects around parking
lot lights; threats include
development resulting in
habitat loss/fragmentation.
Baeolphus inornatus
oak titmouse
-/-
-/BCC
Common woodland parid
that is mainly distributed
from southwestern Oregon
through California to
northwestern Baja
California; occurs in warm,
open, dry oak or oak-pine
woodlands; observed using
scrub oaks or other brush.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk
-/ST
-/BCC
Occurs in grassland, desert
and agricultural landscapes
in the Central Valley and
Antelope Valley; hawks
may be resident or
migrant; breeds in stands
with few trees in junipersage flats, riparian areas,
and oak savannah; also
observed breeding in large
Yes
There is suitable foraging
habitat, and suitable nest
trees that exist in the
vicinity. Nearest CNDDB
occurrence is
approximately 5.0 miles
southwest of the Project
and presumed extant
(EONDX 109959).
551
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-17
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
eucalyptus trees along
freeways and in trees over
rural residences
surrounded by agriculture;
may nest on ground if no
suitable trees are available;
nests are platform of sticks,
bark, and fresh leaves at or
near top of trees; breeds
from late March to late
August; forages in
grassland, open scrub, and
grain fields, primarily for
rodents.
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
western yellow-billed
cuckoo
FT/SE
-/BCC
Nests in open riparian
woodlands along broad
lower flood bottoms of
larger river systems;
prefers willows, often
mixed with cottonwood,
with understory of
blackberry, nettles or wild
grape; nest most often
placed in willows with
cottonwoods used
extensively for foraging;
also occasionally nests in
orchards adjacent to river
bottoms; migratory.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1919 and approximately
1.5 miles southwest of the
Project and is extirpated
(EONDX 97213).
Dryobates nuttallii
Nuttall’s woodpecker
-/-
-/BCC
Common resident in oak
woodlands from around
900-5,500 feet in elevation;
use wooded suburban
areas and woodlands near
streams; excavate nest
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrence for the species
552
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-18
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
holes in dead trunks or
limbs of willows,
cottonwoods, sycamores,
oaks, or alders.
within 10-miles of the
Project.
Geothlypis trichas
sinuosa
common yellowthroat
-/-
-/SSC
Most widespread warblers;
occupies a variety of thick
to tangled vegetation
habitats across North
America; common in wet
areas that are ideal for
skulking and building
hidden nests; can also be
found in dry upland pine
forests, palmetto thickets,
drainage ditches,
hedgerows, orchards,
fields, burn-over oak
forests, shrub-covered
hillsides, rover edges, and
disturbed sites.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
-/-
-/SSC
Common resident in
lowlands and foothills
throughout California;
prefers open
grassland/pasture habitats
with scattered trees, fence
posts, utility lines, shrubs,
and other perches;
primarily consumes large
insects but will predator
other small animals; nests
in densely-foliaged shrub
or tree less than 50 feet
above ground.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1992 and approximately
6.2 miles northwest of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 87281).
553
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-19
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
Melospiza melodia
song sparrow
-/-
-/SSC
A widely distributed
songbird in North America;
occurs in freshwater
emergent marshes
dominated by Scirpus and
Typha, and riparian willow
(Salix) and riparian
habitat; nest in riparian
forests of valley oak
(Quercus lobata) and
blackberry (Rubus), along
vegetated canals and
levees, and in valley oak
restoration sites; primarily
feed on insects and seeds;
endemic to the Sacramento
Valley .
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Numenius phaepus
Whimbrel
-/-
-/BCC
Winter visitor to coastal
California and may migrate
through interior California
in the spring. During
migration, will stopover
and forage in meadows,
fields, sandy beaches,
estuaries, etc., typically
roosting at night in shallow
water. Overwintering
habitat typically consists of
tidal mudflats and more
terrestrial habitats during
high tide. Main foods are
aquatic invertebrates, fish,
some insects and berries.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Pipilo maculatus
clementae
-/-
-/BCC
Common residents in dry
thickets, brushy tangles, No Habitat to support this species is absent from the 554
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-20
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
San Clemente spotted
towhee
forest edges, old fields,
shrubby backyards,
chaparral coulees, and
canyon bottoms; prefer
areas with dense shrub
cover and leaf litter to
scavenge through; nest on
either the ground or near it.
