Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, April 6, 2026 (part 4 of 6)

EXHIBIT 'A'
City of Visalia
Annexation No. 2025-__
Annexation to the City of Visalia and Detachment from CSA # Lane Engineers, Inc. Job No. 24124
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 357, recorded in Book 4 of Parcel Maps, at Page 57, T.C.R. and that portion of the Fractional Southwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, in the County of Tulare, State of California, more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Parcel 1;
COURSE 1
Thence North 87°00’51” East 392.22 feet along the North line of said Parcel 1 and existing City limit line to the West line of the East Half of said Fractional Southwest Quarter; COURSE 2
Thence North 00°18’47” East 482.74 feet along said West line and existing City limit line to the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Fractional Southwest Quarter;
COURSE 3
Thence North 87°03’46” East 386.06 feet along the North line of said Southwest Quarter and existing City limit line;
COURSE 4
Thence departing from said existing City limit line and continuing North 87°03’46” East 154.32 feet along said North line to the West line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3820, recorded in Book 39 of Parcel Maps, at Page 23, T.C.R., said West line also being the West line of the East two-thirds of the East Half of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Fractional Southwest Quarter; COURSE 5
Thence South 00°16'05" West 1949.37 feet along said West line and the West lines of Parcels 1 & 2 of said Parcel Map No. 3820 to the North Right of Way line of Avenue 264, said Right of Way line being

30.00 feet northerly of and parallel with the South line of said Fractional Southwest Quarter; COURSE 6
Thence South 86°55'00" West 784.25 feet along said North Right of Way line to the East line of Parcel 2 of said Parcel Map No. 357;
COURSE 7
Thence North 00°18'47" East 290.45 feet along said East line to the Northeast corner thereof; COURSE 8
Thence South 86°55'00" West 150.00 feet along the North line of said Parcel 2 to the Northwest corner thereof and the existing City limit line;
05 820

Page 2 of 3 ends

COURSE 9
Thence North 00°18'47" East 1178.32 feet along the West line of said Parcel 1 and the existing City limit line to the Point of Beginning.

CONTAINING 36.39 acres, more or less.

END OF DESCRIPTION.
821
Job No.: Prepared by:
24124 Lane Engineers, Inc.

Date: 2/12/2025 10:02:11 AM
Annexation Area - LOT 1
North:1,982,889.1204' East:6,469,949.1492'
Course: N87°00'51"E Length: 392.22' North: 1,982,909.5508' East: 6,470,340.8367' Course: N0°18'47"E Length: 482.74' North: 1,983,392.2836' East: 6,470,343.4743' Course: N87°03'46"E Length: 540.38' North: 1,983,419.9736' East: 6,470,883.1444' Course: S0°16'05"W Length: 1,949.37' North: 1,981,470.6249' East: 6,470,874.0244' Course: S86°55'00"W Length: 784.25' North: 1,981,428.4414' East: 6,470,090.9097' Course: N0°18'47"E Length: 290.45' North: 1,981,718.8871' East: 6,470,092.4967' Course: S86°55'00"W Length: 150.00' North: 1,981,710.8188' East: 6,469,942.7138' Course: N0°18'47"E Length: 1,178.32' North: 1,982,889.1212' East: 6,469,949.1520' Perimeter: 5,767.74' Area: 1,585,130.77 Sq.Ft. (36.39 Acre) Error Closure: 0.0029 Course: N73°40'50"E
Error North : 0.00082 East: 0.00279
Precision 1: 1,988,872.41
Parcel Map Check Report
822
A P N 1 2 2 - 4 7 0 - 0 0 3
A P N 1 2 2 - 4 8 0 - 0 0 4
A P N 1 2 2 - 4 8 0 - 0 2 2 A P N 1 2 2 - 4 7 0 - 0 0 1 A P N 1 2 2 - 4 8 0 - 0 0 5
A P N 1 2 2 - 4 8 0 - 0 0 7
A P N 1 2 2 - 4 8 0 - 0 0 9 MOONEY BLVD.

LIBERTY RD. (AVE. 264)
A P N 1 2 2 - 4 8 0 - 0 1 0
A P N 1 2 2 - 4 8 0 - 0 2 1
A P N 1 2 2 - 4 8 0 - 0 1 9A P N 1 2 2 - 4 8 0 - 0 1 7

EXISTING CITY LIMITS

PROPOSED CITY LIMITS
N87°00'51"E 392.22 N00°18'47"E 482.74
386.06 154.32S00°16'05"W 1949.37
S86°55'00"W 784.25 N00°18'47"E 290.45
S86°55'00"W 150.00 N00°18'47"E 1178.32
N87°03'46"E 540.38
1 3
2 4
6 5
7 8
9 30' 30'
80'
80'

POINT OF BEGINNING
NW COR. PARCEL 1 - PM 357

PROPOSED CITY LIMITS

PROPOSED

CITY LIMITS

EXISTING CITY LIMITS

PROPOSED CITY LIMITS
200 100 200 400
1 INCH = 200 FT.

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 NORTH
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 357, RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 57, T.C.R. AND A PORTION OF THE FRACTIONAL SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECT 18, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE & MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

CITY OF VISALIA
ANNEXATION NO. 2025-__
LEGEND:

PROPOSED CITY LIMITS
ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.

AREA TO BE ANNEXED

EXISTING CITY LIMITS
FEBRUARY 2025

VICINITY MAP
1 COURSE NUMBER
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF VISALIA AND DETACHMENT FROM CSA # __ NORTH

SUBJECT PROPERTY

VISALIA, CA
AVE. 272 RD. 132
LIBERTY RD. (AVE. 264)
E. OAKDALE AVE. S. MOONEY BLVD. S. DEMAREE ST. S. SANTA FE ST. OAKMORE WAY

EXHIBIT 'B'
Exhibit A
2 05
05 823
Resolution No. 2026-20

EXHIBIT B
Pre-Annexation Agreement
This Pre-Annexation Agreement (”Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ______________, by and among the City of Visalia, a charter law city (“City’) and Nash Limited Partnership, (hereinafter “Owner”):

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owners are the record owners of the property, currently located in the unincorporated area of the County of Tulare, legally described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is adjacent to and contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City, but is not situated within the limits of any municipality; and WHEREAS, Owner desires to have the Property annexed to the City and to have the Property zoned as Q-P (Quasi-Public) which would permit the TECO facility; and WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 36.51 acres, and no electors reside thereon; and
WHEREAS, proper applications have been filed with the City for approval of the annexation and for the legal subdivision of the lot, as may be required for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has, by a resolution requesting initiation of proceedings to annex territory (“Resolution”) adopted on April 6, 2026, initiated proceedings to annex the Property; and
WHEREAS, in certain annexation proceedings Williamson Act issues arise which require indemnification of LAFCO, in said event, City requires indemnification from Developer; and
WHEREAS, finding of Resolution No. 2026-20 initiating annexation requires entry into this Annexation Agreement prior to the City submitting an application to the Local Area Formation Commission to commence the proposed annexation; and WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that during the term of this Agreement the Property will be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations of the City, as they may be amended from time to time, as well as state and federal statutes and regulations, as they may be amended.

WHEREAS, the City is authorized by its police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and is entering into this Agreement and executing such authority for said purpose; and
824
Resolution No. 2026-20
WHEREAS, nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by town of any tax, fee, or charge.

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

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

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

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

II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION; PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT Generally, each party to this Agreement is benefited and burdened by detachment from the County and annexation to the City. Owner will obtain a variety of services from City and City will obtain additional tax revenues. City has adopted ordinances, regulations, and policies concerning design, improvement, construction, development and use of property within the City. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by City of any tax or fee. The purpose of this Agreement is to spell out additional conditions to which Owner will be subject following annexation and prior to development within the City due to the burden placed on City by Owner’s desired annexation:

A. Water Acquisition Policy: Although City’s current water service provider, California Water Service, continues to issue will-serve letters, City’s Council is aware of the steadily decreasing level of water in the City’s underground water aquifers and has determined that increasing development is contributing to this serious problem. Therefore, City’s Council has studied the issue and investigated possible solutions in order that it may continue to assure citizens that there will be water available to serve the community’s needs. City’s Council is actively engaged in water replenishment activities with the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and it has adopted a policy, as set forth in Chapter 16.54 of the Visalia Municipal Code, which requires annexation applicants to convey title to water rights to City upon annexation and/or to pay a fee to City (pursuant to an adopted fee schedule) so that City may acquire water for groundwater replenishment and storage in order to serve new development that comes with annexation, including development of the Property (the “Water Acquisition Policy”). Therefore, Owner agrees that, at the time that LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will comply with the 825
Resolution No. 2026-20
Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to either (i) convey to City those water rights vested in the Property, if any, (ii) agree to pay City a fee in lieu thereof, (iii) agree to some combination of an in lieu fee payment and water right conveyance, or (iv) to comply by any other method allowed by the Water Acquisition Policy, provided that such agreement includes a condition precedent requiring City’s water supplier to agree to serve the Property with potable water in amount sufficient to meet Owner’s reasonably anticipated total water demand for the Property, as determined by a valid water supply assessment prepared pursuant to California Water Code § 10910 et seq. No post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued by City unless and until Owner complies with the Water Acquisition Policy in a manner consistent with this subsection II(A). Owner agrees that it shall identify all water rights which, to the best of Owner’s knowledge, have been used by Owner or its agents in connection with the Property, regardless of whether they are considered “vested” in the Property, and shall comply with the Water Acquisition Policy by entering into an agreement with City to convey such rights, if any, to City. City shall cooperate with Owner in valuing such water rights for the purposes of determining the amount of offset to be applied against the in lieu fee as required pursuant of the Water Acquisition Policy. Owner further agrees that City shall have first right of refusal in acquiring upon mutually acceptable terms any water rights that Owner owns that may be in addition to those required to meet Owner’s obligations under the Water Acquisition Policy. City agrees that water rights need not be conveyed and in lieu fees shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more parcel maps or final subdivision maps covering the Property and, in the event Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such water rights conveyance or fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each final subdivision map, with conveyance of water rights or payment to be made on a per map basis upon City’s issuance of each final subdivision map covering the Property.

B. General Plan Maintenance Fee: On June 21, 2004, the City adopted (by Resolution 2004-63, as corrected) a General Plan Maintenance Fee. Owner agrees that, at the time LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee in an amount equal to $427 per acre and no post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued unless and until said agreement is executed. City agrees that such fee shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more final subdivision maps covering the Property and, in the event Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each final subdivision map, with payment to be made on a per map basis upon City’s issuance of each final subdivision map covering the Property. Owner’s satisfaction of its obligations under this Section II(B) will satisfy any and all of Owner’s obligations related to and arising under the General Plan Maintenance Fee.

826
Resolution No. 2026-20
C. Plan For Providing Services. The parties agree to cooperate in, and to take such actions as may be necessary to ensure, the diligent preparation of a Plan For Providing Services to the Property, to be submitted to LAFCO along with City’s annexation application, in accordance with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requirements.

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

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

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

V. INDEMNIFICATION
Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City and the City’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability, claims, causes of actions, and demands, including attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation, or with any other action annexation or other action determined necessary or desirable by the City in order to effectuate the annexation of Owner’s property, or which are in any manner connected with the City’s enforcement of this Agreement. Owner further agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against or at the City’s option to pay the attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation.
827
Resolution No. 2026-20
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Binding Effect/Covenants to Run With Land. The Parties hereto agree to be bound by this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, transferees, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The terms and conditions stated herein shall constitute covenants running with the land.
b. Assignment. Neither party shall assign, delegate or transfer their rights and duties in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party. c. Authorized Signatory. The individuals executing this Agreement, by their signature hereto, declare that they are authorized to, and have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
d. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be effective upon personal delivery to City, or Owner, as the case may be, three (3) business days after deposit in the United States Mail, postage fully prepaid, addressed to the respective parties as follows:

To the City: City Manager
City of Visalia
220 N. Santa Fe Street
Visalia, CA 93292
With Copy to: Kenneth J. Richardson
City Attorney
Peltzer & Richardson
3746 West Mineral King Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
To Owner: Tulare County Office of Education
6200 S. Mooney Blvd.

Visalia, CA 93277
Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
e. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the City and Owner as to its subject matter and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or affect.
f. Amendment. No part of this Agreement may be modified without the written consent of both parties.
g. Headings. Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions under the heading.
828
Resolution No. 2026-20
h. No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. Except as provided herein, the parties of this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy.
i. Exhibits and Recitals. The recitals and any exhibits to this Agreement are fully incorporated by reference and are integral parts of this Agreement. j. Conflict With Laws or Regulations/Severability. This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing this subject, the conflicting provision(s) shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a material benefit of the Agreement to either party is lost, the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the effected party. In all other cases, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. k. Waiver. A waiver of any breech of this Agreement by any party shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breech of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
l. Choice of Law - Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any questions arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. Venue for any legal action arising from or in connection with this Agreement or the Property shall be in Tulare County, California.
m. Attorneys Fees. In the event either party commences any action, arbitration or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court or arbitrator, shall be entitled to recovery of its reasonable fees and costs, including attorneys fees, court costs and arbitration costs incurred in the action brought thereon.
n. No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that Owner is not an agent of City. City and Owner hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection therewith shall be construed as making City and Owner joint venturers or partners.
829
Resolution No. 2026-20
o. Excusable Delays; Extension of Time of Performance. In the event of delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, war, terrorism, lockouts, third-party litigation or other legal challenges regarding the annexation, riots, floods, earthquakes, epidemic, quarantine, freight embargoes, failure of contractors to perform, or other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the parties and which cause substantially interferes with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, then the time for performance of any such obligation shall be extended for such period of time as the cause of such delay shall exist but in any event not longer than for such period of time.
p. Further Assurances. The parties will execute and deliver, upon demand by the other party, such further documents, instruments and conveyances, and shall take such further actions as such other party may request from time to time to document the transactions set forth herein.
q. Recordation of Agreement; Counterparts. This Agreement, or an abstract of its material terms and conditions shall be recorded by either party in the Official Records of the Tulare County Recorder. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, when all counterparts are combined, shall constitute a single agreement.
///
830
Resolution No. 2026-20
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth next to their signature.

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

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

Date: ____________ By: _________________________________ Kenneth J. Richardson,
City Attorney
OWNER
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ Tulare County Office of Education
831

REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE: March 23, 2026
PROJECT PLANNER: Josh Dan, Senior Planner
Phone: (559) 713-4003
E-Mail: [email protected]
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05: A request by Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) to expand the Urban Development Boundary for 24.32 acres east of their current administrative offices located at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard and to change the land use designations on APN: 122-480-004 from Commercial Mixed Use to Public/Institutional and APNs: 122-470-003, 122-480- 008 and -018 from Agriculture to Public/Institutional.

Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06: A request by TCOE to change the zoning designation on APN: 122-480-004 from C-MU (Mixed-Use Commercial) to QP (Quasi-Public) and to prezone APNs: 122-470-003, 122-480-008 and -018 to QP (Quasi-Public).

Annexation No. 2025-03: A request by TCOE to initiate annexation of APNs: 122- 470-003, 122-480-008, and 122-480-018 into the city limits of Visalia.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28: A request by TCOE to construct several buildings for classrooms, offices, board/conference rooms, and warehouse storge within the proposed campus expansion.

Project Location: The site is located at 11720 and 11836 Ave 264 and 6200 South Mooney Boulevard (APNs: 122-470-003, 122-480-004, 122-480-008, and 122-480-018).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-57. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-58.

Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Annexation No. 2025-03
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve Annexation No. 2025-03, as conditioned, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-59.

Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan.
832
Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-60. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the policies of the Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-57.

I move to recommend approval of Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2025-58.

I move to recommend approval of Annexation No. 2025-03, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-59.

I move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2025-60.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Tulare County Office of Education
(TCOE) proposes to expand and add
additional facilities to its existing
Administrative Office and Conference Center
facility located at 6200 South Mooney
Boulevard. TCOE has acquired portions of
adjacent properties which will be merged
with the existing site, expanding their overall
campus site by approximately 12.54 acres.

Ultimately, the proposal aids in consolidation
and centralization of existing TCOE offices,
which are located at 7000 West Doe
Avenue, while hosting professional
development trainings and workshops for
District employees. If all entitlements are
approved, the contiguous sites will be
developed in a manner to provide internal
access via drive aisles, along with other
onsite improvements including curbing,
drainage, and utility infrastructure, see
Exhibit “A”. In addition, the expansion will
also have an additional vehicular access
point from Avenue 264 / Liberty Avenue (see
Site Plan in Exhibit “A”).

The existing TCOE facility located at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard, was completed in 2016.

The existing 11-acre campus includes administration offices and conference center. The existing structure is 91,596 square feet consisting of a three-story professional office building and a single-story conference center. The site design included three landscaped ponding areas for stormwater retention and a greenbelt along the northern boundary. On the east side of the property, 2.5 acres were reserved for future expansion. Parking provided onsite totals 379 stalls used by employees and visitors. The only vehicular ingress and egress onto the site is provided Figure No.1
833
via South Mooney Boulevard. In addition to administrative offices and support to TCOE schools and facilities, the existing campus is also used to host conferences, educational training, and up to three large-scale conferences per year.

The proposed campus expansion is expected to provide five (5) additional buildings providing space for offices, classrooms, and conference meeting space. Each building, square footage, and proposed use are listed in Table 1-1 below and are depicted in Exhibit “A”.

Table 1: Existing and Proposed TCOE Buildings
BLDG No. Square Feet Stories Purpose / Use
100 (existing) 91,569 3 Existing admin and conf. center 200 (proposed) 50,985 1 Offices
300 (proposed) 50,985 1 Offices
400 (proposed) 6,227 1 Three classrooms and training kitchen 500 (proposed) 6,227 1 Conference / Board Room
600 (proposed) 35,264 1 Warehouse
To assist in the overall development of the TCOE campus expansion, TCOE will be purchasing two adjacent sites to provide land area for these onsite improvements. A proposed stormwater ponding basin will be constructed along the southern boundary of the property for on-site drainage. New parking facilities surrounding the development will provide an additional 388 parking stalls, including 17 accessible spaces. Between the existing and proposed parking stalls, 767 stalls will be provided onsite.

To facilitate this request, the following entitlements are required:

General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2025-05:

General Plan Amendment is proposing to expand the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) to include the 24.32 acres east of the current TCOE facility at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard, establish a land use designation for those parcels located outside the City’s UDB and redesignate their current facilities Commercial Mixed Use land designation. Those parcels outside the City’s UDB have a land use designation of Agriculture. The GPA will seek to redesignate the underlying General Plan Land Use for those parcels from Agriculture to Public/Institutional and re-designate the site located at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard from Commercial Mixed Use to Public/Institutional. The General Plan amendment is essential for the annexation of land and proposed development to be completed through the City’s process and connection to City infrastructure and services.

Prezone and Change of Zone (COZ) No. 2025-06:

The Prezone and Change of Zone proposals seek to prezone unincorporated territory to determine the zoning that will apply to that territory upon annexation to the city, while the Change of Zone will change the existing zoning for the TCOE site from C-MU (Commercial Mixed Use) to QP (Quasi-Public), which is also consistent with the General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05.

There are two parcels adjacent to the TCOE project (Calvary Chapel Visalia and a private ponding basin) that will also be prezoned QP which is consistent with those two sites General Plan land use designation of Public/Institutional.

Annexation No. 2025-03
The annexation request is seeking to incorporate several parcels into the City limits which include APN: 122-470-003 (measuring 24.32 acres and largely vacant), APN: 122-480-008 (measuring 12.19 acres which is home to Calvary Visalia), and APN: 122-480-018 (a vacant

0.99-acre parcel used as a private stormwater basin). The Tulare County Local Agency 834
Formation Commission, which regulates the annexations of land into cities, intends to require that this annexation proposal square off city boundaries to avoid the creation of a County Island.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28
The Visalia Municipal Code conditionally permits schools in the Quasi-Public zone. Conditional Use Permits grant the Planning Commission the ability to apply special consideration so that the proposed use may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the zoning ordinance and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these purposes and thus give the zone use regulations the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, the Planning Commission is empowered to grant or deny applications for conditional use permits and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of such permits. Staff supports the TCOE’s campus expansion as the project complies with General Plan land use policies as stated in the General Plan analysis section below.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Existing General Plan Land Use: Commercial Mixed Use, Public/Institutional, & Agriculture Proposed General Plan Land Use: Public/Institutional
Existing Zoning: C-MU (Commercial Mixed-Use) & AE-20 (County Zoning) Proposed Zoning: QP (Quasi-Public)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: North: R-1-5 (single-family residential) / Rancho Robles mobile home park & C-MU (Mixed-Use
Commercial) various commercial uses
South: AE-20 (County Zoning) / Liberty Avenue (Ave.
264), row crop farmland
East: AE-20 (County Zoning) / nut tree orchard
West: C-MU (Mixed-Use Commercial), AE-20 & R-1
(County Zoning) / various commercial uses, S.

Mooney Blvd.

Environmental Review: TCOE, as Lead Agency under CEQA, prepared and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.

Special Districts: N/A
Site Plan Review No: 2024-266

RELATED PLANS & POLICIES
Please see attached summary of related plans and policies. The proposed project is consistent with applicable plans and policies.

RELATED PROJECTS
There are no previous or related projects upon either of the project areas. 835

PROJECT EVALUATION
Staff supports the General Plan Amendment, Prezone, Change of Zone, Annexation, and Conditional Use Permit, as conditioned, based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

General Plan Land Use and Zoning Compatibility
The General Plan describes that the Public/Institutional land use classification applies to lands owned by public entities, including City Hall and other City buildings, County buildings, schools, the Municipal Airport, and hospitals. Specifically, Land Use Policy LU-P-108 supports the designation of land for Public/Institutional uses including city, county, and other government buildings as well as schools. Additionally, the General Plan’s Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities Element details in several policies the promotion of educational alternatives, like charter schools, per the following policies:

PSCU-P-34: Coordinate land use and development with school location and site design, working with the Visalia Unified School District and other districts to ensure that adequate facilities are available and integrated with neighborhoods.

PSCU-P-39: Promote the location and development of vocational and trade schools and alternative and continuing education programs such as Visalia Charter Independent Study.

PSCU-P-44: Support efforts to involve youth in leadership and job training programs.

Permitting the expansion of the TCOE campus meets General Plan Objective LU-O-13 by minimizing urban sprawl and leap-frog development by supporting the expansion of the TCOE campus which is within the Visalia planning area, thereby promoting orderly growth instead of fragmented development. In addition, supporting the expansion of the TCOE campus will help preserve educational diversity in Visalia’s economic base which may help increase the stability of jobs and support economic competitiveness by aligning education with local needs.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed project consistent with General Plan Policies. Expansion of the existing facility for the proposed uses would be in keeping with the City of Visalia’s goals and polices of supporting educational growth opportunities while coordinating with school districts to offer alternative education facilities which in turn deliver long-term community benefits by expanding critical public-serving educational institutions.

Parking
The proposed expansion entails uses for office, board/conference rooms, classrooms, and storage/warehousing. Pursuant to the Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.34, off street parking and loading facilities, the following parking criteria is applied for the uses:

1. Offices – Section 17.34.020.F.4: Offices, including all public and professional offices, except as otherwise specified: one parking space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of building area, with a minimum of four parking spaces.

2. Classrooms – Section 17.34.020.C.3: High schools, one parking space for each employee plus seven parking spaces for each classroom.

3. Warehousing – Section 17.34.020.F.17: Storage and warehouses: one parking space for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of building area.

Staff has provided Table 1-2 (below) to provide analysis of the parking requirements for each building:
836
Table 1-2: Parking
BLDG No. Floor area VMC Ratio Required
200 50,985 1:250 sq. ft. (Offices) 204
300 50,985 1:250 sq. ft. (Offices) 204
400 6,227 1 per employee & 7 per Classroom
(3 classrooms)
24 500 6,227 1 per 4 seats (100 seats) 25
600 35,264 1:1,000 sq. ft. (warehouses) 35
Considering the parking ratios and floor areas provided, 492 parking stalls would be required for the additional buildings based on the parking ratios as prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance. The existing facility’s 379 parking stalls, in addition to the 388 stalls proposed, provides a total of 767 stalls across the entire TCOE campus.

Staff would note that the existing TCOE building was not developed through the City’s permitting process and therefore parking ratios for the site were established based on their needs and not the city’s parking ratios. However, the total number of parking stalls provided is justified due to the operational characteristics of the TCOE campus. Specifically, not all buildings are intended to be occupied simultaneously or at full capacity throughout the day. The campus will function with staggard schedules, varying program hours, and intermittent use of certain facilities. Based on the operational needs for the TCOE site, staff concludes the parking provided adequately serves the project site without resulting in adverse “spillover” parking impacts to the surrounding area.

Access, Connectivity, and Circulation
Mooney Boulevard (State Route 63) is state highway that has full improvements across the existing facility’s frontage. The secondary vehicular access point at Avenue 264 is needed to facilitate adequate fire access and to provide a secondary point of ingress/egress for the TCOE campus. The Engineering Division has identified that full improvements to Avenue 264 will not be warranted at this time; however, should additional development be considered for the undeveloped portion of the site, additional street improvements will be required. The extent of these improvements would include sidewalks, curb, gutter, park strip landscaping, city streetlights, etc., to City standards. It should be noted that there is also a gated access point set off the roadway (Avenue 264), which serves as the secondary point of access to the site.

The existing facility and proposed expansion will be connected via interior drive aisles which are expected to integrate into the overall layout. Some demolition of existing improvements like solar canopies and stormwater gutters will need to occur and be reconfigured, however, there is no concern from staff regarding the cohesion of the two phases.

Landscaping, Lighting, and Fencing
The existing facility is fully landscaped along its Mooney Boulevard frontage and has a “greenbelt” of landscaping around its perimeter. The proposed expansion will mirror a similar landscaping design. Furthermore, the existing Mooney Boulevard frontage has black wrought iron fencing and access gates, whereas the remainder of the perimeter is predominantly fenced with chain-link fencing. Exhibit “A” shows that similar styled gates and fencing are expected around the perimeter expansion and secondary access point. The proposed seven-foot-tall decorative metal fence is consistent with the fence height and placement requirements established in municipal code Chapter 17.36 Fences, Walls and Hedges for similar uses. 837
Environmental Review
The proposed project was previously evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by TCOE which acted as the Lead Agency for the project. TCOE prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following a 30-day circulation of the document for public review, TCOE adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts.

The City, acting as a Responsible Agency for purposes of CEQA, is required to consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in the environmental document prepared by TCOE before acting on the project. The City is required to impose feasible mitigation measures within its jurisdiction.

TCOE consulted with City staff on the preparation of the Initial Study and MND. The City has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study and MND, together with the administrative record associated with the Lead Agency’s approval of the project, and finds that the environmental document adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the project.

Table 3-19 of the IS/MND produced by TCOE identifies the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. The table recognizes measures intended for:
• One (1) Agricultural Resources related to impacts to Prime Farmland. 1 • Three (3) Biological Resources related to protecting nesting Swainsons hawks, roosting pallid bat and western mastiff bat, obtaining a permit from the SWRCB for impacts to jurisdictional waters, protecting nesting birds;
• Two (2) Cultural Resources related to whether any accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains or human remains during development or ground-moving activities in the project boundary.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05

1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment from 23.32 acres of Agricultural to Public Institutional will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

3. That the proposed land use designation under the proposed General Plan Amendment results in a land use that will suitably buffer and provide an efficient transition between the existing commercial, agricultural, and residential uses surrounding the site.

4. That TCOE prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following a 30-day circulation of the document for public review, TCOE adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts. TCOE consulted with City staff on the preparation of the Initial Study and MND. The City has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study and MND, together with the administrative record associated with the Lead Agency’s approval of the project and finds that the environmental document adequately evaluates the 1 The mitigation identified is not technically required as public facilities are exempt from the City’s adopted APO. 838
environmental impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this project.

Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06

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

2. That the proposed Change of Zone from C-MU (Mixed-Use Commercial) to QP (QuasiPublic) will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

3. That the proposed zoning designations under the proposed Change of Zone results in zoning and land uses that suitably buffer and provide an efficient transition between the existing commercial, agricultural, and residential zoning and uses surrounding the site.

4. The site is physically suitable (including ability to meet requested zoning regulations, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land uses.

5. That the proposed prezoning, is being processed in accordance with Chapter 17.44 of the Visalia Municipal Code, is being done to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance prescribed in Section 17.02.020, which are established as a means to preserve and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the city, and of the public generally and to facilitate growth and expansion of the municipality in a precise and orderly manner, and is being done to confirm the classification of the zone designation that is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, in accordance with Section 17.06.050 of the Zoning Ordinance.

6. That TCOE prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following circulation of the document for public review, TCOE adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts. TCOE consulted with City staff on the preparation of the Initial Study and MND. The City has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study and MND, together with the administrative record associated with the Lead Agency’s approval of the project, and finds that the environmental document adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this project.

Annexation No. 2025-03

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

2. That the proposed Annexation, which will re-designate 24.32-acres of AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre) County zone district to Q-P (Quasi-Public) City zone district, will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

3. That the parcel is not located within an Agricultural Preserve.

4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 2 per the Council Election Voting District Map.

5. That TCOE prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following circulation of the document for public review, TCOE adopted the 839
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts. TCOE consulted with City staff on the preparation of the Initial Study and MND. The City has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study and MND, together with the administrative record associated with the Lead Agency’s approval of the project, and finds that the environmental document adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this project.

Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28

1. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the project is consistent with the required findings of Zoning Ordinance Section 17.38.110:
a. The proposed location of the conditional use permit is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. b. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

3. That TCOE prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following circulation of the document for public review, TCOE adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts. TCOE consulted with City staff on the preparation of the Initial Study and MND. The City has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study and MND, together with the administrative record associated with the Lead Agency’s approval of the project and finds that the environmental document adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this project.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05
There are no recommended conditions for General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05.

Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06
There are recommended conditions for Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06.

Annexation No. 2025-03

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned Q-P (Quasi-Public) consistent with the prezoning designated by the General Plan Land Use Map.

2. That the applicant(s) enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The draft Pre-Annexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” of Resolution No. 2025-59. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.
840
Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28

1. That the use operates in substantial compliance with the comments from the approved Site Plan Review No. 2024-266.

2. That the use operate in substantial compliance with the Site Plans, Floor Plans, and Operational Statement as show in Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “C”.

3. That any changes to the number of classrooms or intensity of use onsite be submitted to Site Plan Review to show compliance with the approval and subject to Planning Division determination.

4. That the applicant enters into a Mitigation Agreement with the City and that agreement be recorded against the property obligating the development to comply with and implement the appropriate mitigation measures identified in the TCOE Mitigated Negative Declaration.

5. That approval of the Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2025-03, placing the project site within the corporate limits of the City of Visalia, is approved by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and is fully executed to include all conditions contained in the Pre-Annexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2025-03.

6. That all other Federal, State, Regional, and City codes and ordinances be met.

APPEAL INFORMATION
For the General Plan, Prezone, and Change of Zone, and Conditional Use Permit :

The Planning Commission’s recommendations on these matters are advisory only. The final decisions will be by the Visalia City Council following a public hearing. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s recommendations in these matters are not appealable.

For the Conditional Use Permit:

According to the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Section 17.02.145, an appeal to the City Council may be submitted within ten days following the date of a decision by the Planning Commission. An appeal with applicable fees shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 North Santa Fe Street Visalia California. The appeal shall specify errors or abuses of discretion by the Planning Commission, or decisions not supported by the evidence in the record. The appeal form can be found on the city’s website www.visalia.city or from the City Clerk.

Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2025-57 – General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05 • Resolution No. 2025-58 – Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06 • Resolution No. 2024-59 – Annexation No. 2025-03
- Attachment “A” – Annexation Area
- Attachment “B” – Annexation Agreement
• Resolution No. 2025-60 – Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28 • Exhibit “A” – Site Plan(s)
• Exhibit “B” – Floor Plan(s)
• Exhibit “C” – Operational Statement
841
• Exhibit “D” – Elevations
• TCOE Mitigated Negative Declaration
• TCOE Certification of Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Site Plan Review Comments No. 2024-266
• Existing General Plan Land Use Map
• Existing Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map
842

RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
The following Zoning Ordinance policies apply to the proposed project:

Chapter 17.52

QUASI-PUBLIC ZONE

17.52.010 Purpose and intent.

The purpose and intent of the quasi-public zone is to provide a zone that is intended to allow for the location of institutional, academic, community service, governmental, and nonprofit uses. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7630)

17.52.015 Applicability.

The requirements in this chapter shall apply to all property within the QP zone district. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017)

17.52.020 Permitted uses.

Permitted uses in the quasi-public zone include public uses of an administrative, recreational, public service or cultural type including city, county, state or federal administrative centers and courts, libraries, museums, art galleries, police and fire stations and other public building, structures and facilities; public playgrounds, parks and community centers. Permitted uses also include wireless telecommunication facilities on parcels that are a minimum of five (5) acres, subject to the requirements of Section 17.32.163 (Regulation of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities) of the Visalia Zoning Ordinance. The keeping of household pets, subject to the definition of household pets set forth in Section 17.04.030. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2015-01 § 3 (part), 2015: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7631)

17.52.030 Conditional uses.

Conditional uses in the quasi-public zone include:

A. Public and quasi-public uses of an education or religious type including public and parochial elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools and colleges; nursery schools, licensed day care facilities for more than fourteen (14) children; churches, parsonages and other religious institutions; B. Public and private charitable institutions, general hospitals, sanitariums, nursing and convalescent homes, senior care facilities, senior housing; not including specialized hospitals, sanitariums, or nursing, rest and convalescent homes including care for acute psychiatric, drug addiction or alcoholism cases; C. Ambulance service;
D. Electric distribution substations;
E. Gas regulator stations;
F. Public service pumping stations;
G. Communications equipment buildings;
H. Wireless telecommunication facilities on parcels that are a less than five (5) acres subject to the Section 17.32.163 of the Visalia Zoning Ordinance;
I. Residential development specifically designed for senior housing; J. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner.

K. Emergency shelters, subject to Section 17.32.130;
L. Low barrier navigation centers, subject to Section 17.32.135; M. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner. 843
Chapter 17.54

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS

17.54.010 Purpose.

As the general plan for Visalia is implemented, there may be a need for amendments to land use boundaries and policies of the general plan. Such amendments shall be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in this chapter.

17.54.020 Initiation.

A. An amendment to the land use boundaries of the general plan may be initiated by any interested person or the owners of the property within the area for which the amendment is proposed. The area of a proposed land use amendment and/or policy amendment may be expanded in scope by the planning commission in the resolution of intention.

B. An amendment to land use boundaries and/or policies may be initiated by the city planning commission or the city council by adoption of a resolution of intention.

17.54.030 Application procedures.

A. An application for an amendment shall be filed by the applicant with the city planning commission on a form prescribed by the commission. Said application shall include the following data:

1. Name and address of the applicant;

2. Statement that the applicant is the owner of the property for which a land use boundary amendment is proposed or the authorized agent of the owner. In the case of a policy amendment the statement shall indicate the interest of the applicant;

3. Address and legal description of the subject property, if applicable;

4. The application shall include material deemed necessary by the city planner to clearly show the applicant's proposal.

B. The application shall be accompanied by a fee set by resolution of the city council to cover the cost of processing the application.

17.54.040 Public hearing—Notice.

Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days or more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the city, and by mailing notice of the time and place of the hearing to property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of the area under consideration if an amendment to the land use element is under consideration.

17.54.050 Investigation and report.

The city planning staff shall make an investigation of the application or the proposal and shall prepare a report thereon that shall be submitted to the city planning commission.

17.54.060 Hearing.

At the public hearing, the city planning commission shall review the application or the proposal and may receive pertinent evidence regarding the proposed amendment.

17.54.070 Action of city planning commission.

Within forty-five (45) days following the public hearing, the city planning commission shall make a specific recommendation and shall transmit a report to the city council. The report shall include a resolution recommending either approval or denial of the proposed amendment, together with pertinent information and the report of the city planning staff. 844

17.54.080 Action of the city council.

A. Upon receipt of the resolution and report of the city planning commission, the city council shall hold at least one public hearing with public notice as prescribed in Section 17.54.040.

Following the noticed public hearing, the city council shall approve, deny or modify the city planning commission recommendation.

B. If the element or amendment has been approved by the city planning commission, the city council shall not modify the recommendation until the proposed change or modification has been referred back to the city planning commission for a report and a copy of the report has been filed with the city council. Failure of the city planning commission to report within forty (40) days after the reference, or such longer period as may be designated by the city council shall be deemed to be approval of the proposed change or modification. It shall not be necessary for the city planning commission to hold a public hearing on such proposed change or modification.

C. The adoption of a general plan element, or amendment, shall be by resolution of the city council.

Excerpts from Chapter 17.38: Conditional Use Permits

17.38.010 Purposes and powers.

In certain zones conditional uses are permitted subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.

Because of their unusual characteristics, conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the zoning ordinance and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these purposes and thus give the zone use regulations the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, the planning commission is empowered to grant or deny applications for conditional use permits and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of such permits.

17.38.030 Lapse of conditional use permit.

A conditional use permit shall lapse and shall become void twenty-four (24) months after the date on which it became effective, unless the conditions of the permit allowed a shorter or greater time limit, or unless prior to the expiration of twenty-four (24) months a building permit is issued by the city and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site that was the subject of the permit. A permit may be renewed for an additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of twenty-four (24) months from the date the permit originally became effective, an application for renewal is filed with the planning commission. The commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a conditional use permit. In the case of a planned residential development, the recording of a final map and improvements thereto shall be deemed the same as a building permit in relation to this section.

17.38.040 Revocation.

Upon violation of any applicable provision of this title, or, if granted subject to a condition or conditions, upon failure to comply with the condition or conditions, a conditional use permit shall be suspended automatically. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing within sixty (60) days, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 17.38.080, and if not satisfied that the regulation, general provision or condition is being complied with, may revoke the permit or take such action as may be necessary to insure compliance with the regulation, general provision or condition. Appeals of the decision of the planning commission may be made to the city council as provided in Section 17.38.120.

17.38.050 New application.

Following the denial of a conditional use permit application or the revocation of a conditional use permit, no application for a conditional use permit for the same or substantially the same conditional use on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial or revocation of the permit unless such denial was a denial without prejudice by the planning commission or city council. 845

17.38.060 Conditional use permit to run with the land.

A conditional use permit granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site or structure that was the subject of the permit application subject to the provisions of Section 17.38.065.

17.38.065 Abandonment of conditional use permit.

If the use for which a conditional use permit was approved is discontinued for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days, the use shall be considered abandoned and any future use of the site as a conditional use will require the approval of a new conditional use permit.

17.38.080 Public hearing--Notice.

A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a conditional use permit.

B. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing a notice of the time and place of the hearing to property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of the area occupied or to be occupied by the use that is the subject of the hearing, and by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the city.

17.38.090 Investigation and report.

The planning staff shall make an investigation of the application and shall prepare a report thereon that shall be submitted to the planning commission. The report can recommend modifications to the application as a condition of approval.

17.38.100 Public hearing--Procedure.

At the public hearing the planning commission shall review the application and the statement and drawing submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained, particularly with respect to the findings prescribed in Section 17.38.110. The planning commission may continue a public hearing from time to time as it deems necessary.

17.38.110 Action by planning commission.

A. The planning commission may grant an application for a conditional use permit as requested or in modified form, if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the commission makes the following findings:

1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located;

2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

B. A conditional use permit may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such conditions as the commission may prescribe. The commission may grant conditional approval for a permit subject to the effective date of a change of zone or other ordinance amendment.

C. The commission may deny an application for a conditional use permit.

17.38.120 Appeal to city council.

The decision of the City planning commission on a conditional use permit shall be subject to the appeal provisions of section 17.02.145.

17.38.130 Effective date of conditional use permit.

A conditional use permit shall become effective immediately when granted or affirmed by the council, or ten days following the granting of the conditional use permit by the planning commission if no appeal has been filed.
846
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-57
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-57

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF VISALIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2025-05, A REQUEST BY TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF

EDUCATION (TCOE) TO EXPAND THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY FOR

24.32 ACRES EAST OF THEIR CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES LOCATED AT 6200 SOUTH MOONEY BOULEVARD AND TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS ON APN: 122-480-004 FROM COMMERCIAL MIXED USE TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL AND APNS: 122-470-003, 122-480-008 AND -018 FROM AGRICULTURE TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 11720 AND 11836 AVE 264 AND 6200 SOUTH MOONEY BOULEVARD
(APNS: 122-470-003, 122-480-004, 122-480-008, AND 122-480-018).

WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05 is a request by Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) to expand the Urban Development Boundary for

24.32 acres east of their current administrative offices located at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard and to change the land use designations on APN: 122-480-004 from Commercial Mixed Use to Public/Institutional and APNs: 122-470-003, 122-480-008 and -018 from Agriculture to Public/Institutional. The site is located at 11720 and 11836 Ave 264 and 6200 South Mooney Boulevard (APNs: 122-470-003, 122-480-004, 122-480- 008, and 122-480-018); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on March 23, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia considered the general plan amendment in accordance with Section 17.54.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project was previously evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the Tulare County Office of Education which acted as the Lead Agency for the project. Tulare County Office of Education prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following a 30-day circulation of the document for public review, the Lead Agency adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the City, acting as a Responsible Agency for purposes of CEQA, is required to consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in the environmental document prepared by the Tulare County Office of Education before acting on the project and the City is required to impose feasible mitigation measures within its jurisdiction; and
847
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-57
WHEREAS, the Initial Study prepared for the project disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. The table recognizes measures intended for, Agricultural Resources related to impacts to Prime Farmland, Biological Resources related to protecting nesting Swainsons hawks, roosting pallid bat and western mastiff bat, obtaining a permit from the SWRCB for impacts to jurisdictional waters, protecting nesting birds, and Cultural Resources related to whether any accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains or human remains during development or ground-moving activities in the project boundary.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Tulare County Office of Education’s Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05 that was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia recommends approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 2025-05 based on the following specific findings and evidence presented:

4. That TCOE prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following a 30-day circulation of the document for public review, TCOE adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts. TCOE consulted with City staff on the preparation of the Initial Study and MND. The City has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study and MND, together with the administrative record associated with the Lead Agency’s approval of the project and finds that the environmental document adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia recommends approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 2024-02, as depicted per Attachment “A”, on the real property described herein, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Section 17.54.070 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia.
848
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-57
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2025-05
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2025-57
Attachment “A”
Adjust UDB to include the
neighboring parcel.

TECO expansion site: Existing Land
Use – AE-20 (County Zoning)
S. Mooney Blvd.
849
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-57
Adjusted UDB to include
the neighboring parcel.

S. Mooney Blvd.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2025-05
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2025-57
Attachment “A”
TECO sites: Proposed Land
Use – PI (Public – Institution)
850
Resolution No. 2025-58
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-06

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF VISALIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PREZONE AND CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2025-06, A REQUEST BY TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON APN: 122-480-004 FROM C-MU (MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL) TO QP (QUASI-PUBLIC) AND TO PREZONE APN: 122- 470-003, 122-480-008, AND 122-480-018 TO QP (QUASI-PUBLIC). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 11720 AND 11836 AVE 2645 AND 6200 SOUTH MOONEY BOULEVARD (APNS: 122-470-003, 122-480-004, AND 122-480-018).

WHEREAS, Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06 is a request by Tulare County Office of Education to change the zoning designation on APN: 122-480-004 from C-MU (Mixed-Use Commercial) to QP (Quasi-Public) and to prezone APN: 122- 470-003, 122-480-008 and -018 to QP (Quasi-Public). The site is located at 11720 and 11836 Ave 264 and 6200 South Mooney Boulevard (APNs: 122-470-003, 122-480-004, 122-480-008, and 122-480-018); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on March 23, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia considered the change of zone in accordance with Section 17.44.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia and on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project was previously evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the Tulare County Office of Education which acted as the Lead Agency for the project. Tulare County Office of Education prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following a 30-day circulation of the document for public review, the Lead Agency adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the City, acting as a Responsible Agency for purposes of CEQA, is required to consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in the environmental document prepared by the Tulare County Office of Education before acting on the project and the City is required to impose feasible mitigation measures within its jurisdiction; and
851
Resolution No. 2025-58
WHEREAS, the Initial Study prepared for the project disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project.

The table recognizes measures intended for, Agricultural Resources related to impacts to Prime Farmland, Biological Resources related to protecting nesting Swainsons hawks, roosting pallid bat and western mastiff bat, obtaining a permit from the SWRCB for impacts to jurisdictional waters, protecting nesting birds, and Cultural Resources related to whether any accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains or human remains during development or ground-moving activities in the project boundary.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia recommends approval to the City Council of Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06 based on the following specific findings and evidence presented:

2. That the proposed Change of Zone from C-MU (Mixed-Use Commercial) to QP (Quasi-Public) will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

5. That the proposed prezoning, is being processed in accordance with Chapter

17.44 of the Visalia Municipal Code, is being done to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance prescribed in Section 17.02.020, which are established as a means to preserve and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the city, and of the public generally and to facilitate growth and expansion of the municipality in a precise and orderly manner, and is being done to confirm the classification of the zone designation that is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, in accordance with Section 17.06.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. 852
Resolution No. 2025-58

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia recommends approval to the City Council of Prezone and Change of Zone No. 2025-06, as depicted per Attachment “A”, on the real property described herein, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Section 17.44.070 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia.
853
Resolution No. 2025-58
Proposed expansion parcels:

Existing Zoning -
AE-20 & R-1 (County Zoning)
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2025-06
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2025-58
Attachment “A”
TCOE: Existing Zoning -
C-MU (Mixed-Use Commercial)
854
Resolution No. 2025-58
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2025-06
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2025-58
Attachment “A”
TCOE: Proposed Zoning
Across All Parcels -
Q-P (Quasi-Public)
855
Resolution No. 2025-59
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-59

A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
VISALIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION NO. 2025-03

AND DETACHMENT OF PROPERTY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA
NO. 1, PERTAINING TO THREE PARCELS TOTALING 37.51-ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS OF VISALIA. UPON ANNEXATION, THE SITES

SHALL BE ZONED Q-P (QUASI-PUBLIC) WHICH IS CONSISTENT

WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC /
INSTITUTIONAL. (APNs: 122-470-003, 122-480-008, 122-480-018).

WHEREAS, Annexation No. 2025-03 is a request by the Tulare County Office of Education to initiate annexation and detachment of said properties from County Service Area No. 1 for APNs: 122-470-003, 122-480-008, and 122-480-018 into the city limits of Visalia; and
WHEREAS, the project proponents approve to initiate proceedings for annexation to said city of territory described on the attached legal description and annexation map included as Attachments “A” and “B” of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after a duly published notice, did hold a public hearing on March 23, 2026, and WHEREAS, the proponent desires to annex said territory to the City of Visalia for the following reasons: 1) The annexation will contribute to and facilitate orderly growth and development of both the City and the territory proposed to be annexed; 2) Will facilitate and contribute to the proper and orderly layout, design and construction of streets, gutters, sanitary and storm sewers and drainage facilities, both within the City and within the territory proposed to be annexed; and 3) Will provide and facilitate proper overall planning and zoning of lands and subdivision of lands in said City and said territory in a manner most conducive of the welfare of said City and said territory; and WHEREAS, this proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzburg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is located in Voting District 2 as identified in the Election District Map adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022, per Resolution No. 2022-11; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal on March 23, 2026, and found it to be consistent with the General Plan; and 856
Resolution No. 2025-59
WHEREAS, the proposed project was previously evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the Tulare County Office of Education which acted as the Lead Agency for the project. Tulare County Office of Education prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following a 30-day circulation of the document for public review, the Lead Agency adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City, acting as a Responsible Agency for purposes of CEQA, is required to consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in the environmental document prepared by the Tulare County Office of Education before acting on the project and the City is required to impose feasible mitigation measures within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study prepared for the project disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. The table recognizes measures intended for, Agricultural Resources related to impacts to Prime Farmland, Biological Resources related to protecting nesting Swainsons hawks, roosting pallid bat and western mastiff bat, obtaining a permit from the SWRCB for impacts to jurisdictional waters, protecting nesting birds, and Cultural Resources related to whether any accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains or human remains during development or ground-moving activities in the project boundary; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings with regard to the project:

3. That the parcel is not located within an Agricultural Preserve.

4. That the parcel will be annexed into Voting District 2 per the Council Election Voting District Map.
857
Resolution No. 2025-59

5. That TCOE prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following circulation of the document for public review, TCOE adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts. TCOE consulted with City staff on the preparation of the Initial Study and MND. The City has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study and MND, together with the administrative record associated with the Lead Agency’s approval of the project, and finds that the environmental document adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Tulare County Office of Education Mitigation Negative Declaration for Annexation No. 2025-03 that was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act.

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

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned Q-P (Quasi-Public) consistent with the pre-zoning designated by the General Plan Land Use Map.

EXHIBIT
Pre-Annexation Agreement
This Pre-Annexation Agreement (”Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ______________, by and among the City of Visalia, a charter law city (“City’) and Nash Limited Partnership, (hereinafter “Owner”):

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owners are the record owners of the property, currently located in the unincorporated area of the County of Tulare, legally described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is adjacent to and contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City, but is not situated within the limits of any municipality; and
WHEREAS, Owner desires to have the Property annexed to the City and to have the Property zoned as Q-P (Quasi-Public) which would permit the TECO facility; and
WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 36.51 acres, and no electors reside thereon; and
WHEREAS, proper applications have been filed with the City for approval of the annexation and for the legal subdivision of the lot, as may be required for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has, by a resolution requesting initiation of proceedings to annex territory (“Resolution”) adopted on Month ___, 2026, initiated proceedings to annex the Property; and
WHEREAS, in certain annexation proceedings Williamson Act issues arise which require indemnification of LAFCO, in said event, City requires indemnification from Developer; and
WHEREAS, finding __ of Resolution No. 2026-___ initiating annexation requires entry into this Annexation Agreement prior to the City submitting an application to the Local Area Formation Commission to commence the proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that during the term of this Agreement the Property will be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations of the City, as they may be amended from time to time, as well as state and federal statutes and regulations, as they may be amended.
859
2 of 8
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by its police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and is entering into this Agreement and executing such authority for said purpose; and
WHEREAS, nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the City’s legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this Agreement prohibit the enactment or increase by town of any tax, fee, or charge.

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

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

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

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

II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION; PURPOSE OF

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

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

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

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

Owner agrees that, at the time LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion finalizing the annexation (and upon the running of all applicable statutes of limitation related thereto), Owner will enter into an agreement with City to pay the General Plan Maintenance Fee in an amount equal to 861
4 of 8
$427 per acre and no post-annexation permit or entitlement approvals concerning the Property will be issued unless and until said agreement is executed. City agrees that such fee shall not be made payable until City’s issuance of one or more final subdivision maps covering the Property and, in the event Owner applies to City for its approval of multiple final maps covering the Property, City agrees such fee payment obligation shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each phase of development covered by each final subdivision map, with payment to be made on a per map basis upon City’s issuance of each final subdivision map covering the Property. Owner’s satisfaction of its obligations under this Section II(B) will satisfy any and all of Owner’s obligations related to and arising under the General Plan Maintenance Fee.

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

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

V. INDEMNIFICATION
Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City and the City’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability, claims, 862
5 of 8
causes of actions, and demands, including attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation, or with any other action annexation or other action determined necessary or desirable by the City in order to effectuate the annexation of Owner’s property, or which are in any manner connected with the City’s enforcement of this Agreement. Owner further agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against or at the City’s option to pay the attorney’s fees and court costs, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Agreement or its operation.

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

Visalia, CA 93277
Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
863
6 of 8
e. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the City and Owner as to its subject matter and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or affect.
f. Amendment. No part of this Agreement may be modified without the written consent of both parties.
g. Headings. Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions under the heading.
h. No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. Except as provided herein, the parties of this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy. i. Exhibits and Recitals. The recitals and any exhibits to this Agreement are fully incorporated by reference and are integral parts of this Agreement.
j. Conflict With Laws or Regulations/Severability. This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing this subject, the conflicting provision(s) shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a material benefit of the Agreement to either party is lost, the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the effected party. In all other cases, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. k. Waiver. A waiver of any breech of this Agreement by any party shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breech of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
l. Choice of Law - Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any questions arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. Venue for any legal action arising from or in connection with this Agreement or the Property shall be in Tulare County, California.
m. Attorneys Fees. In the event either party commences any action, arbitration or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court or arbitrator, shall be entitled to recovery of its reasonable fees and costs, including attorneys fees, court costs and arbitration costs incurred in the action brought thereon.
n. No Agency, Joint Venture or Partnership. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that Owner is not an agent of City. City and 864
7 of 8
Owner hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection therewith shall be construed as making City and Owner joint venturers or partners.
o. Excusable Delays; Extension of Time of Performance. In the event of delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, war, terrorism, lockouts, third-party litigation or other legal challenges regarding the annexation, riots, floods, earthquakes, epidemic, quarantine, freight embargoes, failure of contractors to perform, or other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the parties and which cause substantially interferes with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, then the time for performance of any such obligation shall be extended for such period of time as the cause of such delay shall exist but in any event not longer than for such period of time.
p. Further Assurances. The parties will execute and deliver, upon demand by the other party, such further documents, instruments and conveyances, and shall take such further actions as such other party may request from time to time to document the transactions set forth herein.
q. Recordation of Agreement; Counterparts. This Agreement, or an abstract of its material terms and conditions shall be recorded by either party in the Official Records of the Tulare County Recorder. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, when all counterparts are combined, shall constitute a single agreement.
/////
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set forth next to their signature.

CITY
865
8 of 8
Date: ____________ By: _________________________________ Leslie Caviglia, City Manager
Attest:

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

Date: ____________ By: _________________________________ Kenneth J. Richardson,
City Attorney
OWNER
Date: ____________ By: ________________________________ Tulare County Office
of Educatrion
866
Resolution No. 2025-60
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-60

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2025-28, A

REQUEST BY TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION TO CONSTRUCT

SEVERAL BUILDINGS FOR CLASSROOMS, OFFICES, BOARD/CONFERENCE

ROOMS, AND WAREHOUSE STORGE WITHIN THE PROPOSED CAMPUS
EXPANSION. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 11720 AND 11836 AVE 264 AND 6200

SOUTH MOONEY BOULEVARD
(APNS: 122-470-003, 122-480-004, 122-480-008, AND 122-480-018).

WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28, is a request by Tulare County Office of Education to construct several buildings for classrooms, offices, board/conference rooms, and warehouse storge within the proposed campus expansion.

The site is located at 11720 and 11836 Ave 264 and 6200 South Mooney Boulevard (APNs: 122-470-003, 122-480-004, 122-480-008, and 122-480-018); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice did hold a public hearing before said Commission on March 23, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the Conditional Use Permit to be in accordance with Chapter 17.38.110 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project was previously evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the Tulare County Office of Education which acted as the Lead Agency for the project. Tulare County Office of Education prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following a 30-day circulation of the document for public review, the Lead Agency adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City, acting as a Responsible Agency for purposes of CEQA, is required to consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in the environmental document prepared by the Tulare County Office of Education before acting on the project and the City is required to impose feasible mitigation measures within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study prepared for the project disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project subject to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. The table recognizes measures intended for, Agricultural Resources related to impacts to Prime Farmland, Biological Resources related to protecting nesting Swainsons hawks, roosting pallid bat and western mastiff bat, obtaining a permit from the SWRCB for impacts to jurisdictional waters, protecting nesting birds, and Cultural Resources related to whether any accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains or human remains during development or ground-moving activities in the project boundary. 867
Resolution No. 2025-60
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Tulare County Office of Education’s Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-28 that was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia makes the following specific findings based on the evidence presented:

1. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. That the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the project is consistent with the required findings of Zoning Ordinance Section 17.38.110:
a. The proposed location of the conditional use permit is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located.
b. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

3. That TCOE prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and, following circulation of the document for public review, TCOE adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved moving forward with the project finding that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts. TCOE consulted with City staff on the preparation of the Initial Study and MND. The City has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study and MND, together with the administrative record associated with the Lead Agency’s approval of the project, and finds that the environmental document adequately evaluates the environmental impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit on the real property here described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provisions of Section 17.38.110 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the use operates in substantial compliance with the comments from the approved Site Plan Review No. 2024-266.

2. That the use operate in substantial compliance with the Site Plans, Floor Plans, and Operational Statement as show in Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “C”.

3. That any changes to the number of classrooms or intensity of use onsite be submitted to Site Plan Review to show compliance with the approval and subject to Planning Division determination.

03. 6. That all other Federal, State, Regional, and City codes and ordinances be met. 869

NO P AR KIN G NO P AR KIN G

VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN
VAN
VAN 600 BLDG. 200 BLDG. 300 BLDG. 400 BLDG. 100 BLDG. 500 BLDG. ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL : GATE ACCESS NOTE: ACCESSIBLE PARKING: PASSENGER LOADING ZONES:
870
BUILD NI G 6 BUILDING 400 BUILD NI G 500

NO PARK NI G

EV EV ONLY NO
VAN 23098

TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION 01/24/2025
871
BUILDING 600
PARKING LOT 5
PARK NI G LOT 5 PARKING LOT 4 BUILD NI G 400

NO PARK NI G
NO
NAV
NO
ONLY
EV NAV
EV 23098

TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION 01/24/2025
872
BUILD NI G 500
BUILD NI G 300 PARK NI G LOT 2

NO PARKING
NO
VAN VAN 23098

TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION 01/24/2025
873
BUILD NI G 200
PARK NI G LOT 3
PARK NI G LOT 4
00 VAN VAN VAN VAN
NO
ONLY

EV VAN ONLY

EV ONLY
EV 23098

TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION 01/24/2025
874
23098

TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION 01/24/2025
875
PARK NI G LOT 3 23098

TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION 01/24/2025
876
23098

TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION 01/24/2025
877
878
879
880
881
882
March 18, 2026
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291
Re: TCOE Admin Expansion Parking
Dear Mr. Dan,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the parking allocation proposed in conjunction with the Tulare County Office of Administration’s headquarters expansion. This letter is intended to describe in detail how the proposed level of parking is sufficient to accommodate the number of employees and visitors anticipated to be on-site at any given time. Please be assured that TCOE carefully analyzed the amount of parking that would be required to sufficiently accommodate demand and in fact increased the number of stalls that the analysis concluded were necessary, as described below.

The Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) is a highly mobile organization. While the administrative headquarters is located at 6200 S. Mooney Blvd and is currently proposed for a substantial expansion both in square footage and use, the majority of TCOE’s 1,100 employees work off-site at Tulare County’s 100+ public schools. On paper, TCOE’s administrative headquarters may appear to be workplace for these employees; however, only a small fraction of the workforce report there on a regular basis. Approximately 500 TCOE employees are anticipated to report to and work a full shift at the 6200 S. Mooney Blvd. headquarters on a daily basis. Even amongst these “permanent” on-site employees, a sizable percentage are expected to spend full days and weeks at other school locations to provide a tremendous variety of services to the County’s student population. The proposed expansion will result in a 767 total parking stalls dispersed evenly throughout the campus, which is anticipated to easily meet both employee and visitor demand.

Throughout the day, during the school year in particular, employees from other TCOE or school district-operated locations will visit the administrative headquarters at 6200 S. Mooney Blvd for meetings or other events. The additional parking stalls beyond anticipated daily on-site workforce demand are 883
proposed to accommodate these visitors, as well as to be available in case special events at the conference center or the small outdoor stage area draws a larger than anticipated crowd.

Per the discussion above, TCOE is firmly convinced that ample parking facilities are proposed to accommodate any use or variety of uses that would occur at the administrative headquarters on a daily basis. In the unlikely event that parking supply is determined to be insufficient, TCOE retains many of acres on the remainder of the property that could be improved to accommodate additional parking. It is TCOE’s firm goal and commitment to ensure that all parking demand is met on-site and within close proximity to facilities.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this communication.

Sincerely,
Jeff Ramsay
Director, General Services
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tulare County Office of Education Administrative Office and Conference Center
January 2026
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Prepared By: Prepared For:

Kings County
1400 W. Lacey Blvd
Hanford, CA 93230
896
1-1
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025

CONTENTS

1. CEQA Review Process ........................................................................................................... 1-3

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ............................................................................... 1-3

1.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ........................................................................................ 1-3

1.3 Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration .............................................................................. 1-4

1.5 Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................................................ 1-5

1.6 Intended Uses of Initial Study/Negative Declaration Documents .......................................... 1-5

1.7 Notice of Determination (NOD) ....................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart ..................................................................................................................................... 1-7

2. Project Description................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Project Description and Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Other Permits and Approvals .......................................................................................................................... 2-3

3. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts............................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ....................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... 3-9

3.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................ 3-10

3.5 Environmental Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 3-11 I. AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 3-12 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:.......................................................................................................................... 3-18 III. AIR QUALITY..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-27 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................................................................... 3-41 IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................................................................... 3-60 V. ENERGY............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-74 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-81 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 3-90 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..................................................................................................................... 3-98 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................................................................................................. 3-106 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING....................................................................................................................................................... 3-115 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-119 XII NOISE................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-121 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................................................................. 3-129 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.................................................................................................................................................................... 3-132 XV. RECREATION............................................................................................................................................................................... 3-138 XVI. TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................................................................................................. 3-142 XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................................................... 3-149 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................................... 3-162 XX. WILDFIRE ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-169 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE........................................................................................................................ 3-173

3.6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................................................................. 3-175

3.7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-181

4. List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................... 4-1 897
1-1
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. CEQA Process Flow Chart .................................................................................................................. 1-7 Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map..................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map........................................................................................................................................ 2-6 Figure 2-3 Site Plan................................................................................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 2-4 Demolition Plan ................................................................................................................................. 2-8 Figure 3-1. Important Farmlands Map............................................................................................................ 3-22 Figure 3-2 Soils Map........................................................................................................................................... 3-84 Figure 3-3. Construction Related Noise Levels Based on Distance from Construction Equipment .. 3-125 898
1-2
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Important Farmland Developed Under 2030 General Plan. ..................................................... 3-23 Table 3-2. San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status. ...................................................................................... 3-28 Table 3-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards..................................................................................................... 3-30 Table 3-4. SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3-5. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance .............. 3-34 Table 3-6 Maximum Daily Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD AAQA Thresholds.. 3-35 Table 3-7 HRA Results Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 3-38 Table 3-8. Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site .................................................................... 3-43 Table 3-9. 2022 SCE and 2022 State Power Resources. ................................................................................ 3-74 Table 3-10 Project Energy Use by Land Use1 ................................................................................................... 3-77 Table 3-14. Greenhouse Gases.......................................................................................................................... 3-91 Table 3-15. Project Consistency with Climate Action Plan Strategies ..................................................... 3-95 Table 3-16 City of Visalia Noise Standards ................................................................................................... 3-122 Table 3-17. Noise Levels of Noise-generating Construction Equipment at Various Distances .......... 3-125 Table 3-18. Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. .................................................... 3-126 Table 3-19. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program....................................................................... 3-175 899
1-3
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Tulare County Office of Education
6200 South Mooney Boulevard
Visalia, CA 93277

1. CEQA Review Process
Project Title: Tulare County Office of Education Expansion

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

1.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Initial Study provided herein covers the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of an expansion to the existing Tulare County Office of Education Administrative Office and Conference Center (TCOE/AOCC) site on an approximately 28.0-acre area. The property where the expansion/addition will occur is currently zoned by County of Tulare as AE20 (Agriculture 20-Acre Minimum). The Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) will act as the 900
1-4
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Lead Agency for processing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. Following CEQA approval of this Project, the TCOE will coordinate annexation efforts with and into the City of Visalia as a separate CEQA process.

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

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

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

The written and oral comments received during the public review period will be considered by The Tulare County Office of Education prior to adopting the Negative Declaration. Regardless of the type of CEQA document that must be prepared, the overall purpose of the CEQA process is to:
1) Assure that the environment and public health and safety are protected in the face of discretionary projects initiated by public agencies or private concerns; 2) Provide for full disclosure of the project’s environmental effects to the public, the agency decision-makers who will approve or deny the project, and the responsible trustee agencies charged with managing resources (e.g. wildlife, air quality) that may be affected by the project; and
3) Provide a forum for public participation in the decision-making process pertaining to potential environmental effects.

According to Section 15070(a) a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
901
1-5
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Less than significant impacts with mitigation measures have been identified.

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

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

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

While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency must balance any potential environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals. The Tulare County Office of Education, as Lead Agency, will make a determination based on the environmental review for the Environmental Study, Initial Study and comments from interested parties (e.g., responsible agencies, the general public, others) if there are less than significant impacts from the proposed project and the requirements of CEQA can be satisfied by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

1.7 Notice of Determination (NOD)
The Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination within five working days after deciding to approve the project. The Notice of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15075) shall include the following:
902
1-6
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 (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. 903
1-7
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025

1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart
Figure 1-1. CEQA Process Flow Chart
904
2-1
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Tulare County Office of Education
6200 South Mooney Boulevard
Visalia, CA 932

2. Project Description
Project Title: Tulare County Office of Education Expansion

2.1 Project Description and Purpose
The Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) proposes to expand and add additional facilities to its existing Administrative Office and Conference Center (AOCC) site, located at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard, Visalia, Tulare County, California. The TCOE has acquired an adjacent approximately 12.546 acres, which will be merged with the existing site to form a single parcel for development.

The additional Project will provide approximately 108,000 square feet of office and conference room space, three classrooms with a training kitchen totaling 6,200 square feet, and approximately 35,000 square feet of warehouse space. All buildings on this portion of the site will be single-story in height. A stormwater ponding basin will be constructed along the southern boundary of the property for on-site drainage. Parking facilities surrounding the development will provide 388 parking stalls, including 17 accessible spaces. Vehicular access to the site will be provided from South Mooney Boulevard/SR 63 to the west and Avenue 264/Liberty Road to the south. The primary use of this facility will be to host professional development trainings and workshops for District employees.

In addition to the expansion, TCOE has completed construction of an Administration and Conference Center on an adjacent 11.03-acre parcel at the same address. This component of the project included approximately 87,000 square feet of building space, consisting of a threestory professional office building located in the northeast portion of the site and a single-story conference center in the southwest portion. The buildings have a maximum height of approximately 50 feet. The site design included three landscaped ponding areas for stormwater retention and a greenbelt along the northern boundary. On the east side of the property, 2.5 acres were reserved for future expansion. Surrounding the building, 379 parking stalls are provided for employees and visitors, including seven (7) standard accessible spaces and two (2) van-accessible spaces. All current vehicular traffic enters and exits the site via South Mooney Boulevard. The existing facility is primarily used to host conferences, educational training, and up to three large-scale conferences per year.

The proposed expansion/addition area is currently vacant land previously used for agriculture (walnut orchards). An approximately 2.68 expansion area will require demolition/removal of the following existing structures (see Figure 2-4):
905
2-2
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 • concrete curb;
• concrete curb and gutter;
• concrete paving;
• river rock;
• plant/tree;
• chain link fencing/gate;
• light pole;
• catch basin;
• underground utility line; and
• shipping container (to be relocated/salvaged to adjacent property owner).

The site is currently within the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare and does not lie within the Visalia Planning Area or any of the City’s three Urban Design Tiers. The proposed Project would result in annexation of the expansion area into the City of Visalia. Upon annexation and full buildout, the Project will contribute to the TCOE’s planned long-term growth and support coordinated, integrated planning within Visalia’s urban core.

2.2 Project Location
The proposed Project site is located in an unincorporated area in central Tulare County, immediately adjacent to an abutting the southern portion of the City of Visalia’s Planning Area.

The site lies east of Mooney Boulevard (SR 63) and north of Avenue 264/Liberty Road. It is situated approximately 700 feet south of Mooney Grove Park and approximately 1,125 feet south of Cameron Creek (which is within Mooney Grove Park). Tulare County Government Plaza is approximately 1,150 feet northwest of the expansion area.

The Project consists of annexation of approximately 38.63 acres to the City of Visalia, a Conditional Use Permit for approximately 27.92 acres of the area to be annexed, and a Lot Line Adjustment that would result in three lots totaling 25, 11.03 and 12.53 acres respectively being merged into two lots totaling 27.93 and 19.45 acres. The lot line adjustment would involve three parcels (APNs 122-470-003, 122-480-004, and 122-480-008). Parcel 1 would include the existing

11.03-acre parcel currently developed as the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center and a portion of two parcels (from APNs 122-470-03 and 122-480-08) for a combined 27.93-acre parcel to accommodate the expansion of facilities. Parcel 2 would expand from 12.53 acres to 19.45 acres following the lot line adjustment. APN 122-048-004 is under the jurisdiction of the City of Visalia and is zoned Mixed Use Commercial; while APNs 122- 470-03 and 122-480-08 are under jurisdiction of the County of Tulare and zoned as AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum). An approximately 2.68-acre portion of APN 122-480- 08 would be transferred to APN 122-480-04and an approximately 9.92-acre portion of APN 122- 470-03 would be transferred to APN 122-480-08.
906
2-3
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 The expansion/addition area is topographically flat and currently vacant land previously used for agriculture generally located in the east and southeast portion of the expansion/addition area.

Surrounding land uses include walnut orchards to the east, the existing TCOE Administration and Conference facilities to the west, single-family residential (mobile home park) to the south and scattered rural residences to the north, mixed commercial uses to the southwest, and an institutional use (church with accessory uses) to the south. As noted earlier, the site is currently zoned for agricultural (AE-20) by the County of Tulare but will be pre-zoned as Quasi-Public (QP) by the City of Visalia as part of the proposed annexation.

The Project is not within the planning area of the Visalia General Plan. As such, the Project area would be annexed and designated as Public/Institutional to complement the existing City of Visalia’s zoning classification of the Tulare County Office of Education facility immediately west and adjacent to the Project area. In addition to access/egress into the site from the existing TCOE facility use (i.e., Mooney Boulevard/SR 63), an additional access/egress point would be established from Avenue 264/Liberty Road along the southern area of the proposed Project site.

2.3 Other Permits and Approvals
In addition to the Project components regarding the expansion, other administrative changes will be necessary to transfer jurisdiction from the County of Tulare to the City of Visalia (City).

Although these administrative changes do not directly result in a physical change in the environment, they would ultimately provide the City with the jurisdiction/authority to grant discretionary approvals. Subsequently, the administrative approvals would, as a sequential function, allow the physical changes to the environment (that is, the Project site) to accommodate development of the proposed Project. The following discretionary approvals are required from the City of Visalia:
• Approval of City of Visalia Pre-Zone Application.
• Approval of City of Visalia City Limits Boundary Change/Annexation • Approval of City of Visalia General Plan Amendment
• Approval of City of Visalia Conditional Use Permit
• Approval from Cal Water to provide water service
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The following ministerial approvals are required from the City of Visalia:
• City of Visalia Building and Encroachment Permits
• Roadway Dedication of future Avenue 264/Liberty Road. • Approval of water and sewer infrastructure
• City of Visalia Grading Permits
• City of Visalia Site Plan Review
• City of Visalia Lot Line Adjustment
907
2-4
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 California Water Service (Calwater) The proposed Project would be required to receive water service from Calwater.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD): The proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD (or Air District) and will be required to comply with Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Dust Control Plan, Rules 3135, 4101, 4601, 4702, 9410, 9510, and others as specified by the Air District.

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 during active project construction-related activities.

Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): Tulare County LAFCO approval will be required to change jurisdiction (i.e., reorganization) from the County of Tulare to the City of Visalia.
908
2-5
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map
909
2-6
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map
910
2-7
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Figure 2-3 Site Plan
911
2-8
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Figure 2-4 Demolition Plan
912
3-1
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Tulare County Office of Education
6200 South Mooney Boulevard
Visalia, CA 93277

3. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project Title: Tulare County Office of Education Expansion/Addition This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND or MND) for the proposed construction and operation to expand the area and develop additional facilities (see earlier Project description) to the existing Tulare County Office of Education’s (TCOE) Administration and Conference Building site located at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard, Visalia, Tulare County, California. The TCOE has acquired an adjacent 12.53 acres, which will be merged with the existing site to form a single parcel for development.

The additional Project will provide approximately 108,000 additional square feet of office and conference room space, three classrooms with a training kitchen totaling 6,200 square feet, and approximately 35,000square feet of warehouse space. The expansion area is currently within the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare and would be annexed into the City of Visalia. The Tulare County Office of Education 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 913
3-2
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 environment,or
(b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

3.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1. Project Title: Tulare County Office of Education Expansion

2. Lead Agency: Tulare County Office of Education
Contact Person: Jeff Ramsay, Director of General Services 6200 South Mooney Boulevard
Visalia, CA 93277
Phone Number: (559) 733-6601

3. Applicant: Same as above

4. Project Location: The proposed Project site is located within an unincorporated portion of The County of Tulare, just east and directly adjacent to the City of Visalia Planning Area in Tulare County. The site is northeast of Mooney Boulevard (SR 65) and Avenue 264/Liberty Road). The site is topographically flat with vacant land (formerly walnut orchards) to the east, the existing TCOE Administration and Conference facilities to the west, single-family residential (mobile home park) and rural residences to the north, institutional use (church with accessory uses), mixed commercial uses to the southwest. The site is currently zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum Site Area) by the County of Tulare but will be zoned Quasi-Public/Institutional (QP) by the City of Visalia upon annexation.

5. General Plan Designation: The proposed Project site does not contain a City of Visalia General Plan designation but would be designated as a Public/Institutional Use upon annexation. The site is currently designated as Agriculture by the County of Tulare.

6. Zoning Designation: The site is currently zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 Acre Minimum) by the County of Tulare, but for annexation purposes would be pre-zoned as Quasi-Public (QP) by the City of Visalia pending annexation.

7. Project Description: In summary, the Project includes the following components:
• Annexation (requires Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval)
• General Plan Amendment (City of Visalia)
914
3-3
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 • City Limits Boundary Changes/Annexation (City of Visalia) • Conditional Use Permit (City of Visalia)
• Lot Line Adjustment (City of Visalia)

8. As noted earlier, the overall Project consists of annexation of approximately 38.63 acres to the City of Visalia, a Conditional Use Permit for approximately 27.92 acres of the area to be annexed, and a Lot Line Adjustment that would result in three lots totaling 25, 11.03 and 12.53 acres respectively being merged into two lots totaling 27.93 and 19.45 acres. The lot line adjustment would involve three parcels (APNs 122-470-003, 122-480-004, and 122-480- 008). Parcel 1 would include the existing 11.03-acre parcel currently developed as the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center and a portion of two parcels (from APNs 122-470-03 and 122-480-08) for a combined 27.93-acre parcel to accommodate the expansion of facilities (that is, [list]). Parcel 2 would expand from 12.53 acres to 19.45 acres following the lot line adjustment. APN 122-048-004 is under the jurisdiction of the City of Visalia and is zoned Mixed Use Commercial; while APNs 122-470- 03 and 122-480-08 are under jurisdiction of the County of Tulare and zoned as AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum). An approximately 2.68-acre portion of APN 122- 480-08 would be transferred to APN 122-480-04and an approximately 9.92-acre portion of APN 122-470-03 would be transferred to APN 122-480-08.

The additional Project will provide approximately 108,000 square feet of office and conference room space, three classrooms with a training kitchen totaling 6,200 square feet, and approximately 35,000square feet of warehouse space. All buildings on this portion of the site will be single-story in height. A stormwater ponding basin will be constructed along the southern boundary of the property for on-site drainage. Parking facilities surrounding the development will provide 388 parking stalls, including 17 accessible spaces. Vehicular access to the site will be provided from South Mooney Boulevard/SR 63 to the west and Avenue 264/Liberty Road to the south. The primary use of this facility will be to host professional development training and workshops for District employees.

As noted earlier, the proposed TCOE/AOCC expansion site was formerly used for agriculture (walnut orchards) and would require some demolition of existing structures (i.e., curbs, gutter, concrete paving, chain-link fence/gate, catch basin, etc., see Figure 2-4) in the southern portion of the Project site.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
• North: Visalia General Plan, Mixed Use Commercial (C-MU) and Residential Low Density; Zoning R-1.5; currently mobile home park and mixed commercial (to the northwest).
• South: Tulare County General Plan, Agriculture; AE-20, 20-acre minimum Zoning; currently commercial-office, religious institution.
• East: Tulare County General Plan, Agricultural and County of Tulare zoning of AE-20, 20-acre minimum, currently agricultural use (walnuts) and rural residence. 915
3-4
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 • West: Tulare County General Plan, Zoning AE-20, 20-acre minimum; Visalia General Plan, Mixed Use Commercial, Visalia Zoning, Mixed Use Commercial; currently existing Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center.

9. Required Approvals:

The following discretionary approvals are required from the City of Visalia:
• Approval of City of Visalia Pre-Zone Application.
• Approval of City of Visalia City Limits Boundary Change/Annexation • Approval of City of Visalia General Plan Amendment
• Approval of City of Visalia Conditional Use Permit
• Approval from Cal Water to provide water service
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The following discretionary approvals may be required from other agencies:
• Caltrans
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or Air District) such as Regulation VIII, Rules 3135, 4101, 9510, and others as determined by the Air District (see Air Quality section)
The following ministerial approvals are required from the City of Visalia:
• City of Visalia Building and Encroachment Permits
• Roadway Dedication of future Avenue 264/Liberty Road. • Approval of water and sewer infrastructure
• City of Visalia Grading Permits
• City of Visalia Site Plan Review
• City of Visalia Lot Line Adjustment

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 916
3-5
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Native American tribes.

Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. The tribes that were formally noticed of this Project were the Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Table Mountain Rancheria, Tule River Indian Tribe, and the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. These Tribes are not located within the City limits.

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.

As of the release date of this document, no Tribes provided a response.

11. Parking and access: Vehicular access/egress to the Project will be available via the existing Mooney Boulevard (SR 63). Access/egress point and a new access/egress along the eastern border of the site to Avenue 264/Liberty Road). The Project includes 388 parking stalls, including 17 accessible spaces as required by (Chapter 17.34 Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities) of the Visalia Municipal Code.

During construction, workers will utilize existing parking areas and/or temporary construction staging areas for parking vehicles and equipment.

12. Landscaping and Design: Design, landscape and irrigation plans will be required during the building permit and final site plan review submittal process. These plans will be subject to approval by the site plan review committee. All landscaped areas shall meet the requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance of the City of Visalia and will comply with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The specific provisions of the City’s landscaping requirements can be found in Chapter 17.30.015 of the City of Visalia’s Municipal Code.

13. Utilities and Electrical Services: The Project would result in onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements including new and relocated utilities. Water (which will be provided by Calwater) and sewer services will be extended onto the Project site, which are planned improvements according to the City of Visalia General Plan (2014). Electricity would be provided by Southern California Edison, if needed Southern California Gas Company can also provide natural gas to the Project. All storm water flows resulting from both construction and operation will be diverted to a new stormwater detention basin. 917
3-6
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025

14. Roadway Improvements: The Project (as it will ultimately be part of the existing TCOE Administration Office and Conference Center) currently includes extensive streetscape improvements along Mooney Boulevard (the main access/egress point of the current TCOE facilities). Mooney Boulevard (State Route 63) functions as an arterial street is presently configured as a four-lane roadway supporting bi-directional traffic. Avenue 264/Liberty Road lacks curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides of the street. The planned improvements include the installation of these elements along the northern side of Avenue 264/Liberty Road to City of Visalia specifications/standards along Project impacted areas. 918
3-7
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Acronyms
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
AFY acre feet per year
BAU Business as Usual
BMP Best Management Practices
BRE Biological Resource Evaluation
CAA Clean Air Act
Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALUP Tulare County Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan 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
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPPA California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977
CNPS California Natural Plant Society
CRA Cultural Resources Assessment
CRHR California Register of Historic Places
CWA California Water Act
CDFW California Department of Fish and Game
DHS Department of Health Services
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FMBT Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
FMMP Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
Hz Hertz
IS/MND Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration(or MND) ISR Indirect Source Review
LAFCO Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission
MALF Map Aerial Locator Tool
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MEIR Master Environmental Impact Report
MGD million gallons per day
MJLHMP Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan NOI Notice of Intent
ND Negative Declaration
919
3-8
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission
NOD Notice of Determination
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PRC California Public Resources Code
QP Quasi-Public
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
SLF Sacred Lands File
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (or Air District) SSJVIC Southern San Joaquin Information Center
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TCOE Tulare County Office of Education
TCOE/AOCC Tulare County Office of Education Administrative Office and Conference Center TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMC City of Visalia Municipal Code
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
WRF City of Visalia Water Reclamation Facility
920
3-9
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025

3.3 Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts

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

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as 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” (also known a “Less Than Significant with Mitigation”) 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 mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 921
3-10
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025

3.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
 Aesthetics
 Agriculture and Forest
Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology and soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Mineral Resources
 Noise
 Population
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Transportation
 Tribal Cultural
 Utilities and Service
 Wildfire
 Mandatory Findings
of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels. On the basis of this initial evaluation:
 I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
 I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
 I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is requested.

SIGNATURE DATE
Jeff Ramsay, Director of General Services Tulare County Office of Education

PRINTED NAME AGENCY
922
3-11
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025

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.

A substantial portion of the project area is located within the boundary area analyzed by the adopted/certified City of Visalia 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. This Project, following annexation, would be consistent with General Plan land use designations and prezoning classifications. Thus, where applicable and appropriate, the discussions regarding Environmental Setting, Regulatory Setting, CEQA requirements, all Resources discussions, etc.; contained in the Visalia 2030 General Plan and Visalia 2030 General Plan EIR are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Components included as part of the Draft and or Final General Plan EIR such as Technical Studies, Mitigation Measures, Responses to Comments, Findings, Resolutions, etc., as applicable, are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.

Where necessary, and if available, additional site-specific facts, data, information, technical studies, etc., are included in these Resource discussions. Reference is made to City of Visalia General Plan policies, zoning map/ordinance, and other standards, permits, thresholds, etc. as applicable to the City of Visalia as it will be the jurisdictional body when the annexation process is completed. Where applicable some County of Tulare policies and other regulatory requirements may still apply (for example, where the County of Tulare Health and Human Services Agency/Division of Health Services has purview) following annexation into the City of Visalia.
923
3-12
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resource
Code Section 210999, would the Project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
   
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within state scenic highway?
   
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the Project
is in an urbanized area, would the Project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
   
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
   
Environmental Setting
Scenic Resources
Scenic resources include landscapes and features that are visually or aesthetically pleasing.

They contribute positively to a distinct community or region. These resources produce a visual benefit upon communities. The City of Visalia has a visual character of a mix of rural and built environments. Visalia is surrounded by natural open space agricultural land, characterized by uses such as grazing, open space, and cultivated agriculture. Downtown Visalia is the physical, cultural, and economic center of the City, with historical homes surrounding the downtown area. The St. Johns River flows along the north side of Visalia’s city limits and is approximately

5.5 miles north of the Project Site. Sequoia National Forest is situated in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range that lies east of the City limits. Valley Oak trees, both individually and in groves, also provide an important scenic feature and link to the natural setting of the San Joaquin Valley. The goal of Visalia’s General Plan regarding visual resources is to preserve and re924 3-13
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 establish the City’s natural waterway system and Valley Oak trees 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 Project site is relatively flat as it previously wast used for agricultural purposes. The expansion area cannot be viewed from external perspectives as it will be developed behind the existing TCOE structures from Mooney Boulevard on the west, residential uses north of the Project site, the existing walnut orchard from the east, and the existing institutional use (church and accessory uses) from the south. However, site photographs can be viewed in both biological and cultural studies (Appendices B and C; respectively).

Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

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

State Scenic Highways
According to the California Department of Transportation mapping of State Scenic Highways, the City of Visalia does not have officially designated State Scenic Highways, however the City has one eligible State Scenic Highway, a 44-mile stretch of State Route (SR) 198 from SR 99 to Sequoia National Park. An eligible State highway needs to adopt a Scenic Corridor Protection Program and approval from the Director of Caltrans to be officially designated as a scenic corridor in the state of California. Visalia’s general Plan has already designated this stretch as a scenic corridor in the City’s General Plan. This segment of SR 198 is approximately six (6) miles 925
3-14
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 north of the proposed site.

Regional/Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes policies related to aesthetic resources that correlate to the proposedProject:
• LU-P-28: Continue to use natural and man-made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the City’s Urban Area Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines.
• LU-P-34: Work with Tulare County to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth boundaries and to promote the use of agricultural preserves, where they will promote orderly development. • 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.

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

Discussion
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact: A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada mountains to the east and agricultural lands surrounding the City are the primary scenic vistas within this region. The site is topographically flat, with walnut orchards to the east, the existing TCOE Administration and Conference facilities (existing TCOE facilities) to the west, single-family residential (mobile home park) to the south and rural residences to the north, mixed commercial uses to the southwest, and an institutional use (church with accessory uses) to the south. The Sierra Nevada foothills are approximately 18 miles east of the Project site. The construction of Project-related structures would partially obstruct the view of walnut orchards east of the site. The Project will change the current vistas to adjacent uses. Rather than the existing walnut orchard to the east, these views would be partially replaced with office and conference room space, three classrooms with a training kitchen, and warehouse space on the northern sector of the Project site. However, the 926
3-15
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Project would not substantially alter scenic views as defined in the context used herein and would be consistent with the land uses contained in the adopted Visalia General Plan.

Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 near the site. The proposed Project would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway; therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No Impact: As noted earlier, the proposed Project site will be annexed into the Visalia Planning Area. Also as noted earlier, the site is topographically flat, with walnut orchards to the east, the existing TCOE Administration and Conference facilities to the west, singlefamily residential (mobile home park) and rural residences to the north, mixed commercial uses to the southwest, and an institutional use (church with accessory uses) to the south.

The Project site’s existing Tulare County General Plan land use designation is Agriculture; however, the area would be designated as Public/Institutional upon annexation into the City of Visalia. The materials, signage, fencing, landscaping, and building materials used in the construction of the Project will be selected based on their ability to improve the overall visual character of the area. The proposed Project will comply with all applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
927
3-16
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 typical of quasi-public development. New lighting sources would include interior lighting from parking area lighting, street lighting, and security lighting. All street and landscape lighting will be consistent with the City’s lighting standards, as applicable, 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. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant.

Generally, both Tulare County and Visalia reflect a rural and mixed built environment. It is recognized that population growth results in the need for additional school administrative facilities to accommodate students resulting from a growing population and to provide administrative support for educators and administrators and specialized classroom environment (in the form of the proposed three classrooms and kitchen). The proposed Project, while replacing vacant land previously used for agricultural, is consistent with both the County of Tulare and City of Visalia General Plans to minimize impacts to agricultural areas and areas with scenic vistas by guiding development toward urbanized areas. As noted earlier, the Project area is bound by the existing TCOE Administration and Conference facilities to the west, walnut orchard to the east, single-family residential (mobile home park) and scattered rural residences to the north, an institutional use (church with accessory uses), and mixed commercial uses to the southwest. Annexation into the City and the public/institutional use of the Project effectively implement the goals/policies of both the County’s and City’s respective General Plans in regard to minimizing impacts to aesthetic resources. As such, based on the 928
3-17
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 information and analysis provided herein, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
929
3-18
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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
   
930
3-19
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g)?
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 nonagricultural 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 not currently located within the Visalia Planning Area. The proposed Project site is not under the Williamson Act Contract or a Farmland Security Zone contract. Figure 3-1 shows the proposed site is designated as Prime Farmland under the Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The Site is not within the City of Visalia’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 Development Boundary and outside any Urban Growth Boundary established by the City of Visalia General Plan, however, it is designated as Agriculture by the County of Tulare. Although the existing TCOE facilities are located within Urban and Built Up Land, the area where the proposed Project will occur is designated as Prime Farmland (see: California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Rural Land Mapping Edition, Tulare County Important Farmland 2020 is available upon request from the DOC website at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/). It is also noted that the proposed expansion site is currently vacant and was previously used for agriculture (walnut orchard).

Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) 931
3-20
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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.

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 percent 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 percent 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 percent 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 percent of the Visalia Planning Area is classified as Farmland of Local Importance.

Regional/Local
County of Tulare 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. However, upon annexation into the City this Ordinance would no longer apply to the site.

Tulare County General Plan
932
3-21
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 The 2030 Tulare County General Plan contains the following goals related to agricultural resources that correlate to the proposed Project:
• AG-1.7 Preservation of Agricultural Lands. The County shall promote the preservation of its agricultural economic base and open space resources through the implementation of resource management programs and the identification of maximum growth parameters for all urban areas located in the County.

The proposed Projects would eliminate the need for conversion of agricultural land by locating the expansion and addition of the existing TCOE facilities immediately adjacent to the east and southeast. As such, although the Project would lead to the conversion of land suitable to accommodate an agricultural use, the Project is ripe for and would also result in a reasonable expansion of an urbanized use rather than consumption of agricultural land at a different location.

City of Visalia General Plan
None that apply to the Project. However, in regard to the annexation process, the site would be designated as Public/Institutional use.

Visalia Municipal Code
Chapter 18.04 of the Visalia Municipal Code details the Agricultural Land Preservation Program (Program) in Visalia. The agricultural land preservation 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. However, as the proposed Project area is an expansion of and immediately adjacent to existing TCOE facilities and is on inactive, previously used agricultural land, this Program does not apply to the Project. 933
3-22
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Figure 3-1. Important Farmlands Map
934
3-23
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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? No Impact: The Project site is currently vacant property that was previously used for agriculture (walnut orchards). The entire Project site is designated as Prime Farmland, which had been used for previously irrigated (emphasis added) agricultural production.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of less than 30- acres of prime farmland to non-agricultural uses. The property owner has, of his/her own volition, determined that he/she no longer desires to continue the agricultural use.

As shown in Table 3-1, the Visalia 2030 General Plan (at full buildout) would allow development of up to 14,265 total acres of Important Farmland, of which 12,490 acres are Prime Farmland. Most of the planned growth would be adjacent to existing urbanized areas.

The General Plan’s approach would be less intrusive and disruptive to other agricultural uses countywide. The General Plan approach discourages the development of new neighborhoods or communities that would require reduce the consumption of agricultural land and limit the extension of infrastructure that could create growth-inducing impacts.

Based on the information contained in Table 3-1, the Project area (rounded to 30 acres) would result in a 0.000882 percent decrease of Prime Farmland, or 0.0006951 percent decrease of total Important Farmland.

Table 3-1. Important Farmland Developed Under 2030 General Plan.

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%)
Source: Visalia Planning Area General Plan EIR
As noted earlier, the location where expansion/addition of the TCOE/AOCC facilities would occur is ripe for and would also result in a reasonable expansion of an urbanized use rather than consumption of agricultural land at an alternative location. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact. 935
3-24
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation would be required. 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 (AE-20) by the County of Tulare. The City of Visalia General Plan also designates the site as Agriculture.

However, in order to meet the primary objective of the Project (i.e., expansion/addition of the existing TOCE/AOCC use), the property would be annexed by the City to accommodate Project development and receive a zoning designation of Quasi-Public and land use designation of Public Institutional, which would also facilitate connections to urban services such as potable water and sanitary sewer services. During a transition from one jurisdiction to another, zoning has the appearance of conflicting classifications when comparing the respective jurisdictions’ classifications. Although the site is transitioning from an agriculture designation to an urban land use designation, it is noted that the County of Tulare Zoning Ordinance Chapter 3, Section 16 II B. allows public schools including incidental and/or accessory uses regardless of reorganization (annexation) status. Additionally, the site is located immediately adjacent to active urban land use designations and the Project represents an expansion of an existing use in the only available vacant area surrounding the existing Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) administrative headquarters. The existing TCOE facility does not conflict with adjacent agricultural uses. Thus the expanded Project area would not conflict with new adjacent agricultural uses. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation would be required. 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 as defined by PRC sections,12220(g) and 4526 or as defined by Government Code section 51104(g).

Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
936
3-25
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation would be required. 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, would occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation would be required. 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?
No Impact: Based on both County of Tulare and City of Visalia General Plan policies; respectively, new developments (including the Project site), would be focused in and around existing communities. This would prevent new development and its accompanying infrastructure from infringing upon surrounding farmland. As noted earlier, the Project area would be annexed by the City to accommodate Project development which would also facilitate connections to urban services such as potable water and sanitary sewer services.

As the Project is located immediately adjacent to the existing TCOE facilities site to the west, annexation and expansion/addition of the TCOE/AOCC facilities represents a reasonable extension of urban type development consistent with the City’s General Plan rather than “leapfrogging” toward other agricultural areas that are not adjacent to urban type uses.

Further, the Project does not include any features which could result in the conversion of forestland into non-forest use. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation would be required.

Cumulative Impact: Less Than Significant Impact
Both the Tulare County and Visalia General Plans recognize the need to accommodate future population growth which ultimately results in the conversion of vacant and/or 937
3-26
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 agricultural lands. Both General Plans contain goals/policies to minimize conversion of agricultural lands by directing development toward urbanized areas. As noted earlier, the Project would prevent new development and its accompanying infrastructure from infringing upon surrounding farmland and also facilitate connections to urban services (such as potable water and sanitary sewer services). As the Project is located immediately adjacent to the existing TCOE facilities site to the west, annexation and expansion/addition of the TCOE/AOCC facilities represents a reasonable extension of urban type development consistent with the City’s General Plan rather than “leapfrogging” toward other agricultural areas that are not adjacent to urban type uses. Also as noted earlier, the Project site is surrounded by the existing TCOE Administration and Conference facilities to the west, single-family residential (mobile home park) and rural residences to the north, an institutional use (church with accessory uses), and mixed commercial uses to the southwest. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact.
938
3-27
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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
In addition to references of the Visalia General Plan and its accompanying EIR, the analysis in this section is supplemented by the Technical Memorandum Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Memorandum (AQ/GHG/HRA Memo) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Core) and can be found in Appendix A.

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

The mountain ranges surrounding the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) serve to restrict air movement and prevent the dispersal of pollution. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollution accumulation over time. As shown in the Table 3-2, the SJVAB is in nonattainment for 939
3-28
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 several pollutant standards. The primary pollutants of concern in the San Joaquin Valley are ozone (O3) and PM10.

Table 3-2. San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status.

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.

Source: SJVAPCD
Valley Fever
Valley Fever is an illness caused by a fungus (Coccidioides immitis and C. posadasii) that grows in soils under certain conditions. Favorable conditions for the Valley Fever fungus include low rainfall, high summer temperatures, and moderate winter temperatures. In California, the counties with the highest incident of Valley Fever are Fresno, Kern and Kings counties. When soils are disturbed by wind or activities like construction and farming, Valley Fever fungal spores can become airborne. The spores present a potential health hazard when inhaled.

Individuals in occupations such as construction, agriculture, and archaeology have a higher risk of exposure due to working in areas of disturbed soils which may have the Valley Fever fungus.
940
3-29
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Regulatory Setting
Federal
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.

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

The state and federal standards for the criteria pollutants are presented in Section 8.4 of The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s 2015 “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts”. These standards are designed to protect public health and welfare. The “primary” standards have been established to protect the public health. The “secondary” standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soils, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of general welfare. The U.S. EPA revoked the national 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, and the annual PM10 standard on September 21, 2006, when a new PM2.5 24-hour standard was established.

Regional/Local
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) 941
3-30
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 3-3:

Table 3-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards
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
Arithmetic Chemiluminescence
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
Standard Rolling 3-
Month
Average
-- 0.15 μg/m3
942
3-31
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Visibility
Reducing
Particles12
8 Hour See footnote 12
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance through
Filter Tape
No National Standard
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride10 24 Hour

0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Gas Chromatography

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded.

California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of 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. 943
3-32
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 4601: Architectural Coatings. This rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements.
• Rule 4641: Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. This rule limits VOC emissions by restricting the application and manufacturing of certain types of asphalt for paving and maintenance operations. • Rule 4702: Internal Combustion Engines. This rule applies to any internal combustion engine rated at 25 brake horsepower or greater.
• Rule 9410: The purpose of this rule is reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from private vehicles used by employees to commute to and from their worksites to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and particulate matter (PM). The trip reduction and administrative requirements of this rule apply to each employer in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin with at least 100 Eligible Employees at a worksite for at least 16 consecutive weeks during the employer’s previous fiscal year.
• Rule 9510: Indirect Source Review (ISR). This rule reduces the impact PM10 and NOX emissions from growth on the SJVB. This rule places application and emission reduction requirements on applicable development Projects in order to reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite SJVAPCD administered Projects, or a combination of the two. The Project applicant will required to submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application in accordance with Rule 9510’s requirements. • Regulation VIII: Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Regulation VIII is composed of eight rules which together aim to limit PM10 emissions by reducing fugitive dust. These rules contain required management practices to limit PM10 emissions during construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities.

Table 3-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7

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.

Source: SJVAPCD
944
3-33
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to air quality that correlate to the proposed Project:
• AQ-P-2: Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule.
• AQ-P-9: Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development Projects.

Discussion
a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD drafted a series of State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the criteria pollutants that are of concern for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The integration of multiple SIPs for each criteria pollutant collectively form the air quality plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The most recent SIP is the “2024 Plan for the 2012 PM 2.5 Standard”, which focuses on meeting the annual PM 2.5 standard of 12 micrograms/cubic meters originally set in 2012. This SIP includes measures to reduce fine particulate matter emissions and improve air quality by the year 2030. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds in the adopted SIPs and other air quality plans prepared by the Air District. These thresholds are depicted in Table 3-4, with Tables 3-5, and 3-6 also showing the results for construction- and operation-related emissions. Criteria for determining consistency with the established standards are whether or not the Project’s estimated emissions exceed those thresholds established by the Air District. As long as the Project construction and operational emissions do not exceed the thresholds, the Project will not result in new air violations, delay the timely attainment of air quality standards, or result in increased severity of an existing air quality violation.

Qualified consultants Core provided the following narrative as contained in the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum.
“Criteria Pollutants
• Criteria pollutant emissions were estimated using the latest version of CalEEMod. Land uses were modeled as follows:
• Conference room – government office building
945
3-34
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 • Classrooms – junior community college
• Warehouse – unrefrigerated warehouse, no rail
• Parking – parking lot
• Driveways – other asphalt areas
• Stormwater basin, concrete – other non-asphalt area
The operational characteristics of the uses selected for the conference room, classrooms, and warehouse would overestimate the actual vehicle trips and resource usages of the Project, but were selected as health-conservative opinions that most closely match based on the CalEEMod User Guide. Areas were estimated from the attached Site Plan.

The CalEEMod results are included as Attachment 2 [of the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum] and summarized in the table below, along with comparisons to the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.” “A shown in Tale above [Table 3 5 of this document] Project construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. (AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, pages 2-3).

Table 3-4. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons per year)
CONSTRUCTION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions
(mitigated, worst year) 2.1 1.6 0.40 <0.005 0.28 0.15
SJVAPCD Thresholds of
Significance 100 10 27 10 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
OPERATION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Operational Emissions 10 1.7 2.0 0.03 2.3 0.62
SJVAPCD Thresholds of
Significance 100 10 27 10 15 15
Exceeds? NO NO NO NO NO NO
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = oxides of nitrogen
ROG = reactive organic gases
SOx = oxides of sulfur; sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the primary constituent and equivalent PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns. “Ambient Air Quality
The exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations can occur if the Project would result in localized exceedances of National or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS/CAAQS), or if Project emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance (discussed in the HRA section below). SJVAPCD 946
3-35
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 has determined that, if maximum Project criteria pollutant emissions are below 100 pounds per day for each pollutant, it can be concluded that the Project would not result in a localized exceedance of NAAQS or CAAQS and no further Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) is required.

Following the SJVAPCD methodology presented in Application Review Policies (APR) 2030 (Project Ambient Air Quality Analysis Applicability Determination under CEQA)1 , the Project was first assessed to determine whether it would be subject to Indirect Source Review (ISR).

The Project site is over the square footage thresholds listed in Rule 9510 and would therefore be subject. Maximum daily criteria pollutants resulting from construction and operation were then calculated as described in the Criteria Pollutants section above [in the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum].

Maximum daily criteria pollutant emissions are compared to the 100-lb-per-day AAQA applicability threshold in the table below [Table 3-5].

Table 3-5 Maximum Daily Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD AAQA Thresholds (lb/day)
CONSTRUCTION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions (max daily, worst year,
worst season) 29 29 38 0.05 21 11
Exceeds 100lb/day? NO NO NO NO NO NO
OPERATION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Operational Emissions (max daily, worst season) 94 13 15 02.1 18 4.7 Exceeds 100 lb/day? NO NO NO NO NO NO
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = oxides of nitrogen
ROG = reactive organic gases
SOx = oxides of sulfur; sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the primary constituent and essentially equivalent PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns.

It is worth noting that, although the worst daily operational CO emissions are estimated to come near the 100 pound per day threshold, the emissions are an overestimation compared to actual operational characteristics and, more important, an AAQA is only required to consider on-site emissions and off-site emissions within ¼ mile of the project boundary. Since most of the emissions are from vehicle trips, with trip lengths averaging over 9 miles, the onsite CO emissions for consideration under an AAQA would be far lower.

As shown in the table above, none of the criteria pollutants would exceed 100 pounds per day, during construction or operation. Therefore, no further AAQA is required and the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations by resulting in a localized exceedance of NAAQS or CAAQS. With respect to the numerical threshold 947
3-36
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 established by SJVAPCD, the associated impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required outside of compliance with existing regulations. As discussed in the Criteria Pollutants section above [as shown in the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum], emissions are expected to be further reduced with implementation of all State, regional, and local measures.” (AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, pages 7-8).

Since the Project is not anticipated to exceed any SJVAPCD thresholds of significance, the Project will not conflict with or delay the implementation of the SJVAPCD attainment/implementation plans for criteria pollutants. Therefore, based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis contained herein, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, no Mitigation Measures would be required. 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 Tulare 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 earlier, neither construction-related emissions nor operation-related emissions will exceed thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. The Project will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, which will further reduce the potential for any significant impacts related to air quality as a result of Project implementation. Because these thresholds and regulations are designed to achieve and/or maintain federal and state air quality standards, and the Project is compliant with these thresholds and regulations, the Project will not violate an air quality standard or significantly contribute to an existing air quality violation. Also see Item III a). Therefore, based on the AQ/GHG/HRA memorandum prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis contained herein, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the AQ/GHG/HRA memorandum prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required. c) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 948
3-37
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Less than Significant Impact: Qualified consultants Core provided the following narrative as contained in the AQ/GHG/HRA memorandum. It is noted that the footnote references are not included herein but are included in the AQ/GHG/HRA memorandum “Health Risk Assessment
The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in this Technical Memo was prepared in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments2; SJVAPCD Policy APR 1906 – Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments3 and Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling4. The reader is encouraged to reference those sources, along with the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI)5 for in-depth discussions regarding setting, regulatory background, pollutant descriptions, and HRA methodologies, as this Technical Memo includes only a critical summary of the projectspecific HRA methodology and results.

The primary Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) of concern include diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from diesel-fueled construction vehicle and equipment use. Operation would not include any substantial sources of DPM or any other substantial sources of TAC The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air dispersion model was used to model the annual downwind air concentration at nearby receptors, based on a normalized emission rate of one gram per second. Meteorological data was obtained from SJVAPCD (Visalia met site); CARB and SJVAPCD recommended modeling parameters were used throughout.

Construction emissions were modeled as an area source with dimensions matching the Project site. Discrete worker and residential receptors were added based on business and residence locations shown on the imported Google Earth base map; a total of 36 receptors were added for a representative analysis. Terrain was added using the built in WebGIS tool.

Construction DPM emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, as described in the Criteria Pollutants section above. SJVAPCD considers PM10 exhaust to be a reasonable surrogate for DPM, and the maximum (worst year) annual emissions were used for subsequent calculations.

Normalized downwind air concentrations for each receptor (modeled in the step above) were imported into the CARB Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT) and combined with the toxic emissions data to esmate the ground level concentrations of TAC at each receptor. A separate run was performed for worker risk because the highest risk receptor would be at the existing TCOE facilities just west of the site. The exposure duration was set to two years, rounded up from the 1.3 year construction timeline. The construction risk calculations included the area source described in the modeling above and annual emissions of DPM. OEHHA has not 949
3-38
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 established a Reference Exposure Level (REL) for 8-hour chronic, or acute health risk from DPM. Thus, the 8-hour chronic and acute HI are not calculated, except in unusual situations such as when a sensitive receptor is located directly above the emission release point (e.g., on a hillside or in a multistory apartment building).

Results of the AERMOD modeling and ADMRT calculations are included as Attachment 3 [of the AQA/GHG/HRA Study], along with a map of receptors. Modeling input and output files will be made available to reviewing agencies upon request. The highest risks calculated for each scenario are presented in the table below, along with comparisons to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. All results are the maximally exposed individual (MEI) for each scenario.

Table 3-6 HRA Results Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance RISK

CARCINOGEN
(risk in one million) CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
Construction Health Risk 15.7 (Receptor 6) 0.0092 (Receptor 6) Thresholds of Significance 20 1
No HI was calculated for 8- hour Chronic or Acute risk because OEHHA has not established REL. (California Air Resources Board, 2024)
As shown in the table above [Table 3-7], the highest risks occurred at Receptor 6, a residence located adjacent to the north side of the Project site. Initial calculations indicated that the highest risks could occur at Receptor 28; however, that receptor location is an existing TCOE facility adjacent to the west side of the Project site. Risks were recalculated for Receptor 28 as a worker and the results were substantially lower than the risks to residential Receptor 6 and well under the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.

Calculated risks would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations resulting from TAC emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in the Criteria Pollutants section above, emissions would be further reduced with implementation of all State, regional, and local measures.” (AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, pages 4-5).

Therefore, the release of toxic air contaminants (TACs) would be limited to short-term, temporary, and intermittent occurrences during each construction phase to impact sensitive receptors. As such, based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis contained herein, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
950
3-39
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact:

Some typical construction-related odors would be generated during Project constructionrelated activities. As noted in Item III c), the Project is adjacent to sensitive receptors to the east, south, and southeast which may be temporarily affected by such odors. The Project may create objectionable odors, but the odors would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent and would not affect a substantial number of people during constructionrelated activities. Additionally, the proposed Project would not include any odor sources identified in Table 6 of the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). The GAMAQI also notes, “Because of the subjective nature of odor impacts and the lack of quantitative or formulaic methodologies, the significance determination of potential odor impacts should be considered on a case-by-case basis.” (see GAMAQI, page 102; accessed at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf).

The operational phase will be public institutional uses, as such, there would be no odors that would result in nuisance or harmful impacts. As such, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measure(s): None required.

Based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant
Both the Tulare County and Visalia General Plans environmental impact reports (EIR) have accounted for population growth, and subsequent development to accommodate that growth, and have determined air quality impacts are unavoidable. Individually, projects may not exceed any air quality thresholds on a regional level; however, when combined with similar nearby projects, an exceedance could occur on a local level. As both the County’s and City’s General Plans anticipated and have accounted for all types of land use development over time, the Project would be consistent with the County’s and City’s 951
3-40
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 General Plans EIRs regarding the Air Quality resource. The Project would result in the development of expanded/additional Tulare County Office of Education administrative, warehousing uses approximately 149,200 square feet (108,000 square feet of office and conference room space, three classrooms with a training kitchen totaling 6,200 square feet, and approximately 35,000 square feet of warehouse space) on approximately 28 acres and provides benefits such as planned growth/development in an urbanized area and minimizes urban sprawl as the Project is currently directly adjacent to existing residential (mobile home park) and commercial mixed use development. Individually, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; it would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant; it would not the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations as demonstrated in the HRA (see Appendix A); and it would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
952
3-41
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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,
   
953
3-42
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
In addition to references of the Visalia General Plan and its accompanying EIR, the analysis in this section is supplemented by a Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) prepared by qualified consultants Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC (Colibri), which can be found in Appendix B.

Environmental Setting
The Project site is in the western portion of the Visalia Planning Area within the lower San Joaquin Valley, in the Central Valley of California. The Central Valley is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountain 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. The property is currently vacant that was previously used for agriculture (walnut orchards). The proposed Project site is in an urban and agricultural interface environment in an unincorporated area in the County of Tulare adjacent to the southern part of the City of Visalia. The proposed Project site is bound by the existing TCOE Administration and Conference facilities to the west, walnut orchard to the east, singlefamily residential (mobile home park) and scattered rural residences to the north, an institutional use (church with accessory uses), and mixed commercial uses to the southwest.

The former walnut orchard could have provided limited nesting and foraging habitat for birds and wildlife; however, the value of this habitat type would have been relatively low due to the ongoing disturbance from agricultural operations. Also, as indicated in the BRE and summarized in Table 3-7, no special status species were sighted during transects of the Project site (or within a 50’ buffer of the site),
Methodology
As indicated in the BRE (see Appendix B), prepared by qualified consultants Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC (Calibri), as a framework for the evaluation and reconnaissance survey, Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC obtained a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2025a, Appendix A of the BRE) species list for the Project. As indicated in the BRE (at page 14), “In addition, we searched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, Appendix C [of the BRE]) and the 954
3-43
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS, Appendix C [of the BRE]) for records of special-status plant and animal species from the Project site. Regional lists of special-status species were compiled using CNDDB and CNPS database searches confined to the Visalia 7.5- minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle, which encompasses the Project site, and the eight surrounding quadrangles (Cairns Corner, Exeter, Goshen, Ivanhoe, Monson, Paige, Traver, and Tulare). A local list of special-status species was compiled using CNDDB records from within 5 miles of the Project site. Species that lacked a CEQA-recognized special-status designation by state or federal regulatory agencies or public interest groups were omitted from the final list. Species for which the Project site does not provide habitat were eliminated from further consideration. Aerial imagery from Google Earth (Google 2025) and other sources was also reviewed, USGS topographic maps, the Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2025), the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2025b), and relevant literature.” Also as indicated in the BRE (at page 17), “The USFWS species list for the Project included seven species listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed for listing under the FESA (USFWS 2025a, Table 1, Appendix A [Appendix B and also Table 3-7 of the MND]). None of those species could occur on or near the Project site due to the lack of habitat or because the Project site is outside the known range of species (Table 1). As stated in the species list, the Project site occurs outside any proposed or designated USFWS critical habitat (USFWS 2024a, Appendix A [of the BRE] and part of Appendix B of this MND).

Searching the CNDDB for records of special-status species from the Visalia 7.5- minute USGS topographic quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles produced 220 records of 42 species (Appendix B [of the BRE, Appendix B of the MND]) and four sensitive natural communities. Of the 42 species, six were not considered further because they are not CEQArecognized as special-status species by state or federal regulatory agencies or public interest groups or are considered extirpated in California (Appendix B [of the BRE, Appendix B of the MND). Of the remaining 36 species, 20 are known from within 5 miles of the Project site ([Table 1, Figure 4 [of the BRE, Table 3-7 in the MND). None of the species or sensitive natural communities identified in the nine-quad search could occur on or near the Project site due to lack of habitat (Table 1 [of the BRE, Table 3-7 in the MND).

Searching the CNPS inventory of rare and endangered plants of California yielded 21 species (CNPS 2025, Appendix C [of the BRE, Appendix C in the MND]), 18 of which have a CRPR of 1 or 2 and four of which are also state or federally listed (Table 1 [of the BRE, Table 3-7 in the MND]).

Of those 18 plant species, none could occur on or near the Project site due to the lack of habitat (Table 1 [of the BRE, Table 3-7 in the MND]).”
Table 3-7. Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site Species Name *Listing
Status
Habitat
Requirements Potential to Occur2
Federally and State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species 955
3-44
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-7. Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site Species Name *Listing
Status
Habitat
Requirements Potential to Occur2
California jewelflower
(Caulanthus
californicus)
FE/SE/1B.1 Sandy soils in shadscale
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, and pinyonjuniper woodland below
3280 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked shadscale
scrub, natural grassland, and
pinyon-juniper woodland.

Hoover’s spurge3
(Chamaesyce hooveri)
FT/1B.1 Vernal pools on volcanic
mudflow or clay
substrate at 82–427 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; no
vernal pools were in the
survey area.

San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
(Pseudobahia
peirsonii)
FT/SE/1B.1 Heavy clay soils in valley
and foothill grassland
and cismontane
woodland at 295– 2625
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked heavy clay
soils.

San Joaquin Valley
Orcutt grass3
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT/SE/1B.1 Vernal pools at or below
2700 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; no
vernal pools were in the
survey area.

Crotch bumble bee3
(Bombus crotchii)
SCE Grassland and scrub
areas with abandoned
rodent burrows for
nesting.

None. Habitat lacking; no
grassland or scrub areas
were present in the survey
area.

Monarch California
overwintering population
(Danaus plexippus)
FPT Groves of trees within 1.5
miles of the ocean that
produce suitable microclimates for
overwintering such as
high humidity, dappled
sunlight, access to water
and nectar, and
protection from wind.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is not within 1.5
miles of the ocean.

Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
Californicus dimorphus)
FT Elderberry (Sambucus
sp.) plants having basal
stem diameter greater
than 1” at ground level.

None. Habitat lacking; no
elderberry shrubs were found
in the survey area, and the
survey area is outside the
currently recognized range of
the species.

Vernal pool fairy
Shrimp3
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT Vernal pools; some
artificial depressions,
ditches, stock ponds,
vernal swales,
ephemeral drainages,
and seasonal wetlands.

None. Habitat lacking; no
vernal pools or other suitable
aquatic features were in the
survey area; the irrigation
pond on the Project site is too
frequently inundated and
likely too contaminated with
956
3-45
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-7. Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site Species Name *Listing
Status
Habitat
Requirements Potential to Occur2
fertilizer to provide habitat for
this species.

Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE Vernal pools, clay flats,
alkaline pools, and
ephemeral stock tanks.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked vernal
pools or other potential
habitat for this species.

California tiger
salamander—central
California Distinct
Population Segment3
(Ambystoma
californiense)
FT/ST Vernal pools or seasonal
ponds for breeding;
small mammal burrows
for upland refugia in
natural grasslands.

None. Habitat lacking; the
irrigation pond along the
northern boundary of the
Project site is likely too
contaminated with fertilizer to
support the species. No
upland habitat was present
on or near the project site.

Western spadefoot3
(Spea hammondii)
FPT;SSSC Open areas with sandy
or gravelly soil that allow
rain pools to gather for
breeding.

None. Habitat lacking; no
vernal pool or other potential
habitat was present in the
survey area.

Blunt-nosed leopard
Lizard (Gambelia Sila)
FE, SE, FP Upland scrub and
sparsely vegetated
grassland with small
mammal burrows.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked grassland
and upland scrub. The Project
site is also outside the current
known range of this species.

Northwestern pond
Turtle3
(Actinemys
marmorata)
FPT;SSSC Ponds, rivers, marshes,
streams, and irrigation
ditches, usually with
aquatic vegetation.

Basking sites and
suitable upland areas
for egg laying.

None. Habitat lacking; the
irrigation pond on the Project
site is too small to provide
habitat for this species. The
Project site also lacks basking
sites and upland habitat.

Burrowing owl3
(Athene cunicularia)
SC Grassland and upland
scrub with friable soil;
open areas in
agricultural, developed,
and disturbed lands with
ground squirrel burrows.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked grassland
or upland scrub with friable
soil or suitable open areas.

Swainson’s hawk3
(Buteo swainsoni)
ST Large trees for nesting
with adjacent
grasslands, alfalfa fields,
or grain fields for
foraging.

Low. Potential nest trees were
in the 0.5-mile survey area.

Foraging habitat was
sparsely distributed
throughout the 0.5-mile
survey area, and the
surrounding land cover was
957
3-46
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-7. Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site Species Name *Listing
Status
Habitat
Requirements Potential to Occur2
dominated by incompatible
orchards.

Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
ST/SSSC Freshwater emergent
wetlands, some
agricultural fields,
grassland, and
silage fields near
dairies.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked
freshwater emergent
wetlands, agricultural
fields, grassland, and silage
fields.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo3
(Agelaius tricolor)
FT/SE Riparian forests with
willow and cottonwood
trees and an understory
of blackberry, nettles, or
wild grape.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked riparian
areas.

Buena Vista Lake
ornate shrew (Sorex
ornatus relictus)
FE, SSSC Moist riparian, wetlands,
grasslands, and upland
scrub with abundant
leaft litter and dense
herbaceous cover
None. The Project site is
outside the current known
range of this species.

San Joaquin kit fox3
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE/ST Grassland and upland
scrub and fallowed
agricultural lands
adjacent to natural
grasslands or upland
scrub.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is outside the
current known local range of
this species.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE/SE Grassland and upland
scrub with sparse to
moderate shrub cover
and saline soils; also
fallowed agricultural
fields adjacent to
natural grasslands or
upland scrub.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site has been routinely
disked.

State Species of Special Concern
Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens)
SSSC Shoreline cover,
submerged, and
emergent aquatic
vegetation near
permanent or
semipermanent water
east of Sierra
NevadaCascade Crest.

None. Habitat lacking; no
permanent or
semipermanent water
features were in the survey
area. The Project site also is
outside the current known
range of this species.

Northern California
legless lizard3
SSSC Moist, warm, loose soil
with some plant cover in
None. Habitat lacking; no
moist soils under sparse
958
3-47
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-7. Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site Species Name *Listing
Status
Habitat
Requirements Potential to Occur2
(Anniella pulchra) sparsely vegetated
coastal dune, chaparral,
pine-oak woodland,
desert scrub, and
stream terraces.
vegetation were present on
or near the Project site.

Loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus)
SSSC Nests in dense shrubs
with open country for
hunting in a variety of
habitats.

None. Habitat lacking; no
nesting shrubs or open
country for hunting was
present in the survey area.

American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
SSSC Variable. Open, dry
areas with friable soils
and small mammal
populations in
grassland, conifer forest,
and desert.

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area was too
developed to support this
species.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
SSSC Rock crevices, caves,
bridges, buildings, and
tree hollows in rocky
mountainous areas and
sparsely vegetated
grassland near water.

Low. Large trees along the
perimeter of the Project site
may provide roosting habitat
for this species.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
SSSC Cliff faces, high
buildings, trees, and
tunnels near open, arid
areas.

Low. Large trees along the
perimeter of the Project site
may provide roosting habitat
for this species.

California Rare Plants
Alkali sink goldfields3
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
1B.1 Vernal pools and wet
saline flats below 320
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; no
vernal pool or wet saline flat
habitats were present in the
survey area.

Brittlescale3
(Atriplex depressa)
1B.2 Alkaline clay soils in
valley and foothill
grassland, meadows,
seeps, playas and in
Chenopod scrub below
1050 feet.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacks alkaline clay
soils.

California alkali
Grass3
(Puccinellia simplex)
1B.2 Saline flats and mineral
springs below 3000 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area lacked saline flats
and mineral springs.

California satintail3
(Imperata brevifolia)
2B.1 Mesic sites, alkali seeps,
and riparian areas in
chaparral, scrub,
meadows and seeps,
None. Habitat lacking; no
mesic sites, alkali seeps, or
riparian areas in chaparral
scrub, meadows and seeps,
959
3-48
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-7. Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site Species Name *Listing
Status
Habitat
Requirements Potential to Occur2
and wetland
communities below
3985 feet elevation.
or wetland communities were
present in the survey area.

Coulter’s goldfields
(Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri)
1B.1 Saltmarsh, playas, and
vernal pools below 4000
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; no
suitable aquatic features for
this species were present on
the Project site.

Earlimart orache
(Atriplex cordulata
var. erecticaulis)
1B.2 Saline or alkaline soils in
valley and foothill
grassland below 230
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is above the
known elevational range of
this species.

Heartscale3
(Atriplex cordulata
var. cordulata)
1B.2 Saline or alkaline soils in
grassland, meadows
and seeps, and
chenopod scrub
communities below 230
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is above the
known elevational range of
this species.

Lesser saltscale3
(Atriplex minuscula)
1B.1 Sandy, alkaline soils in
chenopod scrub, playa,
and grassland in the
San Joaquin Valley
below 328feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area lacked sandy,
alkaline soils in chenopod
scrub, playa, or grassland.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
1B.2 Poorly drained, fine,
alkaline soils in
grassland and saltbush
scrub at 98–1969 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked poorly
drained, fine, alkaline soils in
grassland or saltbush scrub.

Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
1B.2 Ponds, sloughs, and
ditches at sea level to
650 feet elevation.

None. No records of this
species occur within 5 miles
of the Project site. The species
was not present during the 11
April 2025 reconnaissance
survey.

Spiny-sepaled buttoncelery3
(Eryngium
spinosepalum)
1B.2 Vernal pools, swales,
and roadside ditches in
valley and foothill
grassland.

None. Habitat lacking; no
suitable aquatic features for
this species were present on
the Project site.

Subtle orache3
(Atriplex subtilis)
1B.2 Saline depressions
below 230 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked saline
depressions and is above the
known elevational range of
this species.
960
3-49
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-7. Special Status Species Potentially on Project Site Species Name *Listing
Status
Habitat
Requirements Potential to Occur2
Vernal pool smallscale
(Atriplex persistens)
1B.2 Alkaline vernal pools
below 380 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked alkaline
vernal pools.

Winter’s sunflower
(Helianthus winteri)
1B.2 Roadsides and openings
on relatively steep
south-facing slopes with
granitic often rocky, soil
from 410–1510 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is below the
known elevational range of
this species.

Reconnaissance Survey
Additionally, as indicated in the BRE, “Colibri Senior Scientist Amy Hernandez conducted a field reconnaissance survey at the Project site on 6 October 2025. The Project site and a 50-foot buffer (Figure 3 [in the BRE]) surrounding the Project site were walked and thoroughly inspected to evaluate and document the potential for the area to support state or federally protected resources. All plants except those under cultivation or planted in residential areas and all vertebrate wildlife species observed within the survey area were identified and documented.

The survey area was evaluated for the presence of regulated habitats, including lakes, streams, and other waters as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers, CDFW, and under the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act. An additional buffer of 0.5 miles around the Project site was inspected for potential nesting habitat for special-status raptors. The 0.5-mile buffer was surveyed by driving public roads and identifying the presence of large trees or other potentially suitable substrates for nesting raptors as well as open areas that could provide foraging habitat.” (BRE, page 14).
*Listing Status Notes:

Federal1: FE – Federally listed Endangered
FT – Federally listed Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate Species
FPT – Federal Proposed Threatened
FP – State Fully Protected
State: SE – State listed Endangered
ST – State listed Threatened
SC – State Candidate Species
SSSC – CDFW Species of Special Concern
3 Record from within 5 miles of the Project site
CRPR1
: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank
1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and
elsewhere
2B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA but
common elsewhere
3 – Plants about which more information is needed
4 – Limited distribution (Watch-list)

CRPR Extensions1

0.1 – Seriously endangered in California

0.2 – Fairly endangered in California

0.3 – Not very endangered in California
961
3-50
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Further, “The Project site consisted of an irrigated, maintained almond orchard (Figures 5 and 6 [in the BRE]). Ruderal herbaceous vegetation dominated by nonnative grasses and forbs was distributed throughout the Project site. Vegetation within the orchard rows showed signs of herbicide treatment (e.g., short, yellow vegetation with twisted leaves and cupped foliage). Two valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees were along the southern boundary of the Project site (Figure 7 [in the BRE]). California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows were sparsely distributed along the fence line of the neighboring orchard at the eastern boundary of the survey area (Figure 8 [of the BRE]). Valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows with openings less than 2 inches in diameter were scattered throughout the Project site.

The proposed Project site is bound by the existing TCOE Administration and Conference facilities to the west, walnut orchard to the east, single-family residential (mobile home park) and scattered rural residences to the north, an institutional use (church with accessory uses), and mixed commercial uses to the southwest. Aerial imagery indicates the Project site has been used for agricultural production since at least 2003 (Google 2025).” Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
The FES defines an endangered species as “any species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species or subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 USC 703-712) FMBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory.

The FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Although the USFWS and its parent administration, the U.S. Department of the Interior, have traditionally interpreted the FMBTA as prohibiting incidental as well as intentional “take” of birds, a January 2018 legal opinion issued by the Department of the Interior now states that incidental take of migratory birds while engaging in otherwise lawful activities is permissible under the FMBTA.

However, the California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any nongame bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities.

Clean Water Act
962
3-51
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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.

State
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.

California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (CFGC Sections 1900–1913) requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and otherwise rare species of native plants. Provisions of the act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require the project proponent to notify CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use, which allows CDFW to salvage listed plants that would otherwise be destroyed.

Nesting Birds
CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 prohibit the possession, incidental take, or needless destruction of birds, their nests, and eggs. CFGC Section 3511 lists birds that are “Fully Protected” as those that may not be taken or possessed except under specific permit.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et. sec.) was established in 1969 and entrusts the SWRCB and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (collectively Water Boards) with the responsibility to preserve and enhance all beneficial uses of California’s diverse waters. The Act grants the Water Boards authority to establish water quality objectives and regulate point- and nonpoint source pollution discharge 963
3-52
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 to the state’s surface and ground waters. Under the auspices of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Water Boards are responsible for certifying, under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, that activities affecting waters of the United States comply with California water quality standards. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act addresses all “waters of the State,” which are more broadly defined than waters of the Unites States. Waters of the State include any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state. They include artificial as well as natural water bodies and federally jurisdictional and federally non-jurisdictional waters. The Water Boards may issue a Waste Discharge Requirement permit for projects that will affect only federally non jurisdictional waters of the State.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
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.

Regional/Local
City of Visalia Oak Tree Ordinance
Title 12 Chapter 24 of the City of Visalia Municipal Code (VMC) (City of Visalia 2025) prohibits the destruction or removal of Valley Oak Tree (Quercus lobata) in the city by outlining procedures and penalties for removal. Section 12.24.030 requires a permit for removal of oak trees in the city based on meeting one or more of the removal standards criteria in Section

12.24.035. Per Title 12 Chapter 24 of the VMC Subsection B of Section 12.24.035 lists the potentially applicable removal standard for the Project, subject to approval by the city manager:
“B. Removal of the oak tree is necessary to allow construction of new improvements or the repair or protection of pre-existing improvements that have been interfered with by the oak tree or otherwise allow the reasonable enjoyment of private property. The city manager shall apply the following factors in determining the necessity of removal of an oak tree for purposes of this subsection:

1. The size and age of the oak tree to be removed, and its historic, aesthetic or cultural value; a larger, older and more historically, aesthetically, or culturally valuable tree may be removed only if each of the other factors weigh heavily in favor of removal.

2. The necessity of the removal of the oak to the enjoyment of the property by the property owner or protection of preexisting improvements.

3. The lack of any reasonable alternative to the proposed improvement that does not require removal of the oak tree. The availability of funds from the Oak Tree Maintenance 964
3-53
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Fund to assist the property owner in repairing or reconfiguring improvements in a manner to save an oak tree should be taken into account in determining whether reasonable alternatives to removal exist such that a permit on this grounds should not be granted.

Section 12.24.037 requires compensatory mitigation as outlined in the City of Visalia Oak Tree Mitigation Policy (City of Visalia 2025) for permitted oak tree removal. As shown in Section

12.24.037, “…pursuant to Subparagraph B. of section 12.24.035 offset the loss of the oak tree by either replacing the oak tree removed with new oak trees on the same property (in-kind mitigation) or by paying mitigation fees intended to be used for the establishment of new oak trees on other property or on public property for the benefit of the general public (in-lieu mitigation). In furtherance of this policy, the city manager shall develop an Oak Tree Mitigation Policy establishing in-kind and in-lieu mitigation measures to be required for oak tree removals. The Oak Tree Mitigation Policy, and any subsequent amendment thereto, shall be submitted to the city council for approval by resolution.” (see: VMC at: 12.24.037 Mitigation requirements). However, the Oak Tree Ordinance has been revised/updated to exclude private property such as the property where the TCOE Project would occur.

Visalia Planning Area General Plan
The Visalia Planning Area General Plan contains the following policies related to the preservation of biological resources that may be considered relevant to the proposed Project’s environmental review:
• OSC-P-30 Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any discretionary development Projects involving riparian habitat, wetlands, or special status species habitat. Early in the development review process, consult with California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies. • OSC-P-31 Protect and enhance habitat for special status species, designated under state and federal law. Require protection of sensitive habitat areas and special status species in new development in the following order: 1) avoidance; 2) onsite mitigation, and 3) offsite mitigation.

Discussion
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Project activities have the potential to affect candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Reviews of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (California Department of Fish 965
3-54
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 and Wildlife, 2021) was conducted by qualified consultants Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC (Colibri or consultants) to identify special-status plant and wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Project and in the vicinity of the Project in the Visalia 7.5” USGS quadrangle, within which the Project is situated, and the eight surrounding quadrangles.

Consultants also conducted a search on the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants for records of special-status plant and animal species from the vicinity of the Project site.

Aerial imagery from Google Earth (Google 2025) and other sources, USGS topographic maps, the Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2025), the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2025b), results from a reconnaissance survey, and relevant literature were reviewed. These data sources were analyzed to assess the potential for the occurrence of special-status species and other sensitive biological resources known to exist on or near the project site (Table 3- 7).

As noted in the BRE, “The Project could adversely affect, either directly or through habitat modifications, three special-status animal species that occur or may occur on or near the Project site. Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, or using other heavy equipment that disturbs or harms a special-status species or substantially modifies its habitat could constitute a significant impact. We recommend that Mitigation Measures BIO1 and BIO2 (below) be included in the conditions of approval to reduce the potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.” (BRE, page 41).

Therefore, based on the BRE prepared by qualified consultant Colibri, and the information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2; as applicable.

Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2.

Based on the BRE prepared by qualified consultant Colibri, and the information and analysis provided herein, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, as applicable, would reduce impacts to less than significant.
b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact: As indicated in the BRE, “This Project, which will result in temporary and permanent impacts to developed and disturbed lands, will not: “…(5) 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 CDFW or USFWS (criterion f) as no impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities are expected…” (BRE, page 40).Therefore, based on the BRE prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact. 966
3-55
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the BRE prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.
c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through director removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: As indicated in the BRE: “The Project may permanently impact two detention basins in the western portion of the Project site. If these features contain surface water, they are likely considered state-protected wetlands regulated by the SWRCB. If project construction will permanently impact the approximately

0.4-acre and 0.6-acre detention basins, such loss could constitute a significant impact. We recommend that the mitigation measure BIO-3 (below) be included in the conditions of approval to reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.” (BRE, page 42).

Moreover, City-wide biological resources were evaluated in the Visalia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR concluded that certain protected wetlands and other waters may be directly or indirectly affected by future development within the General Plan Planning Area. Such effects would be considered significant. However, the General Plan contains multiple policies, identified under Impact 3.8-3 of the EIR, that together work to reduce the potential for impacts on wetlands and other waters located within the Planning Area.

Implementation of the City’s policies and Municipal Code regulations regarding impacts on wetlands would also become effective, as applicable. Therefore, based on BRE prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, as applicable.

Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure BIO-3.

Based on the BRE prepared by qualified consultants Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, as applicable.
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 with Mitigation: As noted in the BRE, “The Project has the potential to impede the use of nursery sites for native birds protected under the MBTA and 967
3-56
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 CFGC. Migratory birds are expected to nest on and near the Project site. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort can be considered take under the MBTA and CFGC. Loss of fertile eggs or nesting birds, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment, could constitute a significant effect if the species is particularly rare in the region.

Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, and grading that disturb a nesting bird on the Project site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone could constitute a significant effect. We recommend the mitigation measure BIO-4 (below) be included in the conditions of approval to reduce the potential effects to a less-than-significant level.” (BRE, page 43).

Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure BIO-4.

Based on the BRE conducted by qualified consultants Calibri, and information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, as applicable.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact: As noted in the BRE, “Valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees sparsely lined the eastern portion of the northern boundary (Figure 10 [in the BRE]), and valley oak seedlings were sparsely distributed throughout the Project site.” (BRE, page 29).

The City has a municipal ordinance, as applicable, in place to protect Valley Oak Trees. The City of Visalia’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance specifies that a Valley Oak Tree Management Plan Form be submitted for consideration, or an Oak Tree Removal Application be submitted to obtain a permit and to determine compensatory mitigation prior to removal. However, as noted earlier, the Oak Tree Ordinance has been revised/updated to exclude private property such as the property where the TCOE Project would occur. Therefore, based on the BRE prepared by qualified consultants Colibri, and the information and analysis contained herein, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the BRE prepared by qualified consultants Colibri, and the information and analysis provided herein, impacts to Valley Oak Trees 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?
968
3-57
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 No Impact: As noted in the BRE, there are no habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) in the proposed Project area. Therefore, based on BRE prepared by qualified consultants Colibri, and the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.

Based on the BRE prepared by qualified consultants Colibri, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures: See BIO-1 through BIO-5
The following mitigation measures were recommended by qualified consultants Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC in the BRE (Appendix B). It is noted that BIO-5 has been modified (while retaining its content), from the BRE to reflect specific availability of the City’s Valley Oak Tree Management Plan Form and the City’s Oak Tree Removal Application.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Protect nesting Swainson’s hawks.

1. To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the Swainson’s hawk nesting season, which extends from March through August.

2. If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and February, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey for Swainson’s hawk in accordance with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (SWTAC 2000). A pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During the pre-construction clearance survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates within a minimum 0.5-mile radius around the Project site.

3. If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found within 0.5 miles of the Project site, and the qualified biologist determines that Project activities would disrupt the nesting birds, a construction-free buffer or limited operating period shall be implemented in consultation with the CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Protect roosting pallid bat and western mastiff bat.

1. A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no roosting pallid bats or western mastiff bats will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the 969
3-58
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 qualified biologist shall inspect all potential roosting habitat in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas.

2. If an active roost is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer to be established around the roost. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the roosting bats, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until the roost is no longer in use.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Obtain a permit from the SWRCB for impacts to jurisdictional waters.

1. Obtain a Waste Discharge Requirements permit from the SWRCB via the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board if the Project is expected to permanently impact the detention basins and provide the required compensatory mitigation.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Protect nesting birds.

1. To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August.

2. If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons.

Based on the BRE prepared by qualified consultant Colibri, and the information and analysis provided herein, and the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant with Mitigation The Visalia General Plan planning area and its accompanying EIR study area is the cumulative impact area. As noted earlier, the Project site does not include any known biological resources that would be impacted by the Project. Also as noted earlier, this 970
3-59
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 analysis relies on the information, determinations, technical studies, etc., contained in the adopted/certified General Plan EIR and CNDDB search. The BRE prepared by qualified consultants Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC search results indicate that there are no known resources on the Project site. However, as an abundance of caution, the Project will be required to comply with applicable City requirements and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, as applicable, to avoid or minimize impacts in the event that any resources applicable to this Checklist Item are impacted. Therefore, based on the BRE prepared by qualified consultant Colibri, and the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. 971
3-60
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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?
☐   
In addition to references of the Visalia General Plan and its accompanying EIR, the analysis in this section is supplemented by the “Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project, City of Visalia, Tulare County, California Project” (CRA) prepared by qualified consultants Taylored Archaeology in October 2025. The full report can be found in Appendix C.

As noted in the CRA, “This report documents the results of a cultural resource assessment of the proposed Project area. In order to comply with California regulations for CEQA, the following specific tasks were completed: (1) requesting a records search from the Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), at California State University, Bakersfield; (2) a review of site archives (3) requesting a Sacred Lands File Search and a list of interested parties from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (4) conducting an archaeological pedestrian survey, and (5) preparing this technical report.

Taylored Archaeology prepared this report following the California Office of Historic Preservation standards in the 1990 Archaeological Resources Management Report Recommended Contents and Format. Chapter 1 describes the introduction of the Project and its location and identifies the key personnel involved in this report. Chapter 2 summarizes the Project setting, including the natural, prehistoric ethnography, and historic background for the Project site and surrounding area. Chapters 3 details the methods used for cultural records 972
3-61
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 searches, local Native American outreach, and archaeological pedestrian survey. Chapter 4 summarizes the results of the cultural resource investigation. Chapter 5 discusses the Project findings and offers management recommendations. Chapter 6 is a bibliography of references cited within this report. The report also contains the following appendices: qualifications of key personnel (Appendix A [of the CRA]), the CHRIS records search results (Appendix B [of the CRA]), and Sacred Lands File search results (Appendix C [of the CRA]).” (See CRA, 1.4 Report Structure, page 7).

Environmental Setting
As noted in the CRA, “The Project area lies in the Central Valley of California, which is approximately 450 miles from north to south, and ranges in width east to west from 40 to 60 miles (Prothero 2017). The Central Valley is divided into two subunits, the Sacramento Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in the south, which are each named after the primary rivers within each valley (Madden 2020). The Project is located approximately 305 feet above sea level on the open flat plains of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Climate within the San Joaquin valley is classified as a ‘hot Mediterranean climate’, with hot and dry summers, and cool damp winters characterized by periods of dense fog known as ‘tule fog’ (Prothero 2017).” (CRA, page 8).
“The Project is in central western Tulare County on the valley floor of the San Joaquin Valley within the greater Kaweah River Delta alluvial fan. Specifically, the Project is located on a former bank of Mill Creek, which is a distributary of the Kaweah River (Hammond 1885). Distributaries form when debris-laden river waters meet abrupt changes in channel and slope confinement, resulting in unstable channel networks that change with time (Wagner et al. 2013). Before the appearance of agriculture in the nineteenth century, the general Project location would have been comprised of prairie grasslands with scattered oak tree savannas near the foothills, and riparian forest along the various streams and drainages (Preston 1981).” (CRA page 8).

Historic Setting
California History
“European contact in modern-day California first occurred in 1542 with the arrival of a Spanish expedition lead by Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo into San Diego Bay (Engstrand 1997). Expeditions along the California coast continued throughout the sixteenth century and primarily focused on finding favorable harbors for further expansion and trade across the Pacific. However, rocky shorelines, unfavorable currents, and wind conditions made traveling north from New Spain to the upper California coast a difficult and time-consuming journey (Eifler 2017). The topography of California, with high mountains, large deserts, and few natural harbors lead to European expansion into California only starting in the 1760s. As British and Russian expansion through fur trading encroached on California from the north, Spain established a system of presidios, 973
3-62
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 pueblos, and missions along the California coast to defend its claim, starting with Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1769 (Engstrand 1997).” (CRA, page 12) Central California History
“The San Joaquin Valley did not experience contact with Europeans until the late 1700s (Starr 2007). Life at the California missions was hard and brutal for Native Americans, with many dying of disease, poor conditions, and many fleeing to areas not under direct Spanish control (Jackson and Castillo 1995). The earliest exploration of the San Joaquin Valley by Europeans was likely by the Spaniards when in the fall of 1772 a group known as the Catalonian Volunteers entered the valley through Tejon Pass in search of deserters from the Southern California Missions (Zack 2017). However, the group only made it as far north as Buena Vista Lake in modern day Kern County before turning around due to the extensive swamps. Additional excursions to the valley were for exploration such as those led by Lieutenant Bariel Moraga in 1806, but also to find sites for suitable mission sites and to track down Native Americans fleeing the coastal missions (Cook 1958).

Subsequent expeditions were also sent to pursue outlaws from the coast who would often flee to the valley for safety. One of the subsequent explorations was an expedition in 1814 to 1815 with Sargent Juan Ortega and Father Juan Cabot, who left the Mission San Miguel with a company of approximately 30 Spanish soldiers and explored the San Joaquin Valley (Smith 2004). This expedition passed through the Kaweah Delta and modern-day Visalia and made a recommendation to establish a mission near modern-day Visalia. However, with European contact also came European disease. Malaria and other new diseases were brought by Europeans, and in 1833 an epidemic of unknown origin traveled throughout the Central Valley.

Some estimates place the Native American mortality of the epidemic as high as 75 percent (Cook 1955b). Combined with the rapid expansion of Americans into California in 1848 during the Gold Rush, Native American populations within the valley never fully recovered (Eifler 2017).

Initial settlement within the valley by Europeans in the 1830s was largely either by trappers like Jedediah Smith or horse thieves like Pegleg Smith (Clough and Secrest 1984). In fact, horse and other livestock theft was so rampant that ranching operations on the Rancho Laguna de Tache by the Kings River and Rancho del San Joaquin Rancho along the San Joaquin River could not be properly established (Cook 1962). With the end of the Mexican American War and the beginning of the gold rush in 1848, the San Joaquin Valley became more populated with ranchers and prospectors. Most prospectors traveled by sea to San Francisco and used rivers ranging from the Sacramento River to the San Joaquin River to access the California interior (Eifler 2017). Most areas south of the San Joaquin River were less settled simply because those rivers did not connect to the San Francisco Bay area except in wet flood years. By 1850, California became a state and Tulare County was established in 1853.” (CRA, pages 11-12).

Local History
974
3-63
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 “The City of Visalia is one of the oldest cities within the Southern San Joaquin Valley and was founded in 1852. By the late 1850s the town of Visalia was a major station along the Butterfield Overland Mail stage route as it traveled north from Los Angeles to Stockton (Helmich 2008).

During the first few decades, Visalia was a supply center for nearby gold rushes, served as the regional population center of Tulare County, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock and some agriculture (Dyett and Bhatia 2014). During the 1850s and 1860s roughly made earthen ditches and dams diverted stream water for irrigation, with the earliest ditches in the San Joaquin Valley being constructed in Visalia between 1852 to 1853 (Caltrans 2000).

The Southern Pacific Railroad was extended from Fresno into Tulare County in the early 1870s but bypassed the City of Visalia as the city was located six miles to the east of the rail line (Small 1926). (CRA, page 13).

Methodology
Records Search
“Taylored Archaeology requested a cultural resource records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California on September 15, 2025. The purpose of this request was to identify and review prior cultural resource studies and previously recorded cultural resources on or near the Project boundary. The records search included prior cultural resources investigation reports conducted, previously recorded resources within the Project boundary and the 0.5-mile radius around the Project boundary (Appendix C [of the CRA]). Also included in research were cultural resource records (DPR forms) as well as the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation list, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources list.” (CRA, page 15).
“The SSJVIC provided the records search results in a letter dated September 30, 2025 (Appendix B [of the CRA]). According to the search results, three prior cultural resource studies were conducted within the Project area (Table 4-1 [of the CRA]). Further review of these studies showed that only one overlaps the Project site. TU-01747 is an archaeological field survey for a proposed cellular tower. TU-00041 TU-01190 is a historical account of the Mariposa War of 1850- 1851 and is not pertinent to this Project area. In addition, four previous cultural resources studies were within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project boundary as depicted in Table 4-2 [of the CRA].

None of these studies intersected the Project boundary.

The SSJVIC reported there were no cultural resources previously documented within the Project area. Two cultural resources, both historic era, were recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project boundary (Table 4-3 [of the CRA]). None of these previously recorded resources intercept the Project boundary.” (CRA, page 17).

Archival Research
975
3-64
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Archival research was conducted to investigate the historical background for any potential historic structures, buildings and historical deposits that may exist and land use within the Project boundary. Historical maps, historical aerial photographs, historical US Geological Survey (USGS)topographic maps, Google Earth aerial photographs, Google Street View photos, Map Aerial Locator Tool (MALT) at the Henry Madden Library, California State University, Fresno, books, articles and other records were used to better understand the prehistory and history of the Project area. The results of this research are presented in Chapter 4 [of the CRA].” (CRA, page 15).
“Historic map coverage of the Project site begins with a 1927 USGS topographic map, which depicts the site as open field bound by an unnamed road to the west in the same alignment as present-day Highway [SR] 63, and a “Liberty Road” to the south in the same alignment as Avenue 264 (USGS 1927). No buildings or structures are depicted on the Project site in 1927. By 1949 the southern half of the Project site is shown as an orchard with three buildings on the Project site, one in the southeast corner along Avenue 264, one in the center northern portion of the site, and one along the western boundary of the site along Highway [SR] 63. A small road is also depicted along the southwestern boundary of the Project site from Highway [SR] 63 to the central building (USGS 1947). By 1969, the northwestern portion of the project site is labeled as “Drive-in Theater” in the area presently occupied by the TCOE administration building and parking lot (USGS 1969). Otherwise the site is similar to the 1949 USGS topographic site. USGS Topographic maps after 1969 for the Project site do not depict any details other than Highway [SR] 63 to the west and Avenue 264 to the south.

Available historic aerial photograph coverage of the Project site began in 1946 with historic aerial photographs by the United State Agricultural Adjustment Administration (USAAA), which depicts the Project site in similar configuration to the 1947 USGS topographic map (USAAA 1946). The next available historic aerial photograph dates to 1956, which shows the northwest corner of the Project site occupied by a drive-in movie theater in a similar configuration to the one depicted in the 1969 topographic map (NETROnline 2025). The remainder of the Project site is comprised of an agricultural field in the northern half and an orchard with a rural residence in the southern half. The rural residence appears to have been removed sometime between 1984 and 1994, and the movie theater appears to have been demolished sometime between 2005 to 2009 (Google Earth 2025). The TCOE Administration building appears to have been constructed in 2015 and the orchard in the eastern portion of the Project site in early 2025 (Google Earth 2025).” (CRA, pages 18-19).

NAHC Sacred Lands File
“Taylored Archaeology sent a request to the NAHC as part of this cultural resources investigation for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search on September 15, 2025. The objective of the SLF search was to identify tribal cultural resources present in or near the Project boundary.

Native American outreach and consultation with Tribes are not included in this scope of work.

It is assumed that government-to-government consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 will 976
3-65
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 be conducted by the CEQA lead agency. The SLF results are in Chapter 4 [of the CRA].” (CRA, page 15).

Archaeological Pedestrian Survey
“On October 4, 2025, Archaeologist Consuelo Sauls conducted an archaeological pedestrian survey of the 57.4-acre Project site. The survey began in the southeast corner of the Project boundary, using transects spaced 5 meters apart oriented east to west. The archaeologist carefully inspected all exposed ground surface and rodent burrow back-dirt piles and other areas of bare earth for soil discoloration that could indicate the presence of artifacts (e.g., lithics and ceramic sherds), soil depressions, and features indicating the former presence of buildings or structures (e.g., postholes and foundations). The Project boundary was checked for both prehistoric deposits and historic-age features, structures, and artifacts more than 50 years old that may be present on the ground surface. A plan map of the Project site was used to see land usage, structures and map out transects. Field survey observations were documented in the field and survey coordinates were recorded on a Gaia Global Positioning System application. Photographs were taken of the Project site using an iPhone 11 Pro digital camera.” (CRA, pages 15-16).

Native American Outreach
As noted in the CRA, “The NAHC responded on June 17, 2025 (Appendix C [of the CRA, Appendix C herein]). The search results of the SLF were negative for the presence of tribal cultural resources within the Project area. The NAHC provided a contact list of Native American tribes who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area (Appendix C [of the CRA, Appendix C herein]).” (CRA, page 19).

The following Native American organizations/individuals were contacted from the list provided by NAHC below:

1. Chairperson Delia Dominguez of the Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians;

2. Cultural Specialist I Nichole Escalon of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe;

3. Cultural Specialist II Samantha McCarty of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe;

4. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Shana Powers of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Tribe;

5. Chairperson Michelle Heredia-Cordova of Table Mountain Rancheria;

6. Cultural Resource Director Bob Pennell of Table Mountain Rancheria;

7. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Felix Christman of the Tule River Tribe;

8. Environmental Department Kerri Vera of the Tule River Tribe; and

9. Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.

The outreach letters were sent to all the Native American representatives on the contact list on October 14, 2025 (Appendix C [of the CRA, Appendix C herein]). The letters included a description of the proposed Project and a topographic map of the location. No responses were received regarding the Project area.” (See CRA pages 16-17). 977
3-66
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Archaeological Survey Results
As indicated in the CRA (see Appendix C), “The Project site consisted of a fully developed commercial area with a parking lot, two small basins, open field, and a recently removed orchard at Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 122-470-003, 122-480-004 and 122-480-008 (Figure 4-1 [of the CRA]). The fenced basin areas in 122-480-008 and the northeast portion of 122-480-004 were not accessible (Figures 4-2 and 4-3 [of the CRA]). Most of the development area in APN 122-480-004 is landscaped with ornamental bushes and paved parking lots. In the east portion of the parcel was mostly dirt and appeared to be used as a parking lot.

The natural topography of the Project site has been altered by historical and modern agricultural practices and commercial development and much of the land on the Project site has been graded, plowed, planted and/or harvested, which has caused additional disturbance to the soil.

The ground surface visibility within the Project boundary was mostly excellent (100 percent) in the open field and the dirt lot behind the parking lot (Figure 4-4 [of the CRA]). Ground visibility in the developed commercial area was generally the poorest (0-30 percent) where most of the ground was covered in asphalt (Figure 4-5 [of the CRA]). The soil in the Project boundary consisted of alluvial sandy loam and was grayish brown and appeared highly disturbed by historical and modern land-use practices, including infrastructural development. Ground disturbances, such as burrows and soil piles, were visually inspected.

No cultural resources were encountered within the Project boundary. While past agricultural and development activities may have potentially destroyed or obscured ground surface evidence of archaeological resources within the Project site, intact archaeological resources may potentially exist below the ground surface.” (See CRA, pages 19-20).

Regulatory Setting
“In this report “cultural resources” are defined as prehistoric or historical archaeological sites as well as historical objects, buildings, or structures. In accordance with 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.4, “historical” in this report applies to cultural resources which are at least 50 years old. The significance or importance of a cultural resource is dependent upon whether the resource qualifies for inclusion at the local or state level in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or at the federal level in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are called “historical resources” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5[a]). Under this statue the determination of eligibility is partially based on the consideration of the criteria of significance as defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3). Cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are deemed “historic properties.” (CRA, pages 1-2).
978
3-67
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act was adopted in 1966 to preserve historic and archeological sites in the United States and is administered by the National Park Service. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the State Historic Preservation offices.

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions of historic properties and provide an opportunity for the ACHP to comment on Projects prior to their implementation. This section also requires agencies to be publicly accountable for any potential consequences to their actions on historic properties. To be eligible for listing, a property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associations, and possess one of the following characteristics:
• Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (events).
• Association with the lives of persons significant in the past (persons). • Distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (architecture).
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history (information potential).

State
California Senate Bill 18
The Local and Tribal Intergovernmental Consultation process, commonly known as SB 18, was signed into law September of 2004 and took effect March 1, 2005. SB 18 refers to PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993, which define cultural places as:
• Native American sanctified cemetery place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9).
• Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.993).

SB 18 established responsibilities for local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes that have been identified by the NAHC and if that tribe requests consultation after local government outreach as stipulated in Government Code Section 65352.3. The purpose of this consultation process is to protect the 979
3-68
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 identity of the cultural place and to develop appropriate and dignified treatment of the cultural place in any subsequent project. The consultation is required whenever a general plan, specific plan, or open space designation is proposed for adoption or to be amended. Once local governments have been sent notification, tribes are responsible for requesting consultation.

California Assembly Bill 52
The legislature added the requirements regarding tribal cultural resources through AB 52. By including an understanding if any tribal cultural resources could be present within an area early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process (AB 52 Section 1[b][7]). Please see Section 4.5.5 for information regarding the City’s AB 52 consultation process for this Project.

Section 1 of the bill states the legislature’s intent as follows (AB 52 Section 1[b]):
“…In recognition of their (California Native American Tribes) governmental status, establish a meaningful consultation process between California Native American tribal governments and lead agencies, respecting the interests and roles of all California Native American tribes and project proponents, and the level of required confidentiality concerning tribal cultural resources, at the earliest possible point in the CEQA environmental review process. To accomplish those goals, the legislature added or amended the following sections in the PRC: 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 5097.94.”
California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California PRC § 5020.1[j])(State of California 2021). In 1992, the California legislature established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the 980
3-69
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California PRC § 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR, enumerated in the following text, were developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP.

According to California PRC § 5024.1(c) (1– 4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California). • Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California.
• A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement, or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.

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

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

Regional/Local
City of Visalia General Plan
Under Chapter 3, the City’s Role and Tools for Preservation, in the General Plan of the City of Visalia defines a “cultural resources” as:
• Chapter 3.3: Sites, structures, or any other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to be culturally important. This includes archaeological resources and contemporary Native American resources in addition to the historic resources that are the subject of this chapter. Impacts of development on cultural resources of all kinds must be avoided to the greatest extent possible, as described by policies in Chapter 6: Open Space and Conservation.
• Chapter 6.5: OSC-P-39 Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
981
3-70
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 o Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive.
o Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA). o Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity. o Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of Project approval.

In the event that previously unidentified historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, grading activity in the immediate area shall cease and materials and their surroundings shall not be altered or collected. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must make an immediate evaluation and avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation should be completed, according to CEQA Guidelines. The State Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the preparation of Archaeological Resource Management Reports that will be used as guidelines.

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: As noted earlier, qualified consultants Taylored Archaeology conducted a records search on behalf of the Applicant from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University, Bakersfield, California. The searches are used 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. In addition, an archival research and an archaeological pedestrian survey was conducted to identify cultural resources.

As noted earlier, according to the results of the SSJVIC records search, there have been three prior cultural resource studies conducted within the Project area with one overlapping the Project area; however, it is not pertinent to the Project area. Also, four cultural resource studies were within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area; however, none of these studies intercept the Project boundary.

Also as noted earlier, archival research of historical topographic maps and aerial images indicates that the expanded Project site has largely been used for agricultural purposes.

Also as noted earlier, the historical aerial from 1956 shows the northwest corner of the Project site occupied by a drive-in movie theater in a similar configuration to the one depicted in the 1969 topographic map (NETROnline 2025). The remainder of the Project site 982
3-71
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 is comprised of an agricultural field in the northern half and an orchard with a rural residence in the southern half. The rural residence appears to have been removed sometime between 1984 and 1994, and the movie theater appears to have been demolished sometime between 2005 to 2009 (Google Earth 2025). The TCOE Administration building appears to have been constructed in 2015 and the orchard in the eastern portion of the Project site in early 2025 (Google Earth 2025).

The archaeological pedestrian survey did not identify any cultural resources on the ground surface within the Project boundary. The absence of cultural material on the ground surface does not, however, preclude the possibility of Project construction unearthing buried archaeological deposits. While past agricultural and development activities may have destroyed or obscured ground surface evidence of archaeological resources within the Project site, intact archaeological resources may potentially exist subsurface (i.e., below the ground surface).

Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that impacts to potential historical resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures discussion. 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: As noted in the CRA, “On October 4, 2025, Archaeologist Consuelo Sauls conducted an archaeological pedestrian survey of the 57.4- acre Project site. The survey began in the southeast corner of the Project boundary, using transects spaced 5 meters apart oriented east to west. The archaeologist carefully inspected all exposed ground surface and rodent burrow back-dirt piles and other areas of bare earth for soil discoloration that could indicate the presence of artifacts (e.g., lithics and ceramic sherds), soil depressions, and features indicating the former presence of buildings or structures (e.g., postholes and foundations). The Project boundary was checked for both prehistoric deposits and historic-age features, structures, and artifacts more than 50 years old that may be present on the ground surface. A plan map of the Project site was used to see land usage, structures and map out transects. Field survey observations were documented in the field and survey coordinates were recorded on a Gaia Global Positioning System application. Photographs were taken of the Project site using an iPhone 11 Pro digital camera.” (see Appendix C, CRA pages 15-16).

Also as noted in the CRA, “No cultural resources were encountered within the Project boundary. While past agricultural and development activities may have potentially destroyed or obscured ground surface evidence of archaeological resources within the 983
3-72
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Project site, intact archaeological resources may potentially exist below the ground surface.” (CRA, page 20).

Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, 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.

Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. 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. The archaeological pedestrian survey results did not identify any prehistoric or historic-period cultural resources within the Project site. The absence of cultural material on the ground surface does not, however, preclude the possibility of Project construction-related activities unearthing subsurface (buried, below ground) archaeological artifacts/resources. If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, there is a potential for a significant impact.

As such, based on the information and analysis provided herein, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 will ensure that impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2.

Mitigation Measures: See CUL-1 and CUL-2
The following Mitigation Measures were developed based on the recommendations provided by qualified consultants Taylored Archaeology as noted in the CRA, pages 34-35.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event that previously unidentified archaeological materials are encountered during development or ground-moving activities in the Project boundary, all work should be halted in the immediate vicinity (100 feet) until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. If determined to be significant, the qualified historical and/or archaeologist 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.
984
3-73
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If human remains are unearthed during construction-related activities (such as, earth shaping, excavating, grading, trenching, etc.), 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. Also, 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.

Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant
The geographic area of this cumulative analysis is the Visalia General Plan planning area.

As noted earlier, the Project site does not include any known historical, cultural, or archaeological resources. Also as noted earlier, this analysis relies on the information, determinations, technical studies, etc., contained in the adopted/certified Visalia General Plan EIR. CHRIS and NAHC search results indicate that there are no known resources on the Project site. However, as an abundance of caution, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are incorporated herein to minimize impacts in the unlikely event that any resources applicable to this Checklist Item are inadvertently discovered. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, and with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 as applicable, cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant with mitigation.
985
3-74
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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?
   
Discussion in this section is based on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Health Risk Assessment Technical Memorandum (AQ/GHG/HRA Technical Memorandum) that has been prepared by qualified consultant Core Environmental (Core) for 4Creeks, Inc. (Appendix A).

Environmental Setting
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity services to the City of Visalia using electrical facilities networks of both overhead and underground lines. 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 shows the proportion of each energy resource sold to California consumers by SCE in 2022 as compared to the statewide average.

Table 3-8. 2022 SCE and 2022 State Power Resources.

Fuel Type SCE Power Mix California Power Mix
Coal 0% 2.15%
Large Hydroelectric 3.4% 9.24%
Natural Gas 24.7% 36.38%
Nuclear 8.3% 9.3%
Other (Oil/Petroleum Coke/Waste
Heat) 0.1% 0.11%
Unspecified Sources of Power1 30.3% 7.11%
Eligible
Renewables
Biomass 0.1% 2.15%
Geothermal 5.7% 4.67%
Small Hydro 0.5% 1.12%
986
3-75
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-8. 2022 SCE and 2022 State Power Resources.

Solar 17% 17.04%
Wind 9.8% 10.83%
Total Eligible
Renewable

33.1% 35.81%

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

Source: SCE; California Energy Commission
SCE also offers Green Rate Options, which allow consumers to indirectly purchase up to 100 percent of their energy from renewable sources. To accomplish this, SCE purchases the renewable energy necessary to meet the needs of Green Rate participants from solar renewable developers.

Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) Company is available to provide natural gas services to the Project area. Natural gas is an energy source developed from fossil fuels composed primarily of methane (CH4). In 2023, approximately 32 percent of the natural gas burned in California was used for electricity generation, while 23 percent is consumed by the residential sector, 31 percent is consumed by the industrial sector, 13 percent is consumed by the commercial sector, and about 1 percent was used in the transportation sector as vehicle fuel (California State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2024). This Project would not use any natural gas appliances within the housing units.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
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 987
3-76
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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.

California Senate Bill 100
SB 100, passed in 2018, set a deadline in 2045 for 100 percent of energy to be renewable.

Additionally, by 2030, 60 percent of all energy must be renewable. California is targeting this goal through solar and other renewable sources.

California Assembly Bill 152
For California to meet its renewable goals, AB 152 was passed in 2018. AB 152 states that starting in 2020 all new low rise residential buildings must be built with solar power. However, AB 152 would not apply as there would be no residential component to the Project2.

Regional/Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the policies related to energy use that correlate to the proposed Project:
• T-P-41 Integrate the bicycle transportation system into new development and infill redevelopment. Development shall provide short term bicycle parking and long-term bicycle storage facilities, such as bicycle racks, stocks, and rental bicycle lockers.

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.

City of Visalia Climate Action Plan
The Climate Action Plan discusses community measures that encourage energy efficient systems in residential and commercial sectors. The included action is as follows:
988
3-77
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 • Community-wide Solar PV Bulk Purchasing: Continue to promote community-wide rooftop solar. Continue exploring the potential to collaborate with regional partners on a communitywide solar bulk purchase program.

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 an expanded TCOE/AOCC facility as summarized earlier. During Project construction-related activities, there would be an increase in energy consumption related to worker trips and the operation of construction equipment. This increase in energy use would be temporary and limited to the greatest extent feasible 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.

The California Energy Commission estimates Tulare County residential uses consumed approximately 1.45 million MWh of electricity and 51 million Therms of natural gas in 2021. (see: California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption by County. Accessed at:
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx
and https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx).

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California residential uses consumed approximately 100 million MWh of electricity and approximately 4.6 billion Therms of natural gas in 2021. Per capita, the Project’s estimated electricity demand is similar to California’s demand (2.41 MWh/yr) but higher than Tulare County’s demand (3.19 MWh/yr). The Project will predominantly rely on electricity, as such, it would not result in a natural gas demand. Operation of the proposed Project would result in the consumption of vehicle fuel from employees and visitors leaving and coming to the site.

Table 3-9 Project Energy Use by Land Use1

LAND USE

ELECTRICITY
(kWh/yr)

NATURAL GAS
(kBTU/yr)
Government Office Building (Conference Center) 2,084,306 3,968,973 Junior College (Classrooms) 64,808 277,206
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 187,044 581,580
Parking Lot 70,255 0
TOTAL 2,406,413 4,827,759
1 Table 5 AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, Appendix A of this document kWh/yr = kilowatt hours per year
kBTU/yr = thousand British Thermal Units per year
989
3-78
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 During operations-related activities, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in wasteful fuel consumption. Because construction-related energy use would be short-term, temporary, intermittent, limited to the greatest extent feasible through consistency with Federal, State, and local policies related to energy conservation, operation of the project will comply with all energy efficiency standards required under Title 24, Section 6.These standards were specifically developed to achieve net zero energy for residential projects, as such, it can reasonably be concluded that the proposed Project will achieve net zero energy. The proposed Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The impact will be less than significant.

While construction of the proposed Project will result in additional energy consumption, this energy use is not unnecessary or inefficient. This energy use is justified by the energyefficient nature of the proposed Project, which will be predominantly reliant on electricity, rather than natural gas for all operational components. The California Energy Commission is responsible for the development and enforcement of specific strategies to create energy efficient buildings for new residential and non-residential development. 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 standard.

As shown in Table 3-9, annual energy use associated with Project operations would total approximately 4,827,759 MMBTUs per year. Annual energy use is expected to decrease over time as a result of improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency standards. The proposed Project will be subject to energy conservation requirements in the California Energy Code (24 CCR Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (24 CCR Part 11). Adherence to Title 24 requirements would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy resources due to building operation or vehicle trips. Additionally, the operational component of the Project will predominantly rely on electricity. (California Energy Commission 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings: Title 24, Part 6, and Associated Administrative Regulations in Part 1 see:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2025/2025-building-energy-efficiencystandards-residential-and-nonresidential Because construction-related energy use would be short-term, temporary, intermittent and limited to the greatest extent feasible through consistency with Federal, State, and local policies related to energy conservation, and operation of the Project will comply with all energy efficiency standards required under Title 24, Part 6, and these standards were specifically developed to achieve net zero energy for residential Projects. Therefore, based on the AQ/GHG/Energy Study prepared by qualified consultant Core, and the information 990
3-79
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 and analysis provided herein, the Project would not result in inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful energy use. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on AQ/GHG/HRA Technical Memorandum prepared by qualified consultant Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact: The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The construction- and operations-related components of the Project would comply with applicable energy efficiency regulations included in CALGreen, Title 24, CARB, and the Visalia General Plan. The proposed Project would comply with applicable state and local policies related to energy efficiency. Based on AQ/GHG/HRA Technical Memorandum prepared by qualified consultant Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on AQ/GHG/HRA Technical Memorandum prepared by qualified consultant Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant
The geographic areas for this cumulative analysis are the City of Visalia and County of Tulare. Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. As noted in the San Joaquin Valley Air District’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, GHG emissions and global climate change inherently represent cumulative impacts. GHG emissions cumulatively contribute to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature; instead, the GHG emissions from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities have contributed to and would contribute to global climate change and its associated environmental impacts.

According to the Valley Air District, project GHG emissions are inherently cumulative and do 991
3-80
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 not require the estimation of cumulative projects in the region of the project. Thus, the determination of GHG cumulative impacts is based on: the State target established by AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, SB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to at least 40 percent below the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030, and AB 1279 which required the State to reduce GHG emissions to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. In order to ensure that this goal would be achieved, as discussed earlier, Air Districts and Lead Agencies developed GHG thresholds to ensure compliance with the State target.

Therefore, impacts under impact discussion Item VI a) are not project-specific impacts to global warming, but are the proposed Project’s contribution to this cumulative impact.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a regional and global contribution to GHG emissions. The proposed Project would incrementally contribute to adverse impacts on energy resource demand and conservation when considering the cumulative impact of concurrently planned projects; however, like the proposed Project, discretionary actions requiring agency approval are required to comply with local, regional, state, and federal policies designed to reduce wasteful energy consumption, and improve overall energy conservation and sustainability. For instance, all local projects involving the development of new buildings must be designed to conform to CALGreen and the current California Energy Code (for this Project it will be the 2024 Code). Therefore, it is anticipated that the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not result in a significantly considerable wasteful use of energy resources, such that the Project, and other cumulative projects, would not have a cumulative effect on energy conservation. The proposed Project will not have a direct or cumulative impact, or create wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction-related activities or operations, nor will it conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, Project-specific and Cumulative Impacts as of a result of the Project would be less than significant
This Project is limited to a 28-acre site surrounded by existing development and would be consistent with an infill project as it is directly adjacent to the existing TCOE facility that is already on urbanized land within the Mooney Boulevard/SR 63 corridor. In summary, the Project is localized in nature, it does not cover a broad-based area (e.g. not County- or region-wide), and its emissions will include short-term, temporary, and intermittent construction-related activity emissions which will end upon cessation of constructionrelated activities. Operational emissions are projected to remain below established thresholds. Therefore, based on AQ/GHG/HRA Technical Memorandum prepared by qualified consultant Core, and the information and analysis provided herein, and although not significant in and of itself, overall cumulative impact would be less than significant. 992
3-81
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 wastewater 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
993
3-82
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 65 miles away from the site, or the Owens Valley Fault Group, which is located approximately 75 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 earthquakes. Due to little elevation changes throughout the planning area, including the proposed Project site, it is considered a low landslide hazard area. The 2023 Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan states that occurrence of landslide events within populated areas of Tulare County is unlikely and the magnitude and significance is low. • 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 Project 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
994
3-83
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 According to the USDA/NRCS (see USDA NRCS Tulare County ,Western Part, California (CA659) accessed at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), two soil types within the Project area include:
• 137 Tagus loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes, prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season, fan remnants, alluvium derived from granitic rock sources, well drained, low runoff, very rare flooding, no frequent ponding, land capability classification (irrigated) 1; non-irrigated (4c).

Approximately 28 percent of the Project area is classified as having this soil type. • 143 Yettem sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season, flood plain, alluvial fans, alluvium derived from granite, well drained, very low runoff, very rare flooding, no frequent ponding, land capability classification (irrigated) 1; (non-irrigated) 4(c). Approximately 72 percent of the Project area is classified as having this soil type. 995
3-84
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Figure 3-2 Soils Map
Source: USDA NRCS Tulare County ,Western Part, California (CA659) accessed at:
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
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.

Regional/Local
996
3-85
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 City of Visalia Municipal Code (California Building Code) The City of Visalia Municipal Code has incorporated and adopted the CBC, 2022 Edition, as promulgated by the California Building Standards Commission, which incorporates the adoption of the 2021 edition of the of the International Building Code, as amended with necessary California amendments and the 2021 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.

Less Than significant Impact: The Project is in an area of relatively low seismic activity, and 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 distances to the faults. The Project does not propose any components which could cause substantial adverse effects in the event of an earthquake. Additionally, based on the Project has an unlikely potential to be impacted by the rupture of an earthquake fault indirectly or directly. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant related to the risk of loss, injury or death involving a rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Impact: The Project site is in an area of low seismic activity according to the Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The proposed Project does not 997
3-86
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 include any activities or components that would indirectly or directly result in loss, injury or death from strong seismic ground shaking, as the Project is in a low-risk area for seismic activity. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact: The risk of liquefaction within the planning area outside 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 soil associated with the Project area is not suitable for liquefaction. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact: The Planning Area of Visalia is considered a low-risk area for landslides.

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

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 and the soils that occupy the site have only a slight susceptibility to erosion, the potential for erosion is low.

Construction-related activities and increased impermeable surfaces can increase the probability for erosion to occur both on and off the Project site. Construction-related impacts related to erosion will be temporary and subject to best management practices (BMPs) required by a SWPPP, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction-related activities. Impacts related to erosion during the construction phase would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent; and BMPs required by the SWPPP would prevent significant impacts. Though increased impermeable surfaces will increase stormwater runoff on the site, the Project will include features such as landscaping and the extension of/connection to the existing stormwater system to offset these potential impacts. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.
998
3-87
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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. 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. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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. The soils associated with the Project do not exhibit shrink swell behavior, as such development of the Project will pose no risk to life or property caused by expansive soils. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 wastewater?
No Impact: The proposed Project would not include the use of septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed Project would tie into Visalia’s existing sewer services. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
999
3-88
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 the possibility that paleontological resources may exist subsurface and may be inadvertently unearthed during the construction-related activities. In the unlikely event of encountering a paleontological resource, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would avoid or minimize impacts caused by development of the Project. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, an impact to the paleontological resource would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures discussion.

Mitigation Measures: CUL-1 (Paleontological Resources)
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or ground-moving activities in the Project boundary, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. If determined to be significant, the qualified historical and or archaeologist 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.

Cumulative Impact: Less than significant with mitigation The geographic area of this cumulative analysis is the Visalia General Plan planning area.

As noted earlier, the Project site does not include or is near typical contributors to geological events. The area does not lie within known earthquake faults, it is not susceptible to strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides. Soil types; topography (generally flat); the absence and distance to the nearest faults; the absence of hill slopes; and absence of geologic landforms/natural materials are not conducive or would contribute to landslide events. Further, the Project would be required to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (including Best Management Practices) as erosion controls. However, it remains unknown if there would be an impact to paleontological resources as subsurface discovery cannot be totally eliminated. Although the CRA noted that there are no known historic, cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources on the Project site. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is incorporated herein as an abundance of caution to minimize impacts in the unlikely event that paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, as applicable, cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant with mitigation. 1000
3-89
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 1001 3-90
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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
In addition to references of the Visalia General Plan and its accompanying EIR, the analysis in this section is supplemented by a Health Risk Assessment (HRA), (which includes California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMOD) results), contained in the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, Inc., that has been prepared for 4Creeks, Inc. and can be found in Appendix A.

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 earth’s temperature is equivalent to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydro chlorofluorocarbons, 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 3-10. Each gas’ effect on climate change depends on three main factors. 1002
3-91
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 The first being the quantity of these gases are in the atmosphere, followed by how long they stay in the atmosphere and finally how strongly they impact global temperatures.

Table 3-10. Greenhouse Gases
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 ozonedepleting gases found in a variety of appliances. Composed
of a group of greenhouse gases
containing carbon, chlorine an at
least one hydrogen atom.
14 years
140 to
11,700
Powerful greenhouse gases that
are emitted from a variety of
industrial processes. Fluorinated
gases are sometimes used as
substitutes for stratospheric
ozone-depleting substances.

These gases are typically emitted
in smaller quantities, but
because they are potent
greenhouse gases.
1003
3-92
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-10. Greenhouse Gases
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.

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 are measured in parts per million, parts per billion and even parts per trillion. To put these measurements in more relatable terms, one part per million is equivalent to one drop of water diluted into about 13 gallons of water, roughly a full tank of gas in a compact car. Therefore, it can be assumed larger 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
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
1004
3-93
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 California Assembly Bill 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.

California Senate Bill 1078 and SB 107, and Executive Order S-14-08 SB 1078, SB 107, and Executive Order S-14-08 require California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 then changes the 2017 deadline to 2010.

Executive Order S-14-08 required that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020.

Regional/Local
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 percent 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 percent 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 percent reduction by 2050.

Discussion
1005
3-94
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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:

Construction. As noted in AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum in Appendix A prepared by qualified consultants Core, “Greenhouse Gases (GHG), Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), and Energy use were all estimated using CalEEMod, as described in the Criteria Pollutants section above.

The full detailed report is included in Attachment 2 CalEEMod Results [in the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum]...As discussed in the Criteria Pollutants section above [in the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum], emissions are expected to be even lower with implementation of all State, regional, and local measures.” (AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, page 6).

The AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum in Appendix A includes CalEEMod Emissions which calculates that this Project will create a maximum of 342 MT of CO2e emissions during the “worst year” of construction-related activities. Greenhouse gases would be predominantly generated during construction-related activities including earthmoving operation during site preparation (such as grading, trenching, earth shaping, etc.); building construction; application of architectural coatings; and paving.

As provided in the CalEEMOD results included in Appendix A, the proposed Project would have the following construction greenhouse gas emissions:
• CO2: 339 metric tons per year
• CH4: 0.01 metric tons per year
• N2O: 0.01 metric tons per year
• CO2e: 342 metric tons per year (combined CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions w/ some margin of error due to rounding differences and addition of Global Warming Potential). (see AQA/GHG/HRA Memorandum, page 6).
“Because the SJVAPCD does not have numeric thresholds for assessing the significance of construction related GHG emissions, predicted emissions from Project construction were compared to SJVAPCD thresholds for construction related GHG emissions. The SJVAPCD currently has a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year Project lifetime. Because Project construction would generate less GHG emissions than this threshold, impacts related to GHG emissions during Project construction would be less than significant.

Operation. As provided in the CalEEMOD results included in Appendix A, the proposed Project would have the following operational greenhouse gas emissions:
• CO2: 339 metric tons per year
• CH4: 2.35 metric tons per year
• N2O: 0.42 metric tons per year
1006
3-95
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 • CO2e: 5,979metric tons per year (combined CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions w/ some margin of error due to rounding differences and addition of Global Warming Potential). (see AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, page 6).

The SJVAPCD has not formally provided guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions impacts for Projects within their San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Until such time as SJVAPCD provides formal guidance, the following alternative metrics used by air districts in California to assess GHG emissions impacts have been identified:

Therefore, based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, and the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant: The Project will be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations, particularly the Climate Action Plan, which is included as part of the City of Visalia General Plan. Table 3-11 below demonstrates the consistency of the Project with all the applicable policies and goals of the City of Visalia General Plan & Climate Action Plan.

Table 3-4. Project Consistency with Climate Action Plan Strategies Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency with Strategy Landscaping/Urban Greening
Urban Forestry: Requirement for all new
development to have street trees, require
shade over at least 25 percent of area in
city pocket parks.

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

Energy Systems
Community-wide Solar PV Bulk
Purchasing: Continue to promote
community‐wide rooftop solar. Continue
exploring the potential to collaborate with
regional partners on a community‐ wide
solar bulk purchase program.

Consistent. The Project buildings would be
designed to accommodate solar panels
and would be compliant with Title 24
requirements for building efficiency.

ENERGY STAR Appliances & Equipment:

Promote purchasing of energy efficient
Consistent. The proposed Project may use
a limited amount natural gas for its kitchen
1007
3-96
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-4. Project Consistency with Climate Action Plan Strategies Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency with Strategy (e.g. ENERGY STAR) home and office
appliances and equipment.
classrooms during its operational phase
and will predominantly rely on electricity.

Where applicable, the Project will contain
energy efficient appliances with an ENERGY
STAR certification. There is little/no price
difference between ENERGY STAR and
conventional equipment, but significant
energy efficiency differences.

Waste & Resource Conservation
Water Efficient Landscaping Policy:

Continue working to reduce the amount of
water used for landscaping through the
development of a local Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, updates to the
Landscape Standards, and enforcement
of the Water Conservation Ordinance.

Consistent. The proposed development
will include landscaped areas that will
prioritize drought tolerant plant species
and follow the local Water Conservation
requirements and stages detailed in the
City’s Municipal Code.

The Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable GHG impact, nor would it conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, and the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, and information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT: Less than Significant
The cumulative area is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the entire state of California.

However, it would be speculative to estimate the Project’s impact on a global scale. Both the Tulare County and Visalia General Plans environmental impact reports (EIR) have accounted for population growth, and subsequent development to accommodate that growth, and have determined GHG impacts are unavoidable. Individually, projects may not exceed any air quality thresholds on a regional level; however, when combined with similar 1008
3-97
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 nearby projects, an exceedance could occur on a local level. As both the County’s and City’s General Plans anticipated and have accounted for residential development over time, the Project would be consistent with the County’s and City’s General Plans EIRs regarding GHG. As noted earlier, GHG would be generated during construction-related activities including earthmoving operation during site preparation (such as grading, trenching, earth shaping, etc.); building construction; application of architectural coatings; and paving; however, these construction-related activities would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent until the Project is built out (that is, fully constructed). The Project would result in the development of 149, 200 square feet of structures (108,000 square feet of office and conference room space, three classrooms with a training kitchen totaling 6,200 square feet, and approximately 35,000 square feet of warehouse space) on approximately 28 acres. The overall intent is to expand and provide additional training, warehousing, and conference opportunities by TCOE for the existing TCOE/AOCC facilities in an urbanized area to be annexed into the City’s planned growth areas , and minimizes urban sprawl as the Project is currently directly adjacent to existing TCOE facilities and existing mixed commercial uses to the northwest and south and existing residential development to the north. Individually, the Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed GHG thresholds, either directly or indirectly; and it would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Further, as noted earlier in Table 3-15, the Project would be consistent with the Climate Action Plan strategies. Therefore, based on the AQ/GHG/HRA Memorandum, and the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
1009
3-98
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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?
   
In addition to references of the Visalia General Plan and its accompanying EIR, the analysis in this section is supplemented by a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting (see Appendix A) is used to support the findings of this section.
1010
3-99
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project site is located approximately 1.39 miles southeast of the nearest school (Cottonwood Creek Elementary School) and approximately 4.9 miles southeast of Visalia Municipal Airport. Additionally, the Project site is located approximately 3.75 miles southeast of the Kaweah Delta Helipad (at the Kaweah Health Medical Center) which is used for patient emergencies to and from the hospital.

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.

The DTSC’s search confirmed that the Project would not be located on or near a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

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

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

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

Hazardous Waste Control Law, Title 26.
1011
3-100
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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.

State
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 waste. The CCR defines a waste as hazardous if it has any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity.

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

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985 Pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985, local agencies are required to develop “area plans” for response to releases of hazardous materials and wastes. Tulare County maintains a Hazardous Material Incident Response Plan to coordinate emergency response agencies for incidents and requires the submittal of business plans by persons who handle hazardous materials.

Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
A search of the DTSC.s Envirostor website indicates that there are no hazardous conditions on the proposed Project site. However, a nearby site approximately 1/3 of a mile southwest of the southernmost area of the Project site is being investigated via DTSC guidance documents for evaluating new school sites. Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre), on behalf of Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE), prepared a Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) Workplan for the TCOE new school facility (i.e., the new school site located at 26277 North Mooney Boulevard] located at Visalia, Tulare County, California.)
1012
3-101
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 The new school site consists of approximately 18-acres. TCOE plans to develop a new school facility for handicapped students, consisting of 10 classrooms for approximately 100 students.

Construction of the facility is anticipated to begin in April 2026, with an anticipated school opening date of April 2027. Municipal water will be provided to the school site. Wastewater will be treated by an onsite septic system, with the possibility of connecting to the municipal system in the future. On August 8, 2025, the DTSC received and subsequently approved the PEA Workplan on August 14, 2025 (see: State of California. Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=60003860 and
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2?global_id=60003860&doc_id= 60590605).

Regional/Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia General Plan includes the following policies regarding hazards and hazardous materials:
• PSCU-P-53: Continue to support the Tulare County Environmental Health Division in protecting groundwater by promoting responsible use, storage and disposal of household hazardous materials.
• PSCU-P-70: Continue the City’s partnership with the Tulare County Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) program and support the proper disposal of hazardous household waste and waste oil through public education, the disposal facility, and collection services.
• S-O-3: Protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials.

City of Visalia Municipal Code
The City’s noise ordinance establishes exterior and interior noise level standards that are measured in terms of Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the cumulative noise exposure over a 24-hour period, with adjustments to reflect the added intrusiveness of noise during certain times of the day. The Ordinance mandates that noise sensitive land uses (i.e., residential uses, churches, hospitals, schools, and libraries) may not be exposed to noise levels above 65 dB DNL/CNEL at any given time.

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? 1013
3-102
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Less than Significant Impact: Project construction-related activities may involve the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. During construction-related activities, the contractor will likely use fuel trucks to refuel onsite equipment and also use paints and solvents. The storage, transport, and use of these materials is short-term and temporary and will be required to comply with local, state, and federal regulatory requirements.

There is the potential for 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. As this can be summarized as an administration and conference center development Project, as such, the use and storage of potentially hazardous substances (such as pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents) will likely be used in limited amounts per the manufacturer’s instructions regarding application rates for typical maintenance of these types of uses. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 inadvertent releases of typical gasoline and/or diesel fuels, solvents, or chemicals during typical construction- and operation-related activities of the Tulare County Office of Education/Administration Office and Conference Center (TCOE/AOCC). In the event of an accidental hazardous release or the Project encounters hazardous materials, 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 proper handling and disposal of those materials.

Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
1014
3-103
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact: The Project is located approximately 1.7 miles southeast from an existing school (Cottonwood Creek Elementary School). The Project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than insignificant amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of structures and landscaping. The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials or waste. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 Department of Toxic Substances Control search did not result in any part of the Project site being listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 4.9 miles southeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport) and 3.75 miles southeast of the nearest private helipad (Kaweah Delta Helipad). According to the Tulare County Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CALUP) prepared in 2012, the Project site lies completely outside the Airport Influence Area, and therefore, outside of any Safety Zone (see map VIS-2 Visalia Municipal Airport Safety Zones accessed at:
https://tularecounty.ca.gov/rma/rma-documents/planning-documents/tulare-county1015 3-104
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 comprehensive-airport-land-use-plan/. As such, the development does not propose anything that will be a hazard to aviation safety as defined in the CALUP. The Project site will not be affected by any outstanding noise generated from airport activities as noise contours developed from 2019 that the airport would produce less than 65 dB for all nearby sensitive noise receptors, making the noise generated less than significant. There are no noise contours given for the Kaweah Delta Helipad; however, despite this private helipad being located approximately 1.1 miles closer to the Project site than Visalia Municipal Airport, neither would impact the Project site. As such, development 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.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 would ensure compliance with emergency response and evacuation plans. In addition, the site plan will be reviewed by the Fire Department per standard City procedures to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the proposed Project would have no impact on emergency evacuation.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 to urban and agricultural uses which are not considered as wildlands. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
1016
3-105
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Cumulative Impacts: Less than significant
The cumulative area is the Visalia General Plan planning area; including the unincorporated Tulare County area to be subsequently annexed into the City. The Proposed Project area reflects a reasonable extension of urban development to accommodate the administrative educational needs within the City and County. The Project would be developed using typical/standard practices in regard to construction-related activities.

Based on the nature of the Project, it would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; it would not 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; it would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; it would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; it would not be located within two miles of any airport nor result in a safety hazard or excessive noise; and; it would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
1017
3-106
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 Saint Johns River is the City’s primary surface water feature. Other significant surface water features include Modoc Ditch, Mill Creek Ditch, Mill Creek, Tulare 1018
3-107
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Irrigation District (TID) Canal, Packwood Creek, Cameron Creek, Deep Creek, Evans Creek, Persian Ditch, and several other local ditches. These receive water during the rainy season and help convey (drain) storm-related water from areas that are exposed to rainwater flows.

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

The City of Visalia, in collaboration with the City of Tulare and the Tulare Irrigation District, formed the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKGSA). The MKGSA completed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan to address the State’s designation of the Kaweah Subbasin as being critically overdraft.

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.

The City of Visalia has made improvements to their stormwater infrastructure to capture and recharge stormwater to the groundwater basin. Stormwater from the Project site will be collected and conveyed to either an offsite stormwater retention basin and/or will be distributed to the existing stormwater system throughout the City.

Flooding
The City of Visalia is susceptible to flooding as the City is relatively flat and at a low elevation.

In dry years, when surface conveyance of water for irrigation is reduced, farmers in the area extract water from the subsurface aquifers by pumping out groundwater to irrigate their crops.

This action results in gradual subsidence (i.e., sinkage) of the land and increases the chance of flooding as the land sinks subjecting it to greater exposure of flood water during significant rain events. Of the total General Plan planning area in Visalia, 25 percent of it lies in areas that 1019
3-108
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 are at high-risk to flood within the 100-year floodplain and another 60 percent lies within moderate-risk areas in the 500-year floodplain. The majority of the areas of the City at a high risk of flooding are in the northern sectors of Visalia.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
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.

State
California Water Quality Porter-Cologne Act
California’s primary statute leading water quality and water pollution concerns with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants 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.
1020
3-109
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) gives local agencies jurisdiction to manage groundwater supplies in the long-term. It encourages local governments to collaborate to achieve sustainable use of groundwater resources. The act ensures that all groundwater basins that are deemed high or medium risk of being overdraft establish a Groundwater Management Plan to maintain state of equilibrium of water being pumped in and out. In Visalia, the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency has jurisdiction and created their own Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

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;
1021
3-110
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 Impact: The Project will result in less than significant impacts to water quality due to potentially polluted runoff generated during construction-related activities.

Construction may include excavation, grading, and other earthmoving activities across most of the 28-acre Project site. During storm events, exposed construction areas within the Project site result in runoff that could transport pollutants, such as chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris outside of the Project site. As is typical during construction-related activities, implementation of a Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 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, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
b) Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Less than Significant Impact: Water services will be provided by the Cal Water, Visalia District, upon development. Cal Water currently produces about 27 million gallons of local groundwater per day from 59 active wells and delivers it to customers through more than 600 miles of pipeline. Cal Water delivers water to residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers. Residential customers account for most of the Cal Water 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 the other 3 percent. 1022
3-111
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 In 2020, Cal Water’s system produced 30,152 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater (California Water Service, 2021). Cal Water’s system has a capacity to pump 100,829 acre-feet per year (afy), all from groundwater, and is anticipated to extend water service to the Project site.

The Project would result in development of the site which would convert approximately 28 acres of surface area to predominantly impervious surfaces (e.g., buildings and parking areas). However, this would not significantly interfere with groundwater recharge as all captured stormwater would be diverted to a nearby stormwater basin for eventual groundwater recharge through percolation (and also through evaporation). As such, the addition of impervious surfaces would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge and the Project would not increase the amount of groundwater usage beyond water used to irrigate the former walnut orchard that was removed from the Project area.

Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 Impact: The proposed Project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces and alter existing drainage patterns on the 28-acre Project site which could, (without proper erosion controls) result in erosion or siltation on- or offsite. The disturbance of soils during construction-related activities could cause soil erosion, resulting in short-term, temporary, and intermittent construction-related impacts. However, this impact would be appropriately avoided through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which include mandated erosion control measures that are designed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction. The Project proponent will also be required to prepare drainage plans and a Development Maintenance Manual as required by the City of Visalia 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. Therefore, based on the information and analysis contained herein, the impact would be less than significant.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
1023
3-112
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project would result in the addition of some impervious surfaces on the 28-acre Project site which could have the potential to increase surface runoff resulting in localized flooding on- or off-site. This impact would be appropriately avoided or minimized through submittal of drainage plans to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits and subsequent implementation of the approved plans/permits. The drainage plans would include BMPs to ensure runoff from the Project will not result in localized flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, based on the information and analysis contained herein, impact would be less than significant. 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 Impact: The proposed Project would result in the addition of some impervious surfaces and alter existing drainage patterns on the 28-acre Project site which could have the potential to impact existing stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed Project would contain a storm drainage basin to collect all runoff from the site. The disturbance of soils during construction-related activities could cause erosion. However, this impact would be appropriately avoided/minimized through implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which include mandated erosion control measures that are designed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction-related activities. 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. These materials could contribute to point source and non-point source pollution if these pollutants were transported into waterways during storm events. Similar to Item X. c) ii., the Project proponent will be required to prepare drainage plans and a Development Maintenance Manual to prevent the Project from exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project site is generally flat and would not require grading or leveling that could physically impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed Project site is located south of Persian ditch; however, the Project would not impact the irrigation ditch nor alter its course. According to National Flood Hazard mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the proposed Project is in Flood Zone X, an area of minimal flooding (see Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Map Service Center. FEMAs National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Tulare County Unincorporated Area. 065066. 06107CO945E 6/16/2009 at: https://hazards1024 3-113
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d48793 38b5529aa9cd&extent=-119.31779240895511,36.26329261068947,- 119.27620744038825,36.28059217405032
The proposed Project would result in the addition of some impervious surfaces on the Project site which could affect drainage and flood patterns. Similar to Item X. c) ii., the Project proponent would be required to submit drainage plans to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. The drainage plans will include BMPs to ensure the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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, it would not be affected by a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche. Also, 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 from flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche, the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation. As such, based on the information and the analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 and the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability and corresponding Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The Project will comply with all applicable rules and regulations regarding water quality and groundwater management. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.
1025
3-114
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.

Based on the information and analysis provided herein, mitigation measures would not be required.

Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant
The cumulative area is the Visalia General Plan planning area; including the unincorporated Tulare County area to be annexed into the City as part of this Project. The Proposed project area reflects a reasonable extension of urban development to accommodate educational administrative needs within the City and County. The Project would be developed using typical/standard residential subdivision practices in regard to construction-related activities. As noted earlier, there are numerous water streams (i.e., creeks, ditches, and canals) in the Visalia Planning Area and some are in proximity to the Project. However, none of these streams are located within the Project area and the nearest stream is the Cameron Creek (approximately 600 feet north of the Project site). Overall, the change from a predominantly agricultural land use to the TCOE/AOCC would result in an overall reduction of groundwater extracted from the local aquifer when compared to water usage of the former walnut orchard (which use approximately 3.3 to 3.5 acre-feet per acre annually; see University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources Cooperative Extension. UC Davis Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics 2023. “SAMPLE Costs to Establish and Produce English Walnuts In the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Flood Irrigated. Page 4). The Project proponent would be required to implement preventative and minimization requirements (e.g., a SWPPP and BMPs) and receive City approvals for stormwater drainage facilities. As such, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality; it would not 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. The Project would not be exposed to flood hazard, nor would it be susceptible to tsunami, or seiche zones, because of its geographical location, therefore it would not risk the release of pollutants due to Project inundation. As noted earlier, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan as it would use less groundwater (Cal Water’s water supply source) per year than the former walnut orchard.

Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
1026
3-115
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 not currently within the Visalia Planning Area and is outside of the City limits. The site is currently zoned for Agricultural use (AE-20) by the County of Tulare.

However, as noted earlier, the Project site is directly adjacent to the existing Tulare County Office of Education Administration Center that is located within Visalia’s city limit. The Project site is currently vacant and is a reasonable expansion area for the TCOE/AOCC. As such, the site is ripe for annexation as a component of the overall Project. In addition to the TCOE/AOCC expansion, the Project would require administrative changes such as City of Visalia Pre-Zone Application; Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) – Reorganization (Annexation) Application; City of Visalia City Limits Boundary Change/Annexation; General Plan Amendment; Lot Line Adjustment; and Conditional Use Permit. As the Project site does not currently have Visalia a General Plan designation it would be pre-zoned as Quasi-Public and upon completion of the annexation process would be designated as Public/Institutional.

As noted earlier, the proposed expansion site is vacant land (formerly an agricultural use).

Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
1027
3-116
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 None that apply to the Project.

Regional/Local
The Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) “The Tulare County LAFCO is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies which review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure and preparing Spheres of Influence for each city and special district within each county. The Commission's efforts are directed to seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected.” (see: https://lafco.tularecounty.ca.gov/).

Visalia General Plan
The proposed Project site, upon annexation, would be designated as Public/Institutional.

The Project would be consistent with 2030 General Plan LU-P-19:
• LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.

City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance
Quasi-Public (QP) zone. The purpose and intent of the quasi-public zone is to provide a zone that is intended to allow for the location of institutional, academic, community service, governmental, and nonprofit uses. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9717 § 2 (part), 1997: prior code § 7630) (see Visalia Municipal Code. Title 17. Chapter 17.52 at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/visalia/latest/visalia_ca/0-0-0- 36280#JD_Chapter17.52)
Discussion
a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? No Impact: The Project is located at the City's southern edge. As previously noted, the proposed Project site would be located on vacant land formerly used as an agriculture use (walnut orchard). Surrounding land uses include walnut orchards to the east, the existing TCOE Administration and Conference facilities to the west, single-family residential (mobile home park) and rural residences to the north, mixed commercial uses to the southwest, and an institutional use (a church with accessory uses) to the south. The Project location is similar to an infill project wherein unproductive, vacant agricultural land would be converted to an urban-type use. As such, the proposed Project will not physically divide an established community. The site is currently zoned for agricultural use by Tulare County 1028
3-117
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 and is ideally located in an area ripe for annexation and subsequent development as a quasi-public use (in this instance, expansion of the TCOE/AOCC). Therefore, its location represents a reasonable extension of urban development thereby allowing the continuity and extension of planned TCOE/AOCC uses without creating a physical division of an established community. Typically, prior to annexation a “pre-zone” classification is assigned to the area to be annexed; in this case the proposed designation would be QuasiPublic. Following annexation, the proposed Project site would be designated as a Public/Institutional use in the Visalia General Plan and zoned as Quasi-Public. As such, the Project would be consistent with both the land use designation and zoning classification.

Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would result in no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. 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: Though the Project site is located on land zoned by Tulare County for agricultural use (AE-20), it is directly adjacent to the existing TCOE Administrative Office which is designated as Mixed Use Commercial (C-MU) by the City of Visalia’s General Plan (Figure 3-7). As noted in Item a), prior to annexation a “pre-zone” classification would be assigned to the area to be annexed; in this case the proposed designation would be QuasiPublic. Following annexation, the proposed Project site would be designated as Public/Institutional use in the Visalia General Plan and zoned as Quasi-Public. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with a land use, or any other policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As noted earlier, the Project is ideally located in an area ripe for annexation and subsequent development and is a reasonable expansion of the existing TCOE Administrative Office. Also noted earlier, in addition to annexation, other administrative processes include a City of Visalia Pre-Zone Application; Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) – Reorganization (Annexation) Application; City of Visalia City Limits Boundary Change/Annexation; General Plan Amendment; Lot Line Adjustment; and Conditional Use Permit. As such, following annexation the Project would be consistent with and would not conflict with land use planning, policies and regulations. Therefore, based on the information and analysis contained herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. 1029
3-118
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant
The geographic context for the cumulative land use and planning effects occurs from potential future development under the proposed Project combined with impacts from the projected growth in the rest of Tulare County and the surrounding region. The land use analysis determined that the proposed Project would not divide an established community or conflict with established plans, policies, and regulations, in or outside the City of Visalia, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would not create substantial land use impacts. Development is likely to continue to occur in surrounding cities and in the Tulare County region as well. However, such development is taking place in already urbanized areas as essentially an infill development of a former agricultural use on vacant land and would not require any land use changes that would create land use conflicts, nor would it divide communities. Growth from new development, and particularly this Project, would be consistent with and would not conflict with existing land use planning, policies and regulations following completion of the annexation process.

Therefore, based on the information and analysis contained herein, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to land use changes and would result in a less than significant impact. .
1030
3-119
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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. Although the Visalia Planning Area currently contains three former sand and gravel mines, there are no currently operating mines and no designated Mineral Resource Zones within the City or within the Project site.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
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. However, as no mining or subsequent reclamation would occur as a result of this Project, this Act does not apply.

Discussion
1031
3-120
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 value to the region and the residents of the State, therefore the proposed Project would not result in the loss of or impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources. Therefore, based on the information and analysis contained herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. 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. As such, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known regionally or locally important mineral resources. Therefore, based on the information and analysis contained herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required Cumulative Impact: No impact.

As noted earlier, the City of Visalia Planning Area does not contain any important mineral resources or mining operations. As the City does not contain any known mineral resources, the General Plan does not include any Goals or policies applicable to mineral resources.

Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would not result in the loss or impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources.

There would be no cumulative impact.
1032
3-121
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025

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. These uses have more stringent noise level allowances than most commercial or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts 1033
3-122
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 such as sleep disturbance. The nearest sensitive receptor is the mobile home park north of the Project site.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
None that apply to the Project.

Regional/Local
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 3-12. 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 3-12 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-4 Where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the 1034
3-123
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 8-2 and 8-3 [in the Visalia General Plan], require a noise study to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 8-2 and 8-3 [in the Visalia General Plan] as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means.

N-P-5 Continue to enforce applicable State Noise Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code, Title 24) and Uniform Building Code (UBC) noise requirements.

Also included in Policy N-P-5 are possible noise mitigation measures and alternative acoustical design that reduce noise levels as follows.
“Noise mitigation measures may include but are not limited to:
• Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
• Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; • Retain fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; • Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; • Use open space, building orientation and design, landscaping and running water to mask sounds; and
• Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along state highways and arterials when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding.“ (see Visalia General Plan. Chapter 8: Safety and Noise. Policy N-P-4, page 8-28 at:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/engineering_n_building___planning_n_community_pres ervation/planning/gp.asp).

City of Visalia Noise Ordinance
“Chapter 8.36 of the City’s Municipal Code contains the City’s noise ordinance, which establishes exterior and interior noise level standards. Standards are measured in terms of the cumulative number of minutes in any one-hour time period during which a noise level may be exceeded. Lower noise levels (measured in dBA) may be exceeded for longer periods. Separate thresholds are established for daytime (6 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and nighttime (7 p.m. to 6 a.m.) hours.

Under the current Ordinance, interior noise levels should not exceed 70 dBA during evening and daytime and 65 dBA during the nighttime, for any period of time. Exterior noise levels should not exceed 55 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively”. (see Visalia General Plan. Chapter 8. page 8-26 1035
3-124
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 at:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/engineering_n_building___planning_n_community_preserv ation/planning/gp.asp).

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: The nature of the Project, development of expanded administrative and conferencing uses, does not lend itself to noise generation that would exceed the City of Visalia’s noise thresholds. The Project would not include the operation and/or use of noise generating sources that would exceed Visalia noise thresholds (for example, fabricating, manufacturing, or sporting events). However, the Project would result in short-term, temporary, and intermittent noise sources during construction-related activities and typical office noise when operational. The average noise levels generated by construction equipment that will likely be used in the proposed Project are provided in Table 3-12; while Figure 3-3 shows construction related exterior noise levels based on distance from construction equipment.

The nearest residences and sensitive receptors are the residences (mobile home park) to the north, the church to the south, and a rural single-family home adjacent to the southernmost boundary of the Project (located just north of Avenue 264/Liberty Road). With the Project adjacent to an existing residential community, noise disturbance is unavoidable. However, construction-related noise generating activities would be required to 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 conducting construction-related activities during weekday daytime hours, and noise barriers would be implemented to avoid significant constructionrelated noise impacts.

Long-term noise levels resulting from the Project would be produced by the daily operation (Monday-Friday) of the TCOE/AOCC which are not normally associated with high operational noise levels. Because noise generated during Project construction-related activities would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent, it is anticipated that noise levels would not exceed the thresholds established by the Visalia Noise Ordinance for sensitive receptors. Due to the nature of the Project, no component of the Project would generate high noise levels typically associated with more intense uses such as commercial- and/or industrial-uses. As such, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.
1036
3-125
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Table 3-12. Noise Levels of Noise-generating
Construction Equipment at Various Distances
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
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 3-3. Construction Related Noise Levels Based on Distance from Construction Equipment. Exterior Noise.
1037
3-126
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. 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-related activities could introduce short-term, temporary, and intermittent groundborne vibration from the Project site and toward the surrounding area.

Sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are provided in Table 3-14.

Table 3-14. Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment.

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

The primary source of vibration during Project construction would likely be from bulldozers (and other land shaping equipment such as earthmovers), which would generate 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet with an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB. Vibration from a bulldozer (or other earthmoving equipment) would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent and would not be 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 1038
3-127
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 inch/second. Therefore, based on the information and analysis contained herein, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. c) For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact: The proposed Project is located approximately 4.9 miles southeast of Visalia Municipal Airport. Additionally, the Project site is located approximately 3.75 miles southeast of the Kaweah Delta Helipad (at the Kaweah Health Medical Center). According to the Tulare County Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CALUP), the Project site lies completely outside of the Airport Influence Area. As such, the Project site will not be affected by any noise generated from airport-related activities. Noise contours developed from 2019 show that the airport would produce less than 65 dB for all nearby sensitive noise receptors, making the noise generated less than significant. There are no noise contours given for the Kaweah Delta Helipad, but because this private helipad is situated farther from the site than the Visalia Municipal Airport, and the noise generated from that airport is less than significant, the noise generated from Kaweah Delta is also less than significant. The entirety of proposed Project located outside of the 65 dB contours produced from any public airport or airstrip, as such airport-related noise would not impact the Project area. Therefore, based on the information and analysis contained herein, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required Cumulative Impact: No impact.

The City of Visalia Planning Area is the cumulative impact area. As noted earlier, Project construction-related activities could introduce short-term, temporary, and intermittent noise and groundborne vibration from the Project site and toward the surrounding area.

The earlier analysis of the proposed project addresses cumulative impacts with regard to noise, groundborne noise, and vibration. Although multiple simultaneous nearby noise 1039
3-128
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 sources may, in combination, result in higher overall noise levels, this effect is captured and accounted for by the ambient noise level metrics that form the basis of the thresholds of significance for noise analysis. Any measurement of sound or ambient noise, whether for the purpose of evaluating land use compatibility, establishing compliance with exterior and interior noise standards, or determining point-source violations of a noise ordinance, necessarily will incorporate noise from all other nearby perceptible sources. Additionally, although noise attenuation is influenced by a variety of topographical, meteorological, and other factors, noise levels decrease rapidly with distance, and vibration impacts decrease even more rapidly. Also noted earlier, the City’s Municipal Code noise ordinance which establishes exterior and interior noise level standards. Standards are measured in terms of the cumulative number of minutes in any one-hour time period during which a noise level may be exceeded. Lower noise levels (measured in dBA) may be exceeded for longer periods. Separate thresholds are established for daytime (6 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and nighttime (7 p.m. to 6 a.m.) hours. Also, under the current Ordinance, interior noise levels should not exceed 70 dBA during evening and daytime and 65 dBA during the nighttime, for any period of time. Exterior noise levels should not exceed 55 dBA and 45 dBA. Therefore, site-level cumulative noise or vibration impacts across City boundaries could occur only infrequently.

However, the ongoing implementation of these policies and regulations that would require compliance from the Project would serve to prevent or minimize site-based cumulative noise impacts. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact.
1040
3-129
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 adjusted 2020 United States Census Bureau estimated the population in the City of Visalia to be 145,251 as of July 2024 (see:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/visaliacitycalifornia/PST045223). This is an increase from the population estimate of the 141,590 in 2020 and the 124,442 population estimate of the 2010 census. Factors that influence population growth in Visalia include job availability, housing availability, and the capacity of proposed and existing infrastructure. The Visalia General Plan projects the buildout population to be 210,000 in 2030. However, the nature of the Project (i.e., expansion of the existing TCOE to include additional administrative offices and a conference center), does not include any housing-related component. Rather the Project would accommodate administrative, educational, training, and conferencing needs which subsequently benefits the area’s student population that accompanies population growth in general.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
None that apply to the Project.

Regional/Local
1041
3-130
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 The ability to accommodate the City of Visalia’s population growth and size is regulated by the development code and Housing Element of the General Plan. These documents dictate the number of dwelling units per acre allowed on various land uses and establish minimum and maximum lot sizes, which in turn regulates the number of housing units, and subsequently has a direct influence and impact on the City’s population growth and size. As the Project would not result in either population growth or housing, the City’s housing related plans/policies would not apply to this Project.

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 estimates the population in the City of Visalia to be 145,251 as of July 2024. No component of the Project would impact population or housing. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project would be expansion of the existing TCOE facility to include additional administrative, training, and conferencing components. As such, the Project would not induce unplanned growth which would impact population or housing. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact: The Project would not displace any existing housing. There are no existing homes to be removed from the Project site as it is currently vacant land that was previously used for agricultural (walnut orchard). The Project would not increase or decrease the amount of available housing, specifically within Visalia, and generally throughout the County. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project would be expansion of the existing TCOE facility to include additional administrative, training, and conferencing components.

Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no Impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
1042
3-131
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required Cumulative Impact: No impact.

The City of Visalia Planning Area is the cumulative impact area. As described in impact discussions Item a) and Item b), the nature of the Project would be expansion of the existing TCOE facility to include additional administrative, training, and conferencing components.

Implementation of the Project would not induce a substantial amount of unplanned population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to population and housing, and there would be no cumulative impact.
1043
3-132
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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
The Project site is currently in an unincorporated area of Tulare County which is in the jurisdiction of the Tulare County Fire Department. Once annexed, the Project site will be served by the Visalia Fire Department (VFD), which operates 6 fire stations within the City of Visalia.

The VFD can currently provide fire protection services to the proposed Project site prior to Project implementation. VFD Fire Station #52 (located at 2224 W. Monte Vista Avenue) is the nearest fire station to the site, approximately 2.10 miles to the northwest.

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 3.8 miles north of the proposed Project site. VPD Substation District 2 is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site.

Schools
1044
3-133
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 The nearest existing school is Cottonwood Creek Elementary School located approximately 1.39 miles northwest from the Project site. The proposed Project site would be primarily used as administrative/conference center; however, a three-classroom kitchen training component is also included as part of the Project. Overall, the Project would be under the jurisdiction of Tulare County Office of Education.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
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.

Regional/Local
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 developers 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.

City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes the following policy related to public services that correlates to the proposed Project:
1045
3-134
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 PSCU-P-38: Continue to encourage school multi-purpose facilities and open space for community uses to maximize their utilization.

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 can currently provide fire protection services to the proposed development. The closest fire station is Station #52, located approximately 2.10 miles north of the Project site (at 2224 W. Monte Vista Avenue). The Fire Department uses the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard for fire protection services, which requires 1 responder per 1,000 residents. The City currently has 0.48 responders per 1,000 residents. By 2030, the City expects growth up to a total of 210,000 residents. This would result in 0.32 responders per 1,000 residents. This will require an additional 85 on-duty responders by 2030 to meet 1 responder per 1,000 residents, or 41 new responders to meet the current ratio. The existing fire stations are located to provide optimum service; however, new stations will be needed to support the expanding city. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. b. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact: The VPD will provide services to the proposed development.

The VPD headquarters are located approximately 3.8 miles northeast of the proposed Project site. VPD Substation District 2 is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site. The VPD does not establish service standards either in terms of officers per thousand residents or in incident response time but plans to maintain the current ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. The Department has 143 sworn officers working out of two districts, as well as seven reserve sworn officers, 64 civilian officers, and 65 volunteers. The timing of when new police service facilities would be required or details about size and location cannot be known until such facilities are planned and proposed, and any attempt to analyze impacts to a potential future facility would be speculative. As new or expanded police service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion Projects would be 1046
3-135
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. c. Schools?
No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project (i.e., expansion of the existing TCOE to include additional administrative offices, conference center, three classroom training kitchen, and warehouse), does not include any housing-related component that is typically associated with an increase of school-aged children which could subsequently result in the need for addition schools. Rather the Project would accommodate administrative, educational, training, and conferencing needs which subsequently benefits the area’s student population that accompanies population growth in general. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. d. Parks?

Less than Significant Impact: Mooney Grove Park is the nearest existing park and is approximately 0.22 of a mile from the proposed Project site. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project (i.e., expansion of the existing TCOE to include additional administrative offices, conference center, three classroom training kitchen, and warehouse) does not include any population-inducing component which could increase the need for parks. Rather the Project would accommodate administrative, conferencing, educational training, and warehousing needs. As such, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. e. Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project may 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 1047
3-136
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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, based on the information and analysis contained herein, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required Cumulative Impact: No impact.

The City of Visalia Planning Area is the cumulative impact area. Regarding schools, parks, or other public facilities, as noted earlier, the nature of the Project would not result in a population increase that could subsequently result in a change to or demand for new (or expanded) facilities of schools, parks or other public facilities. There would be no cumulative to these resources.

In summary, the Visalia General Plan EIR accounted for growth from development during the General Plan’s planning horizon that included estimated growth in the service areas of each service provider of fire or police protection services in the service area of the Visalia’s Fire and Police Departments; respectively, VFD and VPD. The proposed Project would be subject includes goals, policies, and actions, listed in impact discussion Itema.i.) and a.ii.) for assessing staffing levels, facility, and equipment needs of police and fire services as the city grows.

As described earlier, both the VFD and VPD have identified the need for additional fire stations, VFD and VPD personnel, equipment, etc., to adequately serve future growth in the Visalia Planning Area. As the VFD and VPD will require new equipment or staffing through the planning horizon, the funds for such improvements could be provided through a combination of required payment of developer impact fees and the annual budget process (that is, through the General Fund).
1048
3-137
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 In and of itself, the Project would result in a less than significant. However, future development within the Visalia planning area would be required to undergo its own project-specific review at the time of project application to assess impacts to fire and police protection services. With adequate planning in place in the City service area, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to fire and police protection services. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
1049
3-138
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 XVI. 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 parks 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 12 pocket parks in Visalia totaling 12 acres.
• Neighborhood Parks: A park typically 2 to 5 acres in size that provides basic recreation activities for one or more neighborhoods. There are currently 23 neighborhood parks in Visalia totaling 120 acres.
• 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 totaling 43 acres.
• 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 totaling 261 acres. • Natural Corridors and Greenways: A network of greenways of varying size intended to serve the recreational needs of city residents. These parks may include facilities such as bikeways, walkways, and riding trails, and are primarily developed along the city’s waterways. There is a total of 196 acres of natural corridors and greenways. 1050
3-139
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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 (5) acres of city parkland per 1,000 residents.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
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).

Regional/Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The 2030 General Plan includes policies related to parks and recreation. However, as the proposed Project would not induce population growth, which subsequently could lead to the need for additional parks, these policies do not apply to the proposed Project.

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?
No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project (i.e., expansion of the existing TCOE to include additional administrative offices and a conference center), does not include any 1051
3-140
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 population inducing component which could increase the need for recreational facilities including parks. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required. 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?
Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project (i.e., expansion of the existing TCOE to include additional administrative offices, conference center, a three classroom training kitchen, and warehouse), and does not include any population inducing component.

Typically, an increase in population could result in an increase the need for recreational facilities. As such, the absence of population growth would not induce the need for or require the construction, expansion, or additional recreational facilities. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the information and analysis contained herein, no mitigation would be required Cumulative Impact: No impact.

The City of Visalia Planning Area is the is the cumulative impact area. Future growth in the area would result in increased demand for park and recreational facilities throughout the City and region. State law allows jurisdictions to require additional development to fund park improvements. However, as previously noted, the nature of the Project (i.e., expansion of the existing TCOE to include additional administrative offices, conference center, a three classroom training kitchen, and warehouse), and does not include any population inducing component. Typically, an increase in population could result in an increase need for recreational facilities. As such, the Project would not result in substantial or accelerate physical deterioration of a park or recreation facility, nor would it include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact 1052
3-141
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 to park and recreational facilities and there would be no cumulative impacts associated with the Project.
1053
3-142
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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?    
In addition to references of the Visalia General Plan and its accompanying EIR, the analysis in this section is supplemented by a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by qualified consultants 4Creeks, Inc., which can be found in Appendix D.

Environmental Setting
Vehicular Access/Egress
Vehicular access to the Project would be available via two access/egress points; the existing Mooney Boulevard/SR 63 on the west and a new point along Avenue 264/Liberty Road at the south side of the Project. Other than travel lanes to access structures and parking areas, the Project would not include any other new access/egress point.

Parking
The Project proponent will provide new 388 parking stalls, including 17 accessible spaces, which is consistent with Chapter 17.34 Off Parking and Loading Facilities of the Visalia Municipal Code.

During construction-related activities, workers will utilize temporary construction staging areas within the Project site and would not utilize any on-street parking during the constructionrelated activities for parking vehicles and equipment.

Regulatory Setting
1054
3-143
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b): Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts (1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, Projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.

Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the Project area compared to existing conditions should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. (2) Transportation Projects. Transportation Projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity Projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular Project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the Project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the 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.

Regional/Local
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. 1055
3-144
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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-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.

City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines The City of Visalia’s VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines document, prepared by qualified consultants LSA for Visalia, 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. The guidelines are as follows:
“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.”
As noted in Appendix I of the TIA, “The City of Visalia’s VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines provides a list of land use development projects that would qualify for screen out of VMT analysis because they are expected to cause less than significant impacts.” (TIA, Appendix I). Following annexation, the Projet would be consistent with the City’s General Plan. The City’s 1056
3-145
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 VMT Guidelines allow automatic screen out if projects generate less than 1,000 average daily trips (ADT). As noted in the VMT Analysis, Appendix I of the TIA, “This Project is estimated to generate 1,465 ADT. However, the Guidelines go on to say that proposed office projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan that are also located within green-colored VMT zones, as shown in the figures in the Guidelines, are presumed to have similar low VMT profiles and could be screened out from further VMT analysis.

The City of Visalia’s average VMT/employee is 7.0, as compared to the VMT/employee of 8.8 in Tulare County. Projects in a green zone are likely to meet the City’s acceptability threshold of 16% below the average VMT/employee of the County (8.8 VMT/employee). If a proposed office project exceeds a level of 84% of the existing County average VMT/employee, the project would indicate a significant VMT impact.

The Project is located within TAZ #1453 and has an average VMT/employee of 7.16 per the City of Visalia VMT Screening Application. See Figure 1 [in the Appendix I of the TIA] for the approximate Project location. The Project’s average trip distance of 7.16 is 18.6% below the County’s average trip distance in miles traveled, so the screen out criteria of at least 16% below the regional average is met.” (TIA, Appendix I).

Discussion
a) Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact: The Project would ultimately result in the construction of approximately 149,200 square feet of expanded/additional Tulare County Office of Education administrative, training kitchen, and warehousing uses (108,000 square feet of office and conference room space, three classrooms with a training kitchen totaling 6,200 square feet, and approximately 35,000 square feet of warehouse space The City’s General Plan has planned for the development of mixed commercial uses in this area (i.e., Mooney Boulevard/SR 63 corridor). As such, upon annexation into the City, the Project would reflect a reasonable approach to urban development without infringing upon predominantly nonurbanized areas. Any roadway improvements along Avenue 264/Liberty Road would be required to comply with City standards/specifications. All interior Project travel lanes will also be required to comply with City standards/specifications. As summarized in the TIA, “Intersection Level of Service
The analysis presented in this report has identified that all four of the intersections analyzed remain or will perform within the City’s adopted level of service standard (LOS D or better).

Roadway Segment Analysis
1057
3-146
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 The roadway segment analysis completed for S. Mooney Boulevard (between Avenue 264 and Avenue 268) and Avenue 264 (Liberty Road) (between Mooney Boulevard and Oakmore Way) found that they are both currently performing within the City’s acceptable level of service standard (LOS D or better). Both segments remain within the cities acceptable level of service standards throughout all the scenarios reviewed.

Queuing Analysis
The turn lanes lengths for each study intersection during each study scenario are sufficient.” (TIA, PAGE 50).

Therefore, based on the TIA prepared by qualified consultants 4Creeks, and the information and analysis provided herein, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the TIA prepared by qualified consultants 4Creeks, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation would be required. b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?
No Impact: The City of Visalia’s VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (Guidelines) document, prepared by qualified consultants LSA (and adopted the City of Visalia on March 15, 2021), provides guidance for determining a Project’s transportation impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A variety of Projects may be screened out of a complicated VMT analysis due to the presumption described in the Technical Advisory (of the Guidelines) 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 (OPR) 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 in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT.

Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT. Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps may be used to screen out residential and office Projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.” 1058
3-147
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 The TIA (see Appendix D) prepared by qualified consultants 4Creeks, LLC., analyzed the Project using the City of Visalia’s VMT Guidelines and concluded the following: “A vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis was conducted to determine whether the Project would create a VMT impact. The analysis was based on information provided by the City of Visalia’s VMT guidance in the Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated March 2021 [subsequently updated February 3, 2025] and the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, dated March 2021. The Project was screened out from requiring a VMT analysis due to the Project location within a low VMT area. The Project was determined to have a less than significant VMT analysis and no mitigation measures were required. Additional information on the VMT screening analysis is shown in Appendix J [of the TIA].” (TIA, page

49.)
Therefore, the Project can be screened out and will not require additional VMT analysis. As such, based on the conclusion contained in the TIA prepared by qualified consultants 4Creeks, and the information and analysis provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Based on the conclusion contained in the TIA prepared by qualified consultants 4Creeks, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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)? Less than Significant Impact: The Project does not include any incompatible uses or include any design features that could increase traffic hazards. The Project provides vehicle new vehicular access/egress points through future improvement along Avenue 264/Liberty Road on the south. The Project could also be accessed/egressed from an existing point along Mooney Boulevard/SR 63 on the west side of the Project. These improvements will be subject to review by the City’s engineer to ensure the new access points comply with City standards and specifications. As such, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Therefore, based on the including the TIA prepared by qualified consultants 4Creeks, and the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would resulting in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
1059
3-148
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Based on the conclusion contained in the TIA prepared by qualified consultants 4Creeks, and the information and analysis provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.
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 available an existing access/egress point along Mooney Boulevard/SR 63 and a new access/egress point Avenue 264/Liberty Road on the south.

Also, the network of internal travel lanes within the proposed Project site provides full access to all structures within the existing and proposed expansion of the TCOE/AOCC. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, the Project would have no impact on emergency access.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.

Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant
The cumulative impact area is the Visalia Planning Area. The Project in and of itself would result in a less than significant impact. However, future potential development under the Visalia General Plan would contribute to an increase in VMT in the Visalia Planning Study Area. The balance of Items in this resource would result in no to less than significant impacts. Implementation of the General Plan would result in a net increase of people and employees (service population) in the Visalia Planning Area. To reiterate, the Project in and of itself would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, based on the TIA prepared by qualified consultants 4Creeks, and the information and analysis provided herein, the Project itself would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.
1060
3-149
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 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.
   
In addition to references of the Visalia General Plan and its accompanying EIR, the analysis in this section is supplemented by the “Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project, City of Visalia, Tulare County, California Project” (CRA) prepared by qualified consultants Taylored Archaeology in October 2025. The full report can be found in Appendix C.

Environmental Setting
Natural Environment
The Project area lies in the Central Valley of California, which is approximately 450 miles from north to south, and ranges in width east to west from 40 to 60 miles (Prothero 2017). The Central 1061
3-150
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Valley is divided into two subunits, the Sacramento Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in the south, which are each named after the primary rivers within each valley (Madden 2020). The Project is located approximately 305 feet above sea level on the open flat plains of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Climate within the San Joaquin valley is classified as a ‘hot Mediterranean climate’, with hot and dry summers, and cool damp winters characterized by periods of dense fog known as ‘tule fog’ (Prothero 2017).

The Kaweah, Tule, Kern, and Kings rivers flowed into large inland lakes with no outflow except in high flood events, in which the lakes would flow through the Fresno Slough into the San Joaquin River. The largest of these inland lakes was Tulare Lake, which occupied a vast area of Tulare and Kings Counties and was the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi. These four rivers in the Tulare Lake Drainage Basin accounted for more than 95 percent of water discharged into Tulare Lake, with the remaining five percent sourced from small drainages originating in the Coast Ranges to the west.

The Project is in central western Tulare County on the valley floor of the San Joaquin Valley within the greater Kaweah River Delta alluvial fan. Specifically, the Project is located 600 feet south of the Saint John’s River, which is a distributary of the Kaweah River Ethnography
The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts. The Yokuts are a sub-group of the Penutian language that covers much of coastal and central California and Oregon. The Yokuts language contained multiple dialects spoken throughout the region, though many of them were mutually understandable.

Each local tribe was a land-owning group that was organized around a central village and shared common territory and ancestry. Most local tribe populations ranged from 150 to 500 people. These local tribes were often led by a chief, who was often advised by a variety of assistants including the winatum, who served as a messenger and assistant chief. Early studies by Kroeber, Gifford and Schenck, and Gayton concluded that social and political authority within local tribes was derived from male lineage and patriarchy. However, more recent reexaminations argue that this assumption of patriarchal organization was based on male bias by early 20th century researchers, and instead Yokuts sociopolitical authority was matriarchal in nature and centered around matrilineal use-rights and women’s work groups.

Prior to Euro-American contact, there was abundance of natural resources within the greater Tulare Lake area. Due to these resources, Yokuts maintained some of the largest populations in North America west of the continental divide.

Historic Setting
1062
3-151
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 The San Joaquin Valley did not experience contact with Europeans until the late 1700s. The earliest exploration of the San Joaquin Valley by Europeans was likely by the Spaniards when in the fall of 1772 a group known as the Catalonian Volunteers entered the valley through Tejon Pass in search of deserters from the Southern California Missions. However, the group only made it as far north as Buena Vista Lake in modern day Kern County before turning around due to the extensive swamps. Initial settlement within the valley by Europeans in the 1830s was largely either by trappers or horse thieves. With the end of the Mexican American War and the beginning of the gold rush in 1848, the San Joaquin Valley became more populated with ranchers and prospectors. By 1850, California became a state, and Tulare County was established in 1853. Visalia, founded in 1852, is one of the oldest cities in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. During the first few decades, Visalia was a supply center for nearby gold rushes, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock and some agriculture.

Methodology
Records Search
Taylored Archaeology requested a cultural resource records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California on September 15, 2025. The purpose of this request was to identify and review prior cultural resource studies and previously recorded cultural resources on or near the Project boundary. The records search included prior cultural resources investigation reports conducted, previously recorded resources within the Project boundary (Appendix B [of the CRA]) and the 0.5- mile radius around the Project boundary. Also included in research were cultural resource records (DPR forms) as well as the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation list, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources list.

As noted earlier (in Item IV Cultural Resources), according to the records search results in a letter dated September 30, 2025, three prior cultural resource studies were conducted within the Project area. Additionally, four previous cultural resources studies were conducted within a

0.5-mile radius of the Project boundary and none intersected the Project boundary.

Archival Research
Archival research was conducted to investigate the historical background for any potential historic structures, buildings and historical deposits that may exist and land use within the Project boundary. Historical maps, historical aerial photographs, historical US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, Google Earth aerial photographs, Google Street View photos, Map Aerial Locator Tool (MALT) at the Henry Madden Library, California State University, Fresno, books, articles and other records were used to better understand the prehistory and history of the Project area.
1063
3-152
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 Based on the information provided in the CRA, there are no known existing historic structures, buildings and historical deposits that may exist and land use within the Project boundary.

Native American Outreach
As noted in the CRA, “Taylored Archaeology sent a request to the NAHC as part of this cultural resources investigation for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search on September 15, 2025. The objective of the SLF search was to identify tribal cultural resources present in or near the Project boundary. Native American outreach and consultation with Tribes are not included in this scope of work. It is assumed that government-to-government consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 will be conducted by the CEQA lead agency. The SLF results are in Chapter 4 [of the CRA, Appendix C of this MND].” (CRA, page 14).

In a response dated September 16, 2025, the NAHC stated that a search of the SLF was negative and did not indicate the presence of tribal cultural resources in the Project area. The NAHC supplied a list of Native American representatives to contact for information or knowledge of cultural resources in the Project site and the surrounding area (see Appendix C of the CRA, Appendix C in this MND).

The following Native American organizations/individuals were contacted from the list provided by NAHC below:

1. Chairperson Delia Dominguez of the Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians

2. Cultural Specialist I Nichole Escalon of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe;

3. Cultural Specialist II Samantha McCarty of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe;

4. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Shana Powers of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Tribe;

5. Chairperson Michelle Heredia-Cordova of Table Mountain Rancheria

6. Cultural Resource Director Bob Pennell of Table Mountain Rancheria

7. Environmental Department Kerri Vera of the Tule River Tribe;

8. Tribal Historical Preservation Officer Felix Chrisman of the Tule River Indian Tribe; and

9. Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.

In accordance with SB 18, City of Visalia staff sent each Native American representative listed by NAHC an outreach letter and a map notifying them of the Project and asking if they had any knowledge of the Project area or surrounding vicinity. In addition, a 90-day period was offered an opportunity to the representatives to consult and offer comments on the proposed project.

The 90-day period was from October 14, 2025 to January 12, 2026. No comments were provided by the tribal representatives.

Archaeological Pedestrian Survey
1064
3-153
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 As noted in the CRA, “On October 4, 2025, Archaeologist Consuelo Sauls conducted an archaeological pedestrian survey of the 28-acre Project site. The survey began in the southeast corner of the Project boundary, using transects spaced 5 meters apart oriented east to west.

The archaeologist carefully inspected all exposed ground surface and rodent burrow back-dirt piles and other areas of bare earth for soil discoloration that could indicate the presence of artifacts (e.g., lithics and ceramic sherds), soil depressions, and features indicating the former presence of buildings or structures (e.g., postholes and foundations). The Project boundary was checked for both prehistoric deposits and historic-age features, structures, and artifacts more than 50 years old that may be present on the ground surface. A plan map of the Project site was used to see land usage, structures and map out transects. Field survey observations were documented in the field and survey coordinates were recorded on a Gaia Global Positioning System application. Photographs were taken of the Project site using an iPhone 11 Pro digital camera.” (CRA, pages 15-16).

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

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions of historic properties and provide an opportunity for the ACHP to comment on Projects prior to their implementation. This section also requires agencies to be publicly accountable for any potential consequences to their actions on historic properties. To be eligible for listing, a property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associations, and possess one of the following characteristics:
1065
3-154
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 • Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (events).
• Association with the lives of persons significant in the past (persons). • Distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (architecture).
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history (information potential).

State
California Senate Bill (SB) 18
The Local and Tribal Intergovernmental Consultation process, commonly known as SB 18, was signed into law September of 2004 and took effect March 1, 2005. SB 18 refers to PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993, which define cultural places as:
• Native American sanctified cemetery place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9).
• Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.993).

SB 18 established responsibilities for local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes that have been identified by the NAHC and if that tribe requests consultation after local government outreach as stipulated in Government Code Section 65352.3. The purpose of this consultation process is to protect the identity of the cultural place and to develop appropriate and dignified treatment of the cultural place in any subsequent project. The consultation is required whenever a general plan, specific plan, or open space designation is proposed for adoption or to be amended. Once local governments have sent notification, tribes are responsible for requesting consultation.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), each tribe has 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to respond and request consultation. In addition to the requirements stipulated previously, SB 18 amended Government Code Section 65560 to “allow the protection of cultural places in open space element of the general plan,” and amended Civil Code Section 815.3 to add “California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places.” As noted earlier in Item IV. Cultural Resources, Tribal Consultation letters were provided to the following Native American organizations/individuals from the list provided by NAHC below:
1066
3-155
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025

1. Chairperson Delia Dominguez of the Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians;

2. Cultural Specialist I Nichole Escalon of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe;

3. Cultural Specialist II Samantha McCarty of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe;

4. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Shana Powers of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Tribe;

5. Chairperson Michelle Heredia-Cordova of Table Mountain Rancheria;

6. Cultural Resource Director Bob Pennell of Table Mountain Rancheria;

7. Environmental Department Kerri Vera of the Tule River Tribe;

8. Chairperson Neil Peyron of the Tule River Indian Tribe; and

9. Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. .

California Assembly Bill (AB) 52
The legislature added the requirements regarding tribal cultural resources through AB 52. By including an understanding if any tribal cultural resources could be present within an area early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process (AB 52 Section 1[b][7]).

California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, 1067
3-156
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 military, or cultural annals of California” (California PRC § 5020.1[j])(State of California 2021). In 1992, the California legislature established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California PRC § 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR, enumerated in the following text, were developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP.

Regional/Local
City of Visalia General Plan
Under Chapter 3, the City’s Role and Tools for Preservation, in the General Plan of the City of Visalia defines a “cultural resources” as:
• Chapter 3.3: Sites, structures, or any other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to be culturally important. This includes archaeological resources and contemporary Native American resources in addition to the historic resources that are the subject of this chapter. Impacts of development on cultural resources of all kinds must be avoided to the greatest extent possible, as described by policies in Chapter 6: Open Space and Conservation.
1068
3-157
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 • Under Chapter 6: Open Space and Conservation, within the General Plan of the City of Visalia the following policies are outlined for the preservation of cultural resources:
• Chapter 6.5: OSC-P-39 Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
o Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive.
o Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA). o Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity. o Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of Project approval.

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: As noted earlier, a records search was conducted on behalf of the Applicant by qualified consultants Taylored Archaeology from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University, Bakersfield, California. As noted in Item V. Cultural Resources, the purpose of this request was 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. In addition, archival 1069
3-158
Tulare County Office of Education
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2025 research and archaeological pedestrian survey was conducted to identify cultural resources.

According to the SSJVIC records search, there have been no previous cultural resource studies within the Project area, and four cultural resource studies within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site. None of the cultural resources were recorded within the Project site boundary. Details of the records search are provided in Appendix C in this MND.

Taylored Archaeology requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the NAHC on September 15, 2025. The CRA noted, “In a response dated September 16, 2025, the NAHC stated that a search of the SLF was negative and did not indicate the presence of tribal cultural resources in the Project area. The NAHC provided a contact list of Native American tribes who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area (Appendix C [of the CRA, Appendix C herein])”.

As noted earlier, the following Native American organizations/individuals were contacted from the list provided by NAHC below: