Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, August 5, 2024 (part 3 of 6)

Facilities Relocation Agreement March 2016

FACILITIES RELOCATION AGREEMENT
This Facilities Relocation Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 7th day of June, 2024 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Southern California Edison Company, a California corporation (“SCE”), and City of Visalia (the “Applicant”). SCE and the Applicant are sometimes individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing to develop a Street Improvement project (the “Project”) within that area generally depicted in the attached Exhibit A (the “Project Location”).

WHEREAS, SCE currently operates and maintains certain transmission, distribution, and/or telecommunication facilities (collectively the “SCE Facilities”) within and proximate to the Project Location.

WHEREAS, the Applicant has determined that implementation of the Project will require the relocation of portions of the SCE Facilities and, to that end, the Applicant has requested that SCE relocate some or all of the SCE Facilities.

WHEREAS, subject to the terms and provisions set forth herein, SCE is willing and able to relocate the identified SCE Facilities in order to accommodate the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND SCE AS FOLLOWS:

AGREEMENT

1. SCOPE OF WORK
This Project will require that certain of SCE’s overhead transmission, distribution, and/or telecommunication facilities be relocated from their current location to a new overhead location.

The Scope of Work for the overhead relocation is as follows:

TD1878101 / 802367284 / TD2226818- 100% City Expense: Remove 5 transmission poles and install 1 TSP pole and 6 wood poles with distribution and trans telecom underbuilt.

TD2207469- 50% City Expense: Distribution at the corner of Shirks St and Riggin Ave will relocate underground, one span in each direction.

2. RELOCATION PLANS
a. Approved Relocation Plans. In furtherance of the Applicant’s request, SCE has prepared certain plans/designs that identify (i) the SCE Facilities that will be impacted by the Project and (ii) the relocation areas for the affected SCE Facilities (the “Relocation Plans”). Copies of the Relocation Plans are attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Applicant expressly acknowledges that (a) it has reviewed and approved the Relocation Plans and (b) the Relocation Plans do not present any conflicts with the Applicant’s development plans for the Project, nor do the Relocation Plans conflict with any other non-SCE utilities that are located, or will be located, in the Project Location. It is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to ensure that no conflicts exist between the Relocation Plans and the Applicant’s development plans or other non-SCE utilities, and to timely inform SCE of the need for any refinements, modifications, or revisions to the Relocation Plans to resolve any such conflicts that may later arise, all in accordance with subsections (b) – (d) below. 454

Page 2 of 10 ends

Facilities Relocation Agreement March 2016
b. Refinements to Plans. Depending upon the design status of the Project as of the Effective Date, the Parties acknowledge that refinements and/or adjustments to portions of the Relocation Plans may be required in order to eliminate minor conflicts. In such instance, SCE shall prepare such refinements to the Relocation Plans as may be necessary in order to address/eliminate said conflicts. The refined Relocation Plans shall be presented to the Applicant for review and approval; SCE shall not commence the Relocation Work (see Section 4, below) unless and until the Applicant has reviewed and approved the refined Relocation Plans. The Applicant shall be responsible for all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by SCE in relation to SCE’s refinement of the Relocation Plans.
c. Revised Plans. In the event that modifications/revisions to the Relocation Plans are required in order to accommodate changes to the Project (including the elimination of conflicts with the Applicant’s development plans), to resolve conflicts with other non-SCE utilities within the Project area, or to address other changed circumstances, then SCE shall prepare such modifications/revisions as are necessary to address said changes and shall present same to the Applicant for review and approval. The Applicant shall be responsible for all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by SCE in relation to SCE’s preparation of the modifications/revisions to the Relocation Plans.
d. Potential Project Delays. The Applicant expressly acknowledges that the preparation of refined, modified and/or revised Relocation Plans may cause delays in SCE’s performance of the Relocation Work, and that said delays could impact the development schedule for the Project. The Parties agree that SCE shall not have any liability or obligation to the Applicant (or others) in the event that the preparation of refined, modified and/or revised Relocation Plans results in delays in the Project.

3. ACQUISITION OF LAND RIGHTS
The Applicant shall be responsible for securing all land rights required by SCE to allow SCE to relocate, construct and permanently operate and maintain the SCE Facilities on the areas depicted in the Relocation Plans (the “Relocation Areas”). The land rights acquired by the Applicant (the “SCE Land Rights”) shall be in a form prescribed by SCE (the “SCE Land Rights Form”); SCE shall provide the SCE Land Rights Form to the Applicant.

The SCE Land Rights shall also include permanent rights of ingress/egress that allow SCE to gain reasonable, unimpeded and non-escorted access to and from the Relocation Areas and the SCE Facilities (whether over lands owned by the Applicant or otherwise). In connection with the acquisition of the SCE Land Rights, the Applicant shall be responsible for clearing all encumbrances identified by SCE that could interfere with the Relocation Work and the exercise of the SCE Land Rights on/about the Relocation Areas (including access thereto/therefrom). Unless otherwise agreed (in writing) by SCE, the SCE Land Rights shall be granted directly to SCE.

Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, SCE will not begin the Relocation Work unless and until all required SCE Land Rights have been executed, in writing, and presented to and approved by SCE.

4. RELOCATION WORK
Following (i) the Parties’ confirmation of the finality of the Relocation Plans and (ii) the Applicant’s acquisition (and SCE’s approval) of the SCE Land Rights, SCE shall cause the SCE Facilities to be removed and relocated to the Relocation Areas in accordance with the Relocation Plans (the “Relocation Work”). SCE shall perform the Relocation Work in accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations.
455

Page 3 of 10 ends

Facilities Relocation Agreement March 2016

5. COST ALLOCATION
a. SCE’s Cost Responsibility. SCE shall be responsible for the actual costs of the following items/activities associated with SCE’s implementation of the Relocation Plans:
 TD2207469- 50% SCE Expense: Distribution at the corner of Shirks St and Riggin Ave will relocate underground, one span in each direction. Per agreement with city.  TD2223487- 100% SCE Expense: Relocation of 18 distribution poles located West of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue.
b. Applicant’s Cost Responsibility. Applicant shall be responsible for the actual costs of the following items/activities associated with SCE’s implementation of the Relocation Plans:
 TD1878101 / 802367284 / TD2226818- 100% City Expense: Remove 5 transmission poles and install 1 TSP pole and 6 wood poles with distribution and trans telecom underbuilt.
 TD2207469- 50% City Expense: Distribution at the corner of Shirks Street and Riggin Avenue will relocate underground, one span in each direction.

6. INITIAL COST ESTIMATE, PAYMENT(S) AND RECONCILIATION a. Initial Cost Estimate. The total estimated cost for the Relocation Work for which the Applicant is responsible is $1,081,000.00 (the “Initial Cost Estimate”).

The Initial Cost Estimate does not include an Income Tax Component of Contribution (“ITCC”) based on SCE’s understanding that this project is exempt from ITCC charges. In the event that the Internal Revenue Service, state, city, and/or local governmental taxing authority determines that this project is taxable, the Applicant will reimburse SCE for the full amount of the tax liability, plus interest, penalties, fees, and related costs. Such amounts will be paid to SCE within 60 days after notification of such event by SCE to the Applicant. By execution of this document, the Applicant hereby acknowledges that this project is funded by the Applicant. b. Prior Advances; Outstanding Balance. SCE has previously received an engineering advance from the Applicant in the amount of $85,000.00, which has been applied toward the total Initial Cost Estimate owed by the Applicant. Thus, the total remaining balance due to SCE at this time is $996,000.00 (the “Outstanding Balance”). c. Payment of Outstanding Balance. Concurrent with the Applicant’s execution and delivery of this Agreement, the Applicant shall pay to SCE the Outstanding Balance.

The Outstanding Balance shall be delivered to SCE at the address shown in Section 12.b, below, and shall reference the following SCE Project File Number: 2490. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the Applicant acknowledges and agrees that SCE will not begin the Relocation Work unless and until SCE has received the Outstanding Balance. d. Reconciliation. The Parties acknowledge that the Initial Cost Estimate is valid only for a period of 90 days following the Effective Date, and that the costs associated with SCE’s performance of the Relocation Work could increase prior to SCE’s completion of the Relocation Work. Upon completion of the Relocation Work (or cancellation of the Project or termination of this Agreement), the Applicant will be responsible for paying the total costs and 456

Page 4 of 10 ends

Facilities Relocation Agreement March 2016
expenses actually incurred by SCE in relation to implementation of the Relocation Plans. Thus, at the completion of the Relocation Work (or upon cancellation of the Project or termination of this Agreement), SCE will calculate the total actual costs and expenses for which the Applicant is responsible hereunder, and the Applicant will be provided with a final invoice identifying said costs and expenses. The Applicant will be billed or refunded, as applicable, for any difference between the amounts paid by the Applicant hereunder and the actual costs and expenses incurred by SCE. Any amount owed to SCE shall be due no later than 30 days after the Applicant’s receipt of the final invoice. Similarly, any amount owed by SCE to the Applicant shall be refunded by SCE to the Applicant within 30 days following SCE’s preparation and delivery of the final invoice.

If the Applicant fails to pay the final invoice within 30 days of receipt, the Applicant is responsible for paying to SCE, in addition to the invoiced amount, any and all costs incurred by SCE to collect the past due amount, including but not limited to, collection agency fees and court costs, but excluding attorneys’ fees.

7. PROJECT SCHEDULING
The Parties acknowledge and agree that completion of the Relocation Work is contingent upon mutually acceptable schedules, available resources, the timely obtaining of permits, licenses, real property rights, and other documents, outages or other key items and not being delayed by those forces described in Section 8, below. The Parties shall work cooperatively and in good faith to timely meet all mutually-acceptable schedules and to minimize delays; however, the Applicant expressly acknowledges and agrees that SCE offers no guarantees or warranties regarding the completion date for the Relocation Work.

8. NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR DELAYS
SCE shall not be responsible or liable to the Applicant (or others) for any delay in its performance hereunder, or for any delays in the Project, due to any reason including, but not limited to:
shortage of labor or materials, delivery delays, major equipment breakdown, load management, strikes, labor disturbances, war, riot, insurrection, civil disturbance, weather conditions, epidemic, quarantine restriction, sabotage, act of public enemy, earthquake, governmental rule, regulation or order, including orders of judgments of any court or commission, requirement of additional or separate Environmental Impact Reports requested by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), delay in receiving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the CPUC, delay in obtaining necessary rights of way, act of God, or any cause or conditions beyond the control of SCE or the Applicant. The Applicant expressly waives and releases any and all claims for damages against SCE arising out of any delays in the Project unless due to SCE’s sole negligence or willful misconduct.

9. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
The Applicant, at no cost to SCE, but with SCE’s reasonable cooperation, shall comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and other environmental laws, as applicable, and shall prepare any and all Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations and/or Environmental Impact Reports which may be required by any agency or entity having jurisdiction over the Project and the Relocation Work. The Applicant expressly acknowledges that SCE is relying upon the Applicant’s representations that the Relocation Work is covered by the environmental documentation, clearances and permits issued (or to be issued) in relation to the Project, and that the Applicant is responsible for satisfying all mitigation requirements and conditions attendant to SCE’s performance of the Relocation Work.

Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the Applicant acknowledges and agrees that SCE will not begin the Relocation Work unless and until SCE has confirmed that all 457

Page 5 of 10 ends

Facilities Relocation Agreement March 2016
environmental permits, approvals, certifications and authorizations have been issued in relation to the Project and the Relocation Work.

10. COOPERATION BY BOTH PARTIES; TIMELY COMMUNICATION
The Parties shall work cooperatively and in good faith to timely implement their respective duties and obligations set forth herein. To that end, the Parties shall timely communicate with one another regarding the status of the Project, the status of the Relocation Work, and ways that the Parties may work together to facilitate the completion of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, failure by the Applicant to timely respond to requests for information by SCE shall be considered a default of this Agreement.

11. INDEMNIFICATION
The Applicant agrees, for itself, and for its agents, contractors, and employees, to save harmless, defend, and indemnify SCE, its officers, agents, contractors, and employees, and its successors and assigns, from and against all claims, loss, damage, actions, causes of action, expense and/or liability arising from or growing out of loss or damage to property, including SCE's own personal property, or injury to or death of persons, including employees of SCE, resulting in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, by reason of the Applicant’s Project necessitating the subject work. Applicant’s duty to indemnify SCE includes, without limitation, claims against SCE regarding approvals given by Applicant for SCE’s plans, claims against SCE pertaining to the location and/or underlying real property rights for SCE’s facilities in new locations (as may be applicable), and claims against SCE for the removal and/or remediation of pre-existing environmental contamination (provided such contamination was not caused by SCE). Applicant shall not be excused of its duty to indemnify for SCE’s ordinary negligence, but shall be excused to the extent claims, losses, or damages are attributable to SCE’s sole negligence, gross negligence, or willful misconduct.

12. NOTICES, CORRESPONDENCE, AND PAYMENT ADDRESS
a. Notices and Correspondence. Any notices and correspondence provided for in this Agreement, other than payments, to be given by either Party hereto to the other shall be deemed to have been duly given when made in writing and deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified and postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To SCE:

Robert Castillo
Project Manager (Transmission)
Southern California Edison
3 Innovation Way
Pomona, CA 91768
To City of Visalia:

315 E Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 932291
Attention: Diego Corvera
b. Payments: Any payments provided for in this Agreement shall be forwarded to the addresses below.
458

Page 6 of 10 ends

Facilities Relocation Agreement March 2016
To SCE:

Southern California Edison Company
P.O. Box 800
Rosemead, California 91771-0001
Attention: Accounts Receivable
To City of Visalia:

315 E Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 932291
Attention: Diego Corvera

13. TERMINATION
a. Applicant’s Right to Terminate Agreement. The Applicant shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time upon written notice to SCE. If this Agreement is terminated by the Applicant, the Applicant shall be responsible to SCE for all costs and expenses actually incurred by SCE in connection with SCE’s preparation of the Relocation Plans, performance of the Relocation Work, and any other actions/activities under this Agreement, notwithstanding the cost allocation provisions in Section 5, above. Additionally, Applicant shall be responsible for any additional costs and expenses incurred by SCE as a result of the termination, including but not limited to, restoring the SCE Facilities to a permanent operational state; all costs for equipment and/or materials; and all costs or expenses related to the cancellation of contracts, purchase orders, or other commitments or agreements entered into up to and including the date of the notice of termination, between SCE and all parties furnishing labor, materials, and services in connection with this Agreement. SCE shall prepare and deliver to the Applicant an invoice that describes/identifies the costs and expenses thus incurred by SCE.

Within 30 days following SCE’s delivery of said invoice, the Applicant shall pay to SCE the amounts specified in the invoice.
b. Termination Due to Applicant’s Default. If the Applicant is in default of any of the terms, provisions, conditions, limitations and covenants of this Agreement, SCE may give the Applicant written notice of default (“Default Notice”) at the address provided for in Section 12.a, above. If the Applicant does not cure such default within the time specified in the Default Notice, SCE has the right, but not the obligation, to terminate this Agreement upon 30 days written notice to the Applicant (or such lesser time as may be appropriate under the circumstances). Except as otherwise provided, should SCE exercise such right of termination, SCE shall be entitled to payment for all costs and expenses for materials, services, labor, overhead, and any other expenses related to the performance of this Agreement thus incurred by SCE, up to and including the date of termination, notwithstanding the cost allocation provisions in Section 5, above. SCE shall also be entitled to payment for all costs and expenses required to effect the termination of this Agreement, including but not limited to: all costs and expenses pertaining to the restoration of the SCE Facilities to a permanent operational state; all costs for equipment and/or materials; and all costs and expenses related to the cancellation of contracts, purchase orders, commitments or other agreements entered into up to and including the date of the notice of termination, between SCE and all parties furnishing labor, materials, and services in connection with this Agreement. SCE shall prepare and deliver to the Applicant an invoice that describes/identifies the costs and expenses thus incurred by SCE. Within 30 days following SCE’s delivery of said invoice, the Applicant shall pay to SCE the amounts specified in the invoice.
459

Page 7 of 10 ends

Facilities Relocation Agreement March 2016

14. JURISDICTION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
This Agreement shall at all times be subject to such changes or modifications as the California Public Utilities Commission may, from time to time, direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by law.

15. AMENDMENTS
The provisions of this Agreement shall not be altered or amended by any representations or promises of any Party unless consented to in a writing executed by all Parties.

16. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be subject to and construed according to the laws of the State of California.

17. HEADINGS
The captions and headings used in this Agreement are strictly for convenience and are not intended to and shall not affect the Parties’ rights and obligations, or the construction or interpretation of this Agreement.

18. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Nothing herein is intended to create any third party benefit.

19. NO AGENCY, PARTNERSHIP OR JOINT VENTURE
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed or construed as creating the relationship of principal and agent or of partnership or of joint venture by and between the Parties hereto.

20. WAIVER
No waiver of any default or breach hereunder shall be implied from any omission to take action on account thereof, notwithstanding any custom and practice or course of dealing. No waiver by any Party of any provision under this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by such Party, and no waiver shall affect any default other than the default specified in the waiver and then said waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent therein stated. Waivers of any covenant shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same.

21. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
This Agreement may be executed in duplicate originals, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original but such counterparts shall together constitute one instrument and agreement. The exchange of copies of this Agreement and of signature pages by facsimile transmission, Portable Document Format (i.e., PDF) or by other electronic means constitutes effective execution and delivery of this Agreement as to the Parties and may be used in lieu of the original Agreement for all purposes. This Agreement may be executed by SCE by way of an electronic signature, in which case, said electronic signature shall have the same force and effect as a written signature.
[THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK; SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW] 460

Page 8 of 10 ends

Facilities Relocation Agreement March 2016
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement and each and every term herein is agreed to by and between the undersigned.

DATED: _______________ City of Visalia,
a(n) ________________________________
BY: ____________________________________
Leslie Caviglia
City Manager
DATED: _______________ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a California corporation
BY: ____________________________________
Blake Chalson
Manager – SCE
Construction and Techinical Support
461

Page 9 of 10 ends

Facilities Relocation Agreement March 2016

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT LOCATION
462

Page 10 of 10 ends

Facilities Relocation Agreement January 2015

EXHIBIT B

APPROVED RELOCATION PLANS
463
Rd 92
Ave 320
W Doe Ave
N Shirk St
W Goshen Ave
N Plaza Dr
N Kelsey St
W Riggin Ave Ave 312
W Kibler Ave
W Sunnyview Ave
W Ferguson Ave N Plaza Dr
² Location Map
Riggin Ave Widening - Kelsey to Shirk
Riggin Avenue
(Kelsey to Shirk)
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
Resolution No. 2024-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF VISALIA AUTHORIZING FACILITIES RELOCATION AGREEMENT

WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
WHEREAS, the City of Visalia is moving forward with a construction project to widen Riggin Avenue between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street, this project is referred to as the Riggin Avenue Widening Project; and
WHEREAS, there are twenty (20) distribution poles and five (5) Transmission poles owned and operated by Southern California Edison in this area that must be relocated in order to complete the Riggin Avenue Widening Project; WHEREAS, property rights for these utility poles has been reviewed and twenty (20) distribution poles are located in City of Visalia road right of way under an applicable franchise agreement between the City and Southern California Edison with the five (5) transmission poles are held under property rights owned by Southern California Edison; and
WHEREAS, property rights for the two (2) of the twenty (20) distribution poles will need to be undergrounded to facilitate the transmission relocation, undergrounding of poles is not part of franchise rights; and
WHEREAS, Southern California Edison is responsible for pole relocation costs of the poles located under franchise rights that are being relocated due to the City’s street construction project, while the City responsible for the costs of relocating the five (5) transmission poles held under property rights owned by Southern California Edison and the City of Visalia is responsible for half (50%) the cost of the two (2) distribution poles that are to be undergrounded; and
WHEREAS, Southern California Edison has requested that the City sign a Facilities Relocation Agreement to confirm financial responsibility for the twenty (20) distribution poles and five (5) transmission poles owned by Southern California Edison that need to be relocated so that construction the Riggin Avenue Widening project between Kelsey St and Shirk St can commence; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Facilities Relocation Agreement the City will agree to be financially liable for the five (5) transmission poles and 50% liable for undergrounding of two (2) distribution poles as part of the Riggin Avenue Widening Project with Southern California Edison responsible for the eighteen (18) distribution poles and 50% liable for undergrounding of two (2) distribution poles based on applicable property rights; and
WHEREAS, after the relocation work is complete eighteen (18) distribution poles will continue to be located under franchise rights and the five (5) transmission poles will be located under separate property rights held by Southern California Edison; and WHEREAS, Southern California Edison will perform all the relocation work per the approved relocation plan; and
471
Resolution No. 2024-XX
WHEREAS, Southern California Edison will submit a final bill within 360 days following the completion of the relocation work; and
WHEREAS, the City of Visalia will pay its share of the relocation cost within 45 days after receiving the final bill from Southern California Edison; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that that the City Council of the City of Visalia:

1. The Visalia City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Visalia to sign Facilities Relocation Agreement No. CP0398 – SCE2490 with Southern California Edison, (draft attached for reference) with any such additional nonsubstantive changes as the City Manager deems appropriate. 472
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0295 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 8.

Agenda Item Wording:

Designate Voting Delegate - Authorize and designate Council Member Liz Wynn as the voting delegate for the 2024 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Leslie Caviglia, City Manager and John Lollis, Assistant City Manager as the alternate voting delegates.

Deadline for Action: 9/25/2024
Submitting Department: Administration
Contact Name and Phone Number: Michelle Nicholson, Chief Deputy City Clerk, 713-4512; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Department Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council designate Council Member Liz Wynn as the voting delegate for the 2024 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Leslie Caviglia, City Manager and John Lollis, Assistant City Manager as the alternate voting delegates.

Background Discussion: The League of California Cites Annual Conference is scheduled for October 16-18, 2024 in Long Beach. The City is a voting member of the League of California Cities and in order to participate in the voting at the annual conference, the City Council must formally appoint a voting delegate. Council may choose to appoint up to two alternate voting delegates.

Council Member Liz Wynn will attend the General Assembly portion of the conference as the voting delegate.

An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting, scheduled for noon on Friday, October 18, 2024. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. Policies established by the League form a legislative agenda that will be used to evaluate State legislative bills and rule changes in the coming year, and to set priorities for pursuing issues of statewide interest to cities. Consistent with League bylaws, a city’s voting delegate must be designated by the City Council.

Fiscal Impact:

The League of California Cities Annual Conference is the best statewide conference for city officials (council members and appropriate staff) to become educated on issues of local and statewide concern. Funds for conference attendance have been budgeted.

Prior Council Action: The Council designates a voting delegate each year.

Other: None.

Alternatives: The Council may elect not to designate a voting delegate and alternates and forfeit the Visalia City Council Page 1 of 2 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™473
File #: 24-0295 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 8.

City’s voting ability at this year’s League of CA Cities Annual Business Meeting.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to authorize the designation of Council Member Liz Wynn as the voting delegate for the 2024 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Leslie Caviglia, City Manager and John Lollis, Assistant City Manager as the alternate voting delegates for the City of Visalia.

Environmental Assessment Status: None
Attachments: 2024 Annual Conference Informational Packet Visalia City Council Page 2 of 2 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™474
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org

DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 16-18, 2024 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Oct. 18, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 25. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

Council Action Advised by September 25, 2024
475
For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 25. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly 476
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
477
Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 478
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0297 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 9.

Agenda Item Wording:

Award a Contract for On-Call Fencing Services - Authorize the City Manager to award an annual contract for On-Call Fencing Services to Ace Fence Company for one year, with 4 one-year optional renewals with an amount not to exceed $80,000 per year, or $400,000 over the life of the contract.

Deadline for Action: 8/5/2024
Submitting Department: Public Works
Contact Name and Phone Number: Ben Litwack, Public Works Manager, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, (559) 713-4671; Nick Bartsch, Public Works Director, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, (559) 713-4052.

Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to award RFB 23-24-65 - Annual Contract for On-Call Fencing Services to Ace Fence Company. This contract will be for one year, with 4 oneyear optional renewals with an amount not to exceed $80,000 per year, $400,000 over the life of the contract.

Background Discussion:

This contract will provide for fencing repair work, as needed, on City-owned and/or Right-of-Way properties. Some of this work will be planned and specified prior to contacting the vendor, while other work will be unexpected and in response to damage caused by accidents or vandalism. In some cases, this work will need to be completed with little notice and on a short timeframe.

On 11/16/23, the City issued RFB 23-24-08 for on-call fencing services. Only one bid was received.

Several critical items were identified that were missing from the RFB, so the bid was rejected to allow a new RFB to be created to include those items.

On 5/10/23, the City issued RFB 23-24-65 for on-call fencing services with only one bid being received. The bid received was submitted by Ace Fence Company of Fresno, CA. The bid amount was $56,875.00, which only includes hourly labor costs based on an estimated number of both normal working hours and overtime hours (weekends, holidays, and emergency calls). These hourly rates will be used as a basis for payment for work completed. Additionally, materials to be supplied will be billed at the contractor’s cost, plus a markup not to exceed ten percent. Finally, the overhead rate will not exceed ten percent of the total hourly rate cost.

Fiscal Impact:

This is an on-call contract that will be utilized by multiple departments. Services will be paid for out of each department’s operating budget on an as needed basis.

The contract will be for an amount not to exceed $80,000 per year, with 4 one-year optional Visalia City Council Page 1 of 2 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™479
File #: 24-0297 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 9.
renewals, $400,000 over the life of the contract. Based on the City’s historical expenditures on fencing repair, this amount should be sufficient to cover both the hourly labor costs, material, markup and overhead.

Prior Council Action: None
Other: None
Alternatives: Reject bid and direct staff to rebid the contract.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to authorize the City Manager to award RFB 23-24-65 - Annual Contract for On-Call Fencing Services to Ace Fence Company. This contract will be for one year, with 4 one-year optional renewals for an amount not to exceed $80,000 per year, $400,000 over the life of the contract.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: Ace Fence Company (008).pdf
Visalia City Council Page 2 of 2 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0300 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 10.

Agenda Item Wording:

Award Riggin Avenue Widening Project: Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract with Cen-Cal Construction for Riggin Ave Widening Mooney Blvd to Conyer St. in the amount of $6,480,000.00; authorize the transfer of Measure R Regional funds; authorize the appropriation of additional Transportation Impact Fee and Measure R Regional funds; and authorize the amendment to the Measure R Supplemental Agreement.

Deadline for Action: None
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Diego Corvera, Senior Civil Engineer, [email protected], 713-4209 Dolores Verduzco, Financial Analyst, [email protected], 713-4540 Jason Huckleberry, Engineering and Building Department Director, [email protected], (559) 713-4495
Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract with Cen-Cal Construction for RFB 23- 24-09 for the Riggin Avenue Mooney Blvd to Conyer St (3010-72000/CP0398-999) in the amount of $6,480,000.00; and

2. Authorize the transfer of Measure R Regional (133) funds of $500,000 from the Riggin Ave Widening - Akers to Demaree (CP0397) to the Riggin Ave Widening - Mooney to Conyer Project (CP0473); and

3. Authorize an appropriation of additional Transportation Impact Fee (241) funds in the amount of $50,000; and

4. Authorize an appropriation of additional Measure R Regional (133) funds in the amount of $2,771,000; and

5. Authorize the City Manager to amend the Measure R Supplemental Agreement.

Background Discussion:

The Riggin Avenue widening project, from Mooney to Conyer Street, will reconfigure Riggin Avenue to a 4-lane divided roadway. The project will also modify the intersection of Riggin Ave at Giddings St as a protected intersection, completing it to its ultimate configuration and incorporate a frontage road on the south side of Riggin Ave.

The purpose of the “Riggin Avenue Widening Project” is to increase vehicle capacity on Riggin Avenue by adding additional east/west lanes and to provide for an efficient flow of traffic in support of Visalia City Council Page 1 of 6 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™502
File #: 24-0300 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 10.

Avenue by adding additional east/west lanes and to provide for an efficient flow of traffic in support of the increase in development within the surrounding area. In addition, the City Council identified this segment of Riggin Avenue from Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street as a priority transportation corridor as it was part of the “Ring-Road” concept previously identified in various City reports.

The Council, at their June 21st, 2021, meeting directed staff to award the design contract to 4Creeks Inc. and accepted and appropriated $2.4 million from the Federal High Improvement Program (HIP) funds for the construction of the “Riggin Avenue Widening Project” from North Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street.

Frontage Road Prior Approval
Council and the local community approved the construction of a local frontage road (Council meeting August 1st, 2022) along this stretch of Riggin Avenue to separate the Riggin Avenue fronting residents from direct access to Riggin Avenue, allowing for safer ingress and egress from their homes.

This frontage road improvement will add concrete corner island infrastructure, similar to what is used in a protected intersection configuration, on the southside of the intersection of Riggin Ave at Giddings St to funnel the local frontage road traffic away from the intersection. This configuration will be modified and mirrored on the northside of the intersection to create a fully protected intersection to improve safety for all modes of travel.

Protected Intersection Prior Approval
Council and the local community approved the construction of a Protected Intersection (Council meeting February 21st, 2023) at Riggin Ave and Giddings St to improve the safety of bicyclist and pedestrians traversing the intersection.

The Protected Intersection will add concrete corner island infrastructure, as well as conspicuous striping and signage at the intersection of Riggin Ave at Giddings St to define the multi modal nature of the intersection.

Bidding Process:

Staff advertised RFB 23-24-09 for the Riggin Ave Widening Mooney Blvd to Conyer St closed Wednesday, June 12th, 2024. The project was split with the “Base Bid” encompassing the plan delineated improvements and an “Additive Alternate” relating to sidewalk construction on the southside of Riggin Ave. This project received five (5) bids, below are the three (3) lowest responsive bidders:

Base Bid + Additive
Alternate
Contractor Location Bid Amount
1 Cen Cal Construction Bakersfield, CA $6,480,000.00
2 American PavingFresno, CA $6,607,778.00
3 Cal Valley Construction Fresno, CA $6,851,038.21
Base Bid
Visalia City Council Page 2 of 6 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™503
File #: 24-0300 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 10.

Base Bid + Additive
Alternate
Contractor Location Bid Amount
1 Cen Cal Construction Bakersfield, CA $6,480,000.00
2 American PavingFresno, CA $6,607,778.00
3 Cal Valley Construction Fresno, CA $6,851,038.21
Base Bid
Contractor Location Bid Amount
1 Cen Cal Construction Bakersfield, CA $6,267,477.51
2 American Paving Fresno, CA $6,558,357.90
3 Cal Valley Construction Fresno, CA 6,643,348.72
City Staff proceeded to review all five (5) bids submitted and found the apparent 1st lowest bidder “Yarbs Grading and Paving Inc” submitted an incomplete bid. Yarbs Grading submitted a bid package missing three (3) bid items; without these the final construction bid tabulation was significantly lower than their proposed bid price. Yarbs formally withdrew their bid acknowledging their error.

Cen Cal Construction’s bid proposal was determined to be the lowest responsive bid after the review process; the references provided by Cen Cal Construction Inc. have been verified. The references provided included the City of Wasco, Kern County Public Works Dept, and City of Bakersfield. These refereces were called by City staff with favorable responses from all jurisdictions. As a result, Staff recommends that the construction contract be awarded to Cen Cal Construction Inc.

Riggin Avenue Projects Status:
- Riggin Avenue widening from Kelsey St to Shirk St
o Design Completed
o Construction Fall 2024 (Utility Relocation Spring 2025) - Riggin Avenue widening Shirk to Roeben (Developer Driven) o Construction Fall 2024 (Utility Relocation Spring 2025) - Riggin Avenue widening Roeben to Akers
o Currently in design, awaiting 30% design submittal
o Construction early 2026
- Riggin Avenue widening from Akers St to Demaree St
o Construction Completed 2024
- Riggin Avenue Widening from Mooney Blvd to Conyer St. (Subject Project) o Construction Fall 2024 (Anticipated Completion Summer 2025) Refer to attached Riggin Widening Project exhibit, for project locations.

Fiscal Impact:

The Riggin Ave Widening project Mooney Blvd to Conyer St is funded using Highway Improvement Program (HIP) grant funds through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and funds from the Visalia City Council Page 3 of 6 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™504
File #: 24-0300 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 10.