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Selasphorus rufus
rufous hummingbird
-/-
-/BCC
This species migrates
through California between
its wintering grounds in
Mexico and breeding
grounds in the Pacific
northwest. Found in a wide
variety of habitats that
provide nectar-producing
flowers, including valley
foothill woodlands,
riparian, chaparral, and
planted gardens.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Spinus lawrencei
Lawrence’s goldfinch
-/-
-/BCC
Occurs in dry grassy slopes
with weed patches,
chaparral, and open
woodlands; prefers to nest
and forage in coastal scrub,
pinyon pine- juniper
woodlands, and streambed
habitats; primarily feeds on
plant seeds and only rarely
eats insects.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
-/-
-/SSC
Occurs throughout
California in wide variety of
habitats: grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands,
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
555
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-21
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
forests up through mixed
conifer; most common in
open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting;
yearlong resident; feeds
mainly on insects and
arachnids on the ground or
by gleaning; day roosts in
caves, crevices, mines, and
occasionally hollow trees
and buildings, including
bridges; night roosts in
more open sites; maternity
colonies form early April
with young flying by July or
August; needs water; very
sensitive to disturbance of
roosting sites.
2004 and approximately
5.6 miles southeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 68476).
Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides
Tipton kangaroo rat
FE/SE
-/-
Occurs in alkali marshes
and on plains. Use
saltbrush scrub and sink
scrub communities of
scattered woody shrubs
such as saltbush, iodine
bush, and mesquite
(Prosopis sp.) that are
sparsely scattered over the
terrain with scant ground
cover of grasses and forbs.
They require slightly
elevated terrain, with fine–
textured, soft friable and
alkaline soils where they
can build burrows above
the winter and spring
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. There are no
recorded CNDDB
occurrences for the species
within 10 miles of the
Project.
556
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-22
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
floods. Dig burrows in
elevated soil mounds at
bases of shrubs, canal
embankments, road berms,
or railroad beds. Unable to
live on cultivated land.
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff bat
-/-
-/SSC
Occurs in open, semi-arid
to arid habitats throughout
southeastern San Joaquin
Valley and Coast Ranges
from Monterey County
southward; also in urban
areas; feeds on insects
captured in flight; roosts in
cliff faces, high buildings,
trees, and tunnels; nursery
roosts most often in tight
rock crevices or crevices in
buildings; maternity season
begins in March with young
flying on their own by
September.
No
Habitat to support this
species is absent from the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
2002 and approximately
5.0 miles south of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 61287).
Taxidea taxus
American badger
-/-
-/SSC
Occurs mostly in open,
drier stages of shrub,
forest, and herbaceous
habitats, with friable soils;
feeds mostly on fossorial
rodents; digs burrows for
cover and reproduction;
can dig new den each night;
litters born mostly in
March and April; somewhat
tolerant of human
activities, but avoids
Yes
There is potential denning
and foraging habitat on the
Project site. Nearest
CNDDB occurrence is from
1994 and approximately
7.5 miles southeast of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 56600).
557
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-23
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR/CDFW
Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale
cultivated agricultural
habitats.
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
FE/ST
-/-
Endemic to the Central
Valley; found primarily in
San Joaquin Valley, Carrizo
Plain, Salinas Valley,
Cuyama Valley, and other
small valleys in western
foothills; occurs in arid to
semi-arid grasslands, open
shrublands, savannahs, and
grazed lands with loosetextured soils; highly
adaptable and documented
in urban developed areas;
uses burrows year-round
for shelter, escape from
predators, and rearing
young; will use man-made
structures, such as pipes,
for denning; feeds
primarily on small
mammals, but will also
consume birds, reptiles,
insects, and scavenge for
human food; intensivelymaintained agricultural
areas avoided; threatened
by habitat loss and
fragmentation, vehicle
strikes, and disease;
current mange outbreak in
urban population in
Bakersfield and in nearby
natural areas.
