Environmental Document No. 2024-05
City of Visalia Community Development
CITY OF VISALIA
315 E. ACEQUIA AVENUE
VISALIA, CA 93291
NOTICE OF A PROPOSED
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Annexation No. 2024-01 and Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 Project Description:
Annexation No. 2024-01 is a request by Jonathan Frausto/San Joaquin Valley Homes to annex two parcels totaling approximately 59.13-acres into the City Limits of Visalia and to detach said parcels from Tulare County Service Area No. 1.
The Elliott Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5597 is a request by Jonathan Frausto/San Joaquin Valley Homes to subdivide two parcels totaling approximately 59.13-acres into 225 lots for single-family residential use and additional outlots for landscaping and a neighborhood park.
The development of the property, if approved, will create additional housing units in the southwest portion of the City at a density of 3.8 dwelling units to the gross acre within the Low Density Residential designation area, which is consistent with the Visalia General Plan.
Project Location: The project site is located west of South Roeben Street, approximately 650 feet south of West Tulare Avenue (APNs: 087-010-006 and 087-010-008).
Contact Person: Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner, Phone: (559) 713-4443, Email:
[email protected]
Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2388, the Environmental Coordinator of the City of Visalia has reviewed the proposed project described herein and has found that the project will not result in any significant effect upon the environment because of the reasons listed below:
Reasons for Mitigated Negative Declaration: Initial Study No. 2024-05 has identified environmental impact(s) that may occur because of the project; however, with the implementation of mitigation measures identified, impact(s) will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
Copies of the initial study and other documents relating to the subject project may be examined by interested parties at the Planning Division in City Hall East, at 315 East Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA.
In the event that City Hall front counter services are closed to the public, copies of the initial study and other documents relating to the subject project may be requested by contacting project planner Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner, by phone at (559) 713-4443 or by email at [email protected] or by visiting the following webpage:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/ceqa_environmental_review.asp Comments on this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be accepted from June 27, 2024 to July 17, 2024.
Date June 27, 2024 Signed:
Brandon Smith, AICP Environmental Coordinator
City of Visalia
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
for Elliott Subdivision
June 2024
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Prepared By: Prepared For:
City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Initial Study/MND Process 1-1
1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines 1-1
1.2 Initial Study 1-1
1.3 Environmental Checklist 1-2
1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration/Notice of Preparation 1-2
1.5 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-3
1.6 Intended Uses of the Environmental Assessment, Initial Study 1-3
1.7 Notice of Determination 1-4
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 2-1
Section 3: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-1
3.1 Purpose 3-1
3.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-3
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-8
3.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-11
3.5 Environmental Analysis 3-12
I. Aesthetics 3-12
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources 3-20
III. Air Quality 3-29
IV. Biological Resources 3-39
V. Cultural Resources 3-50
VI. Energy 3-58
VII. Geology and Soils 3-63
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-71
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-77
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 3-84
XI. Land Use and Planning 3-92
XII. Mineral Resources 3-97
XIII. Noise 3-99
XIV. Population and Housing 3-105
XV. Public Services 3-107
XVI. Parks and Recreation 3-111
XVII. Transportation 3-114
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 3-122
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 3-130
XX. Wildfire 3-136
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-138
3.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3-140
3.7 Supporting Information and Sources 3-146
Section 4: List of Report Preparers 4-1
Appendices
Appendix A: CalEEMod Report
Appendix B: Biological Evaluation
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D: Traffic Study/VMT Assessment
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 Site Plan 3-7
3-2 Phasing Map 3-8
3-3 Important Farmland Map 3-26
3-4 Soils Map 3-66
3-5 Distance to Schools and Airports 3-80
3-6 City of Tulare General Plan Land Use 3-94
3-7 Zoning Map 3-95
3-8 Construction Related Noise Levels 3-102
3-9 Visalia Existing VMT Per Capita – First Parcel 3-119 3-10 Visalia Existing VMT Per Capita – Second Parcel 3-120 List of Tables
3-1 Important Farmland Developed Under 2030 GP 3-26
3-2 San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status 3-30
3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-32
3-4 SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants 3-35 3-5 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction 3-37 3-6 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Operations 3-37 3-7 Special Status Species Findings 3-42
3-8 SCE and State Average Power Resources 3-58
3-9 On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated from Construction 3-61 3-10 On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated from Operation 3-61 3-11 Greenhouse Gases 3-72
3-12 Projected Project Operational GHG Emissions 3-75
3-13 Project Consistency with Climate Action Plan Strategies 3-75 3-14 City of Visalia Noise Standards 3-100
3-15 Noise Levels of Noise-Generating Equipment 3-102
3-16 Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment 3-103 3-17 Student Generation Rates 3-110
3-18 Proposed Project Trip Generation 3-116
Section 1
Initial Study/Negative
Declaration Process
1-1
Elliott Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 1
CEQA Review Process
Project Title: Elliott Subdivision
1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that the Lead Agency prepare an Initial Study to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment. All phases of the project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. The purposes of an Initial Study, as listed under Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, include:
(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration;
(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration;
(3) Assist in 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 a 225-unit, lowdensity single-family development on 59.13 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area.
The Project site’s existing City of Visalia General Plan land use designation is Residential Low Density, with a current County of Tulare zoning designation of AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 acre minimum site area). The Project’s proposed zoning under City jurisdiction is R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum site area). The Project includes 225 homes, with 1-2
Elliott Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 a minimum of 6,480 square feet per lot, and a 4.15-acre park. The City of Visalia will act as the Lead Agency for processing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under 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 determining if there are significant effects of the project on the environment. A copy of the completed Environmental Checklist is outlined 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 before adoption by the Lead Agency of the Negative Declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period. The public review period (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105) will be 20 days. The City is not anticipating state agency review.
Before 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 based on 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 before 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 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 on potential environmental effects.
According to Section 15070(a) a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
1-3
Elliott Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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 the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable 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 the Lead Agency, will make a determination, based on the environmental review for the Environmental Study, Initial Study, and comments from the general public, if there are less than significant impacts from the proposed project and the requirements of CEQA can be met by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
1.7 Notice of Determination (NOD)
1-4
Elliott Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 The Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination within five working days after deciding to approve the project. The Notice of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15075) shall include the following:
(1) An identification of the project including the project title as identified on the proposed negative declaration, its location, and the State Clearinghouse identification number for the proposed negative declaration if the notice of determination is filed with the State Clearinghouse.
(2) A brief description of the project.
(3) The agency's name and the date on which the agency approved the project. (4) The determination of the agency that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
(5) A statement that a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration was adopted pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
(6) A statement indicating whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project, and whether a mitigation monitoring plan/program was adopted. (7) The address where a copy of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration may be examined.
(8) The identity of the person undertaking a project which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies or the identity of the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use from one or more public agencies. 1-5
Elliott Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024
1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart
Section 2
Project Description
2-1
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 2
Project Description
Project Title: Elliott Property Subdivision
2.1 Project Description and Purpose
The Project proposes a 225-unit, low-density single-family development on 59.13 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area. The Project site’s existing City of Visalia General Plan land use designation is Residential Low Density, with a current County of Tulare zoning designation of AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 acre minimum site area). The Project’s proposed zoning under City jurisdiction is R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum site area). The Project includes 225 homes, with a minimum of 6,480 square feet per lot, and a
4.15-acre park.
The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements, including new and relocated utilities, new residential streets, and improvements of West Tulare Avenue, South Roeben Street, and South Shirk Road. The Persian Ditch will remain, fenced off within the park area. The Project will require no demolition.
The Project will require annexation into the City of Visalia; it is within the Visalia Planning Area and borders the existing City limits and single-family homes. The Project plans to develop the project in two phases (Figure 3-2).
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 S Roeben Street, east of S Shirk Road, and south of W Tulare Avenue.
The site is approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Visalia downtown. The Project involves construction on APNs 087-010-006 and 087-010-008. The site is topographically flat, with agricultural uses to the north and west and single-family housing to the south and east. The site contains agricultural uses, vacant land, and an oak grove.
2.3 Other Permits and Approvals
The following approvals are required for the proposed Project:
• Tentative Subdivision Map
2-2
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Annexation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD and will be required to comply with 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.
The following ministerial approvals are required from the City of Visalia for the proposed Project:
• City of Visalia Building and Encroachment Permits
• Roadway Dedication of Shirk Road, Roeben Street, and Tulare Avenue. 2-3
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map
2-4
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 2-2. Vicinity Map
Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts
3-1
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project Title: Elliott Property Subdivision
This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed construction and operation of 225-unit, low-density single-family development with a park on 59.13 gross acres within the City of Visalia. The City of Visalia will act as Lead Agency for this Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.
3.1 PURPOSE
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 3-2
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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. 3-3
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024
3.2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Project Title: Elliott Property Subdivision
2. Lead Agency: City of Visalia, Planning and Community Preservation Department Contact Person: Cristobal Carrillo, Planning Division
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
Phone Number: (559) 713-4443
3. Applicant: San Joaquin Valley Homes
Contact Person: Nick Peters
5607 Avenida De Los Robles
Visalia, CA 93291
Phone Number: (559)-437-5010
4. Project Location: The proposed Project Site is located within the City of Visalia Planning Area within Tulare County. The Site is west of S Roeben Street, east of S Shirk Road, and south of Tulare Street. The Site is approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Visalia downtown. The Project involves construction on APNs 087-010-006 and 087-010-008. The Site is topographically flat, with agricultural uses to the north and west and single-family housing to the south and east. The Site is zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) by Tulare County but will be zoned R-1-5 by the City of Visalia, pending annexation.
The Visalia General Plan Designation is Low Density Residential. The Site contains agricultural uses, vacant land, and an oak grove.
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 currently zoned AE-20 in the County of Tulare Designation.
7. Project Description: The Project proposes a 225-unit, low-density single-family development on 59.13 gross acres within the City of Visalia Planning Area. The Project site’s existing City of Visalia General Plan land use designation is Residential Low Density, with a current County of Tulare zoning designation of AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum site area). The Project’s proposed zoning under City jurisdiction is R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum site area). The Project includes 225 homes, with a minimum of 6,480 square feet per lot, and a 4.15-acre park.
The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements, including new and relocated utilities, new residential streets, and improvements of West Tulare Avenue, 3-4
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 South Roeben Street, and South Shirk Road. The Persian Ditch will remain, fenced off, in the park area. within the park area. The Project will require no demolition.
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Direction Adjacent Street Adjacent Property Usage
North None (Future West Tulare Street) Agricultural and Irrigated Pasture South None Residential
East South Roeben Street Residential
West South Shirk Road Rural Residence and Agricultural
9. Required Approvals: The following approvals are required for the proposed project:
• Tentative Subdivision Map
• Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Annexation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD and will be required to comply with Rule VIII, 3135, 4101, and 9510.
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWPPP. The proposed Project Site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB will require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent impacts related to stormwater because of Project construction.
The following ministerial approvals are required from the City of Visalia for the proposed project:
• City of Visalia Building and Encroachment Permits
• Roadway Dedication of Shirk Road, Roeben Street, and Whitendale Avenue
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. These Rancherias are not located within the City limits. 3-5
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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.
11. Parking and access: Vehicular access to the Project is available via S Shirk Road, S Roeben Street, and the future expansion of W Tulare Road to the north of the Project. The Project includes new streets and courts that provide full access to the Project site. These internal streets will have a ROW of 60’, including sidewalks and parkways on both sides.
Improvements will be made to Shirk Road, Tulare Avenue, and Roeben Street. The Right of Way (ROW) of Shirk Road will have an ultimate ROW of 110’ with a center median, with the Project providing the eastern half of improvements. The eastern half of Shirk Road will include two lanes of traffic, a bike lane, a sidewalk, and landscaping. The ROW of S. Roeben Street will have an ultimate ROW of 84’. The Project will build out the western half of Roeben Street to include a southbound lane of traffic, sidewalk, bike lane, and landscaping. Tulare Avenue, currently a dirt road to the north of the Project, will have an ultimate ROW of 84’, with the Project providing the southern half of improvements, including new pavement for an eastbound lane of traffic, a bike lane, a sidewalk, and landscaping. During construction, workers will utilize existing parking areas and/or temporary construction staging areas for parking vehicles and equipment.
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. Electricity will be provided by Southern California Edison, telephone will be provided by AT&T, and natural gas will be provided by Southern California Gas. Water will be provided by Cal Water and sewer services will be provided by the City of Visalia via existing lines. A stormwater pond will be located in the Southwest corner of the site. During construction, a temporary stormwater basin will be utilized.
3-6
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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
3-7
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 3-1: Site Plan
3-8
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 3-2: Phasing Plan
3-9
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 projectspecific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-Site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. 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 cross-referenced).
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.
3-10
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024
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. 3-11
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services Agriculture and Forest Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Transportation Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service System Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology and soils Population Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.
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
__________________________ City of Visalia
PRINTED NAME AGENCY
Brandon Smith 6/27/2024
3-12
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 21099, 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 to 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 3-13
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 General Plan regarding visual resources is to preserve and re-establish the city’s natural waterway system and Valley Oak tree groves with parks, conservation areas, and trailways.
Scenic Vistas
The Visalia General Plan identifies the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east and agricultural lands surrounding the city as scenic vistas surrounding Visalia.
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: Eastern-facing view of the central-western portion of subject Site parcel 087-010- 008 (central-western portion of the subject site).
3-14
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Photo 2: Western-facing view of the northeastern portion of subject Site parcel 087-010-008 (northeastern portion of the subject site).
Photo 3: View of the irrigation canal (Persian Ditch) located in a presumed easement in the southeastern portion of the subject site.
3-15
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Photo 4: Southern-facing view of the former residential area located adjacent to South Roeben Street in the southeastern portion of the subject site.
Regulatory Setting
Scenic Roadways
The California Scenic Highway Program was established in 1963 by the State Legislature to protect and enhance the natural beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through conservation strategies. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that have either been officially designated or are eligible for designation. State laws affiliated with governing the scenic highway program can be found in Sections 260-263 in The Street and Highways Code.
State Scenic Highways
According to the California Department of Transportation mapping of State Scenic Highways, the City of Visalia does not have officially designated State Scenic Highways, however, the City has one eligible State Scenic Highway, a 44-mile stretch of State Route 198 from State Route 99 to Sequoia National Park. This is designated as a scenic corridor in the City’s General Plan This portion of the highway is approximately 0.5 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 3-16
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 waterways within the City’s Urban Area Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines.
• LU-P-34: Work with Tulare County to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth boundaries and to promote the of use agricultural preserves, where they will promote orderly development. • LU-P-42: Develop scenic corridor and gateway guidelines that will maintain the agricultural character of Visalia at its urban fringe.
• LU-P-72: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good Site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
• OSC-P-13: In new neighborhoods that include waterways, improvement of the waterway corridor, including preservation and/or enhancement of natural features and development of a continuous waterway trail on at least one side, shall be required. • OSC-P-17: Require that new development along waterways maintain a visual orientation and active interface with waterways. Develop design guidelines to be used for review and approval of subdivision and development proposals to illustrate how this can be accomplished for different land uses in various geographic settings. • OSC-P-34: Enhance views and public access to Planning Area waterways and other significant features such as Valley Oak groves consistent with flood protection, irrigation water conveyance, habitat preservation and recreation planning policies. 3-17
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Tulare County General Plan
The 2030 Tulare County General Plan contains the following goals and policies related to aesthetic resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• SL-1.1 Natural Landscapes: During review of discretionary approvals, including parcel and subdivision maps, the County shall as appropriate, require new development to not significantly impact or block views of Tulare County’s natural landscapes. o Be sited to minimize obstruction of views from public lands and rights-of-ways, o Screen parking areas from view,
o Include landscaping that screens the development,
o Limit the impact of new roadways and grading on natural settings, and o 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. o Referencing traditional agricultural building forms and materials, o Screening and breaking up parking and paving with landscaping, and o Minimizing light pollution and bright signage.
• SL-1.3 Watercourses: The County shall protect visual access to, and the character of, Tulare County’s scenic rivers, lakes, and irrigation canals. • 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:
o Maintaining urban separators between cities and communities, o Encouraging cities to master plan mixed-density neighborhoods at their edges, locating compatible lower density uses adjacent to working and natural landscapes, and
o 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.). 3-18
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 City of Visalia Valley Oak Ordinance
The City’s Valley Oak Ordinance provides basic standards, measures, and compliance requirements for the preservation and protection of native Valley oak trees and landmark trees. The Ordinance prohibits the destruction of oak trees except with an oak tree removal permit. A permit may be granted only if it is found that the oak tree is in danger of falling on a structure or is a host for a plant, pest, or disease endangering other species; if removal is necessary to allow the reasonable enjoyment of private property; or if urban forestry or land management practices warrant removal. If a tree removal permit is granted, the tree must either be replaced by new oak trees on the same property, or by paying mitigation fees to be used for the establishment of new oak trees on other property.
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 a 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 20 miles east of the Project Site. 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. Highway 198, 0.5 miles north of the Site, is eligible to become a State Scenic Highway. The Site is not visible from Highway 198 and will not impact any views. 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?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project Site contains an Oak Grove in the northern portion. Following the Valley Oak Ordinance, any trees that must be removed will be inspected and will be replaced. The materials, signage, fencing, landscaping, and building materials used in the construction of the Project will be selected based on their 3-19
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 ability to improve the overall visual character of the area. The proposed Project will comply with the Valley Oak Ordinance (Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 12.24) as well as all applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. There is a less than significant impact.
d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project would result in new lighting sources on the Project Site consistent with adjacent residential development. New lighting sources would include interior lighting from residences, street lighting, and security lighting. All street and landscape lighting will be consistent with the City’s lighting standards, which are developed to minimize impacts related to excessive light and glare. Although the Project will introduce new light sources to the area, all lighting will be consistent with adjacent residential land uses and the City’s lighting standards. The impacts are less than significant.
3-20
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g)?
3-21
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 d) Result in the loss of forestland or
conversion of forest land to nonforest 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 a Williamson Act Contract or a Farmland Security Zone contract. The proposed Site is designated as with two land use designations, Prime Farmland and Urban and Built-Up Land, 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. To the north and west is additional Prime Farmland. To the south and east are Urban and Built-up land.
Regulatory Setting
California Land Conservation Act of 1965
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, allows local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict the activities on specific parcels of land to agricultural or open space uses. 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.
Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 18.04: Agricultural Land Preservation Program 3-22
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Chapter 18.04 of the Visalia Municipal Code details the Agricultural Land Preservation Program (Program) in Visalia. The Program intends to establish 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.
California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) The FMMP is implemented by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to conserve and protect agricultural lands within the State. Land is included in this program based on soil type, annual crop yields, and other factors that influence the quality of farmland. The FMMP mapping categories for the most important statewide farmland are as follows:
• Prime Farmland has the ideal physical and chemical composition for crop production.
It has been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and can produce sustained yields. 51% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Prime Farmland.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance has also been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and is only slightly poorer quality than Prime Farmland. 11% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. • Unique Farmland has been cropped in the four years prior to classification and does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance but has produced specific crops with high economic value. Less than 1% of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Unique Farmland.
• Farmland of Local Importance encompasses farmland that does not meet the criteria for the previous three categories. These may lack irrigation, produce major crops, be zoned as 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-14: Recognize the importance of agriculture-related business to the City and region, and support the continuation and development of agriculture and agriculture related enterprises in and around Visalia by:
o Implementing growth boundaries and cooperating with the County on agricultural preservation efforts;
o Accommodating agriculture-related industries in industrial districts; o Facilitating successful farmers’ markets;
o Helping to promote locally grown and produced agricultural goods, and the image of Visalia and Tulare County as an agricultural region. • LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. 3-23
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • 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. • LU-P-30: Maintain greenbelts, or agricultural/open space buffer areas, between Visalia and other communities by implementing growth boundaries and working with Tulare County and land developers to prevent premature urban growth north of the St. Johns River and in other sensitive locations within the timeframe of this General Plan. • LU-P-31: Promote the preservation of permanent agricultural open space around the City by protecting viable agricultural operations and land within the City limits in the airport and wastewater treatment plant environs.
• LU-P-32: Continue to maintain a 20-acre minimum for parcel map proposals in areas designated for Agriculture to encourage viable agricultural operations in the Planning Area.
• OSC-P-27: To allow efficient cultivation, pest control and harvesting methods; require buffer and transition areas between urban development and adjoining or nearby agricultural land.
• OSC-P-28: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping, and construction.
Tulare County General Plan
The 2030 Tulare County General Plan contains following goals related to agricultural resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• AG-1.1: The County shall maintain agriculture as the primary land use in the valley region of the County, not only in recognition of the economic importance of agriculture, but also in terms of agriculture’s real contribution to the conservation of open space and natural resources.
• AG-1.6: The County shall consider developing an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) to help protect and preserve agricultural lands (including “Important Farmlands”), as defined in this Element. This program may require payment of an inlieu fee sufficient to purchase a farmland conservation easement, farmland deed restriction, or other farmland conservation mechanism as a condition of approval for conservation of important agricultural land to non-agricultural use. If available, the ACEP shall be used for replacement lands determined to be of statewide significance (Prime or other Important Farmlands), or sensitive and necessary for the preservation of agricultural land, including land that may be a part of a community separator as part of a comprehensive program to establish community separators. The in-lieu fee or other conservation mechanism shall recognize the importance of land value and shall require equivalent mitigation.
3-24
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • AG-1.7: The County shall promote the preservation of its agricultural economic base and open space resources through the implementation of resource management programs such as the Williamson Act, Rural Valley Lands Plan, Foothill Growth Management Plan or similar types of strategies and the identification of growth boundaries for all urban areas located in the County.
• AG-1.8: The County shall not approve applications for preserves or regular Williamson Act contracts on lands located within a UDB and/or HDB unless it is demonstrated that the restriction of such land will not detrimentally affect the growth of the community involved for the succeeding 10 years, that the property in question has special public values for open space, conservation, other comparable uses, or that the contract is consistent with the publicly desirable future use and control of the land in question. If proposed within a UDB of an incorporated city, the County shall give written notice to the affected city pursuant to Government Code §51233.
• AG-1.10: The County shall oppose extension of urban services, such as sewer lines, water lines, or other urban infrastructure, into areas designated for agriculture use unless necessary to resolve a public health situation. Where necessary to address a public health issue, services should be located in public rights-of-way in order to prevent interference with agricultural operations and to provide ease of access for operation and maintenance. Service capacity and length of lines should be designed to prevent the conversion of agricultural lands into urban/suburban uses. • AG-1.11: The County shall examine the feasibility of employing agricultural buffers between agricultural and non-agricultural uses, and along the edges of UDBs and HDBs.
Considering factors include the type of operation and chemicals used for spraying, building orientation, planting of trees for screening, location of existing and future rights-of-way (roads, railroads, canals, power lines, etc.), and unique site conditions. • LU-1.8: The County shall encourage and provide incentives for infill development to occur in communities and hamlets within or adjacent to existing development in order to maximize the use of land within existing urban areas, minimize the conversion of existing agricultural land, and minimize environmental concerns associated with new development.
• LU-2.1: The County shall maintain agriculturally-designated areas for agriculture use by directing urban development away from valuable agricultural lands to cities, unincorporated communities, hamlets, and planned community areas where public facilities and infrastructure are available.
• PF-1.2: The County shall ensure that urban development only takes place in the following areas:
o Within incorporated cities and CACUDBs
o Within the UDBs of adjacent cities in other counties, unincorporated communities, planned community areas, and HDBs of hamlets
3-25
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 o Within foothill development corridors as determined by procedures set forth in Foothill Growth Management Plan
o Within areas set aside for urban use in the Mountain Framework Plan and the mountain sub-area plans; and
o Within other areas suited for non-agricultural development, as determined by the procedures set forth in the Rural Valley Lands Plan.
• PF-1.3: The County shall encourage those types of urban land uses that benefit from urban services to develop within UDBs and HDBs. Permanent uses which do not benefit from urban services shall be discouraged within these areas. This shall not apply to agricultural or agricultural support uses, including the cultivation of land or other uses accessory to the cultivation of land provided that such accessory uses are time-limited through Special Use Permit procedures.
• PF-1.4: The County shall encourage urban development to locate in existing UDBs and HDBs where infrastructure is available or may be established in conjunction with development. The County shall ensure that development does not occur unless adequate infrastructure is available, that sufficient water supplies are available or can be made available, and that there are adequate provisions for long term management and maintenance of infrastructure and identified water supplies. 3-26
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 3-3: Important Farmlands Map
Elliott Subdivision
3-27
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 nonagricultural use? Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is currently occupied by agricultural land with field crops. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 57.82 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 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 57.82 acres of Prime Farmland, which would result in a 0.13 percent decrease in the total Important Farmland inventory of Visalia Planning Area and a 0.17 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
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. 3-28
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 However, following Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 18.04: Agricultural Land Preservation Program, the Project will be required to preserve 43.11 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. This is detailed in the Agricultural Mitigation Memo (Appendix E).
The developer will acquire a minimum of 47.35 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. This land will be located in the southern San Joaquin Valley, but outside of Visalia’s Sphere of Influence. This farmland will be preserved for long-term agricultural uses. There is a less than significant impact. b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Site is currently zoned for agriculture by Tulare County.
However, it is within the Visalia Planning Area, Tier 2 Development Boundary and will 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 development including the Project Site would be focused in and around existing communities. This would prevent new infrastructure from interfering with surrounding farmland. The Project does not include any features which could result in the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. There is a less than significant impact.
3-29
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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
non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Environmental Setting
Air pollution is directly related to regional topography. Topographic features can either stimulate the movement of air or restrict air movement. California is divided into regional air basins based on topographic air drainage features. The proposed Project Site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the 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 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. Table 3-3 displays Ambient Air Quality Standards for California and Nationally.
3-30
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Pollutant Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal Standardf Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment PM 10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
PM 2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No
Designation/Classification Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
a See 40 CFR Part 81
b See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.