Program (HIP) grant funds through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and funds from the Measure R Regional (133) Fund and the Transportation Impact Fee (241) Fund. See below the project funding breakdown.

Riggin Avenue Widening Mooney Blvd to Conyer St CIP0473 Project Funding Source
Measure R Regional Funds (133) $200,000
Transportation Impact Fee (241) $2,254,000
Highway Improvement Program (HIP) Funding (281) $2,485,000 Total Project Funding $4,939,000
Estimated Project Costs
Project Management $109,400
Design Services $314,000
Utility Relocation $188,000
Fire Hydrant Installation $170,600
Construction $6,480,000
Construction Contingency (10%) $648,000
Construction Management (Estimate) $100,000
Construction Services (Materials Testing, Inspection (Est), Survey) $250,000 Total Estimated Project Costs $8,260,000
Surplus (Deficit) ($3,321,000)
Transfer & Appropriation of Funds
Transfer - Measure R Regional (133) from Riggin - Akers to Demaree (CP0397) to Riggin - Mooney to Conyer (CP0473)
$500,000
Appropriate - Transportation Impact Fee (241)$50,000
Appropriate - Measure R Regional (133) $2,771,000
Total Transfer & Appropriation of Funds $3,321,000
Measure R Regional Funds
Staff recommends transferring project cost savings realized from the completion of the Riggin from Akers to Demaree segment in the amount of $500,000 to the Riggin from Mooney to Conyer segment.

Due to the above-identified budget deficit, staff recommends an additional appropriation in the amount of $2,771,000 from Measure R Regional for the completion of this project.

Staff has coordinated with TCAG, previously making them aware of the expected deficit and need to increase the Measure R Regional contribution in order to complete the project. An amendment to the Measure R Supplemental Agreement is needed to increase the Measure R Regional funds allocated Visalia City Council Page 4 of 6 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™505
File #: 24-0300 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 10.

Measure R Supplemental Agreement is needed to increase the Measure R Regional funds allocated towards this project.

Prior Council Action:

February 21, 2023
Authorized the City Manager to proceed with the design and construction of a bicycle Protected Intersection at the Riggin Avenue and Giddings Street associated with the Riggin Widening Project Mooney Blvd. to Conyer St and for staff to develop guidelines that evaluate these intersection treatments at future locations on a case by case basis and to proceed with implementation.

December 5, 2022
Authorized the City Manager to approve payment to California Water Service in the amount of $150,259.00 for the installation of five fire hydrants and two irrigation services as part of the Riggin Widening project between Mooney Blvd to Conyer St and appropriated an additional $85,000 in Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) funds.

September 19, 2022
Authorized the City Manager to execute the Southern California Edison (SCE) Joint Use Agreement (JUA) and adopted Resolution 2022-52 for the Riggin Widening project between Mooney Blvd to Conyer Street.

August 1, 2022
Received a staff presentation on the proposed local frontage road to be constructed with the Riggin Avenue Widening Project Mooney Blvd to Conyer Street.

June 20, 2022
Adopt Resolutions 2022-39 and 2022-40, designating a portion of City owned property located within 2 Parcels, Lot “A” of Highland Park Estates subdivision and Lot “A” of Highland Park, Unit No. 2 subdivision as part of the public City Street System respectively.

May 16, 2022
Adopt Resolution 2022-33 authorizing the City Manager to execute Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility Agreement No. CP0473-SCE2592 for the Riggin Widening project between Mooney Blvd to Conyer Street.

April 18, 2022
Adoption Resolution No. 2022-27 certifying Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-16 prepared for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance as part of the Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) funding for the construction of the “Riggin Avenue Widening Project” from North Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street (State Clearing house No. 2022030456) (Resolution No. 2022-27 required).

June 21, 2021
Authorize the City Manager to award a sole source professional design services contract to 4Creeks, Visalia City Council Page 5 of 6 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™506
File #: 24-0300 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 10.

Authorize the City Manager to award a sole source professional design services contract to 4Creeks, Inc., for the design of the “Riggin Avenue Widening Project” from North Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street, and appropriation of funds to establish a preliminary project budget.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Cen-Cal Construction for RFB 23- 24-09 Riggin Ave Widening Mooney Blvd to Conyer St Project (3010-7200/CP0473-999), in the amount of $6,480,000.00, authorize the transfer of $500,000 of Measure R Regional funds from CP0397 to CP0473; authorize the additional appropriation of Transportation Impact Fee funds in the amount of $50,000 and Measure R Regional funds in the amount of $2,771,000; and authorize the City Manager to amend the Measure R Supplemental Agreement.

Environmental Assessment Status:

Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-16
Attachments:

1. Cen Cal Construction Inc. Ownership Disclosure Form

2. Project Location Map
Visalia City Council Page 6 of 6 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™507
508
W
Sedona Ave
W
Shannon Pkwy
N Giddings St
N Dinuba Blvd
N Mooney Blvd
W Robin Ave
N Conyer St
W Crystal Ave
N Quail Dr
W Robin Dr
W
Corvina Ave
N E ml St
W
Riggin Ave
W
Porter Ave
W
Modoc Ave
W
Dove Ave
N Divisadero St
W
Sunnyview
Ave
W Wren
Dr
N Highland St
N Shady St
W
Oriole Ave
N Willis St
N Canary Dr
W Lark Ave
N Wren Dr
W Lark Ct
N Central St
W
Dove Ct
W
Wren Ave
N Shady Ct
N Jacob Ct
W
Flagstaff Ave
N Elm Ct
W Canary Dr
N Turner Ct
N Sowell Ct
W Lipson Ct
N Fai wr ay St
N Central Ct
N Dollner St
N Dayton Ct
N Turner St
N Rina dl i St
N Oak Park Ct
N Highland Ct
N Willis Ct
N Oak Park St
W
Robin Ct
N Hall Ct
W
Porter Ct
N Gull Ct
N Rinaldi Ct
N Park Ct
N Leslie Ct
W
Robin Ave
N Central Ct
N Fai wr ay St
W
Sedona Ave
W Lark Ave
N Elm St
W Porter Ave
W
Sunnyview
Ave
N Fairway St
W Modoc Ave
N Jacob Ct
W Dove Ct
N Elm St
W
Riggin Ave
N Shady St W
Wren Ave
W
Wren Ave
N Dayton Ct
N Divisadero St N Divisadero St
W
Wren Dr
W
Lark
Ave
N Fairway St
N Highland Ct
MODOC
DITCH (p)
Project Limits
509
510
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0302 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Cameron Ranch Estates Subdivision Annexation - Public hearing and consideration of the following actions:

1. Adopt Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 for Annexation No. 2024-02 and Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 (Resolution No. 2024-41 required); and

2. Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No. 2024-02, a request by Artemis Partners, LLC to annex 46.01 acres of Residential Low Density land from the County of Tulare to the City Limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the site will be zoned R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot area). The property is located on the south side of East Caldwell Avenue between the future South Ben Maddox Way alignment and South Pinkham Street within the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare (APNs: 124-010-005 and 124-010-007) (Resolution No. 2024-42 required); and

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

4. Authorize the City Manager to sign and enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement.

Deadline for Action: 8/5/2024
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Paul Bernal, Community Development Director, 559-713-4025, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Department Recommendation:

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

1. Certify Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 for Annexation No. 2024-02 and Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 (Resolution No. 2024-41); and

2. Initiate proceedings on Annexation No. 2024-02 with the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) (Resolution No. 2024-42); and

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

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

If approved by the City Council, staff will file the Annexation application with Local Agency Formation Visalia City Council Page 1 of 9 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™511
File #: 24-0302 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 1.

If approved by the City Council, staff will file the Annexation application with Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

Summary:

Annexation No. 2024-02 is recommended by Planning Commission and staff to be submitted to LAFCO based on the finding wherein the project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-P-21 that allows and directs development to occur in the City’s Tier II Urban Development Boundary (UDB).

The annexation (see Exhibit ‘A’) is a request to annex a 46.01-acres of land containing General Plan land use designations of Residential Low Density to facilitate development of the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map (see Exhibit ‘B’). The project was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on June 24, 2024 (see Attachment 2 - November 13, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report). Upon annexation, the project site will be zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum), consistent with the applicable land use designation for the site.

The Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 will subdivide 43.6-acres into a 178-lot single-family residential subdivision, with a 0.77-acre pocket park. The subdivision will be developed to R-1 development standards (see Exhibit ‘B’). Additional amenities will include landscape outlots, an outlot for riparian open space and a pocket park park/ use, and a walking trail along the existing Modoc Ditch. Outlots will be maintained by a Landscape and Lighting District (LLD).

Project Overview:

Subdivision
The annexation will facilitate the development of the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598, a request to subdivide 43.6-acres into a 178-lot single-family residential subdivision at a density of 4.08 dwelling units per gross acre (see Exhibit “A”). The subdivision map covers the entirety of the single-family residential area that is within Tier II, along with a remainder lot that is developed with a single-family home.

The proposed single-family subdivision will be serviced by 60-foot wide public local streets containing full improvements (curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, sidewalks, and streetlights), sewer lines, storm drainage, and other public infrastructure, utilities, and services (i.e., electricity and water). Primary access to the subdivision will be from the new Ben Maddow Way street extension and Caldwell Avenue, both arterial streets. Both streets will be improved to their ultimate right-of-way width within the boundaries of the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision. Improvements along these major streets include construction of curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, sidewalks, block wall, installation of park strip landscaping, streetlights, median islands and street paving.

The proposed lots will conform to the zoning standards required within the R-1-5 zoning district for lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or greater. The development of the single-family residential lots will conform to the setbacks prescribed by the R-1-5 zoning district. The subdivision map will also create lettered out lots for a 0.77-acre Pocket Park (Lot J) and Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) lots.

The LLD lots will contain landscaping and the block walls along Ben Maddox Way and Caldwell Avenue.

The subdivision will be developed in two phases (Phase 1 and Phase 2) as depicted in Exhibit “A”.

Phase 1 is proposing to develop 117 lots along with the pocket park, while Phase 2 will develop the Visalia City Council Page 2 of 9 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™512
File #: 24-0302 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 1.

Phase 1 is proposing to develop 117 lots along with the pocket park, while Phase 2 will develop the remaining 61 lots. The entire project site is currently undeveloped with an active orchard and an existing single-family home located on the Remainder lot. The home will remain, and the orchard will continue to operate until the site is ready for development. The parcel is surrounded by a residential subdivision to the north and west, and orchards to the south and east. The project site also abuts a canal belonging to the Tulare Irrigation District to the east.

Development Standards
The Cameron Ranch Estates tentative subdivision map will develop per the codified standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance regarding lot size and setbacks for R-1-5 zoned property. The subdivision does not propose the utilization of small lots or private streets with this single-family residential subdivision.

The setbacks within the R-1-5 zone for lots 5,000 square feet or greater are as follows:

Annexation Information:

To facilitate the development of the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision, the applicant submitted Annexation No. 2024-02, a request to annex 46.01-acres located beyond the city limits, and within the Tier II urban development boundary. Upon annexation, the Zoning designation for the area will be R-1-5 for the entire project site consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation of Residential Low Density. The annexation request includes authorizing the detachment from County Service Area No. 1 in accordance with State and County requirements and authorizing the City Manager to sign and enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement.

The Annexation is supported on the basis that the proposed use is consistent with Visalia General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-P-21, which allows for the annexation and development of residential land to occur within the Tier II Urban Development Boundary when it is consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram. The site will have access to requisite utility and infrastructure services, which will be readily available for connection upon development of the project. Cities have the authority to approve tentative map proposals prior to final approval of an annexation by a local agency formation commission (LAFCO). However, “final maps” for such applications cannot be approved until after an annexation is completed and recorded through the Tulare County Recorder.

Providing of City Services:

The project will require improvements to the following infrastructure:
· Water Service: Water service to the subdivision will be provided by the California Water Service Company. A Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company shall be Visalia City Council Page 3 of 9 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™513
File #: 24-0302 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 1.
provided prior to issuance of any residential building permit for the project site. · 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 developer will be required to coordinate with City staff on design and construction requirements for the sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer master plan for the entire development will be required to be submitted for review prior to approval of any portion of the system.

A sewer analysis, which is included in the attached Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, has been prepared for the site consistent based upon a request from the Public Works Department. After a thorough review of the analysis, the Wastewater Treatment Facility possesses the capacity to effectively accommodate this tier of development. · Storm Drainage: Currently, there is no storm drainage infrastructure south of Caldwell Avenue.

The stormwater master plan for the southeast area indicates the need for a series of regional detention basins; however, it is unlikely that such a stormwater management system could be constructed prior to this development due to the cost associated with developing the system for the southeast area. However, over time, it is anticipated that most if not all of the regional stormwater management system for the future southeast area will be constructed with combinations of capital improvement projects and incremental facilities construction. · Canal: The existing Tulare Irrigation Ditch (TID) canal runs along the eastern portion of the project site. Outlots H and I will be created and will serve as lots to contain the canal and the maintenance roadway. Furthermore, the crossing of the Tulare Irrigation canal will require the installation of a culvert crossing. The installation of the culvert is not required at this time; however, the developer shall pay their fair share for the design and construction cost of the culvert structure. Future development to the east will require the culvert structure be installed to facilitate local street connectivity and will be reimbursed per the in-lieu fee collected. The inlieu fee amount shall be established by the City’s Engineering and Building Director and/or their designee. This requirement was included as a condition of project approval for the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision.
· Pocket Park: Approximately 0.77 acres of the project site will be devoted to a pocket park. The park is intended to provide an open space amenity adjacent to the TID canal.

The full complement of city services and programs, including Police and Fire protection, public parks usage, and Solid Waste collection, will be provided to the project site and future occupants of the project site upon annexation.

Detachment for Service Area No. 1:

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

Annexations submitted to LAFCO require that the City include a request to detach the annexed area from the County’s service area. Though detachments were previously an automatic process Visalia City Council Page 4 of 9 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™514
File #: 24-0302 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 1.
from the County’s service area. Though detachments were previously an automatic process conducted as part of annexations, a 2009 law change now requires Cities to explicitly request detachment.

Pre-Annexation Agreement:

The annexation will be subject to the terms of a Pre-Annexation Agreement which must be signed by the property owners requesting the annexation. The agreement is included as Attachment 1 in the staff report.

City Council Districts:

If the annexation area is approved, the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 2, as identified in the Election District Map adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-

11. General Plan Consistency:

The Planning Commission and staff support the annexation based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Specifically, Annexation No. 2024-02 will facilitate a new community on a 43.6-acre site in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan land use designations that exist within the project site and will complement existing development to the north and west.

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 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 subdivision is further consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-55, which allows for residential development consistent with the Low Density Residential designation at a density range between 2 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre. The Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision is developing the site at a density of 4.08 units per acre, which is consistent with the density range as noted above.

Land Use Policy LU-P-55 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 existing residential development within the Low Density Residential land use designation situated south of East Caldwell Avenue and east of the future Ben Maddox Way street alignment.

Traffic Circulation and Street Improvements:

Street improvements to arterial and local roadways will be required within the project area. Street improvements will be completed in two phases, with the first phase of development to occur on the north portion of the project area.

Arterial Streets. Ben Maddox Way and Caldwell Avenue are designated 110-foot wide arterial Visalia City Council Page 5 of 9 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™515
File #: 24-0302 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 1.

Arterial Streets. Ben Maddox Way and Caldwell Avenue are designated 110-foot wide arterial streets with four travel lanes at full buildout. Ben Maddox Way is not constructed south of the Ben Maddox and Caldwell intersection. The development of the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision will require the development of Ben Maddox Way which includes frontage improvements consisting of block wall, landscaping, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, street lights, curb, gutter, median island, and street paving. Curb and gutter exists on the west side of Ben Maddox Way which was constructed as part of the Diamond Oaks subdivision site improvements. In addition to the improvements to Ben Maddox Way across the subdivision’s frontage, the developer of the subdivision will also construct street improvements (i.e., curb, gutter, parkway landscape and sidewalk) across the frontage of the property located on the immediate southeast corner of the Ben Maddox / Caldwell intersection noted on the subdivision map as “Not A Part”. A cross-section of the Ben Maddox Way improvement is depicted on Exhibit ‘A’ (subdivision map). Reimbursement for improvements to Ben Maddox Way that exceed the developers required obligations will be reimbursed back to the developer.

Caldwell Avenue improvements are part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Caldwell Avenue widening project is managed by the City’s Capital Improvement Program Engineering Division who is overseeing the widening of Caldwell Avenue within the jurisdictional boundaries of Visalia while Tulare County staff is managing Caldwell /Ave. 280 widening in the County areas. The entire widening project includes the area from Highway 99 to the City of Exeter.

The City’s CIP project for Caldwell Avenue (Santa Fe to Lovers Lane) includes the construction of curb, gutter, streetlights, 10-foot sidewalk, median island, street paving, and full signalization of the Ben Maddox/Caldwell intersection. The developer of the subdivision will be required to install landscaping and the block wall across the subdivision frontage. To facilitate timing of the Caldwell Avenue improvements, the developer of the subdivision shall coordinate with City staff. Presently, the CIP project plans are 95% complete and bidding for construction is anticipated for August of this year.

In the unlikely event City’s Caldwell Avenue CIP is extensively delayed, the developer of the subdivision will be required to install all required Caldwell Avenue street improvements across their project frontage. This requirement is noted in the City’s Engineering Development Divisions Site Plan Review comments (SPR No. 2023-225), which were incorporated as conditions of project approval for the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision.

Local Streets. All local streets will be developed per the City’s 60-foot wide local street standard. The subdivision is conditioned to provide a local street connection to the east as depicted on Exhibit “A” to comply with the City’s superblock connectivity standard. The crossing of the Tulare Irrigation canal will require the installation of a culvert crossing. The installation of the culvert is not required at this time; however, the developer shall pay their fair share for the design and construction cost of the culvert structure. Future development to the east will require the culvert structure be installed to facilitate local street connectivity and will be reimbursed per the in-lieu fee collected. The in-lieu fee amount shall be established by the City’s Engineering and Building Director and/or their designee.

This requirement was included as a condition of project approval for the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision.

Agricultural Preservation Ordinance Requirements:

The 43.6-acre project site is in the City’s Tier II 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. This code creates an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO) to implement Visalia General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-34. The preserved land obligation shall be satisfied prior to Visalia City Council Page 6 of 9 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™516
File #: 24-0302 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 1.
issuance of any permit directly authorizing or resulting in disturbance to the project site.

Planning Commission Review and Action:

At its meeting on June 24, 2024, the Planning Commission considered Annexation No. 2024-02 and the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision. Public testimony in favor of the proposal was provided at the public hearing from the applicant. No other public comment was received.

The Planning Commission noted that the project was consistent with the General Plan land use policies, in particular, policies LU-P-21 and LU-P-55 and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the annexation to the Visalia City Council (see Attachment 3). The Planning Commission also voted 5-0 to approve the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map included with the annexation. The Planning Commission’s recommendation and findings to support the annexation request are included in the resolution for the City Council’s consideration. If the City Council adopts the resolution initiating the annexation, staff will prepare an annexation application and file it with the LAFCO for consideration. The Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment 2 of this report.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Alternative Motions:

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

1. Deny the Annexation; or

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

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

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to approve the following Resolution No. 2024-41, adopting Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19; and
I move to approve Resolution No. 2024-42, to initiate proceedings for Annexation No. 2024-02, authorize the detachment of property from County Service Area No. 1, and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Visalia and the property owners.

Environmental Assessment Status:

An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project (see Attachment 4). Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257) 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 and Forestry Resources to mitigate impacts for loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on a 1:1 ratio. · Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources to reduce impacts of the Visalia City Council Page 7 of 9 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™517
File #: 24-0302 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 1.
· Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources to reduce impacts of the Project to special-status wildlife species.
· Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Cultural Resources to reduce the impacts of the Project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction. · Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Hydrology and Water Quality to address impacts to surface and groundwater resources.

A 20-day review and comment period through the State Clearing House for the Initial Study began on May 30, 2024, and ended on June 19, 2024.

If suggested to be performed, developer/homebuilder shall have Krazan & Associates, Inc. perform the soil sampling per Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties from DTSC. The developer/homebuilder shall provide the Planning and Community Preservation Director with a copy of all correspondence between the developer/homebuilder and Krazan & Associates, Inc. that details the required direction/recommendation on soil samples to test for OCP’s and arsenic.
b. All imported soil and fill material shall be tested to ensure that any contaminants are with DTSC’s and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs).

Based on the letter and the inclusion of the two additional project conditions as noted above, the City concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration are still applicable. No other formal comments were received as of the publication of this report.

CEQA Review:

An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257) disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts.

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 2024-41 certifying Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-

39. 2. Resolution No. 2024-42 initiating the Proceedings for Annexation No. 2024-02 and Visalia City Council Page 8 of 9 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™518
File #: 24-0302 Agenda Date: 8/5/2024 Agenda #: 1.

Detachment from County Service Area No. 1.

3. Exhibit “A” - Annexation Area and Legal Description

4. Exhibit “B” - Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map

5. Attachment 1 - Pre-Annexation Agreement

6. Attachment 2 - June 24, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report

7. Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-14 recommending initiation of Annexation No. 2022-02

8. Attachment 4 - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19

9. General Plan Land Use Map

10.Zoning Map

11.Aerial Map

12.Location Map
Visalia City Council Page 9 of 9 Printed on 8/2/2024
powered by Legistar™519
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-41

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

VISALIA, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 2024-19, WHICH EVALUATES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR ANNEXATION NO.
2024-02 AND CAMERON RANCH ESTATES TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5598
WHEREAS, the project consisting of Annexation No. 2024-02 and Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 (hereinafter “Project”) is a request to annex a 46.01-acres into the City Limits of Visalia in order to facilitate the subdivision of

43.6-acres into a 178-lot single-family residential subdivision. The property is located on the south side of East Caldwell Avenue between the future South Ben Maddox Way alignment and South Pinkham Street within the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten (10) days published notice, held a public hearing before said Council on August 5, 2024; and, WHEREAS, on the basis of this Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project were prepared and noticed for review and comment for 20 days beginning on May 30, 2023, and ending on June 19, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Visalia did receive one comment on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration from the from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); and,
WHEREAS, upon reviewing the letter with the project applicant, the applicant provided a copy of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, which was performed by Krazan & Associates, Inc. on July 13, 2022. The results of the Phase 1 noted that no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified. In addition, no structures, mixing/loading/storage, drainage ditches, farmhouses, outbuildings, smudge pots, or any other chemical of concerns were identified on the site; and, WHEREAS, to further address the comments raised in DTSC’s letter the following conditions are incorporated in the project’s conditions of approval as follows:
a. That prior to site disturbance, the developer/homebuilder will consult with Krazan & Associates, Inc. on recommendation for obtaining soil samples to test for OCP’s and arsenic. If suggested to be performed, developer/homebuilder shall have Krazan & Associates, Inc. perform the soil sampling per Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties from DTSC. The developer/homebuilder shall provide the Planning and Community Preservation Director with a copy of all correspondence 520
Resolution No. 2024-41
between the developer/homebuilder and Krazan & Associates, Inc. that details the required direction/recommendation on soil samples to test for OCP’s and arsenic.
b. All imported soil and fill material shall be tested to ensure that any contaminants are with DTSC’s and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and found that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration contain and reflect the independent judgment of the City of Visalia.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia hereby finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby adopts Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19. The documents and other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decisions based are located at the office of the City Planner, 315 East Acequia Avenue, Visalia, California, 93291.
521
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-42

A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF VISALIA

REQUESTING THE CITY OF VISALIA TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR

FILING WITH THE TULARE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION ANNEXATION NO. 2024-02 AND DETACHMENT OF
PROPERTY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 1, PERTAINING TO
PARCELS TOTALING 46.01 ACRES. THE SITE WOULD BE ZONED R-1-5 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 5,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM), WHICH IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE

SOUTH SIDE OF EAST CALDWELL AVENUE BETWEEN THE FUTURE

SOUTH BEN MADDOX WAY ALIGNMENT AND SOUTH PINKHAM STREET WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY OF TULARE.

WHEREAS, Annexation No. 2024-02 is a proposed annexation of a total of 46.01 acres into the city limits (“Project”). The project site is located on the south side of East Caldwell Avenue between the future South Ben Maddox Way alignment and South Pinkham Street within the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia desires to initiate proceedings for annexation to said city of territory described on the attached legal description and map herein as Exhibit ‘A’; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Visalia desires to annex said property to the City of Visalia for the following reasons: 1) The annexation will contribute to and facilitate orderly growth and development of both the City and the territory proposed to be annexed; 2) The annexation will facilitate and contribute to the proper and orderly layout, design and construction of streets, gutters, sanitary and storm sewers and drainage facilities, both within the City and within the territory proposed to be annexed; and 3) the annexation will provide and facilitate proper overall planning and zoning of lands and subdivision of lands in said City and said territory in a manner most conducive of the welfare of said City and said territory; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzburg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited per Government Code Section 56046; and
WHEREAS, the property proposed to be annexed is adjacent to City Limits; and 522
Resolution No. 2024-42
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is located in Voting District 2 as identified in the Election District Map adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-11; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Visalia, after a ten day public notification period, held a public hearing on August 5, 2024, and found the project consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with regard to the project:

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

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

3. That the proposed Annexation, which changes 46.01 acres of Tulare County/AE20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum) zone to R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum), will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

4. That the property is located within Voting District 2 per the Council Election Voting District Map adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-11.

5. That the property is not located within an Agricultural Preserve.

6. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19, is hereby adopted.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 prepared for the proposed project was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines, and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

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

1. Application is hereby made to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), County of Tulare, State of California, for an annexation of territory illustrated in the map attached as Exhibit ‘A’. 523
Resolution No. 2024-42

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

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

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

5. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum), consistent with the Residential Low Density pre-zonings designated by the General Plan Land Use Map.

6. Upon annexation, the territory shall be assigned to Voting District 2 and the Election District Map adopted on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-11.

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

8. The applicant(s) shall enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The Pre-Annexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment 1 to the City Council Report. The agreement is subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney and subject to clerical and form modifications as approved by the City Manager.
524
EXHIBIT “A”

CITY OF VISALIA
ANNEXATION NO. 2024-_____
That portion of the West half of Section 9, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Base And Meridian, in the County of Tulare, State of California, being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the intersection of the South right-of-way line of Caldwell Avenue and the West line of said Section 9, being a point on the existing City Limit line;

1. Thence North 89° 09’ 57” East, along said South right-of-way line and the existing City Limit line, a distance of 1,884.64 feet more or less, to the centerline of the Tulare Irrigation Ditch Company canal; Thence, departing said existing City Limit line and along said centerline of the Tulare Irrigation Ditch Company canal, the following sixteen courses:

2. South 45° 31’ 31” West, 769.03 feet more or less;

3. South 46° 17’ 03” West, 52.47 feet more or less;

4. South 49° 29’ 37” West, 70.87 feet more or less;

5. Southwesterly 34.33 feet more or less along a tangent curve, concave to the Southeast, with a radius of 100.00 feet, and a central angle of 19° 40’ 09”;

6. Southwesterly 147.92 feet more or less along a reverse curve, concave to the Northwest, with a radius of 1,700.00 feet, and a central angle of 4° 59’ 07”;

7. South 34° 48’ 35° West, 149.36 feet more or less;

8. South 35° 50’ 42” West, 162.81 feet more or less;

9. South 34° 26’ 47” West, 216.31 feet more or less;

10. South 33° 35’ 53” West, 166.12 feet more or less;

11. South 35° 21’ 17” West, 114.45 feet more or less;

12. South 34° 53’ 07” West, 205.31 feet more or less;

13. Southwesterly 136.10 feet more or less along a tangent curve, concave to the Northwest, with a radius of 560.48 feet, and a central angle of 13° 54’ 48”;

14. Southwesterly 112.86 feet more or less along a tangent curve, concave to the Northwest, with a radius of 352.55 feet, and a central angle of 18° 20’ 30”;

15. Southwesterly 213.31 feet more or less along a reverse curve concave to the South, with a radius of 4,500.00 feet, and a central angle of 2° 42’ 57”;
525

16. Southwesterly 228.05 feet more or less along a reverse curve, concave to the North, with a radius of 650.00 feet, and a central angle of 20° 06’ 07”;

17. South 84° 31’ 44” West, 25.32 feet more or less, to the West line of said Section 9;

18. Thence North 0° 11’ 38” West, departing said centerline and along said West line, a distance of 6.55 feet more or less, to the West quarter corner of said Section 9, and an angle point in the existing City Limit line;

19. Thence North 1° 48’ 57” East, a distance of 1,883.77 feet more or less, along said West line and the existing City Limit line, to the Point of Beginning.

Consisting of 46.01 acres, more or less.
526
N89° 09' 57"E 1,884.64'±
S45° 31' 31"W 769.03'± S46° 17' 03"W 52.47'± S49° 29' 37"W 70.87'± Δ=19°40'09" R=100.00' L=34.33'± Δ=4°59'07" R=1,700.00' L=147.92'± S34° 48' 35"W 149.36'± S35° 50' 42"W 162.81'± S34° 26' 47"W 216.31'± S33° 35' 53"W 166.12'± S35° 21' 17"W 114.45'± S34° 53' 07"W 205.31'± Δ=13°54'48" R=560.48' L=136.10'± Δ=18°20'30" R=352.55' L=112.86'± Δ=2°42'57" R=4,500.00' L=213.31'± Δ=20°06'07" R=650.00' L=228.05'± S84° 31' 44"W 25.32'± 40' 40' N1° 48' 57"E 1,883.77'± N0° 11' 38"W 6.55'
6 PREPARED BY: 324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A VISALIA, CA 93292 TEL: 559.802.3052 FAX: 559.802.3215 www.4-creeks.com EXHIBIT "B" LEGEND ANNEXATION BOUNDARY EXISTING CITY LIMITS ANNEXATION NO. 2024-___ 350' 0' 350' THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 9. T. 19 S., R. 25 E., M.D.B.&M., IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA S. RIGHT OF WAY LINE CALDWELL AVENUE CALDWELL AVENUE W 1/2 SECT. 9-19/25 W. LINE SECT. 9-19/25 NORTHWEST CORNER SECTION 9-19/25 BEN MADDOX AVE.

TREETREE
TREE
TREE
R
R
R
R
R
R

TREETREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
R
R
SP
SP
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
PP
PP
TREE
PP
PP

CBOX PP
BOLPP
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
R
R
TREE
TREE
TREER
PP
VP

TREE R TREE
TREE R
TREE
TREE
VP
R
R
R
TREE R
R
R TREE
TREE R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
TREE
TREE
TREE R
R
TREE R
R
TREE
R

TREE TREER
R

TREE TREER WVVPVP R
TREE
TREER

R TREE TREER TREER
R
TREE

R TREE TREE R
TREE R
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE R
R
R
R
R
TREE
TREE R
R TREE
TREER
TREE R
TREE R
RVP R

TREETREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
325.05 FL PIPE
IW
SP

TREETREE

TREETREE
TREE

TREETREETREETREETREE

TREETREE

TREETREE
TREE

TREETREE

TREETREE
UP
TREE R
R
R
TREE
GUYPP
UP IW
SP
TREE
TREE
TREE
R
VPR
TREE
SP
(E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH (E) E OH 9' 12'
12'
11'
11'
19 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
17 16
6647 S.F.
13 12095 S.F.
16 6554 S.F.
1 23' 50'
49' 51' 51' 51'
86' 20' 45' 51' 51' 51' 51' 51' 51' 67'
22' 50' 41' 43' 51' 51' 51'
96' 14'
53' 60'
96'
5583 S.F.
156
60'
5631 S.F.
161
50' 53' 53' 53'
5658 S.F.
166
50'
14'
96'
53'
5392 S.F.
171
54' 50'
14'
90'
60'
53'
5665 S.F.
8 5104 S.F.
7 5104 S.F.
6 5104 S.F.
5 5104 S.F.
4 5104 S.F.
3 5104 S.F.
2 51' 51' 55'
8327 S.F.
18 41' 12' 51' 51'
5095 S.F.
9 5084 S.F.
10 5073 S.F.
11 5062 S.F.
12 78'
16'
9 4' 44' 51' 51' 51'
50' 50' 27'
100'
100'
99'
99'
51'
5000 S.F.
37 100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
60' 10'
55'
100'
100'
99'
99'
5580 S.F.
151
96' 14' 50'
6299 S.F.
153
106'
6217 S.F.
149
53' 53' 53'
106'
49'
14'
96'
60'
6299 S.F.
158
53'
106'
53' 53'
6297 S.F.
154
53'
106'
5580 S.F.
152
5580 S.F.
150
53' 53'
106'
106'
5583 S.F.
155
5583 S.F.
157
60'
60'
96' 14' 50' 53' 53' 53' 50'
106'
106'
106'
106'
6297 S.F.
163
6295 S.F.
159
53'
106'
6300 S.F.
168
53'
14' 50' 53'
6297 S.F.
164
53' 53'
106'
5631 S.F.
162
5631 S.F.
160
53' 60'
50'
5658 S.F.
165
5658 S.F.
167
106'
96' 14'
106'
106'
106'
96' 14'
60'
106'
106'
106'
106'
5950 S.F.
173
100'
5950 S.F.
169
60' 54'
100'
54' 54'
5392 S.F.
172
5392 S.F.
170
60'
100'
100'
100'
7060 S.F.
14 8027 S.F.
15 8598 S.F.
17 100'
51' 44'
53' 35 ' 62' 3'
133'
101'
100'
60'
110'
68'

NOT A PART
(POSSIBLE ADDITION

TO SUBDIVISION WITH

SD POND RELOCATION)
60'
60'
60' 60' 60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'

LOT B (LLD) LOT A (LLD)
CALDWELL AVE.