Yes
The species could be a
potential transient forager
in the vicinity of the Project
site. Nearest CNDDB
occurrence is from 1975
and approximately 4.0
miles west of the Project
and is presumed extant
(EONDX 67936). Recent
CNDDB occurrence is from
2003 approximately 4.5
miles northwest of the
Project and is presumed
extant (EONDX 55307).
558
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page D-24
CRPR (California Rare Plant Rank):
1A Presumed Extinct in California
1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR Threat Code Extension:
.1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened) BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
FE Federally Endangered
FT Federally Threatened
FC Federal Candidate Species
FS Federally Sensitive
SE State Endangered
ST State Threatened
SC State Candidate
SS State Sensitive
SSC State Species of Special Concern
SFP State Fully Protected
SR State Rare
WL Watch List
559
APPENDIX E
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE STANDARDIZED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECTION OF
THE ENDANGERED SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX PRIOR TO OR DURING GROUND DISTURBANCE (USFWS 2011)
560
STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 1
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
STANDARDIZED RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENDANGERED SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX
PRIOR TO OR DURING GROUND DISTURBANCE
Prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
January 2011
INTRODUCTION
The following document includes many of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) protection measures typically recommended by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), prior to and during ground disturbance activities. However, incorporating relevant sections of these guidelines into the proposed project is not the only action required under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) and does not preclude the need for section 7 consultation or a section 10 incidental take permit for the proposed project.
Project applicants should contact the Service in Sacramento to determine the full range of requirements that apply to your project; the address and telephone number are given at the end of this document. Implementation of the measures presented in this document may be necessary to avoid violating the provisions of the Act, including the prohibition against "take" (defined as killing, harming, or harassing a listed species, including actions that damage or destroy its habitat). These protection measures may also be required under the terms of a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the Act resulting in incidental take authorization (authorization), or an incidental take permit (permit) pursuant to section 10 of the Act. The specific measures implemented to protect kit fox for any given project shall be determined by the Service based upon the applicant's consultation with the Service.
The purpose of this document is to make information on kit fox protection strategies readily available and to help standardize the methods and definitions currently employed to achieve kit fox protection. The measures outlined in this document are subject to modification or revision at the discretion of the Service.
IS A PERMIT NECESSARY?
Certain acts need a permit from the Service which includes destruction of any known (occupied or unoccupied) or natal/pupping kit fox dens. Determination of the presence or absence of kit foxes and /or their dens should be made during the environmental review process.
All surveys and monitoring described in this document must be conducted by a qualified biologist and these activities do not require a permit. A qualified biologist (biologist) means any person who has completed at least four years of university training in wildlife biology or a related science and/or has demonstrated field experience in the identification and life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. In addition, the biologist(s) must be able to identify coyote, red fox, 561
STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 2
gray fox, and kit fox tracks, and to have seen a kit fox in the wild, at a zoo, or as a museum mount. Resumes of biologists should be submitted to the Service for review and approval prior to an6y survey or monitoring work occurring.
SMALL PROJECTS
Small projects are considered to be those projects with small foot prints, of approximately one acre or less, such as an individual in-fill oil well, communication tower, or bridge repairs. These projects must stand alone and not be part of, or in any way connected to larger projects (i.e., bridge repair or improvement to serve a future urban development). The Service recommends that on these small projects, the biologist survey the proposed project boundary and a 200-foot area outside of the project footprint to identify habitat features and utilize this information as guidance to situate the project to minimize or avoid impacts. If habitat features cannot be completely avoided, then surveys should be conducted and the Service should be contacted for technical assistance to determine the extent of possible take.
Preconstruction/preactivity surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any project activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. Kit foxes change dens four or five times during the summer months, and change natal dens one or two times per month (Morrell 1972). Surveys should identify kit fox habitat features on the project site and evaluate use by kit fox and, if possible, assess the potential impacts to the kit fox by the proposed activity. The status of all dens should be determined and mapped (see Survey Protocol). Written results of preconstruction/preactivity surveys must be received by the Service within five days after survey completion and prior to the start of ground disturbance and/or construction activities.