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 3-31
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Ozone (03)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
-- Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet 8 Hour
Photometry 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3
)
0.075 ppm
(147
μg/m3
)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24 Hour 50 μg/m
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 --
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24 Hour
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
35 μg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3
)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
35 ppm
(40
mg/m3)
--
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm (10
mg/m3) --
8 Hour
(Lake
Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) -- --
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) 8
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3
) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb
(188
μg/m3
)
--
Gas Phase Annual
Chemiluminescence
Arithmetic
Mean
0.030 ppm
(57 μg/m3)
53 ppb
(100
μg/m3
)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3
)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb
(196
μg/m3
)
--
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3 Hour -- -- 0.5 ppm
(1300 μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3
)
0.14 ppm
(for
certain
areas)9
--
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
--
0.030
ppm (for
certain
areas)9
--
Lead10,11
30 Day
Average
1.5 μg/m3
Atomic Absorption
-- --
High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
Absorption
Calendar
Quarter --
1.5 μg/m3
(for
certain
areas)11
Same as
Primary
Rolling 3- Standard
Month
Average
-- 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles12
8 Hour See footnote 12
Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance
through Filter Tape No National Standard
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion
Chromatography
3-32
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Table 3-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards; Source: SJVAPCD, San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status
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 Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride10 24 Hour
0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each Site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one.
For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of 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.
3-33
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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
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.
Nonroad Diesel Rule
The EPA established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new offroad diesel equipment, onroad diesel trucks, and harbor craft. New construction equipment used for the project, including heavy duty trucks, off-road construction equipment, and tugboats will be required to comply with the emission standards.
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 3-34
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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.
State Tailpipe Emission Standards
To reduce emissions from off-road diesel equipment, onroad diesel trucks, and harbor craft, ARB established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new engines. New construction equipment used for the project, including heavy duty trucks, off-road construction equipment, tugboats, and barges, will be required to comply with the standards 3-35
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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, as shown in Table 3-4.
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, Recommended Thresholds of Significant Impact
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 of PM10 and NOX emissions from growth on the SJVB. This rule places application and emission reduction requirements on applicable development projects to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off-site SJVAPCD-administered projects, or a combination of the two. This Project will submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application following 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.
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to air quality that correlate to the proposed project:
3-36
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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-3: Support implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regulations on the use of wood-burning fireplaces, as well as their regulations for the installation of EPA-certified wood heaters or approved woodburning appliances in new residential development and a “No Burn” policy on days when the air quality is poor. • 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.
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 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 3-37
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-5 below, Project construction-related emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.
CO
(tpy)
ROG
(tpy)
SOx
(tpy)*
Nox
(tpy)
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
Emissions Generated
from Project
Construction
2.85 3.80 .0063 2.71 0.92 0.44
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 vehicle 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)
9.30 2.83 0.021 1.57 2.25 0.64
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 the construction and operation of the proposed Project would be below the thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD, the 3-38
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan and there is a less than significant impact. b) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in the Visalia Planning Area into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The significance thresholds and rules developed by the SJVAPCD are designed to prevent projects from violating air quality standards or significantly contributing to existing air quality 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 the 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 south and east 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 conflicting land use (surrounding land includes residential neighborhoods) to the area and will not have any component that would typically emit odors. The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3-39
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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?
Discussion for this section originates from the Biological Resource Assessment that was prepared for this project by Soar Environmental Consulting to identify biological resources present or potentially present on the project site and assess the significance of project impacts on such resources per provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the state and federal endangered species acts (FESA and CESA respectively), California Fish and Game Code, and California Water Code. The research included the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife 3-40
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory. The full document can be found in Appendix B.
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is in the western portion of the Visalia Planning Area within the lower San Joaquin Valley, in the Central Valley of California. The Central Valley is bordered 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.
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 with a very gradual west facing slope at approximately 305 feet elevation in the eastern property and 301 feet elevation on the western edge of the property. The entire property had been disced and is composed of approximately 49 acres of active agricultural land, 5 acres of regularly maintained valley oak (Quercus lobata) woodland, and 5 acres of grassland. The proposed Project Site is in an urban and agricultural interface environment just outside the western boundary of the City of Visalia. The proposed Project Site is bounded by agricultural fields to the north and east, with single-family homes to the south. A large open grassland field property borders the northern edge, and a large ranch-style residential property with open valley oak woodland occurs along the western edge.
One small, unvegetated open water canal extends north to south at the southeastern edge of the site. Another open water channel is approximately 40 yards outside the northwest corner, west of Shirk Road and drains westward across the wooded ranch property outside the Project Area. These canals are maintained with no vegetation in the channels. The southern canal that occurs within the Project Area is proposed to be turned into an open space park. The canal near the northwest corner is outside of the Project Area. No potentially jurisdictional waters or wetland features occur within the proposed Project Area. There were no signs of pooling water, vernal pool habitat or seasonal wetlands during the focused field survey. The area is active agricultural land or is actively maintained and disced. There are no structures on the property.
While no shrub layer occurs on the property, there is a stand of valley oak woodland in the northwest corner that has approximately 31 valley oak trees and other oak saplings. One of these trees is approximately 30” diameter-at-breast height (dbh), however, most of the valley oak trees are between 12” to 24” dbh, respectively. One other large valley oak tree occurs near 3-41
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 the middle of the Project Area along the southern edge. This oak tree would be considered a heritage valley oak, is greater than 36” dbh, and is a multi-trunked tree. The oak trees provide limited nesting and foraging habitat for birds and wildlife; however, the uncultivated grassland and agricultural land represent potential foraging habitat for terrestrial bird and wildlife species.
Prior to performing the Habitat Assessment, Soar Environmental conducted a records search for threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the Project Area. The records search included a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory. A full list of special-status wildlife and vascular plant species with the potential to occur in the Project Area is included below in Table 3-7.
No special-status plant species and one sensitive wildlife species were observed during the site reconnaissance. Nuttall’s woodpecker is a species covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and a CDFW bird species of concern. Several other bird species were observed flying and perched on oak trees in the area including red-tail hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). While no other special status species were observed, the Project Area contains potentially suitable habitat for the following species:
Species Name
Species
Observedon
Project Site?
Potential for Occurrence on Project Site
Amphibians
Western spadefoot toad
(Spea hammondii) No
Low: Species is known to occur within 2 miles of
the Project Area and there is no breeding habitat
and limited upland dispersal habitat for the
species in the Project Area.
California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) No
Low: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of
the site and there is limited potential estivating
habitat for the species in the oak woodland and
grassland on the site.
Birds
Oak titmouse
(Baeolophus inornatus) No
Low. Limited potential nesting and foraging
habitat in the Project Area.
Nuttall’s woodpecker
(Dryobates nuttallii) Yes
Present. Species observed foraging in Project
Area during survey. Limited potential nesting and
abundant foraging habitat in the Project Area.
3-42
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) No
High: Species known to occur from nine CNDDB
records within 5 miles west of Project Area. The
closest previous record is one mile west. There is
limited nesting and abundant foraging habitat in
the Project Area.
Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor) No
None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity
of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis)
No
Low: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity
of the site and there is limited suitable habitat for
the species on the site.
Invertebrates
Monarch butterfly (Danaus
plexippus) No
None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity
of the site and there is no suitable habitat or
milkweed host plants for the species on the site.
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
No
None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity
of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species in the form of elderberry shrubs on the
site.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi) No
None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity
of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi) No
None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity
of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Mammals
Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
exilis)
No
None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity
of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes
macrotis mutica) No
Low: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of
the site and there is limited potential suitable
dispersal and foraging habitat for the species in
the Project Area.
Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
No
None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity
of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
species on the site.
Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
No
Low: Limited oak woodland roosting and
moderate grassland foraging habitat for this
species in the Project Area. The area is heavily
farmed and maintained. Species is known from
one record 2 miles southeast of Project Area.
3-43
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Reptiles
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia sila) No
None: Species is not known to occur in the vicinity
of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the
Species in the Project Area.
Western pond turtle
(Actinemys marmorata) No
Low: Low quality potential habitat in the form of
an open water unvegetated canal on the eastern
edge and another just offsite to the northwest
leave potential for this species to occur nearby.
One historic occurrence of the species is known
from four miles east of Project Area.
Plant Species Name
Species
Observedin
Project Area
Potential For Occurrence in Project Area
California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus) No
Low. The Project Area is active agricultural land
and limited maintained grassland and oak
woodland that is disced annually.
Ewan’s larkspur
(Delphinium hanseni ssp.
ewanianum)
No
Low. The Project Area is active agricultural land
and limited maintained grassland and oak
woodland that is disced annually.
Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum) No
Low. The Project Area is active agricultural land
and limited maintained grassland and oak
woodland that is disced annually.
Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata ssp.
cordulata)
No
Low. The Project Area is active agricultural land
and limited maintained grassland and oak
woodland that is disced annually.
Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula) No
Low. The Project Area is active agricultural land
and limited maintained grassland and oak
woodland that is disced annually.
Subtle orache
(Atriplex subtilis) No
Low. The Project Area is active agricultural land
and limited maintained grassland and oak
woodland that is disced annually.
Table 3-7: Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site Regulatory Setting
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): defines an endangered species as “any species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species 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 3-44
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Although the USFWS and its parent administration, the U.S. Department of the Interior, have traditionally interpreted the FMBTA as prohibiting incidental as well as intentional “take” of birds, a January 2018 legal opinion issued by the Department of the Interior now states that incidental take of migratory birds while engaging in otherwise lawful activities is permissible under the FMBTA. However, California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities.
Birds of Prey (CA Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5): Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are afforded additional protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs.
Clean Water Act: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of (1972) is to maintain, restore, and enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged and fill materials into “waters of the United States” (jurisdictional waters). Waters of the US including navigable waters of the 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.
City of Visalia General Plan: The 2030 Visalia 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:
3-45
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • OSC-P-8: Protect, restore, and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation along Planning Area waterways, including the St. Johns River; Mill, Packwood, and Cameron Creeks; and segments of other creeks and ditches where feasible, in conformance with the Parks and Open Space diagram of this General Plan. • OSC-P-19: Establish easements or require dedication of land along waterways to protect natural habitat areas, allow maintenance operations and promote trails and bike paths.
• OSC-P-26: Establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for control of invasive plant species where such plants could adversely impact wildlife habitat. • OSC-P-27: Establish a “no net loss” standard for sensitive habitat acreage, including wetlands and vernal pools potentially affected by development. • OSC-P-30: Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any discretionary development projects involving riparian habitat, wetlands, or special status species habitat. Early in the development review process, consult with California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies. • OSC-P-31: Protect and enhance habitat for special status species, designated under state and federal law. Require protection of sensitive habitat areas and special status species in new development in the following order: 1) avoidance; 2) onsite mitigation, and 3) offsite mitigation.
3-46
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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 Incorporation: The Biological Resource Assessment (Appendix B) conducted for the proposed Project found that Swainson’s hawk has a high potential to occur in the Project Area based on potential oak woodland nesting habitat, abundant foraging field and grassland habitat, and many previous CNDDB occurrences near the Project Area. Nuttall’s woodpecker, a MBTA species and CDFW species of concern was observed foraging during the Habitat Assessment in the Project Area. San Joaquin kit fox, western yellow-billed cuckoo, western spadefoot toad, California tiger salamander, western mastiff bat, and western pond turtle have low potential to occur in the Project Area. While most of the Project Area is active agricultural land, the northwest portion of the Project Area includes approximately 5.6 acres of valley oak woodland and 4.4 acres of maintained annual grassland. This portion of the Project Area contains suitable potential habitat for these special-status species. Localized land management techniques including regular agricultural activity and routine land management for fire hazard abatement, such as discing, further reduces the potential for these species to occur in the proposed Project Area.
Based on the findings of the BRA, the proposed development of this property has the potential to impact nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson Hawk and other MBTA bird species, such as Nuttall’s woodpecker, if any are found nesting in the trees within the Project Area. With incorporation of the Swainson Hawk and nesting bird mitigation measures below (Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-1a, BIO-1b, BIO-1c), which include pre-construction nesting bird surveys and reporting, the proposed Project impacts to these species would be less than significant.
b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact: The Visalia General Plan identifies Grasslands, Valley Oak Riparian Woodland, Valley Oak Woodland, Vernal Pools, and Wetlands as natural communities to protect. The northwest portion of the Project Area has approximately 5.6 acres of Valley Oak Woodland. The Valley Oak Woodland has approximately 31 oak trees growing in it and may require an oak tree removal permit per the City of Visalia oak tree ordinance. If the oak trees are to be removed, the Project proponent pays the permit fees and requirements for the oak removal permit from the City for cutting and removing these trees to cover oak tree planting and establishment. The City of Visalia has an oak tree ordinance (Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 12.24) that protects valley oak trees with a 3-47
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
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? No Impact: An unvegetated maintained open water canal runs through the eastern portion of the site. However, the project would not affect the canal and leave a buffer surrounding the canal. No potentially jurisdictional wetlands occur in the Project Area. In regard to federally protected wetlands, the Project will have no 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 primarily composed of cultivated agricultural lands surrounded by residential development and paved roads.
Therefore, the proposed Project Area contains limited natural habitat that would be likely to function as a wildlife movement corridor. Due to the level of agricultural activity, residential development of the surrounding area, limited suitable undisturbed oak woodland and grassland habitat in the Project Area, and the occurrence of larger intact stands of valley oak woodland habitat immediately west of the Project Area, proposed Project impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed Project will result in the removal of approximately 32 valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees that are greater than 2” dbh. At least two of the valley oak trees on the property are greater than 24” dbh trees. One large approximately 36” dbh multi-trunk valley oak occurs in the middle of the property on the southern edge, while the remaining 31 valley oak trees are in the northwestern portion of the property. In the northern oak woodland stand, approximately 20 of the oak trees range from 12” to 24” dbh. One larger valley oak in this stand is approximately 30” dbh. The remaining 10 small oak trees range from 4” to 12” dbh. Removal of these oak trees would require an Oak Tree Permit. The City of Visalia has an oak tree ordinance (Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 12.24) 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 3-48
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 used for oak tree planting. Visalia's ordinance protects valley oaks over 2 inches dbh, requiring a permit for removal and mandating replacement or a fee for tree planting. The impact would be less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact: There are no known habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) in the proposed Project area. There would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Swainson's Hawk Nesting Habitat If construction, grading, or Project-related improvements are to commence between March 1 and September 15, a focused survey for Swainson's hawk nests on the site and within ¼ mile of the site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no later than 30 days prior to the start of construction work (including clearing and grubbing). If active nests are found, the California Fish and Wildlife shall be contacted to determine appropriate protective measures, and these measures shall be implemented prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities. If no active nests are found during the focused survey, no further mitigation will be required.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Nesting Bird and Roosting Bat Survey If Project-related activities are scheduled between February 1 to August 31 (the typical nesting season), a focused survey for nests shall be conducted by a Designated Biologist within three (3) calendar days prior to the beginning of Project-related activities. The Designated Biologist shall survey a minimum radius of 500-feet for MBTA birds around the Project Area and for sign of roosting bats. If no active nests or roosts are found, project activities may proceed as scheduled.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Active Nests or Roosts
If an active nest or roost is found, active nests should be avoided, and a no disturbance or destruction buffer shall be determined and established by a Designated Biologist through consultation with CDFW. A report will be prepared documenting any active nest(s) and CDFW will be contacted and consulted in order to approve an adequate buffer size for the species. 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 is no longer active for the season. The extent of these buffers shall be determined by CDFW and established 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.
3-49
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Project Delay
If a lapse in project-related work of fourteen (14) calendar days or longer occurs, the Designated Biologist shall complete another focused survey before Project work can be reinitiated.
3-50
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 Elliott Property Subdivision was conducted by SOAR Environmental Consulting (Appendix C). The Project proposes to construct a 225-unit, low-density single-family development and a 4.15-acre park. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Environmental Setting
Penutian-speaking Yokuts tribal groups occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley region and much of the nearby Sierra Nevada. Yokuts villages apparently extended up to, but not into, the mouths of the canyons on the northern and western fronts of the Tehachapi Mountains, well into the foothills and lower elevations of the Sierra Nevada on the east, and to the crest of the Temblor Range on the west. The Yokuts are Penutian speakers and are linguistically related to northern occupants of the San Joaquin Valley. The Yokuts settlement pattern was largely consistent, regardless of the specific tribe involved. Winter villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses (as these existed circa AD 1800), with dispersal phase family camps located at elevated spots on the valley floor and near gathering areas in the foothills. Throughout Native California, and Yokuts territory in general, the acorn was a primary dietary component, along with a variety of gathered seeds. Valley tribes augmented this resource with lacustrine and riverine foods, especially fish and wildfowl. Although population estimates vary and population size was greatly affected by the introduction of Euro-American diseases and social disruption, the Yokuts were one of the largest, most successful groups in Native California. Cook (1978) estimates that the Yokuts region contained 27 percent of the aboriginal population in the state at the time of contact; other estimates are even higher. Many Yokuts people continue to reside in the southern San Joaquin Valley today.
In California, the historic era is divided into three general periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present). The mission system, which ultimately established 21 missions between 1796 and 1822, 3-51
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 consisted of missions, presidios, and pueblos, and was designed to convert the indigenous peoples of California to Christianity and assimilate them under Spanish rule (Gudde 1998).
Visalia, then called Four Creeks, was settled in 1852. In this same year Tulare County was officially formed from parts of Mariposa County. In these early years Visalia was used as a supply center for the nearby gold mining operations along the Kern River. During this time Visalia’s agricultural economy was based predominantly around livestock. The Southern Pacific Railroad constructed train tracks throughout the San Joaquin Valley, and with this a shift was triggered in Visalia’s agricultural economy to one revolving around field crops. By 1874 Visalia was incorporated as a city in Tulare County. The next major economic change was brought about by the increased availability of irrigation water, resulting in the conversion of large grain fields to small farms, where citrus, grapes, olives, and deciduous fruits were raised.
These crops are a mainstay of the region’s economy today (City of Visalia, 2023).
Cultural Records Search
On October 13, 2023, Soar submitted a records search request to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) located at the California State University, Bakersfield (Appendix A of Cultural Resources Assessment). The purpose of this request was to identify any prehistoric or historical resources on or near the Project Site that had been previously recorded within the Project boundary and a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area and identify and review prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the Project boundary. SSJVIC staff researched historical USGS topographic maps, reports of previous cultural resource investigations, archaeological Site and survey base maps, cultural resource records (DPR forms) as well as listings of the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources. The results from the records search indicate two (2) cultural resource studies have been conducted within the Project area. According to the information on file, there is one (1) resource within the Project area. There are two (2) recorded resources within the 0.5-mile record search radius. There were seven (7) reports identified within a 0.5- mile radius of the Project area. 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.
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 3-52
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a) (1-2)).
Additional information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation.
Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
The site contains agricultural uses, vacant land, and an oak grove. If any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, existing federal, State, and local laws, and regulations as well as the mitigation measures will require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resource professional.
The California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted by SOAR Environmental Consulting on October 13, 2023, to conduct a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, and to obtain a list of tribes culturally and geographically affiliated with the Project area (Appendix B of IS/MND Appendix C). On December 1
st, 2023, the NAHC indicated there are no Native
American traditional cultural places or sacred sites within or near the Project area. The NAHC provided a list of five (5) Tulare County Native American groups and individuals affiliated with the local tribes. On December 4th, 2023, Ms. Froshour sent letters to all individuals describing the location, and the nature of the project. In each letter, Ms. Froshour included a request for information regarding prehistoric, historic, ethnographic land use, as well as contemporary Native American values. Soar Environmental did not receive comments from the Tulare County Native American groups or affiliated individuals regarding the proposed development at the project location.
Following AB 52, Native American Tribes that could potentially be impacted by the Project were contacted. The Tribes that were formally noticed of this Project were:
• Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians
• Dunlap Band of Mono Indians
• Kern Valley Indian Community
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
• Tubatulabals of Kern Valley
• Tule River Indian Tribe
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
The City did not receive any comments for this project.
Regulatory Setting
3-53
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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.
California Historic Register
The California Historic Register was developed as a program to identify, evaluate, register, and protect Historical Resources in California. Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically or archaeologically significant” (PRC §5020.1[j]). In addition, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with the state guidelines are also considered historic resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.
According to CEQA guidelines §15064.5 (a)(3), criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources includes the following:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Protection of cultural resources within California is additionally regulated by PRC §5097.5, which prohibits destruction, defacing, or removal of any historic or prehistoric cultural features on land under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.
City of Visalia General Plan
3-54
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to cultural resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• LU-P-48: Preserve established and distinctive neighborhoods throughout the City by maintaining appropriate zoning and development standards to achieve land use compatibility in terms of height, massing, and other characteristics; providing design guidelines for high-quality new development; supporting housing rehabilitation programs; and other means.
• OSC-P-42: Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
o Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive; o Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA); o Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity (defined as areas identified according to the National Historic Preservation Act as part of the Section 106 process); and o Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of Project approval.
Discussion
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to 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 has been two previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area (TU-00041, TU-01190). From these two investigations, one historical resource has been identified in the Project area (P-54-002177). There has been seven reports conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area, and two recorded resources have been found within the 0.5-mile record search radius (P-54- 003667, P-54-003670). The historical resource identified within the project area is the South Fork Persian Ditch, which is a nineteenth century earthenware irrigation ditch, which was constructed between the years 1854 and 1856 by farmers and other water users in the area. 3-55
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 After an analysis of the significance of the structure, SOAR determined that the South Fork Persian Ditch lacks significance and is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Although cultural resources were identified on the site, the South Fork Ditch is not NRHP eligible, so no historic places will be affected. The Project is not located within any known historic districts or landscapes, and the construction would be limited to the 59.13-acre property and the 4.15-acre park, so no historically significant resources would be affected.
However, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
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?
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 3-56
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Prior to the start of construction, an archaeological firm shall be hired to conduct a pre-construction survey and submit a comprehensive report to the lead agency for review and approval prior to the start of construction. This report should document the findings of the pre-construction survey and include an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed Project on any identified archaeological resources. The plan should outline specific measures that will be implemented, such as construction phasing, Site buffering, and artifact preservation, to protect the cultural resources, if any are discovered. To ensure compliance, the Project approval should require that the archaeological survey report and the associated plan be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and that the survey and monitoring activities be conducted in accordance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. By requiring a comprehensive archaeological survey report and a detailed mitigation plan, the lead agency can ensure that any impacts to archaeological resources are avoided or minimized to the fullest extent possible.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: During any ground disturbing activities, an archaeological firm shall be hired to monitor the Project Site. The monitoring should be conducted by a qualified archaeologist with experience in the region and in compliance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. The monitoring should include regular Site 3-57
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 inspections to identify any archaeological resources that may have been uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. If any resources are identified, the monitoring should also include documentation, mapping, and analysis of the resources, as well as the development of a mitigation plan to address any potential impacts to the resources. 3-58
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 2021 as compared to the statewide average.
Fuel Type SCE Power Mix California
Power Mix
Coal 0% 3.0%
Large Hydroelectric 2.3% 9.2%
Natural Gas 22.3% 37.9%
Nuclear 9.2% 9.3%
Other (Oil/Petroleum Coke/Waste
Heat) 0.2%
0.2%
Unspecified Sources of Power1 34.6% 6.8%
Eligible
Renewables
Biomass 0.1% 2.3%
Geothermal 5.7% 4.8%
Small Hydro 0.5% 1.0%
Solar 14.9% 14.2%
Wind 10.2% 11.4%
Total Eligible
Renewable
31.4% 33.6%
1. "Unspecified sources of power" means electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.
Table 3-8. 2021 SCE and State power resources; Source: SCE; California Energy Commission 3-59
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 Company (SoCalGas) 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:
3-60
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • T-P-41: Integrate the bicycle transportation system into new development and infill redevelopment. Development shall provide short-term bicycle parking and long-term bicycle storage facilities, such as bicycle racks, stocks, and rental bicycle lockers.
Development also shall provide safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to high-activity land uses such as schools, parks, shopping, employment, and entertainment centers.
• T-P-53: Develop flexible parking requirements in the zoning ordinance for development proposals based on “best practices” and the proven potential to reduce parking demand.
Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed Project includes the construction and operation of single-family housing. During Project construction, there would be an increase in energy consumption related to worker trips and operation of construction equipment. This increase in energy use would be temporary and limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Vehicle fuel consumption during Project construction was estimated based on the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths, and the number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2023 gasoline/diesel MPG factors provided by the EMFAC2017. To simplify the estimation process, it was assumed that all worker vehicles used gasoline as a fuel source and all vendor vehicles used diesel as a fuel source. Table 3-9, below, provides gasoline and diesel fuel used by construction and on-road sources during each phase of Project construction. 3-61
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Construction
Phase
# of
Days
Daily
Worker
Trips1
Daily
Vendor
Trips1
Daily
Hauling
Trips1
Total
Gasoline
Fuel Use
(gallons)2
Total
Diesel
Fuel Use
(gallons)2
Site Preparation 40 18 0 0 7,799 0
Grading 110 20 0 0 33,871 0
Building
Construction 1110 81 24 0 177,549 23,069
Paving 75 15 0 0 8,836 0
Architectural
Coating 75 16 0 0 1,410 0
Total 1410 N/A N/A N/A 229,465 23,069
1. Data provided by CalEEMod (Appendix A)
Table 3-9. On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated by Construction Activities. Source: CalEEMod(v. 2020.4.0); EMFAC2014
While construction of the proposed Project will result in additional energy consumption, this energy use is not unnecessary or inefficient. This energy use is justified by the energy-efficient nature of the proposed Project and would be limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Once construction is complete, the Project is expected to achieve net zero energy consumption. The proposed Project is subject to the California New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-2020. This plan establishes a goal for all residential buildings built after January 1, 2020, to be zero net energy. The California Energy Commission is responsible for the development and enforcement of specific strategies to achieve this goal. These strategies are implemented through Title 24, Part 6 of the 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
5,889,125 Miles 225,635 Gallons 25,324 Gallons 23.5
1. Data Provided by CalEEMod
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 of a reliance on personal vehicles. Because construction-related energy use would be temporary and limited to 3-62
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 the greatest extent feasible through consistency with Federal, State, and local policies related to energy conservation, and operation of the Project will comply with all energy efficiency standards required under Title 24, Section 6, and these standards were specifically developed to achieve net zero energy for residential projects, it can be presumed that the Project will achieve net zero energy. The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The impact is less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact: The proposed Project will not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed Project will comply with all state and local policies related to energy efficiency and there is no impact. 3-63
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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
3-64
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 The Visalia Planning Area has no known major fault systems within its boundaries. There are small faults in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, approximately 30 miles away, though none of them are known to be active. The greatest potential for seismic activity in Visalia Planning Area is posed by the San Andreas Fault, approximately 75 miles away from the site, or the Owens Valley Fault Group, which is located approximately 125 miles away from the Project site.