RUSSELL AVE.

LOYOLA AVE.

PACKWOOD AVE.

CAMERON AVE.

JAMES AVE.

BEN MADDOX WAY
GOWDY CT. GOWDY ST. GOWDY ST.LUKE ST.

HAZEL ST.

STOVER ST.

CAIN ST.

TULARE IRRIGATION DITCH

LOT C (LLD)

LOT D (LLD)

LOT E (LLD)
LOT F
(WATERWAY/RIPARIAN LOT)

LOT G (TID)

PROPERTY
LIMITS

POCKET PARK
LOT J
8" SEWER

CONNECTION
12" WATER
REESE DR.

TEMP SD POND
12" WATER

FUTURE CULVERT

AND ROAD EXTENSION

FUTURE CULVERT

AND ROAD EXTENSION
(NOT A PART)
PHASE 1
PHASE 2

PHASE LINE

REMAINDER
LOT H
(WATERWAY/RIPARIAN LOT)

LOT I (TID)
R250'
R4558'
R295'
R503'
R75'
R630'
R350'
R90'
R500'
5755 S.F.
24 46' 50' 50' 50' 50' 14' 90'
60' 40' 10' 50' 12' 41'
40' 40'
5000 S.F.
23 50' 27' 23'
17'
5000 S.F.
22 50' 49'
5000 S.F.
21 83'
56' 100'
5000 S.F.
20 21'
40'
100'
98'
100'
100'
5000 S.F.
19 50' 101'
100'
100'
49'
41'
100'
100'
5000 S.F.
31 5 3' 53'
17'
13'
79'
5755 S.F.
43 76'
50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 4'
100'
50' 50' 50' 50'
6145 S.F.
25 100'
7080 S.F.
34 46' 50'
100'
6740 S.F.
35 14'
100'
7795 S.F.
33 5000 S.F.
42 100'
90'
60' 50' 50'
5000 S.F.
41 50'
100'
5000 S.F.
40 50'
100'
5000 S.F.
39 100'
5000 S.F.
38 50'
100'
5000 S.F.
36 50'
100'
100'
100'
100'
5000 S.F.
26 100'
60' 50' 50' 50'
90'
14'
54' 50' 50' 50'
50'
100'
5000 S.F.
27 50' 50'
100'
5000 S.F.
28 50' 50'
53 ' 100'
5000 S.F.
29 2' 37'
53' 100'
5000 S.F.
30 16'
75'
100'
5000 S.F.
32 91'
100'
100'
100'
10420 S.F.
76 5972 S.F.
99 6178 S.F.
95 5058 S.F.
82 7535 S.F.
118
10216 S.F.
127
8899 S.F.
143
5761 S.F.
176
164' 50' 50' 50'
144' 53' 52'
50' 50' 60'
22' 10' 45' 21'
8' 32'
50'
59' 60'
32' 49'
14'
90'
60' 32' 8' 14' 5 4' 90'
14'
54' 51' 51' 51'
151'
91'
31' 3 4' 1' 60' 60'
3 4' 2 '
95'
128'
61' 61' 54'
12' 12' 37' 46'
50' 100' 69' 40' 50' 50' 14' 90'
50' 50' 50'
102' 14'
60' 54' 54' 54'
90'
11321 S.F.
49 1' 50' 50' 50' 40' 15'
117'
7865 S.F.
6944 S.F. 122' 61 6658 S.F. 118' 60
113' 59
6381 S.F.
58 55' 2 2' 110'
5513 S.F.
57 3 2' 34' 110'
5500 S.F.
56 21' 45' 110'
5500 S.F.
55 22' 10' 110'
5500 S.F.
54 50' 33'
110'
5500 S.F.
53 50'
110'
5500 S.F.
52 50'
110'
5500 S.F.
51 50'
110'
5482 S.F.
50 50'
107'
118'
122'
110'
110'
110'
110'
3 4' 32' 22' 5 5' 4'
65'
57' 14'
7 4' 69' 68' 28' 39' 50' 50'
32' 50'
58'
86'
50'
20' 40'
50'
9240 S.F.
62 50' 50' 50'
50' 50' 50'
6287 S.F.
66 6893 S.F.
65 7298 S.F.
64 7709 S.F.
63 157'
164' 50' 50'
111'
116'
122'
128'
5526 S.F.
67 50' 50'
5500 S.F.
68 50'
5500 S.F.
69 50'
5500 S.F.
70 50'
5500 S.F.
71 50'
5500 S.F.
72 110'
5500 S.F.
73 50' 50'
110'
50'
110'
110'
110'
110'
5411 S.F.
74 110'
50' 50'
36'
101'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
5466 S.F.
80 100'
20' 50' 2 4'
20'
5000 S.F.
79 7' 51'
100'
5000 S.F.
78 51'
2 4'
86'
100'
4732 S.F.
77 24' 3'
88'
54'
100'
11169 S.F.
75 158'
50' 33'
101'
50' 52'
5055 S.F.
44 100'
5000 S.F.
45 6' 24' 26'
100'
5240 S.F.
46 52' 52'
100'
5027 S.F.
47 6' 18'
89'
100'
9881 S.F.
48 50' 49'
152'
6600 S.F.
94 90' 14'
100'
56'
5913 S.F.
97 6 ' 69'
100'
5752 S.F.
96 29'
100'
100'
51'
5755 S.F.
110
51'
100'
6145 S.F.
81 100'
51' 51' 51' 51' 51'
6524 S.F.
93 6076 S.F.
92 5631 S.F.
91 5327 S.F.
90 5058 S.F.
89 5058 S.F.
88 5058 S.F.
87 5058 S.F.
86 5058 S.F.
85 5058 S.F.
84 5058 S.F.
83 46' 51' 51' 51' 51' 51' 51' 14' 90'
60' 51'
17' 3 4' 51' 51' 51'
60' 5 4' 14'
51' 51' 51' 56' 58' 59' 50' 60' 51' 51' 51' 51' 51' 100' 116'
106'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
101'
116'
29'
106'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
101'
5058 S.F.
109
51'
100'
5058 S.F.
108
51'
100'
5058 S.F.
107
51'
100'
5058 S.F.
106
51'
100'
5058 S.F.
105
51'
100'
5058 S.F.
104
51'
100'
5058 S.F.
103
51'
100'
5058 S.F.
102
56'
100'
5560 S.F.
101
58'
100'
5855 S.F.
100
59'
100'
4991 S.F.
98 50'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
54' 44'
5420 S.F.
115
5492 S.F.
111
100'
5400 S.F.
112
20'
86'
54'
100'
5400 S.F.
113
54'
100'
100'
5714 S.F.
114
54' 11'
79'
7753 S.F.
120
130'
40' 20' 30'
7697 S.F.
119
6549 S.F.
116
6751 S.F.
117
30' 20' 41'
124'
127'
99'
6338 S.F.
121
52' 52' 52'
49'
5289 S.F.
122
106'
14'
106'
5289 S.F.
123
48' 24'
122'
106'
5289 S.F.
124
60'
106'
5284 S.F.
125
50'
104'
10'
106'
106'
29' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 53'
90'
52' 52' 43' 14'
5219 S.F.
137
52' 52'
94'
52'
5158 S.F.
129 100'
63' 107'
82' 53' 41'
5200 S.F.
130
20' 30'
100'
5200 S.F.
131
30' 20'
100'
5200 S.F.
132
40' 10'
100'
5200 S.F.
133
50' 60'
100'
5200 S.F.
134
96' 14'
100'
5200 S.F.
135
51' 50'
100'
5200 S.F.
136
50'
100'
100'
100'
100'
7039 S.F.
128 112' 50' 38'
6825 S.F.
126
106'
104'
5000 S.F.
50'
148
100' 1'
5000 S.F.
147
50' 50'
5000 S.F.
146
50' 50'
4951 S.F.
138
98'
5000 S.F.
139
25' 24' 100'
100'
100'
5000 S.F.
140
100'
2' 40' 100'
100'
4949 S.F.
141
40' 40' 94'
4863 S.F.
145
12' 2 4'
90'
100'
100'
100'
6265 S.F.
142
94'
15' 50' 50'
109'
6333 S.F.
144
113'
98' 60'
6628 S.F.
174
110'
14'
60'
58'
69 5821 S.F. '
178
50'
18' 54'
104'
5647 S.F.
177
54'
54' 54'
106'
5875 S.F.
175
54'
50'
108'
104'

INSTALL SPEED TABLE

OR OTHER TRAFFIC

CALMING FEATURE

INSTALL SPEED TABLE

OR OTHER TRAFFIC

CALMING FEATURE

TRAFFIC
CIRCLE
TYP. PAVEMENT

SECTION
CITY STD. CURB
& GUTTER
CITY STD.

SIDEWALK
5' 20.0' 20.0'
C

R/W L R/W
CITY STD. CURB
& GUTTER
CITY STD.

SIDEWALK
60'
5' 5' 5'
TYP. LOCAL
TYP. PAVEMENT

SECTION
CITY STD. CURB
& GUTTER
CITY STD.

SIDEWALK
5' 20.0' 20.0'
C

R/W L R/W
CITY STD. CURB
& GUTTER
CITY STD.

SIDEWALK
60'
5' 5.0' 5.0'

REESE DRIVE

LOOKING NORTH

15.0' RIPARIAN
LOT

12.5'
PL

TID DITCH

LOOKING EAST

CALDWELL AVE
EXIST. SIDEWALK
±10' ±33' ±33' ±5' ±10'

10.0' LANDSCAPE
LOT

55.0'

R/W R/W PL
EXIST. CURB
& GUTTER
EXIST. PAVEMENT

SECTION
EXIST. MEDIAN
EXIST. PAVEMENT

SECTION
EXIST. CURB
& GUTTER
EXIST. PARKWAY
EXIST. SIDEWALK

PROPOSED

BLOCK WALL
CL

60.0'
125.0'
±24'

SECTION
LINE
R/W

SECTION
LINE
EXIST. PARKWAY
EXIST. SIDEWALK
EXIST. PARKWAY
EXIST. CURB
& GUTTER
EXIST. PAVEMENT

SECTION

PROPOSED MEDIAN
TYP. PAVEMENT

SECTION
CITY STD.

CURB & GUTTER

PARKWAY
CITY STD.

SIDEWALK

PROPOSED

BLOCK WALL

36.0' 5.0' 5.0'

10.0' LANDSCAPE
LOT
±5' ±5' ±10' ±36'

LOOKING NORTH

BEN MADDOX WAY
± 55' 55.0'
CL
110.0'

18.0'
R/W PL EXIST.

PL
EXIST.

PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
VISALIA, CA 93292
TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
www.4-creeks.com

VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1000' MILE
February 13, 2024
NORTH
100' 0' 100'

CITY OF

VISALIA

PROJECT

LOCATION
CALDWELL AVE.

S. BEN MADDOX WAY
LAND USE CONCEPT 1
SITE DATA:

APN: 124-010-007 & 005
TOTAL AREA: 43.6 AC (GROSS)

24.0 AC (NET)
EXISTING ZONING: AE-40 (COUNTY)
PROPOSED ZONING: R-1-5
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
EXISTING USE: VACANT
PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
FLOOD ZONE: X02
JURISDICTION: TULARE COUNTY - TO BE ANNEXED
VISALIA UDB TIER: TIER 2
UTILITIES:

SEWER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
WATER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
STORM DRAIN SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
ELECTRICITY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.

NATURAL GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.

TELEPHONE: AT&T
REFUSE: CITY OF VISALIA

CAMERON RANCH ESTATES

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
LOCATED IN THE NW 1
4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, 25 EAST, MDB&M, IN THE CITY OF VISALIA,

COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SANITARY SEWER AND WATER UTILITIES TO TIE INTO EXISTING LINES ALONG CALDWELL AVE. AND BEN MADDOX WAY.

TEMP. STORM DRAIN BASIN
VREQ'D = 5 AC-FT
VPROV. = 6.4 AC-FT
TYPICAL LOT SIZES: AREA: NUMBER OF LOTS:
50' x 100': 5,000 S.F. 178
TOTAL: 178
NO BUILD AREA:
528
1 of 9
Pre-Annexation Agreement
This Pre-Annexation Agreement (”Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of _________, 2024, by and among the City of Visalia, a charter law city (“City’) and ____________________________________________________, (hereinafter “Owners”):

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owners are the record owners of a portion of property, currently located in the unincorporated area of the County of Tulare, legally described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B”, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is adjacent to and contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City, but is not situated within the limits of any municipality; and
WHEREAS, Owners desires to have the Property annexed to the City and to have the Property zoned as R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum), which would permit the Property to be used for Residential Low Density use; and
WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 43.6 acres, and one electors reside thereon; and
WHEREAS, proper applications have been filed with the City for approval of the annexation and tentative subdivision map as may be required for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has, by a resolution requesting initiation of proceedings to annex territory (“Resolution”) adopted on _________, 2024, initiated proceedings to annex the Property; and
WHEREAS, finding adoption of Resolution No. 2024-_____ initiating annexation requires entry into this Annexation Agreement prior to the City submitting an application to the Local Area Formation Commission to commence the proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS, Owners acknowledges that during the term of this Agreement the Property will be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations of the City, as they may be amended from time to time, as well as state and federal statutes and regulations, as they may be amended.

WHEREAS, the City is authorized by its police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and is entering into this Agreement and executing such authority for said purpose; and
Lauren Twigge and Bernard Te Velde
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 151129
2 of 9
WHEREAS, nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by town of any tax, fee, or charge.

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

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

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

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

II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION; PURPOSE OF

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

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

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

16.54 of the Visalia Municipal Code, which requires annexation applicants to convey title to water rights to City upon annexation and/or to pay a fee to City (pursuant to an adopted fee schedule) so that City may acquire water for groundwater replenishment and storage in order DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 151230
3 of 9
to serve new development that comes with annexation, including development of the Property (the “Water Acquisition Policy”). Therefore, Owners agrees that, at the time that LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owners will comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to either (i) convey to City those water rights vested in the Property, if any, (ii) agree to pay City a fee in lieu thereof, (iii) agree to some combination of an in lieu fee payment and water right conveyance, or (iv) to comply by any other method allowed by the Water Acquisition Policy, provided that such agreement includes a condition precedent requiring City’s water supplier to agree to serve the Property with potable water in amount sufficient to meet Owners reasonably anticipated total water demand for the Property, as determined by a valid water supply assessment prepared pursuant to California Water Code § 10910 et seq. No post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued by City unless and until Owners comply with the Water Acquisition Policy in a manner consistent with this subsection II(A). Owners agree that it shall identify all water rights which, to the best of Owners knowledge, have been used by Owners or its agents in connection with the Property, regardless of whether they are considered “vested” in the Property, and shall comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to convey such rights, if any, to City. City shall cooperate with Owners in valuing such water rights for the purposes of determining the amount of offset to be applied against the in-lieu fee as required pursuant of the Water Acquisition Policy. Owners further agrees that City shall have first right of refusal in acquiring upon mutually acceptable terms any water rights that Owners own that may be in addition to those required to meet Owners obligations under the Water Acquisition Policy. City agrees that water rights need not be conveyed and in lieu fees shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of a building permit covering the Property and, in the event Owners apply to City for its approval of multiple building permits covering the Property, City agrees such water rights conveyance or fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each building permit, with conveyance of water rights or payment to be made on a per building permit basis upon City’s issuance of each building permit covering the Property.

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

Owners agree that, at the time LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owners will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee in an amount equal to $477 per acre and no post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued unless and until said agreement is executed. City agrees that such fee shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more building permits covering the Property and, in the event Owners apply to City for its approval of multiple building DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 151331
4 of 9
permits covering the Property, City agrees such fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each building permit, with payment to be made on a per building permit basis upon City’s issuance of each building permit covering the Property. Owners satisfaction of its obligations under this Section II(B) will satisfy any and all of Owners obligations related to and arising under the General Plan Maintenance Fee.

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

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

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

IV. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT
In the event of breach or default of any term, condition, covenant or obligation of this Agreement by either party, the other party may exercise any rights available at law or in equity, including an action for specific performance or other injunctive relief, and all such remedies shall be cumulative. This Agreement shall be enforceable, unless lawfully terminated or cancelled, by any party to the Agreement or any party’s successor in interest, notwithstanding any subsequent changes in any applicable law adopted by the City which alters or amends the laws, ordinances, resolutions, rules or policies frozen by this Agreement.

V. INDEMNIFICATION
Owners agree to indemnify and hold harmless City and the City’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability, claims, causes of actions, and demands, including attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation, or with any other action annexation or other action determined necessary or desirable by the City in order to effectuate the annexation of Owners property, or which are in any manner connected with the City’s DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 151432
5 of 9
enforcement of this Agreement. Owners further agree to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against or at the City’s option to pay the attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Binding Effect/Covenants to Run With Land. The Parties hereto agree to be bound by this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, transferees, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The terms and conditions stated herein shall constitute covenants running with the land.
b. Assignment. Neither party shall assign, delegate or transfer their rights and duties in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party.
c. Authorized Signatory. The individuals executing this Agreement, by their signature hereto, declare that they are authorized to, and have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
d. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be effective upon personal delivery to City, or Owners, as the case may be, three (3) business days after deposit in the United States Mail, postage fully prepaid, addressed to the respective parties as follows:

To the City: City Manager
City of Visalia
220 N. Santa Fe Street
Visalia, CA 93291
With Copy to: Kenneth J. Richardson
City Attorney
Peltzer & Richardson
3746 West Mineral King
Visalia, CA 93291
To Owner: Lauren Twigge
3549 Vinecrest Dr.

Dallas, TX 75229
To Owner: Bernard Te Velde
2911 Hanford Armona Rd.

Handford, CA 93230
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 151533
6 of 9
Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
e. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the City and Owners as to its subject matter and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or affect.
f. Amendment. No part of this Agreement may be modified without the written consent of both parties.
g. Headings. Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions under the heading.
h. No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. Except as provided herein, the parties of this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy. i. Exhibits and Recitals. The recitals and any exhibits to this Agreement are fully incorporated by reference and are integral parts of this Agreement.
j. Conflict With Laws or Regulations/Severability. This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing this subject, the conflicting provision(s) shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a material benefit of the Agreement to either party is lost, the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the effected party. In all other cases, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. k. Waiver. A waiver of any breech of this Agreement by any party shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breech of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
l. Choice of Law - Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any questions arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. Venue for any legal action arising from or in connection with this Agreement or the Property shall be in Tulare County, California.
m. Attorneys Fees. In the event either party commences any action, arbitration or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court or arbitrator, shall be entitled to recovery of its reasonable fees and costs, including attorneys fees, court costs and arbitration costs incurred in the action brought thereon.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 151634
7 of 9
n. No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owners and that Owners are not an agent of City. City and Owners hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection therewith shall be construed as making City and Owners joint venturers or partners.
o. Excusable Delays; Extension of Time of Performance. In the event of delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, war, terrorism, lockouts, third-party litigation or other legal challenges regarding the annexation, riots, floods, earthquakes, epidemic, quarantine, freight embargoes, failure of contractors to perform, or other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the parties and which cause substantially interferes with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, then the time for performance of any such obligation shall be extended for such period of time as the cause of such delay shall exist but in any event not longer than for such period of time.
p. Further Assurances. The parties will execute and deliver, upon demand by the other party, such further documents, instruments and conveyances, and shall take such further actions as such other party may request from time to time to document the transactions set forth herein.
q. Recordation of Agreement; Counterparts. This Agreement, or an abstract of its material terms and conditions shall be recorded by either party in the Official Records of the Tulare County Recorder. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, when all counterparts are combined, shall constitute a single agreement.
r. Future Development Impact Fees. The Owners hereby acknowledge that the City may, from time to time, adopt additional development impact fees at some time in the future after annexation of the Property. The Owners hereby agree that, in the event that the City adopts an ordinance imposing a development impact fee, in accordance with applicable legal requirements, prior to issuance of a vesting project approval for development of any portion of the Property, Owners will be subject to the requirements of such citywide development impact fee program to the extent applicable at the time Owners seek a vesting project approval for a project on the Property. This provision is not intended to retroactively subject the Property to additional annexation-related fees that may be adopted in the future.
s. Prezoning. City agrees to promptly process and, after City completes and adopts its environmental review, consider Owners application to prezone the Property, as required by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act’s prezoning requirements. The R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) zoning designation is the adopted prezonings for the Property, DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 151735
8 of 9
in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapters 17.12 and Section

17.06.050(A), which section states that all territory which is annexed into the City shall be classified to the zone as indicated on the Visalia General Plan land use map, as adopted by the City (the “Prezoning”). The R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) zoning designation permits residential land uses, as specified by the City of Visalia Municipal Code. Upon execution of this Agreement, City shall use its best efforts to (i) promptly complete its environmental review of the Project and consider its adoption thereof, and (ii) complete its preparation of the proposed prezoning contemplated by this subsection II(E) and consider its approval thereof. If City approves the prezoning contemplated by this subsection II(E), the terms and conditions of such prezoning shall be included in City’s application to LAFCO for the annexation of the Property to City, which application shall promptly be submitted to LAFCO by City.
t. Development Impact Fees: The Owners shall pay all applicable development impact fees for any subsequent development on the Property at the time that building permits are issued, or prior to issuance of final occupancy, if applicable, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, or as may be required by ordinance. A list and amount of development impact fees can be located in the City’s current version of the Development Fee Schedule.
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 151836
9 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth next to their signature.

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

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

Date: ____________ By: _________________________________ Kenneth J. Richardson, City
Attorney
OWNERS
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ ______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 4/29/2024
151937

REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE: June 24, 2024
PROJECT PLANNER: Paul Bernal, Director / City Planner
Phone No.: (559) 713-4025
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No. 2024-02: A request by Artemis Partners, LLC to annex 46.01 acres of Residential Low Density land from the County of Tulare to the City of Visalia. Upon annexation the site will be zoned R-1- 5 (Single-Family Residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot area).

Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598: A request Artemis Partners, LLC to subdivide two parcels totaling 43.6 acres into a 178-lot single-family residential subdivision with a 0.77-acre pocket park, landscape / lighting district lots, and remainder lot, to be located within the R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 5,000 square foot lot size) zone district upon annexation to the Visalia city limits.

Project Location: The property is located on the south side of East Caldwell Avenue between the future South Ben Maddox Way alignment and South Pinkham Street (APNs: 124-010-005 and 124-010-007).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Annexation No. 2024-02
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve the annexation request based on the findings in Resolution No. 2024-21. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan.

Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 Staff recommends approval of the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2024-20. 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 Visalia Housing Element.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend approval of Annexation No. 2024-02, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2024-21.

I move to approve Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2024-20.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Artemis Partners, LLC, has filed entitlement applications for the annexation of a

46.01-acres and a tentative subdivision map. Annexation No. 2024-02 is a request to annex a

46.01-acres located beyond the city limits, and within the Tier II urban development boundary (see Exhibit “B”). The annexation application is requesting to annex the development site within the City. Upon annexation, the Zoning designation for the area will be R-1-5 (Single-family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum lot area) for the entire project site consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation of Residential Low Density. 538
The annexation request includes authorizing the detachment from County Service Area No. 1 in accordance with State and County requirements and authorizing the City Manager to sign and enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement.

The Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 is a request to subdivide 43.6- acres into a 178-lot single-family residential subdivision at a density of 4.08 dwelling units per gross acre (see Exhibit “A”). The subdivision map covers the entirety of the single-family residential area that is within Tier II, along with a remainder lot that is developed with a singlefamily home.

Improvements along these major streets include construction of curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, sidewalks, block wall, installation of park strip landscaping, streetlights, median islands and street paving. The street improvements associated with this subdivision are discussed in greater detail in the Traffic Circulation and Street Improvements section of the staff report.

The subdivision will be developed in two phases (Phase 1 and Phase 2) as depicted in Exhibit “A”. Phase 1 is proposing to develop 117 lots along with the pocket park, while Phase 2 will develop the remaining 61 lots. The entire project site is currently undeveloped with an active orchard and an existing single-family home located on the Remainder lot. The home will remain, and the orchard will continue to operate until the site is ready for development. The parcel is surrounded by a residential subdivision to the north and west, and orchards to the south and east.

The project site also abuts a canal belonging to the Tulare Irrigation District to the east.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Existing General Plan Land Use
Designation:

Low Density Residential
Existing County Zoning: AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) Zoning upon annexation to City: R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area)
Surrounding General Plan &
Land Use:

North: Caldwell Avenue / Four lane divided arterial street South: Residential Low Density / Agricultural Orchard
East: Residential Low Density / Agricultural Orchard and one single-family home
West: Future Ben Maddox alignment / Diamond Oaks
Subdivision
539
Environmental Review: Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257)
Special Districts: None
Site Plan Review: SPR No. 2023-225

RELATED PLANS & POLICIES
Please see attached summary of related plans and policies.

RELATED PROJECTS
None.

ADJACENT PROJECTS
Diamond Oaks Subdivision was a request to subdivide 55.9 acres of R-1-6 zoned property into a 180-lot Planned Residential Development (PRD). The PRD consisted of 168 single-family residential lots, 12 multi-family lots and six out-lots for the purpose of Landscaping and Lighting Lots. The project included the construction of 168 single-family residential homes, the construction of eight triplex units (24 total units) on eight lots, and the future construction of a large multi-family development on the remaining four lots abutting Caldwell Avenue. DR Horton is currently developing the single-family residential homes. The subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission on September 23, 2013.

PROJECT EVALUATION
Staff supports the annexation based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Specifically, Annexation No. 2024-02 will facilitate a new community on a 43.6- acre site in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan land use designations that exist within the project site and will complement existing development to the north and west.

Furthermore, staff recommends approval of Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 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. 2024-02
The project proponents have filed an application to initiate annexation of the project site into the Visalia City limits. In addition to the project site, the final annexation area will include the two parcels at the immediate corner of Ben Maddox Way and Caldwell Avenue and acreage from the future Ben Maddox Way alignment south of Caldwell Avenue across the project frontage. The site will be pre-zoned to zoning that is consistent with the subject site’s corresponding 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.
540
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 or parcel map until after the land is annexed and the annexation is recorded through the Tulare County Recorder. Staff has included this requirement as conditions of approval in the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598.

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.

Low Density Residential Land Use Designation
Land Use Policy LU-P-55 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 existing residential development within the Low Density Residential land use designation situated south of East Caldwell Avenue and east of the future Ben Maddox Way street alignment.

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.

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 the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision meet density standards for the Low Density Residential land use designation and will be compatible with surrounding developed residential areas.

Furthermore, the subdivision will develop a network of local streets, improve adjacent arterial public roadways, and construct new arterial major street, thereby facilitating increased street connectivity to accommodate future growth areas.
1 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).
541
Development Standards
The Cameron Ranch Estates tentative subdivision map will develop per the codified standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance regarding lot size and setbacks for R-1-5 zoned property.

Condition No. 7 is included requiring that the lot size for Lot 141 of the Cameron Ranch Tentative subdivision be increased to comply with the minimum 5,000 square foot requirement. The subdivision does not propose the utilization of small lots or private streets with this single-family residential subdivision.

The setbacks within the R-1-5 zone for lots 5,000 square feet or greater are as follows:

Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts
A Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) will be required for the long-term maintenance of the out lots, which include blocks walls, streetlights, landscaping, and the pocket park amenities as noted on Exhibit “A”. The block walls along street frontages will be similar to City standard block walls.

The block walls along the major street frontages will be typical City standard block walls. The block wall height shall be reduced to three feet where the block wall runs adjacent to the front yard setback along the front yard areas of the following residential lots: Lots 1, 8, 44, 80, 111, 137 and 138. The three-foot transition areas can be found between the corner residential lots and the local streets heading into the subdivision from either Caldwell Avenue or Ben Maddox Way. Staff has included Condition No. 9 to require the stepped down walls.

Traffic Circulation and Street Improvements
Street improvements to arterial and local roadways will be required within the project area. The full circulation plan for the entire project, including street cross sections, is shown in Exhibit “A”, including the future culvert crossing and road extension east of the Tulare Irrigation canal. Street improvements will be completed in two phases, with the first phase of development to occur on the north portion of the project area.

Arterial Streets. Ben Maddox Way and Caldwell Avenue are designated 110-foot wide arterial streets with four travel lanes at full buildout. Ben Maddox Way is not constructed south of the Ben Maddox and Caldwell intersection. The development of the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision will require the development of Ben Maddox Way which includes frontage improvements consisting of block wall, landscaping, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, street lights, curb, gutter, median island, and street paving. Curb and gutter exists on the west side of Ben Maddox Way which was constructed as part of the Diamond Oaks subdivision site improvements. In addition to the improvements to Ben Maddox Way across the subdivision’s frontage, the developer of the subdivision will also construct street improvements (i.e., curb, gutter, parkway landscape and sidewalk) across the frontage of the property located on the immediate southeast corner of the Minimum
Lot Area Front Side Street Side Rear
5,000 sq. ft.
15-ft. to
habitable
space. 22-ft. to
garage, except
on curvilinear
lots 20-ft. to
garage.
5-ft. 10-ft.
25-ft. City standard rear yard setbacks
are 25 feet with allowance for one-story
structure to go to 20-feet subject to open
space requirements.
542
Ben Maddox / Caldwell intersection noted on the subdivision map as “Not A Part”. A cross-section of the Ben Maddox Way improvement is depicted on Exhibit “A”. Reimbursement for improvements to Ben Maddox Way that exceed the developers required obligations will be reimbursed back to the developer.

The City’s CIP project for Caldwell Avenue (Santa Fe to Lovers Lane) includes the construction of curb, gutter, street lights, 10-foot sidewalk, median island, street paving, and full signalization of the Ben Maddox/Caldwell intersection. The developer of the subdivision will be required to install landscaping and the block wall across the subdivision frontage. To facilitate timing of the Caldwell Avenue improvements, the developer of the subdivision shall coordinate with City staff.

Presently, the CIP project plans are 95% complete and bidding for construction is anticipated for August of this year. In the unlikely event City’s Caldwell Avenue CIP is extensively delayed, the developer of the subdivision will be required to install all required Caldwell Avenue street improvements across their project frontage. This requirement is noted in the City’s Engineering Development Divisions Site Plan Review comments (SPR No. 2023-225), which are incorporated as conditions of project approval (Condition No. 1).

Local Streets. All local streets will be developed per the City’s 60-foot wide local street standard.

The subdivision is conditioned to provide a local street connection to the east as depicted on Exhibit “A” to comply with the City’s superblock connectivity standard. The crossing of the Tulare Irrigation canal will require the installation of a culvert crossing. The installation of the culvert is not required at this time; however, the developer shall pay their fair share for the design and construction cost of the culvert structure. Future development to the east will require the culvert structure be installed to facilitate local street connectivity and will be reimbursed per the in-lieu fee collected. The in-lieu fee amount shall be established by the City’s Engineering and Building Director and/or their designee. This is included as Condition No. 3.