If a natal/pupping den is discovered within the project area or within 200-feet of the project boundary, the Service shall be immediately notified and under no circumstances should the den be disturbed or destroyed without prior authorization. If the preconstruction/preactivity survey reveals an active natal pupping or new information, the project applicant should contact the Service immediately to obtain the necessary take authorization/permit.
If the take authorization/permit has already been issued, then the biologist may proceed with den destruction within the project boundary, except natal/pupping den which may not be destroyed while occupied. A take authorization/permit is required to destroy these dens even after they are vacated. Protective exclusion zones can be placed around all known and potential dens which occur outside the project footprint (conversely, the project boundary can be demarcated, see den destruction section).
562
STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 3
OTHER PROJECTS
It is likely that all other projects occurring within kit fox habitat will require a take authorization/permit from the Service. This determination would be made by the Service during the early evaluation process (see Survey Protocol). These other projects would include, but are not limited to: Linear projects; projects with large footprints such as urban development; and projects which in themselves may be small but have far reaching impacts (i.e., water storage or conveyance facilities that promote urban growth or agriculture, etc.).
The take authorization/permit issued by the Service may incorporate some or all of the protection measures presented in this document. The take authorization/permit may include measures specific to the needs of the project and those requirements supersede any requirements found in this document.
EXCLUSION ZONES
In order to avoid impacts, construction activities must avoid their dens. The configuration of exclusion zones around the kit fox dens should have a radius measured outward from the entrance or cluster of entrances due to the length of dens underground. The following distances are minimums, and if they cannot be followed the Service must be contacted. Adult and pup kit foxes are known to sometimes rest and play near the den entrance in the afternoon, but most above-ground activities begin near sunset and continue sporadically throughout the night. Den definitions are attached as Exhibit A.
Potential den** 50 feet
Atypical den** 50 feet
Known den* 100 feet
Natal/pupping den Service must be contacted
(occupied and unoccupied)
*Known den: To ensure protection, the exclusion zone should be demarcated by fencing that encircles each den at the appropriate distance and does not prevent access to the den by kit foxes.
Acceptable fencing includes untreated wood particle-board, silt fencing, orange construction fencing or other fencing as approved by the Service as long as it has openings for kit fox ingress/egress and keeps humans and equipment out. Exclusion zone fencing should be maintained until all construction related or operational disturbances have been terminated. At that time, all fencing shall be removed to avoid attracting subsequent attention to the dens. 563
STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 4
**Potential and Atypical dens: Placement of 4-5 flagged stakes 50 feet from the den entrance(s) will suffice to identify the den location; fencing will not be required, but the exclusion zone must be observed.
Only essential vehicle operation on existing roads and foot traffic should be permitted.
Otherwise, all construction, vehicle operation, material storage, or any other type of surfacedisturbing activity should be prohibited or greatly restricted within the exclusion zones.
DESTRUCTION OF DENS
Limited destruction of kit fox dens may be allowed, if avoidance is not a reasonable alternative, provided the following procedures are observed. The value to kit foxes of potential, known, and natal/pupping dens differ and therefore, each den type needs a different level of protection.
Destruction of any known or natal/pupping kit fox den requires take authorization/permit from the Service.
Destruction of the den should be accomplished by careful excavation until it is certain that no kit foxes are inside. The den should be fully excavated, filled with dirt and compacted to ensure that kit foxes cannot reenter or use the den during the construction period. If at any point during excavation, a kit fox is discovered inside the den, the excavation activity shall cease immediately and monitoring of the den as described above should be resumed. Destruction of the den may be completed when in the judgment of the biologist, the animal has escaped, without further disturbance, from the partially destroyed den.
Natal/pupping dens: Natal or pupping dens which are occupied will not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after consultation with the Service. Therefore, project activities at some den sites may have to be postponed.
Known Dens: Known dens occurring within the footprint of the activity must be monitored for three days with tracking medium or an infra-red beam camera to determine the current use. If no kit fox activity is observed during this period, the den should be destroyed immediately to preclude subsequent use.