• 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 to 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:
• Nord Fine Sandy Loam: The Nord series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in mixed alluvium dominantly from granitic and sedimentary rocks and has 3-65
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 slopes of 0 to 2 percent. It is well drained; has negligible to low runoff; and has moderate permeability but is moderately slow in saline-sodic phases. • Akers, Saline Sodic: The Akers series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock. Akers soils are on terraces and has slopes of 0 to 2 percent. It is well drained; has negligible to low runoff; and has moderate permeability.
Saline-sodic phases have moderately slow permeability.
3-66
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 3-4: Soils Map
Elliott Subdivision
3-67
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 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 the 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 indirectly or directly cause the rupture of an earthquake fault.
Therefore, there is no impact related to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving a rupture of a known earthquake fault.
3-68
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Impact: The Project Site is in an area of low seismic activity. The proposed Project does not include any activities or components that 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 liquefaction 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 are 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 a 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 of 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. 3-69
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 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.
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‐ 3-70
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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. 3-71
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 gases on the earth’s temperature is equivalent to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, 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 is the quantity of these gases in the atmosphere, followed by how long they stay in the atmosphere, and finally how strongly they impact global temperatures. 3-72
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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.
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.
3-73
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
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 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 is 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 emissions 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. 3-74
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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 changed the 2017 deadline to 2020. 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 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 that 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 3-75
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 renewable energy generation beyond that existing today. The 2005 BAU conditions were estimated using CalEEMod.
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in long-term greenhouse gas emissions associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, as well as mobile emissions. The GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (Appendix A).
C02
(MT/Year)
CH4
(MT/Year)
N20
(MT/Year)
CO2e
(MT/Year)
2005 BAU 3,687 3.72 0.364 3,889
Operational
Emissions 2,477 3.37 0.110 2,594
% Reduction From
BAU
33%
Table 3-12: Projected Project Operational GHG Emissions Compared to 2005 BAU; Source:
(CalEEMod, V.2020.4.0)
The project’s operational GHG is estimated to be 1,295 CO2e MT lower than the 2005 BAU.
This is a reduction of 33%, more than the 29% threshold. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact: The SJVAPCD states that individual and cumulative GHG emissions are considered less than significant if a Project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program 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 were 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 them in the improvements on
existing roads.
3-76
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024
10. Bicycle Path Plan
Consistent. The proposed Project
includes improvements with bike paths
and parkways on Roeben St., Tulare Ave.,
and Shirk Rd.
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. 3-77
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 .2 miles West of the nearest school (Central Valley Christian Schools) and approximately 0.95 miles northeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport). The terminal of the Airport is approximately 1.37 miles away; however, the nearest runway is 0.95 miles from the Project Site (Figure 3-4). 3-78
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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 under Government Code Section 65962.5.
Regulatory Setting
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.
Code [U.S.C.] §9601 et seq.).
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 ensure 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 waste as hazardous if it has any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity. 3-79
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 California Emergency Services Act
The California Emergency Services Act created a multi-agency emergency response plan for the state of California. The Act coordinates various agencies, including CalEPA, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, regional water quality control boards, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.
3-80
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 3-5: Distance to Schools and Airports
Elliott Subdivision
3-81
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project is located approximately .2 miles from an existing school. 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 operational aspect of the Project does not involve the use or storage of 3-82
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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 a less than significant impact. d) Would the Project be located on a Site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact: The Project Site is not listed as a hazardous materials Site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. There would be no impact. 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 .95 miles northeast 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 on the Project Site. All land uses located outside of the 65 dB contours are considered to have a less than significant noise impact from the airport. 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 3-83
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there is no impact.
3-84
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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, 3-85
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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. The water quality of the groundwater that underlies the Planning Area is excellent for domestic and agricultural uses. This is mostly due to the abundant snowmelt that originates in the Sierra Nevada. Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water for the planning area residents.
Stormwater Drainage
The City, in conjunction with Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and Tulare Irrigation District, operates and maintains a vast municipal storm drainage system that consists of drainage channels, 23 detention and retention basins, 33 pump stations and 250 miles of pipe.
Stormwater from the Project Site will be collected and conveyed to an on-site stormwater basin.
Regulatory Setting
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is enforced by the U.S. EPA and was developed in 1972 to regulate discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Act made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is obtained.
National Flood Insurance Act
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from, and mitigating against disasters. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA is responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and administering programs that aid with mitigating future damages from natural hazards.
California Water Quality Porter-Cologne Act
California’s primary statute leading water quality and water pollution concerns with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 3-86
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 (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;
3-87
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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
59.13-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 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 based on the General Plan land uses. 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 average per-person water use in Visalia (183 gallons; 2020 Urban Water Management Plan) and the average household size in Visalia (2.99 persons; US Census 3-88
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Bureau), water demand for the proposed 225-unit residential development is estimated to be approximately 122,566 gallons of water daily, or about 137-acre feet per year. With an expected increase of 5,124 AF from 2020 to 2030, there will be enough water supply for the proposed project. The most water-intensive aspect of the Project (Low-Density Residential homes) is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation. As such, the Project would not affect groundwater supplies beyond what has already been analyzed in the most current General Plan EIR or Urban Water Management Plan.
The Project would result in nearly full development of the site, which would convert approximately 59.13 acres from pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces. However, this would not significantly interfere with groundwater recharge because all stormwaters would be collected and diverted to a new stormwater basin located on the southwest area of the 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 59.13-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 HYD2) 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. 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 Project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces on the 59.13-acre Project Site which would have the potential to increase surface 3-89
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-site. This impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2, which requires the Project to submit drainage plans to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The drainage plans will include BMPs to ensure runoff from the Project will not result in flooding on- or offsite. 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 59.13-acre Project Site which would have the potential to impact existing stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff. The 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 within the “AE” and “X” flood zones. Approximately 15.25 acres, or 62 of the residential units, of the Site are within the AE flood zone. The AE flood zone has a 1% chance of flooding every year.
The remainder of the site is within the X flood zone, which has a 0.2% chance of flooding every year.
Following regulations set by the American Society of Civil Engineers, all homes within the AE flood zone will be built following these regulations:
3-90
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024
1. The elevation of the lowest floor in a structure must be at or above the zone’s base flood elevation (BFE).
2. Enclosed areas below the BFE or lowest floor cannot be used as living spaces.
3. All electrical, plumbing and HVAC equipment must be elevated to or above the area’s BFE.
The Project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces on the 59.13-acre Site which could affect drainage and flood patterns. This impact would be appropriately mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2, which requires the Project to submit drainage plans to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The drainage plans will include BMPs to ensure the Project will 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 the 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. 3-91
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Mitigation Measure HYD-2: The Applicant shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45 days prior to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for Site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the Project Site in excess of one (1) acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than one acre but is part of the Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres.
The SWPPP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to storm water and shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. The following BMP methods shall include, but would not be limited to:
• Dust control measures will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite activities to control fugitive dust;
• A routine 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.
3-92
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 3.5 miles southwest of the Visalia downtown. The Site is currently zoned as AE20 by the County of Tulare but is prezoned for R-1-5 zoning by the City of Visalia after annexation (Figure 3-6). The Site is designated as Low Density Residential by the Visalia General Plan (Figure 3-5). It is located within the Tier 2 UDB. 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 north and west, and single-family residential to the south and east. The agricultural land to the north and west is designated as Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Parks/Recreation by the Visalia General Plan.
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.
Residential densities are typical of single-family subdivisions. The typical residential density for this designation ranges from two to 10 housing units per gross acre. Buildout is assumed at four 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. 3-93
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • 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:
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 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.
• LU-P-25: Provide planning and technical support for the relocation of agricultural operations currently located in the city to compatible locations in the Planning Area or the County.
• 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-47: Establish criteria and standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation networks within new subdivisions and non-residential development. • 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.
City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance
The proposed Project Site is prezoned for R-1-5 zoning. The Project will comply with the R-1- 5 zoning. The R-1-5 zone has a minimum site area of 5,000 square feet, with a minimum width of 50 feet. The Project has 225 lots with a minimum of 6,480 square feet per lot.
R-1 zoning is intended to provide living area within the city where development is limited to low density concentrations of one-family dwellings where regulations are designed to accomplish the following:
• to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life; • to provide space for community facilities needed to compliment urban residential areas and for institutions that require a residential environment; • to minimize traffic congestion and to avoid an overload of utilities designed to service only low-density residential use.
3-94
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 3-6: General Plan Land Use Designation
Elliott Subdivision
3-95
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 3-7: Zoning Map
Elliott Subdivision
3-96
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Discussion
a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? No Impact: The proposed Project will not physically divide an established community. The proposed Project Site is designated for Low Density Residential by the Visalia General Plan and the Project is consistent with this land use designation. The Project would continue to operate as the same designation following Project implementation. There is no impact. b) Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact: The Project Site is located on land designated for residential use. The proposed Project does not conflict with this land use, or any other policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is no impact. 3-97
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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.
3-98
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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.
3-99
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 groundborne 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. The 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 3-100
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 such as sleep disturbance. The nearest sensitive receptors are the homes to the south and east of the Site.
Regulatory Setting
City of Visalia Noise Ordinance
The City of Visalia Noise Ordinance provides noise level standards for land use compatibility. Exterior and interior noise levels may not exceed any of the categorical noise level standards shown in Table 3-14. 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;
3-101
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 o Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
o Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attics, and gable ends; o Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions.
Discussion
a) Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permeant increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact: Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 66 months and will involve temporary noise sources in the vicinity of the project. The average noise levels generated by construction equipment that will likely be used in the proposed Project are provided in Table 3-15.
The nearest residence and sensitive receptor are the single-family homes to the south and east. 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 3-7, 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.
3-102
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 3-8: Construction Related Noise Levels Based on Distance from Construction Equipment. Interior Noise=Assume 25 dB Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction 3-103
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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
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.
3-104
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 c) For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project is located approximately .95 miles northeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport). However, according to the Airport Master plan, the Project Site would not be impacted by the airport. Noise contours developed for 2019 show that the airport would produce less than 65 dB. All land uses located outside of the 65 dB contours are considered less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. There is a less than significant impact. 3-105
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 estimated 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 2030 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. • LU-P-71: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good Site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
3-106
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 225 new single family residential units. The US Census Bureau states that the Visalia’s average household size is
3.05 persons. Based on this average household size, the anticipated population increase because of the proposed Project is 683 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. Overall, this will increase the amount of available housing in the community. There is No Impact. 3-107
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 #53 is the nearest fire station to the site, approximately .7 miles to the southeast.
Police
Law enforcement services are provided to the Project Site via The Visalia Police Department (VPD). The VPD will continue to provide police protection services to the proposed Project Site following Project implementation. The VPD headquarters are located approximately 3.4 miles northeast of the proposed Project site. VPD Substation District 2 is located approximately 2.6 miles southeast 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 schools are located approximately .2 miles northeast (Central Valley Christian Schools) and .65 miles southeast (El Diamonte High School).
3-108
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Regulatory Setting
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, 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.
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 #53, located .7 miles southeast of the Project Site at 5025 W Walnut Ave. The Fire Department uses the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard for fire protection services, which requires 1 responder per 1,000 residents. The addition of 225 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 3-109
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 on-duty responders by 2030 to meet 1 responder per 1,000 residents, or 41 new responders to meet the current ratio. The existing fire stations are placed to provide optimum service, however new stations will be needed to support the expanding city.
To support the expansion of fire services, a development impact fee will be paid for fire services.
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 3.4 miles northeast of the proposed Project Site. VPD Substation District 2 is located approximately 2.6 miles southeast of the Project Site. The development would increase the demand for police service with the addition of 225 residential units. The VPD does not establish service standards either in terms of officers per thousand residents or in incident response time but plans to maintain the current ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. The Department has 143 sworn officers working out of two districts, as well as seven reserve sworn officers, 64 civilian officers, and 65 volunteers. The demand for additional officers and equipment will be compensated for by the development impact fee.
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. 3-110
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 School Type Single Family Generation
Rate
Students
Elementary School 0.448 101
Middle School .092 21
High School .156 35
Table 3-17: Student Generation Rates, City of Visalia General Plan Since the proposed Project includes the addition of 225 single family homes, the number of students will increase by approximately 157. The proposed Project Site is located within the Visalia Planning Area 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 225 new residential units would result in additional usage of existing parks. Parks within a one-mile radius that would service the proposed development include Sunset Park and Constitution Park, as well as Plaza Park slightly over a mile away. The Project plans to include a 4.15-acre park in the southeast corner of the Site. Since the proposed Project would contribute its fair share to parks facilities as well as any development 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 expanded public service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion projects would be subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 3-111
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 3-112
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 as bikeways, walkways, and riding trails, and are primarily developed along the city’s waterways. There is a total of 196 acres of natural corridors and greenways.
The Visalia Planning Area additionally contains two county parks and a public golf course. The golf course is not counted to the total amount of parkland. The Visalia General Plan states a total parkland standard of five acres of city parkland per 1,000 residents.
Regulatory Setting
Quimby Act
The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code section 66477) authorized cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees 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.
3-113
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • 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 683 residents. Based on the desired parkland ratio of five acres per 1000 residents identified in the Visalia General Plan, the Project would need to provide approximately 3.42 acres of parkland/open space. The Project has 4.15 acres of parkland, more than the required amount. The impact is less than significant. b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact: The proposed Project does not include any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. There is no impact.
3-114
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 South Roeben Street on the East side of the site, and South Shirk Road (Road 92) on the West side of the site. The Project includes a network of local streets that provide full access to the Project site.
Parking
Each Single-Family home will contain at least a two-car garage, as well as room for two more cars in the driveway. Street parking will be limited due to reduced street widths. During construction, workers will utilize existing parking areas and/or temporary construction staging areas for parking 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. 3-115
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the Project area compared to existing conditions should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. (2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular Project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the 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. 3-116
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • T-P-22: Require all residential subdivisions to be designed to discourage use of local streets as a bypass to congested arterials, and when feasible, require access to residential development to be from collector streets.
• T-P-23: Require that all new developments provide right-of-way, which may be dedicated or purchased, and improvements (including necessary grading, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parkway/landscape strips, bike, and parking lanes) other city street design standards. Design standards will be updated following General Plan adoption.
• T-P-24: Require that proposed developments make necessary off-Site improvements if the location and traffic generation of a proposed development will result in congestion on major streets or failure to meet LOS D during peak periods or if it creates safety hazards.
• T-P-26: Require that future commercial developments or modifications to existing developments be designed with limited points of automobile ingress and egress, including shared access, onto major streets.
• T-P-40: Develop a community-wide trail system along selected planning area waterways, consistent with the Waterways and Trails Master Plan and General Plan diagrams.
Discussion
a) Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The existing General Plan established LOS “D” as the minimum acceptable LOS standard on city facilities. A traffic study prepared for the Project (Appendix D) concluded that the Project would not result in a significant increase in vehicle or truck trips.
Table 3-18 shows the estimated vehicle trips generated for the proposed project. The proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 2,119 daily trips, including 155 AM peak hour trips (39 inbound, 116 outbound) and 212 PM peak hour trips (134 inbound, 78 outbound).
Total
Units
Daily* AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour*
Trips % In: Out In Out Total % In: Out In Out Total
Single-Family Detached
Housing (ITE Code 210) 224 2119 25:75 39 116 155 63:37 134 78 212 Table 3-18: Proposed Project Trip Generation
3-117
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Based on the number of peak hour trips calculated (between 200-499 residential trips in the peak hour), the study falls into Category II traffic impact analysis. Category II requires all signalized and major intersections be studied within a 1/2-mile radius of the Project.
Following are the intersections included in the study:
• Road 92/Shirk Street & State Route 198 Eastbound Ramps • Road 92/Shirk Street & State Route 198 Westbound Ramps • Road 92/Shirk Street & Tulare Avenue
• Road 92/Shirk Street & Walnut Avenue
• Roeben Street & Tulare Avenue
• Roeben Street & Walnut Avenue
• Street 3 and Tulare Avenue
• Street 6 and Tulare Avenue
• Avenue 4 and Shirk Street
• Avenue 6 and Roeben Street
In accordance with Category II requirements, analysis will be provided for the following scenarios:
• Existing: The current traffic conditions without any modifications or the proposed project.
• 2028 Cumulative (Opening Year): Projected traffic conditions for the year 2028 without the proposed project.
• 2028 Cumulative + Project: Projected traffic conditions for the year 2028 including the traffic generated by the proposed project.
• 2028 Cumulative + Project with Mitigation: Projected traffic conditions for the year 2028 including the traffic generated by the proposed project and any mitigation measures applied.
• 2033 Cumulative: Projected traffic conditions for the year 2033 without the proposed project.
• 2033 Cumulative + Project: Projected traffic conditions for the year 2033 including the traffic generated by the proposed project
• 2033 Cumulative + Project with Mitigation: Projected traffic conditions for the year 2033 including the traffic generated by the proposed project and any mitigation measures applied.
Based on the results of the Level of Service (LOS) analysis and the eight-hour vehicular volume warrants, and the City of Visalia thresholds for mitigation, it is recommended that signals be constructed at three intersections in order to operate at an acceptable level of service by the year 2033.
3-118
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • Shirk Street and SR 198 WB Ramps
• Shirk Street and SR 138 EB Ramps
• Shirk Street and Walnut Avenue
The Project will pay its fair share of traffic impact fees to support payment of the signals.
The Project will incorporate mitigation measure TRAN-1, which is constructing signals at Shirk Street and SR 198 WB Ramps, Shirk Street and SR 138 EB Ramps, and Shirk Street and Walnut Avenue by the year 2028 to operate at an acceptable level of service by the year 2033, with the Project contributing its fair share of traffic impact fees. There is a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
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.”
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 the 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.”
3-119
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 A Traffic Study for the proposed Project was prepared by Ruettgers & Schuler, and an evaluation of project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was conducted based on VMT analysis guidelines adopted by the City of Visalia. The guidelines provide “screening thresholds” for identifying whether a land use project should be expected to result in a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA. Projects meeting one or more of these criteria would not be required to undergo a detailed VMT analysis. One of the screening criteria is “Project Location Screening”. Development projects that are located in a low VMT zone would be expected to generate similar low vehicle miles travelled. Using the City of Visalia online VMT screening application, the project was determined to be located in TAZ 1358. Utilizing the “VMT Per Capita” metric due to residential project, the average VMT was determined to be
8.61 miles per capita. The average VMT per service population for Tulare County is 11.9.
Therefore, the project is determined to be in a low VMT zone and the project would be expected to result in a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA. (See Figures 3-8 and 3-9).
3-120
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 3-9: Visalia Existing VMT per Capita – First Parcel 3-121
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Figure 3-10: Visalia Existing VMT per Capita - Second Parcel 3-122
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact: The Project does not propose any incompatible uses or include any design features that could increase traffic hazards. The Project does include three new vehicle access points on S Roeben Street, W Tulare Avenue, and S Shirk Road. This improvement will be subject to review by the City’s engineer to ensure the new access point does not pose any safety risks due to the Project design. The proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards in or around the Project area there is no impact. d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact: This Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency access to the Site would be via S Roeben Street, W Tulare Avenue, and S Shirk Road. During the first phase of construction, the access on S Shirk Road would not be built yet. 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.
Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Transportation:
Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: Based on the results of the Level of Service (LOS) analysis and the eight-hour vehicular volume warrants, and the City of Visalia thresholds for mitigation, signals shall be constructed at the following three intersections by 2028 in order to operate at an acceptable level of service by the year 2033:
• Shirk Street and SR 198 WB Ramps
• Shirk Street and SR 138 EB Ramps
• Shirk Street and Walnut Avenue
The Project applicant will pay its fair share of traffic impact fees to support payment of the signals.
3-123
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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
Penutian-speaking Yokuts tribal groups occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley region and much of the nearby Sierra Nevada. Yokuts villages apparently extended up to, but not into, the mouths of the canyons on the northern and western fronts of the Tehachapi Mountains, well into the foothills and lower elevations of the Sierra Nevada on the east, and to the crest of the Temblor Range on the west. The Yokuts are Penutian speakers and are linguistically related to northern occupants of the San Joaquin Valley. The Yokuts settlement pattern was largely consistent, regardless of the specific tribe involved. Winter villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses (as these existed circa AD 1800), with dispersal phase family camps located at elevated spots on the valley floor and near gathering areas in the foothills. Throughout Native California, and Yokuts territory in general, the acorn was a primary dietary component, along with a variety of gathered seeds. Valley tribes augmented this 3-124
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 resource with lacustrine and riverine foods, especially fish and wildfowl. Although population estimates vary and population size was greatly affected by the introduction of Euro-American diseases and social disruption, the Yokuts were one of the largest, most successful groups in Native California. Cook (1978) estimates that the Yokuts region contained 27 percent of the aboriginal population in the state at the time of contact; other estimates are even higher. Many Yokuts people continue to reside in the southern San Joaquin Valley today.
Cultural Resources Record Search
On October 13, 2023, Soar submitted a records search request to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) located at the California State University, Bakersfield (Appendix A of the Cultural Resources Assessment). The purpose of this request was to identify any prehistoric or historical resources on or near the Project Site that had been previously recorded within the Project boundary and a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area and identify and review prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the Project boundary. SSJVIC staff researched historical USGS topographic maps, reports of previous cultural resource investigations, archaeological Site and survey base maps, cultural resource records (DPR forms) as well as listings of the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources. The results from the records search indicate two (2) cultural resource studies have been conducted within the Project area. According to the information on file, there is one (1) resource within the Project area. There are two (2) recorded resources within the 0.5-mile record search radius. There were seven (7) reports identified within a 0.5- mile radius of the Project area. There are no recorded tribal 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.
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)).
Additional information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical 3-125
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation.
Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
The site contains agricultural uses, vacant land, and an oak grove. If any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, existing federal, State, and local laws, and regulations as well as the mitigation measures will require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resource professional.
The California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted by SOAR Environmental Consulting on October 13, 2023, to conduct a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, and to obtain a list of tribes culturally and geographically affiliated with the Project area. On December 1
st, 2023, the NAHC indicated there are no Native American traditional cultural places or sacred sites within or near the Project area. The NAHC provided a list of five (5) Tulare County Native American groups and individuals affiliated with the local tribes. On December 4th, 2023, Ms. Froshour sent letters to all individuals describing the location, and the nature of the project.
In each letter, Ms. Froshour included a request for information regarding prehistoric, historic, ethnographic land use, as well as contemporary Native American values. Soar Environmental did not receive comments from the Tulare County Native American groups or affiliated individuals regarding the proposed development at the project location.
Following AB 52, Native American Tribes that could potentially be impacted by the Project were contacted. The Tribes that were formally noticed of this Project were:
• Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians
• Dunlap Band of Mono Indians
• Kern Valley Indian Community
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
• Tubatulabals of Kern Valley
• Tule River Indian Tribe
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
The City did not receive any comments for this project.
Regulatory Setting
Historical Resources
Historical resources are defined by CEQA as resources that are listed in or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, resources that are listed in a local historical resource register, or resources that are otherwise determined to be historical under California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. Under these definitions Historical Resources can include archaeological resources, Tribal cultural resources, and Paleontological Resources.
3-126
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Archaeological Resources
As stated above, archaeological resources may be considered historical resources. If they do not meet the qualifications under the California Public Resources Code 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, they are instead determined to be “unique” as defined by the CEQA Statute Section 21083.2. A unique archaeological resource is an artifact, object, or Site that: (1) contains information (for which there is a demonstrable public interest) needed to answer important scientific research questions; (2) has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or (3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR)
Tribal Cultural Resources can include Site features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects, which are of cultural value to a Tribe. It is either listed on or eligible for the CA Historic Register or a local historic register or determined by the lead agency to be treated as TCR.
Paleontological Resources
For the purposes of this section, “paleontological resources” refers to the fossilized plant and animal remains of prehistoric species. Paleontological Resources are a limited scientific and educational resource and are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its ecology. Fossilized remains, such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves, are found in geologic deposits (i.e., rock formations). Paleontological resources generally include the geologic formations and localities in which the fossils are collected.
Native American Reserve (NAR)
This designation recognizes tribal trust and reservation lands managed by a Native American Tribe under the United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs over which the County has no land use jurisdiction. The County encourages adoption of tribal management plans for these areas that consider compatibility and impacts upon adjacent area facilities and plans.
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 Historic Register
The California Historic Register was developed as a program to identify, evaluate, register, and protect Historical Resources in California. Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically or archaeologically significant” (PRC §5020.1[j]). In addition, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a local 3-127
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 survey conducted in accordance with the state guidelines are also considered historic resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.
According to CEQA guidelines §15064.5 (a)(3), criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources includes the following:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
According to CEQA guidelines §21074 (a)(1), criteria for tribal cultural resources includes the following:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
Protection of cultural resources within California is additionally regulated by PRC §5097.5, which prohibits destruction, defacing, or removal of any historic or prehistoric cultural features on land under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to tribal resources that correlate to the proposed project:
• OSC-P-42: Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
• Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
• Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA);
• Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity (defined as areas identified according to the National Historic Preservation Act as part of the Section 106 process); and
3-128
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of Project approval.
Discussion
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. Based on the results of the records search, no previously recorded tribal cultural resources are located within the Project site. Although no tribal cultural resources were identified, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Therefore, Tribes that can potentially be impacted were consulted. The City did not receive any comments for this project.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The lead agency has not determined there to be any known tribal cultural resources located within the Project area.