Infrastructure
Water Service: Staff has included Condition No. 5 that requires a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company, prior to development of the subdivision.

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 developer will be required to coordinate with City staff on design and construction requirements for the sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer master plan for the entire development will be required to be submitted for review prior to approval of any portion of the system.

Storm Drainage: Currently, there is no storm drainage infrastructure south of Caldwell Avenue.

The applicant has identified improvements to address storm-drainage infrastructure improvements. The plan is to require the use of a temporary onsite retention facility depicted in the southern area of the subdivision (see Exhibit “A”, Lots 9 through 17). The onsite basin is required because there is no regional basin designed and/or installed for the southeast area. 543
The stormwater master plan for the southeast area indicates the need for a series of regional detention basins; however, it is unlikely that such a stormwater management system could be constructed prior to this development due to the cost associated with developing the system for the southeast area. However, over time, it is anticipated that most if not all of the regional stormwater management system for the future southeast area will be constructed with combinations of capital improvement projects and incremental facilities construction.

Remainder Lot
The Cameron Ranch Estates Subdivision map (Exhibit “A”) identifies a remainder lot. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act section 66424.6, the subdivider may designate as a “Remainder” that portion of land, which is not divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing. If the subdivider elects to designate a remainder, the following requirements shall apply:

1. The designated remainder shall not be counted as a parcel for the purpose of determining whether a parcel or final map is required.

2. The fulfillment of construction requirements for improvements, including the payment of fees associated with any deferred improvements shall not be required.

The City’s CIP Caldwell project will construct the street frontage improvements across the Remainder.

Agricultural Preservation Ordinance Requirements
The 43.6-acre project site is in the City’s Tier II 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. 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.

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.
544
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 has been found to be
consistent with the City’s General Plan. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 1 of the
Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision
Map No. 5598.
(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. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 2 of the Cameron
Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No.
5598.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the
type of development.

The site is physically suitable for the proposed
maps and its affiliated development plan, which is
designated as Low Density Residential, and is
developed at a density that is within the allowed
range of the specified land use designation. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 3 of the
Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision
Map No. 5598.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.

The site is physically suitable for the proposed
map, which is designated as Low Density
Residential. This is included as recommended
Finding No. 4 of the Cameron Ranch Estates
Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598.
(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 have 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. 7 of the Cameron
Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No.
5598.
(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
Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision
Map No. 5598.
(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. 4 of the
545
Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision
Map No. 5598.

Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257) 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 and Forestry Resources to mitigate impacts for loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on a 1:1 ratio. • Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources to reduce impacts of the Project to special-status wildlife species.
• Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Cultural Resources to reduce the impacts of the Project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction.
• Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Hydrology and Water Quality to address impacts to surface and groundwater resources
A 20-day review and comment period through the State Clearing House for the Initial Study began on May 30, 2024, and ended on June 19, 2024.

The City received one comment letter in response to the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for this project. This letter was shared with the project applicant. The letter was received from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and is included with the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. Upon reviewing the letter with the project applicant, the applicant provided a copy of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, which was performed by Krazan & Associates, Inc. on July 13, 2022. The results of the Phase 1 noted that no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified. In addition, no structures, mixing/loading/storage, drainage ditches, farmhouses, outbuildings, smudge pots, or any other chemical of concerns were identified on the site. To further address the comments raised in DTSC’s letter the following condition no. 4 is incorporated in the project’s conditions of approval as follows:
a. That prior to site disturbance, the developer/homebuilder will consult with Krazan & Associates, Inc. on recommendation for obtaining soil samples to test for OCP’s and arsenic. If suggested to be performed, developer/homebuilder shall have Krazan & Associates, Inc. perform the soil sampling per Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties from DTSC. The developer/homebuilder shall provide the Planning and Community Preservation Director with a copy of all correspondence between the developer/homebuilder and Krazan & Associates, Inc. that details the required direction/recommendation on soil samples to test for OCP’s and arsenic. b. All imported soil and fill material shall be tested to ensure that any contaminants are with DTSC’s and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs).
546
Based on the letter and the inclusion of the two additional project conditions as noted above, the City concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration are still applicable. No other formal comments were received as of the publication of this report.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
Annexation No. 2024-02

2. That the proposed Annexation, which will re-designate 46.01 acres of AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre) County zone district to R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot size) zone 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.

4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 2 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. 2024-19 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257), 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.

Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598

1. That the proposed location and layout of the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598, 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. The 43.6-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 178 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 Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598, 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 adjacent to existing residential development to the west, and development standards contained within the City’s Zoning Ordinance ensure consistency in the development pattern for this project and the surrounding area.

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 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 developed at a density that is within the allowed range for Low Density Residential development.
547

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 4.08 dwelling units per gross 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 178-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 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 at a density of 4.08 units per acre, which is consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and the R-1-5 zoning designation that will be applied to the site when annexed into the city limits.

6. That 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. 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.

7. That 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.

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. 2024-19 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257), 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.
548

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Annexation No. 2024-02

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot size) zone, consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation of Residential Low Density.

Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598

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. 2023- 225 incorporated herein by reference.

2. That the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”.

3. That the developer shall pay their fair share for the design and construction cost of the culvert structure that will be required to be installed across the Tulare Irrigation ditch when development to the east requires this structure to be installed to facilitate local street connectivity. The in-lieu fee amount shall be determined by the City’s Engineering and Building Director and/or their designee.

4. That the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and its mitigation measures adopted with the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257) and all conditions of the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598, including the following conditions in response to DTSC’s comment letter be met during construction and upon final occupancy and ongoing operation of the project:
a. That prior to site disturbance, the developer/homebuilder will consult with Krazan & Associates, Inc. on recommendation for obtaining soil samples to test for OCP’s and arsenic. If suggested to be performed, developer/homebuilder shall have Krazan & Associates, Inc. perform the soil sampling per Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties from DTSC. The developer/homebuilder shall provide the Planning and Community Preservation Director with a copy of all correspondence between the developer/homebuilder and Krazan & Associates, Inc. that details the required direction/recommendation on soil samples to test for OCP’s and arsenic. b. All imported soil and fill material shall be tested to ensure that any contaminants are with DTSC’s and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs).

5. That prior to the issuance of approved subdivision improvement plans or any residential building permit on the site, a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company shall be obtained.

6. That approval of the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2024-02, 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 PreAnnexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2024-02. 549

7. That the lot area for Lot 141 be increased to 5,000 square feet to meet the minimum lot area for R-1-5 zoned lots.

8. That the setbacks for the single-family residential lots shall comply with the R-1-5 (SingleFamily Residential 5,000 sq. ft. min. site area) zone district standards for the front, side, street side yard, and rear yard setbacks.

9. That the block walls located within the Landscape and Lighting District lots shall transition to three-foot height within the 15-foot front yard setback areas of the adjoining residential identified as Lots 1, 8, 44, 80, 111, 137, and 138 of the Cameon Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 (Exhibit “A”).

10.That the developer shall inform and have future homeowners of the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision sign and acknowledge Tulare County’s “Right to Farm” Ordinance. This informs future residential owners that the farming operation located to the south, which is located in the County, is protected and cannot be declared a nuisance if operating in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards.

11.That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met.

APPEAL INFORMATION
Annexation No. 2024-02
For the Annexation, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory only. The final decision will be made by the Visalia City Council following a public hearing. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s recommendation in this matter is not appealable.

Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 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 at:
https://www.visalia.city/government/committees/planning_commission/default.asp.

Minimum
Lot Area Front Side Street Side Rear
5,000
sq. ft.
15-ft. to
habitable
space. 22-ft. to
garage, except
on curvilinear
lots 20-ft. to
garage.
5-ft. 10-ft.
25-ft. City standard rear yard setbacks
are 25 feet with allowance for one-story
structure to go to 20-feet subject to open
space requirements.
550
Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2024-21 – Annexation No. 2024-02
- Attachment “A” – Annexation Area
- Attachment “B” – Annexation Agreement
• Resolution No. 2024-20 – Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 • Exhibit "A" – Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 • Exhibit “B” – Annexation Area
• Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 • Letter from Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) dated June 13, 2024 • Response Letter from Project Applicant dated June 19, 2024 • Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report dated July 13, 2022 • Site Plan Review Item No. 2023-225
• General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map
551

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-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.

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
552
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 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.
553

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.

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.
554
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-21

A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION NO. 2024-02: A REQUEST TO ANNEX 46.01 ACRES, LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF VISALIA URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY TIER II, INTO THE VISALIA CITY LIMITS. THE

ANNEXATION REQUEST INCLUDES AUTHORIZING THE DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND COUNTY

REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AND ENTER INTO A PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE

SOUTH SIDE OF EAST CALDWELL AVENUE BETWEEN THE FUTURE SOUTH BEN

MADDOX WAY ALIGNMENT AND SOUTH PINKHAM STREET
(APNS: 124-010-005 AND 124-010-007)
WHEREAS, the project proponents approve to initiate proceedings for annexation to said city of territory described on the attached legal description and annexation map included as Attachment “A” of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the proponent desires to annex said territory to the City of Visalia for the following reasons: 1) The annexation will contribute to and facilitate orderly growth and development of both the City and the territory proposed to be annexed; 2) The annexation will facilitate and contribute to the proper and orderly layout, design and construction of streets, gutters, sanitary and storm sewers and drainage facilities, both within the City and within the territory proposed to be annexed; and 3) The annexation will provide and facilitate proper overall planning and zoning of lands and subdivision of lands in said City and said territory in a manner most conducive of the welfare of said City and said territory; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzburg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is located in Voting District 2 as identified in the Election District Map adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-11; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after a duly published notice, did reviewed this proposal and hold a public hearing on June 24, 2024, and found it to be consistent with the General Plan.
555
Resolution No. 2024-21
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia recommends that the City Council approve Annexation No. 2024-02, and makes the following specific findings with regards to the project:

2. That the proposed Annexation, which will re-designate 46.01-acres of AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre) County zone district to R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot size) zone 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.

4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 2 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. 2024-19, 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 prepared for Annexation No. 2024-02 and Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia recommends approval to the City Council of the Annexation described herein, subject to the following conditions:

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot size) zone, consistent with pre-zoning designated by the General Plan Land Use Map of Residential Low Density.

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 Pre-Annexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” of Resolution No. 2024-21. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.
556
N89° 09' 57"E 1,884.64'±
S45° 31' 31"W 769.03'± S46° 17' 03"W 52.47'± S49° 29' 37"W 70.87'± Δ=19°40'09" R=100.00' L=34.33'± Δ=4°59'07" R=1,700.00' L=147.92'± S34° 48' 35"W 149.36'± S35° 50' 42"W 162.81'± S34° 26' 47"W 216.31'± S33° 35' 53"W 166.12'± S35° 21' 17"W 114.45'± S34° 53' 07"W 205.31'± Δ=13°54'48" R=560.48' L=136.10'± Δ=18°20'30" R=352.55' L=112.86'± Δ=2°42'57" R=4,500.00' L=213.31'± Δ=20°06'07" R=650.00' L=228.05'± S84° 31' 44"W 25.32'± 40' 40' N1° 48' 57"E 1,883.77'± N0° 11' 38"W 6.55'
6 PREPARED BY: 324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A VISALIA, CA 93292 TEL: 559.802.3052 FAX: 559.802.3215 www.4-creeks.com EXHIBIT "B" LEGEND ANNEXATION BOUNDARY EXISTING CITY LIMITS ANNEXATION NO. 2024-___ 350' 0' 350' THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 9. T. 19 S., R. 25 E., M.D.B.&M., IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA S. RIGHT OF WAY LINE CALDWELL AVENUE CALDWELL AVENUE W 1/2 SECT. 9-19/25 W. LINE SECT. 9-19/25 NORTHWEST CORNER SECTION 9-19/25 BEN MADDOX AVE.

NORTH CALDWELL AVENUE CITY OF VISALIAVICINITY MAP N.T.S. CITY OF VISALIA - EFFECTIVE: AREA: 46.01 ACRES CITY OF VISALIA ANNEX. NO. 2024-___ POINT OF BEGINNING (INTERSECTION OF SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE CALDWELL AVENUE AND WEST LINE SECTION 9-19/25) N. LINE W1/2 SECT. 9-19/25 1 2
3 4
5 7
9 10 11 12 13 14 18 15 16 17
8 S. LINE NW1/4 SECT. 9-19/25 19 APN 126-130-007 APN 126-130-009 COUNTY OF TULARE SUBJECT PROPERTY EXISTING CITY LIMIT CENTERLINE OF TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT COMPANY CANAL 02 Attachment "A" 557
1 of 9
Pre-Annexation Agreement
This Pre-Annexation Agreement (”Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of _________, 2024, by and among the City of Visalia, a charter law city (“City’) and ____________________________________________________, (hereinafter “Owners”):

WHEREAS, the City is authorized by its police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and is entering into this Agreement and executing such authority for said purpose; and
Lauren Twigge and Bernard Te Velde
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF Attachment "B" 558
2 of 9
WHEREAS, nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by town of any tax, fee, or charge.

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

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

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

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

II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION; PURPOSE OF

16.54 of the Visalia Municipal Code, which requires annexation applicants to convey title to water rights to City upon annexation and/or to pay a fee to City (pursuant to an adopted fee schedule) so that City may acquire water for groundwater replenishment and storage in order DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 559
3 of 9
to serve new development that comes with annexation, including development of the Property (the “Water Acquisition Policy”). Therefore, Owners agrees that, at the time that LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owners will comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to either (i) convey to City those water rights vested in the Property, if any, (ii) agree to pay City a fee in lieu thereof, (iii) agree to some combination of an in lieu fee payment and water right conveyance, or (iv) to comply by any other method allowed by the Water Acquisition Policy, provided that such agreement includes a condition precedent requiring City’s water supplier to agree to serve the Property with potable water in amount sufficient to meet Owners reasonably anticipated total water demand for the Property, as determined by a valid water supply assessment prepared pursuant to California Water Code § 10910 et seq. No post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued by City unless and until Owners comply with the Water Acquisition Policy in a manner consistent with this subsection II(A). Owners agree that it shall identify all water rights which, to the best of Owners knowledge, have been used by Owners or its agents in connection with the Property, regardless of whether they are considered “vested” in the Property, and shall comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to convey such rights, if any, to City. City shall cooperate with Owners in valuing such water rights for the purposes of determining the amount of offset to be applied against the in-lieu fee as required pursuant of the Water Acquisition Policy. Owners further agrees that City shall have first right of refusal in acquiring upon mutually acceptable terms any water rights that Owners own that may be in addition to those required to meet Owners obligations under the Water Acquisition Policy. City agrees that water rights need not be conveyed and in lieu fees shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of a building permit covering the Property and, in the event Owners apply to City for its approval of multiple building permits covering the Property, City agrees such water rights conveyance or fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each building permit, with conveyance of water rights or payment to be made on a per building permit basis upon City’s issuance of each building permit covering the Property.

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

Owners agree that, at the time LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owners will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee in an amount equal to $477 per acre and no post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued unless and until said agreement is executed. City agrees that such fee shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more building permits covering the Property and, in the event Owners apply to City for its approval of multiple building DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 560
4 of 9
permits covering the Property, City agrees such fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each building permit, with payment to be made on a per building permit basis upon City’s issuance of each building permit covering the Property. Owners satisfaction of its obligations under this Section II(B) will satisfy any and all of Owners obligations related to and arising under the General Plan Maintenance Fee.

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

V. INDEMNIFICATION
Owners agree to indemnify and hold harmless City and the City’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability, claims, causes of actions, and demands, including attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation, or with any other action annexation or other action determined necessary or desirable by the City in order to effectuate the annexation of Owners property, or which are in any manner connected with the City’s DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 561
5 of 9
enforcement of this Agreement. Owners further agree to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against or at the City’s option to pay the attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation.

Dallas, TX 75229
To Owner: Bernard Te Velde
2911 Hanford Armona Rd.

Handford, CA 93230
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 562
6 of 9
Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
e. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the City and Owners as to its subject matter and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or affect.
f. Amendment. No part of this Agreement may be modified without the written consent of both parties.
g. Headings. Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions under the heading.
h. No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. Except as provided herein, the parties of this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy. i. Exhibits and Recitals. The recitals and any exhibits to this Agreement are fully incorporated by reference and are integral parts of this Agreement.
j. Conflict With Laws or Regulations/Severability. This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing this subject, the conflicting provision(s) shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a material benefit of the Agreement to either party is lost, the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the effected party. In all other cases, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. k. Waiver. A waiver of any breech of this Agreement by any party shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breech of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
l. Choice of Law - Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any questions arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. Venue for any legal action arising from or in connection with this Agreement or the Property shall be in Tulare County, California.
m. Attorneys Fees. In the event either party commences any action, arbitration or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court or arbitrator, shall be entitled to recovery of its reasonable fees and costs, including attorneys fees, court costs and arbitration costs incurred in the action brought thereon.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 563
7 of 9
n. No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owners and that Owners are not an agent of City. City and Owners hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection therewith shall be construed as making City and Owners joint venturers or partners.
o. Excusable Delays; Extension of Time of Performance. In the event of delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, war, terrorism, lockouts, third-party litigation or other legal challenges regarding the annexation, riots, floods, earthquakes, epidemic, quarantine, freight embargoes, failure of contractors to perform, or other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the parties and which cause substantially interferes with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, then the time for performance of any such obligation shall be extended for such period of time as the cause of such delay shall exist but in any event not longer than for such period of time.
p. Further Assurances. The parties will execute and deliver, upon demand by the other party, such further documents, instruments and conveyances, and shall take such further actions as such other party may request from time to time to document the transactions set forth herein.
q. Recordation of Agreement; Counterparts. This Agreement, or an abstract of its material terms and conditions shall be recorded by either party in the Official Records of the Tulare County Recorder. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, when all counterparts are combined, shall constitute a single agreement.
r. Future Development Impact Fees. The Owners hereby acknowledge that the City may, from time to time, adopt additional development impact fees at some time in the future after annexation of the Property. The Owners hereby agree that, in the event that the City adopts an ordinance imposing a development impact fee, in accordance with applicable legal requirements, prior to issuance of a vesting project approval for development of any portion of the Property, Owners will be subject to the requirements of such citywide development impact fee program to the extent applicable at the time Owners seek a vesting project approval for a project on the Property. This provision is not intended to retroactively subject the Property to additional annexation-related fees that may be adopted in the future.
s. Prezoning. City agrees to promptly process and, after City completes and adopts its environmental review, consider Owners application to prezone the Property, as required by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act’s prezoning requirements. The R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) zoning designation is the adopted prezonings for the Property, DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 564
8 of 9
in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapters 17.12 and Section

17.06.050(A), which section states that all territory which is annexed into the City shall be classified to the zone as indicated on the Visalia General Plan land use map, as adopted by the City (the “Prezoning”). The R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum) zoning designation permits residential land uses, as specified by the City of Visalia Municipal Code. Upon execution of this Agreement, City shall use its best efforts to (i) promptly complete its environmental review of the Project and consider its adoption thereof, and (ii) complete its preparation of the proposed prezoning contemplated by this subsection II(E) and consider its approval thereof. If City approves the prezoning contemplated by this subsection II(E), the terms and conditions of such prezoning shall be included in City’s application to LAFCO for the annexation of the Property to City, which application shall promptly be submitted to LAFCO by City.
t. Development Impact Fees: The Owners shall pay all applicable development impact fees for any subsequent development on the Property at the time that building permits are issued, or prior to issuance of final occupancy, if applicable, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, or as may be required by ordinance. A list and amount of development impact fees can be located in the City’s current version of the Development Fee Schedule.
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
DocuSign Envelope ID: 02D12A69-D5E1-49FC-8931-A9ABD111ADFF 565
9 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth next to their signature.

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

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

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING CAMERON RANCH ESTATES TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5598: A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 43.6-ACRES INTO 178 LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL

USE AND ADDITIONAL LOTS FOR A POCKET PARK, AND LANDSCAPE / LIGHTING DISTRICT LOTS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1-5 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT AREA) ZONE DISTRICT UPON ANNEXATION. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST

CALDWELL AVENUE BETWEEN THE FUTURE SOUTH BEN MADDOX WAY

ALIGNMENT AND SOUTH PINKHAM STREET
(APNS: 124-010-005 AND 124-010-007)
WHEREAS, Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 is a request to subdivide 43.6-acres into 178 lots for residential use and additional lots for a pocket park and landscape / lighting district lots to be located within the R-1-5 (SingleFamily Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum lot area) zone district upon annexation.

The project site is located on the south side of East Caldwell Avenue between the future South Ben Maddox Way alignment and South Pinkham Street (APNs: 124-010-005 and 124-010-007); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on June 24, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 in accordance with Chapter 16.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Visalia, based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 was prepared for Annexation No. 2024-02 and the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia makes the following specific findings based on the evidence presented:
567
Resolution No. 2024-20

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 at a density of 4.08 units per acre, which is consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and the R-1-5 zoning designation that will be applied to the site when annexed into the city limits. 568
Resolution No. 2024-20

7. That 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.

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. 2024-19, 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.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the tentative subdivision map on the real property herein above described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provisions of Section 16.16.110 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, subject to the following conditions:

2. That the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”.

4. That the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and its mitigation measures adopted with the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-19 (State Clearinghouse 2024051257) and all conditions of the Cameron Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598, including the following conditions in response to DTSC’s comment letter be met during construction and upon final occupancy and ongoing operation of the project:
a. That prior to site disturbance, the developer/homebuilder will consult with Krazan & Associates, Inc. on recommendation for obtaining soil samples to test for OCP’s and arsenic. If suggested to be performed, developer/homebuilder shall have Krazan & Associates, Inc. perform the soil sampling per Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties from DTSC. The developer/homebuilder shall provide the Planning and Community Preservation Director with a copy of all correspondence between the developer/homebuilder and Krazan & Associates, Inc. that details the required direction/recommendation on soil samples to test for OCP’s and arsenic.
b. All imported soil and fill material shall be tested to ensure that any contaminants are with DTSC’s and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs).

7. That the lot area for Lot 141 be increased to 5,000 square feet to meet the minimum lot area for R-1-5 zoned lots.

8. That the setbacks for the single-family residential lots shall comply with the R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 sq. ft. min. site area) zone district standards for the front, side, street side yard, and rear yard setbacks.

9. That the block walls located within the Landscape and Lighting District lots shall transition to three-foot height within the 15-foot front yard setback areas of the adjoining residential identified as Lots 1, 8, 44, 80, 111, 137 and 138 of the Cameon Ranch Estates Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5598 (Exhibit “A”).

10.That the developer shall inform and have future homeowners of the Cameron Ranch Estates subdivision sign and acknowledge Tulare County’s “Right to Farm” Ordinance.

This informs future residential owners that the farming operation located to the south, which is located in the County, is protected and cannot be declared a nuisance if operating in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards.

11.That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met. 571
TREE
TREE

TREETREE
TREE
TREE
R
R
R
R
R
R

TREETREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
R
R
SP
SP
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
PP
PP
TREE
PP
PP

CBOX PP
BOLPP
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
R
R
TREE
TREE
TREER
PP
VP

TREE R TREE
TREE R
TREE
TREE
VP
R
R
R
TREE R
R
R TREE
TREE R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
TREE
TREE
TREE R
R
TREE R
R
TREE
R

TREE TREER
R

TREE TREER WVVPVP R
TREE
TREER

R TREE TREER TREER
R
TREE

R TREE TREE R
TREE R
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE R
R
R
R
R
TREE
TREE R
R TREE
TREER
TREE R
TREE R
RVP R

TREETREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
325.05 FL PIPE
IW
SP

TREETREE

TREETREE
TREE

TREETREETREETREETREE

TREETREE

TREETREE
TREE

TREETREE

NOT A PART
(POSSIBLE ADDITION

TO SUBDIVISION WITH

SD POND RELOCATION)
60'
60'
60' 60' 60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'

LOT B (LLD) LOT A (LLD)
CALDWELL AVE.

RUSSELL AVE.

LOYOLA AVE.

PACKWOOD AVE.

CAMERON AVE.

JAMES AVE.

BEN MADDOX WAY
GOWDY CT. GOWDY ST. GOWDY ST.LUKE ST.

HAZEL ST.

STOVER ST.

CAIN ST.

TULARE IRRIGATION DITCH

LOT C (LLD)

LOT D (LLD)

LOT E (LLD)
LOT F
(WATERWAY/RIPARIAN LOT)

LOT G (TID)

PROPERTY
LIMITS

POCKET PARK
LOT J
8" SEWER

CONNECTION
12" WATER
REESE DR.

TEMP SD POND
12" WATER

FUTURE CULVERT

AND ROAD EXTENSION

FUTURE CULVERT

AND ROAD EXTENSION
(NOT A PART)
PHASE 1
PHASE 2

PHASE LINE

REMAINDER
LOT H
(WATERWAY/RIPARIAN LOT)

INSTALL SPEED TABLE

OR OTHER TRAFFIC

CALMING FEATURE

INSTALL SPEED TABLE

OR OTHER TRAFFIC

CALMING FEATURE

TRAFFIC
CIRCLE
TYP. PAVEMENT

SECTION
CITY STD. CURB
& GUTTER
CITY STD.

SIDEWALK
5' 20.0' 20.0'
C

R/W L R/W
CITY STD. CURB
& GUTTER
CITY STD.

SIDEWALK
60'
5' 5' 5'
TYP. LOCAL
TYP. PAVEMENT

SECTION
CITY STD. CURB
& GUTTER
CITY STD.

SIDEWALK
5' 20.0' 20.0'
C

R/W L R/W
CITY STD. CURB
& GUTTER
CITY STD.

SIDEWALK
60'
5' 5.0' 5.0'

REESE DRIVE

LOOKING NORTH

15.0' RIPARIAN
LOT

12.5'
PL

TID DITCH

LOOKING EAST

CALDWELL AVE
EXIST. SIDEWALK
±10' ±33' ±33' ±5' ±10'

10.0' LANDSCAPE
LOT

55.0'

R/W R/W PL
EXIST. CURB
& GUTTER
EXIST. PAVEMENT

SECTION
EXIST. MEDIAN
EXIST. PAVEMENT

SECTION
EXIST. CURB
& GUTTER
EXIST. PARKWAY
EXIST. SIDEWALK

PROPOSED

BLOCK WALL
CL

60.0'
125.0'
±24'

SECTION
LINE
R/W

SECTION
LINE
EXIST. PARKWAY
EXIST. SIDEWALK
EXIST. PARKWAY
EXIST. CURB
& GUTTER
EXIST. PAVEMENT

SECTION

PROPOSED MEDIAN
TYP. PAVEMENT

SECTION
CITY STD.

CURB & GUTTER

PARKWAY
CITY STD.

SIDEWALK

PROPOSED

BLOCK WALL

36.0' 5.0' 5.0'

10.0' LANDSCAPE
LOT
±5' ±5' ±10' ±36'

LOOKING NORTH

BEN MADDOX WAY
± 55' 55.0'
CL
110.0'

18.0'
R/W PL EXIST.

PL
EXIST.

PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
VISALIA, CA 93292
TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
www.4-creeks.com

VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1000' MILE
February 13, 2024
NORTH
100' 0' 100'

CITY OF

VISALIA

PROJECT

LOCATION
CALDWELL AVE.

S. BEN MADDOX WAY
LAND USE CONCEPT 1
SITE DATA:

APN: 124-010-007 & 005
TOTAL AREA: 43.6 AC (GROSS)

SEWER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
WATER SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
STORM DRAIN SERVICE: CITY OF VISALIA
ELECTRICITY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.

NATURAL GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.

TELEPHONE: AT&T
REFUSE: CITY OF VISALIA

CAMERON RANCH ESTATES

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
LOCATED IN THE NW 1
4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, 25 EAST, MDB&M, IN THE CITY OF VISALIA,

COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SANITARY SEWER AND WATER UTILITIES TO TIE INTO EXISTING LINES ALONG CALDWELL AVE. AND BEN MADDOX WAY.

TEMP. STORM DRAIN BASIN
VREQ'D = 5 AC-FT
VPROV. = 6.4 AC-FT
TYPICAL LOT SIZES: AREA: NUMBER OF LOTS:
50' x 100': 5,000 S.F. 178
TOTAL: 178
NO BUILD AREA:

1.9 acres
TULARE

IRRIGATION

CANAL ROADWAY

TULARE IRRIGATION CANAL TULARE IRRIGATION CANAL

ONE WAY FOR

LOTS ONLY
50% PROJECT

CONTRIBUTION
OUTLOTS A - E: CREATION OF LL&D, INCLUDING MAINTENANCE OF THE BLOCK WALL OUTLOTS F,G H & I: DEDICATION OF WATERWAY AND RIPARIAN AREAS OUTLOT J: DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF 0.77 ACRE POCKET PARK

0.77 AC Exhibit "A" 572
02 Exhibit "B" 573
EXHIBIT “A”

Beginning at the intersection of the South right-of-way line of Caldwell Avenue and the West line of said Section 9, being a point on the existing City Limit line;

2. South 45° 31’ 31” West, 769.03 feet more or less;

3. South 46° 17’ 03” West, 52.47 feet more or less;

4. South 49° 29’ 37” West, 70.87 feet more or less;

5. Southwesterly 34.33 feet more or less along a tangent curve, concave to the Southeast, with a radius of 100.00 feet, and a central angle of 19° 40’ 09”;

6. Southwesterly 147.92 feet more or less along a reverse curve, concave to the Northwest, with a radius of 1,700.00 feet, and a central angle of 4° 59’ 07”;

7. South 34° 48’ 35° West, 149.36 feet more or less;

8. South 35° 50’ 42” West, 162.81 feet more or less;

9. South 34° 26’ 47” West, 216.31 feet more or less;

10. South 33° 35’ 53” West, 166.12 feet more or less;

11. South 35° 21’ 17” West, 114.45 feet more or less;

12. South 34° 53’ 07” West, 205.31 feet more or less;

13. Southwesterly 136.10 feet more or less along a tangent curve, concave to the Northwest, with a radius of 560.48 feet, and a central angle of 13° 54’ 48”;

14. Southwesterly 112.86 feet more or less along a tangent curve, concave to the Northwest, with a radius of 352.55 feet, and a central angle of 18° 20’ 30”;

15. Southwesterly 213.31 feet more or less along a reverse curve concave to the South, with a radius of 4,500.00 feet, and a central angle of 2° 42’ 57”;
574

16. Southwesterly 228.05 feet more or less along a reverse curve, concave to the North, with a radius of 650.00 feet, and a central angle of 20° 06’ 07”;

17. South 84° 31’ 44” West, 25.32 feet more or less, to the West line of said Section 9;

19. Thence North 1° 48’ 57” East, a distance of 1,883.77 feet more or less, along said West line and the existing City Limit line, to the Point of Beginning.

Consisting of 46.01 acres, more or less.
575
576

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR

CAMERON RANCH ESTATES
MAY 2024
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Prepared By: Prepared For:

City of Visalia
324 Santa Fe St.

Visalia, CA 93292
577

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Initial Study/MND Process 1-1

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines 1-1

1.2 Initial Study 1-1

1.3 Environmental Checklist 1-2

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

1.5 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-3

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

1.7 Notice of Determination 1-4

1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart 1-5
Section 2: Project Description 2-1

2.1 Project Description & Purpose 2-1

2.2 Project Location 2-1

2.3 Other Permits and Approvals 2-2
Section 3: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-1

3.1 Purpose 3-1

3.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-2

3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-9

3.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-10

3.5 Environmental Analysis 3-11
I. Aesthetics 3-11
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources 3-17
III. Air Quality 3-24
IV. Biological Resources 3-33
V. Cultural Resources 3-39
VI. Energy 3-45
VII. Geology and Soils 3-49
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-56
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-62
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 3-67
XI. Land Use and Planning 3-75
XII. Mineral Resources 3-80
XIII. Noise 3-82
XIV. Population and Housing 3-88
XV. Public Services 3-90
XVI. Parks and Recreation 3-95
XVII. Transportation 3-98
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 3-103
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 3-109
XX. Wildfire 3-114
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-116

3.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3-118

3.7 Supporting Information and Sources 3-127
578
Section 4: List of Report Preparers 4-1
Appendices
Appendix A: CalEEMod Report
Appendix B: 2005 BAU CalEEMod Report
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D: Energy Calculations
Appendix E: Agricultural Mitigation Memo
Appendix F: Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids Calculations List of Figures
2-1 Regional Location 2-3
2-2 Vicinity Map 2-4
3-1 Vicinity Map 3-7
3-2 Tentative Subdivision Map 3-8
3-3 Important Farmland Map 3-20
3-4 Soils Map 3-51
3-5 Distance to Schools and Airports 3-64
3-6 City of Visalia General Plan Land Use 3-77
3-7 Zoning Map 3-78
3-8 Construction Related Noise Levels 3-85
3-9 Visalia Existing VMT Per Capita 3-101
List of Tables
3-1 Important Farmland Developed Under 2030 General Plan 3-21 3-2 San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status 3-24
3-3 SJVAPCD Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-27
3-4 SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants 3-29 3-5 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction 3-31 3-6 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Operations 3-31 3-8 SCE and State Average Power Resources 3-45
3-9 On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated by Construction Activities 3-47 3-10 On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated by Operational Activities 3-48 3-11 Greenhouse Gasses 3-57
3-12 Projected Project Operational GHG Emissions 3-60
3-13 Project Consistency with Climate Action Plan 3-61
3-14 City of Visalia Noise Standards 3-83
3-15 Noise levels of noise-generating construction equipment at various distances 3-85 3-16 Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment 3-86 3-17 Student Generation Rates 3-93
579
Section 1
Initial Study / Negative
Declaration Process
580
1-1
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 1
CEQA Review Process
Project Title: Cameron Ranch Estates

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that the Lead Agency prepare an Initial Study to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment. All phases of the project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. The purposes of an Initial Study, as listed under Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, include:
(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration;
(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration;
(3) Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
(a) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (b) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, (c) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, and
(d) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects. (4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment (6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

1.2 Initial Study
The Initial Study provided herein covers the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of 178 low density residential dwelling units on approximately 43.6 gross acres.

The property, currently zoned as AE-40 within Tulare County, is slated for annexation by the City of Visalia, with a proposed zoning designation of R-1-5 and intended for residential low-density 581
1-2
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
development. The City of Visalia will act as the Lead Agency for processing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.

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

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

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

The written and oral comments received during the public review period will be considered by The City of Visalia prior to adopting the Negative Declaration. Regardless of the type of CEQA document that must be prepared, the overall purpose of the CEQA process is to:
1) Assure that the environment and public health and safety are protected in the face of discretionary projects initiated by public agencies or private concerns; 2) Provide for full disclosure of the project’s environmental effects to the public, the agency decision-makers who will approve or deny the project, and the responsible trustee agencies charged with managing resources (e.g. wildlife, air quality) that may be affected by the project; and
3) Provide a forum for public participation in the decision-making process pertaining to potential environmental effects.
582
1-3
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
According to Section 15070(a) a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:

The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Less than significant impacts with mitigation measures have been identified.

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

1.5 Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration The Lead Agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070) for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include the following:
(a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project. (b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map. (c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. (d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding. (e) Mitigation measures, if any.

1.6 Intended Uses of Initial Study/Negative Declaration documents The Initial Study/Negative Declaration document is an informational document that is intended to inform decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable the public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any adverse impacts.

While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency must balance any potential environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals. The City of Visalia, as Lead Agency, will make a determination, based on the environmental review for the Environmental Study, Initial Study and comments from the general public, if there are less than significant impacts from the proposed project and the requirements of CEQA can be met by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
583
1-4
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024

1.7 Notice of Determination (NOD)
The Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination within five working days after deciding to approve the project. The Notice of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15075) shall include the following:
(1) An identification of the project including the project title as identified on the proposed negative declaration, its location, and the State Clearinghouse identification number for the proposed negative declaration if the notice of determination is filed with the State Clearinghouse.
(2) A brief description of the project.
(3) The agency's name and the date on which the agency approved the project. (4) The determination of the agency that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
(5) A statement that a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration was adopted pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
(6) A statement indicating whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project, and whether a mitigation monitoring plan/program was adopted. (7) The address where a copy of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration may be examined.
(8) The identity of the person undertaking a project which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies or the identity of the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use from one or more public agencies. 584
1-5
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024

1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart
585
Section 2
Project Description
586
2-1
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 2
Project Description
Project Title: Cameron Ranch Estates

2.1 Project Description and Purpose
The Project proposes a 178-unit, low-density single-family development with a pocket park and pedestrian friendly traffic calming measures on 43.6 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area. The Project site’s existing General Plan land use designation is Residential Low Density, which corresponds to a prezone of R-1-5 (single-family residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot size). The project includes 178 homes, averaging 5,000 square feet per lot, a pocket park, and traffic calming measures throughout the site’s roads.

The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including new and relocated utilities, new residential streets, improvements to Caldwell Avenue, and the continuation and improvement of Ben Maddox Way. The Project will require no demolition. The construction of the Project will be in two phases (Figure 3-5). Phase one will include 117 homes and the northern site entrance as an extension to Ben Maddox Way, as well as the pocket park on the eastern side of the development. The second phase will include the remaining 61 homes.

The Project will require annexation into the City of Visalia; however, it is within the Visalia Planning Area and borders existing single-family homes within City Limits. Along with the annexation, the Project plans on being constructed in a two-phase development, there will be no parcel splitting. (Figure 3-3). Additionally, there will be no improvements to Cameron Creek.

2.2 Project Location
The proposed project site is located within the City of Visalia Planning Area within Tulare County. The site is West of Ben Maddox Way and South of Caldwell Avenue. The site is approximately 2.5 miles Southwest of the Visalia downtown. The Project involves construction on approximately 43.6 acres on APN 124-010-007 & 005. The site is flat and bordered by agricultural land to the South and East, with single-family housing to the North and West. There are also mixed-use and neighborhood commercial areas just to the north of the site. The site is zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) by Tulare County but is prezoned for R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 Square Foot Minimum Site Area) by the City of Visalia pending annexation. The General Plan Designation is Low Density Residential. The site currently contains agricultural uses and vacant land.
587
2-2
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024

2.3 Other Permits and Approvals
The following discretionary approvals are required from the City of Visalia:
• Annexation
• Tentative Subdivision Map
The following ministerial approvals are required from the City of Visalia:
• City of Visalia Building and Encroachment Permits
• Roadway Dedication of Ben Maddox Way and Caldwell Avenue.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD): The proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD and will be required to comply with Rules VIII, 3135, 4101, and 9510.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWPPP: The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB will require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent impacts related to stormwater because of project construction.
588
2-3
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map
589
2-4
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Figure 2-2. Vicinity Map
590
Section 3
Evaluation of Enviromental
Impacts
591
3-1
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project Title: Cameron Ranch Estates
This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed construction and operation of 178-unit, single-family development and pocket park on 43.6 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area. The City of Visalia will act as Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

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

This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). According to Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
(a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment,or (b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. 592
3-2
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024

3.2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

1. Project Title: Cameron Ranch Estates

2. Lead Agency: City of Visalia, Planning and Community Preservation Contact Person: Paul Bernal, Director
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
Phone Number: (559) 713-4359

3. Applicant: Artemis Partners LLC
324 Santa Fe St.

Visalia, CA 93292
Phone Number: (559)-802-3052

4. Project Location: The proposed Project Site is located within the City of Visalia Planning Area within Tulare County. The site is 2.5 miles southwest of Visalia's downtown, south of the intersection of Ben Maddox Way at Caldwell Avenue. The Project involves construction on APN 124-010-007 & 005. The site is 43.6 acres and features a level topography with single-family homes to the north and west and agricultural area to the south and east. Currently, the location is used for farming and includes undeveloped land. The site is pre-zoned for R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 Square Foot Minimum Site Area) and is currently awaiting annexation by the City of Visalia. It is currently zoned as AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) by Tulare County. It is designated for Low-Density Residential use under the General Plan Designation.

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

6. Zoning Designation: The site is zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) by Tulare County but is prezoned for R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 Square Foot Minimum Site Area) by the City of Visalia pending annexation.

7. Project Description: The Project proposes a 178-unit, low-density single-family development with a pocket park and pedestrian friendly traffic calming measures on 43.6 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area. The Project site’s existing General Plan land use designation is Residential Low Density, which corresponds to a prezone of R-1-5 (single-family residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot size). The project includes 178 homes, averaging 5,000 square feet per lot, a pocket park, and traffic calming measures throughout the site’s roads. 593
3-3
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including new and relocated utilities, new residential streets, improvements to Caldwell Avenue, and the continuation and improvement of Ben Maddox Way. The Project will require no demolition. The construction of the Project will be in two phases (Figure 3-5). Phase one will include 117 homes and the northern site entrance as an extension to Ben Maddox Way, as well as the pocket park on the eastern side of the development. The second phase will include the remaining 61 homes. Additionally, there will be no riparian improvements to Cameron Creek.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:

North: Very Low Density Residential & Neighborhood Commercial / Mixed Use (Visalia General Plan), currently Single-Family Housing.

South: Agricultural Use (Tulare County General Plan) currently agricultural use.

East: Agricultural Use (Tulare County General Plan) currently agricultural use.

West: Very Low Density Residential & Multi Family Residential (Visalia General Plan), currently Single-Family Housing & Multi-Family Housing.

9. Required Approvals: The following discretionary approvals are required from the City of Visalia for the proposed project:
• Annexation
• Tentative Subdivision Map

10. Native American Consultation: The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Native American tribes.

Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Tulare County has several Rancherias. The tribes that were formally noticed of this Project were the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, Tule River Indian Tribe, Kern Valley 594
3-4
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Indian Community, North Fork Mono Tribe, and the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. These Rancherias are not located within the City limits.

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

Soar Environmental did not receive comments from the Tulare County Native American groups or affiliated individuals regarding the proposed development at the project location.

11. Parking and access: Vehicular access to the project is available from Ben Maddox Way and Caldwell Avenue. The project includes new streets and courts that provide full access to the project site. During construction, workers will utilize existing parking areas and/or temporary construction staging areas for parking vehicles and equipment. Additionally, temporary emergency access will be added during early construction.

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

13. Utilities and Electrical Services: The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including new and relocated utilities. Water and sewer services will be provided by the City of Visalia via existing lines along Caldwell Avenue and Ben Maddox Way. A storm drain basin will be located within the Southeast portion of the site. During construction, a temporary stormwater basin will be utilized. Electricity will be provided by Southern California Edison, and Gas will be provided by Southern California Gas Company.

14. Roadway Improvements: The project includes extensive streetscape improvements within the vicinity of the Project site. Caldwell Avenue's Right of Way (ROW) is presently configured as a two-lane roadway supporting bidirectional traffic, yet it lacks curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The planned improvements include the installation of these elements along both the northern and southern sides of Caldwell Avenue. Additionally, a block wall and a 10-foot wide landscaping buffer are proposed along the southern boundary of Caldwell Avenue, adjacent to the project site.

The project also includes the extension of Ben Maddox Way, which currently is a four-lane road ending north of Caldwell Avenue. As part of the proposed project, Ben Maddox Way 595
3-5
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
will extend directly south along the western project boundary. The extension of Ben Maddox Way will include a central median, curbs, gutters, parkways, and walkways on both sides of the street to improve pedestrian accessibility and safety. Echoing the design on Caldwell Avenue, this section will also feature a 10-foot landscaping strip and a block wall along the project's perimeter, creating a harmonious and unified streetscape. Ben Maddox Way will act as the primary entry point to the Cameron Ranch Estates development.

Reese Drive will be an internal road within the project area that connects the extended Ben Maddox Way with Caldwell Avenue by way of the Tulare Irrigation Canal. Along its entire length, this new road will feature newly constructed curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in addition to 20-foot lanes in both directions.
596
3-6
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Acronyms
BMP Best Management Practices
BAU Business as Usual
CAA Clean Air Act
CBC California Building Code
CCAP Climate Change Action Plan
CCR California Code of Regulation
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CRHR California Register of Historic Places
CWA California Water Act
DHS Department of Health Services
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FMMP Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
ISMND Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
ISR Indirect Source Review
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MEIR Master Environmental Impact Report
NOI Notice of Intent
ND Negative Declaration
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
ROW Right-of-Way
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCE Southern California Edison
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SSJVIC Southern San Joaquin Information Center
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
597
3-7
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Figure 3-1. Vicinity Map
598
3-8
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Figure 3-2: Tentative Subdivision Map
599
3-9
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024

3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “no Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites, in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

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

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

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following. • Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. • Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
• Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated.” Describe and mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 600
3-10
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024

3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
 Aesthetics
 Agriculture and Forest
Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology and soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Mineral Resources
 Noise
 Population
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Transportation
 Tribal Cultural
 Utilities and Service
 Wildfire
 Mandatory Findings
of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels. On the basis of this initial evaluation:
 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
 I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is requested.

SIGNATURE DATE
Paul Bernal City of Visalia

PRINTED NAME AGENCY
05/23/2024 601
3-11
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024

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

I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resource Code
Section 210999, would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
   
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
state scenic highway?
   
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from a publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
   
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
   
Environmental Setting
Scenic Resources
Scenic resources include landscapes and features that are visually or aesthetically pleasing.

They contribute positively to a distinct community or region. These resources produce a visual benefit upon communities. The City of Visalia has a visual character of a mix of rural and built environments. Visalia is surrounded by natural open space agricultural land, characterized by uses such as grazing, open space, and cultivated agriculture. Downtown Visalia is the physical, cultural, and economic center, with historical homes surrounding the downtown. St. John’s river flows along the North side of Visalia’s city limits, along with smaller creeks and ditches throughout the city. Valley Oak trees, both individually and in groves, also provide an important scenic feature and link to the natural setting of the San Joaquin Valley. The goal of Visalia’s General Plan regarding visual resources is to preserve and re-establish the city’s natural waterway system and Valley Oak tree groves with parks, conservation areas, and trailways. 602
3-12
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Scenic Vistas
The Visalia General Plan identifies the Sierra Nevada mountains to the East and agricultural lands surrounding the city as scenic vistas surrounding Visalia.

Existing Visual Character
The following photos demonstrate the aesthetic character of the project area. As shown, the proposed project site area is in a relatively flat area characterized by agricultural uses.

Photo 1: Northeast Site Boundary (View Southwest) Source: Google Maps 2024 Photo 2: Northwest Site Boundary (View Southeast) Source: Google Maps 2024 603
3-13
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Photo 3: Northeast Site Boundary viewing Tulare Irrigation Canal (View South) Source: Google Maps 2024
Photo 4: Stover St at Caldwell Avenue viewing adjacent land uses (View Northeast) Source:

Google Maps 2024
Regulatory Setting
Scenic Roadways
The California Scenic Highway Program was established in 1963 by the State Legislature for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through conservation strategies. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that have either been officially designated or are eligible for designation. State laws affiliated with governing the scenic highway program can be found in Sections 260-263 in The Street and Highways Code.

State Scenic Highways
According to the California Department of Transportation mapping of State Scenic Highways, the City of Visalia does not have officially designated State Scenic Highways, 604
3-14
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
however the City has one eligible State Scenic Highway, a 44-mile stretch of State Route 198 from State Route 99 to Sequoia National Park. This is designated as a scenic corridor in the City’s General Plan. This portion of the highway is approximately 2.0 miles North from the proposed site.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to aesthetic resources that correlate to the proposedproject:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tulare County General Plan
The 2030 Tulare County General Plan contains following goals and policies related to aesthetic resources that correlate to the proposed project:

SL-1.1 Natural Landscapes: During review of discretionary approvals, including parcel and subdivision maps, the County shall as appropriate, require new development to not 605
3-15
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
significantly impact or block views of Tulare County’s natural landscapes.

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

3. Screen parking areas from view,

4. Include landscaping that screens the development,

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

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

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

1. Referencing traditional agricultural building forms and materials,

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

3. Minimizing light pollution and bright signage.

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

1. Maintaining urban separators between cities and communities,

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

3. Protecting important natural, cultural, and scenic resources located within areas that may be urbanized in the future
City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance
The Visalia Zoning Ordinance governs the distribution and intensity of land uses, sets the principles for evaluating development and guides the development and growth of the City.

The Zoning Ordinance establishes specific development criteria for each zoning district (i.e., parking requirements, walls, fencing, setbacks, building height, etc.).

Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact: A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada mountains to the East and agricultural lands surrounding the city are the primary scenic vista within this region. The site is surrounded by agricultural uses and single-family homes, while the Sierra Nevada foothills are approximately 10 miles east of the project site. 606
3-16
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
The project would obstruct some views of agricultural uses. However, the project would not significantly alter views overall from the surrounding community. There is a less than significant impact.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within state scenic highway? No Impact: There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways located in the City of Visalia or nearby the site. The proposed project would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway and there is no impact.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No Impact: The proposed project site is within the Visalia Planning Area and borders existing single-family homes within City Limits. The Project site’s existing Tulare County General Plan land use designation is Residential Very Low Density, which corresponds to a prezone of R-1-5 (single-family residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot size) for the City of Visalia. The materials, signage, fencing, landscaping, and building materials used in the construction of the project will be selected based on their ability to improve the overall visual character of the area. The proposed project will comply with all applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. There is no impact. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in new lighting sources on the project site consistent with adjacent residential development. New lighting sources would include interior lighting from residences, street lighting, and security lighting. All street and landscape lighting will be consistent with the City’s lighting standards, which are developed to minimize impacts related to excessive light and glare. Although the project will introduce new light sources to the area, all lighting will be consistent with adjacent residential land uses and the City’s lighting standards. The impacts are less than significant.
607
3-17
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
   
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?
   
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g)?
   
608
3-18
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
d) Result in the loss of forestland or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
   
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
   
Environmental Setting
Central California is one of the world’s premier growing regions. Agriculture is an important economic resource for Visalia and the surrounding areas. 39,518 acres, or 65 percent, of the Visalia Planning Area is farmland, producing fruit and nut crops, vegetables, nursery products (trees), apiary products (honey), seed crops (cotton), industrial crops (timber), field crops (alfalfa, barley, corn), and livestock. The proposed project site is located within the Visalia Planning Area. The proposed project site is not under Williamson Act Contract or a Farmland Security Zone contract.

The proposed site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance under the Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The Site is within the Tier 2 Development Boundary and is designated for Low-Density Housing. Nearby to the South and West are Prime Farmland and Confined Animal Enclosures. To the North and East are is urbanized land.

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

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

California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) The FMMP is implemented by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to conserve and protect agricultural lands within the State. Land is included in this program based on soil 609
3-19
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
type, annual crop yields, and other factors that influence the quality of farmland. The FMMP mapping categories for the most important statewide farmland are as follows:
• Prime Farmland has the ideal physical and chemical composition for crop production. It has been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and can produce sustained yields. 51% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Prime Farmland. • Farmland of Statewide Importance has also been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and is only slightly poorer quality than Prime Farmland. 11% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. • Unique Farmland has been cropped in the four years prior to classification and does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance but has produced specific crops with high economic value. Less than 1% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Unique Farmland.
• Farmland of Local Importance encompasses farmland that does not meet the criteria for the previous three categories. These may lack irrigation, produce major crops, be zoned as agricultural, and/or support dairy. 2% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Farmland of Local Importance.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to agricultural resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.
• LU-P-21: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the Tier II UDB and the Tier III Urban Growth Boundary consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, according to the stated phasing thresholds. • OSC-P-28: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping, and construction.

Visalia Municipal Code
• Chapter 18.04 - Agricultural Land Preservation Program: This chapter addresses the conversion of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance through the adoption of an agricultural land preservation program.

Tulare County General Plan
The 2030 Tulare County General Plan contains following goals related to agricultural resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• Promote the long-term preservation of productive and potentially productive agricultural lands and to accommodate agricultural-support services and agriculturally related activities that support the viability of agriculture and further the County’s economic development goals;
• Support increased viability of agriculture production and promote high-value, employment-intensive, and diverse production, and processing in Tulare County; • Support the reasonable development and economic viability of animal confinement facilities.
610
3-20
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Figure 3-3: Important Farmlands Map
611
3-21
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Discussion
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project site is currently occupied by agricultural land with orchard crops. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 41.7 acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses.

The loss of Prime Farmland on the Project Site would result in the decrease of Important Farmland inventory in the Visalia Planning Area. Visalia Planning Area currently has an Important Farmland inventory of 43,155 acres, 33,991 acres of which were categorized as Prime Farmland. Implementation of the Project would convert 41.7 acres of Prime Farmland which would result in a 0.097% percent decrease in the total Important Farmland inventory of Visalia Planning Area and a 0.123% percent decrease in the Prime Farmland inventory.

As shown in Table 3-1, the Visalia 2030 General Plan (at full buildout) plans to develop 14,265 total acres of Important Farmland, of which 12,490 acres are Prime Farmland. Most of the growth is planned to be adjacent to urbanized areas, which is much less disruptive to other agricultural uses countywide because it discourages the development of new rural neighborhoods or communities that would require the extension of infrastructure that would create growth-inducing impacts and potentially greater impacts to agricultural resources.

FMMP Designation Existing
Planning Area
Total (Acres)
Planning Area Total
at General Plan
Buildout (Acres)
Change
Prime Farmland 33,991 21,501 -12,490 (-37%)
Farmland of Statewide
Importance
7,353 6,954 -399 (-5%)
Unique Farmland 181 137 -44 (-24%)
Farmland of Local
Importance
1,630 298 -1,333 (-82%)
Important Farmland Total 43,155 28,890 -14,265 (-33%)
Table 3-1: Important Farmland Developed Under 2030 General Plan. Source: Visalia Planning Area General Plan EIR
612
3-22
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Although the proposed Site is located on Prime Farmland, the development is in accordance with the 2030 General Plan. The Site is within the Tier 2 Development Boundary and is designated as Low Density Residential by the General Plan. The Project will follow all existing and proposed 2030 General Plan policies to reduce potential impacts.

However, following Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 18.04: Agricultural Land Preservation Program, the Project will be required to preserve 32.61 acres of Prime Farmland. This mitigation measure is detailed in the Agricultural Mitigation Memo, see appendix E. There is a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporation.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
Less Than Significant Impact: The site is currently zoned for agriculture by Tulare County.

However, it is within the Visalia Planning Area Tier 2 Development Boundary and is expected to be annexed by the city. It currently has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential that would suit the proposed project. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract.

There is a less than significant impact.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
No Impact: The project site is not zoned for forest or timberland production. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact: No conversion of forestland, as defined under Public Resource Code or General Code, will occur as a result of the project and there would be no impacts. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above, new developments, including the project site would be focused in and around existing communities. This would prevent new infrastructure from interfering with surrounding farmland. The project does not include any features which could result in the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. There is a less than significant impact.
613
3-23
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Agricultural Resources Mitigation Measure AG-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall mitigate impacts for loss of up to 32.61 acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Project site at a 1:1 ratio. The amount of land requiring mitigation shall correspond to the amount of land associated with the issuance of the grading or building permit, or for residential land associated with a subdivision map, the amount of land associated with the subdivision map.

The Project proponent shall implement one or more of the following measures to mitigate the loss: Payment of in-lieu fees, mitigation banks, fee title acquisition, and/or conservation easements, on land(s) within the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California, specifically within Kern County, Tulare County, Kings County, Fresno County, or Madera County. The City shall require, at a minimum: evidence that the preserved land has adequate water supply, agricultural zoning, evidence of land encumbrance documentation, documentation that the easement/regulations are permanent and monitored, and documentation that the mitigation strategy is appropriately endowed.

This mitigation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. 614
3-24
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air
quality management district or air
pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
   
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
   
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?    
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
   
Environmental Setting
Air pollution is directly related to regional topography. Topographic features can either stimulate the movement of air or restrict air movement. California is divided into regional air basins based on topographic air drainage features. The proposed project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the East, Coastal Ranges to the West, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the South.

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

Pollutant Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal Standardf Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment PM 10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
PM 2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
615
3-25
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Lead (Particulate) No
Designation/Classification Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
a See 40 CFR Part 81
b See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.
d The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009).
e Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f Effective June 15, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

Table 3-2. San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status; Source: SJVAPCD Valley Fever
Valley Fever is an illness caused by a fungus (Coccidioides immitis and C. posadasii) that grows in soils under certain conditions. Favorable conditions for the Valley Fever fungus include low rainfall, high summer temperatures, and moderate winter temperatures. In California, the counties with the highest incident of Valley Fever are Fresno, Kern and Kings counties. When soils are disturbed by wind or activities like construction and farming, Valley Fever fungal spores can become airborne. The spores present a potential health hazard when inhaled. Individuals in occupations such as construction, agriculture, and archaeology have a higher risk of exposure due to working in areas of disturbed soils which may have the Valley Fever fungus.

Regulatory Setting
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to air quality that correlate to the proposed project:
616
3-26
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
• AQ-P-2: Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule. • AQ-P-9: Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects
Federal Clean Air Act
The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and set deadlines for their attainment. The Clean Air Act identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to meet interim milestones. The U.S. EPA is the federal agency charged with administering the Act and other air quality-related legislation. EPA’s principal functions include setting NAAQS; establishing minimum national emission limits for major sources of pollution; and promulgating regulations. Under CAA, the NCCAB is identified as an attainment area for all pollutants.

California Clean Air Act
California Air Resources Board coordinates and oversees both state and federal air pollution control programs in California. As part of this responsibility, California Air Resources Board monitors existing air quality, establishes California Ambient Air Quality Standards, and limits allowable emissions from vehicular sources. Regulatory authority within established air basins is provided by air pollution control and management districts, which control stationary-source and most categories of area-source emissions and develop regional air quality plans. The project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

The state and federal standards for the criteria pollutants are presented in Section 8.4 of The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s 2015 “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts”. These standards are designed to protect public health and welfare. The “primary” standards have been established to protect the public health. The “secondary” standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soils, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of general welfare. The U.S. EPA revoked the national 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, and the annual PM10 standard on September 21, 2006, when a new PM2.5 24-hour standard was established.
617
3-27
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Pollutan
t
Averagi
ng Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentrati
on3 Method4 Primary3,5
Secondar
y3,6 Method7
Ozone
(03)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Photometry
--
Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet 8
Hour
8 Hour Photometry 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)

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

0.030 ppm
(57 μg/m3)
53 ppb
(100
μg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Sulfur
Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb
(196
μg/m3)
--
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotom
3 Hour -- -- 0.5 ppm etry
618
3-28
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Pollutan
t
Averagi
ng Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentrati
on3 Method4 Primary3,5
Secondar
y3,6 Method7
(1300
μg/m3)
(Pararosaniline
Method)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)

0.14 ppm
(for
certain
areas)9
--
Annual
Arithme
tic Mean
--

0.030
ppm
(for
certain
areas)9
--
Lead10,11
30 Day
Average

1.5 μg/m3
Atomic
Absorption
-- --
High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Calend
ar
Quarter
--

1.5 μg/m3
(for
certain
areas)11
Same as
Primary
Standard
Rolling
3-Month
Average
-- 0.15
μg/m3
Visibility
Reducin
g
Particles
12 8 Hour
See
footnote 12
Beta
Attenuation and
Transmittance
through Filter
Tape
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m No National Standard 3
Ion
Chromatograph
y
Hydroge
n Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride
10 24 Hour

0.01ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Gas
Chromatograph
y

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 619
3-29
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Table 3-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards; Source: SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) The SJVAPCD is responsible for enforcing air quality standards in the project area. To meet state and federal air quality objectives, the SJVAPCD adopted the following thresholds of significance for projects:

Pollutant/Precursor
Construction
Emissions
Operational Emissions
Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Non-Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
Nox 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Table 3-4. SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants; Source: SJVAPCD Pollutan
t
Averagi
ng Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentrati
on3 Method4 Primary3,5
Secondar
y3,6 Method7
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. 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 standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively.

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

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

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

12. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
620
3-30
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
The following SJVAPCD rules and regulations may apply to the proposed project:
• Rule 3135: Dust Control Plan Fee. All projects which include construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities as defined by Regulation VIII (Described below) are required to submit a Dust Control Plan and required fees to mitigate impacts related to dust.
• Rule 4101: Visible Emissions. District Rule 4101 prohibits visible emissions of air contaminants that are dark in color and/or have the potential to obstruct visibility. • Rule 9510: Indirect Source Review (ISR). This rule reduces the impact PM10 and NOX emissions from growth on the SJVB. This rule places application and emission reduction requirements on applicable development projects in order to reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite SJVAPCD administered projects, or a combination of the two. This project will submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application in accordance with Rule 9510’s requirements. • Regulation VIII: Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Regulation VIII is composed of eight rules which together aim to limit PM10 emissions by reducing fugitive dust. These rules contain required management practices to limit PM10 emissions during construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities.

Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact: The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and would result in air pollutant emissions that are regulated by the air district during both its construction and operational phases.

The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in the Visalia Planning Area into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The Air District has Particulate Matter (PM) plans, Ozone Plans, and Carbon Monoxide Plans that serve as the clean air plan for the basin.

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

Construction Phase. Project construction would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: site preparation, grading, building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. The construction related emissions from these activities were calculated using CalEEMod. The full CalEEMod Report can be found in 621
3-31
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-5 below, project construction related emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.

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

3.1328 3.3011 .00879 2.3860 0.9043 0.4186
SJVAPCD Air Quality
Thresholds of
Significance
100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by CalEEMod.

Table 3-5. Projected Project Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction; Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod (v. 2020.4.0) Analysis (Appendix A)
Operational Phase. Implementation of the proposed project would result in long-term emissions associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, as well as mobile emissions. Operational emissions from these factors were calculated using CalEEMod. The full CalEEMod report can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-6 below, the project’s operational emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.

CO
(tpy)
ROG
(tpy)
SOx
(tpy)*
Nox
(tpy)
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
Operational Emissions
(Dry Years) 7.2782 2.3082 0.0158 1.2469 1.6643 0.4735
SJVAPCD Air Quality
Thresholds of
Significance
100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by CalEEMod.

Table 3-6. Projected Project Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants related to Operations; Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod (v. 2020.4.0) Analysis (Appendix A)
Because the emissions from both construction and operation of the proposed project would be below the thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and there is no impact.
622
3-32
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in the Visalia Planning Area into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The significance thresholds and rules developed by the SJVAPCD are designed to prevent projects from violating air quality standards or significantly contributing to existing air quality violations. As discussed above, neither construction-related emissions nor operation-related emissions will exceed thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. The project will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, which will further reduce the potential for any significant impacts related to air quality as a result of project implementation. Because these thresholds and regulations are designed to achieve and/or maintain federal and state air quality standards, and the project is compliant with these thresholds and regulations, the project will not violate an air quality standard or significantly contribute to an existing air quality violation. The impact is less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact: The single-family residences located to the North and to the West are the closest sensitive receptors. The project does not include any project components identified by the California Air Resources Board that could potentially impact any sensitive receptors. These include heavily traveled roads, distribution centers, fueling stations, and dry-cleaning operations. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact: The project will create temporary localized odors during project construction. The proposed project will not introduce a conflicting land use (surrounding land includes residential neighborhoods) to the area and will not have any component that would typically emit odors. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
623
3-33
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish and
Wildlife Service?
   
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
   
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through director
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
   
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
   
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
   
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
   
Environmental Setting
The Project site is in the eastern portion of the Visalia Planning Area within the lower San Joaquin Valley, in the Central Valley of California. The Central Valley is bordered to the east by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west. Like most of California, Visalia is considered a Mediterranean climate.
624
3-34
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the humidity is relatively low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and rarely exceed 70 degrees. On average, Visalia receives approximately 11 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and March.

Site Description
The topography of the Project Area is relatively flat. The property is composed of approximately

41.7 acres of active agricultural land and 1.9 acres that is landscaped and contains one large single-family residence. The proposed Project site is in an urban and agricultural interface environment just outside the southern boundary of the City of Visalia. The proposed Project site is bounded by agricultural fields to the south and east, with single family homes north and east.

One small, unvegetated open water canal extends along the southeast edge of the site and drains westward where it eventually connects to Cameron Creek. This canal is maintained with no vegetation in the channel. No potentially jurisdictional waters or wetland features occur within the proposed Project Area and no signs of pooling water, vernal pool habitat, or seasonal wetlands have been identified. The area is active agricultural land and is actively maintained. The site contains orchard trees, but no valley oak trees were identified within the project area.

The orchard trees may provide limited nesting and foraging habitat for birds and wildlife; however the value of this habitat is relatively low due to the ongoing agricultural operations.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): defines an endangered species as “any species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species or subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 USC 703-712): FMBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Although the USFWS and its parent administration, the U.S. Department of the Interior, have traditionally interpreted the FMBTA as prohibiting incidental as well as intentional “take” of birds, a January 2018 legal opinion issued by the Department of the Interior now states that incidental take of migratory birds while engaging in otherwise lawful activities is permissible under the FMBTA. However, California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 625
3-35
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities.

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

Clean Water Act: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of (1972) is to maintain, restore, and enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged and fill materials into “waters of the United States” (jurisdictional waters). Waters of the US including navigable waters of the United States, interstate waters, tidally influenced waters, and all other waters where the use, degradation, or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or that are adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries.

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

City of Visalia Oak Tree Ordinance: The City of Visalia has an oak tree ordinance that protects valley oak trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 2 inches or greater. Under this ordinance, removal, or encroachment within the drip-line of or damage to valley oak trees is prohibited.

Removal requires a permit from the city manager and mitigation either by replacement in-kind or payment of an in-lieu fee to be used for oak tree planting.

Visalia Planning Area General Plan: The Visalia Planning Area General Plan contains the following policies related to the preservation of biological resources that may be considered relevant to the proposed Project’s environmental review:
• OSC-P-8 Protect, restore, and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation along Planning Area waterways, including the St. Johns River; Mill, Packwood, and Cameron Creeks; and segments of other creeks and ditches where feasible, in conformance with the Parks and Open Space diagram of this General Plan.
• OSC-P-19 Establish easements or require dedication of land along waterways to protect natural habitat areas, allow maintenance operations and promote trails and bike paths. • OSC-P-26 Establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for control of invasive plant species where such plants could adversely impact wildlife habitat. 626
3-36
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
• OSC-P-27 Establish a “no net loss” standard for sensitive habitat acreage, including wetlands and vernal pools potentially affected by development. • OSC-P-30 Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any discretionary development projects involving riparian habitat, wetlands, or special status species habitat. Early in the development review process, consult with California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies. • OSC-P-31 Protect and enhance habitat for special status species, designated under state and federal law. Require protection of sensitive habitat areas and special status species in new development in the following order: 1) avoidance; 2) onsite mitigation, and 3) offsite mitigation.

Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The site has no known species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While no candidate, sensitive, or special status species have been identified within the project area, the orchards located on the site may contain suitable habitat for nesting birds and bats.

Additionally, CNDDB results noted the presence of San Joaquin Kit Fox within ½ mile of the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b will reduce any potential impacts to these species to less than significant levels. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact: There are no CNDDB-designated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the proposed Project area or surrounding lands. The Visalia General Plan identifies Grasslands, Valley Oak Riparian Woodland, Valley Oak Woodland, Vernal Pools, and Wetlands as vegetation communities to protect. No Grasslands, Valley Oak Riparian Woodland, Valley Oak Woodland, Vernal Pools, or Wetlands are found within the Project site.

The proposed Project site consists of agricultural fields and there would be no impact. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through director removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact: The project is not located within or adjacent to federally 627
3-37
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. City-wide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR concluded that certain protected wetlands and other waters may be directly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning Area. Such effects would be considered significant. However, the General Plan contains multiple polices, identified under Impact 3.8-3 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on wetlands and other waters located within in the Planning Area. With implementation of these policies, impacts on wetlands will be less than significant impact. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project area is surrounded by cultivated agricultural lands, residential development, and paved roads. Therefore, the proposed Project area does not contain features that would be likely to function as a wildlife movement corridor. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact: The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City has a municipal ordinance in place to protect valley oak trees; however no oak trees exist on the site. There would be no impact. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact: There are no habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) in the proposed Project area. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Nesting Bird, Roosting Bat, San Joaquin Kit Fox Den Survey If project-related activities are scheduled between February 1 to August 31 (the typical nesting season), a focused survey for nests, roosts, burrows or dens shall be conducted by a Designated Biologist within fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the beginning of Projectrelated activities. The Designated Biologist shall survey a minimum radius of 500-feet for Migratory Bird Treaty Act birds around the Project Area and for sign of roosting bats. If no active nests, roosts, burrows or dens are found, project activities may proceed as scheduled.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Active Nests or Roosts or Burrows or Dens If an active nest, roost or burrow or den is located, then active nests, roosts or burrows or dens shall be avoided, and a no-disturbance or destruction buffer shall be determined and 628
3-38
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
established by a Designated Biologist. The buffer shall be kept in place until after the breeding nesting season or the Designated Biologist confirms the young have fledged, are foraging independently, and the nest or burrow is no longer active for the season. The extent of these buffers shall be determined by the Designated Biologist and will depend on the species present, the level of noise or construction disturbance, line of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers.

If an active San Joaquin kit fox den is located, then consultation with the USFWS would be required in order to document this federally listed species presence in the Project Area. 629
3-39
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
A Phase 1 cultural resources assessment for the Cameron Ranch Housing Subdivision was conducted by Soar Environmental (Appendix C). The Project proposes to construct 178 singlefamily housing units on 43.6-acres; Accessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 124-010-001, 124-010-002, 124-010-003, 124-010-005, 124-010-007. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Environmental Setting
The Project area is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory of the San Joaquin Valley and located between the Kings River and the north shore of Tulare Lake. The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts. The Project area is likely within the Telamni Yokuts territory. The main village for this area was Waitatshuulul, which was approximately 3 miles east of the Project site along Packwood Creek.

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

By 1850, California became a state, and Tulare County was established in 1853. Visalia, founded in 1852, is one of the oldest cities in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. During the first few decades, 630
3-40
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Visalia was a supply center for nearby gold rushes, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock and some agriculture.

Cultural Records Search
The Project area is located in theUSGS Visalia 7.5’ Series Quadrangle (USGS 2021). On March 1, 2024, Soar Environmental submitted a records search request to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) located at the California State University, Bakersfield (Appendix C).

The records search included a 0.5-mile buffer around the Project area. The results from the records search indicate three (3) cultural resource studies have been conducted within the Project area. According to the information on file, there is two (2) resource within the Project area.

These resources, however, were identified outside of the proposed 178-unit single family housing subdivision. As such, these resources will not be effected by the proposed project subdivision construction and staging activities. There are four (4) recorded resources within the 0.5-mile record search radius. There are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.

AB 52 Native American Consultation
In accordance with AB 52, Native American Tribes that could potentially be impacted by the Project were contacted. The tribes that were formally noticed of this Project were the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, and the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. These Rancherias are not located within the City limits.

Soar Environmental did not receive comments from the Tulare County Native American groups or affiliated individuals regarding the proposed development at the project location.

Regulatory Setting
In this report “cultural resources” are defined as prehistoric or historical archaeological sites as well as historical objects, buildings, or structures. In accordance with 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.4, “historical” in this report applies to cultural resources which are at least 50 years old. The significance or importance of a cultural resource is dependent upon whether the resource qualifies for inclusion at the local or state level in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or at the federal level in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural 631
3-41
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
resources that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are called “historical resources” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5[a]). Under this statue the determination of eligibility is partially based on the consideration of the criteria of significance as defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3). Cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are deemed “historic properties.”
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act was adopted in 1966 to preserve historic and archeological sites in the United States. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation offices.

California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California PRC § 5020.1[j])(State of California 2021). In 1992, the California legislature established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California PRC § 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR, enumerated in the following text, were developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP. According to California PRC § 5024.1(c) (1– 4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

To understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (14 CCR 4852[d][2]).

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the National 632
3-42
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

City of Visalia General Plan
Under Chapter 3, the City’s Role and Tools for Preservation, in the General Plan of the City of Visalia defines a “cultural resources” as:
• Chapter 3.3: Sites, structures, or any other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to be culturally important. This includes archaeological resources and contemporary Native American resources in addition to the historic resources that are the subject of this chapter. Impacts of development on cultural resources of all kinds must be avoided to the greatest extent possible, as described by policies in Chapter 6: Open Space and Conservation.
• Under Chapter 6, Open Space and Conservation, within the General Plan of the City of Visalia the following policies are outlined for the preservation of cultural resources:
• Chapter 6.5: OSC-P-39 Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
o Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive.
o Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA).
o Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity. o Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.

In the event that previously unidentified historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, grading activity in the immediate area shall cease and materials and their surroundings shall not be altered or collected. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must make an immediate evaluation and avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation should be completed, according to CEQA Guidelines. The State Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the preparation of Archaeological Resource Management Reports that will be used as guidelines.
633
3-43
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: A records search was conducted on behalf of the Applicant from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California, to determine if historical or archaeological sites had previously been recorded within the study area, if the Project area had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initial study, and/or whether the region of the field project was known to contain archaeological sites and to thereby be archaeologically sensitive.

According to the SSJVIC records search, there have been three previous cultural resource studies within the Project area. According to the information on file, there is two resources within the Project area. These resources, however, were identified outside of the proposed 178-unit single family housing subdivision. As such, these resources will not be effected by the proposed project subdivision construction and staging activities.

Additionally, there are four recorded resources and two reports identified within the 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. However, there are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.

There appears to be a low possibility for subsurface cultural resources in the Project area, based on the results of the archival research, and the fact that the two known resources detected during previous disturbances within the Project area will not be effected by subdivision construction. Although no significant cultural resources were identified on the site, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no known archaeological resources located within the Project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that potential impact to unknown archeological resources will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
634
3-44
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no known human remains buried in the project vicinity. If human remains are unearthed during project construction, there is a potential for a significant impact. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 will ensure that impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

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

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

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
635
3-45
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
   
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
   
Environmental Setting
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity services to the City of Visalia. SCE serves approximately 15 million people in a 50,000 square-mile area of Central, Coastal, and Southern California. SCE supplies electricity to its customers through a variety of renewable and nonrenewable sources. Table 3-8 below shows the proportion of each energy resource sold to California consumers by SCE in 2022 as compared to the statewide average.

Fuel Type SCE Power Mix California Power Mix
Coal 0% 2.15%
Large Hydroelectric 3.4% 9.24%
Natural Gas 24.7% 36.38%
Nuclear 8.3% 9.3%
Other (Oil/Petroleum Coke/Waste
Heat) 0.1%

0.11%
Unspecified Sources of Power1 30.3% 7.11%
Eligible
Renewables
Biomass 0.1% 2.15%
Geothermal 5.7% 4.67%
Small Hydro 0.5% 1.12%
Solar 17% 17.04%
Wind 9.8% 10.83%
Total Eligible
Renewable

33.1% 35.81%

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

Table 3-8 2022 SCE and 2022 State power resources; Source: SCE; California Energy Commission
636
3-46
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
SCE also offers Green Rate Options, which allow consumers to indirectly purchase up to 100% of their energy from renewable sources. To accomplish this, SCE purchases the renewable energy necessary to meet the needs of Green Rate participants from solar renewable developers.

Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) Company provides natural gas services to the project area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to energy use that correlate to the proposed project:
• T-P-41: Integrate the bicycle transportation system into new development and infill redevelopment. Development shall provide short term bicycle parking and long-term bicycle storage facilities, such as bicycle racks, stocks, and rental bicycle lockers. 637
3-47
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Development also shall provide safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to high activity land uses such as schools, parks, shopping, employment, and entertainment centers.
• T-P-53: Develop flexible parking requirements in the zoning ordinance for development proposals based on “best practices” and the proven potential to reduce parking demand.

Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project includes the construction and operation of single-family housing. During project construction there would be an increase in energy consumption related to worker trips and operation of construction equipment.

This increase in energy use would be temporary and limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Vehicle fuel consumption during project construction was estimated based on the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths, and the number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2024 gasoline/diesel MPG factors provided by the EMFAC2017. To simplify the estimation process, it was assumed that all worker vehicles used gasoline as a fuel source and all vendor vehicles used diesel as a fuel source. Table 3-9, below, provides gasoline and diesel fuel used by construction and on-road sources during each phase of project construction.

Construction Phase # of
Days
Daily
Worker
Trips1
Daily
Vendor
Trips1
Daily
Hauling
Trips1
Total
Gasoline
Fuel Use
(gallons)2
Total
Diesel
Fuel Use
(gallons)2
Site Preparation 30 18 0 0 7,799 0
Grading 75 20 0 0 33,871 0
Building Construction 740 303 112 0 164,425 717,770
Paving 55 15 0 0 8,836 0
Architectural Coating 55 61 0 0 1,244 0
Total 955 N/A N/A N/A 216,436 717,770

1. Data provided by CalEEMod (Appendix A)

2. See Appendix D
Table 3-9. On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated by Construction Activities. Source: CalEEMod(v. 2020.4.0); EMFAC2014
While construction of the proposed project will result in additional energy consumption, this energy use is not unnecessary or inefficient. This energy use is justified by the energyefficient nature of the proposed project and would be limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Once construction 638
3-48
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
is complete, the project is expected to achieve net zero energy consumption. The proposed project is subject to the California New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-2020.

This plan establishes a goal for all residential buildings built after January 1, 2020, to be zero net energy. The California Energy Commission is responsible for the development and enforcement of specific strategies to achieve this goal. These strategies are implemented through Title 24, Part 6 of the California Building Code, which requires developers to include certain measures (including solar panels on all new residential buildings) to achieve required building efficiency standards.

Total Annual Operational VMT1 Annual Fuel Use
(Gasoline)
Annual Fuel Use
(Diesel)
Average
MPG
4,356,848 Miles 166,928 Gallons 18,735 Gallons 14.55

1. Data Provided by CalEEMod

2. See Appendix D
Table 3-10. On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated by Operational Activities. Source CalEEMod (v. 2020.4.0); EMFAC2014
During project operations, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in wasteful fuel consumption. This is due to the distance of the project site to the commercial, recreational, and other residential uses, resulting in less reliance on personal vehicles. As seen in Table 3-10 the project's total annual operational vehicle miles traveled (VMT) amount to 4,356,848 miles, with an annual consumption of 166,928 gallons of gasoline and 18,735 gallons of diesel, yielding an average MPG of 14.55.

Because construction-related energy use would be temporary and limited to the greatest extent feasible through consistency with Federal, State, and local policies related to energy conservation, and operation of the project will comply with all energy efficiency standards required under Title 24, Section 6, and these standards were specifically developed to achieve net zero energy for residential projects, it can be presumed that the project will achieve net zero energy. The project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The impact is less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact: The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed project will comply with all state and local policies related to energy efficiency and there is no impact. 639
3-49
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
   
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
   
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?    
iv) Landslides?    
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?    
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
   
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct and indirect risks to life or property?
   
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
   
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
   
Environmental Setting
Geologic Stability and Seismic Activity
• Seismicity
The Visalia Planning Area has no known major fault systems within its boundaries.

There are small faults in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, approximately 30 miles away, though none of them are known to be active. The greatest potential for seismic activity in Visalia Planning Area is posed by the San Andreas Fault, approximately 75 miles 640
3-50
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
away from the site, or the Owens Valley Fault Group, which is located approximately 125 miles away from the project site.
• Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby unconsolidated and/or near saturated soils lose cohesion and are converted to a fluid state as a result of severe vibratory motion.

The relatively rapid loss of soil shear strength during strong earthquake shaking results in temporary, fluid-like behavior of the soil, which can result in landslides and lateral spreading. Soil liquefaction causes ground failure that can damage roads, pipelines, underground cables, and buildings with shallow foundations. Liquefaction hazards may exist in and around wetland areas and creeks, though soil types are generally too coarse or too high in clay content, and not likely to be subject to sufficient acceleration to cause liquefaction.
• Landslides
Landslides refer to a wide variety of processes that result in the downward and outward movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under gravitational influence. Landslides are caused by both natural and human-induced changes in slope stability and often accompany other natural hazard events, such as floods, wildfire, or earthquake. Due little elevation changes throughout the planning area, including the proposed project site, it is considered a low landslide hazard area.
• Subsidence
Land Subsidence refers to the vertical sinking of land because of either manmade or natural underground voids. Subsidence has occurred throughout the Central Valley because of groundwater, oil, and gas withdrawal. The Kaweah Subbasin that underlies the Planning Area is in an overdraft condition on an average long-term basis.

According to the most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), groundwater elevations have declined up to 50 feet between 1990 and 2010. While groundwater recharge efforts are in progress, groundwater levels will continue to decline unless recharge is increased.

Soils Involved in Project
The proposed project involves construction on two soil types. The properties of the soil are described briefly below:
• Grangeville Sandy Loam: The Grangeville series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in moderate coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granitic rock sources. Grangeville soils are on alluvial fans and floodplains and have slopes ranging from 0 to 2 percent. It is somewhat poorly drained; this soil has altered drainage because of the dams and reservoirs in the Sierra Nevada, pumping from the water table, tile and interceptor drains, and filling and leveling of sloughs in the vicinity. Negligible to very low runoff; moderately rapid permeability and moderate permeability in saline-sodic phases. • Fraint-Rock Outcrop Complex: The Friant series consists of shallow, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from mica schist, quartz schist and gneiss. Friant soils are on mountainous uplands and have slopes of 9 to 75 percent. It is Well drained; medium to very rapid runoff; moderately rapid permeability.
641
3-51
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Figure 3-4: Soils Map
642
3-52
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Regulatory Setting
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment.

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

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to geology and soils that correlate to the proposed project:
• OSC-P-28: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping, and construction.

Discussion
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact: Although the project is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity, the project site has a low chance of being affected by ground shaking from distant faults. The potential for strong seismic ground shaking on the project site is not a significant environmental concern due to the infrequent seismic activity of the area and distance to the faults. The project does not propose any components which could cause substantial adverse effects in the event of an earthquake. Additionally, the project has no potential to cause the rupture of an earthquake fault indirectly or directly. Therefore, there is no impact related to the risk of loss, injury or death involving a rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
643
3-53
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
No Impact: The project site is in an area of low seismic activity. The proposed project does not include any activities or components which could feasibly cause strong seismic ground shaking, either directly or indirectly. There is no impact.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact: The risk of liquification within the planning area outside of wetland areas is low because the soil types are generally unsuitable for liquefaction. The area’s low potential for seismic activity would further reduce the likelihood of liquefaction occurrence. Because the project site is within an area of low seismic activity, and the soils associated with the project area not suitable for liquefaction, there are no impacts. iv. Landslides?
No Impact: The Planning Area of Visalia is considered at insignificant risk of small landslides. Additionally, the project site is generally flat and there are no hill slopes in the area. No geologic landforms exist on or near the site that would result in a landslide event.

As a result, there is very low potential for landslides. There would be no impact. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact: Because the project site is relatively flat, the potential for erosion is low. However, construction-related activities and increased impermeable surfaces can increase the probability for erosion to occur. Construction-related impacts related to erosion will be temporary and subject to best management practices (BMPs) required by SWPPP, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction. Because impacts related to erosion would be temporary and limited to construction, and because required best management practices would prevent significant impacts related to erosion, the impact will remain less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Impact: The soils associated with the project site are considered stable and have a low capacity for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Because the project area is stable, and this project would not result in a substantial grade change to the topography to the point that it would increase the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, there is no impact. 644
3-54
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact: The proposed project site is not in an area with expansive soils. Because the soils associated with the project do not exhibit shrink swell behavior, implementation of the project will pose no risk to life or property caused by expansive soils and there is no impact. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact: The proposed project would not include the use of septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed buildings will tie into the Visalia’s existing sewer services. Therefore, there would be no impact. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no unique geologic features and no known paleontological resources located within the project area. However, there is always the possibility that paleontological resources may exist below the ground surface.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that any impacts resulting from project implementation remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

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

Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
646
3-56
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.
   
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
   
Environmental Setting
Natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gases. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 34ºC cooler. However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.

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

GHGs as defined by AB 32 include the following gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHGs as defined by AB 32 are summarized in Table 3-11. Each gas's effect on climate change depends on three main factors.

The first being the quantity of these gases are in the atmosphere, followed by how long they stay in the atmosphere and finally how strongly they impact global temperatures. 647
3-57
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Methane
(CH4)
Is a flammable gas and is
the main component of
natural gas
12 years 21
Emitted during the
production and transport of
coal, natural gas, and oil.

Methane emissions also
result from livestock and
other agricultural practices
and by the decay of organic
waste in municipal solid
waste landfills.

Carbon
dioxide (CO2)
An odorless, colorless,
natural greenhouse gas.
30-95
years
1 Enters the atmosphere
through burning fossil fuels
(coal, natural gas, and oil),
solid waste, trees and wood
products, and also as a
result of certain chemical
reactions (e.g.,
manufacture of cement).

Carbon dioxide is removed
from the atmosphere (or
"sequestered") when it is
absorbed by plants as part
of the biological carbon
cycle.

Chlorofluorocarbons
Gases formed synthetically
by replacing all hydrogen
atoms in methane or
ethane with chlorine and/or
fluorine atoms. They are
non-toxic nonflammable,
insoluble and chemically
unreactive in the
troposphere (the level of air
at the earth’s surface).
55-140
years
3,800
to
8,100
Were synthesized in 1928 for
use as refrigerants, aerosol
propellants, and cleaning
solvents. They destroy
stratospheric ozone.
648
3-58
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Hydrofluorocarbons
A man-made greenhouse
gas. It was developed to
replace ozone-depleting
gases found in a variety of
appliances. Composed of a
group of greenhouse gases
containing carbon, chlorine
an at least one hydrogen
atom.
14 years
140 to
11,700
Powerful greenhouse gases
that are emitted from a
variety of industrial
processes. Fluorinated
gases are sometimes used
as substitutes for
stratospheric ozonedepleting substances.

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

Nitrous oxide
(N2O)
Commonly known as
laughing gas, is a chemical
compound with the formula
N2O. It is an oxide of
nitrogen. At room
temperature, it is a
colorless, non-flammable
gas, with a slightly sweet
odor and taste. It is used in
surgery and dentistry for its
anesthetic and analgesic
effects.
120
years
310
Emitted during agricultural
and industrial activities, as
well as during combustion
of fossil fuels and solid
waste.

Prefluorocarbons
Has a stable molecular
structure and only breaks
down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers above
Earth’s surface.
50,000
years
6,500
to
9,200
Two main sources of prefluorocarbons are primary
aluminum production and
semiconductor
manufacturing.

Sulfur
hexafluoride
An inorganic, odorless,
colorless, and nontoxic
nonflammable gas.
3,200
years
23,900
This gas is manmade and
used for insulation in
electric power transmission
equipment, in the
magnesium industry, in
semiconductor
manufacturing and as a
tracer gas.

Table 3-11. Greenhouse Gasses; Source: EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 649
3-59
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Regarding the quantity of these gases in the atmosphere, we first must establish the amount of the particular gas in the air, known as Concentration, or abundance, which are measured in parts per million, parts per billion and even parts per trillion. To put these measurements in more relatable terms, one part per million is equivalent to one drop of water diluted into about 13 gallons of water, roughly a full tank of gas in a compact car. Therefore, it can be assumed larger emission of greenhouse gases lead to a higher concentration in the atmosphere.

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

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

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

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

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

City of Visalia Climate Change Initiatives
In January 2007, Visalia’s mayor signed the “Cool Cities” pledge, part of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. By entering into this agreement, the City has adopted the goal of 650
3-60
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
reducing citywide GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. As detailed in the CAP, this goal was subsequently expanded in response to ARB’s recommended reduction target of 15% below the 2005 baseline, and the City added a 2030 mitigation target to correlate with the 2030 General Plan Update and the goal of achieving an 80% reduction by 2050.

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

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

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

C02
(MT/Year)
CH4
(MT/Year)
N20
(MT/Year)
CO2e
(MT/Year)
Operational
Emissions
1,912.49 2.67 0.085 2,004.79
2005 BAU 2,873.58 2.87 0.22 3,011.13
% Reduction From
BAU

33.40%
Table 3-12: Projected Project Operational GHG Emissions Compared to 2005 BAU; Source:
(CalEEMod, V.2020.4.0)
The project’s operational GHG are estimated to be 1006.34 CO2e MT lower than the 2005 BAU.

This is a reduction of 33.40%, more than the 29% threshold. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
651
3-61
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact: The SJVAPCD states that individual and cumulative GHG emissions are considered less than significant if a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program with within the geographic area in which the project is located. The City of Visalia Climate Action Plan meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would not be considered a significant impact if the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Strategy. Table 3-13, below, evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable measures, both existing and proposed, in the GHG reduction plan.

Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency with
Strategy

2. Increase in Solar Photovoltaic (PV)
Installations:

Consistent. The proposed project
would involve solar panels on the
new homes.

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

Consistent. The proposed project
plans to provide trees on all local
roads and include improvements
on existing roads as well as in
planned pocket park.

10. Bicycle Path Plan: Consistent. The proposed project includes improvements with
parkways on Ben Maddox Way and
Caldwell Avenue, as well as bike
path along the Tulare Irrigation
Canal.

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

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

As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Visalia Climate Action Plan. The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and Local rules pertaining to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and the project will implement Best Performance Standards developed by the SJVAPCD. The project will not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation developed to reduce GHG emissions. There is no impact. 652
3-62
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
   
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
   
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
   
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard or excessive
noise to the public or the environment?
   
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
   
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
   
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
   
Environmental Setting
The proposed project site is located approximately .90 miles South West of the nearest school (Annie R Mitchell Elementary) and approximately 6 miles southeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport). The terminal of Airport is approximately 6.75 miles away; however, the runway is 6 miles from the Project Site (Figure 3-5).

The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Envirostor was used to identify any sites known to be associated with releases of hazardous materials or wastes within the project area.

This research confirmed that the project would not be located on or nearby a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 653
3-63
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Regulatory Setting
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.

Code [U.S.C.] §9601 et seq.).

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Act) authorizes the President to respond to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.

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

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

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

Hazardous Waste Control Law, Title 26.

The Hazardous Waste Control Law creates hazardous waste management program requirements. The law is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which contains requirements for the following aspects of hazardous waste management:
• Identification and classification;
• Generation and transportation;
• Design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; • Treatment standards;
• Operation of facilities and staff training; and
• Closure of facilities and liability requirements.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11.

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

California Emergency Services Act
The California Emergency Services Act created a multi-agency emergency response plan for the state of California. The Act coordinates various agencies, including CalEPA, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, regional water quality control boards, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.
654
3-64
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Figure 3-5: Distance to Schools and Airports
655
3-65
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Discussion
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact: Project construction activities may involve the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. During construction, the contractor will use fuel trucks to refuel onsite equipment and may use paints and solvents to a limited degree. The storage, transport, and use of these materials will comply with Local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements. There is the potential for small leaks due to refueling of construction equipment, however standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the SWPPP will reduce the potential for the release of construction related fuels and other hazardous materials by controlling runoff from the site and requiring proper disposal or recycling of hazardous materials. The impact is less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact: There is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could result in release of hazardous materials into the environment, other than any potential accidental releases of standard fuels, solvents, or chemicals encountered during typical construction of a residential subdivision. Should an accidental hazardous release occur or should the project encounter hazardous soils, existing regulations for handling hazardous materials require coordination with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal.

Therefore, potential impacts are less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact: The project is located approximately .90 miles from an existing middle school. The project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than insignificant amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of structures and landscaping. The project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials or waste. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 656
3-66
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
No Impact: The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. There would be no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located approximately 6 miles Southeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport). However, according to the Airport Master plan, the project site would not be impacted by the airport. Noise contours developed for 2019 show that the airport would produce less than 65 dB. All land uses located outside of the 65 dB contours are considered less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. There is a less than significant impact.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: The City’s design and environmental review procedures shall ensure compliance with emergency response and evacuation plans. In addition, the site plan will be reviewed by the Fire Department per standard City procedure to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on emergency evacuation.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact: The land surrounding the project site is developed with urban uses and farmlands which are not considered to be wildlands. Additionally, the City of Visalia General Plan finds that fire hazards within the Planning Area, including the proposed project site, have low frequency, limited extent, limited magnitude, and low significance. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there is no impact.
657
3-67
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
sustainably degrade surface or ground
water quality?
   
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
   
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner, which
would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?    
(ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite?
   
(iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
   
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?    
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones risk the release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
   
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater
movement plan?
   
Environmental Setting
Surface Water
Visalia is in the center of the Kaweah River Delta System, resulting in many rivers and creeks flowing through the city. The St. Johns River is the City’s primary surface water feature. Other significant surface water features include Modoc Ditch, Mill Creek Ditch, Mill Creek, Tulare Irrigation District (TID) Canal, Packwood Creek, Cameron Creek, Deep Creek, Evans Creek, 658
3-68
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Persian Ditch, and several other local ditches. These receive a significant amount of water during the rainy season and help drain stormwater.

Groundwater
Groundwater in Tulare County is present in valley deposits of alluvium that are several thousand feet thick and occurs in both confined and unconfined conditions. The creeks in Visalia are tied to the groundwater system. The creeks lose water in the winter while they feed the groundwater, and gain water in the summer when the groundwater feeds the creeks. The depth to groundwater varies significantly throughout the valley floor area of Tulare County. In the area around Visalia, depth to groundwater varies from about 120 feet below ground surface along the western portion of the city to approximately 100 feet below ground surface to the east, as measured in spring 2010. Groundwater levels measured in the city have declined since the 1940s, from approximately 30 feet below ground surface in 1940 to 120 feet below ground surface in 2010. Water quality of the groundwater that underlies the Planning Area is excellent for domestic and agricultural uses. This is most likely due to the abundant snowmelt that originates in the Sierra Nevada. Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water for the planning area residents.

Stormwater Drainage
The City, in conjunction with Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and Tulare Irrigation District, operates and maintains a vast municipal storm drainage system that consists of drainage channels, 23 detention and retention basins, 33 pump stations and 250 miles of pipe.

Stormwater from the project site will be collected and conveyed to a temporary on-site stormwater basin.

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

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

California Water Quality Porter-Cologne Act
California’s primary statute leading water quality and water pollution concerns with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 659
3-69
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
1970 (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and each of the nine Regional Water Quality Boards (RWQCB) power to protect water quality and further develop the Clean Water Act within California. The applicable RWQCB for the proposed project is the Central Valley RWQCB.

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

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to hydrology and water quality that correlate to the proposed project:
• PSCU-P-59: Require new developments to incorporate floodwater detention basins into project designs where consistent with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater Recharge Plan.
• PSCU-P-60: Control urban and stormwater runoff and point and non-point discharge of pollutants. As part of the City’s Stormwater Management Program, adopt and implement a Stormwater Management Ordinance to minimize stormwater runoff rates and volumes, control water pollution, and maximize groundwater recharge. New development will be required to include Low Impact Development features that reduce impermeable surface areas and increase infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
o Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
o Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
o Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
o Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
o On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration; and
o Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.
• PSCU-P-46: Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks, streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance’s requirements.

The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
o Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping;
660
3-70
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
o Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of coolseason turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks);
o Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; o Requiring automatic irrigation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weather-based or other self-adjusting technology; o Promoting the use of recycled water; and
o Minimizing overspray and runoff.

Discussion
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant with Mitigation: The project will result in less than significant impacts to water quality due to potentially polluted runoff generated during construction activities.

Construction may include excavation, grading, and other earthwork across most of the 43.6- acre project site. During storm events, exposed construction areas across the project site may cause runoff to carry pollutants, such a chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris. Implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for the project. A SWPPP identifies all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the project site and identifies best management practices (BMPs) related to stormwater runoff.

As such, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD- 1 and HYD-2 will ensure impacts remain less than significant with mitigation.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Less than Significant Impact: Water services will be provided by the Cal Water, Visalia District, upon development. The District currently produces about 27 million gallons of local groundwater per day from 75 active wells and delivers it to customers through more than 519 miles of pipeline. The District delivers water to residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers. Residential customers account for most of the District’s service connections and 69 percent of its water uses. Non-residential water uses account for 28 percent of total demand, while distribution system losses account for 3 percent. The system produced 30,152 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater in 2020. The available water supply is expected to supply the projected population. The system has a capacity to pump 100,829 acre-feet per year (afy), all from groundwater. The projected demand is expected to 35,276 AF in 2030, 38,310 AF in 2035, and 41,258 AF in 2040.

Using the average per-person water use in Visalia (183 gallons per capita per day - GPCD; sourced from the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan) and the average household size in 661
3-71
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Visalia (2.99 persons; according to the US Census Bureau), the estimated water demand for the proposed 178-unit residential development amounts to approximately 97,397 gallons of water daily, equivalent to about 109-acre feet per year. With an anticipated increase of 5,124 acre-feet from 2020 to 2030, the water supply is projected to be sufficient for the proposed project. This expected increase reflects anticipated enhancements or expansions in water infrastructure or management practices within the region over the specified time frame, ensuring an ample supply of water to meet the demands of the proposed development and potentially other needs in the area. The most water-intensive aspect of the Project (Very LowDensity Residential homes) is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation. As such, the Project would not affect groundwater supplies beyond what has already been analyzed in the most current General Plan EIR or Urban Water Management Plan.

The project would result in nearly full development of the site, which would convert approximately 43.6 acres from pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces. However, this would not significantly interfere with groundwater recharge because all stormwaters would be collected and diverted to a new temporary stormwater basin located on the Southern area of the project site for groundwater recharge. Because the addition of impervious surfaces would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and the project would not utilize groundwater resources beyond what has been previously analyzed in the Visalia Planning Area General Plan EIR or the Urban Water Management Plan, the impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces and alter existing drainage patterns on the 43.6-acre project site which would have the potential to result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The disturbance of soils during construction could cause erosion, resulting in temporary construction impacts.

However, this impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which include mandated erosion control measures, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction (Mitigation Measure HYD-1). The Project proponent will also be required to prepare drainage plans (Mitigation Measure HYD-2) and a Development Maintenance Manual (Mitigation Measure HYD-3) to ensure that existing drainage patterns are maintained during project operations and that the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The impact is less than significant with implementation of these mitigation measures.
662
3-72
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces on the 43.6-acre project site which would have the potential to increase surface runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-site. This impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2, which requires the project to submit drainage plans to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The drainage plans will include BMPs to ensure runoff from the project will not result in flooding onor off-site. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation. iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces and alter existing drainage patterns on the 43.6-acre project site which would have the potential to impact existing stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project would contain a storm drainage basin to collect all runoff from the site. The disturbance of soils during construction could cause erosion, resulting in temporary construction impacts. However, this impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which include mandated erosion control measures, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction (Mitigation Measure HYD-1). During project operations, the proposed impervious surfaces, including roads, building pads, and parking areas, would collect automobile derived pollutants such as oils, greases, rubber, and heavy metals. This could contribute to point source and non-point source pollution if these pollutants were transported into waterways during storm events. The Project proponent will be required to prepare drainage plans (Mitigation Measure HYD-2) and a Development Maintenance Manual (Mitigation Measure HYD-3) to ensure that the project would not overwhelm the planned stormwater drainage basin or result in discharges of polluted runoff into local waterways. The impact is less than significant with implementation of these mitigation measures.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant with Mitigation: The Project site is generally flat and no significant grading or leveling will be required. The proposed project site is not in proximity to a stream or river and will not alter the course of a stream or river. According to National Flood Hazard mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the proposed project is in an X flood zone, which has a 0.2% chance of flooding every year.

The proposed project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces on the 43.6-acre project site which could affect drainage and flood patterns. This impact would be 663
3-73
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
appropriately mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2, which requires the project to submit drainage plans to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The drainage plans will include BMPs to ensure the project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation. d) Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact: The proposed project is located inland and not near an ocean or large body of water, therefore, would not be affected by a tsunami. The proposed project is in a relatively flat area and would not be impacted by inundation related to mudflow. Since the project is in an area that is not susceptible to inundation, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. As such, there is no impact. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact: The project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Central Valley RWQCB. The project will comply with all applicable rules and regulations regarding water quality and groundwater management and there is no impact.

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

Mitigation Measure HYD-2: The Applicant shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45 days prior to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the Project site in excess of one (1) acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than one acre but is part of the Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres. The SWPPP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to 664
3-74
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
storm water and shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site.

The following BMP methods shall include, but would not be limited to:
• Dust control measures will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite activities to control fugitive dust;
• A routine monitoring plan will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite erosion and sedimentation control measures;
• Provisional detention basins, straw bales, erosion control blankets, mulching, silt fencing, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers will be used; • Soil stockpiles and graded slopes will be covered after two weeks of inactivity and 24 hours prior to and during extreme weather conditions; and, • BMPs will be strictly followed to prevent spills and discharges of pollutants onsite, such as material storage, trash disposal, construction entrances, etc.

Mitigation Measure HYD-3: A Development Maintenance Manual for the Project shall include comprehensive procedures for maintenance and operations of any stormwater facilities to ensure long-term operation and maintenance of post-construction stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require that stormwater BMP devices be inspected, cleaned, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance conditions. The manual shall require that devices be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e., mid-October) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., mid-May). The manual shall also require that all devices be checked after major storm events. The Development Maintenance Manual shall include the following:
• Runoff shall be directed away from trash and loading dock areas; • Bins shall be lined or otherwise constructed to reduce leaking of liquid wastes; • Trash and loading dock areas shall be screened or walled to minimize offsite transport of trash; and,
• Impervious berms, trench catch basin, drop inlets, or overflow containment structures nearby docks and trash areas shall be installed to minimize the potential for leaks, spills, or wash down water to enter the drainage system. 665
3-75
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?    
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
   
Environmental Setting
The proposed project site is in the Visalia Planning Area, just outside of the city limits. The site is approximately 2.5 miles Southeast of the Visalia downtown. The site is currently zoned as AE-20 by the County of Tulare but is prezoned for R-1-5 by the City of Visalia after annexation. The site is designated as Low Density Residential by the Visalia General Plan. The Project does not need rezoning or General Plan Amendments.

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

Regulatory Setting
Visalia General Plan
The proposed project site is designated as Low Density Residential. • The Low-Density Residential designation provides single family detached housing on residential lots. The typical residential density of this designation ranges from 2-10 units per acres. Buildout is assumed at two units per gross acre.

The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to land use that correlate to the proposed project:
• LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.
• LU-P-20: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the Tier I Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.
• LU-P-21: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the Tier II UDB and the Tier III Urban Growth Boundary consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, according to the following phasing thresholds:
666
3-76
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
o Tier II: The expansion criteria for land in Tier II to become available for annexation and development is that such annexation and development shall only occur if it does Visalia General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-16 not result in excess of a 10-year supply of undeveloped residential land within the new Tier I. This is intended to be consistent with LAFCO policies discouraging residential annexations exceeding a 10-year housing inventory. Thus, the ‘‘inner’’ tier is distinguished from the GPURC-recommended Tier I in that it is not based on projected capacity and need, but rather on a requirement to be able to demonstrate that less than a ten year inventory of residential land exists. o Tier III: Tier III comprises full buildout of the General Plan. The expansion criteria for land in Tier III is that land would only become available for development when building permits have been issued in Tier I and Tier II at the following levels:
 Residential: after permits for 12,800 housing units have been issued, resulting in a target City population in Tier I of 178,000;
 Commercial: after permits for 960,000 square feet of commercial space have been issued; and
 Industrial: after permits for 2,800,000 square feet of industrial space have been issued
To complement residential neighborhood development, the City also may allow small annexations for sites less than 30 acres in size that are contiguous to the City limits to allow for efficient development of a neighborhood, commercial area or employment center, provided no General Plan amendment is required and infrastructure is available or can be extended at no cost to the City.
• LU-P-28: Continue to use natural and man-made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the city’s Urban Area Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines.
• LU-P-71: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
• LU-P-47: Establish criteria and standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation networks within new subdivisions and non-residential development.

City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance
R-1 zoning is intended to provide living area within the city where development is limited to low density concentrations of one-family dwellings and regulations are designed for 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.
667
3-77
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Figure 3-6 General Plan Land Use Designation
668
3-78
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Figure 3-7: Zoning Map
669
3-79
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact: Due to its location at the city's edge, where new residential development is already occurring adjacent to the project site, the proposed project will not physically divide an established community. The site's placement allows it to fit the mold of the surrounding area, reinforcing the continuity of the local community fabric without creating divisions. The proposed project site is designated for Very Low Density Residential by the Visalia General Plan and the project is consistent with this land use designation. The project would continue to operate as the same designation following project implementation. There is no impact. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact: The project site is located on land designated for residential use (Figure 3-6). The proposed project does not conflict with this land use, or any other policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is no impact. 670
3-80
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

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

Tulare County contains mineral resources of sand, gravel, and crushed stone, found in alluvial deposits and hard rock quarries. Most of this mining takes place along rivers and at the base of the Sierra foothills. However, the Visalia Planning Area currently contains three former sand and gravel mines, but no currently operating mines and no designated Mineral Resource Zones.

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

Discussion
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact: The project site has no known mineral resources that would be of a value to the region and the residents of the state, therefore the proposed project would not result in the loss of impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact.
671
3-81
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other lands use plan? No Impact: There are no known mineral resources of importance to the region and the project site is not designated under the City’s or County’s General Plan as an important mineral resource recovery site. For that reason, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact. 672
3-82
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permeant increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in excess
of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
   
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?    
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or, an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
   
Environmental Setting
Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is the variation in air pressure that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur at least 20 times per second, they can be detected by the human ear. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz). Ambient noise is the “background” noise of an environment. Ambient noise levels on the proposed project site are primarily due to agricultural activities and traffic. Construction activities usually result in an increase in sound above ambient noise levels. Vibration is seismic waves that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the earth. Operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile driving and other impacts devices such as pavement breakers create this vibration.

Sensitive Receptors
Noise level allowances for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Residences, hotels/motels, hospitals, schools, and libraries are some of the most sensitive land uses to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise level allowances than most commercial or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance. The nearest sensitive receptor is the Wildhorse Subdivision that borders the Southeast border of the site.
673
3-83
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Regulatory Setting
City of Visalia Noise Ordinance
The City of Visalia Noise Ordinance provides noise level standards for land use compatibility.

Exterior and interior noise levels may not exceed any of the categorical noise level standards shown in Table 3-14. The standards are shown in A-weighted decibels (dBA). For Single Family Residential, the exterior noise during the daytime is to be below 70 dBA, and the indoor noise during the daytime is to be below 55 dBA.

Table 3-14: City of Visalia Noise Standards. Source: City of Visalia Noise Ordinance City of Visalia General Plan
The current noise element of the City’s General Plan establishes goals and policies intended to limit community exposure to excessive noise levels. Visalia’s current General Plan identifies noise sources such as roadways, rails, and airports within the city and includes land use compatibility guidelines.
• N-P-3: Establish performance standards for noise reduction for new housing that may be exposed to community noise levels above 65 dB DNL/CNEL, as shown on the Noise Contour Maps, based on the target acceptable noise levels for outdoor activity levels and interior spaces in Tables 8-2 and 8-3. Noise mitigation measures that may be considered to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
o Construct façades with substantial weight and insulation; o Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; o Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas; o Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
o Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attics, and gable ends; o Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions.
674
3-84
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Discussion
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permeant increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact: Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 48 months and will involve temporary noise sources in the vicinity of the project. The average noise levels generated by construction equipment that will likely be used in the proposed project are provided in Table 3-15.

The nearest residence and sensitive receptor are the single-family homes West and North of the site. The City requires that mitigation measures be implemented if noise levels exceed 70 dB in sensitive outdoor areas or if interior noise levels exceed 55 dB. As shown in Figure 3-10, it was found that a residence must be at least 250 feet from construction in the exterior and 100 feet from construction in the interior to avoid noise levels exceeding these thresholds.

With the project bordering another residential community, a noise disturbance is unavoidable.

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

Long term noise levels resulting from the project would be produced by single family residential homes, which are not normally associated with high operational noise levels. Because noise generated during project construction would be intermittent, short term, and would not exceed the thresholds established by the Visalia Noise Ordinance for sensitive receptors and the project does not propose uses that would typically generate high noise levels, the impact is less than significant.
675
3-85
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Type of Equipment Exterior Lmax at 50 feet (dBA)
Tractors 84
Loaders 80
Backhoes 80
Excavators 85
Generator Sets 82
Air Compressors 80
Rubber Tired Dozers 85
Forklifts 75
Welders 73
Graders 85
Scrapers 85
Cranes 85
Paving Equipment 85
Rollers 85
Table 3-15. Noise levels of noise-generating construction equipment at various distances.

Source: FHA Construction Noise Handbook (dBA at 50 feet). Noise levels beyond 50 feet were estimated using the inverse square law based on given values for dBA at 50 feet Figure 3-8a: Construction Related Noise Levels Based on Distance from Construction Equipment.

Exterior Noise.
676
3-86
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Figure 3-8b: Construction Related Noise Levels Based on Distance from Construction Equipment.

Interior Noise=Assume 25 dB.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact: Although project operations would not include uses or activities that typically generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, project construction could introduce temporary groundborne vibration to the project site and the surrounding area. Sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are provided in Table 3-

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

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

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

0.017 in rock
66 75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
677
3-87
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Table 3-16. Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018.

The primary source of vibration during project construction would likely be from a bulldozer (tractor), which would generate 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet with an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB. Vibration from the bulldozer would be intermittent and not a source of continual vibration. There are no adopted City standards or thresholds of significance for vibration. The evaluation of potential impacts related to construction vibration levels is based on the published data in the 2018 FTA Guidelines. At 25 feet, the buildings most susceptible to vibration could be impacted at .12 inch/second. Because vibrations generated by project construction would not exceed 0.12 inch/second, the impact is less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact: The proposed project is located approximately 6.0 miles Southeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport). However, according to the Airport Master plan, the project site would not be impacted by the airport. Noise contours developed for 2019 show that the airport would produce less than 65 dB. All land uses located outside of the 65 dB contours are considered to have no impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. There is no impact. 678
3-88
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
   
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
   
Environmental Setting
The United States Census Bureau stated the population in the City of Visalia to be 143,966 as of July 2022. This is an increase from the 2010 census, which counted the population in the City of Visalia to be 124,442. Factors that influence population growth in Visalia include job availability, housing availability, and the capacity of proposed and existing infrastructure.

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

City of Visalia 2003 General Plan Housing Element
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to population and housing that correlate to the proposed project:
• LU-P-50: Provide development standards to ensure residential development is not negatively affected by adjacent non-residential land uses. • U-P-71: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
• HE Policy 1.7: The City shall promote development standards that ensure that new residential developments are long-term assets to the City, make effective use of land, and are compatible with adjacent land uses.
679
3-89
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Discussion
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact: The United States Census Bureau stated the population in the City of Visalia to be 143,966 as of July 2022. The project proposes to construct 178 new single family residential units. The US Census Bureau states that the City’s average household size is 3.05 persons.

Based on this average household size, the anticipated population increase because of the proposed project is 543 persons. The construction of housing at this location would not be unplanned, as the Visalia General Plan designated the proposed project site for low density residential. Additionally, the city is planning for more businesses, services, and infrastructure to accommodate the new population. Overall, the project will not constitute an unplanned increase in growth and population. There is no impact.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact: There project would not displace any existing housing. There are no existing homes to be removed on the project site. Overall, this will increase the amount of available housing in the community. There is No Impact.
680
3-90
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable serve ratios,
response times of other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other public facilities?    
Environmental Setting
Fire
Visalia and project site is served by The Visalia Fire Department (VFD), which operates 5 fire stations within the City of Visalia. The VFD will continue to provide fire protection services to the proposed project site following project implementation. VFD Fire Station #56 is the nearest fire station to the site, approximately 1.35 miles to the Northeast.

Police
Law enforcement services are provided to the project site via The Visalia Police Department (VPD). The VPD will continue to provide police protection services to the proposed project site following project implementation. The VPD headquarters are located approximately 2.45 miles Northwest of the proposed project site. VPD Substation District 2 is located approximately 2.5 miles Southwest of the project site.

Schools
The proposed project site is located within the Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) from Kindergarten through 12th Grade. The District includes 25 elementary schools, four middle schools, four traditional high schools, and alternative education programs. The nearest school is located approximately 1 mile West (Annie R Mitchell Elementary School).

Regulatory Setting
681
3-91
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure throughout the State of California. The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fireresistance-rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire services features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland-urban interface areas.

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

Basic requirements in the City’s subdivision ordinance include 52-foot minimum right-of-way widths and a 53-foot turning radius for cul-de-sacs.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to public services that correlate to the proposed project:
• PSCU-P-33: Coordinate land use and development with school location and site design, working with the Visalia Unified School District and other districts to ensure that adequate facilities are available and integrated with neighborhoods.

Discussion
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable serve ratios, response times of other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact: The VFD will provide fire protection services to the proposed development. The closest fire station is Station #56, located 1.35 miles Northeast of the project site at 1968 S Lovers Ln. The Fire Department uses the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard for fire protection services, which requires 1 responder per 682
3-92
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
1,000 residents. The addition of 178 residential units will increase the demand for fire protection services. The city currently has .48 responders per 1,000 residents. By 2030, the city expects growth up to a total of 210,000 residents. This would result in .32 responders per 1,000 residents. This will require an additional 85 on-duty responders by 2030 to meet 1 responder per 1,000 residents, or 41 new responders to meet the current ratio. The existing fire stations are placed to provide optimum service, however new stations will be needed to support the expanding city.

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

The VPD headquarters are located approximately 3.6 miles Northeast of the proposed project site. VPD Substation District 2 is located approximately 2.3 miles Southeast of the project site. The development would increase the demand for police service with the addition of 136 residential units. The VPD does not establish service standards either in terms of officers per thousand residents or in incident response time but plans to maintain the current ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. The Department has 143 sworn officers working out of two districts, as well as seven reserve sworn officers, 64 civilian officers, and 65 volunteers. The timing of when new police service facilities would be required or details about size and location cannot be known until such facilities are planned and proposed, and any attempt to analyze impacts to a potential future facility would be speculative. As new or expanded police service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion projects would be subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
c. Schools?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is within the (VUSD) from Kindergarten through 12th Grade. The District includes 25 elementary schools, four middle schools, four traditional high schools, and alternative education programs. The City of Visalia predicts the generation rates shown below in Table 3-17. The Total Expected Increase in Students is determined by multiplying the Single-Family Generation Rates for each school type in the City of Visalia by the number of planned single-family homes. 683
3-93
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
School Type Single Family Generation
Rate
Number of Students
Elementary School 0.448 80
Middle School .092 17
High School .156 28
Total Number of Units: 178 Total Expected Increase
in Students: 125 Students
Table 3-17: Student Generation Rates, City of Visalia General Plan Since the proposed project includes the addition of 178 single family homes, the number of students will increase by approximately 125. The proposed project site is located within the Planning Area’s limits and therefore, growth associated with the Project has been planned and expected. In addition to the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, future development is required to pay development impact fees to the school districts at the time of building permit issuance. These impact fees are used by the school districts to maintain existing and develop new facilities, as needed. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
d. Parks?

Less than Significant Impact: The addition of 178 new residential units would result in more use of the existing parks. Parks within a half-mile to one-mile radius that would service the proposed development include Burke Park, Cherry Meadow Park and Blaine Park. The project plans to include .75 acres of parkland Since the project would not lower the existing level of services for parks, and the proposed project would contribute its fair share to parks facilities through in-lieu fees, the impact is less than significant. e. Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would be required to pay a development impact fee for Public Facilities, including for the Civic Center, Corporation Yard, and Libraries. Additional development fees will be paid to offset the increased demand for public services related to transportation, water, wastewater, groundwater recharge, storm drainage, and general governmental services. Fees for transportation, water, wastewater, and general government are based on building square footage and will be calculated prior to the issuance of building permits. Fees for groundwater recharge and storm drainage are based on site acreage.

While the payment of development fees could result in the construction of new or altered public service facilities, no specific projects have been identified at this time. As new or 684
3-94
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
expanded public service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion projects would be subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 685
3-95
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
XVI. PARKS AND RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
   
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
   
Environmental Setting
There are 40 park facilities totaling 678 acres within the Visalia Planning Area. The City of Visalia provides diverse types of parks and open space facilities, or park types, to meet park and open space recreation needs of the community. Park types include:
• Pocket Parks: A park typically between one-half and two acres in size intended to serve the needs of a specific neighborhood within a half-mile radius. There are currently 17 pocket parks in Visalia.
• Neighborhood Parks: A park typically 2 to 5 acres in size that provides basic recreation activities for one or more neighborhoods. There are currently 19 neighborhood parks in Visalia.
• Community Parks: A park typically ranging from 5 to 12 acres in size or larger, which are intended to serve the recreational needs of a larger area of the city. There are currently 4 community parks in Visalia.
• Large City Parks: A park generally larger than 40 acres in size intended to serve the recreational needs of all city residents and to create opportunities for contact with the natural environment. These parks may include a concentration of sports fields, golf courses, and areas for picnicking and passive enjoyment of open space. There are currently 2 large city parks in Visalia.
• Natural Corridors and Greenways: A network of greenways of varying size intended to serve the recreational needs of city residents. These parks may include facilities such as bikeways, walkways, and riding trails, and are primarily developed along the city’s waterways. There is a total of 196 acres of natural corridors and greenways.

The Visalia Planning Area additionally contains two county parks and a public golf course. The golf course is not counted to the total amount of parkland. The Visalia General Plan states a total parkland standard of five acres of city parkland per 1,000 residents. 686
3-96
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Regulatory Setting
Quimby Act
The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code section 66477) authorized cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The Act states that the dedication requirement of parkland can be a minimum of three acres per thousand residents or more and up to five acres per thousand residents if the existing ratio is greater than the minimum standard.

Revenues generated through in-lieu fees collected and the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. In 1982, the Act was substantially amended.

The amendments further defined acceptable uses of or restrictions on Quimby funds, provided acreage/population standards and formulas for determining the exaction, and indicated that the exactions must be closely tied (nexus) to a project’s impacts as identified through studies required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to parks and recreation that correlate to the proposed project:
• PSCU-P-2: Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents.
• PSCU-P-7: Promote development of small pocket parks or play lots dispersed throughout new neighborhoods and in existing neighborhoods, where needed, on a voluntary basis in coordination with new infill development, consistent with the following planning guidelines:
o Size: 0.5 to 2 acres; and
o Facilities: the specific features of pocket parks should address the anticipated needs of nearby residents and/or workers. In a residential environment, the needs of small children and seniors should be emphasized. In mixed-use or commercial areas, lunchtime use by office workers and shoppers should be facilitated. • PSCU-P-10: Adopt and implement parkland dedication requirements for all subdivisions, consistent with the Quimby Act and Policy PSCU-P-2. This requirement will be integrated with the City’s Park Acquisition Development Fee Program.

Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is anticipated to increase the Visalia population by approximately 543 residents. Based on the desired parkland ratio of five acres 687
3-97
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
per 1000 residents identified in the Visalia General Plan, the Project would need to provide approximately 2.66 acres of parkland/open space. The Project proposes a 0.75-acre pocket park in the southwest portion of the proposed residential community. Recognizing that this pocket park alone may fall short of meeting the minimum park space requirements for accommodating the influx of new residents, the project will contribute its equitable share to enhance local parks and recreational amenities through in-lieu fees. The impact is less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact: The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. There is no impact.
688
3-98
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
XVII. TRANSPORTATION

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
   
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with the
CEQA guidelines Section 15064.3,
Subdivision (b)?
   
d) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
   
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?    
Environmental Setting
Vehicular Access
Vehicular access to the project is available via Ben Maddox Way on the West side of the site, and Caldwell Ave on the North side of the site. The project includes a network of local streets that provide full access to the project site.

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

Regulatory Setting
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b): Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. 689
3-99
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.

For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate. (4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

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

City of Visalia General Plan:

The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to transportation that correlate to the proposed project:
• T-P-3: Design and build future roadways that complement and enhance the existing network, as shown on the General Plan Circulation Diagram, to ensure that each new and existing roadway continues to function as intended.
• T-P-5: Take advantage of opportunities to consolidate driveways, access points, and curb cuts along existing arterials when a change in development or a change in intensity occurs or when traffic operation or safety warrants.
• T-P-10: Manage local residential streets to limit average daily vehicle volumes to 1,500 or less and maintain average vehicle speeds between 15 and 25 miles per hour. • T-P-22: Require all residential subdivisions to be designed to discourage use of local streets as a bypass to congested arterials, and when feasible, require access to residential development to be from collector streets.
690
3-100
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
• T-P-23: Require that all new developments provide right-of-way, which may be dedicated or purchased, and improvements (including necessary grading, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parkway/landscape strips, bike, and parking lanes) other city street design standards. Design standards will be updated following General Plan adoption. • T-P-24: Require that proposed developments make necessary off-site improvements if the location and traffic generation of a proposed development will result in congestion on major streets or failure to meet LOS D during peak periods or if it creates safety hazards. • T-P-26: Require that future commercial developments or modifications to existing developments be designed with limited points of automobile ingress and egress, including shared access, onto major streets.
• T-P-40: Develop a community-wide trail system along selected planning area waterways, consistent with the Waterways and Trails Master Plan and General Plan diagrams.

Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? No Impact: The Project intends to construct up to 178 single-family residences. Project components include interior access roads, street lighting and landscaping. Vehicle access to the Project site would be from Ben Maddox way and Caldwell Avenue. The city expects the roadways in the area of the Project to maintain acceptable LOS thresholds as the project area has already been pre zoned for R-1-5. Street improvements on Ben Maddox Way and Caldwell Avenue would comply with City standards. There is no impact. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact: The City of Visalia’s VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (Guidelines) document, prepared by LSA and adopted on March 15, 2021, provides guidance for determining a project’s transportation impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Guidelines acknowledge that certain activities and projects may result in a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions and, therefore, a less than significant impact to transportation and circulation. A variety of projects may be screened out of a complicated VMT analysis due to the presumption described in the TA regarding the occurrence of less than significant impacts.

The Guidelines state: “Residential, office, or mixed‐use projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and located within green‐colored VMT zones, as shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8, respectively, are presumed to have similar low VMT profiles and could be screened out from further VMT analysis.”
691
3-101
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
The State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research document entitled Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA dated December 2018 (OPR Guidelines) provides the reasoning for the screen out. The OPR Guidelines state: “Residential and office projects that are located in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT.

Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT. Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps may be used to screen out residential and office projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.” The Project is consistent with Visalia’s General Plan land use, and the Project is within a greencolored VMT zone, shown in Figure 3-11. Therefore, the Project can be screened out will not require a VMT analysis. There is a less than significant impact.

Figure 3-9: Visalia Existing VMT per Capita
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact: The project does not propose any incompatible uses or include any design features that could increase traffic hazards. The project introduces two additional vehicle entry points: one accessible from Ben Maddox Way and the other from Caldwell Avenue. The Ben Maddox Way access will become operational upon the completion of the Ben Maddox Way extension. This improvement will be subject to review by the City’s engineer to ensure the 692
3-102
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
new access point does not pose any safety risks due to project design. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards in or around the project area there is no impact. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact: This project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency access to the site would be via Caldwell Avenue and Ben Maddox Way. During the first phase of construction, a portion of the extension on Ben Maddox Way would be constructed to access the first phase of construction. A network of local roads within the proposed project property provides full access to all buildings within the development. The Project would have no impact on emergency access.
693
3-103
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that
is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources,
or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
   
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.
   
Environmental Setting
The Project area is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory of the San Joaquin Valley and located between the Kings River and the north shore of Tulare Lake. The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts. The Project area is likely within the Telamni Yokuts territory. The main village for this area was Waitatshuulul, which was approximately 3 miles east of the Project site along Packwood Creek.

The San Joaquin Valley did not experience contact with Europeans until the late 1700s. The earliest exploration of the San Joaquin Valley by Europeans was likely by the Spaniards when in the fall of 1772 a group known as the Catalonian Volunteers entered the valley through Tejon Pass in search of deserters from the Southern California Missions. However, the group only made it as far north as Buena Vista Lake in modern day Kern County before turning around due to the extensive swamps. Initial settlement within the valley by Europeans in the 1830s was largely either by trappers or horse thieves. With the end of the Mexican American War and the beginning of the 694
3-104
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
gold rush in 1848, the San Joaquin Valley became more populated with ranchers and prospectors.

By 1850, California became a state, and Tulare County was established in 1853. Visalia, founded in 1852, is one of the oldest cities in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. During the first few decades, Visalia was a supply center for nearby gold rushes, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock and some agriculture.

Soar Environmental did not receive comments from the Tulare County Native American groups or affiliated individuals regarding the proposed development at the project location. 695
3-105
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Regulatory Setting
In this report “cultural resources” are defined as prehistoric or historical archaeological sites as well as historical objects, buildings, or structures. In accordance with 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.4, “historical” in this report applies to cultural resources which are at least 50 years old. The significance or importance of a cultural resource is dependent upon whether the resource qualifies for inclusion at the local or state level in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or at the federal level in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are called “historical resources” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5[a]). Under this statue the determination of eligibility is partially based on the consideration of the criteria of significance as defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3). Cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are deemed “historic properties.”
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act was adopted in 1966 to preserve historic and archeological sites in the United States. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation offices.

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: A records search was conducted on behalf of the Applicant from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California, to determine if historical or archaeological sites had previously been recorded within the study area, if the Project area had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initial study, and/or whether the region of the field project was known to contain archaeological sites and to thereby be archaeologically sensitive.

There are four recorded resources and two reports identified within the 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. However, there are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.

Although no significant historical resources were identified on the site, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The lead agency has not determined there to be any known tribal cultural resources located within the project area. Additionally, there are not believed to be any paleontological resources or human remains buried within the project area’s vicinity. However, if resources were found to be significant pursuant to 698
3-108
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California Native American Tribe.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that any impacts resulting from project implementation remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Cultural Resources:

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

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
   
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
   
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
   
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
   
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
   
Environmental Setting
Wastewater
Sewer services are provided to the site by the City of Visalia. The City owns a Water Conservation Plant (WCP) to treat wastewater. Presently, the WCP’s permitted capacity as established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is 20 million gallons per day (mgd). A planned upgrade will increase the capacity to 26 mgd. The WCP has a daily flow of 13 mgd. The City of Visalia operates a sewer system divided into eight service areas. The system currently has over 468 miles of sewer pipe.

A Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Calculation memo was prepared for this project to calculate the assumed volume of effluent (Appendix F). The result showed the Project would have an expected flow of 34,880 Gallons per day and produce a total BOD of 733.36 lbs/day and 646.44 lbs/day of TSS. 700
3-110
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Solid Waste
The City of Visalia provides residential waste pickup but has contracts with companies for other aspects. Sunset Waste Systems provides waste collection for commercial uses and processes recyclable material. Tulare County Compost and Biomass processes green waste.

The Tulare County Resource Management Agency manages some solid waste disposal.

Programs include household hazardous waste disposal, electronics recycling, tire recovery, yard waste recycling, metal recycling and appliance recovery programs. The county landfills approximately 300,000 tons of waste per year, which is equivalent to about 5 pounds per person per day or one ton per county resident per year. The County operates three disposal sites: the Visalia Disposal Site, northwest of Visalia; the Woodville Disposal Site, southeast of Tulare; and the Teapot Dome Disposal Site, southwest of Porterville. These sites have a remaining capacity of 24,258,052 cubic yards, with a total capacity of 37,101,523 cubic yards.

Water
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) distribute groundwater supply. Cal Water’s Visalia District supply wells extract groundwater from the Kaweah Groundwater Subbasin. The Cal Water system includes 75 operational groundwater wells, about one third of which have auxiliary power for backup. There are 519 miles of main pipeline in the system. The system includes two elevated 300,000-gallon storage tanks, an ion exchange treatment plant, four granular activated carbon filter plants and one nitrate blending facility. The system currently has the capacity to pump 100,829 acre-feet per year (afy), all from groundwater. This will be able to supply a growing population, as in 2010, 31,762 AF was needed. By 2030, the city is expected to use 43,002 afy.

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

Central Valley RWQCB
The Central Valley RWQCB requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the project is greater than one acre, a SWPPP to manage stormwater generated during project construction will be required. The Central Valley RWQCB regulates Wastewater Discharges to Land by establishing thresholds for discharged pollutants and implementing monitoring programs to evaluate program compliance. This program regulates approximately 1500 dischargers in the region. 701
3-111
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
The Central Valley RWQCB is also responsible for implementing the federal program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES Program is the federal permitting program that regulates discharges of pollutants to surface waters of the U.S. Under this program, a NPDES permit is required to discharge pollutants into Waters of the U.S. There are 350 permitted facilities within the Central Valley Region.

Cal Water Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) – Visalia District The UWMP describes the Visalia District service area, system demand and usage, available water resources, reliability of the water supply, and contingency planning for water shortage.

It also contains a conservation section in compliance with SB X7-7 describing water usage reduction targets and implementation measures. The UWMP identifies five core programs for water conservation in the District that involve promotion of high-efficiency fixtures in residential settings, promotion of high-efficiency irrigation systems, and public information and education.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the objectives and policies related to utilities and service systems that correlate to the proposed project:
• PSCU-O-14: Provide for long-range community water needs by adopting best management practices for water use, conservation, groundwater recharge and wastewater and stormwater management.
• PSCU-P-46: Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks, streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance’s requirements.

The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
o Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping;
o Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of coolseason turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks);
o Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; o Requiring automatic irrigation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weather-based or other self-adjusting technology; o Promoting the use of recycled water; and
o Minimizing overspray and runoff.
• PSCU-P-59: Require new developments to incorporate floodwater detention basins into project designs where consistent with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater Recharge Plan.
• PSCU-P-60: Control urban and stormwater runoff and point and non-point discharge of pollutants. As part of the City’s Stormwater Management Program, adopt and implement a Stormwater Management Ordinance to minimize stormwater runoff rates and volumes, 702
3-112
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
control water pollution, and maximize groundwater recharge. New development will be required to include Low Impact Development features that reduce impermeable surface areas and increase infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
o Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
o Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
o Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
o Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
o On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration; and
o Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.

Discussion
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in new water services.

However, the proposed site has no change of use proposal. Visalia’s current system for water and wastewater has the capacity to manage the projected growth expected in the General Plan. To compensate for these services, new development will be required to pay impact fees.

It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would result in increased demand for any utility services beyond the planned conditions. There is a less than significant impact.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact: Cal Water will provide water services. The City’s water supply source is comprised of 75 operational groundwater wells. The system currently has the capacity to pump 100,829 acre-feet per year (afy), all from groundwater. This will be able to supply a growing population, as in 2010, 31,762 AF was needed. By 2030, the city is expected to use 43,002 afy. Using average per-person water use in Visalia (183 gallons; 2020 Urban Water Management Plan) and the average household size in Visalia (3.05 persons; US Census Bureau), water demand for the proposed 178-unit residential development is estimated to be approximately 99,351 gallons of water daily, or about 111-acre feet per year. With the system capacity at 100,829 afy, there will be enough water supply for the proposed project. The project does not propose any new or expanded uses against the Visalia General Plan. The available 703
3-113
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
water supply is expected to supply the projected population. In 2030, the projected demand is expected to 35,276 AF of groundwater, in 2035, there is expected to be 38,310 AF of groundwater, and in 2040 there is expected to be 41,258 AF of groundwater. To compensate for these services, new development will be required to pay impact fees for new water services, along with the reduced water use implementations from the polices set forth in the Visalia General Plan. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact: The Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) provides municipal sewerage services to 96,000 residents in the city of Visalia. The WWTF has a design capacity of 22 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats a daily average flow of about 13 mgd.

On average, wastewater in Visalia is generated at a rate of approximately 92 gallons per capita per day. With a proposed project population of 543 persons, the overall project projection would be 49,956 gallons per day. Therefore, the Project would generate approximately 0.05 MGD. From the Appendix F calculations, the project expects a total flow of 34,880 GPD. The WWTF has adequate capacity to serve the Project in addition to its existing commitments. The Project will have a less than significant impact on wastewater capacity. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
No Impact: The project does not propose any new or expanded uses and is therefore not anticipated to result in increased generation of solid waste beyond existing conditions.

Additionally, the disposal sites are at less than half capacity. Because the City’s existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate the solid waste currently planned in the General Plan for expanded population, it can be inferred that the existing solid waste infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. The project would not generate solid waste more than State or Local Standards and there is no impact. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact: This proposed project conforms to all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. The proposed project will comply with the adopted policies related to solid waste, and will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to disposal of solid waste, including recycling. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on solid waste regulations. 704
3-114
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
   
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
   
c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
   
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
   
Environmental Setting
There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the vicinity of the project site, and the project site is not categorized as a “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire. This CEQA topic only applies to areas within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ.

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

Discussion
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
705
3-115
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
No Impact: The project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Visalia Fire Department will review the project to ensure the project does not impair emergency response or emergency evacuation. Additionally, the proposed project site is not located within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ. There is no impact. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact: The project is located on a flat area of agricultural and urban land which is considered to be at little risk of fire. Additionally, the proposed project site is not located within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ. There is no impact.
c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than Significant Impact: The construction of the project involves adding new local residential streets, and new and relocated utilities. Utilities such as emergency water sources and power lines would be included as part of the proposed development, however all improvements would be subject to City standards and Fire Chief approval. The proposed project would not exacerbate fire risk and the
impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact: The project site is not located in an area designated as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone and lands associated with the Project site are relatively flat. Therefore, the project would not be susceptible to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire instability or drainage changes. There is no impact.
706
3-116
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential
substantially to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
   
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
   
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
   
Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: This initial study/mitigated negative declaration found the project would have less than significant impacts on biological resources, and mitigation would be required for hydrology and water quality, historical, and Tribal cultural resources. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures for each respective section would ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
707
3-117
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc). Impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact: The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project design to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, which results in a less than significant impact to this checklist item.
708
3-118
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
Mitigation Measure AG-1: Prior to
the issuance of grading or building
permits, the Project proponent
shall mitigate impacts for loss of
up to 32.61 acres of Prime Farmland
and Farmland of Statewide
Importance on the Project site at a
1:1 ratio. The amount of land
requiring mitigation shall
correspond to the amount of land
associated with the issuance of the
grading or building permit, or for
residential land associated with a
subdivision map, the amount of
land associated with the
subdivision map.

The Project proponent shall
implement one or more of the
following measures to mitigate the
Project Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
709
3-119
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
loss: Payment of in-lieu fees,
mitigation banks, fee title
acquisition, and/or conservation
easements, on land(s) within the
Southern San Joaquin Valley of
California, specifically within Kern
County, Tulare County, Kings
County, Fresno County, or Madera
County. The City shall require, at a
minimum: evidence that the
preserved land has adequate
water supply, agricultural zoning,
evidence of land encumbrance
documentation, documentation
that the easement/regulations are
permanent and monitored, and
documentation that the mitigation
strategy is appropriately endowed.

This mitigation shall be verified by
the City prior to issuance of
grading or building permits.

Mitigation Measure BIO1a: Nesting Bird, Roosting Bat, San Joaquin Kit Fox Den Survey
If project-related activities are
scheduled between February 1 to
August 31 (the typical nesting
season), a focused survey for
nests, roosts, burrows or dens shall
be conducted by a Designated
Biologist within fourteen (14)
calendar days prior to the
beginning of Project-related
activities. The Designated Biologist
shall survey a minimum radius of
500-feet for Migratory Bird Treaty
Act birds around the Project Area
and for sign of roosting bats. If no
Project Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
710
3-120
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
active nests, roosts, burrows or
dens are found, project activities
may proceed as scheduled.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Active
Nests or Roosts or Burrows or Dens
If an active nest, roost or burrow or
den is located, then active nests,
roosts or burrows or dens shall be
avoided, and a no-disturbance or
destruction buffer shall be
determined and established by a
Designated Biologist. The buffer
shall be kept in place until after the
breeding nesting season or the
Designated Biologist confirms the
young have fledged, are foraging
independently, and the nest or
burrow is no longer active for the
season. The extent of these buffers
shall be determined by the
Designated Biologist and will
depend on the species present, the
level of noise or construction
disturbance, line of sight between
the nest and the disturbance,
ambient levels of noise and other
disturbances, and other
topographical or artificial barriers.

If an active San Joaquin kit fox den
is located, then consultation with
the USFWS would be required in
order to document this federally
listed species presence in the
Project Area.

Project Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
and ongoing
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
711
3-121
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If
previously unknown resources are
encountered before or during
grading activities, construction
shall stop in the immediate vicinity
of the find and a qualified historical
resources specialist shall be
consulted to determine whether the
resource requires further study. The
qualified historical resources
specialist shall make
recommendations to the City on
the measures that shall be
implemented to protect the
discovered resources, including but
not limited to excavation of the
finds and evaluation of the finds in
accordance with Section 15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance.

If the resources are determined to
be unique historical resources as
defined under Section 15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines, measures
shall be identified by the monitor
and recommended to the Lead
Agency. Appropriate measures for
significant resources could include
avoidance or capping,
incorporation of the site in green
space, parks, or open space, or
data recovery excavations of the
finds. No further grading shall occur
in the area of the discovery until the
Lead Agency approves the
measures to protect these
resources. Any historical artifacts
recovered as a result of mitigation
Project Applicant Ongoing during
construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
712
3-122
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
shall be provided to a City‐
approved institution or person who
is capable of providing long‐term
preservation to allow future
scientific study.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the
event that human remains are
unearthed during excavation and
grading activities of any future
development project, all activity
shall cease immediately. Pursuant
to Health and Safety Code (HSC)
Section 7050.5, no further
disturbance shall occur until the
County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section
5097.98(a). If the remains are
determined to be of Native
American descent, the coroner
shall within 24 hours notify the
Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The NAHC
shall then contact the most likely
descendent of the deceased Native
American, who shall then serve as
the consultant on how to proceed
with the remains. Pursuant to PRC
Section 5097.98(b), upon the
discovery of Native American
remains, the landowner shall
ensure that the immediate vicinity,
according to generally accepted
cultural or archaeological
standards or practices, where the
Native American human remains
are located is not damaged or
disturbed by further development
activity until the landowner has
Project Applicant Ongoing during
construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
713
3-123
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
discussed and conferred with the
most likely descendants regarding
their recommendations, if
applicable, taking into account the
possibility of multiple human
remains. The landowner shall
discuss and confer with the
descendants all reasonable
options regarding the descendants'
preferences for treatment.

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

Project Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: The
Applicant shall require the building
contractor to prepare and submit a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45 days
Project Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
714
3-124
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
prior to the start of work for
approval. The contractor is
responsible for understanding the
State General Permit and instituting
the SWPPP during construction. A
SWPPP for site construction shall be
developed prior to the initiation of
grading and implemented for all
construction activity on the Project
site in excess of one (1) acre, or
where the area of disturbance is
less than one acre but is part of the
Project’s plan of development that
in total disturbs one or more acres.

The SWPPP shall identify potential
pollutant sources that may affect
the quality of discharges to storm
water and shall include specific
BMPs to control the discharge of
material from the site. The following
BMP methods shall include, but
would not be limited to:
• Dust control measures will
be implemented to ensure
success of all onsite
activities to control fugitive
dust;
• A routine monitoring plan
will be implemented to
ensure success of all onsite
erosion and sedimentation
control measures;
• Provisional detention basins,
straw bales, erosion control
blankets, mulching, silt
715
3-125
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
fencing, sand bagging, and
soil stabilizers will be used;
• Soil stockpiles and graded
slopes will be covered afte
two weeks of inactivity and 24
hours prior to and during
extreme weather conditions
and,
• BMPs will be strictly followed to
prevent spills and discharges
of pollutants onsite, such as
material storage, trash
disposal, construction
entrances, etc.

Mitigation Measure HYD-3: A
Development Maintenance Manua
for the Project shall include
comprehensive procedures fo
maintenance and operations of any
stormwater facilities to ensure longterm operation and maintenance o post-construction stormwate
controls. The maintenance manua
shall require that stormwater BMP
devices be inspected, cleaned, and
maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer’s maintenance
conditions. The manual shall require
that devices be cleaned prior to the
onset of the rainy season (i.e., midOctober) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., midMay). The manual shall also require that all devices be checked afte
major storm events. The
Project Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
716
3-126
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
Development Maintenance Manua
shall include the following:
• Runoff shall be directed away
from trash and loading dock
areas;
• Bins shall be lined or otherwise
constructed to reduce leaking
of liquid wastes;
• Trash and loading dock areas
shall be screened or walled to
minimize offsite transport o
trash; and,
Impervious berms, trench catch
basin, drop inlets, or overflow
containment structures nearby
docks and trash areas shall be
installed to minimize the potential
for leaks, spills, or wash down water
to enter the drainage system.
717
3-127
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024

3.7 Supporting Information and Sources

1. AB 3098 List

2. EMFAC2014

3. Tulare County General Plan

4. City of Visalia General Plan

5. City of Visalia General Plan MEIR

6. City of Visalia Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan

7. City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance

8. Engineering Standards, City of Visalia

9. SJVAPCD Regulations and Guidelines

10. FEMA Flood Maps

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

12. 2024 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines

13. California Building Code

14. California Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)

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

16. Government Code Section 65962.5

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

18. Southern California Edison 2022 Power Content Label

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

20. 2020 U.S. Census

21. California Department of Transportation Scenic Roadways

22. EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

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

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

25. Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Soar Environmental Consulting 718
Section 4
List of Preparers
719
4-1
Cameron Ranch Estates
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2024
City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 4
List of Preparers
Project Title: Cameron Ranch Estates
List of Preparers
4-Creeks Inc.
• Molly Baumeister, AICP
• Ellie Krantz, Associate Planner
• Emileo Padilla Chavez, Planning Intern
Persons and Agencies Consulted
The following individuals and agencies contributed to this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration:

City of Visalia
• Paul Bernal, Planning & Community Preservation Director SOAR Environmental Consulting
• Heather Froshour, M.A., R.P.A., Senior Archaeologist
• Kevin R Rowland, M.A., Archaeologist/Historian
720
Appendix A
Projected Emissions from CalEEMod
721
Cameron Ranch Estates
Tulare County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot Acerage based on site plan
Construction Phase -
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Energy Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 178.00 Dwelling Unit 30.52 320,400.00 509 Other Asphalt Surfaces 13.08 Acre 13.08 569,764.80 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
7 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 51

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2029
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/5/2025 5/27/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/22/2025 2/11/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/23/2025 2/12/2025 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 722

2.0 Emissions Summary

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
2025 0.2752 2.3860 2.5784 6.5900e0030.8153 0.0890 0.9043 0.3361 0.0825 0.4186 0.0000 589.9264 589.9264 0.1147 0.0197 598.6685 2026 0.3020 2.3455 3.1328 8.7900e0030.4116 0.0744 0.4860 0.1117 0.0701 0.1817 0.0000 797.9954 797.9954 0.0786 0.0468 813.9060 2027 0.2940 2.3338 3.0742 8.6600e0030.4116 0.0743 0.4859 0.1117 0.0699 0.1816 0.0000 785.8433 785.8433 0.0780 0.0455 801.3640 2028 3.3011 1.2679 1.7883 4.5000e0030.1933 0.0448 0.2381 0.0524 0.0420 0.0944 0.0000 405.7359 405.7359 0.0517 0.0194 412.7941 Maximum 3.3011 2.3860 3.1328 8.7900e0030.8153 0.0890 0.9043 0.3361 0.0825 0.4186 0.0000 797.9954 797.9954 0.1147 0.0468 813.9060 Unmitigated Construction
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/12/2025 1/1/2025
tblLandUse LotAcreage 57.79 30.52
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 30.52 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 30.52 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 723

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
2025 0.2752 2.3860 2.5784 6.5900e0030.8153 0.0890 0.9043 0.3361 0.0825 0.4186 0.0000 589.9259 589.9259 0.1147 0.0197 598.6680 2026 0.3020 2.3455 3.1328 8.7900e0030.4116 0.0744 0.4860 0.1117 0.0701 0.1817 0.0000 797.9951 797.9951 0.0786 0.0468 813.9056 2027 0.2940 2.3338 3.0742 8.6600e0030.4116 0.0743 0.4859 0.1117 0.0699 0.1816 0.0000 785.8429 785.8429 0.0780 0.0455 801.3636 2028 3.3011 1.2679 1.7883 4.5000e0030.1933 0.0448 0.2381 0.0524 0.0420 0.0944 0.0000 405.7357 405.7357 0.0517 0.0194 412.7939 Maximum 3.3011 2.3860 3.1328 8.7900e0030.8153 0.0890 0.9043 0.3361 0.0825 0.4186 0.0000 797.9951 797.9951 0.1147 0.0468 813.9056 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 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2025 3-31-2025 0.9475 0.9475
2 4-1-2025 6-30-2025 0.6300 0.6300
3 7-1-2025 9-30-2025 0.4069 0.4069
4 10-1-2025 12-31-2025 0.6784 0.6784
5 1-1-2026 3-31-2026 0.6581 0.6581
6 4-1-2026 6-30-2026 0.6556 0.6556
7 7-1-2026 9-30-2026 0.6628 0.6628
8 10-1-2026 12-31-2026 0.6728 0.6728
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 724
9 1-1-2027 3-31-2027 0.6531 0.6531
10 4-1-2027 6-30-2027 0.6505 0.6505
11 7-1-2027 9-30-2027 0.6577 0.6577
12 10-1-2027 12-31-2027 0.6676 0.6676
13 1-1-2028 3-31-2028 0.6561 0.6561
14 4-1-2028 6-30-2028 0.5631 0.5631
15 7-1-2028 9-30-2028 1.7978 1.7978
Highest 1.7978 1.7978

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 1.6482 0.0818 1.3489 4.9000e0040.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 79.2701 79.2701 3.5500e0031.4100e00379.7800 Energy 0.0228 0.1949 0.0829 1.2400e0030.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 476.3320 476.3320 0.0255 6.7000e003478.9662 Mobile 0.6566 1.0257 6.1735 0.0151 1.7451 0.0119 1.7570 0.4667 0.0112 0.4779 0.0000 1,393.677 3 1,393.677
3 0.0696 0.0723 1,416.955
5 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 37.1961 0.0000 37.1961 2.1982 0.0000 92.1517 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6793 15.6673 19.3467 0.3792 9.0800e00331.5341 Total 2.3276 1.3024 7.6053 0.0168 1.7451 0.0404 1.7855 0.4667 0.0397 0.5064 40.8754 1,964.946 8 2,005.822
2 2.6760 0.0895 2,099.387
6 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 725

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 1.6482 0.0818 1.3489 4.9000e0040.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 79.2701 79.2701 3.5500e0031.4100e00379.7800 Energy 0.0228 0.1949 0.0829 1.2400e0030.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 476.3320 476.3320 0.0255 6.7000e003478.9662 Mobile 0.6371 0.9702 5.8464 0.0141 1.6246 0.0112 1.6358 0.4345 0.0105 0.4450 0.0000 1,300.341 5 1,300.341
5 0.0666 0.0683 1,322.364
0 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 37.1961 0.0000 37.1961 2.1982 0.0000 92.1517 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6793 15.6673 19.3467 0.3792 9.0800e00331.5341 Total 2.3082 1.2469 7.2782 0.0158 1.6246 0.0397 1.6643 0.4345 0.0390 0.4735 40.8754 1,871.611 0 1,912.486
3 2.6730 0.0855 2,004.796
0 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2025 2/11/2025 5 30 2 Grading Grading 2/12/2025 5/27/2025 5 75
3 Building Construction Building Construction 8/6/2025 6/6/2028 5 740 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

0.84 4.26 4.30 6.01 6.90 1.86 6.79 6.90 1.79 6.50 0.00 4.75 4.65 0.11 4.43 4.51 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 726
4 Paving Paving 6/7/2028 8/22/2028 5 55
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/23/2028 11/7/2028 5 55 OffRoad Equipment
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
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
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
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 648,810; Residential Outdoor: 216,270; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area:
34,186 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 45
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 225
Acres of Paving: 13.08
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 727

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
Site Preparation 7 18.00 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 Building Construction 9 303.00 112.00 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 Architectural Coating 1 61.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 728

3.2 Site Preparation - 2025
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 8.0000e0045.1000e0046.2000e0032.0000e0052.1500e0031.0000e0052.1600e0035.7000e0041.0000e0055.8000e0040.0000 1.5937 1.5937 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.6089 Total 8.0000e0045.1000e0046.2000e0032.0000e0052.1500e0031.0000e0052.1600e0035.7000e0041.0000e0055.8000e0040.0000 1.5937 1.5937 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.6089 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 0.2949 0.0000 0.2949 0.1515 0.0000 0.1515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0371 0.3785 0.2687 5.7000e0040.0163 0.0163 0.0150 0.0150 0.0000 50.2004 50.2004 0.0162 0.0000 50.6063 Total 0.0371 0.3785 0.2687 5.7000e0040.2949 0.0163 0.3112 0.1515 0.0150 0.1665 0.0000 50.2004 50.2004 0.0162 0.0000 50.6063 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 729

3.3 Grading - 2025
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 0.3451 0.0000 0.3451 0.1370 0.0000 0.1370 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1088 1.0479 0.9874 2.3300e0030.0424 0.0424 0.0390 0.0390 0.0000 204.3983 204.3983 0.0661 0.0000 206.0510 Total 0.1088 1.0479 0.9874 2.3300e0030.3451 0.0424 0.3875 0.1370 0.0390 0.1760 0.0000 204.3983 204.3983 0.0661 0.0000 206.0510 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 730

3.3 Grading - 2025
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 2.2100e0031.4300e0030.0172 5.0000e0055.9700e0033.0000e0056.0000e0031.5900e0033.0000e0051.6100e0030.0000 4.4270 4.4270 1.3000e0041.3000e0044.4692 Total 2.2100e0031.4300e0030.0172 5.0000e0055.9700e0033.0000e0056.0000e0031.5900e0033.0000e0051.6100e0030.0000 4.4270 4.4270 1.3000e0041.3000e0044.4692 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 0.3451 0.0000 0.3451 0.1370 0.0000 0.1370 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1088 1.0479 0.9874 2.3300e0030.0424 0.0424 0.0390 0.0390 0.0000 204.3981 204.3981 0.0661 0.0000 206.0507 Total 0.1088 1.0479 0.9874 2.3300e0030.3451 0.0424 0.3875 0.1370 0.0390 0.1760 0.0000 204.3981 204.3981 0.0661 0.0000 206.0507 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 731

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
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 0.0725 0.6609 0.8525 1.4300e0030.0280 0.0280 0.0263 0.0263 0.0000 122.9173 122.9173 0.0289 0.0000 123.6397 Total 0.0725 0.6609 0.8525 1.4300e0030.0280 0.0280 0.0263 0.0263 0.0000 122.9173 122.9173 0.0289 0.0000 123.6397 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 732

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
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 6.3600e0030.2663 0.0774 1.1600e0030.0393 1.7200e0030.0410 0.0113 1.6500e0030.0130 0.0000 111.5987 111.5987 5.0000e0040.0167 116.5999 Worker 0.0474 0.0306 0.3690 1.0300e0030.1279 5.9000e0040.1285 0.0340 5.4000e0040.0346 0.0000 94.7908 94.7908 2.8100e0032.7900e00395.6935 Total 0.0538 0.2968 0.4464 2.1900e0030.1672 2.3100e0030.1695 0.0454 2.1900e0030.0475 0.0000 206.3896 206.3896 3.3100e0030.0195 212.2934 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 0.0725 0.6609 0.8525 1.4300e0030.0280 0.0280 0.0263 0.0263 0.0000 122.9172 122.9172 0.0289 0.0000 123.6395 Total 0.0725 0.6609 0.8525 1.4300e0030.0280 0.0280 0.0263 0.0263 0.0000 122.9172 122.9172 0.0289 0.0000 123.6395 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 733

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
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 0.1785 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6549 302.6549 0.0711 0.0000 304.4335 Total 0.1785 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6549 302.6549 0.0711 0.0000 304.4335 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 734

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
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 0.0153 0.6513 0.1874 2.8100e0030.0966 4.2100e0030.1009 0.0279 4.0300e0030.0320 0.0000 269.7200 269.7200 1.1900e0030.0404 281.7884 Worker 0.1082 0.0670 0.8464 2.4600e0030.3150 1.3700e0030.3163 0.0837 1.2600e0030.0850 0.0000 225.6205 225.6205 6.2300e0036.4000e003227.6841 Total 0.1235 0.7183 1.0338 5.2700e0030.4116 5.5800e0030.4172 0.1117 5.2900e0030.1170 0.0000 495.3405 495.3405 7.4200e0030.0468 509.4725 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 0.1784 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6545 302.6545 0.0711 0.0000 304.4331 Total 0.1784 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6545 302.6545 0.0711 0.0000 304.4331 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 735

3.4 Building Construction - 2027
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 0.1785 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6549 302.6549 0.0711 0.0000 304.4335 Total 0.1785 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6549 302.6549 0.0711 0.0000 304.4335 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 736

3.4 Building Construction - 2027
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 0.0150 0.6463 0.1848 2.7600e0030.0966 4.1800e0030.1008 0.0279 4.0000e0030.0319 0.0000 264.2814 264.2814 1.1500e0030.0395 276.0904 Worker 0.1005 0.0602 0.7903 2.3900e0030.3150 1.2900e0030.3163 0.0837 1.1800e0030.0849 0.0000 218.9070 218.9070 5.6600e0036.0100e003220.8401 Total 0.1156 0.7065 0.9751 5.1500e0030.4116 5.4700e0030.4171 0.1117 5.1800e0030.1169 0.0000 483.1884 483.1884 6.8100e0030.0455 496.9305 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 0.1784 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6545 302.6545 0.0711 0.0000 304.4331 Total 0.1784 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6545 302.6545 0.0711 0.0000 304.4331 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 737

3.4 Building Construction - 2028
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 0.0766 0.6983 0.9007 1.5100e0030.0295 0.0295 0.0278 0.0278 0.0000 129.8749 129.8749 0.0305 0.0000 130.6381 Total 0.0766 0.6983 0.9007 1.5100e0030.0295 0.0295 0.0278 0.0278 0.0000 129.8749 129.8749 0.0305 0.0000 130.6381 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 738

3.4 Building Construction - 2028
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 6.3400e0030.2758 0.0784 1.1600e0030.0415 1.7800e0030.0433 0.0120 1.7000e0030.0137 0.0000 111.1853 111.1853 4.8000e0040.0166 116.1465 Worker 0.0402 0.0234 0.3192 1.0000e0030.1352 5.2000e0040.1357 0.0359 4.7000e0040.0364 0.0000 91.3495 91.3495 2.2200e0032.4400e00392.1321 Total 0.0465 0.2992 0.3976 2.1600e0030.1766 2.3000e0030.1789 0.0479 2.1700e0030.0501 0.0000 202.5348 202.5348 2.7000e0030.0191 208.2787 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 0.0766 0.6983 0.9007 1.5100e0030.0295 0.0295 0.0278 0.0278 0.0000 129.8747 129.8747 0.0305 0.0000 130.6380 Total 0.0766 0.6983 0.9007 1.5100e0030.0295 0.0295 0.0278 0.0278 0.0000 129.8747 129.8747 0.0305 0.0000 130.6380 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 739

3.5 Paving - 2028
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 0.0252 0.2360 0.4009 6.3000e0040.0115 0.0115 0.0106 0.0106 0.0000 55.0530 55.0530 0.0178 0.0000 55.4981 Paving 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0423 0.2360 0.4009 6.3000e0040.0115 0.0115 0.0106 0.0106 0.0000 55.0530 55.0530 0.0178 0.0000 55.4981 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 740

3.5 Paving - 2028
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 9.8000e0045.7000e0047.7600e0032.0000e0053.2900e0031.0000e0053.3000e0038.7000e0041.0000e0058.9000e0040.0000 2.2208 2.2208 5.0000e0056.0000e0052.2398 Total 9.8000e0045.7000e0047.7600e0032.0000e0053.2900e0031.0000e0053.3000e0038.7000e0041.0000e0058.9000e0040.0000 2.2208 2.2208 5.0000e0056.0000e0052.2398 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 0.0252 0.2360 0.4009 6.3000e0040.0115 0.0115 0.0106 0.0106 0.0000 55.0529 55.0529 0.0178 0.0000 55.4980 Paving 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0423 0.2360 0.4009 6.3000e0040.0115 0.0115 0.0106 0.0106 0.0000 55.0529 55.0529 0.0178 0.0000 55.4980 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 741

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2028
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 3.9700e0032.3200e0030.0316 1.0000e0040.0134 5.0000e0050.0134 3.5500e0035.0000e0053.6000e0030.0000 9.0310 9.0310 2.2000e0042.4000e0049.1084 Total 3.9700e0032.3200e0030.0316 1.0000e0040.0134 5.0000e0050.0134 3.5500e0035.0000e0053.6000e0030.0000 9.0310 9.0310 2.2000e0042.4000e0049.1084 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 3.1261 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.7000e0030.0315 0.0498 8.0000e0051.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0030.0000 7.0214 7.0214 3.8000e0040.0000 7.0310 Total 3.1308 0.0315 0.0498 8.0000e0051.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0030.0000 7.0214 7.0214 3.8000e0040.0000 7.0310 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 743

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 744
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 0.6371 0.9702 5.8464 0.0141 1.6246 0.0112 1.6358 0.4345 0.0105 0.4450 0.0000 1,300.341 5 1,300.341
5 0.0666 0.0683 1,322.364
0 Unmitigated 0.6566 1.0257 6.1735 0.0151 1.7451 0.0119 1.7570 0.4667 0.0112 0.4779 0.0000 1,393.677 3 1,393.677
3 0.0696 0.0723 1,416.955
5 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
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Single Family Housing 1,680.32 1,698.12 1521.90 4,679,751 4,356,848 Total 1,680.32 1,698.12 1,521.90 4,679,751 4,356,848
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 38.40 22.60 39.00 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.543900 0.052074 0.169338 0.146948 0.025505 0.006806 0.012216 0.015911 0.000622 0.000466 0.021989 0.001307 0.002918 Single Family Housing 0.543900 0.052074 0.169338 0.146948 0.025505 0.006806 0.012216 0.015911 0.000622 0.000466 0.021989 0.001307 0.002918

5.0 Energy Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 745
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 250.6129 250.6129 0.0212 2.5600e003251.9057 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 250.6129 250.6129 0.0212 2.5600e003251.9057 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0228 0.1949 0.0829 1.2400e0030.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 225.7192 225.7192 4.3300e0034.1400e003227.0605 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0228 0.1949 0.0829 1.2400e0030.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 225.7192 225.7192 4.3300e0034.1400e003227.0605

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 746

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
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 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 Single Family
Housing

4.22982e
+006

0.0228 0.1949 0.0829 1.2400e0030.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 225.7192 225.7192 4.3300e0034.1400e003227.0605 Total 0.0228 0.1949 0.0829 1.2400e0030.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 225.7192 225.7192 4.3300e0034.1400e003227.0605 Unmitigated
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
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 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 Single Family
Housing

4.22982e
+006

0.0228 0.1949 0.0829 1.2400e0030.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 225.7192 225.7192 4.3300e0034.1400e003227.0605 Total 0.0228 0.1949 0.0829 1.2400e0030.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 225.7192 225.7192 4.3300e0034.1400e003227.0605 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 747

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing

1.41313e
+006
250.6129 0.0212 2.5600e003251.9057
Total 250.6129 0.0212 2.5600e003251.9057
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing

1.41313e
+006
250.6129 0.0212 2.5600e003251.9057
Total 250.6129 0.0212 2.5600e003251.9057
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 748

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
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 1.6482 0.0818 1.3489 4.9000e0040.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 79.2701 79.2701 3.5500e0031.4100e00379.7800 Unmitigated 1.6482 0.0818 1.3489 4.9000e0040.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 79.2701 79.2701 3.5500e0031.4100e00379.7800 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 34 Date: 2/28/2024 11:31 AM Cameron Ranch Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 749

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

Visalia City CouncilAugust 5, 2024

Visalia City Council
August 5, 2024