If kit fox activity is observed at the den during this period, the den should be monitored for at least five consecutive days from the time of the observation to allow any resident animal to move to another den during its normal activity. Use of the den can be discouraged during this period by partially plugging its entrances(s) with soil in such a manner that any resident animal can escape easily. Only when the den is determined to be unoccupied may the den be excavated under the direction of the biologist. If the animal is still present after five or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant, for example during the animal's normal foraging activities. 564
STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 5
The Service encourages hand excavation, but realizes that soil conditions may necessitate the use of excavating equipment. However, extreme caution must be exercised.
Potential Dens: If a take authorization/permit has been obtained from the Service, den destruction may proceed without monitoring, unless other restrictions were issued with the take authorization/permit. If no take authorization/permit has been issued, then potential dens should be monitored as if they were known dens. If any den was considered to be a potential den, but is later determined during monitoring or destruction to be currently, or previously used by kit fox (e.g., if kit fox sign is found inside), then all construction activities shall cease and the Service shall be notified immediately.
CONSTRUCTION AND ON-GOING OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Habitat subject to permanent and temporary construction disturbances and other types of ongoing project-related disturbance activities should be minimized by adhering to the following activities. Project designs should limit or cluster permanent project features to the smallest area possible while still permitting achievement of project goals. To minimize temporary disturbances, all project-related vehicle traffic should be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas. These areas should also be included in preconstruction surveys and, to the extent possible, should be established in locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent further impacts.
1. Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction should be minimized to the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited.
2. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be contacted as noted under measure 13 referenced below.
3. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is 565
STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 6
discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
4. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.
5. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.
6. No pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.
7. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.
8. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.
9. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has anticipated impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project. The program should include the following: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the project site.
10. Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. should be 566
STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 7
re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to preproject conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the project, but after project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas should be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the Service, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and revegetation experts.
11. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for guidance.
12. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The CDFG contact for immediate assistance is State Dispatch at (916)445-0045. They will contact the local warden or Mr. Paul Hoffman, the wildlife biologist, at (530)934-9309. The Service should be contacted at the numbers below.
13. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFG shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information.
The Service contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below. The CDFG contact is Mr. Paul Hoffman at 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A, Rancho Cordova, California 95670, (530) 934-9309.
14. New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the Service at the address below.
Any project-related information required by the Service or questions concerning the above conditions or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at: Endangered Species Division
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2605
Sacramento, California 95825-1846
(916) 414-6620 or (916) 414-6600
567
STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 8
EXHIBIT “A” - DEFINITIONS
"Take" - Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) prohibits the "take" of any federally listed endangered species by any person (an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, etc.) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As defined in the Act, take means " . . . to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct". Thus, not only is a listed animal protected from activities such as hunting, but also from actions that damage or destroy its habitat. "Dens" - San Joaquin kit fox dens may be located in areas of low, moderate, or steep topography.
Den characteristics are listed below, however, the specific characteristics of individual dens may vary and occupied dens may lack some or all of these features. Therefore, caution must be exercised in determining the status of any den. Typical dens may include the following: (1) one or more entrances that are approximately 5 to 8 inches in diameter; (2) dirt berms adjacent to the entrances; (3) kit fox tracks, scat, or prey remains in the vicinity of the den; (4) matted vegetation adjacent to the den entrances; and (5) manmade features such as culverts, pipes, and canal banks.
"Known den" - Any existing natural den or manmade structure that is used or has been used at any time in the past by a San Joaquin kit fox. Evidence of use may include historical records, past or current radiotelemetry or spotlighting data, kit fox sign such as tracks, scat, and/or prey remains, or other reasonable proof that a given den is being or has been used by a kit fox. The Service discourages use of the terms ”active” and “inactive” when referring to any kit fox den because a great percentage of occupied dens show no evidence of use, and because kit foxes change dens often, with the result that the status of a given den may change frequently and abruptly.
"Potential Den" - Any subterranean hole within the species’ range that has entrances of appropriate dimensions for which available evidence is insufficient to conclude that it is being used or has been used by a kit fox. Potential dens shall include the following: (1) any suitable subterranean hole; or (2) any den or burrow of another species (e.g., coyote, badger, red fox, or ground squirrel) that otherwise has appropriate characteristics for kit fox use. "Natal or Pupping Den" - Any den used by kit foxes to whelp and/or rear their pups.