Additionally, there are not believed to be any paleontological resources or human remains buried within the Project area’s vicinity. However, if resources were found to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California Native American Tribe. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that any impacts resulting from Project implementation remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
3-129
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 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.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Prior to the start of construction, an archaeological firm shall be hired to conduct a pre-construction survey and submit a comprehensive report to the lead agency for review and approval prior to the start of construction. This report should document the findings of the pre-construction survey and include an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed Project on any identified archaeological resources. The 3-130
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 plan should outline specific measures that will be implemented, such as construction phasing, Site buffering, and artifact preservation, to protect the cultural resources, if any are discovered. To ensure compliance, the Project approval should require that the archaeological survey report and the associated plan be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and that the survey and monitoring activities be conducted in accordance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. By requiring a comprehensive archaeological survey report and a detailed mitigation plan, the lead agency can ensure that any impacts to archaeological resources are avoided or minimized to the fullest extent possible.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: During any ground disturbing activities, an archaeological firm shall be hired to monitor the Project Site. The monitoring should be conducted by a qualified archaeologist with experience in the region and in compliance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. The monitoring should include regular Site inspections to identify any archaeological resources that may have been uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. If any resources are identified, the monitoring should also include documentation, mapping, and analysis of the resources, as well as the development of a mitigation plan to address any potential impacts to the resources. 3-131
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the Project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Setting
Wastewater
Sewer services will be 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 currently 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 48,000 Gallons per day and produce a total BOD of 1,009.21 lbs/day and 889.60 lbs/day of TSS. 3-132
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 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 two disposal sites:
the Visalia Disposal Site, northwest of Visalia; and the Woodville Disposal Site, southeast of Tulare. These sites have a remaining capacity of 23,115,774 cubic yards, with a total capacity of 30,555,116 cubic yards.
Water
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) distributes 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. 3-133
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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.
3-134
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 • 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.
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 from the land uses 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 system can 3-135
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 support an expanding population, evidenced by the requirement for 31,762 acre-feet (AF) of resources in 2010. By 2030, the city is expected to use 43,002 AFY. Using average perperson 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 225-unit residential development is estimated to be approximately 125,584 gallons of water daily, or about 141-acre feet per year. With the system capacity of 100,829 AFY, there will be enough water supply for the proposed project. The Project does not propose any new or expanded uses against the Visalia General Plan. The available water supply is expected to be enough to supply the projected population. In 2030, the projected demand is expected to 35,276 AF of groundwater, in 2035, there is expected to be 38,310 AF of groundwater, and in 2040 there is expected to be 41,258 AF of groundwater. To compensate for these services, new development will be required to pay impact fees for new water services, along with the reduced water use implementations from the polices set forth in the Visalia General Plan. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. c) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact: The Project does not propose any new or expanded uses and is therefore not anticipated to result in increased demand for wastewater treatment services beyond existing conditions in the Visalia General Plan. Additionally, the City’s General Plan EIR has evaluated the site’s current and future wastewater service demand.
The current capacity of the wastewater system is approximately 20 mgd. It currently receives 13 mgd, leaving an available 7 mgd. In addition, a future upgrade plans to increase the capacity to 26 mgd. From the calculations in Appendix F, the project is expected to produce a total flow of 48,000 GPD.
Because the City’s sewer system has the capacity to meet the Project site’s expected demand for wastewater treatment, and it is not anticipated that the Project will increase the site’s demand for wastewater treatment, it can be inferred that the existing wastewater treatment system has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. There is a less than significant impact.
d) Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
No Impact: 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 3-136
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. The Project would not generate solid waste more than State or Local Standards and there is no impact. e) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact: This proposed Project conforms to all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. The proposed Project will comply with the adopted policies related to solid waste, and will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to disposal of solid waste, including recycling. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on solid waste regulations. 3-137
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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?
3-138
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 at little risk of fire. Additionally, the proposed Project Site is not located within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ. There is no impact.
c) Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than Significant Impact: The construction of the Project involves adding new local residential streets, and new and relocated utilities. Utilities such as emergency water sources and power lines would be included as part of the proposed development, however all improvements would be subject to City standards and Fire Chief approval. The proposed Project would not exacerbate fire risk and the impact would be less than significant. d) Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact: The Project Site is not located in an area designated as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone and lands associated with the Project Site are relatively flat. Therefore, the Project would not be susceptible to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire instability or drainage changes. There is no impact. 3-139
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 could have significant impacts on traffic, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, historical, and Tribal cultural resources. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures for each respective section would ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporation. 3-140
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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. 3-141
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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 Elliott Property Subdivision Project in the City of Visalia.
The first column of the table identifies the mitigation measure. The second column names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The third column, “Timing of Mitigation Measure” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fourth column, “Responsible Party for Monitoring,” names the party ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last column will be used by the City to ensure that the individual mitigation measures have been monitored.
Plan checking and verification of mitigation compliance shall be the responsibility of the City of Visalia.
3-142
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verificati
on
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Swainson's Hawk Nesting
Habitat: If construction, grading, or Project-related
improvements are to commence between March 1 and
September 15, a focused survey for Swainson's hawk nests on the site and within ¼ mile of the site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no later than 30 days prior to the start of construction work (including clearing and
grubbing). If active nests are
found, the California Fish and Wildlife shall be contacted to determine appropriate protective measures, and these
measures shall be implemented prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities. If no active nests are found during the focused survey, no further mitigation will be required.
Project
Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Nesting Bird and Roosting Bat Survey: If Project-related activities are scheduled between February 1 to August 31 (the typical nesting season), a focused survey for nests shall be conducted by a
Designated Biologist within three (3) calendar days prior to the beginning of Project-related activities. The Designated Biologist shall survey a minimum radius of 500-feet for MBTA birds around the Project Area and for sign of roosting bats. If no active nests or roosts are found, project activities may proceed as scheduled.
Project
Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Active Nests or Roosts: If an active nest or roost is found, active nests should be
avoided, and a no disturbance or destruction buffer shall be determined and established by a Designated Biologist through consultation with CDFW. A report will be prepared documenting any active nest(s) and CDFW will be
contacted and consulted in order to approve an adequate buffer size for the species. 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 is no longer active for the season. The extent of these buffers shall be determined by CDFW and established 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.
Project
Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
3-143
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verificati
on
Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Project Delay: If a lapse in project-related work of fourteen (14) calendar days or
longer occurs, the Designated Biologist shall complete
another focused survey before Project work can be
reinitiated.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing
During
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
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.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing
during
construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event that human
remains are unearthed during excavation and grading
activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety
Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur 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 Project
Applicant
Ongoing
during
construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
3-144
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verificati
on
consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the
immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted
cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not
damaged or disturbed by further development activity
until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their
recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable
options regarding the descendants' preferences for
treatment.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Prior to the start of
construction, an archaeological firm shall be hired to
conduct a pre-construction survey and submit a
comprehensive report to the lead agency for review and
approval prior to the start of construction. This report should document the findings of the pre-construction
survey and include an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed Project on any identified archaeological resources. The plan should outline specific measures that will be implemented, such as construction phasing, Site buffering, and artifact preservation, to protect the cultural resources, if any are discovered. To ensure compliance, the Project approval should require that the archaeological survey report and the associated plan be prepared by a
qualified archaeologist and that the survey and monitoring activities be conducted in accordance with relevant state and federal regulations and best practices. By requiring a comprehensive archaeological survey report and a
detailed mitigation plan, the lead agency can ensure that any impacts to archaeological resources are avoided or
minimized to the fullest extent possible.
Project
Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: During any ground disturbing
activities, an archaeological firm shall be hired to monitor the Project Site. The monitoring should be conducted by a qualified archaeologist with experience in the region and in compliance with relevant state and federal regulations
and best practices. The monitoring should include regular Site inspections to identify any archaeological resources that may have been uncovered during ground-disturbing
Project
Applicant
Ongoing
during
construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
3-145
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verificati
on
activities. If any resources are identified, the monitoring should also include documentation, mapping, and
analysis of the resources, as well as the development of a mitigation plan to address any potential impacts to the resources.
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 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 fencing,
sand bagging, and soil stabilizers will be used;
• Soil stockpiles and graded slopes will be covered after two weeks of inactivity and 24
45 Days Prior
to the Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
3-146
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verificati
on
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.
Project
Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: Based on the results of the
Level of Service (LOS) analysis and the eight-hour vehicular volume warrants, and the City of Visalia thresholds for mitigation, signals shall be constructed at the following three intersections by 2028 in order to operate at an
acceptable level of service by the year 2033:
• Shirk Street and SR 198 WB Ramps
• Shirk Street and SR 138 EB Ramps
• Shirk Street and Walnut Avenue
The Project applicant will pay its fair share of traffic impact fees to support payment of the signals.
Project
Applicant
Prior to the
Start of
Construction
Contractor/
Lead
Agency
3-147
Elliott Property Subdivision
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 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, Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Status
10. FEMA Flood Maps
11. California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
12. 2019 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines
13. California Building Code
14. California Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)
15. “Construction Noise Handbook.” U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration.
16. Government Code Section 65962.5
17. California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Mitigation Measures
(http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/Mitigation-Measures.pdf
18. Southern California Edison 2019 Power Content Label
19. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018.
20. 2020 U.S. Census
21. California Department of Transportation Scenic Roadways
22. EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
23. 2020 Cal Water Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) – Visalia District
24. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
25. Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – SOAR Environmental Consulting
26. Biological Resource Assessment – SOAR Environmental Consulting
27. Traffic Study/VMT Assessment - Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers Section 4
List of Preparers
4-1
Elliott Property Subdivision
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2024 City of Visalia
315 E Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 4
List of Preparers
Project Title: Elliott Property Subdivision
List of Preparers
4-Creeks Inc.
• David Duda, AICP, GISP
• Molly Baumeister, Planner/Project Manager
• Nate Antepenko, Associate Planner
• Lisa M. Wallis-Dutra, Sr. Traffic Engineer
Persons and Agencies Consulted
The following individuals and agencies contributed to this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration:
City of Visalia
• Cristobal Carrillo, Planning Division
• Brandon Smith, Planning Division
• Leslie Blair, Senior Civil Engineer
• Adrian Rubalcaba, Associate Engineer
SOAR Environmental Consulting
• Heather Froshour, M.A., R.P.A., Senior Archaeologist
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
• Ian Parks, PE
California Historic Resources Information System
• Celeste Thomson, Coordinator
Appendix A
CalEEMod Report
Part 1
Projected Emissions from CalEEMod
Tulare County, Annual
Elliot Subdivision
Construction Phase -
Land Use - Lot Acreage Established
Project Characteristics -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 224.00 Dwelling Unit 59.13 403,200.00 641 Climate Zone
Urbanization
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
7 Urban Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 51
2.0 Emissions Summary
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Utility Company
1.0 Project Characteristics
Southern California Edison
2030 Operational Year
(lb/MWhr)
CO2 Intensity 390.98 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
CH4 Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LotAcreage 72.73 59.13
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 59.13 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 59.13 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 1 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
2024 0.0231 0.2313 0.1597 3.3000e0040.1866 0.0105 0.1971 0.0882 9.6200e0030.0978 0.0000 29.3733 29.3733 9.2300e0033.0000e00529.6126 2025 0.2963 2.7064 2.8528 6.3000e0030.8076 0.1091 0.9168 0.3353 0.1011 0.4364 0.0000 553.8911 553.8911 0.1456 5.4600e003559.1575 2026 0.2107 1.7848 2.3655 4.7800e0030.1049 0.0701 0.1750 0.0284 0.0660 0.0943 0.0000 420.7664 420.7664 0.0731 0.0104 425.6828 2027 0.2085 1.7819 2.3499 4.7500e0030.1049 0.0701 0.1750 0.0284 0.0659 0.0943 0.0000 417.8063 417.8063 0.0729 0.0101 422.6322 2028 0.2058 1.7728 2.3281 4.7000e0030.1045 0.0698 0.1743 0.0283 0.0657 0.0939 0.0000 413.4940 413.4940 0.0725 9.7800e003418.2194 2029 0.1859 1.6243 2.2350 4.3200e0030.0840 0.0664 0.1505 0.0227 0.0622 0.0850 0.0000 379.5904 379.5904 0.0755 7.3900e003383.6802 2030 3.8004 0.0828 0.1903 3.5000e0045.6200e0033.0900e0038.7100e0031.4900e0033.0900e0034.5900e0030.0000 30.0568 30.0568 1.2600e0039.0000e00530.1157 Maximum 3.8004 2.7064 2.8528 6.3000e0030.8076 0.1091 0.9168 0.3353 0.1011 0.4364 0.0000 553.8911 553.8911 0.1456 0.0104 559.1575 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 2 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
2024 0.0231 0.2313 0.1597 3.3000e0040.1866 0.0105 0.1971 0.0882 9.6200e0030.0978 0.0000 29.3733 29.3733 9.2300e0033.0000e00529.6126 2025 0.2963 2.7064 2.8528 6.3000e0030.8076 0.1091 0.9168 0.3353 0.1011 0.4364 0.0000 553.8906 553.8906 0.1456 5.4600e003559.1569 2026 0.2107 1.7848 2.3655 4.7800e0030.1049 0.0701 0.1750 0.0284 0.0660 0.0943 0.0000 420.7661 420.7661 0.0731 0.0104 425.6824 2027 0.2085 1.7819 2.3499 4.7500e0030.1049 0.0701 0.1750 0.0284 0.0659 0.0943 0.0000 417.8059 417.8059 0.0729 0.0101 422.6318 2028 0.2058 1.7728 2.3281 4.7000e0030.1045 0.0698 0.1743 0.0283 0.0657 0.0939 0.0000 413.4936 413.4936 0.0725 9.7800e003418.2191 2029 0.1859 1.6243 2.2350 4.3200e0030.0840 0.0664 0.1505 0.0227 0.0622 0.0850 0.0000 379.5900 379.5900 0.0755 7.3900e003383.6799 2030 3.8004 0.0828 0.1903 3.5000e0045.6200e0033.0900e0038.7100e0031.4900e0033.0900e0034.5900e0030.0000 30.0568 30.0568 1.2600e0039.0000e00530.1157 Maximum 3.8004 2.7064 2.8528 6.3000e0030.8076 0.1091 0.9168 0.3353 0.1011 0.4364 0.0000 553.8906 553.8906 0.1456 0.0104 559.1569 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10 Total
PM10 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) 2 12-1-2024 2-28-2025 0.8845 0.8845
3 3-1-2025 5-31-2025 1.0169 1.0169
4 6-1-2025 8-31-2025 0.6930 0.6930
5 9-1-2025 11-30-2025 0.4991 0.4991
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 3 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 6 12-1-2025 2-28-2026 0.4934 0.4934
7 3-1-2026 5-31-2026 0.5025 0.5025
8 6-1-2026 8-31-2026 0.5018 0.5018
9 9-1-2026 11-30-2026 0.4977 0.4977
10 12-1-2026 2-28-2027 0.4921 0.4921
11 3-1-2027 5-31-2027 0.5012 0.5012
12 6-1-2027 8-31-2027 0.5005 0.5005
13 9-1-2027 11-30-2027 0.4964 0.4964
14 12-1-2027 2-29-2028 0.4964 0.4964
15 3-1-2028 5-31-2028 0.5001 0.5001
16 6-1-2028 8-31-2028 0.4994 0.4994
17 9-1-2028 11-30-2028 0.4953 0.4953
18 12-1-2028 2-28-2029 0.4899 0.4899
19 3-1-2029 5-31-2029 0.4990 0.4990
20 6-1-2029 8-31-2029 0.4983 0.4983
21 9-1-2029 11-30-2029 0.3807 0.3807
22 12-1-2029 2-28-2030 1.6537 1.6537
23 3-1-2030 5-31-2030 2.3305 2.3305
Highest 2.3305 2.3305
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 4 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 2.0126 0.1029 1.6945 6.2000e0040.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 4.4500e0031.7800e003100.3967 Energy 0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 599.4291 599.4291 0.0321 8.4300e003602.7440 Mobile 0.7910 1.2261 7.5014 0.0185 2.1955 0.0142 2.2097 0.5871 0.0133 0.6004 0.0000 1,706.553 3 1,706.553
3 0.0840 0.0880 1,734.870
1 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 46.8422 0.0000 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.6302 19.7162 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834 Total 2.8322 1.5743 9.3003 0.0207 2.1955 0.0500 2.2455 0.5871 0.0492 0.6362 51.4724 2,425.453 9 2,476.926
2 3.3660 0.1096 2,593.743
7 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 5 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 2.0126 0.1029 1.6945 6.2000e0040.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 4.4500e0031.7800e003100.3967 Energy 0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 599.4291 599.4291 0.0321 8.4300e003602.7440 Mobile 0.7910 1.2261 7.5014 0.0185 2.1955 0.0142 2.2097 0.5871 0.0133 0.6004 0.0000 1,706.553 3 1,706.553
3 0.0840 0.0880 1,734.870
1 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 46.8422 0.0000 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.6302 19.7162 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834 Total 2.8322 1.5743 9.3003 0.0207 2.1955 0.0500 2.2455 0.5871 0.0492 0.6362 51.4724 2,425.453 9 2,476.926
2 3.3660 0.1096 2,593.743
7 Construction Phase
3.0 Construction Detail
Mitigated Operational
Number
Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 12/7/2024 1/31/2025 5 40 2 Grading Grading 2/1/2025 7/4/2025 5 110
3 Building Construction Building Construction 7/5/2025 10/5/2029 5 1110 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10 Total
PM10 Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 6 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Paving Paving 10/6/2029 1/18/2030 5 75
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/19/2030 5/3/2030 5 75 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
(Architectural Coating
Residential Indoor: 816,480; Residential Outdoor: 272,160; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 – sqft)
Acres of Paving: 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 330
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 7 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1854 0.0000 0.1854 0.0879 0.0000 0.0879 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0226 0.2310 0.1559 3.2000e0040.0105 0.0105 9.6100e0039.6100e0030.0000 28.4385 28.4385 9.2000e0030.0000 28.6684 Total 0.0226 0.2310 0.1559 3.2000e0040.1854 0.0105 0.1958 0.0879 9.6100e0030.0975 0.0000 28.4385 28.4385 9.2000e0030.0000 28.6684 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
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 81.00 24.00 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 16.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 8 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.9000e0043.3000e0043.8200e0031.0000e0051.2200e0031.0000e0051.2200e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9348 0.9348 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9441 Total 4.9000e0043.3000e0043.8200e0031.0000e0051.2200e0031.0000e0051.2200e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9348 0.9348 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9441 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 0.1854 0.0000 0.1854 0.0879 0.0000 0.0879 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0226 0.2310 0.1559 3.2000e0040.0105 0.0105 9.6100e0039.6100e0030.0000 28.4385 28.4385 9.2000e0030.0000 28.6684 Total 0.0226 0.2310 0.1559 3.2000e0040.1854 0.0105 0.1958 0.0879 9.6100e0030.0975 0.0000 28.4385 28.4385 9.2000e0030.0000 28.6684 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 9 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.9000e0043.3000e0043.8200e0031.0000e0051.2200e0031.0000e0051.2200e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9348 0.9348 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9441 Total 4.9000e0043.3000e0043.8200e0031.0000e0051.2200e0031.0000e0051.2200e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9348 0.9348 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9441
3.2 Site Preparation - 2025
Mitigated 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 0.2396 0.0000 0.2396 0.1176 0.0000 0.1176 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0284 0.2902 0.2060 4.4000e0040.0125 0.0125 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 38.4870 38.4870 0.0125 0.0000 38.7982 Total 0.0284 0.2902 0.2060 4.4000e0040.2396 0.0125 0.2521 0.1176 0.0115 0.1291 0.0000 38.4870 38.4870 0.0125 0.0000 38.7982 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 10 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 6.1000e0043.9000e0044.7600e0031.0000e0051.6500e0031.0000e0051.6600e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.2219 1.2219 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.2335 Total 6.1000e0043.9000e0044.7600e0031.0000e0051.6500e0031.0000e0051.6600e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.2219 1.2219 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.2335 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 0.2396 0.0000 0.2396 0.1176 0.0000 0.1176 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0284 0.2902 0.2060 4.4000e0040.0125 0.0125 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 38.4870 38.4870 0.0125 0.0000 38.7982 Total 0.0284 0.2902 0.2060 4.4000e0040.2396 0.0125 0.2521 0.1176 0.0115 0.1291 0.0000 38.4870 38.4870 0.0125 0.0000 38.7982 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 11 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 6.1000e0043.9000e0044.7600e0031.0000e0051.6500e0031.0000e0051.6600e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.2219 1.2219 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.2335 Total 6.1000e0043.9000e0044.7600e0031.0000e0051.6500e0031.0000e0051.6600e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.2219 1.2219 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.2335
3.3 Grading - 2025
Mitigated 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 0.5062 0.0000 0.5062 0.2010 0.0000 0.2010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1596 1.5369 1.4482 3.4100e0030.0622 0.0622 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 299.7842 299.7842 0.0970 0.0000 302.2081 Total 0.1596 1.5369 1.4482 3.4100e0030.5062 0.0622 0.5684 0.2010 0.0572 0.2582 0.0000 299.7842 299.7842 0.0970 0.0000 302.2081 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 12 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 3.2500e0032.0900e0030.0253 7.0000e0058.7600e0034.0000e0058.8000e0032.3300e0034.0000e0052.3700e0030.0000 6.4929 6.4929 1.9000e0041.9000e0046.5548 Total 3.2500e0032.0900e0030.0253 7.0000e0058.7600e0034.0000e0058.8000e0032.3300e0034.0000e0052.3700e0030.0000 6.4929 6.4929 1.9000e0041.9000e0046.5548 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 0.5062 0.0000 0.5062 0.2010 0.0000 0.2010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1596 1.5369 1.4482 3.4100e0030.0622 0.0622 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 299.7838 299.7838 0.0970 0.0000 302.2077 Total 0.1596 1.5369 1.4482 3.4100e0030.5062 0.0622 0.5684 0.2010 0.0572 0.2582 0.0000 299.7838 299.7838 0.0970 0.0000 302.2077 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 13 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 3.2500e0032.0900e0030.0253 7.0000e0058.7600e0034.0000e0058.8000e0032.3300e0034.0000e0052.3700e0030.0000 6.4929 6.4929 1.9000e0041.9000e0046.5548 Total 3.2500e0032.0900e0030.0253 7.0000e0058.7600e0034.0000e0058.8000e0032.3300e0034.0000e0052.3700e0030.0000 6.4929 6.4929 1.9000e0041.9000e0046.5548
3.4 Building Construction - 2025
Mitigated 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 0.0875 0.7981 1.0294 1.7300e0030.0338 0.0338 0.0318 0.0318 0.0000 148.4285 148.4285 0.0349 0.0000 149.3007 Total 0.0875 0.7981 1.0294 1.7300e0030.0338 0.0338 0.0318 0.0318 0.0000 148.4285 148.4285 0.0349 0.0000 149.3007 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 14 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 1.6500e0030.0689 0.0200 3.0000e0040.0102 4.4000e0040.0106 2.9400e0034.3000e0043.3600e0030.0000 28.8773 28.8773 1.3000e0044.3300e00330.1714 Worker 0.0153 9.8700e0030.1191 3.3000e0040.0413 1.9000e0040.0415 0.0110 1.8000e0040.0112 0.0000 30.5994 30.5994 9.1000e0049.0000e00430.8908 Total 0.0170 0.0788 0.1391 6.3000e0040.0515 6.3000e0040.0521 0.0139 6.1000e0040.0145 0.0000 59.4767 59.4767 1.0400e0035.2300e00361.0622 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 0.0875 0.7981 1.0294 1.7300e0030.0338 0.0338 0.0318 0.0318 0.0000 148.4283 148.4283 0.0349 0.0000 149.3006 Total 0.0875 0.7981 1.0294 1.7300e0030.0338 0.0338 0.0318 0.0318 0.0000 148.4283 148.4283 0.0349 0.0000 149.3006 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 15 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 1.6500e0030.0689 0.0200 3.0000e0040.0102 4.4000e0040.0106 2.9400e0034.3000e0043.3600e0030.0000 28.8773 28.8773 1.3000e0044.3300e00330.1714 Worker 0.0153 9.8700e0030.1191 3.3000e0040.0413 1.9000e0040.0415 0.0110 1.8000e0040.0112 0.0000 30.5994 30.5994 9.1000e0049.0000e00430.8908 Total 0.0170 0.0788 0.1391 6.3000e0040.0515 6.3000e0040.0521 0.0139 6.1000e0040.0145 0.0000 59.4767 59.4767 1.0400e0035.2300e00361.0622
3.4 Building Construction - 2026
Mitigated 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 0.1785 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 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 16 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 3.2800e0030.1396 0.0402 6.0000e0040.0207 9.0000e0040.0216 5.9900e0038.6000e0046.8500e0030.0000 57.7971 57.7971 2.5000e0048.6600e00360.3832 Worker 0.0289 0.0179 0.2263 6.6000e0040.0842 3.7000e0040.0846 0.0224 3.4000e0040.0227 0.0000 60.3144 60.3144 1.6700e0031.7100e00360.8661 Total 0.0322 0.1575 0.2664 1.2600e0030.1049 1.2700e0030.1062 0.0284 1.2000e0030.0296 0.0000 118.1115 118.1115 1.9200e0030.0104 121.2493 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 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 17 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 3.2800e0030.1396 0.0402 6.0000e0040.0207 9.0000e0040.0216 5.9900e0038.6000e0046.8500e0030.0000 57.7971 57.7971 2.5000e0048.6600e00360.3832 Worker 0.0289 0.0179 0.2263 6.6000e0040.0842 3.7000e0040.0846 0.0224 3.4000e0040.0227 0.0000 60.3144 60.3144 1.6700e0031.7100e00360.8661 Total 0.0322 0.1575 0.2664 1.2600e0030.1049 1.2700e0030.1062 0.0284 1.2000e0030.0296 0.0000 118.1115 118.1115 1.9200e0030.0104 121.2493
3.4 Building Construction - 2027
Mitigated 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 0.1785 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 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 18 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 3.2200e0030.1385 0.0396 5.9000e0040.0207 9.0000e0040.0216 5.9900e0038.6000e0046.8400e0030.0000 56.6317 56.6317 2.5000e0048.4700e00359.1622 Worker 0.0269 0.0161 0.2113 6.4000e0040.0842 3.4000e0040.0845 0.0224 3.2000e0040.0227 0.0000 58.5197 58.5197 1.5100e0031.6100e00359.0365 Total 0.0301 0.1546 0.2509 1.2300e0030.1049 1.2400e0030.1061 0.0284 1.1800e0030.0295 0.0000 115.1514 115.1514 1.7600e0030.0101 118.1987 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 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 19 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 3.2200e0030.1385 0.0396 5.9000e0040.0207 9.0000e0040.0216 5.9900e0038.6000e0046.8400e0030.0000 56.6317 56.6317 2.5000e0048.4700e00359.1622 Worker 0.0269 0.0161 0.2113 6.4000e0040.0842 3.4000e0040.0845 0.0224 3.2000e0040.0227 0.0000 58.5197 58.5197 1.5100e0031.6100e00359.0365 Total 0.0301 0.1546 0.2509 1.2300e0030.1049 1.2400e0030.1061 0.0284 1.1800e0030.0295 0.0000 115.1514 115.1514 1.7600e0030.0101 118.1987
3.4 Building Construction - 2028
Mitigated 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 0.1778 1.6211 2.0910 3.5000e0030.0686 0.0686 0.0645 0.0645 0.0000 301.4953 301.4953 0.0709 0.0000 303.2671 Total 0.1778 1.6211 2.0910 3.5000e0030.0686 0.0686 0.0645 0.0645 0.0000 301.4953 301.4953 0.0709 0.0000 303.2671 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 20 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 3.1600e0030.1372 0.0390 5.8000e0040.0206 8.9000e0040.0215 5.9600e0038.5000e0046.8100e0030.0000 55.3090 55.3090 2.4000e0048.2600e00357.7770 Worker 0.0249 0.0145 0.1981 6.2000e0040.0839 3.2000e0040.0842 0.0223 2.9000e0040.0226 0.0000 56.6896 56.6896 1.3800e0031.5100e00357.1754 Total 0.0281 0.1517 0.2371 1.2000e0030.1045 1.2100e0030.1057 0.0283 1.1400e0030.0294 0.0000 111.9987 111.9987 1.6200e0039.7700e003114.9523 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 0.1778 1.6211 2.0910 3.5000e0030.0686 0.0686 0.0645 0.0645 0.0000 301.4949 301.4949 0.0709 0.0000 303.2667 Total 0.1778 1.6211 2.0910 3.5000e0030.0686 0.0686 0.0645 0.0645 0.0000 301.4949 301.4949 0.0709 0.0000 303.2667 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 21 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 3.1600e0030.1372 0.0390 5.8000e0040.0206 8.9000e0040.0215 5.9600e0038.5000e0046.8100e0030.0000 55.3090 55.3090 2.4000e0048.2600e00357.7770 Worker 0.0249 0.0145 0.1981 6.2000e0040.0839 3.2000e0040.0842 0.0223 2.9000e0040.0226 0.0000 56.6896 56.6896 1.3800e0031.5100e00357.1754 Total 0.0281 0.1517 0.2371 1.2000e0030.1045 1.2100e0030.1057 0.0283 1.1400e0030.0294 0.0000 111.9987 111.9987 1.6200e0039.7700e003114.9523
3.4 Building Construction - 2029
Mitigated 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 0.1367 1.2470 1.6085 2.7000e0030.0528 0.0528 0.0496 0.0496 0.0000 231.9195 231.9195 0.0545 0.0000 233.2824 Total 0.1367 1.2470 1.6085 2.7000e0030.0528 0.0528 0.0496 0.0496 0.0000 231.9195 231.9195 0.0545 0.0000 233.2824 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 22 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2029
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.3900e0030.1048 0.0297 4.3000e0040.0159 6.8000e0040.0166 4.5900e0036.5000e0045.2300e0030.0000 41.7145 41.7145 1.8000e0046.2200e00343.5732 Worker 0.0178 0.0102 0.1440 4.6000e0040.0645 2.3000e0040.0648 0.0172 2.1000e0040.0174 0.0000 42.4974 42.4974 9.7000e0041.1100e00342.8519 Total 0.0202 0.1150 0.1738 8.9000e0040.0804 9.1000e0040.0813 0.0217 8.6000e0040.0226 0.0000 84.2119 84.2119 1.1500e0037.3300e00386.4251 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 0.1367 1.2470 1.6085 2.7000e0030.0528 0.0528 0.0496 0.0496 0.0000 231.9192 231.9192 0.0545 0.0000 233.2821 Total 0.1367 1.2470 1.6085 2.7000e0030.0528 0.0528 0.0496 0.0496 0.0000 231.9192 231.9192 0.0545 0.0000 233.2821 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 23 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2029
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.3900e0030.1048 0.0297 4.3000e0040.0159 6.8000e0040.0166 4.5900e0036.5000e0045.2300e0030.0000 41.7145 41.7145 1.8000e0046.2200e00343.5732 Worker 0.0178 0.0102 0.1440 4.6000e0040.0645 2.3000e0040.0648 0.0172 2.1000e0040.0174 0.0000 42.4974 42.4974 9.7000e0041.1100e00342.8519 Total 0.0202 0.1150 0.1738 8.9000e0040.0804 9.1000e0040.0813 0.0217 8.6000e0040.0226 0.0000 84.2119 84.2119 1.1500e0037.3300e00386.4251
3.5 Paving - 2029
Mitigated 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 0.0279 0.2617 0.4446 7.0000e0040.0128 0.0128 0.0117 0.0117 0.0000 61.0587 61.0587 0.0198 0.0000 61.5524 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0279 0.2617 0.4446 7.0000e0040.0128 0.0128 0.0117 0.0117 0.0000 61.0587 61.0587 0.0198 0.0000 61.5524 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 24 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2029
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 1.0100e0035.8000e0048.1400e0033.0000e0053.6400e0031.0000e0053.6600e0039.7000e0041.0000e0059.8000e0040.0000 2.4003 2.4003 5.0000e0056.0000e0052.4203 Total 1.0100e0035.8000e0048.1400e0033.0000e0053.6400e0031.0000e0053.6600e0039.7000e0041.0000e0059.8000e0040.0000 2.4003 2.4003 5.0000e0056.0000e0052.4203 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 0.0279 0.2617 0.4446 7.0000e0040.0128 0.0128 0.0117 0.0117 0.0000 61.0587 61.0587 0.0198 0.0000 61.5524 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0279 0.2617 0.4446 7.0000e0040.0128 0.0128 0.0117 0.0117 0.0000 61.0587 61.0587 0.0198 0.0000 61.5524 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 25 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2029
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 1.0100e0035.8000e0048.1400e0033.0000e0053.6400e0031.0000e0053.6600e0039.7000e0041.0000e0059.8000e0040.0000 2.4003 2.4003 5.0000e0056.0000e0052.4203 Total 1.0100e0035.8000e0048.1400e0033.0000e0053.6400e0031.0000e0053.6600e0039.7000e0041.0000e0059.8000e0040.0000 2.4003 2.4003 5.0000e0056.0000e0052.4203
3.5 Paving - 2030
Mitigated 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 9.6900e0030.0498 0.1110 2.0000e0042.3100e0032.3100e0032.3100e0032.3100e0030.0000 16.8697 16.8697 7.9000e0040.0000 16.8894 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 9.6900e0030.0498 0.1110 2.0000e0042.3100e0032.3100e0032.3100e0032.3100e0030.0000 16.8697 16.8697 7.9000e0040.0000 16.8894 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 26 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2030
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 2.1000e0041.2000e0041.7800e0031.0000e0058.4000e0040.0000 8.4000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.5380 0.5380 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5424 Total 2.1000e0041.2000e0041.7800e0031.0000e0058.4000e0040.0000 8.4000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.5380 0.5380 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5424 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 9.6900e0030.0498 0.1110 2.0000e0042.3100e0032.3100e0032.3100e0032.3100e0030.0000 16.8696 16.8696 7.9000e0040.0000 16.8894 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 9.6900e0030.0498 0.1110 2.0000e0042.3100e0032.3100e0032.3100e0032.3100e0030.0000 16.8696 16.8696 7.9000e0040.0000 16.8894 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 27 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2030
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 2.1000e0041.2000e0041.7800e0031.0000e0058.4000e0040.0000 8.4000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.5380 0.5380 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5424 Total 2.1000e0041.2000e0041.7800e0031.0000e0058.4000e0040.0000 8.4000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.5380 0.5380 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5424
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2030
Mitigated 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 3.7844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.9000e0030.0321 0.0674 1.1000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0040.0000 9.5747 9.5747 3.9000e0040.0000 9.5844 Total 3.7893 0.0321 0.0674 1.1000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0040.0000 9.5747 9.5747 3.9000e0040.0000 9.5844 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 28 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2030
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 1.2300e0036.9000e0040.0102 3.0000e0054.7800e0032.0000e0054.8000e0031.2700e0031.0000e0051.2900e0030.0000 3.0744 3.0744 7.0000e0058.0000e0053.0995 Total 1.2300e0036.9000e0040.0102 3.0000e0054.7800e0032.0000e0054.8000e0031.2700e0031.0000e0051.2900e0030.0000 3.0744 3.0744 7.0000e0058.0000e0053.0995 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 3.7844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.9000e0030.0321 0.0674 1.1000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0040.0000 9.5747 9.5747 3.9000e0040.0000 9.5844 Total 3.7893 0.0321 0.0674 1.1000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e0040.0000 9.5747 9.5747 3.9000e0040.0000 9.5844 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 29 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2030
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 1.2300e0036.9000e0040.0102 3.0000e0054.7800e0032.0000e0054.8000e0031.2700e0031.0000e0051.2900e0030.0000 3.0744 3.0744 7.0000e0058.0000e0053.0995 Total 1.2300e0036.9000e0040.0102 3.0000e0054.7800e0032.0000e0054.8000e0031.2700e0031.0000e0051.2900e0030.0000 3.0744 3.0744 7.0000e0058.0000e0053.0995 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 30 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.7910 1.2261 7.5014 0.0185 2.1955 0.0142 2.2097 0.5871 0.0133 0.6004 0.0000 1,706.553 3 1,706.553
3 0.0840 0.0880 1,734.870
1 Unmitigated 0.7910 1.2261 7.5014 0.0185 2.1955 0.0142 2.2097 0.5871 0.0133 0.6004 0.0000 1,706.553 3 1,706.553
3 0.0840 0.0880 1,734.870
1 4.3 Trip Type Information
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 2,114.56 2,136.96 1915.20 5,889,125 5,889,125 Total 2,114.56 2,136.96 1,915.20 5,889,125 5,889,125
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 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 Single Family Housing 0.548891 0.052350 0.169889 0.142795 0.024546 0.006610 0.012173 0.015857 0.000617 0.000465 0.021714 0.001278 0.002815 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 31 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 315.3780 315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 315.3780 315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050 NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391 Unmitigated
NaturalGas 0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 32 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
5.32292e
+006
0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391 Total 0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391 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
Single Family
Housing
5.32292e
+006
0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391 Total 0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 33 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
1.77832e
+006
315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050
Total 315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
1.77832e
+006
315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050
Total 315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 34 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 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 2.0126 0.1029 1.6945 6.2000e0040.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 4.4500e0031.7800e003100.3967 Unmitigated 2.0126 0.1029 1.6945 6.2000e0040.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 4.4500e0031.7800e003100.3967
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.3784 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
1.5747 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 9.8100e0030.0838 0.0357 5.3000e0046.7700e0036.7700e0036.7700e0036.7700e0030.0000 97.0385 97.0385 1.8600e0031.7800e00397.6151 Landscaping 0.0496 0.0191 1.6588 9.0000e0059.2200e0039.2200e0039.2200e0039.2200e0030.0000 2.7169 2.7169 2.5900e0030.0000 2.7816 Total 2.0126 0.1029 1.6945 6.2000e0040.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 4.4500e0031.7800e003100.3967 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 35 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.3784 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
1.5747 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 9.8100e0030.0838 0.0357 5.3000e0046.7700e0036.7700e0036.7700e0036.7700e0030.0000 97.0385 97.0385 1.8600e0031.7800e00397.6151 Landscaping 0.0496 0.0191 1.6588 9.0000e0059.2200e0039.2200e0039.2200e0039.2200e0030.0000 2.7169 2.7169 2.5900e0030.0000 2.7816 Total 2.0126 0.1029 1.6945 6.2000e0040.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 4.4500e0031.7800e003100.3967 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 36 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
Unmitigated 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
14.5945 /
9.20088
24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
Total 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 37 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
14.5945 /
9.20088
24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
Total 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
Unmitigated 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 38 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
230.76 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
Total 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
230.76 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
Total 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
9.0 Operational Offroad
Mitigated
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 39 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/4/2023 12:01 PM Page 40 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Part 2
2005 BAU from CalEEMod
Tulare County, Annual
Elliot Subdivision
Construction Phase -
Land Use - Lot Acreage Established
Project Characteristics -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 224.00 Dwelling Unit 59.13 403,200.00 641 Climate Zone
Urbanization
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
7 Urban Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 51
2.0 Emissions Summary
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Utility Company
1.0 Project Characteristics
Southern California Edison
2005 Operational Year
(lb/MWhr)
CO2 Intensity 390.98 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
CH4 Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LotAcreage 72.73 59.13
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 59.13 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 59.13 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 1 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
1999 0.8591 6.6281 3.4041 0.3369 0.7184 0.4782 1.1967 0.3018 0.4782 0.7800 0.0000 237.0562 237.0562 0.0702 0.0000 238.8119 2000 1.6357 9.5558 6.6982 0.0577 0.4462 0.6058 1.0519 0.1443 0.6043 0.7487 0.0000 603.0968 603.0968 0.1294 0.0222 612.9590 2001 1.5174 7.5935 6.1112 0.0479 0.1049 0.5358 0.6407 0.0284 0.5340 0.5623 0.0000 519.9681 519.9681 0.1188 0.0280 531.2921 2002 1.5174 7.5935 6.1112 0.0479 0.1049 0.5358 0.6407 0.0284 0.5340 0.5623 0.0000 519.9681 519.9681 0.1188 0.0280 531.2921 2003 1.5174 7.5935 6.1112 0.0479 0.1049 0.5358 0.6407 0.0284 0.5340 0.5623 0.0000 519.9681 519.9681 0.1188 0.0280 531.2921 2004 5.9296 5.7271 4.0681 0.0348 0.0600 0.3862 0.4462 0.0162 0.3852 0.4014 0.0000 364.3529 364.3529 0.0832 0.0155 371.0393 2005 1.4384 0.0394 0.0420 2.7000e0041.0800e0033.2900e0034.3700e0032.9000e0043.2900e0033.5800e0030.0000 3.3795 3.3795 7.1000e0041.5000e0043.4424 Maximum 5.9296 9.5558 6.6982 0.3369 0.7184 0.6058 1.1967 0.3018 0.6043 0.7800 0.0000 603.0968 603.0968 0.1294 0.0280 612.9590 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 2 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
1999 0.8591 6.6281 3.4041 0.3369 0.7184 0.4782 1.1967 0.3018 0.4782 0.7800 0.0000 237.0559 237.0559 0.0702 0.0000 238.8116 2000 1.6357 9.5558 6.6982 0.0577 0.4462 0.6058 1.0519 0.1443 0.6043 0.7487 0.0000 603.0963 603.0963 0.1294 0.0222 612.9585 2001 1.5174 7.5935 6.1112 0.0479 0.1049 0.5358 0.6407 0.0284 0.5339 0.5623 0.0000 519.9677 519.9677 0.1188 0.0280 531.2917 2002 1.5174 7.5935 6.1112 0.0479 0.1049 0.5358 0.6407 0.0284 0.5339 0.5623 0.0000 519.9677 519.9677 0.1188 0.0280 531.2917 2003 1.5174 7.5935 6.1112 0.0479 0.1049 0.5358 0.6407 0.0284 0.5339 0.5623 0.0000 519.9677 519.9677 0.1188 0.0280 531.2917 2004 5.9296 5.7271 4.0681 0.0348 0.0600 0.3862 0.4462 0.0162 0.3852 0.4014 0.0000 364.3526 364.3526 0.0832 0.0155 371.0390 2005 1.4384 0.0394 0.0420 2.7000e0041.0800e0033.2900e0034.3700e0032.9000e0043.2900e0033.5800e0030.0000 3.3795 3.3795 7.1000e0041.5000e0043.4424 Maximum 5.9296 9.5558 6.6982 0.3369 0.7184 0.6058 1.1967 0.3018 0.6043 0.7800 0.0000 603.0963 603.0963 0.1294 0.0280 612.9585 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10 Total
PM10 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 9-1-1999 11-30-1999 5.1523 5.1523
2 12-1-1999 2-29-2000 5.2082 5.2082
3 3-1-2000 5-31-2000 2.9705 2.9705
4 6-1-2000 8-31-2000 2.2829 2.2829
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 3 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 5 9-1-2000 11-30-2000 2.2764 2.2764
6 12-1-2000 2-28-2001 2.2603 2.2603
7 3-1-2001 5-31-2001 2.2922 2.2922
8 6-1-2001 8-31-2001 2.2829 2.2829
9 9-1-2001 11-30-2001 2.2764 2.2764
10 12-1-2001 2-28-2002 2.2603 2.2603
11 3-1-2002 5-31-2002 2.2922 2.2922
12 6-1-2002 8-31-2002 2.2829 2.2829
13 9-1-2002 11-30-2002 2.2764 2.2764
14 12-1-2002 2-28-2003 2.2603 2.2603
15 3-1-2003 5-31-2003 2.2922 2.2922
16 6-1-2003 8-31-2003 2.2829 2.2829
17 9-1-2003 11-30-2003 2.2764 2.2764
18 12-1-2003 2-29-2004 2.2854 2.2854
19 3-1-2004 5-31-2004 2.2922 2.2922
20 6-1-2004 8-31-2004 1.9650 1.9650
21 9-1-2004 11-30-2004 3.8961 3.8961
22 12-1-2004 2-28-2005 3.4923 3.4923
Highest 5.2082 5.2082
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 4 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 2.2987 0.1100 1.9646 6.2000e0040.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 6.2100e0031.7800e003100.4407 Energy 0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 599.4291 599.4291 0.0321 8.4300e003602.7440 Mobile 4.1217 9.8893 48.2416 0.0624 2.2055 0.1809 2.3864 0.5914 0.1716 0.7630 0.0000 2,916.918 0 2,916.918
0 0.4342 0.3427 3,029.899
3 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 46.8422 0.0000 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.6302 19.7162 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834 Total 6.4491 10.2446 50.3105 0.0646 2.2055 0.2156 2.4211 0.5914 0.2064 0.7978 51.4724 3,635.818 6 3,687.290
9 3.7180 0.3644 3,888.817
0 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 5 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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 2.2987 0.1100 1.9646 6.2000e0040.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 6.2100e0031.7800e003100.4407 Energy 0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 599.4291 599.4291 0.0321 8.4300e003602.7440 Mobile 4.1217 9.8893 48.2416 0.0624 2.2055 0.1809 2.3864 0.5914 0.1716 0.7630 0.0000 2,916.918 0 2,916.918
0 0.4342 0.3427 3,029.899
3 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 46.8422 0.0000 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.6302 19.7162 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834 Total 6.4491 10.2446 50.3105 0.0646 2.2055 0.2156 2.4211 0.5914 0.2064 0.7978 51.4724 3,635.818 6 3,687.290
9 3.7180 0.3644 3,888.817
0 Construction Phase
3.0 Construction Detail
Mitigated Operational
Number
Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/1/1999 10/26/1999 5 40 2 Grading Grading 10/27/1999 3/28/2000 5 110
3 Building Construction Building Construction 3/29/2000 6/29/2004 5 1110 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10 Total
PM10 Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 6 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Paving Paving 6/30/2004 10/12/2004 5 75
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/13/2004 1/25/2005 5 75 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
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
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
(Architectural Coating
Residential Indoor: 816,480; Residential Outdoor: 272,160; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 – sqft)
Acres of Paving: 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 330
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 7 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 1999
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 0.3931 0.0000 0.3931 0.2021 0.0000 0.2021 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3153 2.2990 0.8397 0.1193 0.1779 0.1779 0.1779 0.1779 0.0000 80.0092 80.0092 0.0258 0.0000 80.6535 Total 0.3153 2.2990 0.8397 0.1193 0.3931 0.1779 0.5711 0.2021 0.1779 0.3800 0.0000 80.0092 80.0092 0.0258 0.0000 80.6535 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
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 81.00 24.00 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 16.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 8 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 1999
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 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 Worker 2.4800e0030.0000 2.4800e0036.1000e0040.0000 6.1000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.4800e0030.0000 2.4800e0036.1000e0040.0000 6.1000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.3931 0.0000 0.3931 0.2021 0.0000 0.2021 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3153 2.2990 0.8397 0.1193 0.1779 0.1779 0.1779 0.1779 0.0000 80.0091 80.0091 0.0258 0.0000 80.6534 Total 0.3153 2.2990 0.8397 0.1193 0.3931 0.1779 0.5711 0.2021 0.1779 0.3800 0.0000 80.0091 80.0091 0.0258 0.0000 80.6534 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 9 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 1999
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 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 Worker 2.4800e0030.0000 2.4800e0036.1000e0040.0000 6.1000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.4800e0030.0000 2.4800e0036.1000e0040.0000 6.1000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
3.3 Grading - 1999
Mitigated 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 0.3195 0.0000 0.3195 0.0983 0.0000 0.0983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5438 4.3291 2.5644 0.2176 0.3003 0.3003 0.3003 0.3003 0.0000 157.0469 157.0469 0.0445 0.0000 158.1584 Total 0.5438 4.3291 2.5644 0.2176 0.3195 0.3003 0.6198 0.0983 0.3003 0.3987 0.0000 157.0469 157.0469 0.0445 0.0000 158.1584 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 10 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 1999
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 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 Worker 3.3100e0030.0000 3.3100e0038.1000e0040.0000 8.1000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.3100e0030.0000 3.3100e0038.1000e0040.0000 8.1000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.3195 0.0000 0.3195 0.0983 0.0000 0.0983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5438 4.3291 2.5644 0.2176 0.3003 0.3003 0.3003 0.3003 0.0000 157.0467 157.0467 0.0445 0.0000 158.1582 Total 0.5438 4.3291 2.5644 0.2176 0.3195 0.3003 0.6198 0.0983 0.3003 0.3987 0.0000 157.0467 157.0467 0.0445 0.0000 158.1582 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 11 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 1999
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 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 Worker 3.3100e0030.0000 3.3100e0038.1000e0040.0000 8.1000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.3100e0030.0000 3.3100e0038.1000e0040.0000 8.1000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
3.3 Grading - 2000
Mitigated 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 0.3617 0.0000 0.3617 0.1215 0.0000 0.1215 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4688 3.7744 1.9082 0.0212 0.1991 0.1991 0.1991 0.1991 0.0000 202.8523 202.8523 0.0381 0.0000 203.8051 Total 0.4688 3.7744 1.9082 0.0212 0.3617 0.1991 0.5607 0.1215 0.1991 0.3206 0.0000 202.8523 202.8523 0.0381 0.0000 203.8051 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 12 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 2000
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 0.0158 0.0209 0.1540 9.0000e0054.9400e0032.2000e0045.1600e0031.3100e0032.1000e0041.5200e0030.0000 5.7860 5.7860 1.2200e0039.7000e0046.1047 Total 0.0158 0.0209 0.1540 9.0000e0054.9400e0032.2000e0045.1600e0031.3100e0032.1000e0041.5200e0030.0000 5.7860 5.7860 1.2200e0039.7000e0046.1047 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 0.3617 0.0000 0.3617 0.1215 0.0000 0.1215 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4688 3.7744 1.9082 0.0212 0.1991 0.1991 0.1991 0.1991 0.0000 202.8520 202.8520 0.0381 0.0000 203.8049 Total 0.4688 3.7744 1.9082 0.0212 0.3617 0.1991 0.5607 0.1215 0.1991 0.3206 0.0000 202.8520 202.8520 0.0381 0.0000 203.8049 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 13 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 2000
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 0.0158 0.0209 0.1540 9.0000e0054.9400e0032.2000e0045.1600e0031.3100e0032.1000e0041.5200e0030.0000 5.7860 5.7860 1.2200e0039.7000e0046.1047 Total 0.0158 0.0209 0.1540 9.0000e0054.9400e0032.2000e0045.1600e0031.3100e0032.1000e0041.5200e0030.0000 5.7860 5.7860 1.2200e0039.7000e0046.1047
3.4 Building Construction - 2000
Mitigated 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 0.8638 4.7779 2.2135 0.0301 0.3756 0.3756 0.3756 0.3756 0.0000 260.2324 260.2324 0.0704 0.0000 261.9911 Total 0.8638 4.7779 2.2135 0.0301 0.3756 0.3756 0.3756 0.3756 0.0000 260.2324 260.2324 0.0704 0.0000 261.9911 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 14 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2000
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 0.0831 0.7127 0.4306 5.0800e0030.0157 0.0280 0.0437 4.5400e0030.0268 0.0313 0.0000 59.3909 59.3909 3.9700e0038.7600e00362.1006 Worker 0.2043 0.2699 1.9919 1.1800e0030.0639 2.9000e0030.0668 0.0170 2.6900e0030.0197 0.0000 74.8353 74.8353 0.0158 0.0125 78.9576 Total 0.2874 0.9826 2.4225 6.2600e0030.0796 0.0309 0.1105 0.0215 0.0294 0.0510 0.0000 134.2262 134.2262 0.0198 0.0213 141.0581 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 0.8638 4.7779 2.2135 0.0301 0.3756 0.3756 0.3756 0.3756 0.0000 260.2321 260.2321 0.0704 0.0000 261.9907 Total 0.8638 4.7779 2.2135 0.0301 0.3756 0.3756 0.3756 0.3756 0.0000 260.2321 260.2321 0.0704 0.0000 261.9907 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 15 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2000
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 0.0831 0.7127 0.4306 5.0800e0030.0157 0.0280 0.0437 4.5400e0030.0268 0.0313 0.0000 59.3909 59.3909 3.9700e0038.7600e00362.1006 Worker 0.2043 0.2699 1.9919 1.1800e0030.0639 2.9000e0030.0668 0.0170 2.6900e0030.0197 0.0000 74.8353 74.8353 0.0158 0.0125 78.9576 Total 0.2874 0.9826 2.4225 6.2600e0030.0796 0.0309 0.1105 0.0215 0.0294 0.0510 0.0000 134.2262 134.2262 0.0198 0.0213 141.0581
3.4 Building Construction - 2001
Mitigated 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 1.1386 6.2982 2.9179 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0336 343.0336 0.0927 0.0000 345.3518 Total 1.1386 6.2982 2.9179 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0336 343.0336 0.0927 0.0000 345.3518 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 16 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2001
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 0.1095 0.9395 0.5676 6.7000e0030.0207 0.0369 0.0576 5.9800e0030.0353 0.0413 0.0000 78.2880 78.2880 5.2300e0030.0116 81.8599 Worker 0.2693 0.3558 2.6257 1.5600e0030.0842 3.8300e0030.0880 0.0224 3.5500e0030.0259 0.0000 98.6465 98.6465 0.0208 0.0165 104.0804 Total 0.3788 1.2953 3.1933 8.2600e0030.1049 0.0407 0.1456 0.0284 0.0388 0.0672 0.0000 176.9345 176.9345 0.0260 0.0280 185.9403 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 1.1386 6.2982 2.9178 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0332 343.0332 0.0927 0.0000 345.3514 Total 1.1386 6.2982 2.9178 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0332 343.0332 0.0927 0.0000 345.3514 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 17 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2001
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 0.1095 0.9395 0.5676 6.7000e0030.0207 0.0369 0.0576 5.9800e0030.0353 0.0413 0.0000 78.2880 78.2880 5.2300e0030.0116 81.8599 Worker 0.2693 0.3558 2.6257 1.5600e0030.0842 3.8300e0030.0880 0.0224 3.5500e0030.0259 0.0000 98.6465 98.6465 0.0208 0.0165 104.0804 Total 0.3788 1.2953 3.1933 8.2600e0030.1049 0.0407 0.1456 0.0284 0.0388 0.0672 0.0000 176.9345 176.9345 0.0260 0.0280 185.9403
3.4 Building Construction - 2002
Mitigated 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 1.1386 6.2982 2.9179 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0336 343.0336 0.0927 0.0000 345.3518 Total 1.1386 6.2982 2.9179 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0336 343.0336 0.0927 0.0000 345.3518 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 18 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2002
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 0.1095 0.9395 0.5676 6.7000e0030.0207 0.0369 0.0576 5.9800e0030.0353 0.0413 0.0000 78.2880 78.2880 5.2300e0030.0116 81.8599 Worker 0.2693 0.3558 2.6257 1.5600e0030.0842 3.8300e0030.0880 0.0224 3.5500e0030.0259 0.0000 98.6465 98.6465 0.0208 0.0165 104.0804 Total 0.3788 1.2953 3.1933 8.2600e0030.1049 0.0407 0.1456 0.0284 0.0388 0.0672 0.0000 176.9345 176.9345 0.0260 0.0280 185.9403 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 1.1386 6.2982 2.9178 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0332 343.0332 0.0927 0.0000 345.3514 Total 1.1386 6.2982 2.9178 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0332 343.0332 0.0927 0.0000 345.3514 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 19 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2002
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 0.1095 0.9395 0.5676 6.7000e0030.0207 0.0369 0.0576 5.9800e0030.0353 0.0413 0.0000 78.2880 78.2880 5.2300e0030.0116 81.8599 Worker 0.2693 0.3558 2.6257 1.5600e0030.0842 3.8300e0030.0880 0.0224 3.5500e0030.0259 0.0000 98.6465 98.6465 0.0208 0.0165 104.0804 Total 0.3788 1.2953 3.1933 8.2600e0030.1049 0.0407 0.1456 0.0284 0.0388 0.0672 0.0000 176.9345 176.9345 0.0260 0.0280 185.9403
3.4 Building Construction - 2003
Mitigated 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 1.1386 6.2982 2.9179 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0336 343.0336 0.0927 0.0000 345.3518 Total 1.1386 6.2982 2.9179 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0336 343.0336 0.0927 0.0000 345.3518 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 20 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2003
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 0.1095 0.9395 0.5676 6.7000e0030.0207 0.0369 0.0576 5.9800e0030.0353 0.0413 0.0000 78.2880 78.2880 5.2300e0030.0116 81.8599 Worker 0.2693 0.3558 2.6257 1.5600e0030.0842 3.8300e0030.0880 0.0224 3.5500e0030.0259 0.0000 98.6465 98.6465 0.0208 0.0165 104.0804 Total 0.3788 1.2953 3.1933 8.2600e0030.1049 0.0407 0.1456 0.0284 0.0388 0.0672 0.0000 176.9345 176.9345 0.0260 0.0280 185.9403 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 1.1386 6.2982 2.9178 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0332 343.0332 0.0927 0.0000 345.3514 Total 1.1386 6.2982 2.9178 0.0397 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.4951 0.0000 343.0332 343.0332 0.0927 0.0000 345.3514 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 21 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2003
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 0.1095 0.9395 0.5676 6.7000e0030.0207 0.0369 0.0576 5.9800e0030.0353 0.0413 0.0000 78.2880 78.2880 5.2300e0030.0116 81.8599 Worker 0.2693 0.3558 2.6257 1.5600e0030.0842 3.8300e0030.0880 0.0224 3.5500e0030.0259 0.0000 98.6465 98.6465 0.0208 0.0165 104.0804 Total 0.3788 1.2953 3.1933 8.2600e0030.1049 0.0407 0.1456 0.0284 0.0388 0.0672 0.0000 176.9345 176.9345 0.0260 0.0280 185.9403
3.4 Building Construction - 2004
Mitigated 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 0.5628 3.1129 1.4422 0.0196 0.2447 0.2447 0.2447 0.2447 0.0000 169.5454 169.5454 0.0458 0.0000 170.6911 Total 0.5628 3.1129 1.4422 0.0196 0.2447 0.2447 0.2447 0.2447 0.0000 169.5454 169.5454 0.0458 0.0000 170.6911 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 22 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2004
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 0.0541 0.4643 0.2805 3.3100e0030.0102 0.0182 0.0285 2.9600e0030.0174 0.0204 0.0000 38.6941 38.6941 2.5800e0035.7100e00340.4595 Worker 0.1331 0.1759 1.2978 7.7000e0040.0416 1.8900e0030.0435 0.0111 1.7500e0030.0128 0.0000 48.7563 48.7563 0.0103 8.1500e00351.4421 Total 0.1872 0.6402 1.5783 4.0800e0030.0519 0.0201 0.0720 0.0140 0.0192 0.0332 0.0000 87.4504 87.4504 0.0129 0.0139 91.9015 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 0.5628 3.1129 1.4422 0.0196 0.2447 0.2447 0.2447 0.2447 0.0000 169.5452 169.5452 0.0458 0.0000 170.6909 Total 0.5628 3.1129 1.4422 0.0196 0.2447 0.2447 0.2447 0.2447 0.0000 169.5452 169.5452 0.0458 0.0000 170.6909 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 23 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2004
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 0.0541 0.4643 0.2805 3.3100e0030.0102 0.0182 0.0285 2.9600e0030.0174 0.0204 0.0000 38.6941 38.6941 2.5800e0035.7100e00340.4595 Worker 0.1331 0.1759 1.2978 7.7000e0040.0416 1.8900e0030.0435 0.0111 1.7500e0030.0128 0.0000 48.7563 48.7563 0.0103 8.1500e00351.4421 Total 0.1872 0.6402 1.5783 4.0800e0030.0519 0.0201 0.0720 0.0140 0.0192 0.0332 0.0000 87.4504 87.4504 0.0129 0.0139 91.9015
3.5 Paving - 2004
Mitigated 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 0.2505 1.7919 0.7274 0.0101 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.0000 90.3732 90.3732 0.0204 0.0000 90.8832 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.2505 1.7919 0.7274 0.0101 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.0000 90.3732 90.3732 0.0204 0.0000 90.8832 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 24 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2004
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 0.0143 0.0189 0.1397 8.0000e0054.4800e0032.0000e0044.6800e0031.1900e0031.9000e0041.3800e0030.0000 5.2494 5.2494 1.1100e0038.8000e0045.5386 Total 0.0143 0.0189 0.1397 8.0000e0054.4800e0032.0000e0044.6800e0031.1900e0031.9000e0041.3800e0030.0000 5.2494 5.2494 1.1100e0038.8000e0045.5386 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 0.2505 1.7919 0.7274 0.0101 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.0000 90.3731 90.3731 0.0204 0.0000 90.8831 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.2505 1.7919 0.7274 0.0101 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.0000 90.3731 90.3731 0.0204 0.0000 90.8831 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 25 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2004
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 0.0143 0.0189 0.1397 8.0000e0054.4800e0032.0000e0044.6800e0031.1900e0031.9000e0041.3800e0030.0000 5.2494 5.2494 1.1100e0038.8000e0045.5386 Total 0.0143 0.0189 0.1397 8.0000e0054.4800e0032.0000e0044.6800e0031.1900e0031.9000e0041.3800e0030.0000 5.2494 5.2494 1.1100e0038.8000e0045.5386
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2004
Mitigated 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 4.8777 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0254 0.1476 0.0653 8.6000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 7.4045 7.4045 2.0700e0030.0000 7.4562 Total 4.9031 0.1476 0.0653 8.6000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 7.4045 7.4045 2.0700e0030.0000 7.4562 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 26 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2004
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 0.0118 0.0156 0.1153 7.0000e0053.7000e0031.7000e0043.8600e0039.8000e0041.6000e0041.1400e0030.0000 4.3302 4.3302 9.1000e0047.2000e0044.5687 Total 0.0118 0.0156 0.1153 7.0000e0053.7000e0031.7000e0043.8600e0039.8000e0041.6000e0041.1400e0030.0000 4.3302 4.3302 9.1000e0047.2000e0044.5687 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 4.8777 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0254 0.1476 0.0653 8.6000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 7.4044 7.4044 2.0700e0030.0000 7.4562 Total 4.9031 0.1476 0.0653 8.6000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 7.4044 7.4044 2.0700e0030.0000 7.4562 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 27 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2004
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 0.0118 0.0156 0.1153 7.0000e0053.7000e0031.7000e0043.8600e0039.8000e0041.6000e0041.1400e0030.0000 4.3302 4.3302 9.1000e0047.2000e0044.5687 Total 0.0118 0.0156 0.1153 7.0000e0053.7000e0031.7000e0043.8600e0039.8000e0041.6000e0041.1400e0030.0000 4.3302 4.3302 9.1000e0047.2000e0044.5687
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2005
Mitigated 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 1.4297 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.3900e0030.0364 0.0177 2.5000e0043.2600e0033.2600e0033.2600e0033.2600e0030.0000 2.1703 2.1703 5.2000e0040.0000 2.1834 Total 1.4361 0.0364 0.0177 2.5000e0043.2600e0033.2600e0033.2600e0033.2600e0030.0000 2.1703 2.1703 5.2000e0040.0000 2.1834 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 28 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2005
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 2.3900e0033.0500e0030.0243 1.0000e0051.0800e0033.0000e0051.1100e0032.9000e0043.0000e0053.1000e0040.0000 1.2092 1.2092 1.9000e0041.5000e0041.2591 Total 2.3900e0033.0500e0030.0243 1.0000e0051.0800e0033.0000e0051.1100e0032.9000e0043.0000e0053.1000e0040.0000 1.2092 1.2092 1.9000e0041.5000e0041.2591 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 1.4297 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.3900e0030.0364 0.0177 2.5000e0043.2600e0033.2600e0033.2600e0033.2600e0030.0000 2.1703 2.1703 5.2000e0040.0000 2.1833 Total 1.4361 0.0364 0.0177 2.5000e0043.2600e0033.2600e0033.2600e0033.2600e0030.0000 2.1703 2.1703 5.2000e0040.0000 2.1833 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 29 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2005
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 2.3900e0033.0500e0030.0243 1.0000e0051.0800e0033.0000e0051.1100e0032.9000e0043.0000e0053.1000e0040.0000 1.2092 1.2092 1.9000e0041.5000e0041.2591 Total 2.3900e0033.0500e0030.0243 1.0000e0051.0800e0033.0000e0051.1100e0032.9000e0043.0000e0053.1000e0040.0000 1.2092 1.2092 1.9000e0041.5000e0041.2591 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 30 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 4.1217 9.8893 48.2416 0.0624 2.2055 0.1809 2.3864 0.5914 0.1716 0.7630 0.0000 2,916.918 0 2,916.918
0 0.4342 0.3427 3,029.899
3 Unmitigated 4.1217 9.8893 48.2416 0.0624 2.2055 0.1809 2.3864 0.5914 0.1716 0.7630 0.0000 2,916.918 0 2,916.918
0 0.4342 0.3427 3,029.899
3 4.3 Trip Type Information
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 2,114.56 2,136.96 1915.20 5,889,125 5,889,125 Total 2,114.56 2,136.96 1,915.20 5,889,125 5,889,125
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 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 Single Family Housing 0.445143 0.090887 0.165130 0.187970 0.045320 0.007055 0.014780 0.012618 0.000711 0.000220 0.019746 0.001150 0.009270 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 31 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 315.3780 315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 315.3780 315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050 NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391 Unmitigated
NaturalGas 0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 32 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
5.32292e
+006
0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391 Total 0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391 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
Single Family
Housing
5.32292e
+006
0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391 Total 0.0287 0.2453 0.1044 1.5700e0030.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 284.0511 284.0511 5.4400e0035.2100e003285.7391 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 33 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
1.77832e
+006
315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050
Total 315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
1.77832e
+006
315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050
Total 315.3780 0.0266 3.2300e003317.0050
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 34 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 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 2.2987 0.1100 1.9646 6.2000e0040.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 6.2100e0031.7800e003100.4407 Unmitigated 2.2987 0.1100 1.9646 6.2000e0040.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 6.2100e0031.7800e003100.4407
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.6307 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
1.5747 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 9.8100e0030.0838 0.0357 5.3000e0046.7700e0036.7700e0036.7700e0036.7700e0030.0000 97.0385 97.0385 1.8600e0031.7800e00397.6151 Landscaping 0.0835 0.0262 1.9290 9.0000e0058.1500e0038.1500e0038.1500e0038.1500e0030.0000 2.7169 2.7169 4.3500e0030.0000 2.8256 Total 2.2987 0.1100 1.9646 6.2000e0040.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 6.2100e0031.7800e003100.4407 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 35 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.6307 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
1.5747 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 9.8100e0030.0838 0.0357 5.3000e0046.7700e0036.7700e0036.7700e0036.7700e0030.0000 97.0385 97.0385 1.8600e0031.7800e00397.6151 Landscaping 0.0835 0.0262 1.9290 9.0000e0058.1500e0038.1500e0038.1500e0038.1500e0030.0000 2.7169 2.7169 4.3500e0030.0000 2.8256 Total 2.2987 0.1100 1.9646 6.2000e0040.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 99.7553 99.7553 6.2100e0031.7800e003100.4407 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 36 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
Unmitigated 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
14.5945 /
9.20088
24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
Total 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 37 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
14.5945 /
9.20088
24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
Total 24.3464 0.4772 0.0114 39.6834
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
Unmitigated 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 38 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
230.76 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
Total 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
230.76 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
Total 46.8422 2.7683 0.0000 116.0496
9.0 Operational Offroad
Mitigated
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 39 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 10/10/2023 9:57 AM Page 40 of 40 Elliot Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Appendix B
Biological Evaluation
Biological Resources Assessment
Elliot Housing Subdivision Project
Assessor Parcel Numbers 087-010-006 and 087-010-008
Visalia, CA
Prepared for
324 South Santa Fe Street, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Prepared by
1322 E Shaw, Suite 400
Fresno, CA 93710
November 3, 2023
2 Executive Summary
4Creeks, Inc. (4Creeks) has tasked Soar Environmental Consulting Inc. (Soar Environmental) to provide a Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) as part of an Initial Study, for a Housing Subdivision Development Project (Project) in the City of Visalia, (City) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to implementation of the proposed Project. The proposed Project is to construct 224 housing units on 59.13 acres of land on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 087-010-006, and 087-010-008. These parcels are comprised of fallow agricultural fields on the outskirts of the city.
The objectives of this assessment are to: 1) provide a general characterization of biological resources on the property; 2) inventory plant and wildlife species; 3) evaluate the potential for special-status plant and animal species to occur or be impacted by project activities; and 4) describe the property’s sensitive biological resources.
This BRA provides information concerning the biological resources within the Project Area. Prior to conducting a Habitat Assessment site survey, Soar Environmental researched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, to compile a list of special-statusspecies that could potentially be present in the vicinity of the Project Area. Suitable habitat requirements for the species identified in the records search were reviewed by a Soar Environmental biologist, including species listing status, and proximal observations of special-status plant and wildlife species identified in this report.
No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed in the Project Area during the Habitat Assessment survey. However, based on suitable habitat present, and proximity of documented occurrences of special-status species from the data records search and Literature Review section of this report, it was determined that there is potential for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) to occur within the vicinity of the Project Area. Based on the findings of this assessment, the proposed development of this property may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect Swainson’s hawk, or any other listed species identified in this report . Mitigation measures are listed in Section 6 of this report to further minimize the potential for adverse effects to listed species, and their habitats. 3 Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................6
1.2 Project Description........................................................................................................................8
1.3 Environmental Setting...................................................................................................................9
2. Methods............................................................................................................................................13
2.1 Literature Review........................................................................................................................13
2.2 Field Reconnaissance Methodology ............................................................................................13
3. Biological Assessment Results...........................................................................................................14
4. Special-Status Species.......................................................................................................................18 Species with High Potential for Occurrence:..................................................................................18
4.1 Special-Status Species Descriptions.............................................................................................27 California tiger salamander (Amystoma californiense)..............................................................27 Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) .....................................................................................27 Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)..........................................................................................28 Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) ..........................................28 San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)............................................................................29 Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) and Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) ............29 Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)...........................................................................30 Special-Status Plant Species......................................................................................................30 California Jewelflower...............................................................................................................30 Ewan’s Larkspur ........................................................................................................................31 Heartscale .................................................................................................................................31 Lesser Saltscale .........................................................................................................................31 Subtle Orache............................................................................................................................31 Recurved Larkspur.....................................................................................................................31
4. Findings.............................................................................................................................................32 Critical Habitats..............................................................................................................................32 Project Impacts ..............................................................................................................................32 4 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................32
5. Recommended Mitigation Measures................................................................................................33 MIitigation Measure 1: Swainson's Hawk Nesting Habitat............................................................33 MIitigation Measure 1a: Nesting Bird Survey................................................................................33 MIitigation Measure 1b: Active Nests or Roosts...........................................................................33 MIitigation Measure 1c: Project Delay...........................................................................................33
6. Study Limitations...............................................................................................................................33 Works Cited............................................................................................................................................34
Figures and Diagram
Figure 1. Project Location................................................................................................................7 Diagram A. Site Plan .........................................................................................................................8 Figure 2. Project Area Boundary....................................................................................................10 Figure 3. Soil Types Occurring in The Project Area………………………………………………………………………..11 Figure 4. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map...........................................................12 Figure 5 – Current and Historical Special-Status Species Locations ...............................................17 Tables
Table 1– Wildlife Species Observed on the Project Area................................................................15 Table 2 – Plant Species Observed on the Project Area...................................................................15 Table 3 – Regionally Occurring Special-Status Wildlife Species......................................................19 Table 4 – Regionally Occurring Special-Status Plant Species..........................................................24 Appendices
APPENDIX A: Project Area Photographs...........................................................................................35 APPENDIX B: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC Resource List ...........................................................43 APPENDIX C: California Department of Fish and Wildlife RareFind..................................................44 APPENDIX D: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory ..................................................45 APPENDIX E: USDA-NRCS Soil Survey ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
APPENDIX F: Site Plan.......................................................................................................................47 5 1. Introduction
The proposed Project is the construction of a housing development on 59.13 acres within the City of Visalia, California. Soar Environmental Consulting Inc. (Soar Environmental) is tasked with providing this Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) in accordance with CEQA requirements.
This Biological Resource Assessment presents the findings of our literature review (including scientific literature and previous reports detailing studies conducted in the area) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online electronic inventory of rare and endangered plants of California, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC for reported occurrences of special status vegetation communities, plants and animals. Based on a review of these resources it was determined that a Biological Assessment was necessary to search for the potential suitable habitat or presence for the following special-status species:
Special-Status Wildlife Species
• California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) • Western Spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii)
• Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
• Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
• Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) • San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
• Western Mastiff Bat (Eumops perotis californicus)
• Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata)
Special-Status Plant Species
• California Jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus)
• Ewan’s Larkspur (Delphinium hansenii ssp. ewanianum)
• Heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata)
• Lesser Saltscale (Atriplex minuscula)
• Recurved Larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum)
• Subtle Orache (Atriplex subtilis)
A Habitat Assessment was conducted in the Project Area on October 13, 2023, by a Soar Environmental qualified biologist. The purpose of the Biological Assessment survey was to search for the suitable habitat conditions, or presence of special-status species that have historically been observed within, or surrounding, the Project Area, as well as any other biological or environmentally sensitive resources. The Project Area is mostly fallow agricultural fields, with approximately 5.6 acres of valley oak woodland and
4.4 acres of maintained annual grassland habitat in the northwestern section of the property. No specialstatus species were observed during the site visit, and no wetlands, seasonal wetlands, alkali grassland or shrubland occur in the Project Area.
6 1.1 Project Location
The Project Area is located in the Central Valley of California on the east side of Road 92 (Shirk Road), approximately 0.5 mile south of State Route (SR) 198 in the City of Visalia, California, Tulare County and is comprised of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 087-010-006 and 807-010-008. The Project Area is in the southwestern quadrant of the city limits, approximately 2.5 miles east of SR-99 and a mile south of SR198, between Road 92 (Shirk Road) and Roeben St.
Located in the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle of Visalia in Township 18 South, Range 24 East, in the western half of Section 34. The Saint Johns River is approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the Project Area, and the Valley Oaks Golf Course is approximately 1.3 miles west. The Project Area is surrounded by residential houses and agricultural land.
8 1.2 Project Description
The proposed Project is the construction of a 224 unit housing subdivision at the southeast corner of Tulare Avenue and Shirk Road, in the City of Visalia. The Project Area is limited to a 59.13-acre property, with 2.24 acres allocated to the development of a park dedicated to the City. Grading will be accomplished using a backhoe and grader.
The project will require the development of roads and sidewalks around and throughout the property.
A stormwater retention basin will be maintained in the southwest corner of the Project Area for all on site drainage. On the east side of the property bounded by Roeben Street, three existing overhead powerlines will be undergrounded, and five powerline poles on the Shirk Road boundary will be relocated. Since the entire property will be graded for the housing project during construction activities, the trees in the northwest section of the property would be removed. The majority of the property has been used for agricultural production and the entire lot has been cleared and maintained aside from the trees. (Diagram A– Site Plan)
Diagram A Site Plan
A detailed development plan is shown in Appendix F
9 1.3 Environmental Setting
The Project Area is surrounded by mostly grassy fields to the north and west, and residential complexes to the east and south. This area is on the southeastern side of Visalia in the Central Valley near the Sierra Nevada foothills. The property was being used for growing corn earlier in the year and significant portions of the property were disced prior to the biological survey.
The Project Area is a 59.13-acre disturbed vacant field, composed primarily of non-native annual herbs and grasses. A well- established canal exists along the southeastern boundary. The topography isrelatively flat, ranging from 305 feet above sea level to the east, sloping down to 301 feet above sea level to the west (0 to 2% slopes). According to the USDA-NRCS Soil Survey (Appendix E) the active agricultural field portion of the Project Area is 101 Akers-Akers saline-sodic complex, and the northwestern portion of the property is mapped as 130 Nord fine sandy loam.
On the northwestern portion of the property there are some tree groves covering 5.6 acres, comprised of approximately 30 valley oaks (Quercus lobata). The largest valley oak tree in this stand is approximately 30 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh), the rest are approximately 12 to 24 inch dbh. No bird nests were observed in any of the trees in the Project Area. Another large valley oak that is a multi-trunked tree that is greater than 36” dbh occurs in the middle of the property on the southern edge.
13 2. Methods
2.1 Literature Review
Prior to performing the Biological Assessment, Soar Environmental conducted soil survey analysis (Appendix E) a survey of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (Figure 4) and a CNDDB records search (Figure 5) for threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the Project Area. The records search included a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory. The area covered by the data records search included the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles of Visalia, Exeter, Goshen, Ivanhoe, Monson, Cairns Corner, Paige, Traver and Tulare. From these sources a list of special-status plant and animal species was generated. Proximal locations of known special-status plant and animal species located within 5 miles of the Project Area are shown in Figure 5.
A records search of the CNDDB and IPaC databases indicated 10 special-status wildlife species most likely to occur within or near the Project Area would include:
1) California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) 2) Western Spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii)
3) Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
4) Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
5) Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) 6) San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
7) Western Mastiff Bat (Eumops perotis californicus)
8) Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata)
A search of the CNPS Online Rare Plant Inventory identified 21 regionally occurring special-status plant species with potential to occur within or near the Project Area. Of these, 6 plant species were determined to have a low potential to occur within portions of the Project Area. The 15 other species determined to have no potential to occur in the Project Area were excluded from further analysis. 1) California Jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus)
2) Ewan’s Larkspur (Delphinium hansenii ssp. ewanianum) 3) Heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata)
4) Lesser Saltscale (Atriplex miniscula)
5) Recurved Larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum)
6) Subtle Orache (Atriplex subtilis)
2.2 Field Reconnaissance Methodology
The Habitat Assessment is a diurnal, non-protocol survey. The purpose of the Habitat Assessment Survey was to search for the presence of special-status species or suitable habitat for special-status 14 species identified in the data records search. The site visit for the Habitat Assessment includes observation and noting the plant and wildlife species occurring on and around the Project Area, habitat suitability for the species named in the Literature Review, present environmental conditions, and habitat, including microhabitat (only observable from the ground level).
The Habitat Assessment was conducted on October 13, 2023, by Soar Biologist Ben Arax to assess habitat quality for species listed in Section 2.1. Survey efforts emphasized the search for suitable habitats, or presence of special-status species that had documented occurrences in the data records search of the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS databases. The site visit consists of walking the perimeter of the property and meandering transects throughout the Project Area. During the site visit, the surveyor identified vegetation, searched for bird nests, possible small mammal dens, vernal pools and other signs of wildlife occupancy or associated suitable habitats. Plants were surveyed during the late blooming period or surveyed outside the blooming period. The biologist also surveyed the surrounding area by vehicle in accessible areas within 0.5 miles of the Project Area to look for biological resources and features that may be conducive for suitable habitat of the identified special-status species. During the survey, the biologist collected photos of the Project boundaries and other points of interest depicting the habitat and potential biological resources (Appendix A).
3. Biological Assessment Results
During the site visit, there were no observations of special-status plant or wildlife species. Plant and wildlife species that were observed on the property are listed in Tables 1 & 2. Approximately 49 acres of the Project Area is a bare dirt active agricultural field dominated in places by non-native annual grasses or ruderal weeds. Corn was grown on the property this year. Approximately five acres of low-mowed grassland adjoined by 5.6 acres of oak woodland with approximately 22 trees are on the northwestern edge. No bird nests were observed in the trees, grass thickets or powerline poles in the surrounding area.
Herbaceous cover in the understory of the oak trees is dominated by absent to dense grass cover and few small mammal burrows were observed. The ground is relatively flat and cleared to the surface.
The survey was conducted by a qualified biologist outside of the blooming period for most of the sensitive plant species listed in the Literature Review. However, no special-status plant species were observed within or in the vicinity of the Project Area, and conditions for these species do not appear to be conducive, due to active agriculture uses and fire abatement activities including annual disking activities on the property, and in the surrounding urbanized environment.
No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed during the site visit. However, the Soar Biologist observed some common bird species flying around the area, listed in Table 1 below, along with plant species observed onsite. No other wildlife species were observed during the Biological Assessment.
15 Table 1– Wildlife Species Observed on the Project Area Table 2 – Plant Species Observed on the Project Area
Wildlife Species Listing
Status Wildlife Species Listing Status
American crow
(Corvus Brachyrynchos) None Northern Mockingbird(Mimus polyglottos) MBTA Black Phoebe
(Sayornis nigricans) None Nuttall’s Woodpecker(Picoides nuttallii) None European Starling
(Sturnus vulgaris) None Orange-crowned Warbler(Vermivora celata) MBTA House Finch
(Carpodacus mexicanus) MBTA
Red-breasted Nuthatch
(Sitta canadensis) MBTA
House Sparrow
(Passer domesticus) MBTA
Red-Tail Hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis) MBTA
Killdeer
(Charadrius montanus) MBTA Western Scrub Jay(Aphelocoma californica) None Lesser Goldfinch
(Carduelis psaltria) MBTA
White-crowned Sparrow
(Zonotrichia leucophrys) MBTA
Mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura) MBTA
Yellow-rumped Warbler
(Dendroica coronata) MBTA
Northern Flicker
(Colaptes auratus) None
Plant Species Listing
Status Plant Species Listing Status
Tree of Heaven
(Ailanthus altissima) Non-native Mexican Sprangletop(Leptochloa fusca ssp. uninervia) Native Tumbleweed
(Amaranthus albus) Non-native Common knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare) None Prostrate Pigweed
(Amaranthus blitoides) Non-native
Cheeseweed
(Malva neglecta) Non-native
Wild Oats
(Avena barbata) Non-native
Bur clover
(Medicago polymorpha) Non-native
Ripgut Brome
(Bromus diandrus) Non-native Forget me Not(Myosotis discolor) Non-native Shepherd’s Purse
(Capsella bursa-pastoris) Non-native
Wild Rice
(Zizania palustris)
Lambsquarters
(Chenopodium album) Non-native
Dallis Grass
(Paspalum dilatatum) Non-native
16 Bindweed
(Convolvulus arvensis) Non-native Common plantain(Plantago major) Non-native Willowherb
(Epilobium brachycarpum) Native
knotweed
(Polygonum aviculare) None
Fireweed
(Epilobium ciliatum) Native Valley Oak(Quercus lobata) Native Fig tree
(Ficus sp.) Ornamental Sow Thistle(Sonchus oleraceus) Non-native Flax-leaved Horseweed
(Erigeron bonariensis) Non-native
Johnson Grass
(Sorghum halapense) None
Canadian horseweed
(Erigeron canadensis) Non-native
Puncture Vine
(Tribulus terrestris) Non-native
English Ivy
(Hedera helix)
Invasive nonnativeCreeping clover
(Trifolium repens) Non-native
Prickly Lettuce
(Lactuca serriola) Non-native
Corn
(Zea mays) Cultivated
18 4. Special-Status Species
Special-status plants and animals that have a reasonable possibility to occur in the Project Area based on habitat suitability and requirements, elevation and geographic range, soils, topography, surrounding land uses, and/or proximity of known occurrences in the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS databases to the Project Area are listed in Tables 3 & 4. The likelihood for occurrence of special-status species was assessed using information from the various sources listed in Section 2.1, as well as the Habitat Assessment field survey.
Narratives are supplied for species for which there are land use planning and regulatory implications.
Results from the data records search identified 46 special-status species: 25 wildlife and 21 plant species. However, an analysis of recent occurrences, habitat suitability and proximity within 5-miles to the Project Area indicated one special-status wildlife species with high potential to occur and 18 specialstatus species (12 wildlife species and 6 plant species) with low potential for occurrence. Special-status species for which there are no regulatory implications (i.e., lack of suitable habitat, or no record of historical occurrences within 5 miles) are excluded from further analysis.
Species with High Potential for Occurrence:
• Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsonii)
Special-status species and sensitive habitats include plant and wildlife taxa, or other unique biological features afforded special protection by local land use policies, and/or state and federal regulations.
Special-status plant and animal species are those listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts or those who are rare enough to become listed in the foreseeable future (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15380). Vegetation communities may warrant special status if they are of limited distribution, have high wildlife value, or are particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Listed and special-status species are defined as:
- Listed or proposed for listing under the state or Federal Endangered Species acts. - Protected under other regulations (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act). - California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern. - Listed as species of concern by CNPS or USFWS; and/or - Receive consideration during environmental review under CEQA.
All species from the Section 2.1 search results are listed below including common and non-listed species. The analysis and following determination are based on Habitat Assessment results and the most recent occurrence and proximity to the Project Area per Section 2.1 (Table 1, Table 2). • Present: Species known to occur on the site, based on CNDDB records, and/or was observed on the site during the field survey.
• High: Species known to occur on or near the site (based on CNDDB record within 5 miles), and there is suitable habitat on the site.
• Low: Species known to occur on or near the site (based on CNDDB record within 5 miles), but there is no suitable habitat onsite.
• None: Species is not known to occur on within 5 miles of the site and there is no suitable habitat on the site. -OR- Species was surveyed for during the appropriate season with negative results. 19 Table 3 – Regionally Occurring Special-Status Wildlife Species Common/ Scientific
Name
*Listing
Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Amphibians
California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
Central California DPS
FT/ST/CWL
Grasslands, oak savannah
riparian woodlands and
lower elevations of
coniferous forests,
ditches, vernal pools, and
wetlands.
Low: Limited potential
upland dispersal or
estivating habitat occurs
in the northwest 10 acres
of the Project Area and
the species has not been
reported previously within
five miles of the Project
Area.
Western Spadefoot toad
(Spea hammondii) -/-/SSC
Occurs primarily in
grassland habitats, but
can be found in valleyfoothill hardwood
woodlands. Vernal pools
are essential for breeding
and egg-laying.
Low: The spadefoot toad
has low potential to occur
in the Project Area.
Though the species occurs
within 2 miles of the
Project Area, no breeding
habitat occurs on the
property and limited
unfarmed upland
dispersal habitat.
Birds
Belding’s Savannah Sparrow
(Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi)
-/-/BCC/MBTA
Inhabits coastal salt
marshes, from Santa
Barbara south through
San Diego County. Nests
in Salicornia on and about
margins of tidal flats.
None. No salt marsh or
pickleweed nesting
habitat occur in the
Project Area. No tidal
flats.
Bullock’s Oriole
(Icterus bullockii) -/-/BCC/MBTA
Found in open broadleaf
woods, foraging among
leaves in trees.
None. Species is not
known to occur on within
5 miles of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat on the site.
Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia)
-/-/
SSC/BCC/MBTA
Open, dry annual or
perennial grasslands,
deserts, and scrublands
characterized by lowgrowing vegetation.
Subterranean nester,
dependent upon
burrowing mammals,
most notably, the
California ground squirrel.
None. Species is not
known to occur on within
5 miles of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat on the site.
20 California Gull
(Larus californicus)
-/-
/CWL/BCC/MBTA
Littoral waters, sandy
beaches, waters and
shorelines of bays, tidal
mudflats, marshes, lakes,
etc. Colonial nester on
islets in large interior
lakes, either fresh or
strongly alkaline.
None: No habitat occurs
for this aquatic bird
species.
Clark’s Grebe
(Aechmopohrus clarkii) -/-/CWL/MBTA Ponds, seasonal pools, open water
None: No habitat occurs
for this aquatic bird
species.
Loggerhead Shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus) -/-/SSC/MBTA
Broken woodlands,
savannah, pinyon-juniper,
Joshua tree, and riparian
woodlands, desert oases,
scrub and washes. Prefers
open country for hunting,
with perches for scanning,
and fairly dense shrubs
and brush for nesting.
None. Species is not
known to occur on within
5 miles of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat on the site.
Nuttall’s Woodpecker
(Dryobates nuttallii) -/-/BCC/MBTA
Forages for acorns and
insects and nests in oak
woods.
Low: Only limited oak
trees occur in the
northwest Project Area.
Oak titmouse
(Baeolophus inornatus) -/-/BCC/MBTA
Oak forests of the Pacific
slope between southern
Oregon and Baja
California, especially
around the Central Valley
of California. Strongly
associated with oaks.
Low: Only limited oak
trees occur in the
northwest Project Area.
Short-billed Dowitcher
(Limnodromus griseus) -/-/BCC/MBTA
Forages on mudflats and
shallow ponds. Vernal
pools.
None: No aquatic,
wetland or mudflat pond
habitat occurs in the
Project Area.
Swainson's hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
-/ST/SSC
BCC/MBTA
Breeds in grasslands with
scattered trees, junipersage flats, riparian areas,
savannahs, and
agricultural or ranch lands
with groves or lines of
trees. Requires adjacent
suitable foraging areas
such as grasslands, or
alfalfa or grain fields
supporting rodent
populations.
High: Species known from
9 historic occurrences
within 5 miles of site to
the west, northwest and
southwest. Closest
occurrence is within one
mile of the site, and there
is limited suitable nesting
and abundant foraging
habitat on the site.
21 Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
-/ST/SSC
BCC/MBTA
Highly colonial species,
most numerous in Central
Valley and vicinity. Largely
endemic to California.
Requires open water,
protected nesting
substrate, and foraging
area with insect prey
within a few km of the
colony
None: No pond or
wetland habitat occurs
with broadleaf cattail or
tule stands for nesting
colony.
Western Grebe
(Aechmophorus occidentalis) -/-/BCC/MBTS Ponds, seasonal pools, mudflats
None: No aquatic
seasonal pool or ponds
occur in the Project Area.
Western Yellow-billed
Cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT/SE/MBTA
Riparian forest nester,
along the broad, lower
flood-bottoms of larger
river systems. Nests in
riparian jungles of willow,
often mixed with
cottonwoods, with lower
story of blackberry,
nettles, or wild grape.
Low: No nesting habitat
occurs in Project Area.
Limited oak woodland
foraging habitat.
Invertebrates
Crotch Bumble Bee
(Bombus crotchii) -/SSC/-
Coastal California east to
the Sierra-Cascade crest
and south into Mexico.
Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia,
Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and
Eriogonum.
None: The Project Area
lacks the native
wildflower field nectar
habitat needed to support
this species.
Hopping’s Blister Beetle
(Lytta hoppingi) -/SSC
Inhabits the foothills at
the southern end of the
Central Valley. Found on
flowers and plants.
None: Limited plant cover
is available on the
property in the northwest
portion of the Project
Area. Area is cleared and
maintained.
Monarch Butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) FC/-/-
Winter roost sites extend
along the coast from
northern Mendocino to
Baja California, Mexico.
Roosts located in windprotected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey
pine, cypress), with nectar
and water sources nearby.
None: No roosting,
foraging (nectar-flowers)
or reproductive host plant
habitat (Milkweed,
(Asclepias sp.) is present
in the Project Area.
22 Valley Elderberry Longhorn
Beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
FT/-/-
Only occurs in the Central
Valley of California, in
association with blue
elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana), in riparian
scrub. Prefers to lay eggs
in elderberries 2-8 inches
in diameter; some
preference shown for
"stressed" elderberries.
None: No elderberry
shrub host plant potential
habitat occurs in the
Project Area.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi) FT/-/-
Endemic to the vernal
pools in grasslands of the
Central Valley, Central
Coast mountains, and
South Coast mountains, in
astatic rain-filled pools.
Inhabit small, clear-water
sandstone-depression
pools and grassed swale,
earth slump, or basaltflow depression pools.
None: No seasonal
aquatic habitat for this
species, such as vernal
pools, occurs in the
Project Area.
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi) FE/-/-
Inhabits vernal pools and
swales in the Sacramento
Valley containing clear to
highly turbid water. Pools
commonly found in grassbottomed swales of
unplowed grasslands.
Some pools are mudbottomed and highly
turbid.
None: No seasonal
aquatic habitat for this
species, such as vernal
pools, occurs in the
Project Area.
Mammals
American Badger
(Taxidea taxus) -/-/SSC
Most abundant in drier
open stages of most
shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils. Needs
sufficient food and open,
uncultivated ground.
Preys on burrowing
rodents. Digs burrows.
None: The site lacks
potential undisturbed
grassland habitat. The
site is maintained and
disced regularly with
active agriculture use.
Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus) -/-/SSC
Deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands
and forests. Most
common in open, dry
habitats with rocky areas
for roosting. Roosts must
protect bats from high
temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance of
roosting sites.
None. Species is not
known to occur on within
5 miles of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat on the site.
23 San Joaquin Kit Fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica) FE/ST
Annual grasslands or
grassy open stages with
scattered shrubby
vegetation. Need loosetextured sandy soils for
burrowing, and suitable
prey base.
Low: Site has dispersal
habitat, but has limited
foraging or denning
habitat and two previous
records occur 3 and 4.7
miles northwest of the
Project Area.
Tipton Kangaroo Rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE/SE
Saltbrush scrub and sink
scrub communities in the
Tulare Lake Basin of the
southern San Joaquin
Valley. Needs soft friable
soils which escape
seasonal flooding. Digs
burrows in elevated soil
mounds at bases of
shrubs.
None: No alkali scrub or
sink scrub habitat occurs
in the Project Area. No
seed forage habitat occurs
in the Project Area. The
Project Area is an active
agricultural field.
Western Mastiff Bat
(Eumops perotis californicus) -/-/SSC
Many open, semi-arid to
arid habitats, including
conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub,
grasslands, chaparral, etc.
Roosts in crevices in cliff
faces, high buildings, trees
and tunnels.
Low: Limited oak
woodland roosting and
moderate grassland
foraging habitat for this
species in the Project
Area. The area is heavily
farmed and maintained.
Species is known from
one record 2 miles
southeast of Project Area.
Reptiles
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard
(Gambelia sila) FE/SE/FP
Resident of sparsely
vegetated alkali and
desert scrub habitats, in
areas of low topographic
relief. Seeks cover in
mammal burrows, under
shrubs or structures such
as fence posts; they do
not excavate their own
burrows.
None: No alkali scrub or
desert scrub habitat
occurs in the Project Area.
The Project Area is an
active agricultural field.
Northern California Legless
Lizard
(Anniela pulchra)
-/-/SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils
under sparse vegetation.
Soil moisture is essential.
They prefer soils with a
high moisture content.
None: No sand outcrops
or sandy habitat occurs in
the Project Area. The
Project Area is an
agricultural field.
Western Pond Turtle
(Actinemys marmorata) -/-/SSC
A thoroughly aquatic
turtle of ponds, marshes,
rivers, streams and
irrigation ditches, usually
with aquatic vegetation,
below 6000 ft elevation.
Needs basking sites and
suitable (sandy banks or
grassy open fields) upland
Low: Low quality potential
habitat in the form of an
open water unvegetated
canal on the eastern edge
and another just offsite to
the northwest leave
potential for this species
to occur nearby. One
historic occurrence of the
24 habitat up to 0.5 km from
water for egg-laying.
species is known from
four miles east of Project
Area.
*Listing Status Notes:
Federal:
FE – Federally listed Endangered
FT – Federally listed Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate Species
FWL – USFWS Watch list
BCC – USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
MTBA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act
State:
SE – State listed Endangered
ST – State listed Threatened
SC – State Candidate Species
SR – State Rare Species
SA – State Special Animal
FP – CDFW Fully Protected Species
SSC – CDFW Species of Special Concern
CWL – CDFW Watch List
Table 4 – Regionally Occurring Special-Status Plant Species Common/ Scientific
Name
*Status
Fed/CA/CNPS/
Bloom
Period
Habitat Description Potential to Occur
Alkali-sink Goldfields
(Lasthenia chrysantha)
-/-/1B.1
Feb-Apr
Vernal pools, alkaline
microhabitat. Found at
elevations between 0 and
655 ft.
None: No vernal pool
habitat occurs in the
Project Area.
Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa)
-/-/1B.2
Apr-Oct
Chenopod scrub, meadows
and seeps, playas, valley and
foothill grassland, and vernal
pools. Alkaline and clay
microhabitat. Found at
elevations between 5 and
1050 ft.
None: No native
habitat or vernal pool
habitat occurs in the
Project Area.
California Alkali Grass
(Pucinellia simplex)
-/-/1B.2
Mar-May
Chenopod scrub, meadows
and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland and vernal pools.
Sinks, alkaline, flats, lake
margins, and vernally mesic
microhabitats. Found at
elevations between 5 and
3050 ft.
None: No vernal pool
habitat or chenopod
scrub occurs in the
Project Area.
California Jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)
FE/CE/1B.1
Feb-May
Chenopod scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland, valley and
foothill grassland. Found at
elevations between 200 and
3280 feet.
Low: Limited
grassland potential
habitat occurs in the
Project Area.
California Satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
-/-/2B.1
Sep-May
Chaparral, coastal scrub,
Mojavean desert scrub,
meadows and seeps (often
alkali), and riparian scrub.
Mesic microhabitat. Found at
None: No wetland
habitat or shrubdominated habitat
occurs in the Project
Area.
25 elevations between 0 and
3985 ft.
Coulter’s Goldfields
(Lasthenia glaberata ssp.
coulteri)
-/-/1B.1
Feb-Jun
Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt), playas and
vernal pools. Found at
elevations between 5 and
4005 ft.
None: No vernal
pools, marshes or
swamps occur in the
Project Area.
Earlimart Orache
(Atriplex cordulata var.
erecticaulis)
-/-/1B.2
Aug-Sep (Nov)
Valley and foothill grassland.
Vernally mesic microhabitat.
Found at elevations between
130 and 330 ft.
None: Though some
grassland occurs in
the Project Area it is
not within vernal pool
or vernal swale
habitat. Species not
observed during
current survey effort.
Ewan’s Larkspur
(Delphinium hansenii ssp.
ewanianum)
-/-/4.2
Mar-May
Cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Found
at elevations between 195
and 1970 ft.
Low: Limited heavily
maintained oak
woodland and
grassland occur in the
Project Area.
Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata)
-/-/1B.2
Apr-Oct
Chenopod scrub, meadows
and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland. Microhabitats
sometimes saline, sometime
alkaline. Found at elevations
between 0-1835 ft.
Low: Limited
maintained grassland
in the northern
Project Area. Species
not observed during
current survey effort.
Hoover’s Spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri)
FT/-/1B.2
Jul-Sep (Oct)
Vernal pools. Found at
elevations between 80 and
820 feet.
None: No vernal pool
habitat occurs in the
Project Area.
Lesser Saltscale
(Atriplex miniscula)
-/-/1B.1
May-Oct
Chenopod scrub, playas,
valley and foothill grassland.
Microhabitats are alkaline or
sandy. Found at elevations
between 50 and 655 ft.
Low: Limited
maintained grassland
in the northern
Project Area. Species
not observed during
current survey effort.
Recurved Larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
-/-/1B.2
Mar-Jun
Chenopod scrub, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Alkaline
microhabitat. Found at
elevations between 10 and
2590 ft.
Low: Limited
maintained grassland
and woodland in the
northern Project Area.
Species not observed
during current survey
effort.
Sanford’s Arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
-/-/1B.2
May-Oct (Nov)
Marshes and swamps
(shallow freshwater). Found
at elevations between 0 and
2135 ft.
None: No marsh or
swamp habitat occurs
in the Project Area.
San Joaquin Adobe Sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)
FT/CE/1B.1
Feb-Apr
Cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Adobe
or clay microhabitat. Found
None: Disturbed and
regularly maintained
oak woodland and
grassland occur in
26 at elevations between 295
and 2625 ft.
northwestern portion
of Project Area.
Species not known to
occur within 5 miles
of site.
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
Grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT/CE/1B.1
Apr-Sep
Vernal pools. Found at
elevations between 35 and
2475 ft.
None: No vernal pool
habitat occurs in the
Project Area.
Spiny-sepaled Button-celery
(Eryngium spinosepalum)
-/-/1B.2
Apr-Jun
Vernal pools, valley and
foothill grassland. Found at
elevations between 260 and
3200 feet.
None: No vernal pool
habitat occurs in the
Project Area.
Subtle Orache
(Atriplex subtilis)
-/-/2B.2
(Apr) Jun-Sep
(Oct)
Valley and foothill grassland.
Found at elevations between
130 and 330 feet.
Low: Limited
maintained grassland
habitat. Species not
observed during
current survey.
Vernal Barley
(Hordeum intercedens)
-/-/3B.2
Mar-Jun
Coastal dunes, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grassland
(depressions, saline flats) and
vernal pools. Found at
elevations between 15 and
3280 ft.
None: No dunes,
scrub or vernal pool
habitat occurs in the
Project Area.
Vernal Pool Smallscale
(Atriplex persistens)
-/-/1B.2
Jun-Oct
Vernal pools (alkaline). Found
at elevations between 35 and
375 ft.
None: No alkaline
vernal pool habitat
occurs in the Project
Area.
Watson’s Amaranth
(Amaranthus watsonii)
-/-/4.3
Apr-Sep
Mojavean Desert scrub and
Sonoran Desert scrub. Found
at elevations between 65 and
5580 ft.
None: No desert scrub
occurs in the Project
Area.
Winter’s Sunflower
(Helianthus winteri)
-/-/1B.2
Jan-Dec
Cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland.
Microhabitat includes
relatively steep, south-facing
slopes, granitic, openings,
roadsides (often), and rocky
(often). Found at elevations
between 410 and 1510 ft.
None: The Project
Area is outside the
known elevation
range for the species
and no rocky
woodland or
grassland sites occur
in the Project Area.
*Listing Status Notes:
Federal: FE – Federally listed Endangered
FT – Federally listed Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate Species
State: CE – State Listed as Endangered
SE – State listed Endangered
ST – State listed Threatened
SC – State Candidate Species
SR – State Rare Species
CRPR: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank
1A – Considered extirpated in CA
1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere 2 – Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA but common elsewhere 4 – Limited distribution (Watch-list)
CRPR Extensions 0.1 – Seriously endangered in California
0.2 – Fairly endangered in California
0.3 – Not very endangered in California
27 4.1 Special-Status Species Descriptions
This section describes identifiable physical characteristics and habitat requirements for special-status species identified in the CNDDB records search that were within 5 miles of the Project Area. It also discusses their potential to occur following the findings of the survey.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
California tiger salamander (Amystoma californiense)
California tiger salamander is listed as Threatened on the Federal and State level. Adults range in size from 15-22 centimeters (6 to 9 inches) long and have a dark background color with distinctive yellow spots. Juveniles look much like adults but lack the yellow spots. Larval California tiger salamander are grayish green in color and have the appearance of tadpoles with obvious, external gills. The eggs are clear and typically laid singly or in groups of three or four in shallow ponds.
Endemic to California, this species is found in grasslands, oak savannah woodlands, edges of mixed woodland, lower elevations of coniferous forests, and in heavily grazed fields along the Central California Coast and within the Central San Joaquin Valley. They may breed in ditches where water is present for a long enough duration for eggs and larvae to metamorphose into adults. During the non-breeding season (approximately late May through early November), California tiger salamander live in small mammal burrows, typically those of ground squirrels and pocket gophers. They spend most of each year on land, emerging from refugia only occasionally, usually on rainy nights, and have been observed on land within
1.24 miles (2 kilometers) from potential breeding pools.
A search of CNDDB records indicate the nearest occurrence of this species is more than five miles away from the Project Area. No potential aquatic breeding habitat occurs in the Project Area. The majority of the Project Area is active agricultural land that is unsuitable for this species. The northern oak woodland and grassland represent limited suitable dispersal or potential estivating habitat, though small mammal burrows were not observed to be abundant. California tiger salamanders are concluded to have a low potential to occur in the Project Area.
Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)
Western spadefoot toad is a State species of special concern. Their range spans throughout the Central Valley and adjacent foothills. They can be common where they occur. In the Coast Ranges they are found from Point Conception in Santa Barbara County, south to the Mexican border. Elevations of occurrence extend from near sea level to 1,363 meters (4,460 feet) in the southern Sierra foothills (Jennings and Hayes 1994). This species occurs primarily in grasslands but occasionally appears in the valley-foothill hardwood woodlands or persists in orchard and vineyard habitats for a few years.
Western spadefoot toads spend most of the year underground in burrows up to 0.9 meters (36 inches) deep (Stebbins 1972). They construct their own burrows but have been seen infrequently using mammal burrows.
Adult western spadefoot toads feed on insects, worms, and other invertebrates (Stebbins 1972).
Tadpoles consume planktonic organisms and algae but are also carnivorous—preying and consuming dead aquatic larvae of other amphibians as well as other western spadefoot tadpoles (Bragg 1964).
Rainfall is important in the formation and maintenance of breeding ponds. Most surface movements 28 by adults are associated with rain or high humidities at night. Breeding and egg laying happens exclusively in shallow temporary pools formed by heavy winter rains. Egg masses are attached to plant material or the upper surfaces of small, submerged rocks (Stebbins 1951). During dry periods, the moist soil inside the burrows provides water for absorption through the skin (Ruibal et al. 1969, Shoemaker et al. 1969).
Dispersal of post metamorphic juveniles from breeding ponds can occur without rainfall.
No breeding pond potential habitat for this species occurs in the Project Area. Limited upland dispersal habitat occurs in the northern ten acres of the Project Area. Most of the Project Area is active agricultural land and is unsuitable for the species. Understory vegetation is annually maintained in the northern Project Area, which involves discing. These practices do not improve the spadefoot toad’s potential to occur. One previous known occurrence from the CNDDB is 2.1 miles northwest of Project Area.
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
Swainson’s hawk is listed as Threatened on the State level and is a listed species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. However, due to its common distribution throughout the country, it is not listed at the Federal level. This species favors open habitat for foraging such as agricultural fields, pastures, and row crops. They nest in scattered stands of eucalyptus, willow, oak, cottonwood, and conifers. On occasion, Swainson’s hawk will nest on a power pole or transmission tower. The location of Swainson’s hawk nests is typically on the tallest point in or near an open field, giving this species a full view of its foraging area while nesting.
Due to their late return to California for the breeding season, Swainson’s hawk often uses the same nests for serval breeding seasons and even generations. If a nest is constructed, it is often constructed with loose bundles of sticks and debris quickly stacked together. They are also territorial of their nests and will dive bomb any other species attempting to use their nest. Red-tailed hawk and great horned owls, which overlap in habitat, are species known to use Swainson’s hawk nests. The incubation period for Swainson’s hawk is approximately 35 days, and the nesting period is 17 to 22 days. The breeding season for this species begins in March and ends in September.
The Project Area is primarily active agricultural land with some potential nesting and foraging habitat in the oak and grasslands in the northwest portion of the properties. The active agricultural land also may have potential use as foraging habitat, especially when fallow. Eight known occurrences of Swainson Hawk are within 5 miles of the Project Area and the closest is one mile west. A Swainson hawk and nesting bird survey should be conducted in all of the oak trees in the northern property prior to removal of the trees.
Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Yellow-billed cuckoos have uniform grayish-brown plumage on their head and back, and dull white underparts. Their tails are long with two rows of four to six large white circles on the underside. The bill of yellow-billed cuckoos is short to medium in length and curved downward with a black upper mandible and a yellow or orange lower mandible. Yellow-billed cuckoos have zygodactylous feet, meaning that of the four toes, the middle two point forward and the outer two point backward.
Yellow-billed cuckoos prefer open woodlands with clearings and a dense shrub layer. They are often found in woodlands near streams, rivers or lakes. In North America, their preferred habitats include abandoned farmland, old fruit orchards, successional shrubland and dense thickets. In winter, yellowbilled cuckoos can be found in tropical habitats with similar structure, such as scrub forest and mangroves. 29 The Project Area has approximately 10 acres of oak woodland and unfarmed grassland that could represent foraging habitat for this species. However, no riparian forest or habitat occurs in the Project Area.
San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
The San Joaquin kit fox is listed as Threatened at the Federal level and Endangered at the State level.
They are petite, light-colored canids, approximately 50 centimeters (20 inches) in length, with bushy, black-tipped tails, large ears, and pointed snouts.
San Joaquin kit fox is a desert-adapted species which occurs mainly in arid, flat grasslands, scrublands, and alkali meadows where the vegetation structure is relatively short. This species uses dens year-round and needs loose-textured soils suitable for burrowing. They primarily prey on kangaroo rats and other small rodents, as well as large insects and occasionally rabbits. A typical kit fox den is anywhere from four to 10 inches (25 cm) in diameter, and is taller than it is wide, often with a keyhole shape. Dens usually have dirt berms and matted vegetation adjacent to the entrances, and tracks and prey remains will normally be detected nearby. They may also utilize man-made structures such as pipes and culverts as dens.
There were no signs of San Joaquin kit fox den sites or activity at the time of the Habitat Assessment.
Suitable habitat for this species is poor within the Project Area. A search of CNDDB records indicate the nearest occurrences of kit fox are 3 and 4.7 miles away north and northwest from the Project Area. No other observations of San Joaquin kit fox have been recorded within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of the Project Area. Due to urbanization of the surrounding area, lack of suitable habitat in the form of natural grassland habitat, and distance of other known occurrences from the site, occurrence of San Joaquin kit fox within the vicinity of the Project Area is unlikely, and the proposed Project is unlikely to adversely affect any population of this species.
Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) and Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) Western mastiff bat and pallid bat are State listed Species of Special Concern. The mastiff bat species has a brown fur body length of 14 to 19 centimeters (5.5 to 7.5 inches), a wingspan of over 56 centimeters (22 inches), and body mass range from 60 to 70 grams (2.1 to 2.5 ounces). Western mastiff bat is the largest native bat in the United States. Thus, such morphology allows for rapid, sustained flight but limits maneuverability. This manner of flight is adaptive to flying in open habitats.
Western mastiff bats and pallid bats catch and feed on insects while in flight. The insects consumed are typically relatively small, low-flying and weak-flying forms. Over rugged terrain western mastiff bats naturally forage at much greater heights of 60 meters (195 feet) above the ground. Crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees, and tunnels are required for roosting. When roosting in rock crevices, this species needs vertical faces to drop off to take flight.
Western mastiff bats and pallid bats have yearlong nocturnal activity. They generally go into daily torpor from December through February but usually resume activity each night to feed, except when temperatures drop below 5°C (41°F). Nocturnal foraging range may exceed 24 kilometers (15 miles) from roost sites. Western mastiff bat rarely uses night roost and has an exceptionally long foraging period, up to 6-7 hours per night. Their echolocation can be heard from up to 300 meters (980 feet) away. They are non-migratory with no known home range and no known territory. They are known to roost along or in 30 small colonies with fewer than 100 bats, and commonly share roosts with other large bats such as Eptesicus fuscus, Antrozous pallidus, and Tadarida brasiliensis.
Western mastiff bats and pallid bats can be found in many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual and perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban. Roosts are often found in crevices in cliff faces, buildings, trees and tunnels. Their range includes the southeastern San Joaquin Valley and Coastal Ranges, from Monterey County southward through southern California, and from the coast eastward to the Colorado Desert. Suitable habitat for western mastiff bat and pallid bat consists of extensive open areas for foraging with abundant roost locations provided by crevices in rock outcrops and buildings. They need at least 3 meters (9.8 feet) of open space under roosting spot for takeoff.
Nursery roosts are tight rock crevices, caves, mines or tree hollows at least 90 centimeters (35 inches) deep and 5 centimeters (2 inches) wide, or crevices in buildings. The duration of pregnancy is between 80 to 90 days with mating beginning in early spring (March). The gestation period is unknown. Parturition occurs from early April through August or September and varies more than any other bat species in the United States. One young is produced per female bat per year.
No bat roosting habitat occurs in the Project Area in the form of rock outcrops or crevices or buildings.
Potential foraging habitat does occur in the air space over the Project Area. The potential for these bat species to occur is considered low.
Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)
The western pond turtle is listed as a Species of Special Concern on the State level. It is found throughout California west of the Pacific Crest, and along the Mojave River watershed, ranging from sea level to 4,500 feet (1,372 meters). The western pond turtle’s diet consists of both plant material and invertebrates, any life forms found near water sources. Mating typically occurs between April and May, but this species has been observed relocating to find new food sources or breeding locations between March and June. This species requires basking sites and suitable upland habitat for egg-laying. Though an open water channel occurs along the eastern border of the Project and another open water ditch occurs near the northwest corner, neither aquatic feature has any vegetation associated with it growing in the water or along the canal channels.
This species prefers vegetation associated with aquatic habitat. Neither canal occurs in the Project Area and no basking sites are present, however both canals are near the site. The closest historic occurrence of western pond turtle is recorded approximately four miles east-northeast of the Project Area.
Special-Status Plant Species
California Jewelflower
This annual wildflower species is extremely rare and is both a State and federally listed member of the mustard family. It is found in grasslands, chenopod scrub and juniper woodland. The current survey occurred outside of it’s known bloom period when it is identifiable. The species has low potential to occur in the Project Area given the disturbed and maintained nature of the Project Area. 31 Ewan’s Larkspur
Limited oak woodland and uncultivated grassland potential habitat occur in the Project Area for this rare larkspur species. The current survey occurred outside of the bloom period for this species. The species has low potential to occur.
Heartscale
This small annual member of the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) has limited and marginal potential grassland habitat in the Project Area. One previous historic occurrence of this species that was within five miles of the Project Area but has since been extirpated. Low potential for this species occurs in the Project Area.
Lesser Saltscale
This small annual member of the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) has limited and marginal potential grassland habitat in the Project Area. One previous historic occurrence of this species was within five miles of the Project Area but has since been extirpated. Low potential for this species occurs in the Project Area.
Subtle Orache
This small annual member of the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) has limited and marginal potential grassland habitat in the Project Area. One previous historic occurrence of this species from the CNDDB was within five miles of the Project Area but has since been extirpated. Low potential for this species occurs in the Project Area.
Recurved Larkspur
Limited oak woodland and uncultivated grassland potential habitat occur in the Project Area for this rare larkspur species. The current survey occurred outside of the bloom period for this species. The species has low potential to occur.
The Project Area is comprised from approximately 49 acres of active agricultural land, approximately
5.6 acres of valley oak woodland that has a disked and maintained understory and another 4.5 acres of regularly disked grassland. It is bounded by an open residential property with denser valley oak woodland on the northwestern boundary of the property.
There is a riverine, non-wetland canal just northwest of the northwest corner of the Project Area and a linear paved non-wetland water canal along one portion of the southeastern boundary which was inundated and without vegetation at the time of the Biological Assessment. The Saint Johns River is more than five miles north of the Project Area. There are no structures on the property, and a little more than twenty valley oak trees compose the woodland in the northwestern corner. Though the majority of the 32 property was used to grow corn this year, the property had been cleared, maintained and recently disked, likely for fire safety. No nests or roosting bats were observed in the oak tree grove in the northwest corner, nor were any ground nests observed. Powerline poles exist along Road 92, but not on the property itself, and did not appear to harbor any raptor nests. No wetlands, vernal pools or jurisdictional waters were located in the Project Area.
4. Findings
During the Biological Assessment, Soar Environmental did not observe any of the referenced specialstatus species within the Project Area or environmental footprint. However, grading of the Project Area will result in removing some grassland and oak woodland habitat. The findings for this report are summarized below.
Critical Habitats
No critical habitats occur within the vicinity of the Project’s environmental affect area, Project Area or project footprint.
Project Impacts
The project will cause permanent impacts to predominantly active agricultural land and heavily maintained (e.g. regularly mowed and disked) annual grassland and valley oak woodland in the northern Project Area. No fish, or habitat that could support aquatic species occurs on the property. Potential wildlife resources the Project could impact would be tree-nesting bird species such as Swainson Hawk, due to required tree removals and loss of foraging habitat.
The Project Area contains a section of valley oak woodland in the northwest corner. The project will require the removal of approximately twenty-one valley oak trees.
Conclusion
From the information gathered in the data records search and analysis of the habitat on site during the survey there is limited potential native plant and wildlife habitat available in the Project Area given that the majority of the property is active agricultural land. However, of the regionally occurring species, Swainson hawk has the highest potential to occur or be impacted by development of the project.
5. Recommendations
The following mitigation measures are intended to reduce and minimize impacts under CEQA, the California Endangered Species Act, and the federal Endangered Species Act for effects on species and habitats. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce project‐related affects to covered species and other biological resources to less than significant. 33 6. Recommended Mitigation Measures
MIitigation Measure 1: Swainson's Hawk Nesting Habitat
If construction, grading, or project-related improvements are to commence between March 1 and September 15, a focused survey for Swainson's hawk nests on the site and within ¼ mile of the site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no later than 30 days prior to the start of construction work (including clearing and grubbing). If active nests are found, the California Fish and Wildlife shall be contacted to determine appropriate protective measures, and these measures shall be implemented prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities. If no active nests are found during the focused survey, no further mitigation will be required.
MIitigation Measure 1a: Nesting Bird Survey
If project-related activities are scheduled between February 1 to August 31 (the typical nesting season), a focused survey for nests shall be conducted by a Designated Biologist within three (3) calendar days prior to the beginning of Project-related activities. The Designated Biologist shall survey a minimum radius of 500-feet for migratory birds around the Project Area and for sign of roosting bats. If no active nests or roosts are found, project activities may proceed as scheduled.
MIitigation Measure 1b: Active Nests or Roosts
If an active nest or roost is found, active nests should 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 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.
MIitigation Measure 1c: Project Delay
If a lapse in project-related work of fourteen (14) calendar days or longer occurs, the Designated Biologist shall complete another focused survey before Project work can be reinitiated.
7. Study Limitations
This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted environmental methodologies and contains all the limitations inherent in these methodologies. The Report documents site conditions that were observed during field reconnaissance and do not apply to future conditions. No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our contract and included in this Report.
34 Works Cited
Calflora. (2022). Taxon Report. Retrieved from https://www.calflora.org California Diversity Database (CNDDB). California Department of Fish and Wildlife RareFind.
Retrieved from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind
Calscape. (2023). Retrieved from https://calscape.org
CDFW. (2022). California’s Vernal Pools. Retrieved from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Vernal-Pools U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2023). Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5).
Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 1 August 2023]. https://rareplants.cnps.org Audubon Guide to North American Birds. (2022). https://www.audubon.org Calscape. (2023). Retrieved from https://calscape.org
Center for Biological Diversity. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.biologicaldiversity.org eBird Database, Cornell University Lab of Ornithology. (2022). Retrieved from https://ebird.org Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.
Nongame Heritage Program report. California Department of Fish and Game (Sacramento) USFWS. (Sept. 2007). Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). Retrieved from https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1160.pdf
Stephen Ward McCabe. University of California, Berkeley. The Jepson Herbarium. Vascular Plants of California. Thiede 2003 in Eggli (ed.) Illus Handbook Succulent Pls 6 (Crassulaceae):85--103. Springer. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora
USFWS. (Sept. 2007). Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). Retrieved from https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1160.pdf
35 APPENDIX A:
Project Area Photographs
36 Photo 1 – 5.6 acre valley oak woodland on northwest edge Photo 2 – Overview of Main Active Agricultural Property Site (View East) 37 Photo 3 – Southeastern Edge with Canal
Photo 4 – West Side of Project Area (View North)
38 Photo 5 – Small mammal burrows (ground squirrel)
39 Photo 6 – Eastern edge of Project Area, Mexican sprangletop grass (Leptochloa fusca ssp. uninervia) along canal edge
Photo 7 – Valley Oak Woodland at northwestern corner
40 Photo 8 – Center of Project Area (View South)
Photo 9 – Center of property from Inner corner edge near (offsite) orchards (View North) 41 Photo 10 – Valley oak (Quercus lobata) leaf, northern property 42 Photo 11– Ornamental Fan palm in southern property
43 APPENDIX B:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC Resource List
10/5/23, 12:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/EUF775NVJJFYPE5GKL5PIUOKL4/resources#migratory-birds 1/8 IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below.
The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location
Tulare County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
(916) 414-6600
(916) 414-6713
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
10/5/23, 12:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/EUF775NVJJFYPE5GKL5PIUOKL4/resources#migratory-birds 2/8 Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and projectspecific information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
Reptiles
Amphibians
1 2
NAME STATUS
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7247
Endangered
NAME STATUS
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625
Endangered
NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
10/5/23, 12:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/EUF775NVJJFYPE5GKL5PIUOKL4/resources#migratory-birds 3/8 Insects
Crustaceans
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.
There are no critical habitats at this location.
You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.
Bald & Golden Eagles
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply).
To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions.
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
There are no documented cases of eagles being present at this location. However, if you believe eagles may be using your site, please reach out to the local Fish and Wildlife Service office.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Managment https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-takemigratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birdsand-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action 10/5/23, 12:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/EUF775NVJJFYPE5GKL5PIUOKL4/resources#migratory-birds 4/8 Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
BREEDING SEASON
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birdsand-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action 1 2
3 NAME
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480
Breeds elsewhere
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
10/5/23, 12:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/EUF775NVJJFYPE5GKL5PIUOKL4/resources#migratory-birds 5/8 probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Belding's Savannah
Sparrow
BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole
BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Nuttall's Woodpecker
BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Short-billed Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Tricolored Blackbird
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
10/5/23, 12:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/EUF775NVJJFYPE5GKL5PIUOKL4/resources#migratory-birds 6/8 Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in 10/5/23, 12:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/EUF775NVJJFYPE5GKL5PIUOKL4/resources#migratory-birds 7/8 knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
There are no refuge lands at this location.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory.
There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or
RIVERINE
R4SBCx
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website 10/5/23, 12:05 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/EUF775NVJJFYPE5GKL5PIUOKL4/resources#migratory-birds 8/8 adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
44 APPENDIX C:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife RareFind
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha
PDAST5L030 None None G2 S2 1B.1
American badger
Taxidea taxus
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
American bumble bee
Bombus pensylvanicus
IIHYM24260 None None G3G4 S2
An andrenid bee
Andrena macswaini
IIHYM35130 None None G2 S2
brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
PDCHE042L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S2 SSC
California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
PMPOA53110 None None G2 S2 1B.2
California jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus
PDBRA31010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
PMPOA3D020 None None G3 S3 2B.1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
Coulter's goldfields
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
PDAST5L0A1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.1
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
Earlimart orache
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis
PDCHE042V0 None None G3T1 S1 1B.2
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
CTT61430CA None None G1 S1.1
heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
PDCHE040B0 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Hoover's spurge
Euphorbia hooveri
PDEUP0D150 Threatened None G1 S1 1B.2
Hopping's blister beetle
Lytta hoppingi
IICOL4C010 None None G1G2 S2
lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
PDCHE042M0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Traver (3611944)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Goshen (3611934)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Tulare (3611923)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Visalia (3611933)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Cairns Corner (3611922)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Monson (3611943)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Paige (3611924)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Exeter (3611932)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Ivanhoe (3611942)) Report Printed on Monday, October 09, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 4/1/2024
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
ABPBR01030 None None G4 S4 SSC
Moody's gnaphosid spider
Talanites moodyae
ILARA98020 None None G2G3 S2S3
Northern California legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
CTT44120CA None None G1 S1.1
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA None None G3 S3.1
northern leopard frog
Lithobates pipiens
AAABH01170 None None G5 S2 SSC
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
recurved larkspur
Delphinium recurvatum
PDRAN0B1J0 None None G2? S2? 1B.2
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
Pseudobahia peirsonii
PDAST7P030 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum
PDAPI0Z0Y0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
subtle orache
Atriplex subtilis
PDCHE042T0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4
Tipton kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
AMAFD03152 Endangered Endangered G3T1T2 S2
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T3 S3
Valley Sacaton Grassland
Valley Sacaton Grassland
CTT42120CA None None G1 S1.1
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
vernal pool smallscale
Atriplex persistens
PDCHE042P0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Report Printed on Monday, October 09, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 4/1/2024
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
ICBRA10010 Endangered None G3 S3
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
AAABF02020 None None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
western yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1
Winter's sunflower
Helianthus winteri
PDAST4N260 None None G2? S2? 1B.2
Record Count: 46
Report Printed on Monday, October 09, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 4/1/2024
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
45 APPENDIX D:
California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory | Search Results
https://rareplants.cnps.org/...T&crpr=1A:1B:2A:2B:3:4&qsl=9&quad=3611922:3611933:3611923:3611932:3611943:3611942:3611924:3611934:3611944:&elev=:m:o[10/9/2023 10:52:50 AM] Search Results
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory
Back Export Results
21 matches found. Click on scientifc name for details
Search Criteria: CRPR is one of [1A:1B:2A:2B:3:4] , 9-Quad include [3611922:3611933:3611923:3611932:3611943:3611942:3611924:3611934:3611944] Filter Results:
▲ SCIENTIFIC
NAME
COMMON
NAME FAMILY LIFEFORM
BLOOMING
PERIOD
FED
LIST
STATE
LIST
GLOBAL
RANK
STATE
RANK
CA
RARE
PLANT
RANK
CA
ENDEMIC
DATE
ADDED PHOTO
Amaranthus
watsonii
Watson's
amaranth
Amaranthaceae annual herb Apr-Sep None None G5? S3 4.3 2001- 01-01
© 2003
Debra
Valov
Atriplex
cordulata var.
cordulata
heartscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1988- 01-01
© 1994
Robert E.
Preson,
Ph.D.
Atriplex
cordulata var.
erecticaulis
Earlimart
orache
Chenopodiaceae annual herb AugSep(Nov)None None G3T1 S1 1B.2 Yes 2001- 01-01
© 2009
Robert E.
Preson,
Ph.D.
Scientifc Name Common Name Family Lifeform Blooming Period Fed Lis State Lis Global Rank State Rank CA Rare Plant Rank Other Status Threats General Habitats Microhabitats Lowes Elevation (m) Highes Elevation (m) Lowes Elevation (ft) Highes Elevation (ft) CA Endemic Date Added Photo CNPS Rare Plant Inventory | Search Results
https://rareplants.cnps.org/...T&crpr=1A:1B:2A:2B:3:4&qsl=9&quad=3611922:3611933:3611923:3611932:3611943:3611942:3611924:3611934:3611944:&elev=:m:o[10/9/2023 10:52:50 AM] Atriplex
depressa
brittlescale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2009
Zoya
Akulova
Atriplex
minuscula
lesser
saltscale
Chenopodiaceae annual herb May-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.1 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2000
Robert E.
Preson,
Ph.D.
Atriplex
persisens
vernal
pool
smallscale
Chenopodiaceae annual herb Jun-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 2001- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Atriplex
subtilis
subtle
orache
Chenopodiaceae annual herb (Apr)JunSep(Oct)None None G1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2000
Robert E.
Preson,
Ph.D.
Caulanthus
californicus
California
jewelfower
Brassicaceae annual herb Feb-May FE CE G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1984- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Delphinium
hansenii ssp.
ewanianum
Ewan's
larkspur
Ranunculaceae perennial herb Mar-May None None G4T3 S3 4.2 Yes 1994- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Delphinium
recurvatum
recurved
larkspur
Ranunculaceae perennial herb Mar-Jun None None G2? S2? 1B.2 Yes 1988- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Eryngium
spinosepalum
spinysepaled
buttoncelery
Apiaceae annual/perennial
herb
Apr-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1980-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Euphorbia
hooveri
Hoover's
spurge
Euphorbiaceae annual herb JulSep(Oct)FT None G1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1974- 01-01 No Photo
Available
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory | Search Results
https://rareplants.cnps.org/...T&crpr=1A:1B:2A:2B:3:4&qsl=9&quad=3611922:3611933:3611923:3611932:3611943:3611942:3611924:3611934:3611944:&elev=:m:o[10/9/2023 10:52:50 AM] Helianthus
winteri
Winter's
sunfower
Aseraceae perennial shrub Jan-Dec None None G2? S2? 1B.2 Yes 2014- 10-15 © 2014
Chris
Winchell
Hordeum
intercedens
vernal
barley
Poaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G3G4 S3S4 3.2 1994- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Imperata
brevifolia
California
satintail
Poaceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Sep-May None None G3 S3 2B.1 2006-
12-26
© 2020
Matt C.
Berger
Lashenia
chrysantha
alkali-sink
goldfelds
Aseraceae annual herb Feb-Apr None None G2 S2 1B.1 Yes 2019- 09-30
© 2009
California
State
University,
Stanislaus
Lashenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's
goldfelds
Aseraceae annual herb Feb-Jun None None G4T2 S2 1B.1 1994- 01-01
© 2013
Keir
Morse
Orcuttia
inaequalis
San
Joaquin
Valley
Orcutt
grass
Poaceae annual herb Apr-Sep FT CE G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1974-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Pseudobahia
peirsonii
San
Joaquin
adobe
sunburs
Aseraceae annual herb Feb-Apr FT CE G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1974- 01-01 No Photo
Available
Puccinellia
simplex
California
alkali grass
Poaceae annual herb Mar-May None None G2 S2 1B.2 2015-
10-15 No Photo
Available
Sagittaria
sanfordii
Sanford's
arrowhead
Alismataceae perennial
rhizomatous
MayOct(Nov)None None G3 S3 1B.2 Yes 1984-
01-01
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory | Search Results
https://rareplants.cnps.org/...T&crpr=1A:1B:2A:2B:3:4&qsl=9&quad=3611922:3611933:3611923:3611932:3611943:3611942:3611924:3611934:3611944:&elev=:m:o[10/9/2023 10:52:50 AM] herb (emergent)
©2013
Debra L.
Cook
Showing 1 to 21 of 21 entries
Suggesed Citation:
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 9 October 2023].
CONTACT US
Send quesions and comments to [email protected].
Development Team
ABOUT THIS WEBSITE
About the Inventory
Release Notes
Advanced Search
Glossary
Terms of Use
ABOUT CNPS
About the Rare Plant Program
CNPS Home Page
About CNPS
Join CNPS
CONTRIBUTORS
The Calfora Database
The California Lichen Society
California Natural Diversity Database
The Jepson Flora Project
The Consortium of California Herbaria
CalPhotos
Log in
Copyright © 2010-2023 California Native Plant Society. All rights reserved. 46 APPENDIX E:
USDA-NRCS Soil Survey
Soil Map—Tulare County, Western Part, California
Conservation Service
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
10/20/2023
4021600 4021700 4021800 4021900 4022000 4022100
4021600 4021700 4021800 4021900 4022000 4022100
287500 287600 287700 287800 287900 288000 288100 288200 288300 287400 287500 287600 287700 287800 287900 288000 288100 288200 288300 36° 19' 15'' N
119° 22' 5'' W
36° 19' 15'' N
119° 21' 27'' W
36° 18' 55'' N
119° 22' 5'' W
36° 18' 55'' N
119° 21' 27'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:4,340 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Points
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Special Point Features
Sodic Spot
Slide or Slip
Sinkhole
Severely Eroded Spot
Sandy Spot
Saline Spot
Rock Outcrop
Perennial Water
Miscellaneous Water
Mine or Quarry
Marsh or swamp
Lava Flow
Landfill
Gravelly Spot
Gravel Pit
Closed Depression
Clay Spot
Borrow Pit
Blowout
Special Line Features
Other
Wet Spot
Very Stony Spot
Stony Spot
Spoil Area
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Local Roads
Major Roads
US Routes
Interstate Highways
Rails
Background
Aerial Photography
Source of Map:
measurements.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
scale.
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
1:24,000.
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Coordinate System:
Web Soil Survey URL:
Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Soil Survey Area:
of the version date(s) listed below.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Tulare County, Western Part, California
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Aug 31, 2023
Date(s) aerial images were photographed:
1:50,000 or larger.
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales Mar 16, 2022—May
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor compiled and digitized probably differs from the background The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were 30, 2022
Soil Map—Tulare County, Western Part, California
Conservation Service
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3
10/20/2023
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 101 Akers-Akers, saline-Sodic,
complex, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
30.3 55.0%
130 Nord fine sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
24.8 45.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 55.2 100.0%
Soil Map—Tulare County, Western Part, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/20/2023