Natal/pupping dens may be larger with more numerous entrances than dens occupied exclusively by adults. These dens typically have more kit fox tracks, scat, and prey remains in the vicinity of the den, and may have a broader apron of matted dirt and/or vegetation at one or more entrances.
A natal den, defined as a den in which kit fox pups are actually whelped but not necessarily reared, is a more restrictive version of the pupping den. In practice, however, it is difficult to distinguish between the two, therefore, for purposes of this definition either term applies. 568
STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS 9
"Atypical Den" - Any manmade structure which has been or is being occupied by a San Joaquin kit fox. Atypical dens may include pipes, culverts, and diggings beneath concrete slabs and buildings.
569
Pratt Valley Ranch Project July 2020
D.R. Horton Page E-1
570
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: June 14, 2020
Project: Cultural resources records search for the Pratt Family Ranch Residential Development Project, Visalia, Tulare County, CA
To: Jaymie Brauer
From: Robert Parr, MS, RPA, Senior Archaeologist
Subject: Cultural Resources Records Search Results (RS #20-211) Background
This Technical Memo is to provide a cultural record search and to determine whether the proposed project would impact cultural resources.
Project Description
The Project will be built on five contiguous parcels which consist of: Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 078-010-025, 078-010-028, 078-010-029, 078-110-022, and 078-110-023. The Project consists of two proposed land use designation (excluding Open Space) that require differing lot types in order to meet their respective densities. The project will consist of 543 units on individual lots. Entitlements included are General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Annexation, Specific Plan, and Tentative Subdivision Map.
Project Location
The proposed Project is located on the northern edge of the City of Visalia, Tulare County California, on Pratt Road and Riverway Drive (Figures 1 and 2). It is within the Visalia California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, and within portions of Sections 13 and 18, T.18S, R.24E and R.25E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The St. Johns River runs along the northern property boundary. There is residential development to the south and undeveloped agricultural lands to the east and west of the site.
Results
A cultural resources records search (RS #20-211) was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, CSU Bakersfield for the Pratt Family Ranch Residential Development Project. A Sacred Lands File Search was also requested from the Native American 571
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Heritage Commission. On May 26, 2020, the NAHC response letter indicated negative results.
This letter is included with this memo.
The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the project and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file.
The records search indicated that the subject property had never been surveyed for cultural resources. No cultural resources have been recorded on the property and it is not known if any exist there. One cultural resource survey has been conducted within a half mile of the project (Nuss and Beazley 2016). No cultural resources have been recorded within a half mile radius of the project.
Visalia General Plan certified EIR, Section 3.12 Cultural Resources, notes several recognized historical resources in the City (City of Visalia, 2014). However, these sites are not in close proximity to the Project.
Conclusions
Based on the results of cultural records search findings and the lack of historical or archaeological resources previously identified within a half mile radius of the proposed Project, the potential to encounter subsurface cultural resources is minimal. Additionally, the Project construction would be conducted within the partially developed and previously disturbed parcel.
The potential to uncover subsurface historical or archaeological deposits is would be considered unlikely.
However, there is still a possibility that historical or archaeological materials may be exposed during construction. Grading and trenching, as well as other ground-disturbing actions have the potential to damage or destroy these previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources within the project area, including historical or archaeological resources. Disturbance of any deposits that have the potential to provide significant cultural data would be considered a significant impact. To reduce the potential impacts of the Project on cultural resources, the following measures are recommended. With implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and 572
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would ensure that the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
CUL-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.
Robert E. Parr, MS, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
References
(Note: Alpha-numeric designation in parentheses following the citation refer to IC report reference number.)
Nuss, Andrew and Matthew Beazley
2016 Archaeological Assessment TCNS ID #140292, American Towers, LLC, Visalia, Tulare County, California. (TU-01778)
Attachment A- Figures
Attachment B- Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Response 200180
573
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT FIGURES
574
Figure - 1
Regional Location
575
Figure - 3
PLSS/USGS Quad
576
Figure - 2
Project Area
577
Figure - 4
Topo
578
ATTACHMENT B
Native American Heritage Commission
Sacred Lands File Response
579
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION